Direct action atShannon - To the next time

by Sean Mon Mar 03, 2003 13:06 Corcaigh

Re the court barring order preventing the ten visiting County Clare, what would they do with a Clare person or better still, a Shannon town inhabitant?

(and I know that there are Shannon people involved in the campaign despite the rantings of Senator Dooley (him of the Kevin Barry Cumann of Fianna Fáil - I think we all know which side Kevin Barry would be on!)

by Frankie Mon Mar 03, 2003 13:09

Suppose you had pulled the fence down, so what?
Would that have stopped planes refuelling?

Would it have justified reducing the size of the demo by several thousands of people?

Of course not, every action has to have a worthwhile objective, other than feeling good about oneself, I cant see any real benefit in achieving the fence destruction. there was loads of water cannon waiting to stop protestors just like they did the last the time.

by Jim Monaghan Mon Mar 03, 2003 13:12 jbm7 at tutor dot open dot ac dot uk

First
Congratulations.
It was peaceful and that was extremely important.In thses cases the Bushites want violence and pictures on Gardai with blood from demonstrators. Interesting that they did not deign to notice someone with a baseball bat.
Second the link with 100,000 marchers must not be lost for the sake of drama and so clled militancy. The Bushites want us down to the usual small numbers.

"GNAW will presumably continue to insist that the time is now and that mass actions should be called in a public format so that all those attending can be aware of and discuss the consequences. But its obvious to us that our action would have been successful if we had been joined by all those on the IAWM march."
Again this would have meant a slightly bigger crowd. Those who were old and who brough their children would not have gone. Again this displays no interest in keeping the connection with the 100,000 plus
"As well as building out own actions we should continue a dialogue with the IAWM and others aimed at building towards a mass action supported by as many sections of the anti-war movement as possible."
Dialogue works both ways. My fear, thankfully unrealised was that the gardai and possibly agents in the crowd would provoke a confrontation.
The mass movement cannot be restricted to the young and the fast.
For the future we need a repeat of the Feb 15 100,000 plus which pleasantly surprised me.It does have the potentail to push them back.Unity around say a march on the next Sat to the assault on Iraq centred on the twin embassies. Peaceful and massive
Jim Monaghan

On Saturday is was obvious that even the few hundred of us there seriously stretched the ability of the Gardai to enforce the wishes of the government against the wishes of the Irish people.

by Joe Mon Mar 03, 2003 13:15

The problem here is the assumption that GNAW was responsible for the reduction in the size of the demonstration.

Sure if we didn't exist then the whole controversy might not have happened. But we are not about to go out of existence, no matter how much you demand it.

What reduced the size of the demo was the hysteria about violence, a hysteria that GNAW did its best to counteract. This problem was fueled by the fact that some sections of the anti-war movements were daft enough to imagine the best way of tackling that fire was to throw more petrol on it. And that is the kind interpretation of what they were up to.

What you should have done was said

"The organisers have said this will be non-violent and we are inclined to trust them on this

We are organising a seperate demonstration and we have arranged with GNAW that the two will be kept seperate."

We exist, we will continue to exist - you need to find a constructive way of dealing with the difference of tactics to avoid similar problems in future. We are open to this - are you?

by Andrew Mon Mar 03, 2003 13:28

"Those who were old and who brough their children would not have gone. Again this displays no interest in keeping the connection with the 100,000 plus"

This asertion makes a number of simple mistakes

1. In fact the older participant in the white line will celebrate his 84th birthday next week.

2. We also had been careful to create a safe zone (pink flags) where those unable to particpate for one reason or another could show solidarity

3. Not every action has to be about involving all of the 100,000. This has been said many times. We supported and helped build for F15, this doesn not stop us doing other stuff in addition to this

4. Worst of all is the assumption that the '100,000' lack our wisdom and ALL fail to see the need for direct action. Not only is there no evidence for this position beyond the prejudices of the left there is limited evidence (in the form of a survey carried out by a student on F15) that points the other way. There is a real possibility of involving some of that 100,000 in such actions and from our point of view ending refueling requires this (or a strike at Shannon)

"Dialogue works both ways."

Well GNAW has been the ones doing all the work on this and rumors say IAWM decided to not communicate with us further from last monday. Can you confirm or deny this and if its true do you support this position?

We remain open to and welcome dialogue. We are not convinced that demands that we cease to exist count as dialogue though.

"My fear, thankfully unrealised was that the gardai and possibly agents in the crowd would provoke a confrontation."

Our fear too which is why we had people dealing with this sort of thing on the day. We dealt with the character with the baseball bat for instance once he was spotted.

"The mass movement cannot be restricted to the young and the fast."

No one has said that if should be.

"For the future we need a repeat of the Feb 15 100,000 plus which pleasantly surprised me."

How many times do you think we should have 100,000 strong marches before we are allowed to also try out other tactics? Thats a serious question BTW.

How many times do you think people will turn out and march if it appears the march has no effect. Do you think the end result of that would be to make people more or less likely to march in the future?

by TPT Mon Mar 03, 2003 14:34

It's time the GNAW admitted the fact that their protest on Mar 1 was a complete and utter failure and nothing short of a sad Joke and a shambles.

It achieved absolutely nothing bar the alienation of a large group of would be protestors, ie people with children etc.The thought that they could publicise the fact that they were going to tear the fence down and then expect it to happen was ridiculous to say the least.

I can't imagine the CW5 acts would have succeeded if they had decided to announce it a week before it.Its time to stop bickering like a pack of bitches and admit that you are not supported by the mainstream anti war movement and stop blaming media and other groups on your pathetic shortcomings.

by Orla - Socialist Party Mon Mar 03, 2003 14:41

Andrew wrote "We presumed that journalists would understand that non violent means non violent"

Andrew, do you seriously think that the billionaire-owned capitalist media is disposed to giving fair, unbiased coverage to the anti war movement? Come on, as an anarchist you should know better.

As regards your comment "we came close enough to demonstrate that this sort of action can work".
On what do you base that claim?

As far as i am concerned the most effective form of direct action is strike action. There are talks of a one day general strike against the war in Italy. We neeed to focus on organising in the unions for industrial action against the war. It is also vital that local anti war groups take root in communities right across the country. To be effective these groups need to involve community activists, trade unionists and people who are not members of any political organisation. i.e. building the widest possible support for the anti war movement among the general public. Feb 15, as a first step, showed the great potential that exists for developing these sorts of strategies.

