Cork Anti-War Campaign disaffiliates from the IAWM

by Joe Tue Feb 24, 2004 23:43

The IAWM have a brass neck calling themselves the 'Irish Anti-War Movement'.

by Barry Wed Feb 25, 2004 00:11 semplebarry at hotmail dot com

Just to let you know your'e not alone in your disillusionment with the IAWM. Shannon should have always been, and should still be, the focus of any group or individuals opposed to the US war/occupation of Iraq and this governments complicity in it.
Its just an idea, but would the Cork anti war group consider establishing a new and improved IAWM, free from any specific political motivations or deceptions?

Id be the first to join...... anyone else for freedom of thought and political expression??

by Cork activist Wed Feb 25, 2004 01:12

I couldn't make last nights meeting but definitely the right thing to do. Cork has been affilliated to the iawm since cawc was formed in February last year and what has been happening, especially recently, is a disgrace! The iawm is just an swp front and their behaviour has been dispicable - just last week RBB and his cronies organised a press conference off their own bat without even telling the PRO (fintan) who has since, correctly, resigned from the steering committee. Tim Hourican has resigned as well and more are almost certainly on the way out.

Cawc is genuinely broad-based unlike the so-called 'leadership' in Dublin.

by David C. Wed Feb 25, 2004 01:29

I'll fight to the death against that enemy of "freedon of thought and political expression", namely the IAWM and their evildoer brethern, the SWP. We must make the world safe from their "deception" and "dispicable behaviour". It's what Ghandi, Dr. King, Che Guverra and Karl M. would have wanted. They will not succeed in their dastardly plans and schemes. The toiling masses of the world depend on us - we must not give in...

by Anonymous Wed Feb 25, 2004 01:55

Unfortunately the media don't know that the IAWM is just a front for a tiny far-left party. They think it's a representative body and Richard Boyd Barrett seems to get on the radio every second day.

Maybe they'll wise up when stuff like this gets out. Let's hope so.

by Àine Wed Feb 25, 2004 02:32

I agree that Shannon has to be the key - the continued use of the area as a US air base is being accepted generally by media - government and alot of the overall population.

We as an anti war broad based movement should have made sure that acts such as those of the CW5 and Mary Kelly occurred everyday that US war planes troops and munitions passed over our soil.

In essence we have failed as a movement to direct sufficient pressure and opposition to the fact that the Irish government are complicit in the US/UK led War of terror.
But we have failed ( I use we as I am a active member of anti war movement) because as usual we cannot stay united ?

The movement has been engulfed with opportunists like all movements but also from genuine activists with strong convictions. So really my worry and concern is that although i accept and respect the move of CAWM I fear that this will further separate an already fragmented movement.

(And on a separate personal note major respect for Fintan - he proved he can talk it and walk it.)

by David C. Wed Feb 25, 2004 02:54

Have there been any scientifically-conducted studies regarding public attitudes on the use of Shannon by the US military? Does the public know what's going on? If so, do they care? Do they agree or disagree? Why?

The way to move forward is to face the cold, hard facts and then respond to them professionally...

by Anon Wed Feb 25, 2004 03:00

"I fear that this will further separate an already fragmented movement."

Yeah, but it's the shennagans of the SWP that have caused this break not the actions of the CAWC. If they didn't break it would look like they were agreeing with stuffed meetings and the devious expulsions of dissident members of the committee. Somebody had to say stop and highlight what is going on. If everybody says silent, and pretends it's no big deal, then the manipulation and deviousness goes on.

We need more integrity in the anti-war movement, not less of it. CAWC did the right thing.

by David Wed Feb 25, 2004 10:40

The media are wilfully ignorant. They still think that Globalised resistance are responsible for RTS and they'll still call RBB for a comment every time they hear about any peace demonstration no matter which group will have called it.

Well done to the CAWC.

by Race Traitor Wed Feb 25, 2004 10:43

by monopolising revolution tehe SWP have stalled and fragmented every organisation which they have become involved in...the IAWM is another example..will they attempt to break up they 're other front the Anti-Racism network in Belfast ?

by Ciaron Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:10

Naming the thang Iris Anti War MOVEMENT was a brilliant marketing/brand manouvere. I have consistently refused to use the name along with United Kingdom etc etc.

As I pointed out a year ago (see letter from jail on our website www.ploughsharesireland.org if you can be bothered)....a lot of folks saw the war as a marketting opportunity.

SWP have a long history of ambulance chasing through the left. They're always going to be there fucking things up. I would be totally amazed if they are not infiltrated at the highest levels by the State. If the state had a priority during this period it was to keep the movement away from Shannon Airport. The SWP did a great job in delivering that, policing the movement etc. If they weren't on the State payroll they should be!

Their total opportunism and lack of mutuality is what has pissed me off in the last 25 years of interacting with them. I have seen little evidence of socialism or workers and only the occasional party during this period.

Recent cables between US Embassy Dublin and the State Dept (released last wekeend) reveal that Cowen was confident that he could deliver the courts in the Ed Horgan case and the Embassy was confident that irish opposition to the uS military use of Shannon would wind down and peter out.

Meanwhile in the Ploughshares case the Prosecution are performing all sorts of gymnastics to avoid delivering the discovery (in relation to the nature of US military flights at Shannon) ordered by the Judge. Showdown Thursday Green 10 am

by Martin Dolan - None Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:22

I think the decision to split is the wrong one.

The crux of the matter is whether the anti war movement can go forward by focusing on getting thousands of people involved (in my opinion to only way to stop Shannon refuelling) or getting small numbers of activists down to Shannon, and publicising our disruptive tactics.

I think with the upcoming Bush visit and the March 20th demo theres a chance of getting things going in a serious way.

The SWP and the SP have argued strongly for the former, true, their larger numbers as organisations have won steering committe votes, but as a member of neither party, and I havent been to a steering committe meeting, but I still think they are using the correct tactics.

Appreciate the genuine frustration of those wanting something to happen, and I wish there was a shortcut to the laborious job of convincing thousands, but a couple of hundereds of us running arond Shanon airport wont change government policy.
I personally managed to fill a bus to Shannon in March last year, only for most people to pull out after the infamous publicisng of a particular tactic. Tactics are important, a viable alternative strategy to the IAWM has never been articulated, apart from the usual red baiting I see on here.

In the meantime the important job of building for March 20th remains. I hope the Cork group reconsiders. We cant afford the luxury of seperate movements on this issue.

by David Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:38

On feb 15 over 100 thousand people marched in dublin. This was not, as the SWP would have us believe, because of the great work of the Irish Anti War movement, most people had never heard of it. It was because of the dedication of the Peace Camp, because of Eoin Dubsky and Tim Hourigan and Conor Cregan and members of the Grassroots Network and local groups from all around the country who had put in a huge amount of groundwork. The media attention came from the ACTIONS of these people, not the words of the S.W.P.
There will be a large demonstration against Bush in June and it will happen because People on the ground are very angry about what he has done to our planet and not because of a name hijacked by the SWP

by MArtin Dolan Wed Feb 25, 2004 12:05

In my experience the key to the success of building a large movement is having people on the ground who will build

The key to succes on Feb 15th was having possibly a few thousand activists in communities, workplaces, colleges and schools, even churces who put in the backbone of publicising, convincing, booking buses etc. It didnt just happen.

Similarly for the March 20th and bush visits, great chance to build on what was acheived then. But its going to take a lot of work.

Quite frankly, the idea of splitting the movement at this stage is just ludicrous, the vast majority of people who have or will take a stance dont give a toss about the arguments in these pages, they may however be prepared to do something to build or take action (some may even want to go to Shannon) But a thrust to drive for an alternative campaign because we didnt get our way on Shannon is wrong and divisive, will weaken the movement in my opinion.

Once again I hope the Cork group changes its mind on this, and stays focused on the real issues.

by Anon Wed Feb 25, 2004 12:14

I agree with Martin Dolan, the only people who will benefit from this will be Fianna fail/PD's.

