The case against 'Direct Action' on Saturday

by Joe Fri Feb 28, 2003 13:48

"1. It's up to Workers in Shannon to stop the use of the airport as a stop-over place for US warplanes."

Why is it up to the Shannon workers to take all the risks in what would be an illegal strike? If the workers decided or looked like they were going to decide to do this then I'd agree solidarity with them would become the top priority. But right now NO ONE is even pretending this is likely.

We know direct action works (3 troop carrying airlines have pulled out). So even if there are better alternatives in theory on paper lets continue taking the form of action that has been proved to work.

"2. Hence, we should be aware of how 'direct action' will be preceived by Shannon workers.
3. Large protest march will do more for the workers in Shannon than running onto runways/breaking fences."

Agin very relevant if we were seriously talking of workers considering taking action. No one is claiming that they are. Even so we could still argue about which was more likely to encourage them, a march that expected other people to take all the risks or a direct action that could provide them with legal excuses to strike.

"4. 'Direct Action' will be ineffective as they will have quite alot of police and army and i'm sure they are ready for it by now!"

True if there are 100 of us. Not true if there were 100,000 of us. In reality there will be somewhere in between these number, I'd say once we get to 2,000 we have a chance and if we get above 5,000 we will succeed. the purpose of announcing plans in advance was to enable this many people to particapate with advance knowledge of what was likely.

"5. Despite what some might think the demo in Dublin with over 100,000 people is significant and the Irish Govt would have taken note of it"

Of course it was very significant (who has said it wasn't?!?!). But it has not caused the government to act and everyone knows that. Therefore it is bloody obvious that the next step is the sort of mass civil disobediance that is proposed.

We've heard these excuses and the replies to them before. Anything new to offer as an excuse?

by pat c Fri Feb 28, 2003 13:50

"1. It's up to Workers in Shannon to stop the use of the airport as a stop-over place for US warplanes."

No its not! Why should the workers there have a veto on action? Should it be only up to workers in Nuclear Plants as to whether or not they close?

"2. Hence, we should be aware of how 'direct action' will be preceived by Shannon workers."

How? What do you mean? Because they are opposed to it we shouldnt take DA? DA has driven 3 airlines away.

"3. Large protest march will do more for the workers in Shannon than running onto runways/breaking fences."

We are not protesting to help the workers. We want to stop Us warplanes from using Shannon. DA has driven out 3 airlines, there is no prospect of strike action in the immediate future. Even Dheochai of the SP has admitted this.

"4. 'Direct Action' will be ineffective as they will have quite alot of police and army and i'm sure they are ready for it by now!"

DA has already driven 3 airlines out (how many times must this be repeated?). Even if we dont break thru tomoro, it will add to the pressure & may be the deciding factor in driving out another airline.

"5. Despite what some might think the demo in Dublin with over 100,000 people is significant and the Irish Govt would have taken note of it (that is why they are trying to split the movement by saying it controlled by "far-left trots" and "anti-americans")"

Who in GNAW has said the demo wasnt significant? Far from it! We believe the DA which already took place helped to bring out the 100,00o. Those who are now attacking the Mar 1 DA were saying the actions of Mary & the CWM would drive people away. The opposite has been proven.

by Daithi - without editor's hat Fri Feb 28, 2003 13:54

Thanks for outlining in point form - will try to respond to each of them.

1. No, it's not. It's the responsibility of every decent human being concerned about war. Not necessarily through direct action, of course - but the idea that only those at a particular location need to act in order to stop the killing of innocent civilians shows, in my opinion, how this war is coming ever closer.

2. No, we shouldn't. Unless you want to create some sort of aura around the holy blessed airport workers, it should be a case of balancing objectives and negative consequences. Any strike or protest can be perceived in a negative fashion by some people (workers, even) - but that alone should not be enough to put an end to it.

3. Not necessarily. First of all, the objective s not to make a group of workers happy, but to try and put an end to Bush's war on Iraq. That is what we're fighting for, right? Second of all, any campaign worth its salt is fought on multiple fronts. Speeches, petitions, marches, non violent action, stunts, legal challenges, etc. They are NOT mutually exclusive.