This is what is frightening the crap out of the government. Haven't Harney's comments in the wake of the Feb 15 demo made that obvious?

by Jim Monaghan Mon Mar 03, 2003 14:44 jbm7 at tutor dot open dot ac dot uk

Bravo to the 84 year old. The fact of the matter is that most of the over 30s did not go on the grassroots march

"On Saturday is was obvious that even the few hundred of us there seriously stretched the ability of the Gardai to enforce the wishes of the government against the wishes of the Irish people."

If a few hundred could seriously stretch the Gardai then the H-Block movement would have won.
Again the march of 100,000 plus sghowed the wish of the Irish People. None of the Shannon marchs demonstrated this. The Bushites are desperately trying to convince peopple that the 100,000 was meaningless and will play up differences in numbers and tactics as a way of doing this.Developing the mass movement calls for increasing consciousness. e.g. support for peace demands opposition to Fianna Fail and Fine Gael. Both of them not playing around with various possible partners in future coalitions as do the Greens. In fact a key issue is to expose the Bush allies FF, FG, PDs and all those willing to enter alliances with them.
But elitist actions which fail to intertact with the masses creates a barrier to this task. It surprises me that those who reject the "elitism" of the so called Leninist parties show an elitism of their own where they do not or appear to not to listen to the concerns of the rest of the movement against war.I sense a despair in the comments which appear to say now that mass action (the 100,00 plus) has not stopped the war What do we do next. My answer is more mass action. Now that 100,000 plus marched it is possible to build even bigger.There were many who will be emboulded by the sight and come out next time.Lert us make it possible for them to do so.
Oh these are personal comments
Now let us have a dialogue on agreement on what actions must be held in the nearish future.

by Andrew Mon Mar 03, 2003 14:46

Err Orla I was being ironic, I presumed this would be obvious to most people reading it. Sometimes spelling everything out is a bit boring. I suspect most indymedia readers are at least a little suspicious of the mainstream media.

And of course I agree that a general strike against the war would be the most effective action. I just don't agree that we should limit ourselves to marches until that happens. You raise Italy as an example. A strike is likely there but part of the movement there has been blockading trains. Its not either/or
its both ...

by Andrew Mon Mar 03, 2003 14:48

Jim perhaps you missed the two questions at the end of the post you are replying to? Here they are again, the answers to these are actually important if we are to understand each others position

1. How many times do you think we should have 100,000 strong marches before we are allowed to also try out other tactics?

2. How many times do you think people will turn out and march if it appears the march has no effect. Do you think the end result of that would be to make people more or less likely to march in the future?

by Rob Mon Mar 03, 2003 15:01

Whether the fence was pulled down or not is irrelevant to the actual achievments made by the GNAW - of which I am not a member, nor am I a member of IAWM, The Popular Peples Front or the Peoples Popular Front. What GNAW achieved was to reassure the people who chose not to attend for fear of voilence that they needn't worry, Peaceful protest and peaceful Direct Action can happen without violence. This may not have been intended but it was achieved and it is positive. The movement must reunite - individuals and groups - and show their committment to all peaceful protest, it is now visible that there is a definite need to listen to proposed ideas thoroughly and not simply heed the misinformation of certain polital or media trouble-makers and divisionists.

by Sid Mon Mar 03, 2003 15:11

Why don't the GNAW start a suicide bombing campaign.That would certainly have widespread support!

by Joe Mon Mar 03, 2003 15:22

Rob you say
"What GNAW achieved was to reassure the people who chose not to attend for fear of voilence that they needn't worry"

The Dublin group made the decision during the week that what you write above was a key objective. It's also implicit in the calling of a non-violent action that if necessary the 'action' part gets sacrificed to preserve the 'non-violence'.

Its ironic that those who were attacking the GNAW plan as leading inevitably to violence last week are the same crowd crowing about our failure to breach the fence this week. If we had thrown non-violence out the window we might have succeeded for a few seconds. Would they really prefer that?

by IAWM supporter Mon Mar 03, 2003 15:27

To hear a few of the GNAW people trumpet last Saturday as some kind of victory makes me worry for their sanity. They seem to have an almost unbelievable ability to avoid looking at the big picture.

The GNAW action was a failure. It did not achieve any of its goals and it was never going to.

Let's look at what it has achieved though. It gave the media and the establishment the chance to run all kinds of "violent" protestors stories at a time when their main strategy is to drive a wedge between what they see as ordinary people and the "hardcore" of the anti-war movement. A few of the GNAW protestors even went out of their way to help them by masking up - just to drive home the point to people reading their Sunday paper that anti-war protestors are thugs.

The predictable publicity had the side-effect of seriously driving down attendence at the main march.

So the action helped the anti-war side's strategic objectives not one little bit. It did help the strategic objectives of the pro-war side. I presume this isn't what GNAW intended.

A few of the GNAW people realise this at some level which is why included in the deluded claims of triumph is a neat ass-covering operation, in other words attempts to blame other anti-war groups for your own disaster. Go away and think long and hard about what you are trying to achieve and maybe come back to us when you have grown out of the toytown revolutionary posturing.

by TWR Editors Mon Mar 03, 2003 15:40 tw_resistance at yahoo dot co dot uk

And I have to repeat myself here again but the fence thing was the only thing advertised. There were other actions planned and one of then was to enter the terminal and leaflet the workers.
Transport Workers Resistance did it. We along with comrades from the Belfast Media Collective entered the terminal and started leafleting at roughly 2.30pm. it happened peacefully and we left the terminal the same way we came in: peacefully.
I am sick and tired of the same old shit about masks and all. We did not wear any of those and we did have contact with the workers.
It was a successful action.
Transport Workers Resistance joined GNAW action afterward and kept being peaceful adn unmasked.

by Joe Mon Mar 03, 2003 15:40

So IAWM supporter you can say "The predictable publicity had the side-effect of seriously driving down attendence at the main march" but apperatnly when we point out the same thing "it is a neat ass-covering operation, in other words attempts to blame other anti-war groups for your own disaster."

