Shannon - at the end of a long road

by Joe public Tue Apr 15, 2003 14:40

direct action direct action direct action direct action....what the proponents of direct action did not take into account was that it *WOULD* be used as propaganda against them, That was a certainty...anyone with a brain knew this and repeatedly pointed it out. But to no avail, the movement fell into the trap it helped to create for itself. Alienate the normal 'newspaper reading, Late Late Show watching' Mr and Mrs Joe public and their kids.. More importantly, and equally ignored, was that the people of ireland are about as radical as magnolia paint, expecting them to join in an orgy of civil disobedience was just ...plain.. silly.
I recall the silence of the crowd at an otherwise ebulient march in Galway, at the mere mention of the words 'mass-direct-action' ...tumbleweed drifted across Fr. Griffin Park, not a murmur of support for the concept. Its time the Anti war movement took the pulse of the nation. Nothing can pass in a mass movement without the support of the masses. Feb15th had that support, MDA did not. it wasnt the government alone who killed the IAWM, It helped kill itself, (well... seriously injured anyway). lets hope we all learn from this.

by josephine P. Tue Apr 15, 2003 14:47

and watching the whole thing being hijacked and sold off by certain slogan chanting 'so-socialist' groups with working class pretensions was utterly repugnant.

by Aunty Party Tue Apr 15, 2003 14:47

Any comments on the glorious SIPTU workers in uniform who were ready to turn the water cannon on the crowd?

by Justin Moran - Sinn Fein Tue Apr 15, 2003 14:54 maigh_nuad at yahoo dot com

First of all, I think Joe's article was a pretty good summation of things by and large.

I would also agree with his emphasis on direct action. There were two different strands here, people whose first and only priority was to prevent the war, or Irish involvement in the war, and those who did want to end Irish involvement in the war but also had other priorities.

The former, in various guises, used direct action and accomplished things in reducing the amount of air traffic through Shannon. Any lessening of Irish involvement in the war came from that school of thought.

The mass protests COULD, have accomplished something if more pressure had been brought to bear on the Government. I do not believe the direct actions weakened this school of thought but that instead of targetting marches in Dublin City Centre or Shannon, individual TDs should hve been targetted who were nervous about it.

There was actually very little, if any, attempt meant to target Government TDs, some of whom, if enough pressure had been exerted might have cracked. Maybe they wouldn't, though Government TDs have voted against the Government before on issues where they were made to fear their electorate more than their party managers, but I don't believe a concentrated effort was made. There is a point at which a Fianna Fáil TD is more scared of losing his or her seat than he or she is of his party leadership, especially if, as some do, they have a vague attachement to neutrality. No serious effort was made to target these people in a coherent manner.

And when targetting of TDs did take place, it was more of a form of threats than logic. Personally fulfilling perhaps, but not likely to change the mind of the Government backbenchers, some of whom were nervous about it and stayed away from voting Yes. Having been attacked by anti-SF demonstrators before in very different contexts I can tell you all it does is make us more likely to dig in.

So in my opinion there were those two avenues, from the direct action school of thought and the mass protest school. Either could have succeeded but only the former was done in any way that actually brought about measurable success. The other, in terms of preventing the war or limiting Irish involvement accomplished little unless its use could be measured in providing a context in which direct action was more likely to be supported or condoned.

I'm sure people have criticisms of Sinn Fein to make, both their own and in the context of what I write above. We made mistakes during this anti-war campaign, personally I think our stance on the March 1 protest was a mistake. I don't think, and have explained my reasoning elsewhere, the meeting with Bush was. But we made our share of mistakes and it's only fair to be held accountable for them. It would be of more benefit to us and to the debate in general if they were made in a constructive, logical, non-sectarian manner.

I won't be holding my breath.

by Joe Tue Apr 15, 2003 14:56

Of course it was always going to be the case that any form of direct action would be opposed by some. Just as some people would support the war no matter what. That isn't the point.

We won the debate on the war in terms of public opinion. 100,000 marched against the war and refuelling. Once the government ignored that where were the movements to go? What happened was probably the worst of all options, to repeat F15 while the number dwindled back down.

Just how many of the 100,000 who marched and the 70% who opposed the war could have been won to at least support for direct action is an unknown. The only 'evidence' we have is a small survey on the F15 march that showed a narrow majority supported the direct actions that had taken place in Shannon to date.

Once Bertie had given us two fingers I don't think there was any choice. We either tried to win the argument for direct action with as many as possible and force the government to back down. Or we marched people up the hill and down again with no strategy until the war ended, which pretty much is what happened.

Far from even trying to win the argument for direct action most of the movement did the opposite, they came up with all sorts of bizarre ideas as to why it should not happen.

by Joe Public Tue Apr 15, 2003 15:06

but what about the proposition that calling for mass civil disobedience was just giving Bertie et al a stick to beat us with, an opportunity for the cration of spin and disinformation and counter propaganda, and a lever to apply pressure aginst soft left parties who just Had to dissociate from it?

by Joe Tue Apr 15, 2003 15:13

"but what about the proposition that calling for mass civil disobedience was just giving Bertie et al a stick to beat us with"

Of course there is some truth in this just as it would be true to say that by opposing the war we were given Kevin Myers the opportunity to call us 'anti-american Saddam lovers'. To say anything is to open up the possability of a criticism of what has been said - this does not mean the answer is to say nothing.

In this case 'public opinion' on its own could not stop the war or even end refuelling. So something else had to be done even if that involved risks.

by Chekov Tue Apr 15, 2003 15:14

Of course direct action gave Bertie a stick to beat us with but so did marching (remember all the reds under the beds stuff from McDowell and co after F15). Bertie will always have sticks to beat us with - the legions of servile journalists who will enthusiastically spout whatever lies he wants them to.

More importantly Direct Action gave us a stick to beat him with - without DA we had nothing other than the bended knee.

by Pissed off Tue Apr 15, 2003 15:23

Looks like the WSM wants to be the alternative leadership of the movement. The anti-war movement is not the SWP-led IAWM vs WSM-led GNAW. There are many of us who haven't given up, who are here to fight against the US-UK-IRL etc. killing machine.

by Chekov Tue Apr 15, 2003 15:35

This type of 'ad organisationem' attack doesn't answer anything in the article. I also can't see anything in the content of the article that could possibly be interpreted as the WSM attempting to become the "alternative leadership" of the anti-war movement. In fact the WSM is not mentionned a single time in the article. Also, for the record, GNAW is not led by anybody.

If you disagree with specific points in the article, please point them out. This type of attack which seems to have been conjured up out of your personal paranoias, rather than from anything in the article itself, makes you look like a petty sectarian.

Incidentally, what is your strategy for the way forward now and where do you stand on the question of DA?

by Joe Tue Apr 15, 2003 15:35

"The anti-war movement is not the SWP-led IAWM vs WSM-led GNAW."

I agree which is why I refer to anti-war movements, in terms of organisations there are also PANA and the NGO alliance. More importantly though if we assume that 120,000 took part in at least one anti-war mobilisation I'd be very surprized if more then 2% of this figure considered themselves to be active members of any of these groups. So perhaps 98% were anti-war individuals who got involved in whatever events were organised that seemed worth the effort and that they could get to.

I presume the 'WSM leadership' comment is meant to provoke a negative response. I don't think its accurate to portray GNAW as having an equivalent realtionship with the WSM as the SWP did with the IAWM but I'll leave that for non WSM people in GNAW to comment on. I wil lsay that I think there was a 'tyranny of structurelessness' problem within GNAW but in fact we were the ones arguing hardest for formal structures to overcome this.