The right wing media like the Sunday Indo will have a field day on this, portray the anti war folk as a bunch of loonies.

I dont know what has gone in the steering committe or general meetings, in fact I dont care, I've put in a lot of effort in the last year, and now I see the emphasis is to cleanse the ant war movement of the nasty trots.

I think we're starting to lose perspective here.
Theres a war of occupation going on remember?

P.S. For what its worth, I agree the Cork group should change its mind.

by Ray Wed Feb 25, 2004 12:15

One reason for the split is the disagreement between those who want to march in Shannon and march in Dublin (CAWC and others) and those who only want to march in Dublin (the SWP et al).
If all there was to it was a tactical diagreement, maybe there wouldn't have been a split.
The thing that pushed this to a head is the way the SWP have tried to force through their preferred policy - kicking people off the steering committee, and packing meetings with 'delegates' from non-existent groups. There is no possibility for honest debate ionside the IAWM, no chance that you can convince others of your position by making cogent arguments. The SWP don't care what you think, don't care about the logic of your position, and are not interested in compromise. They want to get their own way, and will do whatever is necessary in that cause.

by Martin Dolan - None Wed Feb 25, 2004 12:51

Of course Its bound to be frustrating to lose the vote on Shannon when you feel so committed to the cause, and yes, it is galling when larger organisations vote on block to get their way. Its one of the reasons I hate being an independent, but that is life!

There is certainly a vacuum in terms of active membership in the anti war movement at present, but this is a temporary situation, and in the meantime it would be madness to dissolove the general organisation because of this. This may change as new life comes back in the current year.

As regards the expulsions, I have spokent to people on both sides of the argument, and nobody really comes out smelling of roses, but it seems from speaking to neutrals that a concerted attempt was made to wreck the meeting which brought about the action taken. The quick move to set up another group makes me suspcious of the motives of whether this was a motive of those conerned.

In any case the war of occupation in Iraq goes on, but so what, we have found our own war to fight - with each other.

At the risk of sounding like a famous old Fianna Fail TD whining, Please Cork, dont split the movement!

by Taking the hump Wed Feb 25, 2004 13:08

The SWP have a long history of using issues solely to recruit new members. Any left group is quite entitled to recruit from campaigns and movements etc. The SWP however, only get into something they think that they can grab a few people from. When they have their quota they move on to take another front name from the shelf. They are a liability and it is time everybody stopped treating them as if they were a credible organisation just because they happen to be the largest left group (which is not saying much, but how much of their membership is only on paper. it is always the same faces who turn up at meeting.)

They did the same thing with teh Socialist Alliance. It decided when it was set up that it would be more than an electoral alliance and would be 32 county wide. The SWP came along and decided afterwards that it would only be an electoral alliance and that it would not be 32 county wide. That the north would ahve its own one,where they could suck up to loyalism.

It is time to ignore them.

by Ray Wed Feb 25, 2004 13:11

First off, the Cork anti-war campaign has been around as a separate entity for ages. It affiliated to the IAWM, but it was always a group in its own right. So this is not a 'quick move to set up a new group', its an old group reasserting its independence.
Secondly, the problem with the IAWM is not that votes were lost. Its that votes were RIGGED.
If the votes were simply lost - if a majority of anti-war activists around the country simply thought that the focus of activity should be in Dublin - that would be one thing. It means there is a possibility of debate, of changing minds. It also means that the decision that was made, even if you disagree with it, at least represents the honest and true opinion of the anti-war movement. But that's not what happened.
The vote was lost because SWP members turned up claiming to represent anti-war groups. That means that the decision didn't represent the opinions of anti-war activists, it represented the opinion of the organisation who packed the meeting.
Why put up with that? Why participate in a farce? Why bother putting forward an argument when you know that the people in the meeting aren't listening and don't represent anyone but the SWP? Its a waste of time, time that could be better spent on organising actual anti-war activity.

by Frank Wed Feb 25, 2004 13:25

I dont usually write in to indymedia, though I do have browse from time to time. I feel I have to put in my tuppence here though.

I was at the meeting last week where the US military families against the war spoke. It was a brilliant meeting and a really positive feeling emerged where we could do something in the coming months, there was thousands of leaflets available to encourage me to bring people along to the March 20th demo, and the George Galloway meeting. Eoin rice's case was well publicised, there was a feeling of lets this thing back on the road. I was impressed with the way The Irish Anti War movement gave a real feeling of hope that we could all do something positive.
It didnt in any way tally with their portrayal in some of the messages here.

Now I read that the Cork group wants to split off and form an alternative grouping???

What planet are these people living in?
I am disgusted that supposedly genuine activists are going down this divisive road. Like others I dont care about the SWP, though I believe the SP are also heavily involved in the organisation, fair play to whoever puts this event on the road.

Shame on the splitters!

by Joe Wed Feb 25, 2004 13:26

There is a need for an Irish anti war movement that can at least network all the anti war groups. But not only is the IAWM not such a movement it never has been, the SWP/SP has worked hard to keep it seperate it from other anti war movements.

An anti-war network needs to be built but this will be a slow process because of the level of distrust caused by the SWP/SP breakup of the IAWM.

by Major Woody Wed Feb 25, 2004 13:36

"SWP loses allies

Over recent weeks, the Socialist Workers Party’s ‘anti-capitalist’ front, Globalise Resistance, has had to update its website rather frequently, because of a string of resignations. As GR has no real local organisation, this steering group is the only body with some life in it that exists independently of the mother ship."
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/516/gr.html

by John - CAWC member (personal capacity) Wed Feb 25, 2004 13:54

I understand that some people are upset because the Cork Anti-War Campaign has decided to disaffiliate from IAWM. Most of these people are against the idea of breaking off for genuine reasons. They feel it would damage the national campaign (I was going to use the term 'movement' but that might be misunderstood, so complete is the IAWM's monopoly of the term).

The truth is Cork was effectively frozen out from the beginning, as was anybody else from outside a particular political party. The failure of the IAWM to mobilise to support Fintan Lane and others who were jailed or before the courts amply illustrates this. One can only wonder what mountains they would have moved if RBB or one of the other acolytes had been put behind bars. We probably wouldn't hear the end of it for 20 years. But they had to be pleaded with to actually come out and issue a statement on behalf of Fintan.

The disaffiliation with IAWM is, in my view, irreversible. There's no point in speculating on what might have been. Let's get on with building a credible campaign.

by Badman Wed Feb 25, 2004 14:05

"Shame on the splitters!"

Frank above simply _has_ to be Kevin Wingfield of the SWP. Nobody else on Indymedia uses such life of Brian language without any sense of irony. I'd say that the other 'unity' posters are also SWP leaders. Their faux naivety smacks of the SWP imagination of what an 'ordinary person' thinks. "I'm not too interested in all of this politics stuff, let's have unity, and I'm really excited about the next SWP march". Puh-leez.

Anybody who has been following the evolution of the IAWM will know that when the say unity, they mean obedience.

by Analyst Wed Feb 25, 2004 14:36

The comments about the SWP on this thread are interesting, but also leave much out. Their behaviour is not much different from other Leninist inspired groups, such as the SP. The model is that a party must be built in their image, around so-called 'democratic centralism' - something which is certainly centralist but rarely democratic. Illusions of superiority and various other consequences follow, and a number of people have pointed out that the SWP/ SP etc are frankly cults.

Rather than berate the SWP for behaving badly (they are no worse than their rivals), can't we recognise that their basic model is inherently flawed, and build a left around different principles that take serious account of the Bolshevik experience rather than which seek only to emulate its worst sides?

