Report of IAWM steering Committee meeting
international |
anti-war / imperialism |
news report 
Monday December 15, 2003 00:41
by LAurence Vize - Steering Committee IAWM
Report Of IAWM Steering Committee Meeting
Teachers’ Club, 5 pm – 7.10 pm
Attendance Apologies
Laurence Vize, Fintan Lane, Kieran Allen, Aoife Ní Fhearghail, Raymond Deane, Harry Browne, Richard Boyd Barrett, Mick O’Sullivan, Cara Wallace, Colin Coulter, Tim Hourican, Colm Stephens Kirstin Foy, Dominic Walsh, Michael O’Brien, Glenda Cimino
Observers
Owen Rice, Deborah Bemingham, Adam Conway, Conor Cregan
1. Due to a letter requesting clarification of the standing orders regarding observers received just before the meeting and the presence of 4 people in the meeting room who are not members of the SC, it was decided to take the issue before any other agenda item. The following was decided:
1.1. Any request for observers status will require advance notice to a member of the SC who will circulate the request in writing before the meeting in question. (For 6 Against 6 Abstention 0). Carried by casting vote of the chair. (Secretary’s note: Any request passed on to me before circulation of the Agenda will be added to the agenda by me.)
1.2. As an exception, observer status for present meeting was granted to the four people present (named above) (For 12, Against 0, Abstention 0).
2. A number of members requested that the meeting finish by 6.30 pm. A guillotine of 7 pm was agreed without a vote.
3. Minutes of last meeting were accepted with the following amendments:
4.7 Pitstop Ploughshare or representative will be asked to speak at Shannon blockade.
4.4 A stewarding policy will be employed. (This issue was discussed later in the meeting).
4. ESF Report Back Kieran gave a report back of the recent ESP in Paris. Main decisions were to call International Day of Action on All Occupations on 20 March 2004, ‘Social Day of Action’ at a date to be decided. Raymond reported on the Palestinian dimension. The ECPP has called a mobilisation for Dublin on 01 May 2004 for the EU summit to highlight the EU ‘Association Agreement’ with Israel granting preferential trading rights. A UN conference in 2004 for NGOs on Palestine has been moved from New Zealand after US government exerted pressure on NZ. Dublin is the proposed alternative venue.
4.1. The IAWM will support the call for 20 March international day of action. (Passed unanimously)
4.2. The IAWM will support the call for 01 May mobilisation re Palestine issues in Dublin. (Passed unanimously)
4.3. The IAWM will prioritise building a large ‘15-Feb-style’ demonstration on 20 March and produce first leaflets and posters by early January 2004. (Passed unanimously)
5. EU Presidency
5.1. Richard and Colm will attend the meeting on 13 December to discuss an umbrella group to coordinate action with other interested groups. (Passed unanimously)
5.2. Andy Storey will be invited to the next SC meeting to inform us of the military aspects of the new draft EU constitution. (Passed unanimously)
5.3. A call for an EU-wide mobilisation for 09 May 2004 to protest the planned signing of the new constitution in Rome. A decision on IAWM action will be taken when we know more details.
6. Shannon Blockade
Laurence and Fintan reported back from the workgroup building for the blockade. Numerous contacts have been made to media and anti-war/political groups. Feedback is good.
(Colin left the meeting at this stage)
6.1. Colm will contact SIPTU and Impact trade unions at Shannon Airport to request a meeting to 1. explain or aims for the blockade and 2. our aims re Shannon, in general. (Passed unanimously)
(Harry left the meeting at this stage)
6.2. Speakers: Colm reported that the Greens are having a national candidate selection meeting and that we are not likely to get a Green party speaker. Michael D has not replied. Cara will contact Sinn Fein. Richard will the Islamic Students. Colm will contact Bishop Willy Walsh.
6.3. Fintan proposed the ‘Non-Violence Guidelines’ and ‘Guidelines for Stewards’ circulated. These seemed to be acceptable to all except for one issue regarding the guideline that people return to the blockade after being removed by the Gardai if they are willing. A discussion on stewarding policy ensued. The following was decided:
6.3.1. A legal team will be organised by Adam Conway and will provide (bust card, contact phone numbers for people arrested, ‘legal’ observers (not stewards) etc.) (Passed unanimously)
6.3.2. The chief steward will not make any instruction which to people who wish to return to the blockade after they are removed by the Gardai. (For 5 Against 4 Abstentions 1)
7. As the time was now after 7 pm the guillotine applied and no more agenda items were considered.
8. A large number of names of invitees for next meeting were given. The secretary requested that they be submitted to him in writing and he would add them to the agenda. (Passed unanimously).
9. A discussion on the date of next meeting ensued. Mick O’Sullivan stated that the previous decision to hold a meeting on Saturday was religious discrimination and a Druids’ Council had withdrawn an offer of €2,000 to the IAWM.
Next meeting was set for Sunday, 14 December. (For 4 Against 3 Abstentions 3).
Comments (12 of 12)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12I 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?
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?
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.
"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?
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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?
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?
...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.
Indymedia Ireland is a media collective. We are independent volunteer citizen journalists producing and distributing the authentic voices of the people. Indymedia Ireland is an open news project where anyone can post their own news, comment, videos or photos about Ireland or related matters.