Some Observations On The Cosantoiri Siochana Anti War Meeting.

national | anti-war / imperialism | news report

Thursday April 06, 2006 13:46

by Fintan Lane - Anti-War Ireland

I attended the Cosantoiri. Siochana-organised meeting last Saturday. It ran from about 2pm to 5.30pm and, while initially intended, I believe, to widen involvement in CS, it was transformed for various reasons into a 'coordinating meeting' for diverse anti-war activists and groups. This transformation occurred largely as a consequence of discussion on a thread on indymedia.ie following the recent Dublin anti-war march.

So, my observations…

Attendance

The attendance was encouraging. Probably 25 and more anti-war activists, about half of whom were CS and the rest from the IAWM (including two SWP members), Grassroots Dissent, WSM, Peace People, Anti-War Ireland, Pitstop Ploughshares and Dublin Catholic Worker. I might be forgetting some groups, but the mix was quite good.

Format

Mark Price of CS facilitated. At first, it seemed that CS intended focusing the meeting on a discussion of their own 'agreed principles'. However, the composition of the meeting made this impossible and we quickly moved to 'brainstorming' on future activities, etc. Ultimately, the meeting became an exercise in exploring the possibilities for all elements of the anti-war movement to work together in a constructive fashion. The only major decision taken (I think) was to reconvene on 22 April to continue the discussion and solidify the coordination. I think this was appropriate under the circumstances.

The discussion

People suggested a range of activities (see report above), i.e. everything from direct action (some CS members and anarchists) to lobbying politicians and focusing on the 2007 election (SWP members). The WSM representative suggested no further anti-war actions for the next three months while we come up with a strategy.

This need to come up with a strategy was mentioned by a number of people and reflected, in my opinion, a positive desire to move beyond the current situation. The atmosphere, in general, was very positive and there was very little squabbling. It wasn't that those present were ignoring the differences; it was more that the focus was on what we have in common and on the need to rebuild the movement. In short, the gathering had very many positive attributes and I'll certainly return on 22 April.

The one negative (and it could turn out to be a terminal problem) was a general unwillingness to structure the coordination. Both Deirdre Clancy (Pitstop Ploughshares and Anti-War Ireland) and myself (Anti-War Ireland) argued that the meetings, if they continue on the present basis, are worthy and useful, but ultimately not much more than a diverse group of individuals agreeing to discuss and work together. Wonderful in itself (because of the good mix), but the attendance of individual members of the various anti-war groups doesn't make for coordination, if the organisations themselves have not endorsed the coordination. The organisations, in my opinion, need to delegate people to attend the meetings, and coordination and joint-action must be taken seriously. Other groups, such as PANA, also need to come on board.

The idea that coordination requires the formal endorsement of the various organisations – and the sending of representative delegates – was opposed by both anarchists and the IAWM members. An argument was advanced suggesting that the weight of somebody’s argument is not increased simply because they formally represent an organisation, but, while the point is taken, I think it fundamentally misses the point. The central argument for endorsement by the various groups is that it adds weight to the decisions taken or plans that are floated, and increases the possibility that coordinated action will occur in the wake of the meetings. It makes the coordination real.

Obviously, the creation of such a coordinating mechanism will prove a difficulty for some groups, who may see formal involvement as ‘subordinating’ themselves to the broader anti-war movement. This is a problem that activists are going to have to overcome if the anti-war movement is to move forward.

My fear is that if the coordination role of these gatherings isn't taken seriously, it will become just another anti-war group. That said, it was the first meeting and the importance of coordination and unified action was strongly argued for. It has potential. Also, the diversity of the movement was accepted and respected. The attendance of the IAWM was an excellent development.

Cosantoiri Siochana should be commended for this excellent meeting and for providing an opportunity for some very useful discussion among activists.

save preference

Comments (18 of 18)

Jump To Comment:

Minutes of Dublin Meeting 1/04/06

by Paula Hayes - Cosantoiri Siochana

Thu Apr 06, 2006 01:03

pwhayes at indigo dot ie

Report on Peace Network open meeting
An open meeting was hosted on Saturday April 1 last in the Teachers' Club by Cosantoiri Siochana - the Peace Network. Here are the minutes of the meeting.

At a meeting of people who are working to end the use of Shannon (and Ireland generally) by foreign military forces, it was decided to meet again on 22/04/06 with more specific plans of action, based on ideas discussed at the meeting on 01/04/06.

