Broad Anti-Bush Campaign Established

by Bemused Sun Jun 15, 2008 04:46

We make him feel that he is 100 per cent right and he swells with more self-importance than ever when he sees the protest placards far away in the distance -

He knows that nobody has the guts to dash up and assasinate him,

certainly nobody in ireland, he feels safe and right at home here.

Go on ye cowards, shoot him,

If I was there I would.

by CÓB Sat Jun 14, 2008 18:42

I'm not sure if any kind of transport has been planned, but Translink runs a bus from just beside the City Hall to Stormont every 10 minutes or so.

by george Thu Jun 12, 2008 22:07 mmg04 at hotmail dot com

Saw posters about the falls and i'll definitely be going to this! Just wondering what the craic is though. Are people making their way from the city hall to Stormont and how are they getting there?

by Belfast Anti-War Wed Jun 04, 2008 00:56

You are incorrect on your point about the support for the 9 in Belfast.

eirigi have been loyal supporters of the 9 and have despatched supporters where possible.

On example would be the main demo outside the courts.

Just because you might not know them, doesn't mean they aren't there.

by real-world activist Tue Jun 03, 2008 16:01

Yes, while I emphatise with the DAWC contributor, what he/she is actually calling for is a shutting down of a very useful discussion. It is true that the Raytheon 9 are entitled to focused solidarity action but is not true to say that the SWP are the only people providing this. I think DAWC will readily admit that real suppport has come from groups like the WSM and Anti-War Ireland and, as some of the commentary above indicates, others like the ISN have been busy putting out the word and highlighting the case.

This thread, however, was not supposed to be about the Raytheon 9 but about the Bush visit and the building of a broad campaign. Some interesting questions have been raised, understandably, about the behaviour of the SWP and these should be properly addressed. It's not good enough to shout 'sectarian' at anybody who raises uncomfortable questions.

Imho, the roots of the dilemma date back to the original formation of the BAWM and its mother ship, the IAWM, by the SWP and a few others. It was a conceit and an arrogance to take the name 'Irish anti-war movement', as if they were the only show in town. Sure, the trick works on the media, who think in simple terms, but from the outset it was annoying for anti-war activists not in the SWP. Imagine, for instance, setting up a campaign group and calling it the 'Irish Women's Movement' or the the 'Irish Labour Movement' or the 'Irish Travellers Movement'. Think of all the people that would piss particularly if they were just little groups.

BAWM and the IAWM are not 'movements'. They have a mere handful of active members. Lots of worthless lists of names of apparent members but, in reality, they have hardly any real, active members, outside of the SWP. If the SWP withdrew, the IAWM would collapse almost immediately . It is currently a shell company with only a couple of the steering committee actually active.

BAWM should rename itself the 'Belfast Anti-War Group' and likewise the IAWM should drop the word 'movement' and substitute the word 'group' or 'campaign'. The IAWM represents hardly anyone in the anti-war movement other than the SWP and hasn't since it split in 2004. The occasional inclusion of a few personal capacity members of Labour Youth or whatever fools nobody.

Anyways, I think that is the root of the problem here. BAWM to drop this notion that it is THE anti-war movement in Belfast.

by Debater Tue Jun 03, 2008 15:35

I empathise with the people giving the 'Why can't we all get along and concentrate on what's important?' line, but the point is that is what everyone on the left in Belfast wants. The SWP say that is what they want, but instead want to control the campaigning by channelling it through the Belfast Anti-War Movement, which while it has a number of other individuals around it, is really just an SWP froont because the lack of democratic structure and accountability means their members decide all the details of its events and campaigns. Most of the rest of the left (those who openly criticise the SWP's politics and tactics) and enitrely sidelined from BAWM. I think everyone would agree that opposing Bush is about more than the occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan, so why should the BAWM (in reality, the SWP) be allowed to control it? This has been an attempt to create a genuinely broad campaign with democratic structures and accountability. How things turn out on the day remains to be seen... but left activists outside the SWP can't just stand back and allow them to continue this dishonest domination indefinitely.

by Dick Doyle Tue Jun 03, 2008 11:21

Surely we would be showing some strength to get together for a day of solidarity to show opposition to Bush's doings and support for human rights, whatever our differences. There are still hundreds detained without charge or trial in Guantanamo Bay and US war resisters who need some support.

by Sean Matthews Tue Jun 03, 2008 00:23

Actually, members of WSM Belfast have made it to court, inside and outside and travelled up from Dublin, including myself.

by MM - DAWC Mon Jun 02, 2008 21:18

I can't believe this debate is going on via computers at a time when the Raytheon 9 trial is drawing to a close. I don't agree with the SWP on a whole lot of things but fair play to them the court was packed out with them today in support of real anti-war activists...not ones whose 'activity' consists of slagging off those who are at least out there DOING something.

Stop this awful in-fighting NOW and get out there. I've been on all the demos outside the court and attended the court whenever I can and the only Belfast people I see are SWP and the 'Justice not Terror' folk. Shame on the rest of you!

by Laugh or Cry Mon Jun 02, 2008 19:23

Yep, Sean, the more things change the more they stay the same as far as the SWP is concerned.

Getting back to BK's latest response, such as it is, it's difficult to know where to start with this embarrassing drivel. Firstly the claim that nobody on the left has "built anything" over the last seven years. You wouldn't know from his empty boasting that the SWP in Belfast is approximately half the size it was seven years. You wouldn't know that the BAWM has failed to establish itself as an organisation at all, remaining little more than a name, a funny hat the local SWP sometimes put on. So what precisely has the SWP's superior methods allowed it to build? Nothing tangible.

There were some big marches, which were no more "built" by the SWP/BAWM than the marches in the south were built by the semi-fictional NGO Peace Alliance. The SWP/BAWM handed out a bunch of leaflets advertising the marches, as did everyone else on the left. This was important but to be clear, all of our organising efforts were probably dwarfed by the effect of sections of the mainstream media advertising anti-war demonstrations and what was in large part a spontaneous reaction amongst a wide swathe of society. And of course, as that reaction faded and was replaced by disillusionment and as the mainstream media lost interest or became more hostile, the marches faded to next to nothing. What precisely did the SWP/BAWM build in those seven years? It wasn't a functioning anti-war group. It wasn't their own organisation. It wasn't ongoing support for socialist ideas. The most significant events in the anti-war movement over the last seven years, in the North at least, were the school student strikes which were called and in part organised by Youth Against the War, a group established by Socialist Youth, although SY, lacking the SWP's crazed arrogance, wouldn't claim to have done much more than popularise the idea.

I note that BK has made no attempt to justify the smears in his previous post about everyone else on the left supposedly arguing that "now was not the time to try to reach out, that it was instead time to circle the wagons around a tight, revolutionary program, to keep ourselves insulated from contact with 'reactionary Muslims,"". That was central to his defence of the SWP a few posts ago. Now it has quietly disappeared, dropped as the embarrassing lie it was. Similarly no argument is made that the BAWM actually is anything other than a front. It's a bit disappointing really, normally SWP members can be relied upon to make some spurious claims about the independence of their fronts.

Unfortunately the part about the SWP hiding their politics in BAWM and its other fronts is anything but "fairytales".