Either all the 'there will be violence' media crap drove people away or it did not. If as you seem to agree it did drive people away then obviously it weakend our chance of success. And the crap did not come from the media it also came from some of the anti-war groups.

It seems to me that GNAW is being used as a scapegoat for the internal problems of the IAWM movement - this doesn't make a lot of sense, does it?

by non-aligned peacenik Mon Mar 03, 2003 15:43

“The problem here is the assumption that GNAW was responsible for the reduction in the size of the demonstration.”

“What reduced the size of the demo was the hysteria about violence, a hysteria that GNAW did its best to counteract.”

I’m only going to say this one more time. What do you think gave the media a chance to create the “
hysteria about violence”? GNAW’s ill-advised publication of their plans on the net. What did you expect the press to say? Give ‘em half a chance and they will misrepresent your aims. They ALWAYS equate damage to property as “violence” and GNAW were naïve in the extreme if they couldn’t see what would happen. The Greens etc. were always going to drop out once the “violence” hype came out (though I think they were well crap for not coming on the IAWM march where they could clearly have disassociated themselves from the DA).The media hype also allowed the State to flex it’s muscles – the threat of riot police is enough to frighten off many less-seasoned protestors.

GNAW have to accept responsibility for diminishing the turnout and accept that their tactics on this occasion were entirely counter-productive. Otherwise how can we learn from mistakes made?

by Ray Mon Mar 03, 2003 15:45

Maybe I missed something, but were the IAWM expecting to get more than 100,000 people - oh, sorry, that should be 'more than 150,000 people' - on Sunday's march? No? Had you any serious expectations of getting even 15,000 people down to Shannon? No?
So you're pissed off at the GNAW, because their presence meant that the pale imitation of F15 was a little bit paler than it might otherwise have been. That's about it, right?
Was there anything the IAWM was going to do if more people had turned up? Did the GNAW action stop you from putting your anti-war master plan into effect? No?
There have been plenty of marches in Dublin that walked around the streets and listened to speeches. This is all well and good, and the Grassrots people put a lot of effort into getting people along to those marches, and ensuring that they'd be as big as possible. Hopefully there'll be plenty more marches like that, and I'm sure they'll again be supported by GNAW.
The Shannon protests were never going to be as big. But Shannon offers the possibility of doing something different. At Shannon, there's a chance to take direct action against the war. That's not something that appeals to as many people. Fine. The people that don't like direct action can continue going on marches in Dublin. But the people that _do_ think direct action is a good idea will continue to attempt it in Shannon. Its called 'diversity of tactics', and if the IAWM stopped trying to claim ownership of the anti-war movement they might recognise that its a good idea.

by non-aligned peacenik Mon Mar 03, 2003 15:48

Andrew, I’ll take a stab at your questions.
“How many times do you think we should have 100,000 strong marches before we are allowed to also try out other tactics?”

We won’t know the answer to that until it happens will we? We may have had some idea if half the organisations supporting the anti-war movement hadn’t withdrawn due to the media hype facilitated by GNAW’s “tactic” of full publication. With the momentum of F15 behind us we may have mustered 5,000 maybe 10,000, 15,000 at Shannon. Who knows? Instead, we were reduced to a minimal turnout, barely worth a mention come Monday. Bertie won’t be asked any difficult questions about the continued level of public opposition to the use of Shannon. We have been temporarily sidelined again. Now we have to recover support of those who were frightened off and rebuild for more mass mobilisations.

“How many times do you think people will turn out and march if it appears the march has no effect.”

Depends how pissed off they are doesn’t it? And how included they feel in the mass movement. We won’t know until the next try.

by Joe Mon Mar 03, 2003 15:49

There are a couple of problems with what your saying. One is in terms of GNAW most of us see Saturday as something positive rather then something negative. It wasn't a victory but it certainly wasn't a defeat.

What you seem to be trying to do is blame us for the problems of the IAWM. This frankly is crazy all the most so because the IAWM strategy of adding to the media frenzy backfired rather badly when some parties pretended to take it seriously.

How do you explain the poor turnout on the Dublin rally called by all three parties for instance and advertised all over the media as 'the alternative to violence'. I heard there was 150 on this.

by conor (wsm personal capacity) Mon Mar 03, 2003 16:00

Orla: As far as i am concerned the most effective form of direct action is strike action. There are talks of a one day general strike against the war in Italy. We neeed to focus on organising in the unions for industrial action against the war. It is also vital that local anti war groups take root in communities right across the country.

me: well I agree and I've said it here several times during the week!

The problem is that the SP and SWP in my 15 or so years of political experience on the "axis of weasal" that passes for a left in Dublin ENDLESSLY pontificate about "taking things to the labour movement" and thats it!

As I have said REPEATEDLY here and else where its time to DO something about this

I think strike action is pretty unlikely at Shannon but why not, at least, use those union contacts we have to approach the workers!

GNAW have many active hard working trade union members as OF COURSE Orla et al are WELL AWARE of this
The Socialist Party do to so why not co operate instead of continously attacking and belittling US at every chance you get?

as can be seen from the post below - syndicalist members of GNAW from up North combined direct action and an appeal to the workers in an interesting way on Saturday

- any way stop pontificating get out and do something real in terms of building for strike action we'd be only too happy to help!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But only GNAW got in contact with the workers
by TWR Editors Mon, Mar 3 2003, 10:46am
[email protected]

On March 1st at 14.15pm Transport Workers Resistance (affiliated to GNAW) managed to enter Shannon terminal and leafleted to the workers the first issue of TWR and a leaflet about Shannon and call from us, transport workers to unite against the war and promoting direct action i.e. a strike.
The action was peaceful. No one got arrested.
Afterward, TWR along with friends from the BMC joined the GNAW action.
Now, of course the SWP and all are trying to find arguments against us but:
1) they should be better informed before spreading rumours
2) they should do their job and talk to the workers

TWR action was successful and there are more to come cos if not us who else?

related link: www.anarchosyndicalism.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
orla:This is what is frightening the crap out of the government. Haven't Harney's comments in the wake of the Feb 15 demo made that obvious?

me:They may be annoyed - but their fear is the potential energy of a mass movement

its still the actual use of direct action (so far on a TINY scale) that is:

a. Costing them money (about 1 million euros for the 700 cops on saturday)
b. Losing the confidence of the Americans
c. Causing charter airlines to pull out
d. Keeping the focus where it should be on Shannon
e. forcing them to again admit we have a US military base on our soil

what couldn't we do with a few more people prepared to give it a go ?!

