Irish Anti-War Movement (IAWM) Bulletin

by IAWM member - personal capacity Wed Nov 12, 2003 11:23

> The blockade will take the form of a passive
> sit-down protest with protesters linking arms.
> All protesters will be urged to follow the
> instructions of the stewards.

Never mind the idiocy of publishing our plan on the internet where the cops visit so they know exactly what we are doing beforehand - but here's what will happen with a sit down protest:

1. Demo approaches Garda line.
2. Upon signal from megaphone'd RBB, everyone sits down on the road, link arms.
3. Large Gardai pick people up, despite linking arms this will not deter most Garda from using force. Blockade broken.
4. Garda push demo onto the side of the road.
5. Stand at side of road for an hour with placards. Chanting "one solution" etc.
6. Get on the bus when RBB and the "stewards" say so.

What if people choose not to obey the instructions of the stewards, more often than not the first line of Police in these situations?

Who is going to be telling the stewards what to shout to the crowd over the megaphones? Will it be the steering committee of the IAWM who seem to be leaning towards direct action now, or will it be the usual Joe/Rory/RBB/etc leadership of the SWP?

What if the blockade falls apart, will there be room for another type of action to go ahead? Will this be discussed in advance?

If some people decide to branch off and try another method, will the bus wait for them to come back before running back to Dublin?

Are we going to be shepherded around by the people with the megaphones or will there be room for internal debate on the day itself? Will we organise in a circle and have consensus decision making rather than a directive handed down to us?

If we sit down then we get kicked in the teeth. We need to stand up and confront the Government in their FACE about their continued support for war.

by Grassroots activist Wed Nov 12, 2003 11:27

"All protesters will be urged to follow the instructions of the stewards."

A bit authoritarian, don't you think? What are you worried about? What will you do about those who refuse to obey the orders of the stewards?

by annoyed Wed Nov 12, 2003 11:36

to advertise the SWP's Marxism weekend?

by Daithí Wed Nov 12, 2003 12:12

I don't see how calling on the ESF to make a particular call for action is feasible. And under no. 6 of the WSF Charter of Principles, positions cannot be taken. Anyway, surely it's about as reasonable as asking a lampost or a lecture to take a position? The Forum is a place not a party.

So I think having a mandate for Irish delegates to call for this can't do anything but cause an endless argument...

by Nuto - Nutopian International Wed Nov 12, 2003 12:20

69 words on the shannon blockade. 227 words on the SWPs marxism. That's a quarter of the bulletin. Seems Colm Stephens is a fully integrated member now.

by Another IAWM member Wed Nov 12, 2003 12:25

I’ve heard that Michael D is being invited to speak. Speeches at a blockade! Cut it out! We want action, not bloody speeches.

by GG supporter Wed Nov 12, 2003 12:30

The Grassroots Gathering decided that we will organise autonomously. Let's do it. We don't want speeches by labour politicians and stewards policing demonstrators. No point talking to the IAWM/SWP, let's organise a REAL blockade.

by Ld Wed Nov 12, 2003 12:31

Shouldn't all IAWM meetings be open?
If meetings are being held by the steering committee shouldn't, at the very least, members of the IAWM be allowed to attend, the meeting can easily be organised in such a way so as to allow the steering comm. members to discuss their issues and then give others/members a chance to voice their opinions.
Surely this would be a good thing and I don't think anyone would argue over- time or the number of people attending. Those people outside of the comm. attending meetings would understand they are not entitled to vote like comm. members but their opinions can be voiced and comm. members should in my opinion value this input, the chairperson could easily clarify these points at the beginning of such meetings.
The steering comm. meetings should not be a closed shop, if there are people interested enough to attend they should be welcomed and given an opportunity to speak if they wish to, in this case the more the better should apply! It's not as if anti-war meetings of any type are beating people away at the door! well definetly not because of high attendance anyway!

by IO Wed Nov 12, 2003 12:32

Colm Stephens has been an SWP member for quite some time now.

by Outraged Wed Nov 12, 2003 12:40

It is absolutely outrageous that the IAWM Bulletin advertises the SWP's Marxism event. Marxism 2003 is not a non aligned event "hosted" by the SWP its a weekend of meetings aimed at simply recruiting to the SWP and advertising it in the IAWM bulletin undermines the IAWM. It now seems that the IAWM is firmly under the control of the SWP. What are you going to do about this Dr Lane!

by Degenerate Wed Nov 12, 2003 12:46

Was it agreed by the IAWM steering committee to advertise Marxism Today in the IAWM bulletin?