It is true that in terms of ideas the ones we put forward (with others) formed one of the core debates within and across the movements. I've no problem with that form of leadership - indeed its the purpose of anarchist political organisation.

by joe public Tue Apr 15, 2003 16:43

Yeah fair enough joe and chekov, anything you do will be used aginst you if possible, but it wouldnt matter what bertie boots said if the people were on your side.
my point was that the mood of the people was ignored, i just think that it was silly to make an ambitious call to arms, when that call was NOT going to be answered by normal folk, and worse it was going to lead to the PEACE movement as a whole being branded as endorsing violence aginst property. Thats just stupid, leaving yourselves open to that sort of criticism.

by Chekov Tue Apr 15, 2003 17:05

The problem is that a war was about to start and lots of people were about to be massacred in our name. I have no doubt that there was an absolute moral imperative for us to do whatever we could to stop it. So even though direct action may have alienated a lot of public opinion, it was our belief (which I think has been very clearly vindicated by subsequent events) that the only way we were going to halt Irish participation was through such action. Even if we had been able to predict the volume of abuse that it would earn us, we still had to try. To me this is as much a question of morals as it is one of political strategy.

As it happens, we did underestimate the volume of abuse that we were going to receive and we genuinely thought that we had a real chance of success on March 1st. Certainly the reaction from PANA, the Greens, the bishops, the NGO alliance and the Labour party was entirely predicatble, although the prominence of the coverage was somewhat surprising if not altogether unexpected. What we didn't expect was the furious reaction of the r-r-revolutionary parties, particularly the SP, who were actually the worst of the 'violence baiters'. We also didn't expect the reaction from SF and nor could we have since it appears that their reaction was dictated by internal struggles within the IAWM for control of the movement. The reactions from these groups was crucial in the failure of March 1st and the overall failure of the movement. Indeed, I'd say that in the long run they have done a hell of a lot of damage to their own parties and they will suffer a serious hangover from their performance in this campaign. Unfortunately, in doing so, they also severely damaged the anti-war movement, severely damaged the prospects for future popular mobilisations and demoralised all of the working class forces in the country. If the government can give the finger to a movement with such unprecedented public support, how can people feel that struggling over less popular issues is worthwhile?

Still, even if we had been able to predict these actions and outcomes, we would still have been compelled to press ahead regardless. There was no other credible strategy being put forward, other than more marches, and a phantasmic strike. If we had the chance again, I'd opt to make the same choices (albeit with a bit of extra preparation). We had to try.

by tom Tue Apr 15, 2003 17:12

?

by Terry Tue Apr 15, 2003 17:24

Someone suggested that say only 2% of the Feb15th 120,000 protestors were for DA and
(so are we to imply) 98% were against? Joe public's comment about a march in Galway
seems to suggest the vast majority are against DA?

The thing is does anyone really know? Finding this out would of course take considerable
resources to survey in a reasonably scientific manner.

Nevertheless this raises the question, what did all those people who marched on Feb15
hope to achieve? And how did they hope to achieve it? It would seem reasonable to assume
that some of them thought the government would listen and have since realized this is not
the case. So how would these people then propose to proceed?

My guess is that many of the people went along because they were obviously against the war
and since the event had been built up quite well with the backdrop of the Mary Kelly and
and the Catholic Worker actions and media coverage nationally and internationally. I hazard
to say that most of them had not and have not thought very deeply at all on how to stop the
war and Shannon refuelling and once back home, isolated (and feeling even more apathetic) and
therefore at their most vulnerable, were subject to propaganda by the media again. But
unfortunately this remains just what it is, a guess.

There is one other thing. Marching involves low risk, particularly big marches. DA involves
much higher risk. Most people prefer others to take the higher risks. The majority will only
take risks, when the risk of inaction is even greater. Those taking the DA risks are merely
seeing further ahead and realize that the risks they are now taking, are very small indeed
compared to the much larger ones that will occur as the world stumbles towards further
calmities and are so doing their bit to stop it from getting there.

by Rob Tue Apr 15, 2003 17:32

The real major battle in this war is one that involved comparitively little blood to the dramatised actions in the deserts of iraq. The Americans and British always knew they would win a military conflict, one way or another. If they truly beleived or continue to believe that the capabilities to launch WMD existed the would not have invade - history points out similar accusations towards Russia, proven true, did not lead to invasion, current events involving North Korea highlight Americas unwillingness to be heavy handed towards those who actually threathen them. However I digress.

The most important issue in this dark patch in our history is, sadly, much more frightening than the loss of life visited on the cultures of the middle east. The US administration have shown us that the rest of the world does not matter in their eyes any longer. A gateway has been opened and it will be very hard to close.

As for continued protest, I personnally would urge everyone to think about what they are now protesting. A war continues, but it continues in a land that has been devastated, and leave mutitudes without safety beyond the battle field. Those armies now have a responsibility to finish the atrocity they started and be damned for it, what if success is deemed by antiwar activists when US/K armies pull out of Iraq. Don't get me wrong this is an waful situation for the world to find itself in . . . but it is real. Many alternatives . . . but what can work in a dissmembered country whose people are very angry, with everyone, including each other. Surely consentration should now focus on getting our governments out of power, getting the warmongers out of power, so thart progress can begin . . . we have lost by the simple fact that we can no longer ask those armies to leave, for humanities sake they must occupy for a time at least. They knew this from the beginning, so did we . . . every battle is decided before it begins.

by Me Tue Apr 15, 2003 17:47

The Irish Anti-war movement was not defeated. Yes it made a few tactical mistakes but we had the largest anti-war march this country has ever seen on Feb15 and it frightened the life out of the political establishment.

It was a mistake to organise direct action as part of the march to Shannon. It should have been organised seperately. Many of the 100,000+ people who marched in Dublin were very unsure of themselves some were old and many were young kids. They needed encouragement not the possibilty of being beaten over the head with a truncheon.

The war isn't over though and it is certainly not time for the anti-war movement to give up. It is time to use our intellect and to work things out properly.

by The Holy Mugger Tue Apr 15, 2003 17:52

Joe Black. You said: "The Green Party had already revealed it was vulnerable to this sort of pressure when Trevor Sergeant had gone on air to attack Mary Kelly after she had disarmed a US
Navy jet". This is simply not true. See Press Release below:

Green Party Press Office
29 January 2003
GREEN LEADER, SARGENT JUSTIFIES DAMAGE TO U.S. MILITARY AIRCRAFT

As Being In the Public Interest while highlighting a Far Greater Injustice

Green Party Leader, Trevor Sargent T.D., who will be at the Shannon Peace Camp on Saturday February 1 and who has spoken with the Gardai at Shannon and with the women who is now in custody having been charged with breaching airport security, said today:

“It is sometimes justifiable to damage property if, for example, a door has to be forced to access a burning house to save life. In relation to the US war effort intent on killing innocent civilians in Iraq, there is in a similar way a legal excuse for non-violent direct action. A legal case of this sort was won by three women in Britain who damaged a Hawk fighter plane which was due to kill people in East Timor in January 1996.”

“Meanwhile the Irish Government is arrogantly failing to consult the Dáil over the involvement of Shannon in preparations for a war in Iraq, a war which may not even have a UN sanction. Day to day security at Shannon Airport is also deeply flawed. There is really no excuse for this given the revenue Aer Rianta is gleaning from the US Military authorities in landing fees.”

