A resignation from the IAWM Steering Committee

by Observer Fri Feb 27, 2004 22:38

I have a lot of respect for Fintan Lane and Harry Browne's stance; they seem like sane, sensible people. But really, putting up another resignation onto Indymedia, when you've already put up one about being banned from the committee, is overdoing things a bit. You were effectively off the committee anyway. You lose credibility by going on about it. What did you want: a campaign to get you back on? We've better things to be doing.

by JMcK Sat Feb 28, 2004 06:54

Here is a brief extract from an article in the recent issue of The Phoenix.

"The IAWM is effectively controlled by the Socialist Workers Party (SWP). This has led to exasperation among some of the non-SWP elements, such as the two Laurence Vize and Mick O'Sullivan - who were accused of using unparliamentary language and tactics at a steering committe meeting last month and who were promptly suspended.

..........Fintain Lane .........resigned......

..........Tim Hourigan........resigned......

..... Cork Anti-War Campaign........resigned ...

A central issue at dispute - apart from the SWP's organisational stranglehold - is the dissidents' demand for demonstrations at Shannon, the focal point for Irish collaboration with George Bush and US military forces. The SWP argues for repeated demonstrations in Dublin while their critics say that the IAWM is missing out on the symbolic value of protest at Shannon.

A message from the US embassy to the State Department last year commented: "USMIL use of Shannon continues to be a rallying point for anti-war activists". A recent IAWM steerig committe meeting voted down a motion to demonstrate at Shannon if and when Bush lands there and voted instead to protet at the venue of the Bush-Ahern sumit. Thus, the IAWM is likely to find itself in something of a logistical bind when the summit is held on top of a mountain in the West or at some remote castle accessible only by helicopter".

###

The SWP and all of the above have done great work and it is sad to see such drama unfold but such is the joy of group dynamics and committe life.

Perhaps the summit will not be so remote from Shannon ? How far will the little criminal risq flying over wooded Ireland? We all know the trouble the US has been having with helicopters lately, what with them just falling out of the sky due to "mechanical failure"!, in Afghanistan and Iraq.

We can only pray!

Also in this issue of The Phoenix an article entitled , "Labour split on Bush" , tells of a split in the Labour Party over whether or not to welcome the little murderer to Ireland .

Proinsias De Rossa and Ivana Bacik are against the welcoming while the overfed Rabbitte and press officer Tony Heffernan declared the former stickie and the college girl did not speak for the Labour party. Michael D O'Higgins refused to agree with De Rossa but said he would protest the Bush policy in Iraq when the visit takes place.

by Trying to make sense of it all!?!? - IAWM Sat Feb 28, 2004 16:25

I think this is all gone a little too far at this point. It makes us look just as the pro-war lot WANT us to look. The loony left turning on itself. I wouldn't blame anyone who is or wants to do any activity around the war walking away. We have just given them a perfect reason to do just that.

by sleepy Sat Feb 28, 2004 19:20

hopefully all the folk leaving the IAWM will use their skills with other organizations which are ACTIVELY against the war. the IAWM soundz like a complete waste of time and the swp types that hijacked the organisation should have stayed at home! what is going through the mind of a person who thinks protesting at shannon is a waste of time? very little!

by R Isible - Indymedia Ireland Sat Feb 28, 2004 20:55

"their critics say that the IAWM is missing out on the symbolic value of protest at Shannon"

But actually most of their critics argue that Shannon is important because it is where the US military is actually present: not merely symbolically. The actions by Dubsky, CW5, GNAW, Peace Camp, Hourigan and Mary Kelly actually caused a disruption to the functioning of Shannon in aid of the US war according to most of the critics.

Jeez!

by David C. Sat Feb 28, 2004 22:01

FROM: CENTCOM ATTACHE, US EMBASSY, DUBLIN, IRELAND

TO: CENTCOM LIASION, US STATE DEPARTMENT

RE: USMIL USE OF SHANNON, IRELAND

CLASSIFICATION: NORMAL/CONFIDENTIAL


USMIL use of Shannon continues to be a rallying point for anti-war activists.

