Report of IAWM steering Committee meeting

by Previously confused - Disgruntled anti-war person Wed Dec 17, 2003 18:38

...indeed a member of the SWP. He joined during the summer, apparently. They are currently the dominating force on the SC and vote as a block with regard to most decisions. The "election" wasn't really and election if members weren't contacted to participate. A limited number of people put themselves forward for the "election", and they all got on the committee. However, from what is being said here, members weren't even told it was occurring, or that they were entitled to put themselves forward. Well, you are entitled to do so, and you should. Otherwise, the committee is going to be dominated forever more by a bunch of authoritarian bandwagon jumpers who turn the anti-war cause into party political maneuvering. Spread the word for next year. Don't give up and resign yourselves, people, to this.

by Glen Swizer Wed Dec 17, 2003 18:02

I'm alarmed to read that a supposedlty neutral organisation is considering taking money from Druids (point 9). How do you know they aren't CIA agents in rented Jedi Knight outfits?

by hmm Wed Dec 17, 2003 15:00

I joined the IAWM last february, i signed up, left contact details and paid an appropriate fee. Yet not once have i been contacted to allow me take part in IAWM elections. Who exactly are the members of the IAWM entitled to elect a steering committee. Who elected Colm Stephens to the Steering committee where he was in turn able to become Secretary and acting PRO? Is Colm Stephens a member of the SWP?

by antrophe Wed Dec 17, 2003 14:20

Just wondering what the actual structures are of the IAWM, it doesnt seem to be a delegate structure, with delegates feeding up from local branches and so on. In UCD we had the ridiculous situation where there were two antiwar groups operating in the run up to the last Shannon, one which mobilised and managed to get a bus down to Shannon. And another which called a public meeting with Andy Story in the wake of the mobilsing groups meeting a day previously. The AFRI meeting saw no real mention of Shannon and no attempts to mobilise for it. Presumably this has a lot to do with the fact that the UCD IAWM group is the pet project of Kieran Allen adn shannon clashed with the build up for marxism. Noone that was previously involved in the IAWM UCD group was consulted about the afri meeting and posters just appeared on campus. Seen as a top oil picket and a mobilisiation fro shannon has come out of UCD already this year. Then I'd have to ask what kind of structure is in place to ensure democratic representation of the movement on the ground in the IAWM SC? Seeing as the UCD IAWM group hasnt really bothered getting its finger out all year; its odd to see representatives from it, namely Kieran Allen on the SC.

by John Wed Dec 17, 2003 14:13

IMO the SWP are not known for their logic and I would lothe to be identified with their brand of reason.

>1. The publishing of minutes is bad for the IAWM

No, I think minutes are by nature internal to the organisation they are taken by.

>2. Anarchists are responsible for all criticism of the IAWM

No, I have in the past criticised the IAWM and I am not an Anarchist.

>3. Therefore anarchists want things that are bad for the IAWM

No I assumed (perhaps wrongly?) that anarchists had contributed to this thread defending the minutes being made public (by Zappa Tistta, I presumed he/she was an anarchist)

>4. Therefore anarchists want the IAWM minutes published.

I don't know. Do they? you don't say!

I think that because Indymedia can be a swamp of sectarianism at times groups tend to be a little touchy when points are made. I have no quarrel with the anarchist movement. i respect their anti-capitalist stance and like their commitment to Direct Action and people power. Myself, Im a socialist and I feel that most anarchists I know possibly agree with socialists on 90% of issues.

comradely

John

by Joe Wed Dec 17, 2003 11:41

I don't see any reason for this presumption except by the rather odd SWP chain of logic where

1. The publishing of minutes is bad for the IAWM
2. Anarchists are responsible for all criticism of the IAWM
3. Therefore anarchists want things that are bad for the IAWM
4. Therefore anarchists want the IAWM minutes published.

You may not be a member of a democratic centralist organisation but you seem to be swallowing rather a lot of assumptions they make without any further thought. The logic chain above does not make a whole lot of sense

by john Wed Dec 17, 2003 10:57

Sorry but I am not a member or supporter of any democratic centralist party or group. I still would argue that the minutes of any internal meeting of an officer board /committee/ steering group should remain internal. Suppose a member of the IAWM accused the treasurer of misconduct? This would have to be minuted if a true record of the meeting was to be maintained. However the consiquences of these minutes being publically circulated would be cause for a possible libel case by the treasurer, and not without reason.

Anarchist defenders of publishing minutes (and I assume they are anarchists) are fully entitled to this view, however, I don't recall seeing any anarchist groups minutes in indymedia.

by Confused Tue Dec 16, 2003 02:25

These are not the minutes of the most recent meeting. Why are these being put up, rather than the most recent minutes? I heard that at the most recent meeting, a motion was passed banning observers completely from the meetings. Committee members are there to serve the needs of the broader anti-war movement. Therefore, they should be accountable to us. If we do not have any way of knowing what goes on at those meetings, how can we judge the performance of the committee members in order to vote in an informed way next year? There is a seriously anti-democractic trend on this committee. I suggest setting up an alternative Irish peace organisation. In fact, this is now in train: I know there are people planning it, people who are sick of the IAWM being used as a party political platform by certain people. This committee does not represent the "Irish anti-war" community, except for a few honourable members who are pushing for accountability and transparency.

by Zappa Tistta Mon Dec 15, 2003 17:20

"is there any value to putting your internal IAWM minutes on the indymedia site?"

yes. there is a value to seeing this here. since i do not recall seeing minutes posted on the irishantiwar.org website - also it is currently down - this is valuable since the IAWM is a major player in the (small letters) irish anti war movement.

perhaps Grassroots could do the same?

by Captain Moonlight Mon Dec 15, 2003 12:45

It's good that the minutes are being published. But these minutes refer to a meeting held a month ago (or else Fintan Lane tunnelled out for the day!). Can we have the minutes for yesterday's (Sunday 14th December) meeting as soon as possible.

As to whether the minutes should be published on Indymedia, I say yes. We need openess, and if minutes were to be restricted to IAWM members, etc., we can still assume the Branch get to see them. Might as well be open about everything (unless secrecy is required for some action or other), so that anti-war activists who are not members of the IAWM know what's happening and can see if the IAWM is doing its job.

by Democrat Mon Dec 15, 2003 12:36

The IAWM is no a Democratic Centralist organisation. In the real world, people have differing opinions, to pretend that everyone was 100% in agreement would look bizarre. Only in cults will will you find 100% agreement.

Question: when was Aoife removed as secretary? How was her replacement chosen? Where did Colm Stevens come from and why has no one ever heard of him before?

by John Mon Dec 15, 2003 11:12

I wonder is there any value to putting your internal IAWM minutes on the indymedia site? It might be better to publish a summary of the meeting that would give readers information on activities?

The report gives the impression that there is some in-fighting and thats the last thing the anti war movement wants at this moment. The IAWM is a broad church so its natural that there would be conflict at committee level but I don't think this should be broadccast to the public at large.

As the minutes are here to read can you tell us why the donation of €2,000 was withdrawn?