4. Can I borrow your crystal ball? Of course a lot of people are concerned about that, but the history of D.A. shows that there is a need to look at symbolic and spiritual significance rather than a traditional measure of "it worked/it didn't work". No-one knows exactly what the consequences (direct and indirect) will be.

5. Of course it is significant, but this is a global movement against war - every action (see point 3) has a part to play in creating a resistance to war and I don't think that we can afford to smile and feel good about the last event rather than move on to the next one.

by ipsiphi - recuperem els carrers Fri Feb 28, 2003 14:20

between the Pat C. and Daithi (what a duo! ;-)
so this week non violent direct action civil disobedience
has stopped Trains carrying armanent.ITALY
has occupied the Spanish embassy in Bagdhad.
has stopped boats being loaded with armanent.ITALY

concerted civil action and pressure "tradational protest" has ensured that Guernica not be covered in the UN security building.

Direct Action has achieved results.
Traditional protesting has ensured a symbol of Fascism not be hidden from view.

I am glad all results are as they were.
But if this war were stopped and guernica still covered I would not lose sleep.
point made?
Pat C. has rightly pointed out the flaw in only allowing workers in a sector to protest that sector. Today is the 50th anniversary of DNA analysis. There are less than a million workers in BioTech. I have never accepted that they alone have the right to determine the future of that science and its speculation.

go out and reclaim SHannon and then Paddys day for a carnival.

by anti war Fri Feb 28, 2003 15:09

lad in fairness they (whoever ye think are against ye) are monitoring this site!

if ye(the supposed peace protestors) try to gain access to a runway ye will be stopped. simple as that.

have ye(the supposed anti-war movement) nothing better to do than cause a small civil uprising?

Ye (the supposed peace protestors) are planning on using a tactic which saddam is using, "we will succeed if we have the numbers", "if one man falls two take his place" hitler wrote this.

Ye( every one who thinks that it is a good idea to march tomorrow) should realise that the cops the army and indeed the dedicated staff of the airport are going to stop ye gaining access to the runway.

P.S. they cancelled all leave for airport staff so if ye(every marching tomorrow) think they are going to take your side in this ye are sadly mistaken

by Workers have most power Fri Feb 28, 2003 15:16

It is the wotkers in Shannon that hold the most power in relation to stopping US warplanes. They can strike and refuse to deal with US troops and planes. All DA can do is close the runway for a few hours on sat, the workers can end the US use of Shannon. What we should do as activists in the anti war movement is build a movement that will sho to those in Shannon that are thinking of taking industrial action that they have public support and they will not be able to be victimised. Direct Action on sat could well take the emphasis away from the mass anti war feeling concentrate it on the handfull of stupid smelly anarchists and in fact harm the movement and the chances of workers taking action themselves. Ultimetly it comes dowm to this, Anarchists have no faith in the working class while the IAWM do have faith in workers.

by Ray Fri Feb 28, 2003 15:16

Peace protestors, by trying to take down a fence, are imitating Saddam Hussein and Hitler? Is it not a little early in the day to be this drunk?

There's a long tradition of non-violent direct action, which includes Gandhi and Martin Luther King - people who were willing to risk injury and arrest to do what they thought was right, but never raised a hand against those who disagreed with them. The direct action tomorrow is in this tradition, because the protestors have agreed that they will not attack the police or army.

Hitler and Hussein are not known for their pacifism. Instead, they sought to achieve their political aims by bombing, gassing, and shooting their opponents. Who does that remind you of? The ahti-war protestors, or the people they're protesting against?

by Ray Fri Feb 28, 2003 15:21

Of course the workers in Shannon have the power to stop the use of Shannon. The _could_ strike, and they _could_ refuse to deal with US warplanes. But they haven't done, and they show no signs of doing so in the future.
"All direct action can do" is block a runway for a few hours? Direct action has ALREADY driven away three of the four US airlines. Its time to take your head out of the sand and face reality.