Is there a report of the IAWM legal meeting that took place last Saturday?

by buttons Wed Nov 12, 2003 12:49

O.k I think the point has been made lets see if there is any response, but please lets not fill this post up with more fuckin bickering as I said the point has clearly been made I'm sure Imc editors will move it to the events calender, I know that's not the point but THE POINT HAS BEEN MADE, if you want to go on about this go to one of the IAWM's "PUBLIC" meetings and express your view there but don't continue this shit here it's just very annoying. but just to say it again POINT TAKEN!

by Eoin Dubsky - Refueling Peace Wed Nov 12, 2003 13:01

I can't tell whether the IAWM member and GG supporter above are trolls or not, but I hope that anyway people *will* be as *creative* as possible on the day in Shannon Airport! I've provided a link below to a webpage full of resources which you might use to help prepare for an autonomous action on the day.

There are lots of ways to do a nonviolent blockade -- and lots of other nonviolent, safe ways to disrupt the military carry-on at the airport! :-)

In February I posted a message here (http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?id=30304) asking people to quit their activist pomp and get on with it. Please *do* take the initiative to do an autonomous action at Shannon Airport. Don't even wait for December 6th -- the US military use it as their pitstop every day!

Finally, issue of accountability, sitting down to blockade the road, then being moved (probably arrested too) by police, which "IAWM member" detailed above: Why is that a problem for you? Its a Ghandian type of action, but so what? What's wrong with that?

by Joe Wed Nov 12, 2003 13:04

This is a bit like the discussion of the SIPTU vice president. Similar points may be made again and again but the sheer number of people making these points* is what carries the message even more so then what is being said. The SWP get away with this sort of thing because their standard reply is that 'only sectarians think [their strokes] are relvant'. Multiple outrage as above shows this is not the case.

As pointed out the Grassroots Gathering in Galway decided to mobile autonomously for a blockade of Shannon on Dec 6th. We urge everyone else to do likewise (organise into small groups prepared to initate/join/support actions on the day). We'll judge what the IAWM stewards say on the content of what is said rather then obeying them because they have a yellow bib or a megaphone.

by Chekov Wed Nov 12, 2003 13:19

<sarcasm>
To all those people complaining about the inclusion of the Marxism ad in the IAWM bulletin, you seem to have misread the text. This is obviously not an SWP event, it is "one of the foremost events for discussion and debate on the Irish left. It brings together speakers from the Irish and international movements against war and neo-liberalism." - you see, no mention of the SWP.

In fact, not only is the event not organised by the SWP, there seems to be no SWP speakers. We have such independent voices as:
Mike Davis (US author of City of Quartz);
Alex Callinicos (Prof. of Politics at York),
Eamonn McCann (Author and Journalist)
Richard Boyd Barett (Chair IAWM)
You see, not an SWP speaker among them.

As for some of the other anti-war speakers:
Brid Smith
Dave Lordan
Donal Mac Fhearraigh
Well they couldn't possibly be SWP members could they, since they'd have told us wouldn't they?

In fact, by scanning through the text, you'll see that the three letters "SWP" are not mentioned once in the text, so they just couldn't have anything to do with this. The SWP are, after all, an honest, open and accountable bunch and they would never stoop to this type of thing.
</sarcasm>

The funny thing is that this is presumably the same bulletin that has been sent out to all of the subscribers to the IAWM lists. Obviously the 'amazing vanishing party' will get spotted on indymedia, but there are probably many people on the IAWM list who don't know much about the SWP and will take this bulletin at face value as being a genuine and honest report from a broad based anti-war movement. They might even show up at Marxism and be horrified to find that it is an SWP recruitment fair, flee and resolve to never have anything to do with the anti-war movements again. Nice.

by Excited Wed Nov 12, 2003 13:34

Can we do the can can again?

Still has to be the highlight of my year watching the stony faces of those cops in Shannon, as we danced the can can right in front of them. And there wasnt a thing they could do the poor buggers about it! Direct action at its best.

They were fuming!

altogether now,
daa, da da da da, daa daa, da da da da daa daa.....

by as an IAWM member Wed Nov 12, 2003 13:40

1. to hear/know what exactly is going on?
2. just to throw in my meagre opinion even if not taken on board! at least I can voice them directly to comm. members.
3. to see as a member if I like the individuals who are making the deisions and what they have to say and in which direction each steering comm. member is steering me!

by notice Wed Nov 12, 2003 13:49

http://irishantiwar.org

as far as I can tell, there is not even links to steering committee minutes for members or public.

time for a little glasnost

by busybee Wed Nov 12, 2003 14:00

maybe they just never got around to it??