Both in the North and the South, the SWP currently stand for election under the name "People Before Profit". People Before Profit consists of themselves and a tiny handful of individuals. In the South in the last elections they managed to scrape up five candidates. Four SWP members and one independent. The solitary independent has since resigned, explaining that PBP is an SWP front. In the North, they couldn't find even one credible independent to stand under that banner. Yet despite total SWP dominance in the pseudo-organisation, PBP has liberal, non-socialist politics. They appeared on the ballot paper as "non-party" in the South, they barely mentioned the words "socialist", "SWP" or "working class" in their material. Their most successful electoral outing consisted of running Richard Boyd Barrett as a nice well spoken young man who doesn't like George Bush and does like Dun Laoghaire seafront in the richest constituency in Ireland! Truly the ruling class are trembling. The whole point of PBP is that it allows the SWP to moderate its politics, dropping the scary stuff about socialism and the working class in its electoral work.

And that's not a one off. Their anti-war front work has been much the same. I've been to anti-war events organised by SWP fronts in the North, in Britain and in the South and the tune is always the same. They present themselves as outraged liberals, echoing lowest common denominator arguments and, whereever possible trying to keep other socialists, who might not be so timid, off platforms. The exception to that, the one issues they have been prepared to push the boat out on, has been their occasional efforts to push uncritical adulation of movements like Hamas, Hezbollah and the Sadrists. I find the brass neck of BK in denying this, and offering as evidence to the contrary some very mild disagreements in an article in Socialist Worker, which doesn't even include an explicit criticism of any of these groups, little short of hilarious.

Some people may have been unfortunate enough to attend some stops on the Hamas roadshow organised by the SWP/IAWM a while back. Southerners may even have been unlucky enough to attend the conference organised in Dublin which presented as a platform at one meeting a representative of the Hamas leadership (by audiolink), a local Hamas member, a representative of the Sadr movement, an academic who said straight out that he supported Hamas, and a Lebanese member of the British SWP who uttered not one critical word about any of these groups. From the audience one prominent SWP leader made a speech describing the Sadrists as a progressive national liberation movement and referring to their policies in glowing terms. Another SWP leader made a speech about what a wonderful time she had visiting Hezbollah and claimed that they were no more homophobic or sexist than people in Donegal. It would have been shocking stuff if the SWP hadn't long ago lost the ability to shock.

Remember what the bickering on this thread is about. The SWP want all protests against the Bush visit to be controlled by them, using their BAWM funny hat. The entire rest of the organised left in Belfast want the protests to be organised democratically, inclusively and collaboratively. Once more, I invite BK and the handful of SWP activists in Belfast to try to work constructively with others. I don't hold out much hope.

by Sean Matthews Mon Jun 02, 2008 18:04

This current shit stirring by Belfast SWP reminds me of a talk I gave a few years ago and the response
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/67754

No change, but what does anyone expect from the SWP.....

by BK Mon Jun 02, 2008 17:49

Laugh or Cry

Sorry you're feeling neglected. I did respond to anything worth commenting on in your previous post. The 'front a month rubbish.' The idiocy about the 'rest of the Left.' The substantive--that is, political--point about the sectarian formula for building which you seem to support. But otherwise its pretty thin, in my view. My only question would be, if the rest of the Left is so on target and influential, and BAWM so utterly rotten, why have you/they never managed to build anything over 7 years worth noticing? Nothing. SP has a long-term presence in NIPSA, for example. If I was in an organization that did, I'd be aiming to get 4-500 workers out on the demonstration on the 16th, and I'd be pretty embarrassed if I couldn't. Don't just talk the talk.

The rubbish about socialists hiding their politics in BAWM is just fairy tales made up for new SP members, the uninitiated and the internet activist brigade. I shared the podium of the first antiwar meeting in Belfast in October 2001 with Eamonn McCann and a woman (whose name I forget) from Afghanistan. I've got a copy of the talk for anyone who wants to test LoC's credibility. Also at the vigil for Fallujah, and at one or two other public events.

Or if others want to judge for themselves whether socialists 'uncritically laud Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.,' then check out any of the many recent articles in SW. Start with this one, from last month, on "Is an Arab Revolution on the Agenda?" Full text at http://www.swp.ie/news/swissue283/isanarabrevolutionont....html. But here's an excerpt.

"Today, many Islamist activists argue for an anti-imperialist movement uniting Muslims across the globe - crossing national borders, and transcending divisions of race and language. These projects assume Arabs or Muslims share a common interest in fighting imperialism. But in reality Arab and Muslim societies are divided by class, and this basic fact shapes the lives of ordinary people across the Middle East.

Three decades of neo-liberalism have created societies more polarised than ever between rich and poor. The interests of capitalists and the state are enmeshed. Financial “reform” means cheap loans for big business, privatisation hands state resources to companies owned by the children of government ministers, while development projects siphon money to corporate shareholders. The Egyptian ruling class may be a junior partner in global capitalism, but it has no stake in the demise of the current economic system.

Hizbollah’s conception of the struggle between oppressors and oppressed, of a dividing line within every society, makes more sense in our globalised world than the idea of a united Arab nation confronting an external aggressor. Yet even this conception has its problems.

Siding with the oppressed is vital, but only recognising their oppression ignores the unique power that ­ordinary people have to transform society. The mass of people have the power to ­create a different world, not because they are downtrodden but because they are workers. It is workers who keep the oil flowing through the pipelines of Saudi Arabia and Iraq, workers who take ships along the Suez Canal, workers who bake bread, drive trains, serve fries at McDonald’s and sweep the floors of tourists’ hotel rooms. This labour supports the economy of every Middle Eastern state, and therefore the stability of every Middle Eastern government.

The working class is the only force in society that can escape the limits of national liberation, because it also challenges the rule of imperialism’s internal allies - the powerful local elites in countries such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia."

by another Anti imperialist Mon Jun 02, 2008 16:57

Excellent point by by Anti imperialist. I have never understood the need for those organising any protests to include the provisionals. Anti war, tara , shell to sea etc and am not alone in seeing it as hypocrisy. Maybe its a youth thing that older people organising these events still somehow see the adams crew as progresive but the 70s and 80s are long gone. We see them for what they ve been the last 15 years or so and what they are today and thats what matters. Now Republicans should be welcomed and involved in things like this but keep it with the principled who stand against the status quo, not an establishment party that is part and parcel of the the very system all of us here are suppose to be against in the first place. I and others my age view any attempt at the provos being invovled in street politics and demo's as panto and taking the piss and cant understand why actual Republicans get bypassed.

by Laugh or Cry Mon Jun 02, 2008 16:12

I note, BK, that you don't actually engage with much of what I said at all.

The SWP have not "held together" a campaign over the ups and downs of the period since the war began. They launched a front and then periodically took the name out of storage or put it back in the freezer as their whims dictated. There was, and is, nothing to hold together in the BAWM. It has no independent life of its own, as you know and everyone reading this site familiar with Belfast knows (and as everyone familiar with the SWP and its methods, even if they aren't familiar with Belfast can probably work out for themselves).