Direct action is working. Industrial action is a pipedream. What's more important to you - stopping US use of the airport or selling a few papers to the airport workers? That's your choice.

by Joe Fri Feb 28, 2003 15:22

Oh come on, you can change your name 12 times a day but this SP 'workers will take direct action if no one else does' argument doesn't get any more convincing with repetition.

by Ray Fri Feb 28, 2003 15:42

Not only do we have the same argument (only the workers can be effective!) being trotted out again and again, in defiance of all reality (the workers aren't doing anything, and direct action has been incredibly effective) - even the support for a boycott isn't exactly wholehearted.

"The issue of the airport workers in Shannon is somewhat more complex than indicated. For many years workers in Shannon Airport have had the threat of the downgrading of the Airport and likely job losses hanging over their heads. The issue of the Shannon stop-over is an example of this. FF's big business friends are currently jostling in the queue to get their hands on a privatised airport. In conjunction the establishment are constantly pushing the message that if we turn away the troop planes then Americans will not fly into Shannon and there will be very few jobs left. Just demanding a boycott of the US troop planes without addressing these issues will make it very difficult for these workers to see how they are being manipulated by the establishment. Remember they have had 15 years of threats against the future of the airport and these will not be brushed aside overnight." (doheochai)

So, not only should we stop all direct action until the holy workers decide to call a boycott, we shouldn't even push too hard for a boycott!

No wonder some people talk so much about a 'fifty year war' - they're planning to wait at least twenty years before they actually do anything.

by pat c Fri Feb 28, 2003 15:44

When will the SP & SWP condemn the activities of the Airport "Police"?

by anti war Fri Feb 28, 2003 16:20

how can yourselfs peaceful,
when more than a hand full have been arrested and some impriosened for carrying weapons such as axes, bats and sticks to hold a peaceful prayer vigil grow up, admit ye have nothing better to do than cause civil uprising i personally hope ye get the shit kicked out of ye at the weekend hopefully they beat some sense into ye cos that is exactly what ye need to realise that this war is going ahead if ye like it or not, the use of shannon is doing nothing to harm this country but keeping the only international airport on the western seabord open.

your decision lads march or get jobs?
we all know what ye are going to choose cos ye are two thick headed to realise the cops are not going to let ye near the tarmac.

And by the way forcing people to take your point of view by "DIRECT ACTION" is the same as bringing out every party leader who is against your ideas and shooting them just like good old saddam and adolf...

so one last bit of information lad for christs sake think or there is going to be a lot of hurt protestors tomorrow!!!!!!

peaceful my ass..................

by Ray Fri Feb 28, 2003 16:24

Funny how someone who describes himself as 'anti war' will go on to say "ye need to realise that this war is going ahead if ye like it or not".

At least keep your story straight, you idiot.

by Shelta Fri Feb 28, 2003 16:26

Ray, you're right on this one. But who is this GNAW? No one seems to know who they are. And why announce the direct action before time? The sit-ins during the U.S. civil rights movement would never have taken place if they were announced beforehand.

by Ray Fri Feb 28, 2003 16:36

"A non-hierarchical network of groups and individuals active against the war, formed at the Grassroots Gathering in Belfast in September 2002."

The reason the direct action was announced ahead of time is so that people would know exactly what was involved, and would be able to make an informed decision about whether or not to take part. All of the previous Shannon demonstrations have seen attempts at direct action, some of them very successful. But each time there have been complaints from people who didn't know it was going to happen, or that it wasn't well organised.

So this one is well organised, and everyone knows its going to happen. Yes, that means there'll be a serious police presence there one Saturday. But the action can still succeed if enough people take part. Its a big fence.

