Why the Irish anti-war movement is ineffective.

by chuck arlaw Tue Apr 01, 2003 00:38

I blame it all on the gombeen/comprador class ...

by a pint o'plain Tue Apr 01, 2003 00:39

Is dah a fact now ?

by anon Tue Apr 01, 2003 01:03

However the only thing that's going to close Shannon to US warplanes is a government decision and that's only going to happen with overwhelming public opposition. Not 65%-75% but 90%+.

And 90% of people won't go near anything with even a hint of destruction of any kind. its hard enough to get up the courage and the outrage to march without having your collegues at working linking you with doing damage. Even flag-burning turns many people away.

The greatest error the Irish anti-war movement (the real movement, not the group) has made is to mix 'direct action' with peaceful protest in the minds of much of the public.

Direct action has its place, but that place is an isolated one, safely distant from the corporate employees and civil servants and small business people and others who make up the majority of those in Ireland against the war and against the use of Shannon. People who enjoy Pat Kenny and have mortgages and think of themselves as sensible (and that's many, many people) don't want to be associated with pulling fences down or burning US flags or damaging planes.

People who wish to use direct action should do it in the way that Eoin Dubsky, Mary Kelly and the ploughshares 5 have done it - alone. That way they can make their point while the vast numbers of ordinary, sensible people can say "tsk tsk, isn't that awful" without being alienated from marches and other forms of what they see as respectable protest.

by Che Tue Apr 01, 2003 01:56

There is another way Shannon can be stopped being used for refuelling and that is to take note of what happened after Mary Kelly and the Catholic Workers took action. Their direct sction made 3 airlines pull out of Shannon because of a security risk to their planes. We dont havr to rely on our useless government changing their minds we can take the decision out of their hands completely.

by Max - IRISH PRO LIBERATION SOC Tue Apr 01, 2003 02:01

every time you burn a US flag you turn mote people away from your movement - keep it up!

by James McKenna Tue Apr 01, 2003 09:54

....They turn people off them.

by seedot Tue Apr 01, 2003 10:52

"People who wish to use direct action should do it in the way that Eoin Dubsky, Mary Kelly and the ploughshares 5 have done it - alone. That way they can make their point while the vast numbers of ordinary, sensible people can say "tsk tsk, isn't that awful" without being alienated from marches and other forms of what they see as respectable protest."

Of course - why didn't I see it. When the Berlin wall came down - that wasn't mass direct action, that was people sneaking in in the middle of the night and symbolically taking a bit away until it was all gone.

The ordinary sensible people rose up in favour of Hugo Chavez.

The ordinary, sensible people have finished off dictators and kings and unjust laws and undemocratic leaders all over the world. But now, in the new Irish democracy, the majority is 90% + and a history of struggle and resistance is cast aside: don't upset the Pat Kenny listeners.

Stop the next wave of killers passing through our country on their way to Baghdad!

Take down the fence that Bertie is sitting on!

by Rob Tue Apr 01, 2003 11:04

I am pro-liberation of all people. If you truly believe this war is for the freedom of Iraqi people then you must also believe that freedom is something that must be forced on people. The US/K armies have not yet begun to fight the hardcore Sadman supporters, yet they are facing resistance on a scale unforseen and unimaginable to them, who then does this resistance come from? It is those who are conscripted in, who see devastation coming without possibility of peaceful resolution, who though they may not support Saddam (Sadman) will fight to the bitter end simply because the freedom being offered cannot be trusted, they were ignored last time. What will happen to them this time if the invading freedom fighters turn yellow and run again (that is if you agree with the argument that this is a courageous fight to liberate a people), or maybe see a campaign develop into something beyond profit into cost or, God help us, humanitarian principle, and turn and run again? From what ever angle you approach it a simple fact remains: In order for this war to be justified, above and beyond anything else, it needs the support of the Iraqi people - if the armies have not yet started fighting Sadmans true loyal supporters then who have they been killing? A: Scared young men (about my age, 22, who recieved a letter from their dictator that convicted them to death, death or Guantanamo Bay - that's what all the evidence says. One option is left for our peers in Iraq, resistance - but just look at what happened last time. Untill the west can win back the trust of a decieved, ill-treated and abused people we have no right to speak in their name.