I note that you, with the typical arrogance of representatives of your piddling sect, are entirely shameless about falsely attributing positions to others on the left which they did not in fact hold. I'm sure you will have no difficulty in finding articles from the voluminous writings of the Socialist Party, Socialist Youth, Workers Solidarity Movement, Irish Socialist Network or Organise! which argue that "now was not the time to try to reach out, that it was instead time to circle the wagons around a tight, revolutionary program, to keep ourselves insulated from contact with 'reactionary Muslims,""~? Oh right, no you won't. Because your argument is founded on a lie. This sort of thing was never something that any of these groups argued for. You are smearing them because it is easier for you to do that than it is for you to actually engage with your real political differences with them.

The central problem with the SWP's approach is not that they were willing to include people from outside the organised left in the anti-war movement. That's sensible enough and nobody remotely serious on the left disagrees with it. Neither does anyone remotely serious on the left in this country wallow in Islamophobia, as say for instance a couple of small sects in Britain do. (Although I note that your over the top focus on Muslims, a group with a total population of 1,943 north of the border at the last census, is a typically bizarre result of your sect taking its orders from London regardless of their usefulness or appropriateness to local conditions).

Where the SWP ran into difficulties with others in the anti-war movement was over a couple of different issues - the lack of even the most basic concessions to organisational democracy and the liberal politics of their interventions. The first of these issues ensured, largely to the SWP's sectarian satisfaction I might add, that the rest of the left had at best a semi-detached relationship with the BAWM, instead concentrating on work under their own banners, leaving the SWP to run their front. In the South, incidentally, where the IAWM did at one stage incorporate nearly the entire left it ensured that everyone else gradually left, leaving the SWP and a handful of close allies in possession of a rump organisation of no particular significance. Nobody with any self respect or any experience of such matters is willing to be used as a tool by the SWP for long. So instead of helping set up a coalition that could democratically incorporate different wings of the movement, from those with more of an emphasis on direct action, to other socialist groups, to anti-war greens, to various independents, the SWP ended up with hollow fronts.

The second point is that of political content. Despite the fact that the BAWM and IAWM are wholly owned subsidiaries of the SWP, the SWP rigidly limit the politics of these coalitions to bland liberal platitudes. Instead of seeking to win people over to a class understanding of war, or a socialist understanding, they chose to reflect back at people their existing anti-war attitudes. Note that I am not here arguing that sharing such an understanding should have been necessary for involvement in the anti-war movement - that would be a sectarian approach. But socialists within the movement should have vigorously put forward socialist and class based arguments, something which the SWP almost entirely refused to do. So we had anti-war meetings where Muslim speakers put forward Muslim points of view, liberal speakers argued for liberal politics, reformists argued for reformist points of view, Christians put forward Christian arguments. As all of these people have every right to do. The only people under a self-denying ordinance were the alleged "socialists" of the SWP.

Their logic, when challenged on this, was essentially a variant of "mustn't scare the horses", as if people could stand to be in a coalition with any amount of differing views as long as socialist arguments weren't put strenuously. This of course sit poorly with another bizarre aspect of the SWP's approach in more recent times - using their anti-war front names to uncritically laud Hamas, Hezbollah and the Sadr movement. Apparently the SWP are so far removed from reality that they don't think taking an entirely uncritical approach to such groupings, and in fact presenting them as the authentic, progressive face of anti-imperialism, will "narrow the movement"!

So we had an anti-war movement that challenged nobody's existing views, that sought to win people over to no particular politics beyond "war is bad, Bush is bad" (with the partial exception of the quite crazed stuff about Hamas etc). And of course, as a result, an anti-war movement that was not capable of holding itself together when the going became a little rougher. The local groups disappeared, the marches dwindled away and the public meetings shrank to a fraction of their former size. Anti-war radicalisation was a mile wide and an inch deep, and instead of working on deepening an anti-war understanding, the SWP were just overjoyed at big attendances and wanted desperately to avoid anything that might hurt that.

The BAWM has no credibility as an organisation, because it isn't one. The SWP has no credibility as an organisation, because it hasn't earned any. Nobody will be taking ultimatums or a fait accompli from them when it comes to organising significant protests or events. Get used to it and get used to working with others in a collaborative manner if you want to do something useful.

by BK Mon Jun 02, 2008 12:56

'Anti-Imperialist' writes above:

"One of the problems with the BAWM (though it doesn’t come up on this thread) is that it is trying to incorporate Sinn Fein..."

Not sure where THIS little legend has its origins, but are you out of your tree? Don't you realize that the demonstrations has been called in opposition to the invitation issued by a Sinn Fein Deputy First Minister? I know there are a small number of individual SF members who are nauseated enough by this to sign on to the Open Letter, and I have no doubt that when we begin to get out to the workplaces we will find plenty of their voters who will come out on the day, and who will be welcome on the march, but the suggestion that there is attempt to 'incorporate' SF is laughable, as any 'anti-imperialist' with the energy to get up off his/her sofa every now and then will know very well.

by Deirdre Clancy - formerly Pitstop Ploughshares Mon Jun 02, 2008 12:25

I know I may be biased, but it always amazed me when people talked about NVDA as a distraction from things like Air Force One making a brief appearance or from 'the need to build a broader anti-war movement'. There's no point building a bigger movement if it's totally ineffectual (but then of course there's the feel-good factor - 'I've waved a few banners, I've listened to a few respectable-looking people such as trade union bigwigs, vaguely liberal journalists and wishy-washy liberal politicians on a platform - amn't I a great sensitive person, I've done something without dirtying my hands like those nasty people with the hammers/bolt cutters/home-made napalm'). If people feel good about demos, great -- but it shouldn't be on the back of attempts to discredit those who do NVDA.

There needs to be no either/or with regards to the nature of protests, but it's some of the leftist parties who create those false dichotomies, by being proprietorial about the anti-war cause and acting like they have a monopoly on it and almost have the right to trademark it the way the neo-liberals trademark concepts.

I don't think it's my place to call for certain people to support the Raytheon 9, rather than protest the Bush visit. That's partially because I don't want to speak on their behalf, and for all I know there could be various groups/people that the Derry Anti-War Coalition would rather didn't appear at the court. The quality of the support matters more than the quantity of people in or around the courtroom (at least to me it does). However, I will say that it doesn't make sense to me personally to pour too many resources into a brief visit by Bush when the Raytheon trial is going on. What the Raytheon 9 did sends a clear message; whereas, Bush and his handlers are used to protestors appearing everywhere he goes. He's cushioned from them, and it's regarded as routine to deal with banner-waving groups.

As an aside, though, I tend to think that if the anti-war movement - broadly speaking - should be doing anything in the south, it should be trying to break the mainstream media blackout around the Raytheon 9 here.

by Anti imperialist - Belfast Mon Jun 02, 2008 12:23

One of the problems with the BAWM (though it doesn’t come up on this thread) is that it is trying to incorporate Sinn Fein. Maybe it is a case of pointing out that the emperor has no cloths, but Sinn Fein as a political moment, are not opposed to US imperialism. Indeed., they never seem to pass up the opportunity of tipping the hat to Uncle Sam. Didn’t Sinn Fein recently welcome the representatives of US corporations to the north. Didn’t Martin McGuinness welcome the establish a US private equity fund (Emerald Fund) that seeks to profit from the privatisation public services in Ireland. Indeed, was it not the same Martin McGuinness who extended the invitation to Bush to visit the north! It’s all very well talking about building a broad campaign, but surely any credible campaign can’t include those who are pro imperialist. We should be exposing Sinn Fein rather than facilitating their hypocritical posturing.

by BK Mon Jun 02, 2008 07:32

Less than ten in the room I take it then...