Even if the police manage to stop the fence from being taken down this time, can they do it every time? Security tomorrow is apparently costing oevr a million. That economic cost adds to the political cost to the government of keeping open a warport that everyone wants shut.

by Joe Fri Feb 28, 2003 16:39

GNAW has been in existence for months and has a few public meetings. We've called demonstrations at Shannon, one attended by 400 people (the Dublin IAWM march called close to this attracted around 750). There is no 'mystery' to who we are as anyone who bothered to turn up could find out. In radio interviews we have been using out name despite the fact that the secret police (aka Special Branch) have paid some people home visits. Given the huge media witchhunt underway we'd have excuses for being more clandestine but we have chosen not to take that path. If you mean we are short on famous politicans or whatever that is really a matter of choice.

And Shelta you are a regular reader and commenter on indymedia. You already know why we publically planned this, for others

1. Because previous direct actions had been criticised as secret and elitest by the likes of the SWP and PANA. We (wrongly) concluded that this meant they wanted public mass actions. Now it appears they want neither.

2. Because times have changed and with the government thumbing its nose at mass oppossition to the war mass direct action offers a way forwards.

by non-aligned peacenik Fri Feb 28, 2003 16:43

"4. 'Direct Action' will be ineffective as they will have quite alot of police and army and i'm sure they are ready for it by now!"
True if there are 100 of us. Not true if there were 100,000 of us. In reality there will be somewhere in between these number, I'd say once we get to 2,000 we have a chance and if we get above 5,000 we will succeed."

5,000?!! And then you woke up. Your chances of getting past the Archway are now about as good as winning the lottery. So, if the DA doesn’t take place what have you achieved? I’ll tell you.

1. Absolutely no practical effect on stopping the US war machine.
2. Reducing the potential number of marchers by several thousand.
3. Allowing lazy journalists to focus on anti-war “split” bullshit rather than the actual issue of US troops coming through Shannon and the impending slaughter of innocents in Iraq.

Fan-f***ing-tastic! Well done! I hope you’re pleased with your moment of glory, oh righteous ones. The DA taken by Eoin, Mary and the CW5 have contributed greatly to the anti-war cause. Unfortunately this GNAW-sponsored farce has so far had the opposite effect.

And before you accuse me of being an undercover SWP/SP/Special Branch/PD/whatever, as you seem to assume anyone who disagrees with you is, I am not and never have been a member of any political party. The whole SWP vs SP vs Anarchists vs Labour vs WSM etc. bullshit on this site is enough to turn anyone off political activism.
Unless you count being a “liberal hand-wringer” of course (thought I’d get that in to save you the trouble).

by Joe Fri Feb 28, 2003 16:59

I think its now quite likely that with a major media scare in full progress backed by the Green Party, Labour and Sinn Fein and unopposed by the IAWM that we may not get that magic 5,000. Would we have if there wasn't so much complete paranoia about a fence coming down. Could be.

But as to causing splits - I'm afraid you are blaming the wrong people. GNAW consists of people who have been protesting at Shannon since before the Afghan war. We have organised our own protests there on several occasions. We have carried out direct actions there.

March the 1st was the latest in that long line of protests, the only difference being that we announced in advance that we intended to repeat what we did last September. But this time on a mass basis. Have a look at http://www.struggle.ws/wsm/news/2002/shannonOCT.html and you will see photos of us after breaching the fence on that occasion.

The only difference is that on this occasion other sections of the anti-war movement have lost the plot. We are not the ones using our access to RTE to attack other groups. We are not the ones labelling the activity of others 'violent' or 'not acceptable'. We are not the ones, in effect, inviting the cops to crack a few skulls.

We are doing what we always did for the reasons we always did it. That is we don't just want to speak and march against refuelling, we want to STOP it.

If you want to spot the splitters then look to those denouncing other anti-war groups in the media and on the airways. You won't find that GNAW is doing this.

by non-aligned peacenik Fri Feb 28, 2003 18:40

“I think its now quite likely that with a major media scare in full progress backed by the Green Party, Labour and Sinn Fein and unopposed by the IAWM that we may not get that magic 5,000”

Are you honestly surprised at the “major media scare” that the publication of your plans has provoked? It was an inevitability that they’d seize upon the chance to whip up some “violence planned at Shannon” crap given half a chance. Yes, obviously I know the whole violence thing is a deliberate misrepresentation of your aims, but it was always going to be a predictable tactic for the media to adopt. And did you REALLY think that the Greens, Labour and SF wouldn’t feel it necessary to disassociate themselves from Saturday’s action once that media scare campaign got underway? I can’t believe you were unable to see the likely consequences of all this. I really can’t.