“The Irish people who protest against the US military use of Shannon in preparation for war are acting in the interest of constitutional peaceful conflict resolution and are acting to save the lives of innocent people who happen to live on top of an oil rich country which the US wants to control.”

Ends

TREVOR SARGENT T.D. 01 618 3465 / 087 254 7836

STEPHEN RAWSON PRESS OFFICER 01 618 4088 / 087 235 7551
Back to News Headlines

by Chekov Tue Apr 15, 2003 18:04

In reference to the Catholic worker disarming:

"Green Party leader Trevor Sargent said the incident at Shannon this morning was regrettable, adding that he wished it had not happened as it constituted a distraction from the main issues in the campaign against the buildup to war.

The North Dublin TD said whether the law had been broken or not would ultimately be decided by the courts."

by yule Tue Apr 15, 2003 18:18

And what if a significant section of Iraqi society decides they don't want to be occupied by an illegal invasion force led by alleged war criminals?

UN auspices? Maybe, but we know how effective the UN is.

Anyway, the illegal invasion force should be removed from the country as soon as possible.

But they do need the platform for other illegal invasions, which I suppose will be followed by other "necessary" occupations once the fabric of that society has been destroyed, followed by generalized pillage.

I swear, the Nazis could not have come up with a better system!

Should we admit that ALL battles against American Hyperpower are lost before hand?

Remove the warmongers? Well, if you cannot get the illegal occupation forces out, I doubt if you can remove the war mongers.

Eventually, the hyperpower will be met with the response it is calling forth.

Nuclear war.

Someone has to constiute a countervailing force before it is too late.

by Captain Black Tue Apr 15, 2003 19:04

If the anti-war movement has failed, then so has the anti-capitalist movement, the anti-globalisation movement, the anarchist movement, the socialist movement etc etc etc.

I think that the failure of GNAW and the WSM and anarchists in general to win their position by argument/action within the anti-war movement requires serious analysis along the lines of the piece above. Why has anarchism been such an abject failure? As a movement it has failed to convince the masses. This is dreadful and unless answers are forthcoming there should be much chest-beating and whinging.

by Bertie Ahern Tue Apr 15, 2003 19:35

Great stuff! Keep it up. Accentuate the negative.

by Retarded RRRevolutionary - Socialist Special Branch Tue Apr 15, 2003 20:10

If the anti-war movement has failed, then so has the anti-capitalist movement, the anti-globalisation movement, the anarchist movement, the socialist movement etc etc etc.

And I duz not be understanding de above. Furst de article duzbe talking about the failure of the anti-war muvementS. Dat capital Ess iz important. It duz be seeming loike the WSM duzbe critimacizing demselves azwellaz udders.

Secund, howduz you mean dat if de anti-war movements have failed den de aunty-globbers duz have failed? Dat seemz loike a big logical leap in de dark.

Remember macker, me oul fellow retarded rrevolutionary, a war iz compozed of many battles an tanks to a left that is actually right Ireland haz lost this battle. But de war iz still on. De WSM artickle above pulls lotsa punches but it dozent shrink from criticizm.

See yez down in de pig pen.

by Niall Wed Apr 16, 2003 04:21

The anti-war movement in general has failed because it is a regression to earlier, anti-intellectual times. It was/is basically an amorphous hatefest against anything that doesn't go with wearing stripy jumpers and Peruvian hats. As such, it got co-opted and manipulated by political extremists, including but not limited to anti-Semites and class-warfare exponents.

by Rob Wed Apr 16, 2003 09:31

Though the anti war movement failed - and for this I reffer to fact: we all feel great at the 100,000+ march joined by millions worldwide . . . blah blah blah, how many times have we heard this . . . and what did it achieve? If the anticipation of death is worse than death itself then all that was achieved it would seem is the prolonging of suffering. Once the invasion had begun nothing was going to stop it 'till it reched its line. This was stated repeatedly, sometimes criptic sometimes blatently simplistic, by the administrations orchestrating such a deliberate act of wanton destruction. That line was the point at which it would no longer be morally right for us to ask those armies to leave, that is now, before to leave was to prevent or end an illegal destructive act, now it would be to abandon a people. The war must end, as it does continue today and it remains wrong, but those instigators must deliver on some of their promises which constucted the high ground on which they stand. A society is devastated, and is now devastating itself, the strong controlling the weak, they cannot be abandoned again.

And we were had. We caused problems, actions changed plans, routes and possibly even tactics, but we failed. The powers of neo-American Imperialism, Anglo deliberately left out as they are tag-ons, achieved all they desired . . . We achieved nothing. We lost the mass support that existed, and failed in all stated onjectives. We achieved nothing. And we lost the most important battle of all. We were not listened to . . . "acentuate the negative . . . ' so we should our tactics - all of them - failed, and the ball has started rolling.

If an idea is in great argument, abandon your concept of mass support, with mass argument comes mass division, and we systematically divided ourselves. Beyond that quite frankly I personnally have been utterly offended by the hijacking of events for political advertising/brand exposure. If you have a conviction to voice your opinion/disgust then do it, don't fucking voice your "labour/green/SF/SWP/SP/WSM/fuckingasshole" voice, don't let others buy your opinion, 'cause that's what happened kids. The people can never speak if they can't speak for themselves. "Parties" have orchestrated a war and "Parties" spoke out against it, ever wonder which side you've been applauding.

by dead right. Wed Apr 16, 2003 10:24

I agree, one of the worst things about the last few weeks was the utterly repugnant political jockeying of leftist groups trying to gain space, "..its our movement, no its Ours..."etc.
Vile self interest, immature posturing, naivite and narrow mindedness are the marks of the political beast, and by god, the alphabet soup of petty pathetic 'groups' have them in droves. SWP in particular, I spit on you, you are the voice of the idiot jester, screaming your immature mantras and cheapening every moment. The lowest common denominator rules.

by Gurrier Wed Apr 16, 2003 10:45

looks like Kieran Allen's twin.

by Joe Wed Apr 16, 2003 10:52

Thanks for posting the Green Party press release and also to Chekov for posting what the media was actually reporting Sergent as having said. I never saw the press release as I'm sure is the case with 99.99% of the population. The medias version was however heard by many and discussed on indymedia at the time (without correction from the GP).

There is something pretty weird here as the GP press release is pretty good. Perhaps Graham could clarify what sort of attempts the GP made to correct the odd spin. Also the press release appears to have been pased from a web page - could someone post a link to that page.

As to the idea that "The Irish Anti-war movement was not defeated" because 100,000 marched. Well I'm not sure what the author understands by 'not defeated' but I'd have thought it involved winning at least one of the two core demands, ie 'Stop the war' and 'No refuelling at Shannon'.

by Chekov Wed Apr 16, 2003 11:25

Joe, as I remember it, the GP actually were reported as having supported the Mary Kelly action and they received a serious amount of flak from the law and order brigade in the Dail for having done so - I remember the Irish Times carrying a front page article about FG demanding that they condemn the criminals. I was quite surprised at the time.