The stated aim of the meeting was to find ways to coordinate the activities of everyone who opposes the militarization of Shannon.

A: Answers to the question ‘What do you want from this meeting?’:

Concrete plan of action.
Groups to hold together.
Broad cooperation.
Sustained civil disobedience.
Target pro-war politicians.
Election strategy.
Suspend activities in order to review, to get back to first principles.
Campaign to revoke the ban on posters.
Communications and public space.
Focus on Baldonnell.
Democratic principles.
Mobilise, think big, larger focus.
Coordination between direct action and mass movement.
Focus on Shannon.
Iraq information, including information on disinformation.
Iran awareness.
Relate Shannon to ordinary Irish people.
Incorporate related (global) justice issues.
Focus on why aren’t Irish people getting involved?
United action.
Memes. Different kinds of action affecting each other.
Discourage unilateral actions.
Identify benefits of peace.
Critical evaluation of previous actions and campaigns.
Support Mary Kelly and Pitstop Ploughshares.
Use legal system.
Money for campaigns.
Tactics rather than just plodding.
Effectively threaten the interests of the power elites.
Smart thinking.
“Grunts” needed.
Focus on war.
Evolve as a movement.
Support Vanunu.
Form a strategy with goals and milestones to measure progress by.

B: Results of brainstorming session:

Buttons / badges, with celebrities wearing them and t-shirts.
Common actions.
Boycott Top Oil.
Protests at 1916 Commemoration.
Focus on TD’s in marginal constituencies.
Peace camp at Shannon, 2 groups every 7 weeks.
Stall in Dublin giving out information etc.
Focus on the Irish Aviation Authority.
Support Ploughshares trial in July.
Use public opinion as a lever.
Phone-fax-email blitz.
Postcard campaign.
Strategy.
Communications.
Peace camp at Baldonnell.
Use public transport to publicise the issue.
Structured democratic coordination.
How to improve marches.
Make a list of hindering factors e.g., poster ban, harassment.
Regular Dublin coordination meetings.
Suspension of activities for 3 months to discuss strategy and aims.
Focus on cost-benefit analysis of use of Shannon by U.S. military.
Subgroups, working groups.
Guantanamo boiler suits.
1916-2006 Proclamation. 2nd Republic.
Sample letter to TD’s, for people to send to their TD.
Massive demo before election.
Identify sites for direct action.
Civil disobedience to provoke arrest, with large numbers.
Anti-war graffiti and street art.
Declare position on Iraqi resistance.
Autonomy.
Regularity.
Statement of vision.
Focus on U.S. public opinion.
Non-violent Iraqi resistance.
Legal issues.
Public information.
Public forums.

C: Possible working group themes:

Fundraising.
Aims and principles.
Communications (external).
Communications (internal).
Organisation and structure.
Actions and campaigns.

The meeting on 22/04/06 will aim to create working groups focusing on these and other proposals.

It is hoped to involve a range of activists from different strands of the peace movement, working together to maximise their efforts.

well done/ small clarification

by krossie - wsm personal capacity

Thu Apr 06, 2006 16:03

Firstly well done on getting all the suggestions/discusion up. Just a small point of clarification when Fintan says

"The WSM representative suggested no further anti-war actions for the next three months while we come up with a strategy"

In fact the issue of a "hiatus" hadn't been discussed in WSM and this idea was never put forward.
I was representing my own point of view which is that all the various forces in the "anti war movement" in general should sit down and do a root and branch analysis of where are we going, what we want to achieve etc etc.

The WSM view as stands from our last Delegate council is that we will not make anti war action a major priority in the absence of a workable strategy.

By the way I thought the meeting was good and we will be debating the issues raised and will be back with ideas if possible (though we do have a conference on the 22nd)

Krossie

Basis of good discussion on this thread

by John

Thu Apr 06, 2006 16:04

This thread could be a good discussion - definitely better than the old pro and anti IAWM/SWP discussion going on elsewhere on indymedia at the minute. I'm sick of people going on about the IAWM - there one group among many, lets move on from them. Wish they'd change there name but what can you do!

Krossie

by Pushkin - VLL PISFI (ICR)

Thu Apr 06, 2006 16:15

Kathmanndu

"I was representing my own point of view which is that all the various forces in the "anti war movement" in general should sit down and do a root and branch analysis of where are we going, what we want to achieve etc etc."