I’ve been at several of the demos organised by GNAW at Shannon and was at the October “mass trespass”. All well and good in it’s spontaneity, and it showed up how weak the security was at that time. I’ve read your reasons for publicising this DA but I think it’s proven to be a big miscalculation if you really couldn’t see what would happen. At this rate the only organisations not dropping out on Saturday will be GNAW and the Gardai.

“We are doing what we always did for the reasons we always did it. That is we don't just want to speak and march against refuelling, we want to STOP it.”

We all want to stop the military use of Shannon. There’s no dispute that we have the same aims. But GNAW’s tactics on this occasion are turning out to be counter-productive. I don’t see how you argue that’s not the case when several peace organisations and political parties (whose support may of course be conditional) are pulling out and publicly stating it’s because of the planned DA, thus feeding the “major media scare”.
I’m still going to the IAWM march but I know we’re not going to get the numbers we might have had, and you’re unlikely to be able to go through with your DA.
Which was the obvious train of events set in motion by GNAW’s decision to publish.

by Discombobulated Parallelogram - Shannon March 1st 2pm Fri Feb 28, 2003 19:23

You criticise GNAW for being attacked by Labour, SF, Greens, PANA, the media, IAWM, SP and yourself. Doesn't this seem a little strange to you, that you spend time now also attacking GNAW and that somehow that's GNAW's fault?

You state that you want to stop the refuelling of US planes at Shannon.

How do you propose to do this? So far you've had a lot of advice for GNAW: telling us not to publish our plans openly so that any taking part are informed, but you haven't told us what your way of preventing planes refuelling at Shannon is.

We've done the big marches, the protests, the individual Direct Actions and the previous airport invasion. So far the individual D.A. and the airport invasion have had the most effect. People have objected to the individual D.A. as "elitist" and "vanguardist" and have complained that they didn't know in advance about the plans for the last airport invasion.

In response GNAW has been completely open about their plans.

That allows everyone to choose whether and how to be involved.

by Chekov Fri Feb 28, 2003 19:36

"1. Absolutely no practical effect on stopping the US war machine."

Well if it does succeed, it will have a practical effect in further reducing the security rating of Shannon airport in the eyes of the USAF. Sure this is hardly going to knock the war machine off its rails, but I know of no better practical effect that opponents of the war in Ireland could have at the moment. What do you suggest? Waiting for the movement to grow to some arbitrary size, with us now at 5 to midnight or putting our blind faith in the workers at Shannon are much worse options.

"2. Reducing the potential number of marchers by several thousand."

What difference does a few thousand extra marchers make, if they never do anything but march?

"3. Allowing lazy journalists to focus on anti-war “split” bullshit rather than the actual issue of US troops coming through Shannon and the impending slaughter of innocents in Iraq."

Well I'd say that it is fairly certain that the level of coverage that the protest has received has been vastly increased due to the call for direct action. The news reports that I have seen have virtually all been based around the security operation at Shannon. I'd say that you'll find that this has highlighted the use of Shannon and whatsmore it creates an impression of the government being under siege from its people. Both of which are extremely good for the anti-war movement.

Fair enough, all of the journos have dragged in the 'split', but this is hardly that damaging. Rather it introduces the fact that there are many different strands to the anti-war movement and, albeit in a distorted way, reflects the debates within the anti-war movement. In particular it focuses public attention on the debate about 'direct action' in the movement. Again this is positive. I don't remember the focus on direct action in Seattle having a negative effect on the movement then.

The only thing that has not been positive in all the coverage has been the scaremongering about 'violence' carried out by certain parties in the media. This has definitely not helped anybody's cause. I'm sure that as you have been at previous Shannon protests, you know well that there will be no violence from protestors, and that such talk will make it far easier for the cops to crack skulls (which I still think is unlikely). Shame on those who indulged in such scaremongering and shame on you if you blame us for the abuse that we have received.