All that leave out corruption, imperialism, death of democracy, hypocracy, international law, cowardice, national laws, human decency, snactions, depleted uranium, genocide, wanton destruction, UN violations, human rights, arms trade, selective principle . . . not to metion oil or reconstruction . . .

by Andrew Tue Apr 01, 2003 11:47

that Bertie would pay any more attention to 90% plus then he has to 70%+. This 90% requirement sounds like yet another excuse for inaction, no dougbt if we reached it you'd be telling us it has to be 99% etc, etc.

The flag burning non issue is a good example of what happens when you think 'the answer' is chasing public opinion (rather then forming it). You end up having to try and silence every single tiny aspect of the movement that politicans can have a go at. Not only is that a divisive waste of energy but its also impossible as lots of people will rightly tell you to fuck off.

Rightly so because what you are trying to do is impose your political agenda of (naive) liberal reformism on those who don't agree with your politics. We don't belive in your '90% public opinion will stop the war'. Deal with that!

by critical support Tue Apr 01, 2003 12:24

not total failure - 2-3 out of 5 of the troop transport companies have stopped flying through shannon - that is not 'total failure' instead it is partial success.

the movement, over all, has been clueless as to where to go from here, since Feb 15th especially.

by anon Tue Apr 01, 2003 13:22

Not anytime soon, anyway. If you think 'the masses' are going to rise up and do anything, whether its war-related or not, then you should get out more and meet more and different people.

The 'masses' might get roused for the World Cup, but that's about it.

Protest against the war is something that many, many people will participate in - but if you expect the ordinary people of Ireland to take the day off work and go to Shannon to tear the fence down then you're delusionary. Come to think of it, an anti-war strategy based on 'the coming revolution' and 'the uprising of the masses' instead of simply closing down Shannon may be the reason for the movement's ineffectiveness.

It is undeniable that Eoin Dubsky, Mary Kelly and the others have done wonderful work in highlighting the use of shannon and in scaring away two of the three private charters flying troops (as opposed to equipment). However they didn't involve corporate-working, Pat-Kenny-loving, sensible, law-abiding middle Ireland in the process. They just went and did it on their own bat. Having said that, security is a lot tighter now so its hard to see it happening again.

And even if it did, I'm sure the US military would still keep a few planes going through just to keep Ireland 'onside' as part of the 'coalition of the bought and the bullied'.

by anon Tue Apr 01, 2003 14:24

I'm not putting forward an excuse for inaction at all - I think that its quite possible to get 90% against the war. Even better would be to get many, many people actively against the war - as happened on February 15th.

My point is that it won't happen following 'the usual tactics' by 'the usual crowd'. Most people aren't into the politics represented by Kiaran Allen and Patricia McKenna. Most are reasonably satisfied with their lives and the majority support either FF, FG or the PDs. And they are not going to suddenly change their minds on account of this invasion.

But that doesn't mean that they are not against this war and the government's position on it.

The ones most in touch with the reality of political opinion in Ireland are the political parties. Its a pity that Labour, the Greens and Sinn Fein are not more involved in organising anti-war activities, rather than the more radical groups. Getting Fine Gael on board for demonstrations and protest would be a real coup, although I wouldn't hold my breath. Just contrast how many votes FG got at the last election with how many the SWP got if you want to see who is more in touch with Irish political reality.

My point is that, in order to be effective in anti-war (and other) activities, it is necessary to engage with the reality of Ireland - not the fantasy of imminent revolution. You might have to piss off the flag-burners in order not to piss off the Fine Gael voters. But there's a lot more Fine Gael voters.

And you don't have to try and silence every single tiny aspect of the movement that politicans can have a go at. By all means start an armed wing of the anti-war movement and take pot shots at US planes landing at Shannon. Whatever you're into. But just don't associate the ordinary, non-radical majority with those actions. Leave them space to express their non-radical, conformist, corporate-loving opposition to war - like they did on February 15th.

A lot of people are already telling the anti-war movement (the real movement, not the group)to 'fuck off' - even though they are against the war. The sad thing is that they have nowhere else to go.

by leaderless Tue Apr 01, 2003 14:33

The statement below is very accurate of course neither the swp/sp labour or SF want to hear this, a march or 2 going to empty buildings on a saturday is enough to fool people, or so they think!
"The most effective way for the Irish anti-war movement to defeat Anglo-American imperialism, in Iraq or elsewhere, is to resist all its manifestations in Ireland. Until that happens, all the noise and protests are but so much ineffective posturing"

by paul c Tue Apr 01, 2003 14:37

how you we defeat/remove those manifestations

try and get business to protest/
target protest at companies

?

by Chekov Tue Apr 01, 2003 15:37

"just don't associate the ordinary, non-radical majority with those actions. Leave them space to express their non-radical, conformist, corporate-loving opposition to war - like they did on February 15th."