Just a thought.... We have decades more experience than Lenin, and should certainly therefore aim to do better.

by simon Wed Feb 25, 2004 15:36

The SWP ate my hamster!
they are well known for this kind of thing, but it never gets reported

by Frank S - none Wed Feb 25, 2004 15:41

Fintan Lane writes that the Cork Anti War Campaign voted to disaffiliate from the IAWM.
He notes 'The Cork Anti-War Campaign is a broad-based organisation that draws support from a wide range of individuals and political parties.'
In line with his professed championing of diversity of viewpoints, could Fintan tell us:-

1 How many people were at the Cork meeting on Monday that decided to disaffiliate?

2 What political parties were represented at the meeting?

3 Was a representative of the IAWM Steering Committee invited to put their point of view so that everyone present could make a decision having heard both points of view? Or was Fintan's report of events the only one heard?

I'm sure Fintan would not like people to take away any unfortunate impressions, and will be happy to supply the answers to these simple questions.

by Ray Wed Feb 25, 2004 15:43

Can we start with the minutes from the IAWM conference that was packed by the SWP?
And then the minutes from the IAWM Steering Committee meeting that expelled two members?

by McHugh Wed Feb 25, 2004 15:47

Why on Earth do ANY political parties have to have been represented at the meeting? Lane said that it is a broad based grouping - many people who don't want to be a part of any political group would be much happier to go along with that than an IAWM packed with SWPers waiting for a revolution.

by John Wed Feb 25, 2004 15:47

I am a regular reader and contributor to Indymedia. I have always tried to defend the Swp and like some of the above posters have always pleaded for unity. But Indymedia has provided a forum of transparency and democracy where Machiavellian dealings by any one group are exposed.

The Cork Anti War Group, Fintan Lane and Tim Hourigan are people whom I respect. To me their criticisms of the Swp are the final straw in my credibility of them. To people like Ray whom I have argued against, it looks like you were right and I was wrong.

My disappointment with the Swp is huge.

However to the people above who have cried UNITY - I still do agree with you to some extent. Despite their self interested way of doing things, the Swp do A LOT of work for the left in Ireland, anti-war activity etc. etc. And there are a lot of genuine members. I think the CAWC was probably right to split but where possible should work together with the Swp on common interests, but as separate entities.

So I don't think we should go hating one another here but rather work together where possible. But as regarding a unified organization, the Swp have proved themselves unworkable to that extent for the time being.

by -Irish pacifist non resident in Ireland Wed Feb 25, 2004 15:54

If CAWM have now split from IAWM and it seems that very serious allegations are being made by other member groups, does it not seem past time that the IAWM disband.
I do not think the IAWM is entitled to the prefix "irish" if it no longer represents the Irish republic's second city.

by John Jefferies - CAWC member - in a personal capacity Wed Feb 25, 2004 16:18

Frank S - whoever he is, poses three questions for Fintan.

I'll leave it to Fintan himself to decide if he wishes to answer questions from an anonymous poster, but I do want to clarify one point raised in "Frank S"s second question.

No political parties were represented at the Cork Anti-War Campaign or are ever represented. There are some individuals who may be members of a political party (including myself, a member of the Workers' Party) but every person present was there as an individual member of the Cork Anti-War Campaign.

And yes, in answer to "McHugh's" point, the Cork Anti War Campaign is a broadly based group and members of political parties are in a very definite minority, but nevertheless contribute to the campaign as individuals.

Finally, "Irish pacifist..." seems a bit confused. There is no such organisation as the CAWM. Our group is the Cork Anti War Campaign (CAWC) and while it was, up until this week, affiliated to the Irish Anti-War Movement, it was never a branch of that movement, but an independent group.

by McHugh Wed Feb 25, 2004 16:21

Yes, I was writing in support of the Cork group, didn't mean to 'diss' Fintan by calling him 'Lane'.

by Dermot Wed Feb 25, 2004 16:52 Derry

Listen, folks, the anti-war movement, the left generally, is too small for us to indulge ourselves with splits. It's true that the delegates to IAWM meetings are usually SWP but that isn't all their faults. Here in Derry, where we have a broad anti-war coalition but where SWPers do most of the work, they BEG anyone else to attend but it almost always ends up as one of them because no one else has the time or energy to make it all the way to Dublin. On a few occasions, others have said they'd go but then they don't make it and we are not represented. I don't always agree with the decisions of the IAWM and really HATED the SWP after Hillsborough, but a split? Cork must reconsider!

by Frank S - none Wed Feb 25, 2004 16:53

Not clear from his post if John Jeffries was at the meeting which disaffiliated from the IAWM.
If he was he would at least be able to tell us how many were there and if they heard anyone from the IAWM Steeering Committee to put their side of the argument.
If you don't like the term "represented" in relation to political parties, it would give us some idea of the diversity of opinion at that important meeting if he indicated what parties had members there.
Or can anyone else in CAWC enlighten us?
These aren't very controversial or difficult questions and would help outsiders assess the measure of Fintan's claims.

by Joe Wed Feb 25, 2004 17:05

Its a little odd that those who have suddenly found the need to demand that CAWC post details and answer questions about its meetings did not feel the need to do the same of any IAWM group or the IAWM SC. I'm sure we would all be very interested in such details for the Dublin IAWM local groups who all sent SWP members to the 'stop protests at Shannon' SC meeting. I won't hold my breath though!

That aside what is all this nonsense about a 'split'. Only the IAWM supporters are talking of a 'split'. For the rest of us the anti-war movement has NEVER been united in the first place. Remember the SWP/SP on the SC made sure that other anti-war groups could not even send observers to IAWM SC meetings. The SWP/SP went on national radio and the Irish Times to attack other anti-war activists. Unity was never on the SWP/SP agenda.

by Ray Wed Feb 25, 2004 17:09

"It's true that the delegates to IAWM meetings are usually SWP but that isn't all their faults. "

It IS their faults, because these SWP members are 'delegates' from groups that DON'T EXIST.
How can I make this any clearer? The SWP knew that that the conference would be discussing where to hold demonstrations. It wanted to make sure that demonstrations would only be held in Dublin, and never in Shannon. The SWP leadership wasn't sure they'd win if it came to a vote.
So they got their members together and said, "Okay, you go to the conference, and say you're from the Rathmines group. You say you're from the Dun Laoghaire group. You say you're from the Cabra group. You say you're from the Crumlin group. And you all make sure to vote for demonstrations to be held in Dublin, and never in Shannon."
There are no Rathmines, Dun laoghaire, Cabra, or Crumlin IAWM groups.
Packing a meeting with delegates from non-existent groups is the 'fault' of the SWP. (and of the SP and anyone else who goes along with it)

by PJ - Rathmines Anti War Group Wed Feb 25, 2004 17:47

There most certainly is a Rathmines branch of the IAWM, and it has met on a weekly basis for months now. It also has regular stalls, has a broad make-up (not dominated by the SWP) and is holding a fundraiser tomorrow night. It would help if people got their facts right before posting on this site.

by Ray Wed Feb 25, 2004 17:58

Here's a list of the groups that sent delegates, and the people sent:

Ballyfermot Against War Charlie O Toole SWP
Ballymun Against the war Kevin Wingfield SWP
Clondalkin Against the war Micky McGuigan SWP
Cork anti war DCampaign Eoin McGuire ?
Dundrum Antiwar Mellissa Halpin SWP
Dun Laoighre Antiwar Dave Lorden SWP
Drumcondra Antiwar Donal Ni Fheaearragh SWP
MAMA ( limrick ) Conor Creegan ?
Phibsborough Antiwar Helena McNeill SWP
Rathmines Antiwar Conor Kavenagh? ?
Tralee Against War Debs? ?
Trinity Cllege A W Rory Ahearn SWP
UCD Against War Thoma Something ?
Waterford Against War Roy Hassey SWP
Waterford trades Council John ?
Belfast Padraic ? ?
Bray Siobhan Stapelton ?
Gorey John McCarthy? ?
South City Denis Redmond ?
St Pats ? Niall Smith

I'll stand corrected, and accept that there may be an actual Rathmines group. Are you going to claim that there are actual, active IAWM groups in Ballyfermot, Ballymun, Clondalkin, Dundrum, Dun Laoghaire, Drumcondra, Phibsboro, TCD, and Waterford, and that these are not just the local SWP groups?

by Obsever Wed Feb 25, 2004 18:16

Were SWP members. Dundrum Melissa Halpin lives in Dolphins Barn!