Ever think of that?

by Democrat Wed Nov 12, 2003 14:16

Sure it would be a little cumbersome, having thousands of people crammed together all trying to make a decision in the space of a couple of hours, but it would be far more democratic than the current system, what do other people think?

by demos Wed Nov 12, 2003 14:23

In practice it would be less democratic. Practically it is very hard to have regular general meetings. If they were to replace the steering committee what would happen is that a small handfull of individuals who have more time or resources would be in control of the committee. These people are not accountable in any way and would be less democratic.

I would suggest that the most democratic way the IAWM can operate is through having a steering cmmttee that is elected, subject to recall and accountable to the members. Maybe each group or area should elect a committee member and then this person would be obliged to report back to the members and also would be obliged to act on the decisions taken at a local level.

If course it is important that people be active in the IAWM so that the SWP don't flood local meetings and gain a iron grip over the movement

by Chekov Wed Nov 12, 2003 14:47

Nobody was suggesting that all members should be on the steering committee, rather that the meetings should be open to all members as observers. This seems to me to be a very easy step that could be taken to improve immeasurably the accountability and transparency of IAWM decisions. Unfortunately I'm certain that the SWP will oppose it since accountability and transparency are the last things that they want.

For example, on October 4th 2002 a delegate from GNAW approached the IAWM with a request that GNAW should be allowed to send an observor to IAWM steering committee meetings in the interest of promoting coordination. RBB refused absolutely on behalf of the IAWM saying that it was unacceptable since GNAW would not be 'bound by the democratic decisions of the IAWM' and therefore had no right to attend. Later that same day another member of the IAWM steering committee reported that the SWP representatives on the steering committee had claimed that they had repeatedly contacted GNAW seeking coordination but had been refused every time by GNAW.

In terms of the long term future and democracy of the IAWM, I'd say that the most important step would be the exclusion of the SWP or the formation of a really democratic coalition that does not include them. I have been involved in many alliances that included them and every bloody time, from the anti-war movement to the ISF, to the bin-tax campaign, the rest of us have to spend at least as much time and energy trying to deal with SWP sabotage and undemocratic manoeuvring as we do dealing with the supposed opposition. Why bother? Just don't have anything to do with the organisation.

by Concerned Citizen - Independent observer Wed Nov 12, 2003 15:04

The steering commmitte seems to be leaning toward civil disobedience now. However, I've heard verbal accounts of the meeting that took place from several reliable members of the committe, and these minutes don't seem to be representative of what I've heard.

First, the civil disobedience was suggested originally and supported by non-SWP members at the previous meeting. The SWP voted against the blockade as a group. Then, at the recent meeting, they all proceeded to vote as political block for heavy stewarding, and a watered-down 'blockade'. They started the meeting by saying that the blockade was an idiotic idea, but since it had been voted on previously, there was nothing they could do now to stop it. They also, apparently, put down a motion that no outside observers could attend the meetings anymore, giving bogus reasons for this.

The problems were compounded by the fact that a few people who had voted in favour of the blockade at the previous meeting couldn't attend this one, so their votes were not available.

I'd hate to see what kind of a country we'd have after an SWP-style 'revolution', given that they act like members of the politburo when they're on what is supposed to be a committe that promotes the cause of peace. I just think it is important that people know that they are acting like party politicians in a context that is supposed to be inclusive of diverse opinion against the US war machine. I acknowledge that the SWP members have done work to get people on the streets, but overall it doesn't seem to me as if they really want to keep up the momentum against the use of Shannon. In fact, it's universally known that their leader is very cynical about civil disobedience, and would like to see the blockade fail. It's vital that people turn up to the blockade, so that the SWP don't get what they want. Don't let them wreck the anti-war movement!

by others Wed Nov 12, 2003 15:20

We'll have to ave a blockade/sit-in at next Steering meeting!
reclaim the IAWM
on a serious note this is unacceptable, members of IAWM should demand access for observation at such meetings!

by lish Wed Nov 12, 2003 17:33

leaving dec 6th 9:15am from liberty hall. returning 9pm or before if we want to.
10 euros. please get ur tickets now so buses can be paid for.
info 087-7501473 or 086-1770439

the nature of the blockade was supposed to be decided by the participants of local meetings held before the 6th. what happened there?

there is obviously a life & death struggle going on in the iawm & the democratic elements in the organization need support while those who wield megaphones need them switched off.
bring warm clothes,food & hot drinks, something to sit on, stuff to play with, an affinity group, creativity, autonomy & plenty of bottle please.

by Aoife Ni Fhearghail - personal Wed Nov 12, 2003 17:49 aoifenf at yahoo dot co dot uk d6w 087 7955013

The 6 Dec demo organised by the IAWM will be a sit-down blockade as detailed above. Provided that we get hundreds of people to Shannon this could be a very successful action and could succeed in putting the issue of Shannon back on the political & media agendas. The event will be stewarded as we do want to avoid or if that's not possible minimise arrests. As one of the people on the current steering committee I would ask people to abide by the stewarding policy. If you choose not to abide by the stewarding policy then there are plenty of other saturdays when other demonstrations can be organised, details of which you can post on our website. The buses will return to Dublin in time for people to make connections from Dublin.