There continues to be little effective opposition in Ireland to the ongoing use of Shannon airport by USMIL. The primary reason for this is that the issue has been abandoned to an sub-culture of extremely ineffectual individuals. These people have been marginalized by mainstream Irish society because of their extreme egotism and their inability to compromise or to cooperate with other people towards greater goals. They self-identify as 'activists' and derive personal ego gratification from their self-association with more effective civil rights movements. The individuals within this 'activist' sub-culture are characterized by anger, self-righteousness and generalized resentment towards society. They are typically unemployed (even unemployable), unskilled and extremely anti-authoritarian. They are fragmented, insular and speak almost entirely to and for their own community. They appear to have very little outside support from any sector of Irish society.

The domination of the USMIL/Shannon issue by this 'activist' sub-culture has had three positive effects:

#1: It has minimized the effectiveness of the opposition to the use of Shannon by USMIL. Opposition has been kept almost entirely within the sub-culture rather than extended into broader Irish society, and essentially consists of merely a few poorly-attended marches and a few small, poorly-reported acts of civil-disobedience. This meager opposition has caused essentially no change to military operations at Shannon and has exerted almost no political pressure on either national or local government.

#2: It has kept high-quality skilled individuals from participating. Individuals capable of professionalizing the opposition are repelled and discouraged from participating by the 'activist' sub-culture, who resist the diminishment in their power and status that would accompany any move to professionalize the issue. High-value skills in law, public relations, media, political lobbying, etc. are therefore not available to oppose the militarization of Shannon, removing any avenue for the development of an effective opposition.

#3: It has removed or diminished public opposition to the militarization of Shannon. This diffusion comes largely as a result of the deep lack of respect that the sub-culture has in the eyes of the larger public. The antics and behavior of the sub-culture leads the public to shun the issues associated with it.

There is no indication that the USMIL/Shannon issue will be released from the grip of this 'activist' sub-culture in the near future. It will therefore probably continue to be a small side-issue of relevance only within the sub-culture.

We therefore recommend that every effort continue to be made to encourage and support the individuals within the 'activist' sub-culture in their domination of the USMIL/Shannon issue.

END OF MESSGE

by Anti War head Sat Feb 28, 2004 22:53

is it true that you yourself don’t even live anywhere near the Fairview area or even on the northside of the city and it fact you're from the southside of the city (Clondalkin? Unsure about that)

So why are in the Fairview group in the first place? Is it now true that the Fairview group itself has moved to disassociate itself from some of your more outlandish claims and that they have requested that you stop referring to yourself as being "part" of the Fairview group?

Maybe just maybe even they, as sincere anti war activists, really don’t want to have too much to do with you? Can you blame them or what!

by Dublin 3 person Sat Feb 28, 2004 23:42

'Anti War head', its clear that you are just a swp troll. You offer no evidence as to where Laurence is or is not from, or where he does or does not live, you even admit so. You have no grounds for making those allegations.
And you certainly have no right to present yourself as speaking on behalf of the Fairview group.

by wranboy Sun Feb 29, 2004 02:56

. . turns david C. Did you ever notice that?

by David C. Sun Feb 29, 2004 03:05

..and that's the joy of it, of course. Sure the world would be a dreadfully mundane place if there weren't a surprise or two in it!

by Badman Sun Feb 29, 2004 18:07

If anybody didn't notice it, the communique put out by David C. above is a hoax.

David, can't you argue your opinions on their own merit or do you have to pretend that they are identical to the analysis of the US military? I wouldn't give too much credit to their 'intelligence', but it is at least more sensible than your craziness.

by Laurence - Fairview Against The War Sun Feb 29, 2004 18:11 Meets every wednesday @ 8pm in Smyths Fairview

1 My claims are not outlandish merely the truth no matter how embarassing to the SWP

2 If you think what I m saying is not broadly agreed by Fairview look at Fairviews statement in an earlier newswire "Fairview supports Corks Analysis" etc etc

3 True I'm not from Fairview ~~~~ and what does that mean???

Have a nice day

by wranboy Sun Feb 29, 2004 18:25

...

by Badman Sun Feb 29, 2004 18:40

It means, Laurence, that you should be forced to turn up at your local SWP branch (whenever it decides to call itself the local IAWM branch) and be told what to do by their local full-timer. This will normally involve being given a bundle of leaflets and posters to put up for them advertising their next walk around Dublin and calling for votes for RBB.