SP were represented by Michael O'Brien (Steering Committee), Denis Keane (CPSU, paid up affiliate) and Kevin Croake, (Youth Against War).

I recall it was MO'B who called for a roll call of delegates. During the break I asked him where were was the anti war groups from Fingal etc and he told me that he was going to try to revive the work in Swords for the upcoming events but wasn't going to make false claims for groups which were not active for voting purposes.

I then challanged him about the large SWP presence to which he answered that at a steering meeting before a similar national meeting last year in Wynns he and Kevin McGloughlin who was then also on the steering committee raised objections about phoney SWP local groups and proposed a reduced level of Dublin representation at future national meetings. A barney between the SWP and SP ensued before it was put to a vote which the SWP won with the support of non aligned people.

Can anybody verify this? MO'B if your out there and want to salvage some credability for the IAWM and the SP for that matter you will have to take up this arguement again and if you get nowhere the SP should bail out and expose the IAWM as a SWP plaything.

by Swap shoppe Wed Feb 25, 2004 18:26

Lives in the borough, IAWMer for Drumcondra and then Anti-bin tax organiser for Coolock.
I hope he gets travel allowance.

by Padraig Wed Feb 25, 2004 19:02

Some of the posters here (probably SWP trolls and maybe the same person) are kinda missing the point:

1. The SWP stuffed the 31st of January with bogus delegates from bogus branches, and then pushed through motions like calling off demos at Shannon using this rigged majority. Shame on them. And there is no reason to believe that they wouldn't use these disgraceful tactics again if they wanted to win a vote or push something through.

2. They expelled two opposition members of the steering committee using ambush tactics, and not having put this item on the agenda circulated to SC members. They knew in advance that Harry Browne, Fintan Lane and Tim Hourigan would not be present. Only six members (including four SWP) actually voted to expel these 'troublemakers'.

3. They have called off demos at Shannon, even as Rumsfeld was visiting and troops pass through on a daily basis (and they did this by rigging a meeting).

4. They, and their allies, have tried to systematically misrepresent those oppose to their manipulative behaviour, and complete lack of strategy, by claiming that this is a divide between those who believe in a broad, mass, and inclusive movement (themselves supposedly) and those that prioritise direct action and small demos at Shannon (their opponents). In reality, groups like CAWC are much more inclusive than the IAWM (i.e. is not made up wholly of SWP members) and have also supported and organised large marches.

Finally, snide comments about CAWC and stupid questions from trolls should not be responded to. Everybody knows Fintan Lane as a person of great integrity and everybody is also aware of the enormous and brilliant work of CAWC over the last 18 months. What we have here are a few SWP trolls engaging in a crude 'damage limitation exercise'. CAWC was never a branch of the IAWM, but a separate affiliated organisation.

Well done Fintan and CAWC for speaking out and telling the truth! The IAWM, instead of being defensive, needs to examine how they managed to alienate and lose such good people. In my opinion, it is now an organisation without credibility.

by Anon Wed Feb 25, 2004 19:08

"Rathmines Antiwar Conor Kavenagh? ?" is Conor Kenneally of the SWP.

by Anonymous Wed Feb 25, 2004 19:18

I agree with the move taken by Cork. I don't understand the comments about 'splitters' etc because how could anybody stay connected to an organisation that's an blatently a front as the IAWM is for the SWP?? For fucks sake, get a grip! Typical Irish attitude maybe - keep the head down and down say anything in public, pretend everythings ok when its not. Cork activists have done the right thing.

by Joe Wed Feb 25, 2004 19:51

The hijacking of the IAWM by the SWP is beyond dispute. It is proven. A fact. Only a fool would deny it to be the case.

Question is: were Cork correct to disaffilliate?

Answer: Absolutely because somebody had to speak out and demand a halt to what is happening. It is futile to bury your head in the sand in the hope that things will correct themselves by themselves. The world doesn't work like that. If the Cork lot had shouted stop somebody else would have anyway. I suppose one difference is that the SWP will have to take account of a group like Cork, and people like Fintan, whereas they could afford to ignore other whistle-blowers.

Silence is not ALWAYS golden, and sometimes a bit of plainspeaking is a very good thing. This is definitely an instance of that.

by Laurence Vize - Fairview Against The War Wed Feb 25, 2004 19:55

I have made NO contribution to this thread all above are trolls.

I congratulate the Cork people on their principled stand.

Cheers Laurence

by CAWC activist Wed Feb 25, 2004 20:00

Somebody sez that Cork should change its mind! The letter fintan has written is a lot milder than what I would have sent. Unity without respect is no unity at all. Remember that when fintan was PRO the chair organised press conferences without consulting him.

by David Wed Feb 25, 2004 20:17

And who no longer wish to deal with the IAWM be accused of being splitters? I'm not a member of the Sparts and i dont do what they tell me to do, am i a splitter too?
Just because they call it the "movement" doesnt make it so (just because the USSR described themselves as soviet and socialist and republic didn't make that so either)

by Dermot Wed Feb 25, 2004 20:46 Derry

I know Padraig from Belfast Anti War group and he would be VERY upset to be described as SWP - he is a republican.
As for Tralee group being an SWP front, they had over 200 people at a march before Christmas. Our group here in Derry has been accused on Indymedia of being an SWP front, but it's not. It's always been very broad, including Quakers and lots of independents like myself. Like I said before: is it better not to be represented at all than to be represented by an SWPer? They end up doing the representing because no one else will spend an entire day travelling up and down to Dublin.

by Joe Wed Feb 25, 2004 21:56

The CAWC letter refers to the alleged DUBLIN groups that were represented. The Tralee delegates at that meeting were, by all accounts, as pissed off as Cork and Limerick/Clare. Tralee is anything but an SWP front. They wanted a continuation of demos at Shannon and also asked for a roll call during which people would give their political affiliation (cos they smelled a rat) but they were howled down by shouts of 'McCarthyism' from...well, guess who.

Do the maths and go through the list of Dublin delegates supplied above. The overwhelming majority are just flags of convenience used by local SWP branches. Everybody knows that the meeting on the 31st of January was rigged and packed with bogus SWP delegates. Even the SP are fuming about that.

That meeting was important because it was decided IAWM priorities etc for the next few months. So motions were passed by a rigged meeting that are binding on the IAWM steering committee. Is such a disgraceful rigging of such an important meeting a matter that should cause uproar in the IAWM? Yes. Any chance that Derry will raise its voice against this gerrymandering? After all, you should know what gerrymandering is all about, having endured enough of it.

by David C. Wed Feb 25, 2004 22:42

You really think that this stuff matters, don't you!

In my view the anti-war 'movement' in ireland has failed completely because it is primarily about the egos of its participants.
Just another bunch of monkeys climbing a status hierarchy.

by 4th International Wed Feb 25, 2004 23:15

He's just an SWP troll. It's a typical tactic from them. They've utterly destroyed the credibility of genuine peace campaigners in Ireland.

by David C. Wed Feb 25, 2004 23:38

This is absolutely unbelievable!!

Actually I'd never heard of the SWP until I started reading this thread, however I do admit that I am beginning to develop some sympathy for them!!!

Keep up the good work!!! Ha ha ha ha!!!

by Anon Thu Feb 26, 2004 00:32

It seems that the SWP are blithely unaware of the damage they've caused to the IAWM and the wider anti-war movement. It always seems to be somebody else's fault.

There are many good people in the SWP but they are poorly served by their current leadership.