BUT, a week later after the CW5 action, they rolled back on support for direct action (as posted above) and apparently changed their principles entirely in the short space of time that passed between the two actions. Obviously the law and order heat worked and they feared alienating their constituency (yes to environmentalism as long as it doesn't affect the status quo in any way). They probably also feared that this sort of thing would catch on and they would be left on the sidelines of a movement that went way beyond them in terms of radicalism. In any case this was followed by worse, especially with regard to March 1st. It all goes to display the power of incorporation in the capitalist-democratic power structure. Even when you get a rare display of principle from a political party, there are straight forward mechanisms for whipping them back into line - scaremongering through the media in a way that is likely to damage their electoral base is the favourite.

by conor (wsm personal capacity) Wed Apr 16, 2003 11:29

by Pissed off Tue, Apr 15 2003, 2:23pm

Looks like the WSM wants to be the alternative leadership of the movement. The anti-war movement is not the SWP-led IAWM vs WSM-led GNAW. There are many of us who haven't given up, who are here to fight against the US-UK-IRL etc. killing machine.

me: who leads shit was by far the LEAST IMPORTANT thing - this we have to move beyond very, very fast -
A real mass movemnet throws up sorts of leaders, groups and organisations - a mass movement is built in struggle and doesn't grow from leading people by the nose

joe: just think that it was silly to make an ambitious call to arms, when that call was NOT going to be answered by normal folk, and worse it was going to lead to the PEACE movement as a whole being branded as endorsing violence aginst property. Thats just stupid, leaving yourselves open to that sort of criticism.

me: Well actually we don't know because those few who made that call - Catholic Worker, GNAW, ISN and a few individuals were, generally speaking, drowned in a tide of negative rhetoric by larger forces "controling" the bigger groups -

my experience of talking to people at work and on marches was a rapid, rapid dissillusionment with JUST marching (not that marching is necessarilly bad in and of it self) and the same speeches again and again.

I think we have too little faith in peoples ability and in their anger......

No defeat.
by Tue, Apr 15 2003, 4:47pm

The Irish Anti-war movement was not defeated. Yes it made a few tactical mistakes but we had the largest anti-war march this country has ever seen on Feb15 and it frightened the life out of the political establishment.

me: I think this is a fair point - no one can take from it - this and the smashing of the plane at Shannon were two amazing achievements in my view.
How ever ALL of us have got to look at why the whole thing simply deflated after February 15th -
ALL OF US

captain black : I think that the failure of GNAW and the WSM and anarchists in general to win their position by argument/action within the anti-war movement requires serious analysis along the lines of the piece above. Why has anarchism been such an abject failure? As a movement it has failed to convince the masses. This is dreadful and unless answers are forthcoming there should be much chest-beating and whinging.

me: Given the forces available to us and those ranged against us I think we didn't do too bad!
How ever all of the anti war groups need to analysis and learn from their mistakes.
As far as GNAW are concerned we're having a meeting on the 29th of April to do just that
(think its in the Teachers Club details will be posted)

PANA and IAWM and the NGO Peace Aliance probably won't need such a meeting as they never made any mistakes !

How ever for people serious about learning where the anti war movement as a whole went wrong - I would agree - serious analysis needed - we are also in a new situation when we have 467 demonstrators against

"298 individual Gardai on duty,
at least 36 of whom were wearing riot gear."

- its time to get real here - the state us upping the anti and no amount of paper selling or recruiting is going to resist this.

The "game" is over - those who are serious about their politics have got to stop playing about

Conor

by Joe Wed Apr 16, 2003 11:58

Thanks again to Chekov for pointing out that the GP criticism was actually of CW5 rather then Mary Kelly. I'm correcting the online version of the report to read "The Green Party had already revealed it was vulnerable to this sort of pressure when Trevor Sergeant moved from supporting Mary Kelly after she had disarmed a US Navy jet to attacking the Catholic Workers who disarmed the same jet just a few days later."

I'd appreciate a link to the online version of the GP Mary Kelly press release posted above so I can link to that from the text (from 'supporting'). I've already linked 'attacking' to the RTE reports of his comments at the time of the CW5 attack.

Apologies for my original mistake however I actually think the correction says a whole lot more about the problems here then the original did. It's almost a scientific test case seeing as we are talking of the same plane and the same methods being used.

by Terry Wed Apr 16, 2003 12:49

To the people who claim the AntiWar movement was a failure, I would say that considering what
we were up against, there were definitely some successes, like the raising of the issue,
showing what a facade our so called democracy is, stopping some of the planes from refuelling,
possible delay in the war, efforts by the war-mongers to trip over their own lies in trying
to justify the war.

Yes, it would have been good to achieve more, certainly. And indeed the are internal debates and
issues to take place and be addressed, as already outlined above.

But to those who have nothing but wholesale negative comments, it ought to be considered that
we were up against an establishment that has near total monopoly of TV, radio and the print media.
The State, by virtue of it's monopoly on violence, was able to counter-act practically all of the
moves by the AntiWar movements and use any such events to feed its own propaganda machine. The
State also has very deep pockets, and relative to the AntiWar movement, could be considered almost
infinite. The State/Establishment is also pretty highly organised 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

The AntiWar movement by contrast had very limited funds, limited access to the media and when it
had such access it was controlled, constantly removed from the context and had to face a barrage
of lies and dis-information. Not only that, since it was organised voluntary and part-time, the
AntiWar movement organisation was partial and not even remotely as strong or comprehensive as
that of the State/Establishment.

These were and remain the primary factors pitted against the AntiWar movement. The other issues
debated here I consider to be secondary, but nevertheless important too. They are rightly being
focused on here, because to some extent we have some control in changing or improving them,
via analysis and self-criticism, whereas for the primary ones we have less chance.

by Simpson Eh? Wed Apr 16, 2003 12:59

..but could the story at the top be put on the front page for a while to allow this debate to continue past a time when the story will drop off the newswire?

I have returned to this interesting discussion twice.

To the editors - Feel free to delete this comment - it is really a suggestion rather than a comment on the Anti War Movement.

by Joe Wed Apr 16, 2003 13:24

Terry I wouldn't simply say that the anti-war movements were failures. This is too sweeping, its more the case that they failed to acheive the goals they had set themselves ('Stop the War', 'No refuelling at Shannon'). One is not quite the other.

You are quite right about the problem of the media although this too is more complex. A friendly media was what got 80% + of the 100,000 out on F15. And then a hostile media (and specifically The Sindo) started the process of convincing that 100,000 that they were being manipulated.

Issues were indeed raised and 3 of the 4 troop carriers driven out of Shannon (by direct action) in advance of the war. But, to use an old cliche, this was a case of winning (some) battles but losing the war.

I posted the article both because it reflects how I feel but also because I know from previous wars (and other campaigns) of how these things end. It's never the cases that the organisers say 'oh well we lost, time to go home'. Rather they tend to tell people that the 'fight is not over' but in effect are already packing their bags and heading for the door. A bit like everybodys favourite information minister the day before Baghdad fell.

In putting the idea out that we have failed in our objectives (which seems like a statement of the obvious) I'm hoping to get some real discussion going at a broader level then the party elites that make the decisions in such campaigns. All the better if it drives some people into proving to me that we have not failed (or rather that the fight is not yet over). There are signs of hope, not least in the demonstrations against US occupation that seem to have happened in most Iraqi cities.