Jim: Again the march of 100,000 plus showed the wish of the Irish People.

yeah but now why not take it a step further we have demonstarated on mass - they have ignored us

jim : But elitist actions which fail to intertact with the masses creates a barrier to this task.

Advertised in advance, open to all who wanted to join
- in what way elitist ?

jim: now that mass action (the 100,00 plus)

me:The march was excellent but was not in any sense direct action
it registered mass public disagreement with the war - a good thing
- no more than this

Andrew: You raise Italy as an example. A strike is likely there but part of the movement there has been blockading trains. Its not either/or
its both ...

me: True - In fact in a "real" mass movement one thing leads to another mass demos, direct action, strike actions they all have a part - all interlink and all supply support for one another.

The continous, ritualistic counter posing of "mass action" and "direct action" (which should, in my view, ALWAYS go hand in hand) from the happy clappys of the toy town revolutionary partys leaves me bewildered

jim: Now let us have a dialogue on agreement on what actions must be held in the nearish future.

well if the IAWM would even talk to us it would be nice!
Its clear that governments are able and indeed WELL SETUP to completely ignore the wishes of their electorates - no where is this clearer then in Turkey - wheer 88% are against but the government still felt they were quite entitled to have the yanks over for a nice cash sum and a slice of kurdish North Iraq
- (OK thats on the burner for now thankfuly)

marching is good its not enough, strikes are good they're not enough, direct action is good its not enough.

We need a huge diversity of tactics as a real mass movement would - lets go beyond stage armies and wearing the right badges

rob: Peaceful protest and peaceful Direct Action can happen without violence. This may not have been intended but it was achieved and it is positive.

well it was intended by us any way!
But agreed

Real DA
by Sid Mon, Mar 3 2003, 2:11pm

Why don't the GNAW start a suicide bombing campaign.That would certainly have widespread support!

me: and why don't you give us your badge number -or, better still, just munch your do nuts offline

joe: If we had thrown non-violence out the window we might have succeeded for a few seconds. Would they really prefer that?

me: they want one thing and one alone a "mass movement" that still, some how, totally remains the property of a few party leaders - other considerations are secondary at best

Conor

by IAWM supporter Mon Mar 03, 2003 16:09

But you are responsible for setting up an event which had no conceivable possibility of achieving anything positive for the anti-war movement and which would give the media and the establishment the chance to scare people off. Which they duly took.

The fact that you then try to parade this fiasco as a victory is nothing short of lunatic. At least the most recent GNAW poster has retreated to saying that it may not have been a victory but it wasn't a defeat. Only one step away from accepting reality then. It was a defeat. GNAW's idiot posturing damaged the anti-war movement. It's as simple as that as anyone who saw pictures of goons in balaclavas in their sunday papers could tell you.

by Joe Mon Mar 03, 2003 16:12

Hey IAWM, read what is written above "One is in terms of GNAW most of us see Saturday as something positive rather then something negative. It wasn't a victory but it certainly wasn't a defeat."

And we have no more control over what people wear to demos then your do - there were also people on the F15 march with balaclavas, its seems to be fashionable at the moment.

[In fact those pics were taken in the first few minutes, we had a word with the guy and he actually took it off (and abandoned the baseball bat he had brought).]

by conor (wsm personal capacity) Mon Mar 03, 2003 16:15

iawm supporter: But you are responsible for setting up an event which had no conceivable possibility of achieving anything positive for the anti-war movement and which would give the media and the establishment the chance to scare people off. Which they duly took.

me:They may be annoyed - but their fear is the potential energy of a mass movement

Its still the actual use of direct action (so far on a TINY scale) that is:

a. Costing them money (about 1 million euros for the 700 cops on saturday)
b. Losing the confidence of the Americans
c. Causing charter airlines to pull out
d. Keeping the focus where it should be on Shannon
e. forcing them to again admit we have a US military base on our soil

what couldn't we do with a few more people prepared to give it a go ?!

other wise what, exactly, is this movement for ? - To show the government we're disgruntled but afraid to do any thing about it?

Conor

by Ray Mon Mar 03, 2003 16:17

The main photograph in the papers I saw was of a riot cop with shield and helmet. There were also plenty of photos of the army, razor-wire, ditches, and so on.
Sure, there were probably plenty of journos there who'd have loved some pictures of protestors throwing bottles at the gardai, and of various kinds of violent action. They didn't get them.
Instead, all the papers and TV stories said the protest was non-violent. TV3 mentioned the people arrested, but stressed that it was public order offences, nothing violent. RTE carried Joe Higgins, pointing out the fact that all of this money was being spent to protect aircraft that most people wanted out of Ireland.

The IAWM is not going to get 100,000 people to a protest in Shannon. Why do you keep insisting that every protest must only be about maximising numbers? There are other reasonable goals for a protest, and taking down the fence is one of them. If you want a protest with tens of thousands of people on it, call another one for Dublin (and GNAW will be there). Just stop insisting that everyone else should adopt the same tactics.

by IAWM supporter Mon Mar 03, 2003 16:51

It's not about insisting that everyone use the same tactics. There are people in the anti-war movement who have used an enormous variety of tactics and for the most part everyone has been comfortable with that.

BUT If any group plans an action which other parts of the anti-war movement feel is not just a waste of time but is actually damaging to the movement as a whole then they have not just a right but a responsibility to say so.

Everyone else in the anti-war movement - not just the IAWM but the anti-war movement - felt that the actions planned by the GNAW were (a) not going to work and (b) going to hand a propaganda victory to the state. Looking back it is clear that they were correct. The action did not succeed and the state did gain a propaganda victory. I assume nobody actually disputes either of those points.

