Sinn Fein is now a centre-right party: Eamonn McCann

by Daithi Sat Apr 12, 2003 20:22

Writing an "article" every week on what's said on a particular radio show is not news. What do you think this newswire would be like if everyone with a cause to push forward wrote a summary of their favourite show every single week and published it as an article? Show some consideration for the integrity of this site and either (a) add your contribution on an existing article on the topic of the week - there are many such articles, even linked from the front page paper, or (b) wait until you actually have something newsworthy to offer. I.e. if someone says something directly contradictory to what they've said before, or declares war on Ethopia, or something equally earth-shattering.

Articles can be deleted if a consistent pattern of abuse is evident. Every week for quite a few weeks now we're getting the update from the show you like. I listen to a lot of radio programmes as do many other users and somehow we can restrain ourselves from treating Indymedia like their personal webspace. Give it a break. Use the comments feature, especially when your so-called news is so short it fits into the summary box! IF you won't, then we will move the contributions to the existing articles.

by Kev Sat Apr 12, 2003 20:28

Daithi I was glad to read this as I missed the RFE show and they no longer archive it. Don't use your own politics as a barometer of what is good for Indymedia.

by Cllr Eoin O'Broin - Sinn Fein Sat Apr 12, 2003 21:58 eoinobroin at hotmail dot com

While it will come as no surprise that Eamonn McCann and Tommy McKearney deride and mis-represent Sinn Féin's current political position, it is nontheless important to put the record straight. Clearly there is a wide gulf between these two writers views and Sinn Féin's political positions on many issues. However, to describe Sinn Féin as a centre right party is both factually incorrect and politically absurd.

At the party's most recent Ard Fheis, Sinn Féin delegates debated and adopted a number of important policy documents which strengthened the radical and democratic socialist content of the party's programme. New policies on PPP/PFIs, education, and the European Union were but the latest additions to the party's growing left wing dimension. Likewise, debates and motions on gender equality, international solidarity and policing deepened republicans radical commitments to the politics of change. The theme for the weekend was Building an Ireland of Equals, Saoirse, Ceart agus Síocháin, and throughout delegates speeches and that of party president Gerry Adams, a clear and radical left republican alternative to the current status quo -north ad south- was articulated.

While party conferences are important, it is the work which follows that determines whether fine sentiments are translated into political reality. Again the evidence clearly highlights that on the ground and in the political institutions Sinn Féin activists are delivering on our democratic socialist programme. This is the material basis of our growing political strength.

The difficulty for marginal political figures such as Tommy McKearney or Eamonn McCann is that they either don't have a political project outside the negative anti-Sinn Féin sloganising or the programme they offer is rooted in outdated forms of economistic Marxism.

More troubling for both figures is that Sinn Féin is fast emerging as the only left alternative to the political status quo north and south, thus further marginalising their own narrow political space. By deliberately mis-representing Sinn Féin's position, they hope to undermine our growth.

While all sections of the left in Ireland will have significant disagrements with each other over matters of policy and strategy, we would all be better served if we concentrated our efforts on working together and defeating the real enemy, rather than wasting energy in factional bickering. If the hegemony of Fianna Fail is to be broken in the south it will only be as a result of a real left of centre coalition developing inside and outside of Leinster House. Likewise, if meaningfull conflict resolution is to develop the ability of Unionists and the British government to halt the pace of change must be broken.

It is time the left grew up and learned to work together, despite our differences, rather than descend into petty arguments, which after all, only serves those opposed to change across Ireland and internationally.

by Jim Costello Sat Apr 12, 2003 22:49

Breaking the hegomony of Fianna Fail? The Adams faction is slobbering at the prospect of going into coalition with them.