I'm not of the school that the way you motivate people is to tell them victory is around the corner and exagerate every minor achivement into proof that this is around the corner. Sometimes pointing out the bad news helps to create a stronger movement in the future - if it helps to create a serious discussion.

by joe public Wed Apr 16, 2003 14:18

the peace movement has to be reborn, as exactly that: a PEACE movement. Get people on the streets-regular, with all sorts of speakers, not just party members, bring people out and educate them. with music and pot-banging to drown out those slogan chanting minus-minds who would wish to steal it from us. keep up the pressure. Feb15th *was* a success, and we *can* do it again. Unity, and leave the DA to people who are willing and ABLE. i think thats most important.
I think the serious property damage is best left removed from the conventional 'on the streets activities'. The safe and fun and educational gatherings that are needed to keep people together and erode the political parties stranglehold on real politics in this country. get people out and explain to them why they need to stop voting for Fianna Fail.
What we need is a peace movement, not just an antiwar movement...they are not the same thing.

by Jim Monaghan Wed Apr 16, 2003 16:12

What has been gained?
A wedge has been created between a largish section of the people and the classical pro Imperialist Parties such as FF and FG.Those willing to march against war are the constituency which must be developed if we are to have any chance of stopping future wars or Irelands collaboration in them.
Counterposing Direct Action to marchs is not really helpful.Direct Actiuon for whiuch there is not a lot of support can succeed only for a while or while it gets the Gardai napping. To think that the other side will not get their act together quickly after such events and close off loopholes is wrong.
Blaming those who opposed Shannon for its lack of success in my opinion misses the point. I opposed Shannon because I though it played into the hands of those who wished to create a division between the mass of the marchers and the various groups organising whether they were the far left, Pana , NGO alliance.I am sure the Gardai were hoping fro a chance to wade in but the good sense and cop on of the GNAW did not give them the opportunity. For this they deserve a thanks from all sections.
I say a long haul is in front of us because I domnt think Direct Action, Mass Action on their own or any singular event will act and do a Walls of Jericho collapse of the system.
Now is to build on what has been acheived and maybe learn some lessons.
We must deal with issues of lack of accountability or the perception of it in the antiwar movement. There is an incredible amount of suspicion around which I am sure is fanned by our collective enemies.
We should try and create political alternatives to the status quo and attract the new aleinated masses to these alternatives. I dread FF and FG conning people again becuase we did not give them an alternative.
Next I dread Left forces succombing to coalitions which they will enter with the best of intentions (I am sure the lure of the Merc is far from their minds) and think the tail will wag the dog.Neither Bertie or Enda but a real alternative of the Left.
War is part of the Imperialist system and that has not changed in the period of American dominance.Their are states such as Venezuela and Syria in their list next time we should be better organised.
Whatever our differences we should accept the good intentions of the bulk of people in all the organisations and try and arue our points of view in a fashion that does not alienate the many.I am glad of the organisational work and skill which made so much possible. My son had his first big demo far from home because of this work.
The boring and repiticious speechs and derivative Dylanesque songs were a price worth paying.

by Joe Wed Apr 16, 2003 16:55

Jim I think you have missed the point a little. To explain let me say that I agree with you that "I say a long haul is in front of us because I domnt think Direct Action, Mass Action on their own or any singular event will act and do a Walls of Jericho collapse of the system."

I'm not writing about the long haul, I'm writing about this war. The thing is that is what 98% of those who took part in the protests were concerned about. You and I might think there were some victories in terms of building towards the overthrowal of capitalism. That makes us part of the 2% or so of anti-war protesters that share our agenda in that regard.

So in terms of that agenda are we better off. Maybe. I'm not so sure that marching people around in circles until they get fed up has quite the effect you seem to think it has. All the more so when it is caught up in some pretty manipulative politics coming from those that claim to be leading them.

I think the problem you have here is the old one of the minimum - maximum program. You want to keep the tactics of the anti-war movement confined to a very minimum program that rejects even non-violent civil disobediance for fear of frightening the multitude. While being marched around they are to be fed the maximum progam 'One solution-revolution' through chants, leaflets, paper sales and speeches from the platform. The expectation is that this will cause at least some of them to go 'aha, capitalism cannot provide the answers'.

Our approach is somewhat different. First of all we belive that victories won against the state and capital are what radicalise people more then anything else. Sure the more passive forms of education/propaganda mentioned above have their place. So we didn't approach this from the angle 'we know you can't stop wars but this is a handy chance to recruit people'. At its crudest this is what the line of the bulk of the left is and, crude as it is, your comments reflect this thinking.

We thought 'how can we stop this war in a way that will give people a sense of power'. Well like everyone else we failed in stopping the war/refuelling. But at least people did get the experience of not just saying no but of moving beyond pleading a bit louder when their rulers turned them down. There was a sense of taking power back for ourselves in the mass trespass and even the fence standoff that was lacking in the protest pens and speeches. Only time will tell but I think it is quite likely that the lesson that will be taken by many of the 100,000 who marched is that they were wasting their time because the politicans were never going to listen. This will not radicalise them, no matter how many speeches, leaflets, papers explain how the real problem is capitalism.

Again this is not a call for heroics, I reckon the one thing more off putting then a defeat is having some cop beat the crap out of you in the course of that defeat. Leadership in that context (and this applies to March 1st) is knowing when to suggest we should retreat in good order rather then be routed.

Convincing people that capitalism is the problem is only one small part of the overall struggle. Many tens of thousands already believe this to be true in Ireland. The more difficult task is convincing them that they can do something about this. And a life of paper selling and back room meetings in pubs only convinces the young and cronically dedicated. Most people require concrete results that go way beyond 'paper sales are up this week'.

by Simpson Eh? Wed Apr 16, 2003 16:59

Going forward I think, for what it’s worth, that there seem to be many lessons to be learned:

The GNAW Shannon action was still born for many reasons, not least of which was the small numbers willing to take part on the day. On the other hand the covert actions by the CW5, Eoin Dubsky and Mary Kelly, were well planned and successful both in terms of diverting some troops from Shannon and for drawing media coverage of the role Shannon played and is playing) in the illegal invasion of Iraq.

DA in line with actions carried out in San Francisco and New York, which were attempts by small units of protesters to immobilise sections of their respective cities, might have had greater chance of success if used over here. Actions from within some of the larger demos could have reclaimed some space for peace (other than the routes of the marches themselves). It seemed this might happen as marchers dispersed from the Dail after the March 22nd march, where a knot of marchers headed from the Dail to Stephen's Green via Ely place, however, in the end no attempt was made to RTS for peace.

Berties Boot Boys certainly gained some training in how not to disperse a sit down protest, and will not make the same mistakes next time.

Next time out (a attack on Syria, Venezuela, Iran or N Korea - they wouldn't would they?) the likes of GNAW, IAWM, PANA et al. should try to maintain some level of communication between themselves. I don't expect any of them to agree on tactics etc., but avoiding some of the pitfalls (the schism surrounding various marches - "I called it" "no I called it") of this campaign could occur. I think the massive fall off in numbers was at least in some part caused by a communication breakdown among the various umbrella groups.

Finally, as much as I think RBB is pursuing his own agenda, he did manage to achieve a degree of access to media channels not otherwise open to the anti war movement (he did an interview with In Dublin - so what?). I have read a lot of complaints about lack of access to media channels, but would anyone in GNAW have turned down a nice piece in the RTE Guide? you can preach to the converted all you like on this site but is the idea not to speak to a wider constituency (and I choose my words carefully)?

A final thought, a piece on this entire thread on this sites front page is well worth doing to allow ongoing debate on the anti war movement in this country. It will need plenty of time, and more importantly plenty of points of view voices to help moving forward. Thanks for creating this space.

by Phuq Hedd Wed Apr 16, 2003 20:08

QUOTE:Berties Boot Boys certainly gained some training in how not to disperse a sit down protest, and will not make the same mistakes next time.