My description of the approach as sectarian rests on rejection of the notion at the bottom of the SP 'initiative,' that bringing together representatives of the small and very uninfluential Belfast Left is the way to launch a viable antiwar mobilisation. BAWM's approach is very different, as I've described above, and in my view has the ring of sanity about it--in that it looks out beyond the organised Left in a way that the other does not. If you and others are content to sit in a room with the pure and like-minded, then by all means keep at it, but don't try to tell the world about having built a 'broad campaign' for crissakes.

I was at the meetings out of which BAWM was formed in the early days of Bush's 'war on terror'--a 'front of the month' now in its seventh year (or so) by my count. SP attended these early meetings, as did both members of SD, a few anarchists. ISN, Organize weren't around at the time, but the differing perspectives on how to build were there from the beginning. The SWP and others who went on to form BAWM argued the case for a broad, activist, antiwar campaign. This is the perspective that made it possible to put 20,000 or so on the streets in the runup to the Iraq invasion, with broad support from the trade unions and others. [Note I'm not saying that that is all down to BAWM; but without the outward orientation that BAWM had insisted on from the beginning, the results would have been much less impressive. No question whatsoever in my mind.]

The rest of the organised Left argued, with varying degrees of pessimism, that now was not the time to try to reach out, that it was instead time to circle the wagons around a tight, revolutionary program, to keep ourselves insulated from contact with 'reactionary Muslims,' etc. etc etc. All glum and inward-looking, a perfect recipe for further isolation. The SP would attend semi-regularly, lob a few criticisms from the sidelines, and retreat to the bunker between meetings. The others were even more glum, immobile, paralyzed.

Obviously the antiwar movement has had its ups and downs since 2003. Bursts of public anger around Abu Ghraib; Fallujah; the Lebanon invasion, etc. but also lulls in between. This is not peculiar to Belfast, or to Ireland, and I would see it as a compliment to BAWM that they have managed to hold together a public campaign in the face of these fluctuations. The politics might be too 'bland' for some, but in the discussion at last week's meeting, the agreement was that the demonstration would try to make the connection between the war and the neo-liberal agenda, attacks on working people, here at home. I'm not sure what else you want from a broad campaign.

I hope this clarifies where I'm coming from. If the Left cannot make itself relevant to large numbers of ordinary people then its not the people who are to blame.

by Laugh or Cry Sun Jun 01, 2008 22:41

Is this really a member of the Belfast SWP with the cheek to lecture others - anyone at all - on "toxic sectarianism" and democratic organising methods?

The so-called "Belfast Anti-War Movement" is an SWP front, wheeled out and put in storage at the whim of the small local SWP. Just like Belfast "People Before Profit" and whatever happens to the front of the month. Most of their fronts have suitably bland, non-socialist, politics. They are geared towards getting endorsements from people who don't realise what they are dealing with, while leaving the SWP comfortably in charge. None of these "organisations" have any real democratic life of their own and that is exactly what the SWP intend for them in the first place.

Everybody else on the left in Belfast knows this, as do our disengenuous SWP friends themselves. It therefore takes quite extraordinary brass neck for BK to come onto this site and lecture people. The rest of the left in Belfast - who remember greatly outnumber the SWP - are under no obligation to fall in behind whatever the latest SWP wheeze is. As it is, pretty much everyone else on the left wants a democratically organised campaign and a focus on Stormont for the protests. The SWP want to run the whole show while wearing their BAWM hat and to focus on a lunch time protest in the city centre. It's as simple as that.

I do, by the way, like the casual dismissal of the WSM, ISN, Organise!, Socialist Democracy and Eirigi as "moribund". These are certainly small groups, but so is the Belfast SWP let me remind you. It's almost as amusing as the insinuation that all of these groups, along with the Socialist Party and Socialist Youth, are terrible sectarians. As opposed to the SWP, I suppose. Everybody is a sectarian except my piddling sect!

by BK Sun Jun 01, 2008 19:37

Well, let's get down to it then. Gary Mulcahy writes above, in relation to the Thursday meeting that he claims 'laid the basis for a broad campaign,' that that "Representatives of Workers Solidarity Movement, Eirigi, Irish Socialist Network, Socialist Party, Socialist Youth, Organise and Anti-War Ireland held a successful meeting this evening blah blah blah..."

Two things about this. First, the laundry list can give the impression that the meeting was heavily attended, etc. My guess is that less than ten people were in the room. Tell me if I'm wrong, and tell me by how much. Just give us a number. Otherwise I think its safe to assume that outside of SP/SY, you are talking about a couple of individuals who represent little or nothing on the ground. Correct? Is this what you mean by a 'broad meeting'? If not, why continue to delude your own members and the readers of Indymedia that you have built something that you haven't, unless it is for reasons having to do with sectarian maneuvering?

Secondly, is the SP's idea of a 'broad campaign' simply to invite into a room individual representatives of the moribund left in Belfast and call that something that it is not? If so, it is politically irresponsible. Whatever its flaws, and whatever reservations people may have about BAWM, they have operated on the perspective that building a broad campaign means getting as much trade union and community support on board as possible, reaching out to the Muslim community which has been important to antiwar mobilisations here all along, and working on the basis of that to bring out large numbers of people way beyond the ranks of the organised Left to come out against Bush. That will be done in workplaces, schools and neighborhoods over the next two weeks or it won't be done at all.

The SP approach here has been almost classic sectarianism, in my view. And I don't mean that merely as a term of insult etc., but as a political description of what they've been up to. Davy's memory may fail him but I do remember the first meetings in Belfast in response to the then pending invasion of Afghanistan, and although I was new here at the time and had no axe to grind, I was shocked by the SP's antics, which they have never left behind. They've got some talented and committed activists, especially among some of their younger members, but they are being trained in a toxic sectarianism and their abilities are being wasted on silly maneuvers.

by Davy Carlin Sat May 31, 2008 12:33

BK Quote -'Now to be honest I have seen this before, from the earliest days of the (current) antiwar movement in Belfast, and in the past the SP have voted yes but then done none of the legwork for building.'

I am not going to bite to Brian Kelly as before, {-as he may wish - -}as I have moved on from that, and from those who wish to detract from all various actions, {not under one control} - direct or otherwise.

But his quote and how far from the reality as many would know {and I have and had my difference with the SP} indeed sets his stall out for whatever he has or will state.

And I sure will be taken in that context by most.

My points of course stand as they are, as previous.

Now signing off for good.