by Des Sat Apr 12, 2003 23:17

I would be very interested to hear your definition of your party’s “democratic socialist” programme? Is it perhaps similar to that of Neil Kinnock? You may remember Neil; he was the “democratic socialist” who was considered such a threat to the capitalist system that Thatcher appointed him to the EU Commission. How do you reconcile your party’s actions north and south on issues such as the anti war campaign. Meeting with the perpetrator of the aggression against the Iraqi people while at the same time “opposing” the war? Participating in the stage Irish farce at the White House while refusing to support the recent demonstration at Shannon because of the threat of “violence”. Do you see no contradiction between the policies of Martin McGuinness and Bairbre De Brun when they were ministers in the Executive and your “democratic socialist” programme.
To use your own term, it is indeed “absurd” to claim that SF is in any way left of centre, (no genuinely left party would ever have voted to impose double taxation/service charges on working class people in Sligo) on the contrary SF is a nationalist party and one of the goals of your party is to get in coalition with F.F. if you are not aware of that, then the leadership must be keeping you somewhat uninformed on certain aspects of party policy. Of course, at the present time Bertie does not require your support, but if the need ever arose, I am sure he would be prepared to cut a deal.

by nolympics Sat Apr 12, 2003 23:26

Eoin, the point that McCann is making is a valid one, and no less valid because he is a 'marginalised political voice'. In fact he is not marginalised but a popular polemical journalist, because he's not a member of an electorally successful party doesn't diminish the legitimacy of his criticism of SF. I think its widely accepted that there is plenty of dialogue within SF and that, particularly among ogra SF, there are numerous radical and left voices who work to push the party in this direction. Nevertheless for those of us outside the party there is absolutely no evidence of SF offering any kind of left agenda as their electoral popularity grows. There are all sorts of radical and even militant currents within the British labour party but this doesnt (and wont) make it a left wing or radical party EVER.

The maner in which the peace process was delivered to your own membership is indcative of some of the reasons SF cant be taken seriously as a left party. It lacks even a modicum of meaningful internal democracy and operates on all the serious matters (policing, decomissioning, negotiations with brits, 26 counties, USA) as a model democratic centralist outfit reminiscient of some of the worst excesses of 20th century leninism. The manner in which developments of the last 8 years have been delivered by the leadership to the 'movement' as faits accompli, to be considered after the fact, illustrates the probelm. and central to this is the deal made with the southern bourgeoisie, american capital and the british state to manage SFs entry into parliamentary politics. the fct is that SF have no more than one serious memebr of the leadership who is any kind of socialist. ZThe rest are essentially 'realos', or realists who favour the tactical building of an electoral base among the middle class over any kind of left political movement that might promise to change the entire set up of the 32 counties.

by Cllr Eoin O'Broin - Sinn Fein Sun Apr 13, 2003 00:05 eoinobroin at hotmail dot com

To Des: The best definition of Sinn Féin's democratic socialist programme can be found in the debates and documentation from the most recent Ard Fheis.

Our version of democratic socialism is closer to that of the Campaign Group of Socialist Mp's in Britain rather than neil Kinnock or various socialist party's in Europe, to the left of the Social Democratcs, such as ERC in Catalonia and Batasuna in Euskal Herria.

Our position on the anti-war campaign is quite clear. Meeting George Bush and arguing an anti-war position is no different than meeting Tony Blair and arguing an Irish independence position. There are many perpretratpors of the ongoing war in Iraq and Sinn Fein has met many of them including Ahern, Blair and Bush. Indeed if we had the opportunity to meet Spanish premier Jose Maria Aznar we would and add our opposition to his ongoing repression of the Basques to boot. To meet or not to meet, is a question of tactics and not principle, and while I respect people who object to our choice on this matter is does not make us any less opposed to the war.

Your comments on Sinn Féin ministers in Stormont is a more valid criticism, and indeed many grass roots activists were critical of the party. This criticism led to a serious debate within the party on PPPs and PFIs which in turn led to the new policy position. Party's don't get things right all the time, but recent developments on this front prove that within Sinn Féin, ordinary grass roots members are the driving force behind important and radical policy positions which will inform the work of our ministers when devolution is restored.

On the issue of coalition, its interesting that you seem to know the opinions of the Sinn Féin leadership better than we do ourselves. The real coalition which Sinn Féin is interested in building is of those on the left including Labour, the Greens and radical independents. If we can manage this then decades of centre right politics can come to an end.

To Nolympics: Indeed Eamonn is popular, but politically inefectual. His positions on specific issues resonate with a wide section of the Irish public including myself, but his political project as defined through the SWP does not comand any level of political support.

The evidence of Sinn Féin's commitment to a radical left republican project is to be found in the pages of An Phoblacht every week, in the work of hundreds of our elected representatives and activists throughout the country, in our mobilising around the anti-war protsts over the last number of weeks, in our opposition to the Niece Treaty, our defence of Irish neutrality and as I said in the original article in the debates and documentation at this years Ard Fheis.