Anything else is petite-bourgeoise egotistical adventurism. Get with the MASS MOVEMENT (or the 20 people left in it at least)!!!!

by Disney watch Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:40

In case people missed it - here is the SWP mantra for the recent resignations. A masterpiece in deception. Bottom line - forget proper democracy, put up with undemocratic decisions until 'early to mid June' (by then RBB won't need the title of grand wizard of the IAWM - the locals will have finished).
--------------------------------------------------------------
response to Cork statement - Aoife Ní Fhearghail
As someone who helped set up the Irish Anti-War Movement back in September 2001, I was heartily disappointed to read today the recent disaffiliation statement from the Cork Anti-War Campaign. Whatever disagreements individuals and groups may have, I had hoped that these could be put aside until the forthcoming EGM (early to mid June depending on Bush visit).
In the interim period whatever our disagreements may be surely we should be attempting to re-energise the anti-war movement here by building for a major demonstration on March 20th and linking up with other social forces to campaign against the further militarisation of the European Union.

Instead, with less than 4 months to go before Bush’s visit and while a major Pentagon troop rotation is facililtated by the use of Shannon Airport, we find ourselves ignoring the real enemy and potentially destroying our movement with internal bickering and endless name-calling.

The experience of the Stephen Cleghorn meeting in Dublin recently shows that anti-war sentiments are still widespread amongst the ‘non-activist’ population – it is up to all of us as activists to channel these sentiments into a movement that an successfully challenge Fianna Fáil’s foreign policy and end their support for war. Hopefully this malaise amongst certain quarters will soon pass and we can refocus our efforts on opposing the war. While wishing the Cork Anti-War Campaign every success with their campaign, there are a number of points which they have raised which I could like to address (as a personal response).

Firstly, that the IAWM decided to call off demonstrations at Shannon Airport. This is incorrect. What was decided was that the steering committee would decide when to call the next demonstration at Shannon at a time when the SC deemed appropriate (i.e. when we could guarantee large numbers). There was no programme of events which was unduly suspended.

Furthermore, the experience of December 6th showed that without numbers of 500 plus, calling the event a blockade in advance, meant that the gardaí vastly outnumbered the protestors and we hadn’t a hope in hell of getting anywhere near the airport. Calling another ‘blockade’ at the January meeting would almost certainly have guaranteed an ever smaller number of protestors (many who came the last time and felt silly marching around with no possibility of blockading anything probably choosing not to do so again). Movements cannot forever keep making promises which they cannot deliver on. I think it was a correct decision to re-focus on building a mass movement through March 20th and the Bush demo, and to return to Shannon at a suitable future date.

Incidentally, the decision not to protest at Shannon if Bush landed there on the way to an EU/US summit at another location is fairly incidental. Whether or not the IAWM called such an action, local activists in the Shannon area would doubtless organise their own demonstration while a larger demo would take place at the summit location. That decision applied only to the IAWM; that we would not organise a Shannon demo on that day if the actual summit was being held at another location.

The Cork statement makes several accusations against the SWP (of which I am a member). Charges that either a) every active IAWM member in Dublin is a member of the SWP or b) that the SWP ‘rigged’ the national meeting in January are baseless. A quick look at the anti-war web site will show that many Dublin groups have activities planned for the next month. If all these groups were shells, there would be little postering, leafleting carried out for March 20th. I suggest this will clearly not be the case.