What you are being told is not that you must follow the precise tactics of any other part of the movement. You are just being told that you did something very stupid and that you should think about it before acting again.

by Anonymous Mon Mar 03, 2003 16:54

Very good analysis Andrew. I agree with most of what you have said above. (specific comment on your piece in my point 4)

Don’t have time to go into everything at the moment except to make the following points:-

1. Firstly, the impact that this site is having can be seen in the comments I heard on Saturday by the Justice Minister Michael McDowell. As I was racing to get to the protest, on Radio One’s Saturday View, when asked about Iraq, his first comment was to talk about this site and the “Garbage” that is contained on this site. And he invited the public to log on and check it out for themselves. Outrageous & ridiculous comments, but clearly the info being disseminated here, because it is so much not in his interests, is getting to him.

2. Secondly, congratulations to everyone who took the time and effort to go down to Shannon on Saturday. Though over 80% of the Irish population oppose war - that’s 2.96 million people (roughly) - only about 1,500 – that’s only .04% of the population! (were prepared to take the time and effort, and in the case of the GNAW protest, the bravery to face the large security presence down there. And that’s not including the population of Northern Ireland who also could have made it to the protest (and no doubt many did). P.s I’m basing this on a population of 3.7million. What exactly is our current population!?

I know many people who are hugely anti-war and know all the in's & out's of what's going on and the brutishness of American foreign policy. Many (but not all) of these people went on the march in Dublin. But is this alone going to stop the war? Of course not. To have any chance whatsoever, people need to constantly be “active” on this matter. The protest at Shannon on Saturday was crying out for people and yet only around 1,500 responded. So most people really aren’t prepared to actually do something about it. So to the 1,500 or so who turned up on Saturday, I say well done.

3. Leading on from this point, I believe Saturday was a success. I attended both protests as I support both. Though the IAWM did not succeed in drawing huge crowds and the GNAW did not get the fence down, nevertheless, I have zero doubt, that both protests had a positive impact on:-

(a) Increasing the public’s opinion that war is the wrong option.
(b) Increasing the public’s awareness of how much the government is ignoring their opinion by continuing to allow US military planes to refuel in Shannon and arresting anyone who makes any major effort to stop this from happening.
(c) Increasing the pressure on the Government to shut down the stop over.
(d) Increasing the pressure on the Government to insist on a second UN, fully approved resolution.
(e) The protests also had several other positive impacts which I will not go into here.

All the above impacts are both immediate but also subtle and will continue to have impact as they slowly affect a change in consciousness of the Irish people and its government.

4. Last but not least to make a specific comment on Andrew’s piece. Your comment:-

“A few things seem essential. This includes a clear acceptance that although we disagree on tactics we must unite in opposing the war.”

I totally concur with this. For me this is the only way Saturday will have been a failure, i.e. if it created or is helping to create a split in the movement.

I believe the movement must remain “fully” united. I believe GNAW and others may be right in trying to convince others the merits & necessity of direct action. But if these arguments are not accepted, opposition to direct action, albeit unfortunately. “must” be accepted, in order to keep the movement united and to maximize its strength.

by Joe Mon Mar 03, 2003 16:58

Now you beginning to get it - telling us we are stupid is OK, demanding we obey you is not.

The problem is that IAWM seemed to have a policy of trying to close down all communication with GNAW. If you want to tell us we're stupid before stuff gets announced you'd would be much better opening up discussion rather then closing it down. Is it ture that the IAWM decided last Monday not to communicate further with GNAW? If this is true how do you expect us to have these discussion (well apart from on indymedia).

Incidentally the claim that 'everyone else thinks is so it must be true' is neither proven nor something that has convinced me on other issues. Sometimes minorities are right and majorities are wrong. I suspect in hindsight you are going to be wondering why you were getting so hysterical about a fence!

by Ray Mon Mar 03, 2003 17:10

1. If the IAWM, or other anti-war group, don't agree with the tactics used by GNAW, there are better ways of expressing this disagreement than going on RTE and saying the direct action will be 'small and badly organised', or issuing a press release that says there will be violence at the protest. A simple "we don't agree with this tactic" will suffice.

2. GNAW did not succeed in taking down the fence. But it did hold a successful non-violent action. If (when!) GNAW call another such action, the media will have a harder time painting it as 'violent'. More people may be willing to come along.

3. There was no propaganda victory for the state. There was no violence at the protest. Nobody did anything objectionable. The case for war was not advanced at all. There's no point pretending otherwise.
The only possible damage done was to the 'unity' of the anti-war movement. In the first place, this isn't a big deal. If there's another major protest planned everyone will support it, and GNAW will (I expect) issue another statement saying that they won't be engaging in direct action on that march, just like they did for F15.
Secondly though, if you want to complain about lack of unity, GNAW are not the people to complain to. GNAW have never criticised other groups for the demonstrations they called, and have supported each one. Its groups like PANA and the IAWM that have undermined the unity of the campaign, by criticising other actions, and accusing them of being 'small and badly organised'. Look to your own failings first.

by Irony is dead Mon Mar 03, 2003 17:12

Oh the medias method of counting is alive and well. I'm not too sure which Shannon you were at mate but the march I was on had over 1000 people protesting. If you want to claim 300 I won't dispute it. However your analysis is frankly pure fantasy. You state 'On Saturday is was obvious that even the few hundred of us there seriously stretched the ability of the Gardai to enforce the wishes of the government against the wishes of the Irish people. We aimed to get to the fence and we got there despite being out numbered by police. We aimed to pull it down and we failed, but not by much. We came close enough to demonstrate that this sort of action can work, it just needs more people to be willing to take part. That is what we need to build towards.' The only stretching of the cops was their jaw muscles yawning. 'We aimed to get at the fence' are you serious - is this a strategic aim to get to a wire fence? The perimeter is at least a mile in length - the road 2metres away from the fence. 'We aimed to pull it down and failed but not by much' You did nothing of the sort - not even close. 'It just needs more people' Are you for real? Your whole method is designed to drive numbers away. Your starting point is where your methods and ideology are at, not where ordinary people are. If you claim your protest as a success you'll learn nothing. You have handed the state the chance to go on the offensive and drive a wedge between activists and people who are moving in their tens of thousands to activity. What we saw was a demonstration of the most childish posturing where a handful of well intentioned individuals looked like a gathering of of the usual suspects. Feb 15 was significant because it moved thousands towards activity for the first time. Mar 1 was only significant in that thousands saw a debacle where the few tried to stop the war on their own, on behalf of the rest of us who are too scared to use such bold direct action. Lear, and learn fast.

by oisin Mon Mar 03, 2003 17:19

It has been interesting to note how conservative elements of the IAWM have been over the past couple of weeks. They treat any intiative that does not come from themselves as an affront to their authority. Instead of accepting that the anti war movement is going to throw up various analyses and tactics it has been busy undermining anything that hasn't been sanctified by themselves.