In addition, your reading of the 'delivery' of the peace process as a 'fait accompli' is a mistake. Remember that Sinn Féin was the only party on this island to allow our party membership to discuss and decide on the party's positon on the Belfast Agreement, at two public and televised Ard Fheisena. At this years Ard Fheis we agreed to put any deal on policing to a specially convened Ard Fheis for the same purpose. The idea that party activists have been blindly led is one of those fictions which mis-reads the work of the party and patronises our activists. People should give us a ittle more credit.

With regard to the alledged 'deal made with the southern bourgeoisie, american capital and the british state to manage SFs entry into parliamentary politics', this ignores the fact that our entry into electoral politics came 10 years earlier and has been a central element of the struggle since the Hunger Strikes. However, building real conflict resolution requires partnerhsip with all sections of political opinion on this island including parties of the centre and right.

I'm also interested in your comments on the politics of the Sinn Féin leadership. Do you know these people? Are you sure that your description is accurate? My questions are rhetorical because the answer is that you are very wrong. It seems that you suffer from a case of only seeing what you want to see.

Sinn Féin is a political movement in transition., emerging out of a politics dominated by conflict and anti-repressive campaigning. Since 1994 the party has been building a coherent and radical left republican programme. We have a lot of work yet to do. But it would be a mistake to see these developments as marginal currents within the party. They are integral to our growth from grass roots to leadership.

The real debate between different currents on the left must be about how to build a real left oppositon to FF/FG/PDs in the south and UUP/DUP/SDLP in the north, while at the same time undermining partituion and realising Irish independence. This does not mean refusing to engage or work with those we oppose, but strengthing aliances within the left itself. Why debate questions of whose version of socialism is the most socialist, when we have more important work to do?

by Joe Moloney Sun Apr 13, 2003 00:07

Daithi, your right. Eman Mccan and Sinn fein is not news. Lets have more pieces from Kevin Myers of the Irish times. And maybe a few pieces from the Indo. How about a column by Eoin Harris?
this is what an alternative meeja is about not Eamon Mccannn and Sinn fein.

by Myrna G. Sun Apr 13, 2003 00:10

Eamonn McCann is a marginalized person. He should not be on Indymedia. Why does'nt he write for the Irish Times?

by nolympics Sun Apr 13, 2003 00:50

as i pointed out Eoin, Mccanns contribution to political life in ireland is significant as journalism, his fetish for the SWP is a personal matter over which i have no opinion. His criticism of SF has been usefull to those of us outside the party as im sure its been to those inside.

As for the belfast agreement and the 'debates' around it wthin SF, i cant take these seriously as a genuine means of developing a policy regarding the agreement as opposed to a leadership effort to bring people along with it. one has to be blind not to see that adams/mcguinness have asserted an agenda and then attempted, successfully, to bring the movement (bigger than SF) along with it. How else does one explain the back room dialogue with the british and southern state in the years leading up to the original cease fire. all of it kept from the membership both of the army and SF, aswell of course from the broader community said to make up the movement.

You refer to An Phoblacht as evidence of Sf committment to socialism but time and again we see that the rhetoric of radicalism simply cant be backed up in the parliamentary environment that SF have embraced. thats not to say that reps of SF dont perform well in the dail, in opposition. Evidence from the manner in which power is actually wielded in the north provides less comfort. But the outdstanding issue is this. Can SF orchestrate or collaborate in the creation of a broad left front in ireland, or will electoral determinants insist that Sf go into power with FF and form a centrist government. clearly the national question can be resolved one way or the other, the question is no longer primarily one of self determination, it is one of political content.

as for the deal i referred to and your retort that the hunger strikes represented the turn towards parliament. that is correct but by the late 80's electoral success had stalled on the rocks of armed struggle and the anglo irish agreement. the move beyond armed struggle was due in part to the fact that indications from the global bosses were that SF would enjoy detente in a post war scene. and they have been good to their word.

to my mind SF is the best show in town for other reasons. these include some you refer to, the activist base and the absence of any serious competition for young leftists. for these reasons I think SF will enjoy considerable success in the south in the next few elections. But the leadership represents a sort of vanguard of revolutionary generals. their vision has been proved correct time and again and so it will be very difficult for them to tolerate a strong left movement emerging through and from the party.