As always in Solidarity

'D

by lulu Sat May 31, 2008 11:24

Let's ignore Bush's wars & human rights abuses & just fight amongst ourselves, it's easier.

by Sad Galway - Poor Clare's Sat May 31, 2008 00:27

The one thing i have noticed from my occasional visits to this site is that contributors from the left spend their time attacking each other . All the various brands of the left/anti-war/direct actionists making snide swipes at one another. It really isn't the way to go. You really have more in common than you have differences - this isn't the Life of Brian, but it reads like it.
the real issue at hand is the lisbon treaty. here we can seriously damage the militaristic and neo liberal plans of the establishment by winning people over to the No side. Protests outside courts or against the butcher Bush are all very good, but mobilising the people to reject the EU agenda would be a much bigger blow to these evil people.

by numb Fri May 30, 2008 23:09

Has anyone else noticed that on any thread that has anything remotely to do with the SWP if anyone else does anything that they don't agree with or have control over then they are branded sectarian by the SWP!!!!!

by sPa Fri May 30, 2008 23:06

Gary,

Have the courtesy to spell their name right - éirígí. It doesn't make any sense without the fadas and if they are your new pals you should know they have an anal thing about a lower case é. You do realise they are disgruntled Connollyite provies? Any port in a storm these days for the SP?

by Gary Mulcahy - Socialist Party Fri May 30, 2008 22:23

Members of Eirigi who attended agreed that a campaign involving all groups should be established. They also agreed that the trade union movement should be approached to bring everyone together. They also agreed that a demonstration should be held as close as possible to where Bush will be. The representatives of Eirigi agreed that a provisional title 'Bush Not Welcome' would suffice. I hope Eirigi can agree that such a campaign needs to be built with urgency.

by Mark Fri May 30, 2008 22:03

While there were members of éirígí at this meeting, as with the meeting called by BAWM the previous night, I don't recall éirígí agreeing to what has been printed above. I expect a clarification will occur in due course.

by Gary Mulcahy - Bush Not Welcome & Socialist Party Fri May 30, 2008 20:22 patmaster35 at hotmail dot com

Representatives of Workers Solidarity Movement, Eirigi, Irish Socialist Network, Socialist Party, Socialist Youth, Organise and Anti-War Ireland held a successful meeting this evening to discuss co-ordinating a united opposition to the visit of George W Bush to Belfast.

It was agreed that to establish a broad Bush Not Welcome campaign to unite all those opposed to Bush's visit and to set up a democratic structure to involve all groups to co-ordinate protest action.

It was also unanimously agreed to appeal to the trade union movement to convene a meeting to bring all groups together, even if that means dropping our current title and structure, so we maximise the numbers protesting.

The campaign will support protests organised by other groups but believes it is important that a demonstration is organised as near as possible to where Bush will be on the day.

For more information contact Paddy Meehan on 07876146473

by Huh? Fri May 30, 2008 19:28

The SP and SY have done huge amounts of work for recent anti-war demos, such as the recent one in March, as much as or more than the 'BAWM', despite being excluded from 'the movement'. It would be hard not to see that unless you see the world through rose-tinted SWP glasses. Whatever happens on the day, the SP and SY will be among the most energetic in building for it.

by Brian Kelly Fri May 30, 2008 19:07

Davy Carlin writes above:

"Different organisations will do there own thing, and different groups have, and are calling different things.
It has also again began to bring together different threads of the Movement, some to listen to speeches others to rally etc
No matter what goes on, it is important that many various things are going on, on the day - to send out the clearest of messages."

With all due respect, Davy, that's about as irresponsible a recipe for disaster as I've ever seen. Bush is on his way to town and you're playing around like this? Anarchists are not OBLIGED to be unserious you know. Get real. The SP seems so desperate to maneuver themselves into a role in this thing that they are apparently giving this kind of nonsense a free pass.

There is a lunchtime demonstration called with genuinely broad backing, not the six people in a room kind of thing advertised here, for Monday, 16 June at 12.30pm. We are hoping to get a good turnout from city center workplaces, with lots of public sector workers who will be hardest hit by the neo-liberal agenda.

I would encourage people to stop the sectarian maneuvering and get behind it 100%. The SP had as many of their members in attendance at the meeting last night as any other organisation, and to their credit they voted to support the Monday rally. Now to be honest I have seen this before, from the earliest days of the (current) antiwar movement in Belfast, and in the past the SP have voted yes but then done none of the legwork for building. There is a leaflet that covers all the agreed arguments about the visit that will be available from tonight (Friday). Get it into as many hands as possible, plaster the workplaces, neighborhoods and schools/universities. Start booking your buses from the South. Let's get this moving.

by CÓB Fri May 30, 2008 16:48

I attended the BAWM/SWP meeting last night and there was a good contingent there from the SP. The meeting went very well I feel with good contributions from all who were present, and it looked to have had a very positive outcome. I hope we can keep building on this to give Bush the welcome he deserves and not get sidetracked into any more sectarian squabbles.

I agree with Mark above that the issue of a demonstration of some kind at Stormont has been left hanging so far though.

by lulu Fri May 30, 2008 12:55

This is an opportunity to show resistance to Bush's wars & to illegal, inhuman, detention @ Guantanamo; if we're agreed on that resistance, let's make the most of it.

by Joey Fri May 30, 2008 12:38

Ciaron - Catholic Worker says: "Yes it is really important to prioritise solidarity to anti-war resisters whoever the maybe - socialists, republicans, radical catholics, members of the British & U.S. militaries - when they are before the courts and in our jails."

I'm afraid I can't agree Ciaron. If some of the Raytheon 9 are self-styled "republicans" when in fact they are members/supporters of RIRA which wants to plunge the North back into the horrors of the Troubles, then I for one can't give them solidarity. If they are members/supporters of RIRA, they are war-mongers not anti-war resisters.

by Davy Carlin Fri May 30, 2008 10:21

It is important that we focus on the objective here, to send out the clearest message that Bush is not welcome, and that of dealing with the neo liberalist agenda. And as I said in interviews I had done back last week, and - in contact – with others then-, and above, - -

- that ‘ALL such organisations should - CONTINUE - to row in behind whatever different actions they feel best suits them for that COLLECTIVE - response on that day-‘.

We all know the differences each of us hold and while debating such, {for those that wish it} the priority should be such mobilisations of whatever hue - and indeed the Movements, of whatever hue, is the make up of all involved, whomever and however they wish to participate.

As for COB points on {MICRO} groups, well the reality and the fact of recent history is, that some of those groups and/or individuals within it, have been at the very forefront and the initiation of, the recent Historic Movements, campaigns and Solidarity actions of our time, {uniting Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter}}

Indeed {when u talk about organising} may it have been the Anti Globalisation, Anti War, Anti Poverty, Anti Sectarian, or Anti Racism Movements and rallies, through to the Campaigns and mobilisations against Water Charges {North and South}, the FBU- NIPSA struggles , Reinstatement of workers {North and South} - visible working class gains and victories within he working class communites that they live and the trade union victories with others being secured etc, -and much more still to be written -, of the last decade or two –{and others with impact even before that} –

- the reality is that many such would not happened to that extent, or indeed without that initiation and the back work {visible and otherwise of many of those involved in the organisations at the meeting} - indeed, to be frank, some may not even have happened at all.

So when u talk of Micro group, I believe that viewer can make up their own minds of those who attack us {Micros} and the history of working class struggle we { those above} have initiated, and have and are to the forefront of.

Indeed – AT SUCH TIMES- as these, our calls and words may still have the same hearing of those times, or indeed - some off our reach may be even further now.