Perhaps the Bush visit will bring us all back together on a more equal, democratic and friendly basis. In the meantime, I think Cork took the only route open to them.

by eve f. Thu Feb 26, 2004 00:40

unfortunately a totally understandable position has been taken by cawc.

doesn't the iawm see that the egos and politics of a few -who may very well have only the best of intentions at heart- is effectively discrediting and trivializing the whole peace movement in ireland?

such splits like this only get pounced on by the media who present it in such a way that makes every one involved in it seem incompetent.

the apparent domination of the iawm by the swp is beneficial to no one- politics should be kept out as much as possible if a sustainable, strong and united peace movement is to evolve country-wide.

by David C. Thu Feb 26, 2004 01:53

♫ ♪ ♫ "all we are saaaaaaying...is give peace a chance!" ♫ ♪ ♫

Splittists are people too!

by Mary Thu Feb 26, 2004 02:05

It's a shame that it has come to this. I can understand why CAWC did this though, and it does appear that the IAWM is a complete mess and needs to address serious deficiencies.

I hope people can sort out their differences at some stage in the future, or at least work together as separate groups (but amicably).

by Anthony G. Thu Feb 26, 2004 04:45

It appears that some people in the SWP are living in denial: we all KNOW that the meeting at the end of January was packed/stuffed/rigged! That's not even an issue. But this time some anti-war activists have obviously decided against being complicit and have refused to look the other way.

Why should CAWC reconsider? Maybe if the SWP apologised for its corrupt behaviour, stood down from its 4 officer positions (including chair and secretary), and promised never to rig meetings in future, then they might reconsider. Will any of that happen? Not a chance.

The SWP will be hoping that 20th of March and the coming Bush visit will allow them to reassert their dominance. Trouble is, it isn't going to work. The credibility of the IAWM is shattered and, short of some genuine contrition, very few activists will want anything to do with it.

What about the other 'independents' on the steering committee? Are they putting up with this, and providing a screen for the SWP junta?

by MAMA Thu Feb 26, 2004 10:22

Just an aside but there are no SWP people in MAMA and Conor is definitely not one

by Captain Moonlight Thu Feb 26, 2004 15:51

Can we assume that the SWP is indifferent to this discussion, since none of the above 60 comments purports to come from the party (SWP members in the past have disdained Indymedia contributions when not clearly signed, so it surely follows that none of them would use a pseudonym).

by hs - sp Thu Feb 26, 2004 16:39

I see alot of people writing swp/sp as if it was one organisation. Sort of like the way unionists say Sinn Fein/IRA, just to put on the record the sp is not a part of the swp and has taken part in many campaigns such as water,bin tax etc and has always been able to work with others without the problems the swp has always had. You may not like the politics of the socialist party but please avoid cheap shots of swp/sp as if we organised the same sort of fronts, anyone on the left knows the truth on that. Anarchists it seems are good at playing politics too : )

by Ray Thu Feb 26, 2004 16:42

MIJAG?

by Patrick Thu Feb 26, 2004 16:54

..the truth is out there.
The SP have not brought their force to bear in the anti-war movement. You didn't let the SWP away with anything in the anti-bin tax campaign but till this point the SP haven't shown the same rigour in the IAWM. I suppose every group, particulary smaller ones have to prioritise but that does not excuse the fact that you have been unable to or for that matter give the perception of standing up to disgusting practices carried out by the SWP.
Unless the SP moves to stop the SWP it is only natural that you will be tarred with the one brush.

by hs - sp Thu Feb 26, 2004 17:19

"The SP have not brought their force to bear in the anti-war movement."

I don't know what excatly you mean by force, but as far as I am aware the sp has only one (or is it two) people on the steering comittee.
If we were to attack the IAWM or the SWP we would have a thousand comments on SP sectarianism. (in fact we have had on the ARN) Anyway people will learn through experience rather than an article written six months ago from the voice.

"You didn't let the SWP away with anything in the anti-bin tax campaign but till this point the SP haven't shown the same rigour in the IAWM. "

Two very different things, the IAWM like GR and the rest was set up by the SWP, people may have forgotten but they organised it from the beginning, just like all the other fronts the only difference with this one was it got popular support. The SP got involved quite late. I attended one meeting when it had already grown quite alot and we still weren't involved.

The anti bin campaign was organised by local communities and included the sp and most left groups, very very very different things. The SP was involved on this one from the beginning.

"I suppose every group, particulary smaller ones have to prioritise but that does not excuse the fact that you have been unable to or for that matter give the perception of standing up to disgusting practices carried out by the SWP. "

Yes every group does. But like you said perception is difficult to give on indymedia as its to easy to spread rumours etc or use subtle tricks like SWP/SP. people I know in my own party were suspisious of the IAWM from the beginning and pretty much expected this to happen. I'm not suprised at all to be honest. I was involved in the campaign for tenants rights started by the SWP six years ago and the excat same thing happened. I mean excatly. I would really need alot of convincing to join a campaign just to fight the swp, alot of convincing. I know we are leninists but most comrades would find that request very difficult. But why don't you attack any other group for not "stopping the SWP"?

"Unless the SP moves to stop the SWP it is only natural that you will be tarred with the one brush.."

This is a very big statement, it is not the role of the socialist party "to stop" the swp. If they concern you you stop them.

As for being tarred with the same brush you may now understand why we have refused to take part in the Socialist Alliance in Ireland and why the other attempts at electoral unity were turned down. There's not much else to do apart from repeat we are not them.

Some will obviously confuse us because of the similarity in names and others will confuse us because they want to for idelogical reasons, some of the anarchoes are more party political than the politicians!
All I can say is the water charge campaigns or the bin charge campaigns did not collapse in the same way or anything like this happen.
(as much as some of the anarchoes would love it to : ) )

by Joe Thu Feb 26, 2004 17:26

HS its not about how soon you got involved or how many delegates you send to SC meetings. It's about the fact that on EVERY issue of controversy you have voted with the SWP. In terms of the IAWM the tag SWP/SP describes something.

by Ray Thu Feb 26, 2004 17:34

Well, some other groups have tried. They refused to accept packed meetings, they fought for continued protests at Shannon, and they left the IAWM when it was clear that it was undemocratic.
The SP member of the steering committee voted to expel those who protested packed meetings, voted against protests at Shannon, and is still in the IAWM. If you follow the SWP's lead on everything then you're going to get tarred with the same brush.

by hs - sp Thu Feb 26, 2004 17:42

i thought the discussion was about how the SWP organise their campaigns and it was said that the SP organise in excatly the same way. Which is not true. (if you read the comments I was reffering too you will see the point I was making)

On the tactics of direct action which I think you are talking about, the sp put its position forward., ie there was no public support for it and if anything could work against the campaign. You can make up your own mind on that.
On protests at shannon (minus the masks) the sp supported and put forward a motion for a protest against Bush in shannon, which i believe lost.

My point is again that I think some anti party political libetarions have picked up some very party political habits over the last year. Seems truth is less important than some nice party political point scoring : )

by hs - sp Thu Feb 26, 2004 17:46

I could be behind on this, I do remember reading a report that the sp delegate proposed having a roll call for all delegates which was ruled aginst.
Are you sure that the SP delegates voted to expel the other two?
I haven't seen or read anything on their expulsion I'd appreciate a link to the report, thanks.

by Analyst Thu Feb 26, 2004 17:51

I like this idea that, unlike the nasty SWP, the SP would not organise fronts. Can I mention just two? The Labour and Trade Union Group a few years ago, and the Youth Campaign for Jobs. BOTH were just straightforward fronts. Money collected for either went straight to the then Militant central coffers; and other examples could be provided. It is much closer to the SWP in its practice than it finds it politic to admit....

by Phuq Hedd Thu Feb 26, 2004 17:51

included smearing the direct action protestors at Shannon. Here the SWP contribution was sending Richard Boyd-Barret onto the radio and the SP contribution was to have Joe Higgins mouthing about "virtual protestors" and Dominic Haugh (D O'Heochai) and Brian Cahill on this very site spouting hysterical fantasies about how the crowds were going to be attacked by armed airport police. Together the SWP/SP marched by the direct action in an ignominious displacement of effective mass action into spectacular moralism.

