Analysis of Shannon 1st March

Sunday March 02, 2003 17:27

by kev - personal capacity

Well, heres my analysis, I feel that the small numbers that turned out for both demos in Shannon, prove that the GNAW are, at best premature in their actions, and at worst completely wrong in the belief that Direct Action is the way forward for the anti-war campaign.

The fact that the numbers were so small proves this. At most the GNAW assembled 250ish, and the IAWM 900ish. The direct action initiave was a complete failure. I'm sure the GNAW hoped that 1000's would turn up and that they could get a sizeable amount of these people to attend their protest. However, precisely as a result of the publicisation of the direct action, and the spin by the media, the numbers failed to show. You can blame the media all you want - and I do too, for many things - but we all knew that this was exactly what was going to happen in this case. Its no use crying over something that was inevitable in the circumstances. But I still expected more than 1200ish altogether.

But they didn't, so the GNAW have to face the fact that the mass movement against war in this country (the 150,000 or so that marched in dublin)are more in-line with the IAWM view of how things should be brought forward - mass demos, community and workplace groups, strikes, walkouts and of course the all important role of the Shannon workers.

Even doing an anti-war stall in the city centre during the week, people were coming up asking "are you them violent ones" etc. This is not to say thats how I see GNAW, but this was a pretty frequent description of the direct actioners by the general public, or at least the general public on that day. The media has obviously played a role in this, and this cannot be helped. Therefore i see direct action in Shannon at this stage as a wrong tactic. But I assume many in the GNAW see it as a principle rather than a tactic. To me its not, there is a time for DA (water charges, bin charges, student occupations, to name a few).

I feel the attitude of many of those who post here is that the 150,000 people marching thru dublin was 'pointless because the government didn't listen'. Well I didn't expect them to in all honesty. This is why we must build the anti-war campaign. The attitude of some was the govt didnt listen, forget about building, lets tear down the fences. To me this is completely wrong and undermines the role of ordinary people in this movement - and isn't anarchy meant to be all about self empowerment? The actions a few can easily alienate ordinary people.

Now, on another posting 'Donnacha' stated:

"If fair weather friends are going to decide not to take part in a protest because they don't agree with another groups' tactics (that they can easily keep away from) then they're no value at all to any movement."

While I agree that the PANA, Shinners, Greens and Labour should not have caved in to the hype about violence, this is one of the most elitist remarks I have heard on the wire. so lets just say that a possible 8,000 people would have turned up at Shannon if there was to be no direct action - by this reckoning the 7,000 that didnt come are of "no value" to the movement??? Interesting logic there. Face it, many people stayed away because there was confusion about the issue, the media played its role, as did the pro-UN groups mentioned above, but so too did the GNAW and their tactics/principles. I went, but I knew what was the basic plan was, and I knew that the protest was important.

It has also been mentioned several times that the IAWM muscled in on the GNAW demo. I don't actually know the ins-and-outs of this, but were the two demos not decided without prior knowledge of either groups as to the others plans? (correct me if I'm wrong on this point). However, to my mind this doesnt really matter as had the IAWM not called a protest for the same day, the GNAW numbers would still not have been any more than those who turned up yesterday. And the same result would have occured.

Again, i say that the overwhelming majority of those involved in the anti-war campaign are at this stage not in favour of the tactic of direct action at shannon. To me, the 1st March demo proves this, and that further such actions which will be exploited by the media and the goverment will only undermine the movement.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, what is needed is not 'Direct Action', it is Mass Action with Direction.

(and I suppose - que vitriol)

save preference

Comments (24 of 24)

Jump To Comment:

SP debating style

by pat c

Thu Mar 06, 2003 11:35

"Message for Pat
by ? Thu, Mar 6 2003, 1:23am

Pat, she dumped you, get over it and get on with the rest of your life!"

This is what you get when you ask the SP awkward questions.

Message for Pat

by ?

Thu Mar 06, 2003 02:23

Pat, she dumped you, get over it and get on with the rest of your life!

kev

Wed Mar 05, 2003 11:36

You spread scare stories, in the full knowledge that this would also have an effect on your own turn out. Kev, you may not personally be this cynical but your leadership is.