Why get your knickers in such a twist?. The Italian and British anti war movements have managed to cope with direct action intiatives without their world falling apart. There is no logical reason why there can't be mass marches and direct action. All the grim soothsaying from senior IAWM people that Saturday would end up in a bloodbath proved to be groundless. It was an attempted trespass not an attack with an RPG. Legality and civil disobedience are seldom happy bedfellows and I find these "revolutionaries" prissy concern for legality and the coverage in the Sindo fairly amusing.

Am I been cynical in thinking that some of the Trotskyist elements in the IAWM find all but impossible to concieve of, or deal with, a movement with diversity of tactics and a diversity of political opinion?. Deep down, it seems, if they aren't giving the orders they aren't really happy.

by Andrew Mon Mar 03, 2003 17:20

Look I'm not going to quibble as to whether there were 800 (my figure) or 1000 (you figure) on the IAWM march. I didn't count anyone and neither did you. Regular readers here will be familar with my estimates and be able to judge how reliable they are. They will also be familar with SWP estimates (Irony is Dead is yet another anonymous SWP poster here) and how reliable they are.

As to driving wedges whenever we were on the media we stressed that the movement was broad with room for lots of differeent tactics. Whenever SWP members had air time, they attacked GNAW. One of those things is clearly 'driving wedges' the other is trying to plaster over the holes that result. Again readers here can judge which is which.

by Joe Mon Mar 03, 2003 17:41

What evidence, if any, is there that Non Violent Direct Action can drive people away from the movements? It seems like the whole IAWM line is determined around this idea but nobody is presenting any evidence for it.

by Anonymous - None Mon Mar 03, 2003 19:45

Get a life, get off the net and start doing something constructive- if anyone is trying to cause division its you- the movement is more important than your petty crusade- your going to get left behind- I hope!

by zzzzzzzzzzzz Mon Mar 03, 2003 20:17

Last Saturday we had the can can.

What's the dance for the next demo????

The cops didn't need to crack any heads, they just had a good laugh at the antics of the GNAW.
If push came to shove (sorry about the pun) then the batons would have been out. Saying that they didn't crack heads because of RTS just make you guys sound as silly as your antics made you look on Saturday.

"Virtual Warriors are living in their own virtual reality, seeing what they want to see and believing what they want to believe. In their virtual world they tore down their internet fences and are the most important thing in their own minds"

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz..............

by ipsiphi;-) Mon Mar 03, 2003 21:24

fail once
try again
fail better
(the dude samuel beckett)

by xConorx Mon Mar 03, 2003 22:31 xconorx at hotmail dot com Belfast

However much the IAWM attempt to discredit the actions on Saturday it cannot be denied thast something worth while was achieved. As had already been mentioned (and often ignored) saturdays action cost the government 1 million Euro - it will be difficult for the government not to take notice. If we can make make it unviable for them to keep allowing the US war machine to use irish soil then that is worthwhile.

The fact that the protest remained peaceful demonstrates that we can have a direct action, and have an effect, without causing violence. Ok so there may not have been huge numbers on Saturday but it send a clear message that we will not sit back and let a bunch of ruling beaurocrats make decisions in our name.

Trying to discredit the actions of the other side is just petty and serves to further divide the anti-war movement. Why can the IAWM not just be content and have beleif in their own methods? They don't have to actively support other tactics but to go out of the way to denigrate people using different methods is counter-productive and a waste of time.

If someone did not want to actively partake in the action there was of course the option of showing solidarity ( the pink flag line) while not actually engaging in the action - it was not elitist and diod not exclude anyone.

The protests and marches were great - but the goverment can handle demos and speeches, they are prepared for that. As things escalate, more direct action is required. They need to know how serious we are. e need to show them that we are more serious than just going to demos. Mass walkouts from work is a great idea too. Trespassing Shannon airport is also worthwhile. As was said earlier it is not about either/or - it s about using all methods at our disposal to stop the war machine.

If you want to march, march.
If you want to strike, strike.
If you want to trespass, trespass.
The more options we use, the better the chance we have of making a positive impact.
But concerted efforts to discredit those whose tactics we disagree with (even though we want the same thing - no war) will get us nowhere and will just serve to further the petty arguing.

See you in Shannon soon.

by Gregor Tue Mar 04, 2003 02:01 gregorkerr at eircom dot net

In all of the discussion about Saturday, about supposed splits in the movement, about who did what to destroy whose protest etc. etc., some people appear to be missing the point of what the main objective actually is. We're trying to stop the war comrades. As far as Ireland is concerned specifically that means that we're trying to stop re-fuelling in Shannon. When we judge the success or otherwise of any action, we've got to ask ourselves what it has done to further that cause. Saturday's action may not have pulled the fence down but within 24 hours of its being announced 2 airlines announced that they would no longer be carrrying U.S. troops through Shannon as the safety of their planes could not be guaranteed. Well isn't that what we're trying to achieve!!
I agree with those who have been arguing that the ultimate direct action would be the workers in Shannon refusing to co-operate with the re-fuelling operation. Anyone interested in having a real discussion about how this can be done practically?? Issuing ritual 'the workers must act' calls ain't going to work. How about starting with an open letter signed by as many trade unionists as possible assuring the workers of our support if they do take action?? Anyone got time to work on drafting something - mail me and I'll help out.
The thing that really pisses me off in terms of the discussion is the counterposing of mass protests and direct action. The two are complementary tactics - neither tactic has anything to fear from the other. I want to see 100,000 people marching in Shannon. If someone organises a march and is building for it I'll be there building for it too. But equally I want to see people given the space to use other tactics. As far as last Saturday is concerned it was originally called as a Direct Action event and the IAWM subsequently organised their own event at the same place and same time. I had no problem with that but I did have a problem with spokespersons for the IAWM going out of their way to belittle the event and elements of the IAWM contributing to the hype about 'violence'.
Surely we're all mature enough to accommodate different tactics and not to lose sight of our ultimate objective!!

by zzzzzzzzzzz Tue Mar 04, 2003 10:19

Only for the anarchists we would all be supporting the war.