ANSWER:And a large number of the c.1500 arrested in SF were traditional lock-down pacifists. The more mobile groups seem to have experienced lower levels of arrest. The point of sit-downs and civil-disobedience seems to have originally been to "overload the system", thousands in court refusing to plead out or to make bail, demanding everything they could. However the "criminal justice" system has geared up for this tactic and seems to be able to cope with it in the US, whereas it couldn't cope with the mobile blocs. Creative lock-downs that are not easily removed can cause considerable disruption and raise the costs to the State, but the activists involved stand a higher (100%) chance of prosecution.

QUOTE: Finally, as much as I think RBB is pursuing his own agenda, he did manage to achieve a degree of access to media channels not otherwise open to the anti war movement (he did an interview with In Dublin - so what?).

ANSWER: The objections to RBB aren't sour grapes about his gaining media exposure. They're about what he _did_ with it: namely engaging in destructive dismissal of the GNAW protest. It is worth wondering whether the mainstream media are going to only dangle the carrot of access to the public in front of asses that are willing to perform the amusing trick of braying lies and kicking their comrades in the teeth.

by Tim Hourigan Wed Apr 16, 2003 20:27

This is not over by a long shot.
Pull yourselves together people.
Did you not expect that the stage managed war coverage would cause some people to have doubts?
the 1991 Gulf war looked all cool and consumer friendly until we saw the road to Basra, and the other stuff that was kept quiet.
We know this, why do we not make this a message to people? It's an obstacle that needs to be overcome, and why not tackle it directly with the public?
They're not actually all sheep or stupid.
If the Govt could grin and bear the demo on Feb 15th then surely we have the ability to see past a short-term low.
If you want to go listen to more speeches about how the war is bad keep on marching.
If you want to be effective, then do something besides following leaders.

1. Come planespotting at Shannon. Don't wait for a demo to come down, just ring 061-365871 and arrange a visit. No speeches, no banners, no paper selling or recruitment, just you and the reality of Shannon Air Force Depot.
We need the help, and it will also help you by crystallising in your mind what's really going on, and you'll be able to give people at home a first hand account. (it would have been easy and valuable to interrupt the speeches for ten seconds to point out to the crowd the military-charter cargo plane that took off during the demo)
We will tell you about the laws been broken and give you lots of other valuable info that you didn't get from the preachers with the megaphones.
see the planespotting guide at www.refuelingpeace.org

2. Visit your local TDs clinics. ALL of them. Start with FF/PD but make sure that your local 'opposition' TDs are making an effort too.
I'm not talking about coming round in the night with paint. that's symbolic and nice and all that, but the TD is who you want, not the building, so... go to the clinic. LOTS of you. But line up as individuals, each looking for separate time to discuss the war, constitution, rule of law in Ireland etc. Do NOT go as a formal GROUP that will be given the same time as a single constituent.
You are each entitled to be treated as separate constituents, even if asking similar questions.
So what if are repeating yourselves... that's the TDs PROBLEM not YOURS.
Clog up the clinics, bring the issues to their faces,
When you see a Govt Minister on the street, react like you would if you saw Dubya.
go up to the particular criminal and tell them (in civil but stern language) exactly what you think of them.
The clinics and the street is where to get them.
While they wander around pressing the flesh, or whatever, (some playing the victim because their office got painted) they will feel accepted by society.
Are we so brainwashed that we knowingly allow war criminals to walk the streets without saying anything?
Go ahead try it. At the least you'll be getting it off your chest and in their face.
So far I've confronted Bertie, Willie O'Dea, (at a function) Michael Smith (at another function) and Peter Power (in the street).
Be polite, but audible to members of the public.
Keeping up appearances in public is very important to politicians.
I'm busy at the mo, but I will start hitting clinics soon too. Why not do the same?

3. Continue to protest in VARIED ways.
not just speeches for their own sake. exhort people to take action. Sit downs, non-violent civil disobedience,

4. REPORT THE GOVERNMENT to the GARDAI.
YES, that's right. They are CRIMINALS. The gardai are obliged to arrest them.
Put the Gardai on the spot by formally reporting the Goverment for treason and war crimes. knock them off the fence, engage their conscience and test their dedication to their duty.
- after all, they accuse us of not adhering to the system. give it a chance to work.
- if you don't believe in the system, then do it anyway. (a) you'll have written proof whether it works or not and
(b) if you get charged for a non-violent protest action then you can argue in your defense that the Gardai neglected their duty.
(c) it might just work.
- hundreds of complaints landing on the DPPs desk
will have an effect politically.
check the sample complaint at
http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=35040

5. Report the GARDAI.
Surely not? Oh, God yes.
Senior Gardai in the area get advance notice of these aircraft coming in.
They know its a crime and they do nothing, and even attempt to cover it up.
That's against the Gardai's purpose and charter so they are in gross dereliction of duty.
In fact, a senior Garda who orders a subordinate to ignore their duty is in violation of the Offences against the State Act 1939.
Interference with military or other employees of the State.
9-(2) Every person who shall incite or encourage any person employed in any capacity by the State to refuse, neglect, or omit (in a manner or to an extent calculated to dislocate the public service or a branch thereof) to perform his duty or shall incite or encourage any person so employed to be negligent or insubordinate (in such manner or to such extent as aforesaid) in the performance of his duty shall be guilty of a misdemeanour and shall be liable on conviction thereof to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years

Can't say clear than that. It's really your duty as a citizen to report this corruption of the force.
Get a cheap/ free lawyer to help write it up if you like.
Send it to the Garda Complaints Board, Garda HQ and the DPP with copies to your lawyer, the press, the Ministers for Justice,Defence (ARMY is at Shannon too, y'know) and the Taoiseach and any applicable Oireachtas committee.
It only costs paper ink and stamps and riot cops usually don't hang around the post office.
Encourage others to do likewise.

6. Take a COURT CASE against the Government.
(If you have the time and the lawyers - some are willing to work for free)
A time-heavy effort only practical for some, but it gets huge press coverage and really puts the Govt on the spot.

7. Talk to people. Especially Pro-war people.
Find out what people are thinking, and engage them
in constructive debate
Some of the best conversations I've had recently have been with
- a former US Marine who was totally gung-ho
- snotty pro-war 1st year law students
- relatives and neighbours.
Didn't turn into a shouting match and the neighbours still talk to me.
Be civil but don't be afraid to stick it to them.
If the truth offends them, that's a learning experience.
Why should you be afraid to tell your neighbour that you oppose the war? Would your neighbour be afraid to tell you they support it?

That's off the top of my head.
If we give up now then we're not taking this seriously. It was always going to be hard, especially with the PR spin on the war, but it is worth fighting for, not just for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, (the Syrians, Iranians and maybe the French) but for us too.
There's a huge imperial project going on, and those who can see its plot unfolding have to keep striving and educating before its really too late.

That's my two bits for now.

Get your ass to Shannon soon, don't wait for a demo.