I query how serious dhechai is about getting US warplanes out of Shannon. He comes out with all sort of codswallop about how DA is putting jobs at risk & preventing strike action.

Do the SP accept that if the USAF is driven out of Shannon then job losses are possible?

Do they accept that DA has already driven 3 US airlines out of Shannon?

Do the SP accept that strike action is improbable in the short term?

The actions against YOUTH DEFENCE INCLUDED CASES WHERE PEOLE HAD BEEN ATTACKED WITH HURLEY STICKS.

its all a cunning plan

by kev

Wed Mar 05, 2003 00:44

Pat C: "you didnt support the gnaw action. there were 2 separate events. you were even prepared to sabotage your own action, having a lower turnout due to your scare tactics."

Oh come on Pat, surely you can come up with something better than this conspiracy theory garbage - yeah, the IAWM sabotaged our own march. do you think that people active in the IAWM go around all day thinking of ways to ways of discrediting the GNAW? jaysus, and here was me trying to build for the demo all week. guess my 'masters' in the IAWM didn't let me in on the secret eh?

IAWM Steering committee meeting: "Ok, here's how we build the movement, we deliberatly fuck up the next protest, and then (and here's the clever bit) eveyone will flock to us - mwhahaha! its so crazy it just might work..." - "and then we can get the greens, shinners and labour all to pull out. oh it makes perfect sense, from 100,000 down to 1,000. brilliant!"

Pat C: "i was involved in joint action with the sp on several occasions against youth defence.
there was a risk of serious violence occurring. never once did the sp suggest that medics be on hand."

Well I would question as to how serious this violence could be, but anyway the YD crowd i assume were not armed with guns, batons, water cannon and police dogs ala the state forces down in shannon?

reply tand questions for derek

by T Barry

Tue Mar 04, 2003 20:17

Derek, you assert that a security breach would only result in the diversion of flights and not much else. If this is the case why have three quarters of the carriers servicing the American military pulled out due to security worries at Shannon airport?.

You also wrote that we should row in behind the mass protest strategy. I intend to go and to encourage as many other people to go to any planned anti-war rallies. My guess is that the vast majority of people from GNAW will shore up as usual. However, this doesn't mean that we have to limit our actions and plans to parameters set by the IAWM. Try to understand this as something that is potentially creative rather that simply threatening because some anti-war groups are outside your control.

Finally, there has been a lot of bad tempered criticism of GNAW. I will not pretend that we do everything right but a lot of the criticism has been hot air rather than critical analysis. I have noticed that when any of us ask how the IAWM envisages achieving concrete results like the halting of refueling answers are thin on the ground. Have the workers in Shannon been contacted by the IAWM? Do you think that marches alone will force the governments hand?. What if in a months time the US wages a technologically sophisticated war that proves to be brief and brutal- will the response be "ah, well unfortunately comrades direct action was regarded as premature at this historical conjuncture due to the state of the class struggle and the moon in Capricorn".

Conor

by Derek

Tue Mar 04, 2003 19:20

After the tremendous turnout on Feb. 15, one would have expected that a PROPORTION of people who showed up on that date, e.g. 5,000 – 10,000 would have appeared in Shannon. Given the ill advised proposed action of the GNAW group and the reaction of the ruling elite, e.g. 500 cops (including some in riot gear) armed troops, dogs, horses and of course the predictable coverage by the bourgeois media, it is not surprising that most people stayed away, in fact given the reality that most people on the February march would not have been active before there is no doubt at least as far as I am concerned, that most of them given the above scenario would have run a mile or more. I would suggest that most of those people would support the IAWM strategy. The March 1 attendance would indicate that I am correct in my analysis. The vast majority wish to protest by means other than direct action. Politicians listen when large numbers appear on the streets, the “direct action” events give them an opportunity to attack and smear the movement. Even if the DA activists had broken through the fence, any military flights would simply have been diverted and Dubya’s logistics would not have been overly disrupted. Incidentally Conor, there is nothing weird about my views regarding March 1; my analysis of the cock-up is based on reality. My practical suggestion is that you row in behind the strategy of mass protest, not elitist actions which have obviously decreased support for the campaign. On a lighter note, you could offer to donate Pat C to the Iraqi human shields project.