So once again, as stated above, an in contact,

‘ALL such organisations should - CONTINUE - to row in behind whatever different actions they feel best suits them for that COLLECTIVE - response on that day.

As always

In Solidarity

‘D

Signing Off

by Ciaron - Catholic Worker Fri May 30, 2008 03:41

"So we have Ciaron and Paul going on about how the really important thing for anti-war groups to be doing is building "solidarity" for small groups of people who carry out particular direct actions, creating "communities of ongoing active resistance" and the like."

Unless you are a liberal democrat, you know that resisitng the war will require more than casting your ballot or marching a la Feb 15th. 03

There isn't much anti-war resistance in Ireland because there isn't much anti-war solidarity in Ireland. The more solidarity the resister experiences the easier the resistance is going to be. Yes it is really important to prioritise solidarity to anti-war resisters whoever the maybe - socialists, republicans, radical catholics, members of the British & U.S. militaries - when they are before the courts and in our jails.

Otherwise this sporadic - just before a war starts or when the emperor comes to town - anti-war activism reeks of left groups cynically using the war as a marketing, brand lifting exercise. There were all sorts of reasons the irish left trotted out not to offer support for the pitstop ploughshares as we faced trials - that we were linked to the spanish inquisition and anti-abortion snipers etc.

What happened when Bush came to Belfast last time. The lights, camera, action that follows the U.S. President everywhere and anywhere decended on the north. There was moderate protest and mass media posturing and the crowd pushed it further up to the riot shields of the RUC (the label on the shields if you got close enough to read them!).

The following day some kids decided this was their time and conducted a sit in on the street outside Belfast City Hall. The cops were brutal clubbing seated courageous nonviolent young people. The riot cops finally retreated in the face of such discipline and steadfasteness.

It is important to ask what kind of support those kids got when they went through the courts? Or did the irish left leave them high and dry as they chased the capitalist press on to the next issue it defined as significant?

In my 30 years experience of nonviolent resistance to war and war preparations, and 2 years inprisonment as consequence, I know that nonviolent resistance can be the most empowering experience of your life or the most disempowering. It's got a lot to do with the quality of solidarity.
Otheriwse it really is a 1st world comfort zone leftist talkfest and posturing.

The Raytheon 9 have put themselves on the line. They have been impressive in visiting the victims of Raytheon in Lebanon and starting a charity (check their website) - keeping the focus on Raytheon's victims and putting their loss of liberty and minimal discomfort in the context of the greater suffering of the Lebanese.

The Raytheon 9 may not be my radical catholic anarchist pacifist cup of tea - but are deserving of support through this action, trial and the imprisonment that may follow. That's how you build a movement from the bottom, rather than playing stack and counter stack games before the President decends, riding the wave of the capitalist press and drop the war a few weeks later. Such an approach is an insult to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, the dead of Bush and Raytheon.

by Mark Mc Thu May 29, 2008 23:22

I think the BAWM initiative is to be applauded and fully support it.

However it didn't have that bigger picture focus the other progressive/left coalition meeting seems to have, though those points did seem hastily tacked on by some speakers at tonight's meeting.

Additionally I was concerned at how little significance was given at tonight's meeting on mobilising at Stormont with this being left very much as an ad hoc we'll deal with it later issue.

I think both groups can have an important role to play and both will and fully intend to lend my support however I can to each.

Though, given the meeting tonight clearly demonstrated some bad feeling between certain players maybe the resolution is for the BAWM to focus on organising the city centre rally and the coalition group to focus on organising for Stormont?

What we need is an effective campaign that delivers the strongest possible message and I hope both find their voice and support along with other group or individual actions.

It's time to get over any frictions and get on with the job at hand.

by Redneck Thu May 29, 2008 18:52

The prediction by Anti-War above of how the Bush Visit will go, is brilliant. His conclusion about the old leftover protesters who need that visit as badly as Bush to remind themselves that they are still alive is the stuff of which brilliant Irish theatre is made of.

But I contend that Belfast needs this Presidential Visit and should use it to the utmost, should milk it for all it's worth, to get more inward US Investment into Northern Ireland, indeed to the whole Ireland.

We need the Industry NGOs in there, the CIF, the Belfast/NI Chamber of Commerce, and we need the President of Ireland herself there to meet and greet Bush on his arrival, we need the Taoiseach and the entire Irish cabinet in Belfast that day to look after our own interests rather than British Under Secretaries, we need to get Ireland revving up into action that day to try desperately to get the tiger back on track - and those Left Wing parties and groups who help in this rather than hinder will be suitably rewarded themselves down the line.

I am only saying how the system works, let's milk this visit for all its worth !

by Paddy Meehan - Socialist Party Thu May 29, 2008 17:24 patmaster35 at hotmail dot com 07876146473

Open Invitation to attend organising meeting

6pm Friday 30th May at the Socialist Party offices, 13 Lombard St (next to Caffe Uno)

At an open meeting last night members of the Socialist Party, Socialist Youth, Organise, Workers Solidarity Movement, Socialist Democracy and Anti-War Ireland met to discuss co-ordinating united action against Bush’s visit.

The meeting unanimously agreed that Bush’s crimes, ranging from the war on Iraq to his criminal inaction over the environment to his enforcement of neo-liberalism around the world, should be exposed by organising a major demonstration which incorporates all those opposed to his visit.

We appeal on all groups to unite together, while being free to orgainse their own meetings etc. to organise and co-ordinate action against Bush. We feel this approach is the best way of maximising the turn-out to protest against Bush’s cynical attempt to portray himself as a man of peace. We have a valuable opportunity to send a clear message to the world that the majority of people in Ireland are completely opposed to Bush, but only if we can unite and co-ordinate an effective campaign.

For more info contact Paddy Meehan on 07876146473

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Thu May 29, 2008 17:07

This thread is hilarious. It's like something from the good old bad old days of Indymedia, where comments thread would be full of people anonymously bad mouthing their perceived rivals or banging on about their particular hobby horse, regardless of whether or not it is relevant.

So we have Ciaron and Paul going on about how the really important thing for anti-war groups to be doing is building "solidarity" for small groups of people who carry out particular direct actions, creating "communities of ongoing active resistance" and the like. I don't agree with this perspective and it is something of a diversion in this thread, but at least this strand of the anti-war movement argues openly and consistently for its point of view, and aren't afraid of saying who they are.

Much more malevolent are the various anonymous SWP members, who don't identify themselves as such, of course, who post their usual sectarian malevolence from behind the cover of anonymity. If these people have any real criticisms to make of the reported meeting , as opposed to the bitter sniping they have displayed so far on this thread, they should do so openly and fraternally. Too much to ask for, I know.