In any case there is no real 'split' in the anti-war movement. At the next Dublin march, whenever it is, you'll find all of the parties and groups marching together again.

If you think that this reaction was inevitable and we are guilty of launching a predictable chain reaction, then I lack your prevoyance skills. But even if we had been able to predict the reaction, we have to try. If ever the movement employs direct action, we are going to receive a serious backlash from all the political parties. If not now when?

In any case do you understand that we approached the IAWM over 3 weeks ago and said to them 'we are holding a protest on March 1st and it will include a direct action element', we invited them to take part in whatever way they wished. About a week later they announced that they would also protest on the same day, but separately and in a purely legal manner. We had no problem with this and everybody understood, from the start, that direct action was part of our protest. I can't see how we could be faulted on any of this.

by non-aligned peacenik Fri Feb 28, 2003 21:04

Chekov...
1. My original assertion was predicated on the DA being stifled by about a zillion Gardai. Since I wrote that this has been put out. Link to article below.

“GARDAI clad in riot gear will spearhead a major security operation to thwart plans by anti-war demonstrators to pull down the perimeter fence at Shannon airport tomorrow. Up to 500 gardai backed by additional troops will be deployed at Shannon in the biggest joint operation to maintain law and order in more than a decade.”
Now then, that should be at least another thousand protestors scared off.

With one great mobilisation in Dublin behind us, I truly think an attempt to get massive numbers out at Shannon would have been the way to go this time. As I said earlier, the publication of GNAW’s plans has backfired against that aim as well as their own aims. I already said I’ve got nothing to do with the SWP or any other Socialistas movement so you don’t have to throw the Shannon workers won’t strike argument at me. That’s bloody obvious to most non-Socialistas.

2.Huge numbers = huge political pressure. After Feb 15th, Bertie had to finally get slightly off the fence and say that a second UN resolution was a political imperative. In my view, and yours I suspect, a second resolution isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. However, for a man who appeared to have no policy at all on the subject for the previous six months this is a giant leap for Bertie. Another massive turnout would re-apply that pressure and embarrassment.
We’ll just have to disagree about the effectiveness of marching. There’s no point flogging the same arguments that have already been covered. As I said, I supported the previous DA’s and think they achieved good things for the movement. So I’m not anti-DA right?

3. I don’t blame GNAW for the media twisting your non-violent aims into “Peace Thugs Plan Ultra-Violence” type headlines but I do maintain that you were naïve not to see that it would happen. Here’s a not very positive piece about the forces reigned against us tomorrow…..should be a lovely atmosphere.
http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=926740&issue_id=8825

“If you think that this reaction was inevitable and we are guilty of launching a predictable chain reaction, then I lack your prevoyance skills.”

I didn’t need a crystal ball to predict this saga…….

“In any case do you understand that we approached the IAWM over 3 weeks ago and said to them 'we are holding a protest on March 1st….etc”

Yes I am aware of that, and yes it would have been wiser for the IAWM to distance itself from the GNAW protest. I imagine that they decided two weeks after the Dublin march was the natural time to march again, and that as they represent a larger portion of anti-war activists than GNAW they should go ahead anyway. But that still doesn’t absolve GNAW from creating the current mess through their actions.
On a positive note, I suppose if nobody turned up tomorrow the security forces would look pretty stupid…………

by A Root - Bit of Grass Fri Feb 28, 2003 21:11

Sorry but since this proposal has been aired (i.e. the taking down of the fence on March 1st) two companies carrying U.S. troops through Shannon have pulled. No effect???? We can already see the effect and the action hasn't happened yet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by Donnacha - none Sun Mar 02, 2003 22:05 donnacha at sortedmagazine dot com London

"Huge numbers = huge political pressure."

Eh, typing from London having been at the largest march in British history, I've gotta say - huh? As far as I can tell, Blair is still pushing for war and openly said the march made NO difference. Wake up.