Tim

by Justathought - Dublin Catholic Worker Wed Apr 16, 2003 22:36

***The Green denunciation of us is alittle like the Bishops in Liverpool who a week before the trial of the Seeds of Hope Ploughshares trial called for an immediate ban on British arms sales to the Suharto dictatorship but stated the "women would have to pay for their crime" for disarming the Hawk fighter etc. Two weeks later a scouse jury decide their is no crime in £2 1/2 million of disarmamanet to the Hawk fighter. Bishops look a little silly prempting the judicial process

***the movement here doesn't seem to appreciate the symbolic dynamic of direct action. Yes the actual disarmamaent we did put the U.S Navy war plane outta action for a while, but the symbolic dimension drove 3 U.S. companies transporting cpmbat troops and munitions from Ireland (according to the U.S. ambassador)

***Maybe a way to go into the immediate future is monthly mass demonstrations (I'd be happy with 500 + folks at Shannon) and smaller prepared unannounced direct actions from whatever tradition...christian, buddhist, anarchist, feminist, whatever

by Jim Monaghan Thu Apr 17, 2003 10:25

There was quite an amount of sympathy for the actions that exposed Shannon as a conduit of the war effort. There was not a great deal of support for the GNAW action. The question is why?
Sometimes we can catch the other side of their guard (in this case sleeping). But to rely on the other side staying asleep would be foolish, They are perpared to suspend civil liberties etc. Look at the North the Provos had a degree of mass support and a large group of very couragous militants ( Whatever your opinion you cannot doubt the courage of hunger strikers). But it was ground into the ground as it failed to broiaden its support sufficiently to win.Internationally we have the examples of Che and various other attempts to challenge Imperialism. The ones that succeed were the ones which amnaged to persuade the mass of the population to support them To use the Maoist metaphor, the militants need a sea to swim in. At Shannon there was at most a puddle. Why? You can blame PANA, the NGO alliance, SWP?SP but the real reason is that the 100,000 plus or even part of it was not persuaded.
So how do we move the 100,000 plus and even more. By a variety of propaganda and agitational efforts that atttempt successfully to create a bridge between them and us. I agree facile slogans such as "No solution but revolution" will probably only get some a sore throat.Though I admit to bveing amused by the little runs by the SWPers.(Perhaps we will hear "Left turn, GPO charge someday")
Agitation and propaganda does have an effect back in the sixties the Vietnam solidarity campaign here could be counted easily by bored Gardai. The audience for leftwing ideas is qualitatively larger.
But the opposition is not idle. The FG under Enda is positioning itself so as to bring the 100,000 plus back into status quo politics.The merc at any price parties on the Left are willing to collaborate in this.
We need an anti coalition alliance on the Left which can mobilise this constituency and broaden it.Within this there should be scope for an immense variety of activities from propaganda and agitation.
Many beleive that the Greens and SinnFein are positioning themselves as props in a future coalition government. This would have a demoralising effect on the entire movement. I think it would set things back years. A constant barrage of anti coalition propaganda on this is needed to persuade these leaderships thay have more to lose in going this road.I think the antiwar stance of Rabbitte and De Rossa is a totally cynical manouvre. But It will work on many.

by James Cannon Thu Apr 17, 2003 10:29

Why do the SP oppose Direct Action? Find out at:

http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=43222&start=60&sid=12789

by Simpson Eh? Thu Apr 17, 2003 11:56

I know didn't explicitly state it, but the mobile protests in San Fran, where activists used the police to effectively block junctions while their fluid formation allowed them to seep out to the next road junction, was an effective tactic that could easily be used here. So I would agree with you that the mobile tactic was thoroughly successful.

This is also a tactic that would easily translate to demos over here. By having a bloc who are prepared to break off a main demo and reclaim space, whether statically (by sitting down) or more fluidly (lets say by skipping from O'Connell Bridge - down the Quays - over to Tara St., etc.) would easily encourage others on a march to join an action of this type. (I was looking for but couldn't find a link which described the San Fran action to illustrate my point).

Too many people got the heebie jeebies about the GNAW action at Shannon, this was directly correlated to the press release and all the hot air and guff that arose from its publication. I appreciate that releasing details was an attempt to be clear about aims, tactics (i.e. the purpose of the various flags) and be transparent generally. But its very publication seemed to cause the furore, however, I accept that others see it from a different perspective. I am making my own observations as someone who is not aligned any group on the Irish Left.

On RBB - I stand corrected, I hadn't actually read his interview. My point was made based on a reading of the debate surrounding it on this site. I didn't realise his interview had been an exercise in point scoring.

by Joe Thu Apr 17, 2003 11:58

Jim as I thought I'd made clear I also think education (which I prefer to 'propaganda') has a central role to play. But the problem is that the trot 'revolutionary' left seems to insist that this is as far as we should go. One reason I prefer the term education is because education is something that implies a learning rather then an indoctrination process but more importantly it is something we gain from our actions and not just from the words of others. March 1st for instance educated a lot of people about the left, the state and the way the two interact.

March 1st was hardly an attempt at an armed uprising so I don't think comparisons with Che or the provos hold a lot of water. They seem more designed to let those who claim to be revolutionaries but who opposed this action off the hook by suggesting it was something it was not.

What are we talking about here, the destruction of a few hundred Euros worth of fence. The sort of thing that probably happens every warm weekend in some school or the other at some point on the country. Not really comparable with arming ourselves and taking to the hills was it?

So why was there so much excitement about a fence if not for the sake of the fence itself? Because that fence had become a symbol. A symbol for a state policy of allowing refuelling despite mass opposition to it. It's destruction would have been a rather tiny act of defiance but one that could have been built on. A symbol in short for the idea that we could protest all we liked providing we didn't actually do anything about it.

If the 'revolutionary' left had said 'its only a fence, why bother' I could almost have seen their point. But nope, they actually got on the airwaves (and indymedia) and added fuel to the idea that this was some sort of major act of 'violence'. The SP in particular played a shameful role, on the one hand encouraging individual members to claim on indymedia that we would be shot! And on the other, to his great shame, Joe Higgins attacking the protesters as 'virtual warrior' at the very moment they were being attacked and arrested by the Gardai less then 500m from him.

My reading of it is this. The state never bothered trying to win people back on the issue of refuelling. Instead they simply drew a line in the sand and said 'protest all you like but don't step over this'. And the trots responded by trying to police that line for them in order to prove they were respectable.

This is not a situation unique to the anti-war movement. We have seen the same problems arise in relation to Reclaim the Streets in Dublin in two ways. RTS upsets some, especially the Gardai because rather then negotiate for a space in which a street party is permitted it just tries to take that space. Last September the Gardai were all over the media telling us that this was bound to result in a riot (sounds familar).

On the other hand the SWP organised anti-police brutality demo which followed the Gardai riot on May Day was agreed with the boys in Pearse st before hand. We know this because when people tried to stop outside Dublin castle they were told this was not allowed because it had been agreed with the Gardai that we would disperse. One of the anonymous SWP posters here goes by the name of 'Irony is dead' which perhaps is a reference to his role in organising this?

This agreement rather missed the point not only of RTS (which above all else is in exercise in reclaiming power) but also of why the Gardai had baton charged people the previous day. There was no RTS riot rather the Gardai were dishing out a lesson of what can be expected if you don't follow the rules. Incidentally the left may have failed to understand this but most hostile right wing commentators implicitly do. They reckon not standing to attention when told or even just being a bit scruffy did indeed deserve a beating.

And we see this debate on an international level around the globalisation protests. Again 'irony is dead' when those who yap on most about the 'spirit of Seattle' do their best to undermine any manifestation of that spirit in Ireland. The blockade of the WTO has has an obvious relationship to the most talked about bit of fence in the world, and at least one of the people there was also at the other.

There is at the bottom of this another reading of the topic you brought up. That is the connection with Che, the provos and we can throw the Red Brigades into the mix. Those who oppose DA are always quick to try, as you do, to paint a parallel between the mass destruction of a fence and a few going out and launching an armed attack on a barricks. I guess at a really simple level there is some comparison - both after all have moved from talk to action.