by Daithi Sun Apr 13, 2003 01:09

It's not about the fact that the attempt at an article is connected to Eamonn McCann or anyone in particular. It is possible, believe it or not, to discuss articles based on frequency of posting without being concerned with the worthiness or otherwise of the point being discussed. Time and time again Indymedia is accused of being biased against any number of people, groups, parties or viewpoints, and time and time again the accuser is shown up as being concerned with the promotion of their cause or hobbyhorse above anything else. If the most marginalised opinion on the world was spammed onto the newswire (and I'm not suggesting that this is spam, more like a thoughtless waste of space) it would still be a problem, and ten minutes later someone sympathetic to that opinion would be on here railing against the suppression of this crucial information by the evil overlords of the IMC. And as regards our friend Mr. Myers - myself, Ray, and many others are blue in the face asking users not to copy and paste articles from other media; in fact if you look at the article you will see comments criticising the user already, not from me though. The debate here is fascinating and very useful but the primary focus of a newswire is news not being a forum, and again the "article" would actually amke more sense in the context of the existing articles on Sinn Fein's role in the Bush visit and the questions that have been raised regarding their political orientations by other users of the site.

by Thomas Sun Apr 13, 2003 02:05

Eoin, I have always had a certain amount of respect for Sinn Fein because at a local level they are very good at mobilising people on important issues. I have been very disappointed by SF over the past couple of months. I live in Cabra and SF have a solid base of activists and supporters there. When posters need to go up, or leaflets distributed or meetings organised it gets done. It has been noteworthy that there has next to nothing done by SF to build the anti war movement in Cabra or anywhere else that I know of in the north inner city. SF have built up valuable political credibility in these communities and have the resources and nous to get their message out but as far as I can see the anti war movement had lip service paid to it but SF did not put its full political weight behind the campaign . Why?.

Furthermore,there has been inexplicably patchy coverage of the anti war movement in An Phoblacht and very few leaflets given out. Then bizarrely there was the pull out by SF of the march in Shannon on March the first as senior SFers said they anticipated violence because a small group talked about taking direct action. You have been involved in Ogra SF and you are a SF representative in north Belfast are you seriously telling me SF thinks pulling at a bit of fence is violent?. I have heard you talk admiringly about the Basque youth movement do you think they would pull out of a demo cos of planned civil disobedience?.

You say that SF met with Bush to argue the anti war position with him. That is ludicrous. Why help legitimise, even indirectly, a dangerous warmongerer's actions in order to shoot the breeze with him about the wrongs and rights of the war. Do you think that is an effective way of opposing the war? Come off it. I understand that idealism has to be tempered by pragmatism and you are not interested in being "pure" politically if that means you have no material effect on the world around you but the SF decision seemed opportunistic, weak and nothing whatsoever to do with socialism.

by Nora Donnelly Sun Apr 13, 2003 02:24

Daithi: Please have the courage of your editorial judgement and delete this 'thoughtless waste of space'. Otherwish your comments, more than twice the length of the 'article', are a 'thoughtless waste of space'.

by Mortimer Khan Sun Apr 13, 2003 02:34

It would help, Daithi, if you would give a short note on the distinction between opinion and news. The Myers piece, for example, seems to be opinion, or am I missing something here?

by Daithi Sun Apr 13, 2003 03:44

Nora: the space is already taken once the article goes up (I'm concerned with newswire space, i.e. the stories visible on the front page, rather than server space, of which text forms a very small part). And I don't want to delete an article without letting the contributor see what the problem is. If another editor feels strongly about it, well perhaps it will be deleted, but I prefer to err on the side of 'not deleting' to give people a fair chance to get their point across. This is not my personal fiefdom ;)

Mortimer: it's a line that eludes drawing! The Myers article (in my opinion) shouldn't be there in the first place, it's not independent media content creation at all. However there are those who disagree with me on this point in general and therefore it stays. With complaints added as comments, of course. Articles in the form of op-ed/first person perspective/etc. don't pose any problem, I think, but opinion comments on existing articles, argument starters (i.e. one liners like "Why do you hate Sinn Fein? Post your answers here"), and the article above (someone said something on a radio show about a topic that's already got many articles devoted to it so let's create yet another article) are more appropriate to a site that's purely a discussion board rather than this one.