I cannot see any problem with advertising the Marxism event - any event with an anti-war theme which a group affiliated to the IAWM (of which the SWP is one) is organising can be included in the events section of the bulletin. There are many anti-war discussions at the Marxism conference and interesting speakers from different sections of the movement.

Regarding observer status at meetings I think there is some serious mischief making going on here as this has never been a problem before. The IAWM Steering Committee meetings are limited to committee members (of which there are 16) as this is more workable than an open meeting, and the sc meetings are working meetings not talk shops. The Steering Committee was elected at the AGM this year and it was open to anyone to put themselves forward beforehand provided they were members of the organisation.

There are also potential security issues such as we don't "check out" members and if the meetings were open there would be no way of stopping gardai or pro-war activists from coming along with the deliberate intention of sabotaging not just the meeting, but the whole organisation, check out for example an individual who continues to post absolute zionist nonsense on our site and maintains he is "anti-war". Or discussing tactics for upcoming demonstrations. If you are an IAWM member the best way to ensure you're voice is being heard is to get involved with your local anti-war groups or email info@irishantiwar.org, most of the contributors above are not members of the IAWM.

Regarding the Grassroots Gathering, they requested to have permanent observer status even though they did not wish to affiliate to the IAWM. I see no reason why they should be treated differently from other non-affiliated groups.

I hope this clarifies some of the above.

Aoife Ní Fhearghail
087 7955013

by Degenerate Wed Nov 12, 2003 17:59

"If you choose not to abide by the stewarding policy then there are plenty of other saturdays when other demonstrations can be organised, details of which you can post on our website."

Applying your own logic, why did the IAWM go ahead with March Ist. They could have changed the date and were in fact asked to when it became obvious that they didn't intend to partake in the actions called for by GG.

Just one other point for clarification. Did they teach you arrogance in the SWP or were you just born with it?

by Joe Wed Nov 12, 2003 18:06

About a week after GNAW was told it was impossible to have an observer at IAWM meetings we found out that Sinn Fein had been given not one but two observers. Draw your own conclusions!

GG/GNAW has called for a blockade on Dec 6th in part in response to requests from within the IAWM that we support the blockade. It's becoming clear that while some on the IAWM committee seek our involvement others are not at all keen about it.

In the past we have not demanded that the IAWM cancel demonstrations at Shannon that fell on the same day as ones we had called (eg March 1st). In any case you can hardly call yourself the Irish Anti War Movement and then complain when parts of the Irish anti-war movement (note capitalisation) turn up, can you?

by Inspector Xat Wed Nov 12, 2003 19:13

According to Aoife Ní Fhearghail, “most of the contributors above are not members of the IAWM”. In other words, Aoife only answer to members of the IAWM. But how does she know who is and who isn’t in the IAWM? For all she knows, they all might be. So tell us Aoife: which of the above contributors are members of the IAWM? Here’s the list for you to scrutinise? To help you, note that I AM a member of the IAWM, but I’m not one of those listed above as “IAWM” member (I can’t risk being caught at work – I’m a tax inspector). So who am I, Miss Know It All?

IAWM member
Grassroots activist
annoyed
Daithí
Nuto
Another IAWM member
GG supporter
Ld
IO
Outraged
Degenerate
buttons
Eoin Dubsky
Chekov
Excited
as an IAWM member
notice
busybee
Democrat
demos
Chekov
Concerned Citizen
others
lish
Degenerate
Joe

by Ciaron - Dublin Catholic Worker Wed Nov 12, 2003 19:31

If Special Branch and the Spooks had an agenda - it was to infiltrate the IAWM leadership and steer the movement away from Shannon - the one place where the rubber (& 92,000 troops) hits the road in terms of Irish contribution to this ongoing war.

That's pretty much what occured this year as the movement climaxed and dissipated.

Time to regroup around nonviolent resistance & Shannon aware of the first line of policing - Hillsbrough, Shannon occupation fence pulling, Dail blockade. First time tagedy, fourth time farce!