Sorry, HS-SP, but from the outside you look very similar: you're both electorally inclined Trotskyist parties that have shown a lack of solidarity with the central locus of protest and activity in Ireland.

For what it's worth, the SP seem slightly more honest than the SWP, but that's small comfort to any of us that have had anything to do with either of you.

by Joe Thu Feb 26, 2004 17:53

You can correct me if I am wrong but there were three other crucial votes relevant here

1. the vote in Nov/Dec on observers at IAWM meetings. SP/SWP voted to put restrictions on their attendance.
2. the vote on whether to call future protests at Shannon. SWP/SP voted against any such protests for 3 months
3. the vote to expel two SC members. SP/SWP voted for this.

To this we can add the that the SP played a key role in backing up the SWP over March 1st in several ways right down to SP members suggesting that those attending might be shot. (D. Haugh indymedia) and on the day itself attacking those on the GNAW demonstration as 'virtual warriors' at the very moment 10 of them were being bundled in the back of Gardai vans (J. Higgins, quoted in Irish Times and by various stupid puppies on indymedia right after. Oddly they seemed to find his remarks clever!).

The only thing I'm unsure of in this is (1) above but if wrong I'm sure I'll be corrected. I suspect other more involved in the IAWM can add to this list.

The point is on this issue the SWP/SP tag may be annoying (I suspect its meant to be) but it is also accurate. It's also meant to be a wake up call.

by hs - sp Thu Feb 26, 2004 17:57

lets get one thing straight, anarchists organised in the GG you were absolutely free to organise as you chose you had no swp or sp members interfering in this movement, do not blame things that went wrong for you on the sp. The sp is not a mass party with huge influence, I doubht if joe higgins comment had any effect on your actions. You could do anything you wanted if you couldn't get support or if your actions went wrong maybe you should look at yourself rather than blaming it all on one comment made by joe higgins,

by hs - sp Thu Feb 26, 2004 18:03

to be honest I'm suprised to hear mob voted to expel the two fairview people (if its true, if someone would like to clarify it). And I would find it almost impossible to agree with. (ie unless there was a really good reason) which i don't see. Anyway waiting for someone who was there to mention it.
The difference ontactics between direct action and protests does seem to be the main theme.

On the "fronts" the sp has had alot of campaigns linked to the party. But its clear that for example youth against the war was directly linked to us. The main difference you will notice though is that we won't harrass you to join the sp for six months.

by Joe Thu Feb 26, 2004 18:11

As we have heard before, if you want to know why don't you ring him and ask him. Sauce for the goose...

by imcer Thu Feb 26, 2004 18:20

The beginning of the war roaring their approval of mary kelly and her actions to the heavens - particularly when Paul (O'Toole) sang his song about mary kelly being the only one 'protecting our neutrality' while the politicians 'stand around idle' ? No I didn't because I have loads of video of it.

There was no lack of mass approval - there was a failure of nerve on the part of all Political Groups at the time of march 1st when they (Labour/Greens/PANA/NGO.PA/IAWM/SP/SWP) did everything possible rhetorically in many fora to isolate those putting forward an open plan for an effective way to actually win the whole thing.

The Joe Higgins thing is remembered from all this because of it's mocking tone. But it was the end of a long campaign of isolation and vilification rather than the whole of it.

A clear majority were opposed to the use of shannon by the US Military at the time and the best opportunity of the entire campaign was lost.

Only after the war had started and demoralisation had set in in a big way did the SWP and other parties call for and participate in NVCD. Keiran Allen made the announcement at the front of Trinity and it turned into the 'ring around the dail' attended by and participated in by SP/SF/SWP and an assorted motley crew. Mass support was evaporating very rapidly by the time of the ring around the dail because the war and our participation in it had become an inevatibility and disempowerment, apathy and frustration had set in.

It to me, as someone who followed all events at the time very closely (making a film as yet uncompleted), that the organised Irish political groups and anti war groups with the honourable exception of the GG played to lose and showed a complete unwillingness to rattle the cages of the establishment.

by Patrick Thu Feb 26, 2004 18:29

"I don't know what excatly you mean by force, but as far as I am aware the sp has only one (or is it two) people on the steering comittee.
If we were to attack the IAWM or the SWP we would have a thousand comments on SP sectarianism. (in fact we have had on the ARN) Anyway people will learn through experience rather than an article written six months ago from the voice."

I doubt that you would have a thousand negative comments, in fact I would say that you might win a lot more respect. And going on your own members report of the bin tax meeting organisied after Brid Smith was released from prison I would say that you would have less than one hundred seperate comments.

"Two very different things, the IAWM like GR and the rest was set up by the SWP, people may have forgotten but they organised it from the beginning, just like all the other fronts the only difference with this one was it got popular support. The SP got involved quite late. I attended one meeting when it had already grown quite alot and we still weren't involved.
The anti bin campaign was organised by local communities and included the sp and most left groups, very very very different things. The SP was involved on this one from the beginning."

All well and good but it doesn't take away from the fact that the SP have done very little to stop the SWP indulging in their undemocratic manoeuvres.

"Yes every group does. But like you said perception is difficult to give on indymedia as its to easy to spread rumours etc or use subtle tricks like SWP/SP. people I know in my own party were suspisious of the IAWM from the beginning and pretty much expected this to happen. I'm not suprised at all to be honest. I was involved in the campaign for tenants rights started by the SWP six years ago and the excat same thing happened. I mean excatly. I would really need alot of convincing to join a campaign just to fight the swp, alot of convincing. I know we are leninists but most comrades would find that request very difficult. But why don't you attack any other group for not "stopping the SWP"?"

Other groups have been more vocal in tackling the SWP and questioned what was going on at the recent delegate meeting. It does not seem clear that the SP questioned the legitimacy of the phantom groups and therefore how they abused the decision making process which sets out the future direction of the IAWM.

"This is a very big statement, it is not the role of the socialist party "to stop" the swp. If they concern you you stop them.
As for being tarred with the same brush you may now understand why we have refused to take part in the Socialist Alliance in Ireland and why the other attempts at electoral unity were turned down. There's not much else to do apart from repeat we are not them.
Some will obviously confuse us because of the similarity in names and others will confuse us because they want to for idelogical reasons, some of the anarchoes are more party political than the politicians!
All I can say is the water charge campaigns or the bin charge campaigns did not collapse in the same way or anything like this happen.
(as much as some of the anarchoes would love it to : ) )"

Again all well and good but just to say that you have refused to join the SA and give this as an example of standing up to the SWP is not really good enough. It is inevitable in a small country that it will arise that groups who distrust each other will find themselves working with each other, it is essential that when this happens, that those who point out the now traditional abuses of a particular group and how they orientate to a campaign are supported. Basically that is what I mean by saying that the SP should bring its force to bear. They must point out that the SWP are using their modus operandi of packing meetings, having phantom groups to manipulate the democratic process etc, etc.
Unless of course you are afraid that you would have something to fear if the same applied to yourselves.

by hs - sp Thu Feb 26, 2004 18:34

looking from the outside, as i've been out of the country for the whole thing. I've seen two campaigns organised from the start. One the grassroots gathering organised by the wsm and others and the other organised by the swp and others. One attracted more support than the other, this may have been mistaken but its fact. There may be a thousand reasons for this for at the end of the day it seems that the IAWM gathered more support. The GG was always free to organise as it saw fit.

If we look at the aim of the campaigns to be stopping the war, they both failed. If we look at the aim of the campaign to stop the use of shannon airport they both failed.
Its to easy just to blame the other campaign.
The GG could and did organise calls for direct action but as far as I could see it only attracted a small minority.
If the IAWM and the SWP and the SP never existed would the GG have gotten mass participation in direct action? And if so would they have succeeded? You should ask these questions.