The other issue that enters into the question of an article 'not being news' is the pattern of posting by the author, for example the North Korea supporter who has posted three articles today on the same subject, the crowd of fanatical pro-Israel/pro-Palestine contributors who fight their proxy wars over this site, and global crossposters (who send their article to every wire on the Indymedia network).

This becomes a problem because of our unwillingness to make value judgements on the content of the article; if it's acceptable for a weekly summary of one show then it's just as acceptable for any other show no matter what the subject matter, and soon you have nothing except one-paragraph summaries of radio shows posted as separate articles. Same thing with the Kim-fan. The result is the anti-Kim, the anti-anti-Kim, the I-can't-believe-it's-not-Kim, each upping the ante on each other. The Internet's big enough to handle that (and it's the joy of cyberspace to be able to flit from one thing to another endlessly) but Indymedia isn't - we can't be all the web nor would we try to be.

Like any other Indymedia policy I've tried to explain, this is (a) just my opinion - some would delete more, some would delete less, and (b) always up for change, we are constantly refining how we deal with articles and comments based on feedback and on dealing with real situations. "We" is "you" as well as "we", as well, if that makes any sense. Nothing is set in stone, or in bytes, or whatever the metaphor is these days.

by sean O'torain - labors militant voice Sun Apr 13, 2003 09:12 loughfinn at aol dot com

Eamonn McCann has been voicing criticism of Sinn Fein for some time now. I suppose it is better late than never. There were those of us on the left in Ireland who have criticised and opposed Sinn Fein's policies for the past 30 years. Even when they were at the height of their popularity in the catholic areas of the North there were those of us who held fast to our position. McCann was not one of us. I remember having a discussion with him back in Dublin in the early 1980's when I was expressing my view that the revolutionary left in Ireland had to seperate itself from Sinn fein because of their policies and methods. McCann was quite angry in his reply. He rejected this position forcefully saying he did not want to do so. Now years later when we all can see where the false policies of Sinn fein have led them then McCann is to the fore with his criticisms. There are all kinds of opportunism.

by Reality Bites Sun Apr 13, 2003 11:17

Eoin O Broin's mindless and defensive 'go' at Eamon Mc Cann demonstrates (1) just how much of a party apparachik he is and (2) just how out of touch he is. I think McCann is qualitively different to the rest of SWP in that his politics go beyond the usual sloganising (and SWP opportunism) that O Broin accuses him of (and which demonstrates O Broin's own lack of political thought). McCann's contribution to real radical politics (as opposed to the pretend radicalism SF now engage in) in Ireland in general and in Derry in particular over the last thirty odd years far outweighs any of the pseudo anti-imperialism that SF engages in these days. It's a very odd kind of anti-imperialism that brown-noses US arms manufacturers like Raytheon and wets its pants at the prospect of meeting Dubya. No wonder Mitchel was booed and McCann cheered at the Hillsborough rally. If this is the depth of analysis SF party hacks can muster, Eoin, yous might as well change your name to Fianna Fail Gerry Adams Cummann now. I hear the FF cumann in Derry are looking for a leader - you might just be their man.

Oh, and PS. I'm not SP/SWP/Militant/whatever collection of letters the hard left splitters are going by these days/. I'm an independent Derry voter, sick of the sell-outs and the crawling to big business that means yet more wanna-be Berties on the ballot.

by Kev Sun Apr 13, 2003 13:16

The reason people are objecting to your comments here is because they are bullshit hence the reference to the Myers piece which is still up with no comment from you. This has turned into one of the most interesting and relevant discussions on Indymedia with no thanks to yourself who would have pulled it due to your own politics. Instead, thankfully, we have real dialogue going on about a subject related to Ireland people are obviously interested in which includes give and take between an elected representative and the people he and his party represent (fantastic for Indymedia!) in addition this is not full of disinformation, paranoia, or weird leftie conspriacies as is 90% of the pure shite you leave up with no comment whatsoever.

Your bias was exposed very clearly here - thank you for not acting on it and deleting this right away.

by Daithi Sun Apr 13, 2003 14:15

Listen, I've been accused of being biased against every single party and movement so this "your politics are showing" crap will have no effect on me whatsoever.