Yawn

zzzzzz..........

by Ray Tue Mar 04, 2003 10:45

Glad to see the WSM now has 300 members.

by Joe Sheehan Tue Mar 04, 2003 12:15

I have to say that contrary to my comments last week it was a VERY GOOD action on Saturday and worked very well.
The media were made look like fools as they waited for the riot to start only to find that GNAW were non-violent as had been promised.
I would just like to say thank you to all involved for a very powerful day.

by James Tue Mar 04, 2003 12:45

I travelled on one of the buses from Cork. On the way up we had a discussion. Two spoke for the NVDA one WSM, one Cork Anarchist and two against one SWP and one SP. Each was heard out there was no animosity. We chatted away on the way and then went and done our thing.

On the way back there was no animosity and we all sat down together for food in the restaurant. As my friend in the SWP said this is only politics not personal we'll all be working together for the next demo in Cork on Saturday. And so it is on Monday night we were back at work in the Cork anti-war campaign all strands. Thats how it should be, have the debate decide and respect each individaul and groups right to do their thing.

by Jim Monaghan Tue Mar 04, 2003 12:58 jbm7 at tutor dot open dot ac dot uk

Jim perhaps you missed the two questions at the end of the post you are replying to? Here they are again, the answers to these are actually important if we are to understand each others position

"1. How many times do you think we should have 100,000 strong marches before we are allowed to also try out other tactics?"

Andrew I am wary of those who call themselves "friends of the people" to use an old phrase. Those who will protct the people who substitute their own actions and rationale and leave the masses as spectators. The Republican movement all shades succomb to this temptation.Around strikes and other acts of resistance there are sometimes isolated actions by small groups who are not answerable to anyone but themselves. I make a distinction between calling for militant actions at meetings of trade unions or other peoples organisations and ignoring the reality of where people are actually at.The short cut mentality has to be avoided. This short cut mentality boils down to " the masses are passive we, the self appointed vanguard, have to shock them into militancy by our own heroism". This and we both know plenty of examples leads to tragedy and sometimes to farce.

"2. How many times do you think people will turn out and march if it appears the march has no effect. Do you think the end result of that would be to make people more or less likely to march in the future?"

The world wide movement has and is still having an effect.100,000 plus good, a quarter of a million better. A peaceful blockade of the embassies of the evil twins, who knows.What is possible depends on the mood and consciousness of the masses. That is why when I attend a trade union meeting I am very influenced by whatever sense I get of how genuinely militant and representative the attendance is.I of course try and usually fail to change this but that is where it is at.
It took years and lots of mass actions to break American "patriotism" and as well the sacrifice of the Vietnamese people to "End the war". Many got fed up along the way. The American Left is littered with the remnants of the "weatherpeople" and many such who found shortcuts. Here in Ireland the remnants of the dissident Republicans are an example of such cul de sacs.
On writing this I realise that the GNAW are a million miles removed from this, but I urge do not set out on this path or through rhetoric persuade others.. You and the WSM are serious people and have played and will play an important role on the Left. If I did not see that this debate would not be worth the bother. For the record I am not enamoured with the pretend Leninists either.

Jim Monaghan

by Andrew Tue Mar 04, 2003 13:35

Hi Jim,

in fact I tend to agree with your remarks of the dangers of substituting ourselves for mass action. But of course that was not at all the intention on Saturday, rather we hoped that by announcing a non-violent direct action with very clear details of what would happen people who don't normally do that sort of thing could take part.

We honestly did not expect the level of hysteria this generated from other sections of the anti-war movement. I think there are three explanations for this

1. These sort of mass actions are common in other countries but not Britain or Ireland. So people genuinely did not know what to expect. It's noticable that once the non violent nature of it became clearer a number of people who had opposed the action actually shifted to a 'diversity of tactics' position (Ed Hurican on Newstalk 106 on Satuday morning) or even supportive ones. There is a lot to chew over first but I would not be surprized to see something very similar being implemented in the next weeks starting from a much broader base then GNAW could offer.

2. There were lots of bubbling disagreements within the anti-war movements anyway. We provided a catalyist around which these erupted. This was certainly neither our intention nor expectation.

3. A rather unfortuante loop developed beyind the medai and sections of the anti-war movements where media 'spin' of violence and request for comment led to even further 'spin' of expected violence. When this got to the level of Sinn Fein pulling out for fear of violence that process really reached heights of lunacy.

I've been talking to 'ordinary people' who took part in the F15 march over the last couple of days to try and work out where they are coming from. From this I'd also suggest that the 'cohesion' of the movement was greatly over-estimated and the impact of the post march spin, in particular from the Sindo greatly under estimated.

So far no one I've asked has said that they would definetly march again (I'm asking people I know haven't gone on anything in years, if ever). The major reasons I've got is that the felt that the reasons they marched were mis-represented ('I'm not anti-american is a very common response') and that they didn't like the way political parties played such a prominent role. Note that here people are also reacting to the media portrayal rather then the reality - just about no one on the anti-war side would label themselves 'anti-american' in the sense that the SINDO uses it.

Interestingly in terms of political manipulation Sinn Fein is the one not often mentioned, the people I've talked to are pretty much unaware of the SWP/SP in terms of considering them seriously as a political party. They remember RBB's name though which may help him in the next election.

From this I'd say that in terms of creating a mass movement what happened at Shannon is pretty irrlevant to the problems facing the anti-war movements. If there had been an actual riot at Shannon then it would be of greater importance but right now it looks to me like its being used as cover to avoid facing some more difficult and fundamental questions. The very poor attendence at the 'miles away from it all' Dublin rally would seem to also confirm this.

This is not unique, once a peak is acheived it is often difficult to harness even a portion of that energy. This is partly a problem of strategy as not much is being put forward as the next step beyond the abstract 'build the movement' and the rather weak 'tea break against the war' once the US actually gets around to bothering to formally declare war. GNAW put forward a strong and effective idea that could have been carried through on a mass basis. Thats not what happened but rather then attacking GNAW perhaps a better idea would be to develop ideas that can seize the popular imagination.

by Oisin Kelly - UCDSU Education Vice President elect - Socialist Party Tue Mar 04, 2003 15:24

It really amazes me that some people in the GNAW have not learned the lessons of last Saturday. I'm not opposed to Direct Action, but I do think that it was not the best thing to do tactically last Saturday.