Good luck - we'll do what we can.

*Dec. Blockade Day- Catholic Worker is looking at a solidarity vigil on the Limerick/Clare border as we are bailed outta Co. Clare.

*Wed. Nov. 19th, we're in front of our trial judge at the Four Courts for prelim argument. Gather 9 am at The Spike for solidarity vigil with anti-war resisters in jail, courtmartialled and before the courts (new leaflet out soon) *Wear Black *Don't bring visuals/ defendants will provide them! *Bush hits London thios day so if folks want to consider a presence at the US Embassy (we are bailed away from there!) that sound appropriate.

*Nov 22nd./23rd. there will be a mass (10,000 there last year) presence and hi risk civil disobedience (minimum penalty 6 months jail) at the School of the Americas Ft. Benning, Geogia, USA - a real terrotist traing camp, Check it out www.soaw.org Would be good to have a solidarity gathering at the US Embassy (we had 60+ folks there last year and folks getting busted in Georgia appreciated that - but the bulk of us are banned fromj a mile radius of the US Embassy)
Peace
Ciaron

by dermot - DAWC Wed Nov 12, 2003 21:39

In answer to a previous statement, both Eamonn McCann and RBB ar SWP members - the fact that they introduce themselves otherwise doesn't say anything, or do you really think we're that stupid?

It seems obvious that the SWP are using the Irish Anti War movement as presumed recruit fodder, just as they did here in the Derry AntiWar Coalition, where people on the contact list are being sent emails to support McCann in the election - although DAWC was supposed to be a "broad based" coalition and in fact includes republicans, liberal pacifists and SDLP members as well as SWP and SP.

I for one will not be paying any attention to what RBB says through a megaphone to suit the SWP's tactics. And, if the SWP continue their conspiratorial tactics, they succeed only in marginalising the IAWM to a tiny vociferous minority, in spite of the mass sympathy out there, just as they did in Derry. Objectively, they are saboteurs.

by Fintan Lane - IAWM and Cork Anti-War Campaign Wed Nov 12, 2003 21:59 087 1258325

I'm glad that Aoife indicated that her remarks are made in a 'personal capacity' because that's exactly their status.

It would be wonderful to see a strong turnout from the Grassroots Gathering and other associated groups. Please come and help shut Shannon warport! All are welcome.

There are remarks on this thread with regard to stewarding policy and IAWM transparency that I'd like to respond to, but I'd rather do so at a later stage when a number of matters have been clarified. (The debate within the IAWM is not over, contrary to some people's assumptions).

by Barry Semple - IAWM & GR Thu Nov 13, 2003 00:51

What the hell is the point of all the above trivial bickering?! i mean, we all want the same thing ie. US military out of Shannon, so go on Dec.6th......or dont, if you cant put aside petty paltry trivial differences of opinion.
We wont get anywhere as a collective movement if we cant learn to work together.

by Fiona Thu Nov 13, 2003 01:25

Are the people arrested in June, in court on 13th. or 20th.? Previous report said 20th. Urgent reply requested.

by Fintan Lane - IAWM and Cork Anti-War Campaign Thu Nov 13, 2003 02:50 corkantiwar at hotmail dot com 087 1258325

I agree with you entirely Barry.

Those due before Shannon District Court for their involvement in a peaceful sitdown on June 21st will be appearing on November 20th (and not the date given in the bulletin above). Please turn up to show your support!

Also, the Pitstop Ploughshares Five are back in the Four Courts on November 19th when they expect to (eventually!) receive a trial date. As usual, they are asking people to turn up to support them. More details on this later.

by Me Thu Nov 13, 2003 03:36 TCD

Dunno about unity with people that strongly oppose a blockade, criticise it to the high heavens, but still want to control it. Are the swp for real? Can one of them please explain why they oppose this blockade and what the fuck they're playing at?

by IMC reader - not a troll Thu Nov 13, 2003 14:08

"The event will be stewarded as we do want to avoid or if that's not possible minimise arrests. As one of the people on the current steering committee I would ask people to abide by the stewarding policy. If you choose not to abide by the stewarding policy then there are plenty of other saturdays when other demonstrations can be organised, details of which you can post on our website."