The thing is that nobody is remotely proposing taking space away for people to oppose the war in non-radical ways. Nowhere have we seen elements within the anti-war movement opposing Feb 15th or such mobilisations.
The debate has been about whether everyone who is anti-war should be limited to these tactics in opposing the war. So when you say "piss off the flag-burners" and then that an armed wing is ok with you - this seems to be a contradiction.

I mean the flag-burners and the direct action types are not claiming to represent all of Ireland. Nor do they have the ability to control whether they are associated with the big marches, since they are agitating on the same issue and thus are associated. The media will make this association even if the anti-war politicians seek to ignore it. So I can't see how this dissociation could be achieved without policing all anti-war events and suppressing all non-sanctioned forms of protest. I suspect that any such attempt to impose homogenity on a mass movement would be much more succesful at driving people away than the odd flag burning.

by Rob Tue Apr 01, 2003 15:41

Yes that is exactly the most effective way to apprach this problem. Unfortunately this is being discussed on indymedia, at lefty gatherings, in commy groups, by radical anti-americans the list is endless inacurate and entirely true of how the majority of irish people see those who say that you'll have to stop hanging out in Jervis street and MaccyDs on your Saturday in order to stop the war.

Don't get me wrong, this war has developed from a problem created by a failing system and must be highlighted and tackled as such in order to prevent it happening again and begin the repair/replacement of that system. However, people have been bought by this system, some have been bribed in a comfortable life, some have been fooled into an idea of comfort, a lot a intensely loyal' unaware or scared of losing material comforts, we've all read NO LOGO etc. But we don't matter. We know where the problem is, our job is to communicate this to an Irish population who (the majority) see it different, or make the associations and miss the relationship, they've heard about it all and thus don't buy Nike - the principled majority buy Rebok instead. This is the reality. Take a walk and have a look around, we need to get these people onside, and unfortunately we don't know how . . . If we did things would be different. Communication is the key, clarify the fact and get them to an aging Irish population - those are the current majority - but get the young ones onside as soon as possible. Right now most are against the war, yet American Commerce still rules our society.

by Deirdre Clancy - Catholic Worker Tue Apr 01, 2003 18:41

... the "armed wing of the peace movement", anon. That's like saying that someone who uses a hammer to make a piece of furniture or uses an axe to cut wood is armed. Unless you believe that planes have human pain thresholds and human emotions, your argument is spurious.

"It is undeniable that Eoin Dubsky, Mary Kelly and the others have done wonderful work in highlighting the use of shannon and in scaring away two of the three private charters flying troops (as opposed to equipment). However they didn't involve corporate-working, Pat-Kenny-loving, sensible, law-abiding middle Ireland in the process. They just went and did it on their own bat. Having said that, security is a lot tighter now so its hard to see it happening again. "

First, I don't regard Pat-Kenny-loving people as sensible. Second, although each individual/group did what they did "on their own bat", this was for reasons other than not wanting to offend middle Ireland, reasons which I won't go into here and which would be sort of obvious to anyone who's ever been involved in direct action. Pissing off middle Ireland is something I would love to do more often, actually, as it pisses me off so much. So there you have it, anon.

Deirdre.

by anon Wed Apr 02, 2003 09:01

I don't see anything wrong with breaking planes or with burning flags (and I wouldn't advocate shooting at planes - I was just making a point). What I am saying is do these things separately from 'safe' actions for the Pat-Kenny loving mainstream.

Imagine being a nice, 'ordinary', sensible, law-abiding citizen and going to your first ever demonstration only to have a bunch of nutters burn a US flag just like the mad fundamentalists in Pakistan and the Middle East. I mean, what would the neighbours and the lads at work say?

And if you start getting into "changing the system" and using loaded words like 'imperialist' then forget it.

Of course, you could stay 'pure' - but don't expect ordinary people to join you.

by Chekov Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:37

'Ordinary' people are not all the same. Some ordinary people may be appalled by flag burning, other ordinary people burn flags. So whenever you have a large mobilisation of ordinary people, you will have some people doing things doing things that alienate some other people. Repressing some of them is likely to drive most of the rest away.