Getting back to the subject of the article, this sounds like a good initiative. I'm glad that various left groups are open to getting involved, along with various unaffiliated individuals.

by Too Late Thu May 29, 2008 16:54

your about 7 yrs too late...the man is leaving office in a few months.Ireland 's politicians are useless at organising broad based campaigns because each political party is too far stuck up it's own arse and full of their own agenda's that they dont see the big picture.
You would be better off focusing your joint attention on blocking Lisbon then giving this idiot the attention he craves.

by Dublin isn'er Thu May 29, 2008 16:51

That's exactly the question I was asking myself. Is there a "bad" left and a "good" left for those who organised the BAWM meeting? I'd be interested in knowing the chronology of all this. Did the SP call their meeting first or did BAWM or what's the story? I don't think the ISN got any invite to the BAWM meeting or even heard about it until AFTER committing to going to the SP meeting. Dunno if any ISN reps went to the BAWM meeting (should have if not otherwise committed), but the SP initiative was already underway at that stage anyway. Why no SWP at the SP meeting? It's beginning to get a bit ridiculous - free market economics applied to political organising!

by CÓB Thu May 29, 2008 16:37

Paul M does raise some interesting questions. The SP did go down the same road with the usual "(micro) far left groups" there. Say what you will about the SWP but their meeting seems to have been better organised, with reps from the FBU, NUS/USI, Belfast Trades' Council, the Muslim Families Association, Belfast Islamic Centre, and Unison promising to attend.

And I have to wonder, when Dublin isn'e states that "the SWP is interested in left unity, but not with the left", who exactly does he mean by 'left'? Is there the right kind of 'left' and the wrong kind of 'left'? Is there a good 'left' and a bad 'left'?

by Dublin isn'e Thu May 29, 2008 13:56

So, the SWP is interested in left unity, but not with the left. Let us hope they don't share your isolationalist attitude.

Listen mate, with regard to organising these protests, a beginning has to be made somewhere and that's all this is. You're deluding yourself if you think broadening out to 'civil society' and trade unions isn't top of the agenda.

by Paul M Thu May 29, 2008 13:47

A broad based campaign does not mean assembling all the (micro) far left groups in the north together for a meeting - which this clearly was. If every member came together for a protest then George W can expect to be met by about 100 people....... tops.

A genuine broad based campaign on progressive issues encompasses sections of civil society, NGO types, lefties (far and otherwise), students, trade unions and in this case it would include Muslims and peaceniks. A combination that seems unpalatable to some on the left.

Therefore regarding the earlier post "Any chance the SWP, IRSP and other leftie groups will weigh in as well"?............................... IF THEY HAVE ANY SENSE THEY WON'T TOUCH IT WITH A 10 FOOT BARGE POLE

by Ciaron Thu May 29, 2008 12:46

No worries.
I think it's great that Bush will be greeted by anti-war protests when he comes to Belfast
posing as the prince of peace. I hope to be there. I also hope that all this U.S. investment politicians are trying to attract up there doesn't include arms companies that produce nothing but orphans

I'll be doing Raytheon 9 solidarity vigil
5pm-7pm today (Thurs) and tomorrow (Fri) GPO
should you be passing drop in for a chat

by Joey Thu May 29, 2008 12:44

Only 17 on the bus to Belfast, Ciaron?
I support non-violent direct action against arms manufacturers like Raytheon and the excellent stuff that you and your friends did at Shannon. But as I understand it, some of the Raytheon 9 are connected to so-called dissident republican groups. I'm told that three of them have been up on charges in the south for membership of the RIRA. Is this true?
If they are in RIRA or supporters of it, then they are on the one hand opposed to Raytheon but on the other supportive of murderous attacks on police in the North. If that is the case, they are using the Raytheon issue to progress their main agenda which is to try to plunge the North back into the dark days of the Troubles.
I stress I'm absolutely not tarring all the Raytheon 9 with this brush, just those associated with RIRA.

by Dublin isn'er Thu May 29, 2008 12:32

I agree with a fair bit of what you say - to a certain point. You haven't been averse to organising anti-Bush demos yourself in the past. Do you think he should be allowed to land and depart with nothing more than token protests? We need big numbers out there.

I'm truly mystified by your remark about the 'class' background of the Raytheon 9 being an issue. For the record the ISN is composed mostly of people from similar backgrounds and the 30,000 copies of our paper containing the article on said Raytheon activists will be primarily put through the doors of houses and flats in Finglas, Ballymun and Ballyfermot. I really don't know what your point about class is.

As has been said already solidarity with the Raytheon 9 and building large protests against Bush are not incompatible activities. Both need to be done.

Again, well done to the SP for organising the meeting in Belfast to kickstart work on the Bush visit. Let's hope the SWP and others pitch in as well.

by Ciaron - Catholic Worker/Plowshares Thu May 29, 2008 12:10

"The posts about the Raytheon 9 here are distracting from what this thread is about; that is, the building of a genuinely democratic opposition to Bush."

This is reminiscent of the Pistop Ploughshares action and trials being a distraction to the anti-war movement in Ireland. There is a long standing problem between moderate anti-war opposition (sp etc) and translating solidairty with those who take more radical nvda against the war. There are also serious questions about how the left operates in Ireland (unnecessary sectarianism, seeing the war, Lisbon, Bush visit etc as primarily easy ways (the state providing the lights camera action etc) to promote small brand recogniiton and not really serious about direct engagement.
I'll be addressing this as part of the anti-war workshop at the grassroots gathering this weekend.

There could be class questions lurking here as well here. Why does a frat boy from Texas , trying to muster a legacy in the dying days of his presidency, deserve mobilisation and 9 working class defendants risking their liberty not deserve mobilisation (only 17 on the bus to Belfast last Tuesday!) Most of the support seems to becoming out of Derry.

The defendants are remaining positive and are grateful for the solidarity they receive. They keep the focus on the victims of Raytheon. www.raytheon9.org I'm raising these questions as they were raised on our behalf (Fairview anti-war group leafleting churches demanding support for the Pitstops etc) during our trials

k raises a good issue.

When anti-war mobilisation becomes merely reactionary we have already lost. In nonviolent resistance (like football and any confrontation) one has to always keep the initiative. As soon as you lose the intiaitive you've lost! The Raytheon 9 was a wonderful NVDA initiative two years ago. It's NOW prime time to prioritise solidarity during their trial and we also have to be thinking about long haul solidarity should they be imprisoned.

We can all lift our game/s....anarchists, sp, swp, ploughshares etc in support of the Raytheon 9 at this time,,,,and whenever anti-war acvtivists are on trial in Ireland.

Sure ISN, AWI, WSM, SWP have published sympathetic articles and are short on resources and people...but when you look at the resources expended on Lisbon, now Bush you've got to ask questions and it is reasonable to ask questions. By the end of this trial people north and south should at least know the name of Raytheon and what it does and where it is located. I have been conducting a vigil outside the GPO on most days, most people don't know what Raytheon is and many are surprised that the U.S. is still using Shannon Airport. This ain't good!

I'll be doing a R9 solidarity vigil outside the GPO today (Thurs) and tomorrow (Fri)
if someone can drop by to hold the other end of the "Stop Irish Participation in the War!" banner we will be more visual.

Monday is a bank holiday in the south and not in the north. I assume the trial will be on..on Monday. This is an excellent opportunity to head for Belfast and attend the trial.

The Raytheon 9 booklet is an excellent resource on Raytheon, nvda and the war. It will not date, groups should be encouraged to bulk purchase and distribure. I know AWI and Ploughshares are doing this. This excellent resources should be easy fo r people to get hold of. The Raytheon 9 website is excellent and update regularly, folks should be encouraging others to check it oout (can someone produce a sticker with a slogan advertising the website

I will mosey up to Belfast for the Bush visit.
I was in London outside Buckhingham Palace when George first came to Europe for the first time in his life. This could be the last time he is ever in Europe.