Aoife, it might not look like that in a SWP meeting, but you simply have no power to order people what to do. Nor can you stop people showing up at Shannon (looks like the SWP are scared of an effective action, why?). Aoife, much as you are trying hard to do their job, you are not the Gardai.

by PK Thu Nov 13, 2003 14:12

"Aoife, much as you are trying hard to do their job, you are not the Gardai. "

Nor are you the PSNI

by Dunno But Thu Nov 13, 2003 15:46

Dunno, but handing the stewarding of a blockade to the SWP who oppose nonviolent direct action whenever it emerges (and has tried desperately to keep the peace movement away from Shannon) sounds like the weirdest thang since the Indonesian military were given the security role fot the UN ballot in East Timor in '99!

Prepare in affinity groups before you go and maintain the initiative against the state and it's hirelings.

by Anon Thu Nov 13, 2003 15:53

The fact is that the SWP opposed the Shannon blockade and continued to mouth off against it at the last IAWM meeting. They would be happiest if it flopped so they could say "told you so". In that context its in Aoifes interest to piss off GGers and those afraid of an SWP hijack. Beware of Aoife! She's a troll.

by David Thu Nov 13, 2003 16:55

I was very skeptical about the IAWM motives.
I have since had renewed confidence in the activist community in Ireland who are wonderful people. The IAWM blockade should be supported! but any calls by known leaders of the SWP should be ignored as they do not have a democratic mandate, this is not a SWP blockade, they do not support it, they will not go out of their way to make it a success.
I said before that this is The SWP's last chance for a lot of people (those who have not already totally turned off them) and they are not doing themselves any favours (unless it is their aim to subvert the peace movement in Ireland)

by Chekov Thu Nov 13, 2003 16:59

"no way of stopping gardai or pro-war activists from coming along with the deliberate intention of sabotaging not just the meeting, but the whole organisation"

Structuring an organisation against possible future saboteurs is not a very good idea. It means sacrificing openness and accountability for the sake of an imagined threat. Why wouldn't it be possible to open up steering committee meetings to all members and give them speaking rights initially? Then, if problems arise as you have outlined, you could restrict their speaking rights to a period at the end of the meeting. If the problems persist you could limit them to a non-speaking role. This seems to me to be a pretty easy way of balancing transparency with the need to protect against sabotage. If the authorities want to find out what happens at these meetings they can do so easily (especially since you presumably have to communicate the decisions to your members), so the presence of IAWM members as observers is not at all problematic - if you really want transparency, which as I have stated above I don't believe the SWP wants at all.

"I cannot see any problem with advertising the Marxism event - any event with an anti-war theme which a group affiliated to the IAWM (of which the SWP is one) is organising can be included in the events section of the bulletin."

Well, it appears that many others in the IAWM do see a problem with it, especially given the fact that it is deceptively presented as "one of the foremost events for discussion and debate on the Irish left" and does not mention the fact that it is in fact entirely an SWP event, rather than an event of the "Irish left". Personally I think that this is very dishonest, but the SWP has never appeared to value honesty so perhaps that's why you can't see the problem with it.

"There are many anti-war discussions at the Marxism conference and interesting speakers from different sections of the movement."

The many different sections of the anti-war movement are the SWP, the SWP and the SWP apparently. In addition to the SWP speakers we have Nuria and an unnamed Middle Eastern Socialist. Both of whom represent themselves alone, not any other sections of the movement. (For those who don't know, in addition to the affiliations of McCann & RBB mentioned above, Callinicos is generally considered to be the SWP's leader in Britain, Mike Davis is one of the only members of their US outfit that didn't leave their international with Left Turn, and Brid, Donal and Dave are Dublin SWPers).

"The event will be stewarded as we do want to avoid or if that's not possible minimise arrests. As one of the people on the current steering committee I would ask people to abide by the stewarding policy. If you choose not to abide by the stewarding policy then there are plenty of other saturdays when other demonstrations can be organised"

This approach, of "we have decided how everything will go, you must follow orders", to events that involve direct action is invariably a disaster since these actions involve a considerable amount of risk and require a high level of discussion from all the people involved so that people can decide the level of risk that they want to face. A steering committee can't possibly make this decision on everyone's behalf since different people can risk more or less depending on their circumstances. The one-size-fits-all model is ineffective and leads to situations where people who are ready to have a go are mixed up with people who really can't take risks with the inevitable problems that this can lead to. The fact that the leaders who have apparently taken this decision on behalf of the protestors have practically no experience in direct action and consequently very little trust from participants makes the situation far worse.

"Regarding the Grassroots Gathering, they requested to have permanent observer status even though they did not wish to affiliate to the IAWM. I see no reason why they should be treated differently from other non-affiliated groups."