It seems to me that there are some that dont want to look at the broader picture and they just want to be loyal to their own ideology. In my opinion the GNAW leadership were not concerned with what is needed for building opposition to the war. They were more concerned with planning a protest strictly in accordance with their own anarchism. Their strict adherance to anarchism was so strong that they posted exact details of DA on this website, believeing that it was "democratic" and "transperant" to do so!!

I think that it would be wrong to paint the picture of massive lasting divisions between activists over this question. Most of the people at the GNAW protest will probably see that Direct Action in the form of pulling down a fence on Saturday was not the best way forward. Hopefully now the GNAW will learn the lessons of Saturday and will build mass opposition to the war alongside the IAWM.

by Ray Tue Mar 04, 2003 15:39

The people in GNAW have been involved in building 'mass opposition to the war' already. They supported and advertised all of the earlier anti-war actions, in Dublin and in Shannon, and I'm sure they'll continue to do so.
As for being blinded by ideology ... pretty much every SP poster on here parrots the line about 'only workers can stop the war'. Every one of them. Even though no-one is arguing against the idea that strike action would be great. But nobody from the SP addresses the fact that strike action is very unlikely in the near future (its unfortunate, but its true), and no-one seems able to grasp the fact that there are other forms of direct action, and possibly they could be used AS WELL.

If you oppose the direct action GNAW has attempted, its incumbent on you to back up your arguments
1) Present some proof that Saturday's action will stop people going along to another march in Dublin (at which GNAW again declares it will not be engaging in direct action).
2) Explain why, even though a march of 100,000 people didn't change government policy, another march of approximately the same size will be much more successful.
3) Tell us when this wonderful strike action is going to take place (hint: before the war starts would be best)
4) Explain why, when three of the four US carriers have pulled out of Shannon airport citing concerns about security, mass trespasses couldn't possibly drive away the fourth one.

by Angrier Activist Tue Mar 04, 2003 16:12

He doesnt take over for another 4 months and hes alraedy using his title. His 'just so' way of preaching does not convince either.

by Anonymous Tue Mar 04, 2003 16:31

The debate on this could go on till well, well after the dust has settled from the American obliteration of Iraqi innocense. Nevertheless I am not underestimating the argument and it is something that needs to be done.

However, more importantly the main focus should be on the present and on the future. To that end what is the next big move being planned?? Or is there a next big move being planned??

I would think surely another big demo in Dublin is due. No one, including anti-war activists expected the huge turnout last time. Surely this should now be capitalised on and another HUGE demo should be organised. The potential is there to increase the numbers by at least 50%, because the last march will have had a huge impact on the general, inactive, neutral public.

Or does anyone know if there are any plans afoot to organise another worldwide one?

Going back to the questionable merits of direct action again, as I say the argument is an important one, but I believe the main focus must remain on the next moves and also a spirit of unity, co-operation and strength must remain while having this debate.

I thought James put it perfectly in a few comments back. His comments to me were a perfect blueprint in microcosm on way forward for the Irish Left & the general humanitarian movement in Ireland:-

"The first Cork bus
by James Tue, Mar 4 2003, 11:45am

I travelled on one of the buses from Cork. On the way up we had a discussion. Two spoke for the NVDA one WSM, one Cork Anarchist and two against one SWP and one SP. Each was heard out there was no animosity. We chatted away on the way and then went and done our thing.

On the way back there was no animosity and we all sat down together for food in the restaurant. As my friend in the SWP said this is only politics not personal we'll all be working together for the next demo in Cork on Saturday. And so it is on Monday night we were back at work in the Cork anti-war campaign all strands. Thats how it should be, have the debate decide and respect each individaul and groups right to do their thing."

by Angry UCD student Tue Mar 04, 2003 16:31

OK how dare you use your title 'UCDSU Education Vice President elect' in this way. I voted for you cause you were the only left running for ed. I do not agree with you on direct action and you have no mandate to speak for me on this.

by Loki Tue Mar 04, 2003 16:40

UCD students who object to Oisin Kellys misuse of the SU name should complain to the Students Union.

It one thing for OK to voice his opinions, its anothrt to imply they have the backing of UCDSU.

by zzzzzzzzzzz Tue Mar 04, 2003 20:04

Nice one, Ray.

But shouldn't it be 300 virtual members

by zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Tue Mar 04, 2003 20:37

Where does Ray or anyone else claim that the WSM has 300 members? Most people that took part in the GNAW actions were not members of any party.

The point of organisation like GNAW is not to actually recruit people to "the Party" but to try and help each other to do something effective whether it's strike, march or drive US airplanes out of Ireland.

And that worked very well with GNAWs action which saw the withdrawal of 2 airlines within a day of the action being announced.

On the other hand your mad keyboarding skills have led to the withdrawal of nothing but your sanity and constructive participation.

by Ray Wed Mar 05, 2003 09:48

Someone was claiming up above that the direct action on Saturday was just 'WSM living in their virtual world'. Since there were about 300 people taking part in the direct action, the obvious conclusion is that WSM now has 300 members.

by Anonymous Wed Mar 05, 2003 12:02

If you want some zed's, there is a place for it, its called bed! If you want to stop this war / refuelling in shannon, there is a place for it, its called the street! I am not a member of the WSM but support nearly all their efforts and activities. Don't bemoan those who are trying as hard as they can. Say something positive & get active!! Best regards....

by Anonymous Wed Mar 05, 2003 12:02

If you want some zed's, there is a place for it, its called bed! If you want to stop this war / refuelling in shannon, there is a place for it, its called the street! I am not a member of the WSM but support nearly all their efforts and activities. Don't bemoan those who are trying as hard as they can. Say something positive & get active!! Best regards....

by Rob - ANTI - PASTI Mon Apr 14, 2003 14:00 robdubh at hotmail dot com

Totally agree with the earlier comments from James. In order to ensure continued progressive development of the movement this is the type of positive political debate, & ultimately cooperation that is required.

ROB.