But that comparison hides more then it reveals. Because if you look at the context of where the forces of armed struggle emerged from things are rather different. They rose from situations where situations were desperate but the mainstream left was trying to hold struggles back in order to preserve its respectability. If the left tells the radical minority that pulling down a fence is equivalent to blowing up a barricks then some will be convinced. But they won't be convinced in the manner that was intended. Rather they may conclude 'these guys will never do anything, talk of mass politics is simply a cover for inaction so lets just go out and do it'.

Nobody in GNAW was suggesting anything quite that daft but if you look at what we actually published you'll see that it argues two ways. One is the need for direct action. But the other is the need NOT to break with the mass movements in the process. What makes winning that argument more difficult is precisly the trite attempt to label anyone willing to step over the line as the red brigades in waiting.

by Joe Thu Apr 17, 2003 12:57

First off Tim the essay is a personal opinons, other people will have other opinions.

I'm not arguing that we should drop all activity with regard to Shannon - there will be other wars and this war may well not turn out to be over yet. Some of your suggestions I agree with, others I'm not sure are worth the effort but again its up to each individual to decide for themselves.

I do however believe that the government has won the battle of Shannon. Perhaps I should have written the FIRST battle of Shannon. We do need to reflect on what this means.

It's also clear that the US has managed to occupy Iraq - again lets not pretend otherwise. At what cost in human life so far we don't know - nor do we know what the future cost will be. But the occupation is now a fact and also something we need to deal with.

by Jim Monaghan Thu Apr 17, 2003 14:46

The reality is that the GNAW Shannon protest had little or no mass support. As it was the good sense of the GNAW people ensured that it did not degenerate into a mess where the Gardai could demonise the whole movement not just GNAW.I am not responsible for the critiques good or bad of PANA, SWP/SP. BUt i do share a concern where groups act in the name of the whole movement or demand or appear to demand that everyone step in behind them. Movements should have some fora where a rough consensus can be worked out between the different forces involved, here the weakness of the SWP/SP is that they wheel out fronts which do not exist outside themselves but are just in existence when they want them.A book on the antiwar movement in my possession has a scene where a leader of a similar group voted against his own party line to everyones surprise. His rationale was that a victory would be Phyrric as only their side would work it. That unity was worth a price.Her we need a bit of give and take. For all its flaws the agreement between PANA, the antiwar alliance and the NGO alliance was a step forward.I grant that all the components had warts so say the least. Its weakness was that it was a closed shop.
At the fringes of every movemnent are those who want "action" and there was a real fear that the GNAW action would allow an opportunity for this to happen. Again I hasten to say that the good sense and political nous of the Gnaw people ensured that this did not happen.
But and it is a big but the Gardai would have loved it and would not be above formenting it.
Marchs, Direct Action of all kinds must be linked to the political realities of whatever stage of struggle we are at.
There is a whole history of political elites who do things in the name of the people and who regard people as passive spectators in their own lives. People to be ordered around by Trade Union bosses or Parties.Even the debate on whether the Shannon workers should go on strike was posed as "the ICTU/SIPTU should order them out on strike". Long term success can only come from the workers themselves taking action like the Dunnes stores strikers who took exempelary action over Apartheid.This is a model of DA of which I totally approve.
Where to go from here?
For a antiwar political alliance. No coalitions with pro war parties.Expose the pro war TDs.
Varied agitation and propaganda.This of course to be done in an imaginative manner or not in the dull ways of the sects.
To this end a dialogue and a search for consensus where possible.Try and put a limit or end to the petty manouvring of the self appointed elites on the Left. More debates like this one where there is no personal abuse.Some of the mud slinging on other "debates" would be grist to agent provacateurs.
A real upset to the status quo will be the formation of a real Left Party with roots in struggle. The bits and pieces we have at the moment don't scare anyone.

by Joe Thu Apr 17, 2003 14:59

Jim your argument which is a variation on the 'this action is premature' has some sense and indeed honesty to it. On the other hand there are always those who will dismiss any move towards action as premature because it is in their political interests that we rely on them to change things for us.

We can disagree over whether or not the actual context of the action made it premature. I think not and I think events have born this out. In brief these are the important arguments

1. Public opinion was already anti-war and anti-refuelling as shown by the polls (the argument had largely been won)
2. Over 100,000 had marched (at least 115,000 combining reasonable estimates for Dublin and Belfast).
3. The government had clearly indicated it was going to ignore popular opinion
4. It was obvious that war was very close (and thus the amount of time for the situation to mature was limited).
5. It was also obvious that the war was likely to be short. Given the familar pattern of opposition DROPPING at the start of war this added to point 4.

Now here is the problem. If you insist action was premature in that situation you are entering into a 'boy who cried wolf' role. That is it would seem that you would write almost all action off as premature (with the possible special exception of strike action). This assumption is all the stronger as all we are talking of is the destruction of a fence.

So I'd expect you to write off almost any future action as premature based on your reaction to this one.

by Ray Thu Apr 17, 2003 15:20

The problem is that, barring an outbreak of guerilla warfare in Iraq, or a US attack on Syria or Iran, the mass anti-war movement has disappeared. Once the troops went into Iraq, most people thought the campaign was pretty much over. That opinion became even more widespread when Bagdad fell. Call an anti-war protest for next week, and most people will look at you funny, because as far as they're concerned the war is already over, so what's there to protest?
So talk about building a 'broad anti-war coalition' is just a pipedream. The moment has passed for most people. They've moved on to other issues and other concerns. They're not going to get involved in antiwar work now, any more than they're going to get involved in a pro-choice campaign, or an anti-police brutality campaign, or an anti-drugs campaign*. The anti-war political alliance is dissolving into thin air even as we type.
There's a tide in the affairs of men. Feb 15th was the flood, when there were over 100,000 people in Ireland opposed to the war, opposed to Shannon refueling, and willing to do something about it. Those people aren't around any more. They came out and marched, and then they went home again because the only followup on offer was to march again, and what's the point in marching twice?
So where does the anti-war movement go from here?
An alliance of empty shells, and a continued search for the magically convincing propaganda, new improved dialogues, and yet another Left Party.
In other words, back to square one.
And the war on Iraq? And Shannon refueling? The things that the campaign was supposed to stop? Well they'll continue too, of course. We _could_ have tried harder, but that would have meant endangering the wonderful alliance of groups that won't even exist in six months time, and we couldn't have that, could we?

*not that these are bad issues, or that there's anything wrong with the people who continue these struggles. Its just that the people involved now are the same people that were involved before these issues hit the news.

by Ray Thu Apr 17, 2003 15:48

"Our legions are brim-full, our cause is ripe:
The enemy increaseth every day;
We, at the height, are ready to decline.
There is a tide in the affairs of men
Which taken at the flood leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat,
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures."

Our legions have declined, our affairs are once more bound to the shallows. Because when the sea was full, and the current with us, we did nothing.

by Joe Thu Apr 17, 2003 15:55

A nice summary of the argument

by Phuq Hedd Thu Apr 17, 2003 16:35

I think we're in agreement about protest tactics, but I wanted to clarify my statements about RBB (at the risk of dragging this thread into personal crap). I was trying to correct your apparent belief that the criticism of RBB was linked to his _In Dublin_ interview. In fact, it was linked to the radio interview that he gave in advance of the GNAW protest.