And another question why was the IAWM more popular? And why couldn't the GG convinvce more people?

by Patrick Thu Feb 26, 2004 18:43

It strikes me that you are attempting to engage in a dick sizing competition now. Whether the IAWM attracted more than the GG is rather irrelevant to the current thread. For what its worth, don't fall into the SWP trap of claiming all the Feb 15th marchers. Most people who marched hadn't heard of RBB, MOB or the IAWM, they just knew that it was an opportunity to show that they were opposed to the attack on Iraq on the same day as millions throughout the world.
As a leninist you should perhaps ask yourself the question, how having got so people involved in the IAWM, why so many are pissed off?
Whatever you think of GG, at least one thing puts it miles ahead of the IAWM and that is the fact that it was democratic. No phamtom groups here.

by hs - sp Thu Feb 26, 2004 18:44

I think you've made some fair points. I think the lesson we should take from it is not to get involved in something like that again. as I said I got involved in a campaign once with the delegates thing happened. we complained.
(I was the only sp member in that campaign.
Eventually we left but when we had our first public meeting 10 or more swimmers turned up and wrecked it. )
I don't know about the IAWM as I haven't been there but sounds similar. probably like my experience there is no option left but to leave.
(but thats my living outside the country opinion, personal capacity and all the rest!)

by hs - sp Thu Feb 26, 2004 18:54

dick size competition? what are you talking about? I was simply and I thought having a reasonable debate with you. There was nothing in the comparision, i was simply making the point that the gg did not get the support necessary to defeat the war and the IAWM should not be used as an excuse. For the 150,ooo that was part of an international event, here in rome we had 3,000,000 and you might be suprised to hear that the IAWM or the GG or the sectarianism, don't exist here. Also here the communists have organised direct actions involving tens or thousands. But again that didn't work here either, theres no point in saying "its all the trots/commies/anarchists etc fault" if you're not willing to take a step back and see what went wrong.
The problem is we need a mass democratic movement, as far as I can see neither the GG nor the IAWM fills that bill and thats all.
I wouldn't blame the GG for the faults of the IAWM or vice versa. Just two campaigns we should learn from.

by Phuq Hedd Thu Feb 26, 2004 18:55

QUOTE: "lets get one thing straight, anarchists organised in the GG you were absolutely free to organise as you chose you had no swp or sp members interfering in this movement,"

ANSWER: On the contrary, the very vocal and very public contributions by the much larger two Trotskyist parties SP/SWP affected the attempt to organise a mass direct action very significantly. You provided the fodder for the right-wing press to paint a scary situation of "violence", you hyped the whole situation and made PUBLIC statements. The intent of public statements is to influence people. This is definitely interference and there will always be interference by one political group with another unless one's politics are a purely theoretical affair. I don't dispute your right to interfere in this manner: I do however dispute the correctness of your actions. Both you (by which I mean SP) and the SWP were as one on this issue which is one point of evidence that leads some to label you as S(W)P.

QUOTE: "do not blame things that went wrong for you on the sp. "

ANSWER: Many factors led to the failure to shut down Shannon warport with mass direct action. Some of these were internal to GG. However you attempted to publically influence the situation and to dissuade people from taking this action. I think you are being too modest in disavowing any affect upon us your socialist comrades in arms. I'm going to be remembering the part played by the S(W)P for ever. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

QUOTE: "The sp is not a mass party with huge influence, I doubht if joe higgins comment had any effect on your actions."

ANSWER: It didn't have any effect on the actions, but I think a reasonable person would see that if Uncle Joe leads the S(W)P foot soldiers in their hundreds past the smaller number of protestors then there's a direct effect right there. If Uncle Joe shoots his mouth off to the right-wing media then we can only surmise that he contributed to discouraging people from coming down to Shannon.

QUOTE: "You could do anything you wanted if you couldn't get support or if your actions went wrong maybe you should look at yourself rather than blaming it all on one comment made by joe higgins,"

ANSWER: I think where we went wrong was co-operating with you effers from the start. I have always argued that libertarian socialists should steer clear from Trotskyists, Leninists and Stalinists of all stripes. I think you in the S(W)P have proven that. The WSM have disagreed with the idea that Trotskyists should be assumed de facto to be a problem, but I hope this has been a political education for them.

by Phuq Hedd Thu Feb 26, 2004 19:00

QUOTE: " For the 150,ooo that was part of an international event, here in rome we had 3,000,000"

ANSWER: And there were millions in the streets all over the world and the only thing that actually stopped any munitions going to the war were the direct actions. Thanks to you and the rest of your electorally oriented Trotskyist friends mass popular dissent was stifled, diverted and dispelled. All part of how the machine works. Well done S(W)P.

by Joe Thu Feb 26, 2004 19:03

HS you are presenting a false argument above. No one blames the IAWM as a whole for 'failing to stop the war'. That would be stupid.

We are blaming a certain faction within the IAWM, referred to as SWP/SP for undermining direct action and for sabotaging democracy within the IAWM. Your 'we are all to blame' distraction is just a red herring to avoid analysis of what happened. A very odd position for a 'scientific' socialist to take!

Reading between the lines of your posts you clearly see where the SP was wrong but because you are not allowed say so in public you are instead trying the old 'nothing to see here, move along now' routine.

by hs - sp Thu Feb 26, 2004 19:04

Peple who disagreed withyour tactics have every right to say so. Now you are as we know all for democracy, yet if someone disagrees with you are they not allowed to argue against it? You were perfectly free and are to argue against us and our tactics. We will not cry "its all the anarchists fault" if know one votes for us. Even though you argue against voting. But again I will repeat I don't think you would have gotten many more people along if neither the SP or swp existed.
but the point still stands if you do not get support maybe it might just might have something to do with your policies and tactics.

by hs - sp Thu Feb 26, 2004 19:11

I said no such thing joe. personally I see the anti war movement as being broader than just what happens in one country. (especially when I don't live there)
I was just looking at it from the outside historically, so we have two movements, one GG which like anarchism as a whole generally (i'll get in trouble for this) never seems to organise anything in the mass. it seems to saty more idelogically pure but very clubby (sorry) And then the IAWM which like the left as a whole has problems with democracy.
The certain faction within the IAWM if you take the SWP were the ones that organised it.
Personally Like i said probably the SP would have been better off not getting involved and definitely not support everything the swp said.
So what do we do...

(i'll leave it at that, gotta work)

by Phuq Hedd Thu Feb 26, 2004 19:15

QUOTE: "Peple who disagreed withyour tactics have every right to say so. Now you are as we know all for democracy, yet if someone disagrees with you are they not allowed to argue against it? "

ANSWER: I know you're not stupid, so that means you're being disingenuous. I never said you have no right to say you disagree with the tactics. You just have to be prepared to reap your reward for creating propaganda for the State when you do that. You just have to be prepared to gather the fruits of Doheochai and Joe Higgins' labour when you not only criticise the tactics but actually go so far as to try and sow confusion, fear and doubt in the minds of the public about our tactics. There's a big, big difference between criticism between organisations and running of to the capitalist media to feed them scare stories about each other. Furthermore, when you argue something and your dearest wish comes true and it turns out to be a bad thing, you then get to either be a bad person, or else admit that you were wrong. You get the choice to decide which is applicable to you.

QUOTE: "You were perfectly free and are to argue against us and our tactics. We will not cry "its all the anarchists fault" if know one votes for us. Even though you argue against voting."

ANSWER: Well, I know that I've convinced three potential SP voters that you're shower and if the SP fails to get a seat in Fingal by 3 votes then I know my work hasn't been wasted.

QUOTE: "but the point still stands if you do not get support maybe it might just might have something to do with your policies and tactics."