As usual you are rushing around stirring up apathy. I was hoping that you would be a catalyst for action. Maybe we should draw up a catalogue listing the various possibilities, under each category listing their potential with lynx to other actions. We should keep an eye on whats happening in Catalonia.

So...

by Mary C

Thu Apr 06, 2006 16:34

Krossie believes in doing nothing at the moment and the WSM believes in doing nothing without a "workable strategy" (somebody else's job obviously and whats "workable" mean?) :- and the difference is?

Sounds like a good meeting. I hope it all goes somewhere. we need unity of action.

Next Meeting Venue & Time?

by Peter Sutherland's Nemesis

Thu Apr 06, 2006 16:40

Will youse put the date, time and venue on the Events List on Indymedia as soon as you know please.

Also, for people interested in the topic, we're more likely to read the minutes on the newswire if the headline of the article includes what the minutes are of ... as there are lots of minutes of lots of meetings around these days.

Thanks for the minutes.

Great to see the initiative and the coming together. “Basta Ya!” to the pushes for control and abuse of people motivated by anti-war for political party and ideological grandstanding. War should never be used to boost your party membership.

mary c

by pat c

Thu Apr 06, 2006 16:42

actually mary, you are only partly quoting Krossies point on the WSM.
heres the full sentence:

"The WSM view as stands from our last Delegate council is that we will not make anti war action a major priority in the absence of a workable strategy."

theres a difference between not making something a major priority and doing nothing.

Well done Cosantoiri Siochana - wd Paula

by MichaelY - iawm

Thu Apr 06, 2006 16:48

Great the minutes are out. A good thread is developing. Only good can come out of this.

WSM position

by Joe - WSM 1st of May (personal capacity)

Thu Apr 06, 2006 17:04

Actually Krossie got the policy wrong, our Feb Delegate Council in Limerick actually voted against rather than for the recommendation he is referring to.

This is part of a ongoing internal debate on our contribution to the anti-war movements which should come to some conclusions in the next few weeks. In the meantime our members are involved anyway in anti-war activity, eg some are building for the Baldonnel demonstration.

interesting

by jr

Thu Apr 06, 2006 21:16

Co-ordination is needed for sure but why are the different antiwar groups opposed to it? I'm not clear about that. There are very few people active on the issue now - the political parties like Labour and even the WSM - seem to have moved onto other issues. Those left NEED to work together...or do we need ANOTHER war before we get our sh*t together?

moved on..

by W - wsm - anarchist youth (pers cap)

Thu Apr 06, 2006 21:23

To say the wsm have moved on isn't entirely fair, at least three members are up to their eyes organising for baldonnel.

Fairly good meeting

by Deirdre Clancy - Pitstop Ploughshares/Antiwar Ireland

Thu Apr 06, 2006 22:40

I think it was a good meeting overall. I did argue for delegates because I've been at so many meetings attempting to set up various anti-war 'networks' linking groups together, which didn't work out because there was no structure (there was a mention from an IAWM committee member of 'The Tyranny of Structurelessness' at the meeting - this essay does provide a very good analysis of what happens when there's no structure, and I've seen it happen too many times both within and outside the antiwar movement). People seem to have a problem with delegates because they feel they're subordinating their own groups to some 'umbrella' group. However, it doesn't have to be conceptualised as some sort of hierarchy. Rather, it's just a way of linking up the different antiwar groups and finding some common ground on which to act. I don't see what the problem should be with doing this.

Whatever the WSM position actually is (there are contradictory accounts of it here, I'm assuming it's the later posting that's correct), I don't agree that people should do nothing for three months. I think there's a problem with strategy and it's important to to talk about it, but equally, it's important to avoid 'analysis paralysis', which appears to be a huge aspect of what remains of anti-war activism in Ireland today. I think good-quality analysis is vital, but can happen in tandem with action.

Another problem with not having delegates is that there's huge potential for a lack of focus, again, another problem that regularly occurs at these attempts to set up networks. There was a strong chairperson on April 1st, but this may not always be the case in the future.

My own thoughts on the meeting.

by Niall Harnett - Cosantóirí Síochána

Fri Apr 07, 2006 01:04

I've got mixed feelings on the meeting.

I was glad to see a good cross representation of individuals and groups. This meant that the meeting seemed to take it's own course rather than what some, including myself, had hoped to achieve out of it.
That's fine though, I hope, because we were being sensitive to the fact that a perhaps unexpected turnout meant setting/changing the agenda to a 'common purpose and strategy etc', which is what we want obviously and have been working for. But, it's still dangerously vague at the moment, hence the need for more meetings.