And there is already a comment on the Myers piece. What exactly could I add? I've even gone to the trouble of explaining exactly where I stand on the posting of copied articles from other sites in far too much detail (above).

Why is the article still here if my bias is so overwhelming that I would act to cut off this great and wonderful debate? Maybe I'm not as omnipotent as you think....

But I agree with you regarding the usefulness of the debate that's taking place. It's great (though you will of course be aware that Indymedia doesn't value the contribution of an "elected representative" above that of anyone else). However there are many other interesting discussions that have managed to confine themselves to a single article. When the Bush visit was first announced, the wire was flooded with separate articles criticising Adams for his role; we moved many of the contributions to a single article and the debate did not suffer as a result. A good debate can also redeem an otherwise worthless article, and stop it being deleted/moved, however at that stage an original and content-rich story has already been knocked of the front page, invisible to the infrequent visitor.

That's my last word on this. Right from the start the intention not to delete this article was clear; the point was being made (and has been hammered home if not bludgeoned to death at this stage) that reporting what was said on a radio show week after week is not the function of a newswire, no matter how interesting the debate, in particular when articles on the subject already exist. For those who are still not on the same page, and trying to summon up the concentration to formulate a sentence in which Indymedia's anti-McCann bias will be well and truly exposed, the criticism of the article has not an iota of a connection with who is being discussed.

Carry on...

by Observer Sun Apr 13, 2003 15:07

SF are a capitalist party with a 'left' veneer. When in power in the Norht and in councils they have hown this. They have privitised schools, brought in Bin Tax, closed hospitals, entered into a needless and prolonged strike against the term time workers. SF have also done littel in the past while in building the anti war movement, opposing water charges in the North or supporting the firefighters. SF also recieve quite sizable donations from big business America.

It puzzles me why Mc Cann says they are 'now' a right wing party. Were they not a right wing split from SF the Workers Party? Its amazing that the SWP in fact called for a vote for SF in past up to and including the Forum elections in 1996 when the Labour Coalition were also standing.

by Justin Moran - Sinn Fein Sun Apr 13, 2003 21:35

Eoin seems to be busy what with IRA initiatives and such and frankly, it's so bewildering to read some-one making coherent points on Indymedia as you have done that I'm going to put my spake in on your last point as a Dublin Sinn Fein activist.

1. I think Sinn Fein put as much of its resources into thew anti-war campaign as we could. I think we were slow off the mark initially but after that as much as could be put into it, was put into it. But, and for the American gold conspiracy theorists this might be hard to understand, but we do not have unlimited resources, and at the same time as the anti-war campaign, we have an election campaign in the Six Counties, a Peace Process tottering this way and that and the myriad of day to day constituency and campaign work we have to do. As for Cabra, if the amount of work done was as small as you say,m they should have done more. But we have almost 30 cumainn in Dublin. Some are better than others, some are more active than others and all have work programmes of their own that might not have left space for as much anti-war work as they would have liked.

2. I just don't accept the comment on An Phoblacht's war coverage. I think it's been excellent, but again, remember that there are other issues than the war. I admire the ability of some people to focus exclusively on one issue, but it's not an ability we have. I often have my problems with APRN's coverage of this or that but I think it's war coverage has been good, especially at a time of crisis in the Peace Process.

3. As for the Shannon march, personally, I think we should have gone but my understanding is that when the leadership were told that a civil disobediance protest was being organied by Grassroots Gathering Against the War their initial reaction was who the fuck are Grassroots Gathering Against the War? Our leadership were being asked to support a demonstration called by an organisation most of them had never heard of. We don't so that sort of thing. I think that protest could have been handled better all round, by us and others, but sin e.

4. As for Bush, I can only point to Eoin's comments. We meet with David Ervine. Does that mean we approve of a murder campaign agtainst nationalists or ongoing attempts to force Nationalists out of Unionistareas? We meet with Tony Blair. Does that mean we think he should remain as ruler of the North? We meet with David Trimble. Does that mean we're bigoted Orangemen? Meetig some-one doesn't mean you support them. We made the point we wanted to make about the war and we discussed the Peace Process. It wasn't pleasant, talking to vermin rarely is, but it had to be done.

by Thomas Mon Apr 14, 2003 01:32

Justin

I appreciate the response but I want to come back on some of the things you wrote.