The SWP is not a conventional party that focuses on election – but rather on building grassroots movements from below. It probably has thrown more resources into the anti-war movement than any other political party. When the movement went down after the US ‘victory’ in Iraq, some of the local groups undoubtedly became less active. Others, such as Rathmines and Fairview (to give 2 Dublin examples) kept a consistent presence on the streets. The SWP however did not desert the movement. It is therefore not surprising that many of its members were delegates at a conference when the movement was going through a transition stage. I doubt however that this will remain the case in future as local groups re-energise and grow again. Acknowledgement should also be made of the fact that the IAWM is an organisation that is entirely voluntary based – we have neither the funds, people nor the organisational structure of well-established groups like Amnesty and Greenpeace. Any assistance that individuals/organisations can offer is greatly appreciated.

Even if everyone in Cork thinks the vote on January 31st was wrong, they had one recourse – the Irish Anti-War Movement is holding a special general meeting that is open to all paid up members in a few months time. Why could they not have waited for this meeting and put their arguments there? And if the SWP is the problem, surely they could have own ‘rank & file’ to vote for their proposals?

The Cork statement is also deficient is its account of the suspension of 2 Steering Committee members. Once again it is presented as the SWP removing their political opponents. But why was it that only one steering committee member voted against the suspension of the individuals in question who were charged with disruption – (even this vote was motivated by a disapproval of their conduct). Presenting it as ‘the SWP’ alone, is a dishonest attempt to play on fears about the role of political parties. Long before certain individuals joined the IAWM steering committee there were disagreements and debate about strategy & tactics – the only difference is that this debate was handled in a rational, calm and respectful manner.

It is wrong to try to split the anti-war movement over a disagreement on tactics and a defence of two individuals who engaged in a systematic campaign of disruption. (One of them even threatened to haul us before the Fianna Fáil-appointed judges of the High Court to seek and injunction preventing us meeting (seriously!!) and expressed a wish that the IAWM break up). We should turn our anger on the war mongers not on the supposed ‘betrayals’ of people who are working hard to get masses of people out on streets over Shannon.

March 20th is the next important date for the wide anti-war movement. If March 20th is successful, it will bring the issue of Shannon to the fore of the political agenda in the run up to the Euro and local elections. It will be an important staging post for getting a huge demonstration against the Bush visit and clearly, the more people on the streets on March 20 – the more people who will hear about the activists facing lengthy sentences for disarming warplanes and who will be able to lend support to their campaigns.

The contributions of Fintan and Tim will I’m sure be missed by all of us on the steering committee (I can speak only for myself). They have both spent a large amount of time over the past years building opposition to the war on terror and I wish them well in their on-going work.

Fraternally,

Aoife Ní Fhearghail Steering committee member – personal capacity 087 7955013

by David Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:59

All that requires is that somebody name one ficticous anti-war group, or that one "delegate" was operating without a mandate from a local organisation and you will be proven to be lying.
Shouldn't be too difficult.

I would like to ask, who exactly does the IAWM represent anymore? Could the ISWPM, provide a list of afiliate organisations who are entitled to send deligates to vote at meetings and/or participate in organising of events?

Why does Aoife not think that 500 people are enough to block 4 or 5 roads into an airport? Surely 100 people could block 20 metres of tarmac?
Does Aoife not think that a reason why there was a low turnout at the last Shannon event was because of the SWP actions before the day and after Fintan Lane was arrested? When the "IAWM" refused to confirm what kind of action they would be proposing and even on the way down were still discussing how best to water down their strategy? (notably it was only on one Bus that any decisions were made (most probably by only a few self appointed generals), the rest of the activists were simply told what to do when they got there.
There is a noble history of people being willing to take part in meaningful action at shannon and these are the very people who get disenfranchised by the Actions of the ISWPM. the active people who would be of the most value to the peace movement.
SWP wait for a "mass movement" to build up and then when they have that movement (after feb 15) they immediatly set about dismantling it in their attempt to secure control

by Non-believer Mon Mar 01, 2004 13:05

"The SWP is not a conventional party that focuses on election – but rather on building grassroots movements from below."