ZZZZMaybe We Can Find Some Integrity For The SP

Tue Mar 04, 2003 13:01

ZZZZZZZZZZGeneral Strike ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Seize Workers Control Through The DailZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Virtual TrotsZZZZZZZZZ

No DA at Shannon, D o Heochai might lose support.

Pat C ---------Yawn

by zzzzzzzzzzzz

Mon Mar 03, 2003 20:48

"Maybe we can find this virtual warrior a virtual medic"

Long live the virtual revolution.

zzzzzzzzzz............

Hi Krossie

by Ray

Mon Mar 03, 2003 16:52

Just to let you know - all that quoting is making your posts quite hard to read. Quoting is a hard habit to break, I know, but it would really help your readability.

for mass direct action

by conor (wsm personal capacity)

Mon Mar 03, 2003 16:50

dereck: The support that the advocates of the futile, misguided and counterproductive tactic of “direct action” received is a fair indication of their support within the anti war campaign. All but a tiny minority support the emphasis on a MASS CAMPAIGN.

me:direct action needs to be mass action to work - your continous attempt split and counter pose the two is wierd !

The latest DA “organised” by the GNAW group did nothing to prevent aggression against the Iraqi people, on the contrary significant damage was done to the anti war cause and the effect on the views of people whose sources of information are confined to the bourgeois media can only be described as disastrous

me:except to cause to US charter airlines to pull out within 12 hours of its announcement
- obviously not as real an achievement as being called names by Mary Hareney !

dereck: Going from 100,000 in Dublin to 1,000 in Shannon is not a success, it was a disaster. What is truly alarming for the future of the campaign is that people like "T Barry" think dereck: The support that the advocates of the futile, misguided and counterproductive tactic of “direct action” received is a fair indication of their support within the anti war campaign. All but a tiny minority support the emphasis on a MASS CAMPAIGN.

dereck: Going from 100,000 in Dublin to 1,000 in Shannon is not a success, it was a disaster. What is truly alarming for the future of the campaign is that people like "T Barry" think that more of the same is needed.

me: One way or another its hard - short of owning a coach company - to see how more then about 3000 peopel at shannon - the implication the 100,000 were going to cruise down is silly

A practical suggestion
by Otis Mon, Mar 3 2003, 3:48am

I have a practical suggestion. Lets go back to Shannon with so many people that our mere presence shuts down the airport for the day, but lets do this as a march/festive event and without the bluster about direct action and pulling down fences and all that stuff that can be twisted by our enemies. Lets get back to where we were on F15.

me: Not a bad idea - of course this would also be a form of direct action one known as a "mass blockade" !
- the stand of yesterday was quite festive - the can can was good

Balaclavas
by Simpson Eh? Mon, Mar 3 2003, 2:47pm

Who was the twat in the balaclava who managed to get on the front page of the tribune?

Whether or not the DA was appropriate on Saturday this was poor image managment from a supposedly disciplined and well organised action. Why wasn't anyone wearing a mask not asked to take it off?

me: personally I would STRONGLY agree - read declan de B's article in the Irish Times - some fool turned up with a baseball bat - but was it was removed at the insistense of the GNAW protestors

medic scare

Mon Mar 03, 2003 16:00

>"scare tactics about needing medics"

What if the cops had gone mad and layed into the protestors en masse and there was no medical care on hand? remember we had no idea the turnout would be that low, so the possibility was there for such an event. scare tactics indeed."sabotage of the IAWM"<

when did the sp ever arrange medical backup at a demo?

i was involved in joint action with the sp on several occasions against youth defence.

there was a risk of serious violence occurring. never once did the sp suggest that medics be on hand.

Puerile SP

Mon Mar 03, 2003 15:56

The fact that the SP have to continually & anonymously post lies about my personal life shows how pathetic they are.

I have criticised SF on another thread re Shannon.