I can see plenty of reasons. For one, allowing a GNAW delegate to sit in on IAWM meetings could have allowed the two groups to overcome the mutual misunderstandings, disinformation and suspicions that had disasterous consequences on March 1st when the chairman of the IAWM publicly attacked GNAW on national radio and fatally damaged our chances of stopping Irish participation in the war. Maybe that's not a good enough reason for you though.

by Eoin Dubsky - Refueling Peace Thu Nov 13, 2003 17:37

A number of people have quoted a passage from Aoife's reply above, in which she explains which there will be IAWM stewards on December 6th at Shannon Airport ("The event will be stewarded as we do want to avoid or if that's not possible minimise arrests"). Everyone who has responded to this is most concerned about what those stwards may do, what authority they have, etc.... but there's something that jumps up at me here which has not been said: How can you avoid or minimise arrests at a sit-down blockade?

Is the idea that stewards would lias with police, to tell non-arrestable blockaders when its time to move? I can see how this would help the police... but is this gonna help the blockaders that much?

Or will the stewards be people who know the Airport particularly well, and can coordinate the movement of blockaders (blockades!), keeping one step ahead of "I'm arresting you....". I've seen this sort of thing work with some degree of success before, but the activists were organized into support groups and were well briefed about the area themselves.

by Karen (first time poster) Thu Nov 13, 2003 18:16

Will there ever be a day when we see a confident anti-war movement acting on the power of solidarity and willing to come together en-mass, and get arrested, if people aren't willing to be arrested along with others on the issue of war,
you can forget about a fucking revolution!

If the IAWM was serious about a shannon blockade then they would be preparing people for a real blockade and probable arrest....... tactics!

The IAWM is a joke this blockade idea will probably be a joke and so it falls back on the organisers who (not all) I believe have not been 100% behind the blockade so therefore are not bothered whether it is successful or not!

My idea of a successful blockade is to disrupt business at Shannon for a number of hours with minimal arrests! I for one am willing to make the blockade work but because of the lack of discussion on proper tactics and the willingness of all to stand together regardless, (of the chance of arrest because there is naturally always going to be one)to achieve our goal.

I hate to be pessimistic and I will go to Shannon
but I don't believe the people I have heard up until now (Richard Barett and Aoife Feargail) are true to this movement, I have heard both speaking on the upcoming blockade they have both failed dismally to protray a real sense of what a blockade is supposed to achieve. I understand both are in the SWP and although I have no problems with their political beliefs in general I do feel that they have a superiority complex to say the least.
If anyone is being Mischievious it is the SWP Aoife only managed to insult the intelligence of those who posted here with genuine concerns!
Shame on the SWP but they will pay the price in the end, because of late, serious political happenings have been going on and as someone who used to have a reasonably normal relationship with mambers of SWP but since the invasion of Iraq I have been forced to raise issues with them and because of this they now look on me as "you are not with us so you must be against us", where have I heard that before the GG people are not exempt from this eirther although they are not as bad as the SWP.
I don't see a future for a pary like this and I know even some of their members have major problems with the party.
Anyway seeyou all at Shannon, Phewww I'm glad I got all that off my chest now I can go on the 6th hoping I'll meet alot of people who feel the same and are willing to try our best to create a REAL BLOCKADE at Shannon airport!!

by Anonymous Thu Nov 13, 2003 20:01

I was just thinking the same thing myself just a minute ago, regarding arrests. Gotta admit that due to work commitments I wouldn't be prepared to get arrested. Pissed me off when I was at the big demo in Shannon some months back, seeing people dragged off in front of me, knowing that it should be me, and I wasn't even prepared to sit in front of the paddy wagon.

How many people are in the same position as me?

by Ciaron - Dublin Catholic Worker Fri Nov 14, 2003 01:30

Serious nonviolent resistance will lead to arrest, prosecution etc.

It can be the most empowering experiece of your life or the most disempowering - a lot of it's got to do with the solidarity you experience from the movement you spring.

So it shouldn't be the case of resisters feeling isolated and other folks guilty. There should be a mutuality between those who are freed up to risk arrest and those who aren't.

So I guess if at this time you find you can't do the resistance you should be doing proactive solidarity. Most of us will do both at different phases in our lives. The more solidarity the more resistance.

And there's gotta be resistance ratehr than a talkfest. pretty much at a Blockade the time for talk is over, we have talked a lot. Time to break the moderate protest/Government gentleman's agrement "You can have your protest, while we have our war!"