If people step up in a spirit of nonviolent resistance to his visit those of us limiting ourselves to protest should support them as they go through the courts.

by Dublin isn'er Thu May 29, 2008 12:06

A takeover of what and from whom? Who is it exactly that supposedly 'owns' the anti-war movement and the protests against Bush?

For a change, can the left leave party rivalries and political sectarianism to one side and just work together in building big mass demos against the warmonger Bush?

by Anti-War Thu May 29, 2008 12:05

Air Force One is going to land at Belfast International Airport, Bush is going to walk down the steps shake hands with Ian, Martin, Gerry et al climb into his armoured limo surrounded by layers of bodyguards armed to the teeth, visit Stormont, meet with some different cross-community peace group types for some photo-ops, then speak in front of some business leaders from American, the UK and Ireland and give a few pat on the back speeches about overcoming terror, creating strong democracy and how Northern Ireland is a model for the Middle East etc etc.

Not a single anti-war activist is going to get within shouting distance of the man.
MaybeRTE, BBC, Sky or FOX will show a five-second clip of anti-Bush placards behind a barrier, maybe an activist will get a few seconds to say his peace, a few miles from Stormont and then cut back to the big story.

Bush will climb back on his plane, pausing at the door to give a big smile and a wave and Air Force One will fly back to Washington.

END OF STORY.

Bush like all second term lame-duck US Presidents doing the International goodbye circuit cuts a rather sad figure.

But the likes of socialists and anarchists and other misanthropes who need Bush to visit so that the rest of mere mortals can remember they are even alive are truly predictable, pointless and pathetic.

by sectarian bullshit - arse me Thu May 29, 2008 11:34

this is just another takeover attempt by the sp. about as broad as my little toe.

by D - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Thu May 29, 2008 11:10

The posts about the Raytheon 9 here are distracting from what this thread is about; that is, the building of a genuinely democratic opposition to Bush. The Socialist Party has mobilised members to both of the protests that have taken place in support of the 9. What the other groups involved do is their perogative. Campaigning against Bush's visit does not preclude also supporting the Raytheon 9, but let's use this space to discuss the issue at hand.

by Dublin isn'er Thu May 29, 2008 11:10

I think you're mixing us up with somebody else. The ISN is involved with Anti-War Ireland and not the IAWM and we fully support NVDA as a tactic. And we don't do grandstanding off the back of artics.

by paul o toole Thu May 29, 2008 10:57 pauljotoole at eircom dot net

Ciarans point I imagine was that mobilisation arround an active trial and using Bushes visit to highlight the trial is a far more productive and long lasting exercise than grandstanding on the day of His Majesty's visit.
Bringing people arround the Raytheon-9 trial in an active ongoing community of constant resistance and action has momentum, longevity, purpose, fulfilment, and who knows.....an acquittal? It is a very definitive, focused and positive way to oppose war which is what is lacking in other campaigns ive seen and been involved in.
Grandstanding on the backs of trucks and listening to the same speeches over and over is one of the most demotivating endurances ive assisted in in the past. Political hopefuls shouting down a microphone and retiring home for the evening will not change anything.
Marching from here to there and 'demonstrating' outside empty buildings on the weekends probably draws laughter from those we oppose.

I support NVDA in any form and I support demonstrations but It would be far more beneficial to hihglight the trial of the Raytheon 9 and make this the centrepiece than opposing this visit by having a demo and go home.
By opposing the visit , 'they' are setting the agenda. By making our own theme for the demo, 'we' set the agenda.
As for public awareness, I dont think there will be any more gained than there is already, by popularising this trial there is a fantastic oppertunity to turn the trial into something that is accessible to all and invite all to take part in any small way they choose.
Upon leaving a demo.....what is there??,,,join a party to continnue your resistance?
I think the most important 'success' in the republic was the UNANIMOUS acquittal of the Pitstop Plowshares for disarming a US warplane in Shannon. Wouldent it be a huge message to sent out to the world to have a unanimous acquittal North of the border also for NVDA on the war profiteers Raytheon.

by Davy Carlin Thu May 29, 2008 10:47

Now,

Momentum really, Grows

Different organisations will do there own thing, and different groups have, and are calling different things.

It has also again began to bring together different threads of the Movement, some to listen to speeches others to rally etc

No matter what goes on, it is important that many various things are going on, on the day - to send out the clearest of messages -

No welcome for the war monger

ALL such organisations should - CONTINUE - to row in behind whatever different actions they feel best suits them for that COLLECTIVE - response on that day

As always

In Solidarity

'D

by Dublin isn'er Thu May 29, 2008 09:20

Ciaron,

What makes you think opposing the Bush visit and solidarity with the Raytheon 9 are mutually contradictory? The ISN has been active in support of the Raytheon 9 and have published articles calling for solidarity in each of the last three issues of our paper; the latest edition of the paper has a prominent article by Paul Moloney on the Raytheon 9 giving details of the regular demos at the courthouse along with contact phone numbers in Dublin, Belfast and Derry, email addresses for getting in contact with DAWC and the Raytheon 9 web address for daily updates - that article is currently being squeezed through 30,000 letterboxes, mostly in Dublin.

We have also consistently supported solidarity events for the Raytheon 9.

Bearing in mind that we are a thinly stretched small organisation involved in a variety of campaigns, what more do you want? And don't say devote ALL of our time to solidarity with the Raytheon 9 because that just isn't possible - for example, the Lisbon Treaty referendum is on 12th June and we are working hard on that and, with regard to staving off the further militarisation of Europe, we think it's an important issue.

We're not Fianna Fail with 60,000 members or endless resources. We do our best - not always well - but in terms of the Raytheon 9 we are certainly out there highlighting the case and engaged in solidarity.

by k Thu May 29, 2008 08:35

Well said Ciaron, Bush will come and go briefly - and there'll be so much heavy security any protest would be rendered as a spectacle rather than anything constructive. Yet the Ray9 people will still be in the north, still having to deal with the state putting the squeeze on them. Pick the good fight people - pick the real ones, not the spectacular ones.

by Ciaron - Catholic Worker/Plowshares Thu May 29, 2008 08:01

Why aren't these groups mobilising solidarity around the Raytheon 9.
Have they got something against nonviolent direct action?

Do they see Bush visit to Belfast as more significant than 9 working class folks presently on trial in Belfast looking at the possibility of years in jail
for a nonviolent direct action against Bush's wars?

Drop using the Bush vist and the war to lift brand recognition foir your groups and and get down to solidarity and resistance to Bush's war machine.

There's a war/s on!
There's a trial on www.raytheon9.org

by jaded Thu May 29, 2008 00:28

three men and a dog...broad you say?

by Dublin isn'er Wed May 28, 2008 22:07

Sounds good. Any chance the SWP, IRSP and other leftie groups will weigh in as well? Hope so.

Well done!

by DM Wed May 28, 2008 20:19

.................................

by f Wed May 28, 2008 19:54

Interestingly, there was a police van with a mounted camera parked outside the venue as people arrived. This caused a representative of another organisation to leave immediately.