Do you seriously belive this pat? if the IAWM wanted to sabotage the demo, they would have pulled out altogether. As it was, the IAWM presence on the demo, tho small, far outweighed the GNAW presence. if it was sabotage it went badly wrong, what with the IAWM booking busses, bringing people to the demo and all.<

you didnt support the gnaw action. there were 2 separate events. you were even prepared to sabotage your own action, having a lower turnout due to ytour scare tactics.

Balaclavas

by Simpson Eh?

Mon Mar 03, 2003 15:47

A balaclava conjures up a powerful image in this country - and it is not one associated with peace.

That one image did more to harm DA (and by association GNAW) as a legitmate tactic in public conciousness than the failure to bring down the fence.

Just my ha'ppence worth. Now you can get back to the 'real' debate of which left wing revoloutinary group can play in the sandpit!

2 Qs for Pat Corcoran

by Pat Corcoran watcher

Mon Mar 03, 2003 12:10

1. Does your irrational hatred of the SP come from you being dumped by a female member of the SP

2. Are you active in left-wing politics at all, or is it that you are a "virtual warrior" that Joe Higgins spoke of?

Questions for Pat C

by Bolloxy

Mon Mar 03, 2003 11:30

1) So Pat, have you joined Sinn Fein yet?
2) So Pat, have you joined Sinn Fein yet?

A practical suggestion

by Otis

Mon Mar 03, 2003 04:48

reply to derek

by T Barry - GNAW (personal capacity)

Mon Mar 03, 2003 02:50

Derek wrote “significant damage was done to the anti war cause and the effect on the views of people whose sources of information are confined to the bourgeois media can only be described as disastrous.”

This is exactly what has been said every time a direct action has occurred or when it has been attempted. And so far all the grim prognostications have been unfounded. How do you know it has inflicted damage on the movement?. Is the movement really so fragile that a attempted act of civil disobedience destroys it?.I read a great deal of the coverage and it did not strike me as any more biased than usual or particularly negative. People seem to be busy whipping themselves into a pointless frenzy.

The most important question is what happens now. How does the movement effect change? And I don’t think rhetorical flourishes are going to do it. So lets have some pratical suggestions.

St. James

by non-aligned peacenik

Mon Mar 03, 2003 01:06

"Probably the majority of active anti-war people are content simply to march, hold vigils, write letters to TDs etc.
If they were Iraqi they might think this inadequate when the bombs drop, but people have a right to do what they feel is their best."

Oh please! Get off your moral high-horse and stop preaching St. James.

Reality not Fantasy

Mon Mar 03, 2003 00:53

The support that the advocates of the futile, misguided and counterproductive tactic of “direct action” received is a fair indication of their support within the anti war campaign. All but a tiny minority support the emphasis on a MASS CAMPAIGN. The previous “direct action” stunts should have made it obvious to all (except for some individuals who even after the March 1 cock-up, still have not got the message) that so called “direct action” has had a negative effect on the campaign in the country as a whole and especially in the Mid West region particularly amongst residents and workers in Shannon. Many residents/workers in Shannon sympathise with the anti war cause but are also concerned about their employment. The response of the supporters of DA to their legitimate concerns is insulting and contemptuous in the extreme. The latest DA “organised” by the GNAW group did nothing to prevent aggression against the Iraqi people, on the contrary significant damage was done to the anti war cause and the effect on the views of people whose sources of information are confined to the bourgeois media can only be described as disastrous. The GNAW action must have had the government media team rubbing their hands. In another context, the idea of people who intended to tear down the fence at Shannon informing the powers that be a week in advance would be funny. In the real world of course, it is just pathetic. “T Barry’s” comment that March 1 was a “modest victory” is mind-boggling and bears no relation to the reality. Going from 100,000 in Dublin to 1,000 in Shannon is not a success, it was a disaster. What is truly alarming for the future of the campaign is that people like "T Barry" think that more of the same is needed.

Most people against war...................

by James

Mon Mar 03, 2003 00:09

Most people against the war and the US use of Shannon do nothing. This is the choice of the majority of people here against the war.

I think they are wrong not to do anything. I assume most people who mail here agree.

Probably the majority of active anti-war people are content simply to march, hold vigils, write letters to TDs etc.
If they were Iraqi they might think this inadequate when the bombs drop, but people have a right to do what they feel is their best.