What more can you say?

by Badman Mon Mar 01, 2004 13:19

"building grassroots movements from below"

I can only conclude that Kieran Allen and RBB must live in a basement. That's the only way that anybody could take this statement seriously

by Buffy Mon Mar 01, 2004 13:43

Interesting to see how much the SWP are using the label 'grassroots' these days. What could they be up to?

by Confused anti-war activist Mon Mar 01, 2004 13:59

Aoife says:
"But why was it that only one steering committee member voted against the suspension of the individuals in question who were charged with disruption – (even this vote was motivated by a disapproval of their conduct)."

Which steering committee members voted for the suspension and in particular who were not members of the SWP?

by Head counter Mon Mar 01, 2004 14:28

There have been so many resignations/suspesnion from the IAWM in recent days that there can hardly be anybody left on the steering committee.
I make it Kieran Allen, Richard Boyd Barrett, Aoife Ni Fheargaill, Colm Stephens, Micheal O'Brien and Colm Coulter.

Is Cara Wallace, Dominic Walsh (who is he?), Glenda Cimino and Harry Browne still on the committee?

by Slarti Mon Mar 01, 2004 22:40

is that people are leaving the IAWM precisely in order to concentrate on anti-war activities. The last few months many people have wasted huge amounts of time and energy trying to oppose war from within the IAWM.

Oh, and you don't need to get to the terminal to have a successful blockade, just to the approach road. But you can't get to all the approach roads if you insist on starting from Lidl car park and moving as One Group. The IAWM SC knew this when before they announced the meeting point and decided tactics/stewarding/etc for Dec 6th. That they still took the approach they did can only be because they didn't want the blockade to work. 500 people is more than enough to blockade Shannon Airport but only if people are prepared to risk arrest and to split into a couple of different groups to cover the different routes - both an anathema to the SWP.

I for one look forward to actually working to oppose war without fighting pointless internal battles with the SWP. let the IAWM wither and die while the anti-war movement in Ireland grows

See you in Shannon

by eeeekkkk Mon Mar 01, 2004 23:18

I have an injunction I'd like to break. Learn from your mistakes - 50 good heads could blocade the place.

by Ash Tue Mar 02, 2004 01:10

Harry Browne is also resigned from the steering committee of the IAWM. Not sure if there are any non-party left at this stage. Cara Wallace, is she still there? Colin Coulter? Raymond Deane? Glenda Cimino?

All others are gone, I think, except 4 SWP and 1 SP.

by Curious Tue Mar 02, 2004 12:41

Is he a SWP member?

by jack white Tue Mar 02, 2004 21:54

i wish! anyway with all this talk of people abandoning the IAWM i thought i'd share a link to a story about people abandoning GR in the uk

http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=04/02/28/6595584

by spelling bee Tue Mar 02, 2004 22:02

the appalling spelling/grammar in the above suggests that they were all written by the same person - the one and only Mr Vice.

incidentally - only 1 "anti-war activist" who went to court over civil disobedience at Shannon was offered a plea bargain by the State - guess who?

by Colm Vize - colm.zapto.org Mon May 24, 2010 17:42

In response to the comment left by "spelling bee", for your information there was no plea bargaining at that case and if you are going to make claims and accusations about such and such you wont have any credibility until you have proof.

On a more humorous note his name is Laurence Vize, Notice the 'z', your name is rather ironic now?. Furthermore have you never heard the expression that what a man says is more important than how he says it? You have no right in speaking so condescendingly about someone that first of all you don't even know enough about that you can't spell his last name, and secondly because you obviously have some grudge against this individual.

I also know that I'm bumping this issue but who cares anyway it has educational value now. Now gentlemen what did we learn today:

1. If you are going to troll someone you must be able to spell the name correctly.
2. If you are going to accuse someone of taking a plea bargain when his son was living with during that time and was present during his arrest and subsequent trial and all his meddling with an garda siochana, it's best that you also attempt to prove that the son has a mild/serious psychosis which I assure you to the best of my knowledge is untrue.

- Colm Vize -mloc.zapto.org