Be ready to support nonviolent resistance from wherever it springs. In the first Gulf War, more serious resistance came out of the U,S, military than the U.S. peace movement - it's lookin' like this could be the case again!

by Independent Fri Nov 14, 2003 10:35

If there was anyone around who had any residual doubt regarding the real motivations of the SWP and their political function (police, contain and disempower the movement), now any doubt has gone. All we need to find out is: on behalf of whom?

by a Sat Nov 15, 2003 10:34

Q is the iawm democratic?
A yes

Q are the swp the most important force in iawm?
A yes

folks that is democracy live with it or change the leadership, dont condem people for winning votes. If the swp are so crap as everyone thinks then why do they get a majority of votes in iawm?

by Xist Sat Nov 15, 2003 11:47

'dont condem people for winning votes'

this is not a simple manner of 'wait until the enext election'

IAWM is a coalition, which means it has to strive to representation of its different factions and interests. Those interests do not vote en bloc as does the SWP.

Essentially, you are correct. The next time the SWP should be and probably will be 'voted out of office'

Also understand that the SWP makes this IAWM 'democracy' a shame by holding closed to the public and members of IAWM - hardly accountable then is it?

by Dermot - DAWC Sat Nov 15, 2003 13:12

Interesting idea that the SWP are champions of democracy.

I have previously written about the activities of the SWP in the Derry Anti War Coalition, and I would expect that their activities here would be reflected in other parts of the country. Perhaps some of the SWP drones might explain to me how the following activities were democratic:

(1) The decision to support Eamonn McCann's candidacy in the election here (which wasn't taken at any meeting of DAWC).

(2) Allowing messages to be emailed out on the DAWC list, supporting the SWP (in the election), or the SP (about the Bin protest in Dublin for gawsakes!), while barring messages criticising this - the moderator being no other than Goretti Horgan (SWP, and McCann's partner).

(3) Further to the above, at least two people who have been critical of the SWP have been removed from the list, with no reason given, either by email or at DAWC meetings.

(4) When the DAWC organised a long march to Belfast, a decision was taken that no party banners were to be displayed. In the SWP's opinion, however, this prohibition didn't include their banner.

(5) At the one occasion when three Provies turned up for a meeting of DAWC in Badgers, they were closely questioned as to their motives, whereas this did not happen with other groups whose motives would be equally suspect. I'm not supporting the Provies either (one of their delegation then was a well-known hood) but it's no coincidence that McCann was chairing the meeting.

(6) Several demos were organised by PANA/IAWM in Shannon or Dublin, and Derry members of DAWC were simply not informed. Surprise, suprise, these were precisely those messages which had a very low SWP presence, for instance when they had one of their weekend talking shops.

Loads more examples of SWP "democracy" in DAWC spring to mind, but that'll do for now!

by Goretti Horgan - SWP Sun Nov 16, 2003 18:34 Derry

As someone who, due to family as well as political commitments, does not often get to read Indymedia, this is the second time in about ten days that I have been contacted by people telling me that sheer lies were being spread about me by someone who calls himself "Dermot" and claims to be involved in the Derry Anti War Coalition. Don't know who it might be as no one called Dermot was a regular attender at meetings of the DAWC, but I guess it's someone who doesn't have the courage of his convictions. I will happily debate face to face with Dermot if he wants to phone me. My number is in the book.

Some facts that can be checked with non-aligned people in Derry.
1. DAWC never decided to endorse Eamonn McCann's candidacy in the election. I posted to the DAWC list, inviting anti-war activists to support him - which largely they have.
2. I am NOT the moderator of that list. The moderator is a non-aligned US student called Matt (possibly now back in the US).
3. It is true that several people, including myself, have had messages refused by the list but this is usually for technical reasons and one is given a reason so it is possible to sort it out.
4. There are many postings to the list that have nothing directly to do with the war. These are overwhelmingly from people who have nothing to do with the SWP. 'Dermot' has never complained about these.
4. The meeting attended by the three Sinn Feiners was straight after Hillsborough. They had come to defend SF's bowing of the knee to Emperor Dubya. It was a packed meeting and the most heated reponse to them came from people who would be most upset to be called SWPers!

For those who want to check all this for themselves, just sign onto the DAWC website - www.dawc.org You can get a digest of postings for any month you choose. Then you can decide if this 'Dermot'is someone worth believing.

Also for your information, the Socialist Environmental Alliance website is www.seaderry.co.uk

by me Mon Nov 17, 2003 09:11

to put it another way, Dermott is a troll

by Avid Tue Nov 18, 2003 02:36

The Steering committee was not elected it was appointed. Aoife suggested at the AGM that all the candidates which were nominated should be put foreward as the committee. People whose affilitations are unknown are on the steering commitee Cara Wallace almost certainly is SWP and Dominic Walsh (who is he? )Affiliations were not asked by the AGM-- big mistake.