I believe Mary Kelly, the Catholic Workers and Eoin Dubsky did a good days work. I think most anti-war activists acknowledge this. We tore down the fence last year, no-one (except the PANA guy) publicly denounced this. That was agood days work too.

The results were the pull out of several US airlines.

If those who spend most of their time arguing that the time isn't right for direct action actually took part on Saturday then the State would have been faced with a crisis, to lock up hundreds of people or to concede.

Waiting for the Shannon workers is a cop-out.

Direct Action has got results and there are enough people willing to do it to keep momentum.

Saturday was a success in that the lies were defeated. The fence didn't come down, but its not over yet.

analysis-analyses

Mon Mar 03, 2003 00:07

Kev- I think both the IAWM and GNAW hoped for larger numbers yesterday but given the amount of scaremongering and backbiting that has gone on it wasn’t a surprise that between the two demos there was only about 1200. That three hundred people were prepared to take a part in civil disobedience to stop refueling at Shannon despite all the nonsense being spewed about GNAW is a modest victory. That those people remained disciplined and good humoured and made the decision not to do anything stupid in the face of overwhelming police numbers is also a victory. The direct action we hoped for didn’t happen but yesterday was an example of how this might be done in the future if enough people decide that refueling has to stop.

Direct action is of course a tactic and not a principle. I don’t know anyone involved in GNAW who confuses one with the other. Most of us see this as one amongst a number of ways of achieving political goals. The anti war movement needs a diverse range of tactics and political approaches to become really successful. Direct action has played a vital role in the anti war movement both in Ireland and abroad and is the most likely way of stopping refueling at Shannon. The government has clearly signaled that it is going to continue their craven support for the US wardrive whatever the Irish people say. I dearly hope that the next anti war march is larger than F15 but it is a safe bet that the government will respond with weasel words and equivocation and then ignore it. If you share that analysis then the next question to ask is how does the anti war movement proceed to make it impossible for the government to ignore our wishes?. Strikes and workplace stoppages would be very effective if they happen but that doesn’t mean direct action is irrelevant now. There is no reason why we should counterpose these tactics in this either/or way.

This insistence that there should only be one way of building the anti war movement completely baffles me. I have noticed in quite a lot of posts and conversations with people from the IAWM that they believe that there should be only one organization that sets the agenda. This is not only unrealistic it is counterproductive. “Ownership” of the movement is irrelevant all that is required is clear and open communication between the various constituent parts of the anti war movement. I am similarly perplexed at all this guff about DA being “premature”. It seems the spectre of Marxist determinism haunts sections of the Irish left. Within weeks there will probably be a war. The war will result in carnage. We live in a state that is complicit with the drive to war but the majority of Irish people believe that we should have no part in this war. So Kev, if not now when?.

Rhetoric isn’t going to stop refueling, thousands of people engaging in civil disobedience will.

One last thing you asked- “It has also been mentioned several times that the IAWM muscled in on the GNAW demo. I don't actually know the ins-and-outs of this, but were the two demos not decided without prior knowledge of either groups as to the others plans? (correct me if I'm wrong on this point)”.

No, initially the call for the Shannon demo came from the Cork Peace Alliance the GNAW decided to back this and call for a mass direct action. We then approached the IAWM to ask them to back this. The IAWM decided they wanted a separate event on the same day. We went out of our way to avoid any confusion about what we wanted and what we planned to do.

what if

by kev - persoanl capacity

Sun Mar 02, 2003 19:24

"scare tactics about needing medics"

"sabotage of the IAWM"

2 Qs

Sun Mar 02, 2003 19:23

When are the SP going to criticise the Airport Police?

Do the SP want to get the US military permanently out of Shannon? ( If so have they told this to the workers in shannon)

sabotage

Sun Mar 02, 2003 18:31

The low turnout is not surprising given the sabotage carried out by the IAWM.

In particular the SP were craven in scare tactics about needing medics.

Number of comments per page

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Public Inquiry

Human Rights in Ireland

Lockdown Skeptics

Voltaire Network

Analysis of Shannon 1st March

Comments (24 of 24)