ANSWER: Already dealt with above. This is a possibility, but until the S(W)P stop spreading scare stories about direct action and sabotaging such actions by pandering to the right-wing media we won't know will we? Enjoy the war.

by Patrick Thu Feb 26, 2004 19:16

Sorry if that came across a bit strong but I got the impression that you were moving the argument away from the matter relevant to us i.e. the abuse of democracy in the IAWM. For your information the last GG had as many people as the last IAWM meeting, yet GG would never claim to speak for all those opposed to the war, the same can't be said of RBB.
But lets stick to the issue of whether the IAWM has any legitimacy. I would argue that the manipulation of the future direction of that body by having delegates representing phantom groups means that it does not.
One of the questions to be answered is whether the SP agree?

by hs - sp Thu Feb 26, 2004 19:17

the people who organised most of the muntions being stopped were communist "electoralists" of the mass. And the 24hour blockade in Genova by communists that would make anarchists blood turn cold. ; ) you really wouldn't like them.

by hs - sp Thu Feb 26, 2004 19:19

gotta go so I won't have any more smart answers for ya PH. nice talking to yes again.,

by Trish Thu Feb 26, 2004 19:47

Isn't it sad that we all allowed this situation to develop. We all knew that the SWP were given too much power and were over represented at committee level and were 'in control' of IAWM. I knew this when I decided to affiliate to Community workers against the war and one of their emails listed the IAWM activity outside Dublin and I noticed that the primary speaker at all these events was a member of the SWP. I consulted a committee member (non SWP) and asked when these meetings were discussed. He informed me they were never discussed or mentioned in passing. He went on to say that addressing rallies was not discussed the SWP automatically took decisions on speakers.

I personally feel the IAWM is a dead duck. We need a new DEMOCRATIC network of anti war activists. One with a mandate to assist in the coordination of events/protests not a polit bureau that issues dictats and expells those who disagree.

by John Thu Feb 26, 2004 22:12

Just heard that Tim Hourigan and Harry Browne have also resigned from the IAWM steering committee. With Fintan Lane, Kirsten Foy and the two expelled members (Laurence and Mick) that's six gone so far. And counting.

Does the IAWM still have legitimacy? If it does, I can't see it.

by David Thu Feb 26, 2004 22:49

Just a few Important differences i noticed.

The IAWM actively spoke out against direct action at Shannon even when they were not organising a "competing" event at the same time.
The GNAW never undermined any IAWM events in this way. The GNAW made public appeals to the IAWM that if they could not actively support NVDA, to at least not condemn it but this simple courtesy was not forthcoming.
Despite this, I believe the record shows that every single IAWM event was officially supported by GNAW if any decisions were taken.

Another important point is that the IAWM had full access to the media while the GG had very very little. this helped them enormously and put them in a position of responsibility that it seems clear was abused.

In the future one of the most important aspects we should focus on is how to manipulate the media. It would be a good idea to set up a national peace front that local groups would have access to. Simple mandate would be to publicise actions by individual groups. For example if CAWC were planning a peace demonstration, they could use the E-mail adress of this front to contact the media, each affiliated group would be given the necessary passwords)
This would give the Media a recognisable organisation without giving the organisation power over local groups.

It would not be very hard to set up, the difficulty would be in encouraging the media out of their habit of going straight to GR and RBB for any information on any protests no matter who is calling them

by Anon Thu Feb 26, 2004 23:13

Rather than talking about a national anti-war 'front' David, maybe what we should be looking at is some new informal umbrella organisation. A network type thing, where groups work together in an atmosphere of equality and co-operation, instead of the sort of top-heavy thing that the IAWM was (which is easily taken over and manipulated by efficient and highly organised groups like the SWP).

One thing's for sure, the IAWM should wrap up its tents.

by kinky Thu Feb 26, 2004 23:32

The IAWN of which the IWAM is not a member.

by David Fri Feb 27, 2004 12:52

would not be an organisation, merely a media outlet. A set of principles that local groups could sign up to and then be given access to the name and e-mail facilities of this organisation to use for publicity purposes. If any group abused the position there could be complaint followed by a vote amongst everybody involved and access to the services could be revoked (with a public statement and by simply changing the e-mail passwords)
Principles could be very simple, for example

"we pledge that we are all active and individual groups. We will not form voting pacts with other groups, we are not duplicate or shadow groups of another organisation"

"we are all dedicated to co-operation in the struggle against the oppression, racism, violence and economic rape of the people of this world and all offences against the environment we are responsible for protecting"

"We agree to respect diversity of tactics and objectives and will not conspire to subvert the efforts of others as long as they continue to respect the principles outlined above"

"We will not pretend to speak on behalf of any co-operative organisation who have not given express permission that we may do so. We will at all times respect the work and effort that is applied by the autonomous groups and we will acknowledge this. We will not attempt to use the efforts of others for our own exclusive gain without express permission of the individual groups involved"

by hs - sp Fri Feb 27, 2004 13:49

could a member of the socialist party join the grassroots anti war organisation? or such organisations?

by Joe Fri Feb 27, 2004 14:07

No one can join the GG as there is no formal membership. However anyone in agreement with the principles is welcome to come along to the gatherings (I've pasted them in at the end). Agreement is something we have left for the individual themselves to decide on and we have had members of the Labour Party, Green Party (incl. Trevor Sargent at the first one) and Sinn Fein at the gatherings on the same basis as everyone else.

Mind you someone who is obviously just there to pick up members will probably be challenged as Sargent was at the first gathering, Ordinary members of the other parties I've talekd to have interesting explanations of why they see no contradiction for themselves. Being in the LP for minor reforms for instance but seeing direct action as the way to win major changes now and the need for a libertarian society in the long term. Not my cup of tea but then if the gatherinng only brought those together who already agreed 100% it would be a waste of time

As the GG has no structure beyond each meeting there is nothing to 'take over' so trots who tried a bit of entryism to do so would just be making idiots of themselves. For the curious the last session of each gathering looks for volunteers from one city to organise the next. At the island wide level that and some internal mailing lists are the only structure.

GNAW came out of the gatherings to organise direct action against the war, principally at Shannon. So any trots who were willing to take part in such actions would be welcome but as far as I know all the irish trot groups are anti DA (on the war at least) so it hasn't arisen.

There are marxists involved in both GG and GNAW

--- GG statement --

The Grassroots Gathering aims towards a network which would:
- Be based on the principle that people should control their own
lives and work together as equals, as part of how we work as well as
what we are working towards.
- Within the network this means rejecting top-down and state-centred
forms of organisation (hierarchical, authoritarian, expert-based,
Leninist etc.) We need a network that's open, decentralised, and
really democratic.
- Call for solutions that involve ordinary people controlling their
own lives and having the resources to do so: the abolition, not
reform, of global bodies like the World Bank and WTO, and a challenge
to underlying structures of power and inequality.
- Organise for the control of the workplace by those who work there.
- Call for the control of communities by the people who live there.
- Argue for a sustainable environmental, economic and social system,
agreed by the people of the planet.
- Working together in ways which are accessible to ordinary people,
particularly women and working-class people, rather than reproducing
feelings of disempowerment and alienation within our own network.

by hs - sp Fri Feb 27, 2004 14:13

It as just a question, and I', m not interested in recruiting you, don't worry : )
It might suprise you but not everyone is interested only in recruiting or "taking over".
Just wondering would "authoritarians" be welcome thats all.

by Anthony Sat Feb 28, 2004 04:15

I'm relatively new to the Gatherings - It's almost a year ago since the first one I attended in Limerick. I imagine that members of authoritarian socialist parties would be welcome at a Grassroots Gathering - as long as they didn't act authoritarian. It's not like there's somebody checking up on your libertarian credentials on the way in. There would undoubtedly be problems if motions were proposed which were contrary to the principles and guidelines as stated above. Though I think that 's an unlikely scenario as the best part of the GGs consist of workshops rather than decision-making plenaries. Most authoritarian socialists I know are quite decent and I'd generally be happy to see them come along and participate. Though I can't say the same for the non-socialist authoritarians.

by hs - sp Thu Mar 04, 2004 17:15

When I said "authorian" I wasn't actually being serious! It would be like telling you to leave your "terrorism" at the door :- )