You wrote ......
1. I think Sinn Fein put as much of its resources into the anti-war campaign as we could.

I don't think that is true. I keep an eye out for SF leaflets and posters and so on and in Cabra, Drumcondra, Phibsboro, Ballybough, Summerhill, North Strand and the rest of the north inner city there was fuck all. I did see some graffiti and posters put up by Ogra SF in the Capel St/ Parnel st area but that is about it. Much smaller and badly resourced groups had made much more of an effort and I as I said that disappoints me.

Similarly, you said An Phoblacht's coverage of the war had been very good. I just went to the trouble to check out the AP/RN archive just in case I was mistaken. There was very little analysis- mainly statements from SF TDs and then a flurry of articles in the run up to the 15th of February when it was already clear that the march was going to be significant. That from my point of view isn't good coverage of a vital political issue

Then you wrote...
3. As for the Shannon march, personally, I think we should have gone but my understanding is that when the leadership were told that a civil disobediance protest was being organied by Grassroots Gathering Against the War their initial reaction was who the fuck are Grassroots Gathering Against the War? Our leadership were being asked to support a demonstration called by an organisation most of them had never heard of. We don't so that sort of thing. I think that protest could have been handled better all round, by us and others, but sin e.

...You are right I went down to Shannon and there were problems on all sides but I don't accept that it is right to dismiss something just because your leaders don't know who has organised something. Surely, you can't think that that is a decent way of responding to political intitiatives?. Anyway, two seperate events were planned for March the firts and SF pulled out of the IAWM march that day not the attempted Grassroots direct action. One group faced off the cops and not very much happened and another went to the terminal and not very much happened. My complaint is that SF chose to stir up the media hype about "violence" when it should know better from decades of experience in the Republican movement of the way "violence" gets discussed in the mainstream media.

I am going to leave the meeting Bush aside as I think that issue is as clear as day.

I thought SF were left wing and anti-imperialist and for that I have always given them qualified support. The past couple of months shows that the leadership of sf seems more committed to short term political advantage rather than principled radical politics. I would like to think otherwise.

by Justin Moran - Sinn Fein Mon Apr 14, 2003 10:08 maigh_nuad at yahoo dot com

Thomas with all due respect, judging whether a party has done anything nationally on an issue by looking at one constituency is a little odd. I know that across Dublin, and across the State, response is better in some places than in others. It disappoints me when cumainn don't do what they should be doing but it does happen. For what it's worth I passed on what you said to other people and hopefully it will be looked into. I think on a central level, in terms of money, and our own posters and the time put in by our people was good.

I still think APRN's coverage was pretty good, and stretches back to October 2002 as the first search for Iraq in the archivces revealed and looing through it a simple search for the word Iraq in 2002 reveals a good number of articles and features. I think APRN did well.

Look at it from the perspective of our leadership. A bunch of people they have never heard of approach them asking them to operate according to their plan in regard to a Shannon protest which will lead to confrontation with the Gardai. When soundings were taken from the IAWM and PANA, and I happened to be there at the meeting where those soundings were taken, and argued we should go, our leadership were given the message that neither of those groups, and the latter in particular, were very unhappy about it.

So a group our leadership had never heard of wanted us to do something, two groups they had heard of advised against.

by Hebe Mon Apr 14, 2003 10:11

It makes me laugh to hear John Throne speak of how radical and relevant Militant were in the 1980s. When the majority of Derry workers took strike action in support of the H Block hunger strikers, the Militant dominated Derry Trades Council condemned the strike as sectarian.

The Militant leader in Derry at the time, Bill Webster, then went on to get 71 votes in the Council elections. Hail the great and glorious Trotskyist leadership of Derry!

If the people wont support them, dont worry! In 20 years time John Throne will come along and rewrite history.

by Hebe Mon Apr 14, 2003 11:11

Just found this piece by John Throne elsewhere on indy. Maybe hes not so bad after all!