At this point, I think people in Dublin forget that it's a lot more difficult for people living elsewhere to get to Dublin for meetings. Therefore, in my opinion, meetings must result in solid decisions and concrete plans to be attractive to me and other Cosantoiri's who favour the development of non-violent imaginative direct action tactics.

To actively confront the State, in numbers, is the fastest and most direct route to a common strategy, I feel. Practical involvement in shared adventures will teach us where best to concentrate our energies with regard to structuring a coordinated and continued effort. We respond to needs as they arise. Analysis after action.

Facilitation of meetings: I like the style in which Mark facilitated the meeting on Sat. Cheers Mark. I think we all know good facilitators and I think we should make sure that every meeting has a really strong facilitator, absolutely essential. We should discuss facilitation before and at every meeting.

I like it that it was you Fintan who put up this review of the meeting. Thanks a lot.

U.S. Military out of Ireland.

Wear the Black Shamrock.

The essay Deirdre refers to

by Archivist

Fri Apr 07, 2006 12:38

Spot on.

A contribution by Cindy Sheehan

Fri Apr 07, 2006 15:04

Thursday, April 6th, 2006

http://www.michaelmoore.com/mustread/index.php?id=624

The Anti-War Movement?

By Cindy Sheehan

Editors note: users please desist from cut n'pasting large amounts of text that are already available on the net. If related to the discussion at hand, paste a link only or use the site's "other press" section.

Huh?

by Seán

Fri Apr 07, 2006 17:55

I don't see the relevance of the Cindy Sheehan article to the debate here. What's your point Michael? Who is suggesting a "military" approach to the antiwar movement in Ireland? Scott Ritter is a conservative Republican - I can't think of an equivilant person in the Irish antiwar movement so I don't know what your getting at.

Can you elaborate on why you think this article enlightens us?

Relevance

Fri Apr 07, 2006 18:20

Hey Sean,

I found the said article very informative and interesting.
One, because what happens and the type of debates that take place over in the belly of the Empire have an undoubted relevance for us here. At times, we tend to be a bit parochial methinks -
Two, there are and have been a number of people who have been predicting the imminent demise of the anti-war movement here in Ireland. Mostly they say because of the so-called 'machinations' of the SWP, or, quite frequently, because the Government won't listen, protests don't work, it's all a waste of time etc etc

I am quoting here almost verbatim from the article:

At first, I was highly offended and defensive at what I thought was .... arrogant attacks on the movement that I am so intimately and overwhelmingly involved in. But then after my knee-jerk reaction, I realized that for all of the wrong reasons, ...[this view]was partially correct.

The anti-war movement is not on the "verge of collapse" because we are not organized, or because we don't take a "warriors" view of attacking the neocons and the war machine using the tactics of Napoleon, or Sun Tzu—but because the two-thirds of [us] who philosophically agree that the war is wrong, BushCo lied, and the troops should come home, [and stop using Shannon] will not get off of their collective, complacent, and comfortable behinds to demonstrate their dissent with our government...and its collaboration with the Crusaders.

Hope this answers, partially at least, why I posted it. Incidentally, I haven't heard anybody arguing for militarist solutions in the anti-war movement....there you're right.

True

by anthony

Sun Apr 09, 2006 13:14

I'd agree with michael that too many people are dissing the antiwar movement. I think he's wrong to underestimate how pissed off people are with the swp/iawm but being pissed off with the antics of a sect should actually encourage the critics to do something! This is a serious issue - people are being blown up everyday and we're arguing about who controlls what in our tiny native antiwar movement! It's just ridiculous.

I missed the meeting that Fintan is talking about but it sounds great. Agree fully with the need for unity and proper co-ordination. Good to see Antiwar Ireland back as well - thought that demo for Bush visit was wicked good (excuse my Americanism - I'm watching too much tv :-)).

Morale is good among activists at the minute because of the Rossport Five, the big Irish Ferries march, and lots of other stuff that's happening. Hopefully this will give the antiwar movement the boost it needs to get going again.

Number of comments per page

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Anti-Empire

The Saker

Lockdown Skeptics

Voltaire Network

Some Observations On The Cosantoiri Siochana Anti War Meeting.

Comments (18 of 18)