"I am very worried about what I see as a drift toward seeing the Protestants as the ,"bunkered minority" as the document puts it and basing the position on the defense of the Protestant ,"minority" as they soon will be. The emphasis on the insecurity of the Protestants. The use of expressions in relation to the Protestant paramilitaries sectarian killings as ,"their sectarian counter terror campaign.". The Protestant paramilitaries were involved in a counter terror campaign? This shows a serious loss of grasp on reality. I am extremely worried by the attempt to claim that the Northern state is not longer sectarian." John Throne

by Chekov Mon Apr 14, 2003 12:12

Thomas' problem with SF on March 1st essentially seems to be that they helped stir up the media scaremongering about violence despite the fact that they have lots of first hand knowledge of the media demonisation of 'violence'.

Furthermore, you are conflating the 2 demos. If SF didn't want to take part in a demo organised by a bunch of people who they had never heard of, they could have taken part in the IAWM demo (as the SWP & SP did).

For what it's worth, I read the March 1st actions of SF as a handy way of giving the SWP the heave ho and undermining their leadership of the anti-war movement. Perhaps I am mistaken, but that is the only reason I can think of for them not only neglecting to take part in the IAWM demo, but actively attempting to ensure that the day was not a success. The stated reasons for not taking part (fear of violence) were patently absurd.

by Thomas Mon Apr 14, 2003 13:43

I am not claiming to know the full story with the SF effort against the war and neither do I want to cast aspersions on a lot of the rank and file SF members. Nonetheless, I can confidently speak about where I work and live and about impressions garnered from being at demos and the like and apart from Day X and February the 15th SF was less visible a presence than one might expect.

I watched the development of Ogra SF with interest and I would of thought that they would of brought some fresh ideas and importantly some courage to the anti war movement but that didn't happen and I don't understand why that might be.

There seems to be to be a lot of complex poltical calculations been made by SF leadership in an attempt to reassure possible future voters, more conservative republicans and US supporters whilst keeping the radical elements of SF happy. The result it seems was an unhappy compromise- the war was oppossed but not too vociferously or too militantly. I know I am banging on about this but this is important because SF is the most visible, fastest growing and the most rooted part of the Irish left and anti-imperialism is a good litmus test of the direction the party is taking

by Jim Monaghan Tue Apr 15, 2003 14:05

"I was expressing my view that the revolutionary left in Ireland had to seperate itself from Sinn fein because of their policies and methods."

The revolutionary left is quite good at convincing itself of who is revolutionary and who is not. Alas as the longgevity of the old Communist parties and the continued rise of Sinn Fein proves this is not enough. Sinn Fein arose because of the oppression of Northern Nationalists, it had a social base whether Sean O'Torain likes it or not because of that. Militant with Sean tried to ignore this national oppression with the mantra of Class struggle because it went for a simplistic notion of class struggle. The attempt to criminalise the Provos was not just directed at the Provos but at the insurgent Nationalist population.Previous efforts were directed at the ANC and currently at Basque Nationalists and the PLO. I would have disagreements with all of them but would oppose attempts to criminalise tham on similar lines.
McCann can speak for himself but revolutionary socialists like myself and the old Peoples Democracy allied with Sinn Fein on an United Front basis on demands, tacticsw and strategy with which we agreed we parted company on other startegies and tactics with which we disagreed. The antiwar coalitions had similar alliances where groups and individuals cooperated where there was common ground. It would be foolish not top cooperate with Sinn Fein or the Greens and even the Labour Party in a similar way even if there are well justified fears of those parties evolving to the Right and ebntering into Bourgeois coalitions with FF or FG. (OK Labour is already there)
Rather than just slag Sinn Fein or the Greens we should reach out to the many thousands who support them and to the elements within these parties who are genuine about social transformation and who thus are opposed to right wing coalitions.Working with these on a range of common issues like the antiwar movement is the only safeguard.Whether anyone likes it or not the only credible alternative to FF/FG/Labour in the bulk of the country in the workingclass areas is Sinn Fein. IF Joe Higgins, Seamus Healy and the 2/3 left independents formed some kind of alternative it might develope a resonance.
Those who support coalitions in SF or the Greens can use the internecine slagging that substitutes for debate to justify their rightwing direction as simply realpolitic. My own impression is that after the H-Block/Armagh period a significant portion of the SF leadership wrote off their leftwing allies in that struggle as a crowd of messers who are not really serious.I think they were wrong but sometimes I see their point of view.
The real winners of the antiwar sentiment will be the Greens and SF.