Working in the Irish Anti-War Movement

A talk given at the Workers Solidarty Movement day of education – March 12th 2005 - by Paul Moloney

Some may wonder, why the ISN were involved in the IAWM, indeed sometimes we ask ourselves the same question.

The Irish Socialist Network was formed in 2001 made up at that time of mainly ex-members of the Workers Party, though the present membership is more diverse in background. So it is true to say that our background is a lot different to most of the people at this meeting. From our formation we saw left cooperation and the creation of a viable alliance of radical left forces in Ireland as a major priority for the Irish Socialist Network. We hoped to engage in ongoing dialogue and joint activities with other left organisations to promote cooperation in an attempt to break down sectarian attitudes.

The Irish Socialist Network joined the steering committee of the Irish Anti-War Movement after being co-opted in October 2002. We were not at the annual delegate meeting in September of that year at which the aims and structure of the organisation had been decided. We were not alone; from what we could make out afterwards, a lot of other activists were also unaware of the meeting. Our reason for accepting the cooption was because we felt it was in line with several of our founding principles, namely to be a part of progressive alliances that would be non-sectarian in nature and help in some way to pursue our aim of raising an anti-capitalist left understanding.

Another thing that influenced our decision to join was the events of the Shannon demonstration on October 12th of that year. At this we had participated in a mass trespass, which we felt would cause embarrassment to those allowing a civilian airport to be used as a key military installation in Bush’s war. This was our first experience of the control freakery of the SWP. It was our first indication that they were intent on policing things to suit their own ends. We felt rightly or wrongly that we would accept the invitation because we hoped that we might be better able to influence the decision process. It is the belief of the ISN that the main task for anti-war activists in Ireland is to highlight our government’s complicity in the war of the US and its poodles and that means placing a special emphasis on the use of Shannon.

On joining the steering committee of the IAWM we found out that the committee was made up with at least three members of the SWP, two members of the SP, one member of the Green Party who made it very clear that she wasn’t representing that party, two Americans against the war and two people from Maynooth College. So from the outset it was clear that the steering committee was neither representative of the supposedly many anti-war groups throughout the country or the many organisations that were supposed to be affiliated to the IAWM but we still felt that it was the only show in town and as such we would do our best to influence it the best we could. During the period when we were represented on the Steering Committee our delegates frequently disagreed with the SWP and others over a number of key questions including; the correct balance between direct action and mass protest, the lack of internal democracy and the uncritical relationship with the Labour Party and trade union bureaucracy.

We involved ourselves in all of the preparation work for the February 15th march. We feel it would be petty not to credit the IAWM for its preparation for the massive demonstration. Of course other factors did play a part but the work of the organisation was a key factor in bringing such large numbers out on the streets. This was definitely the highpoint of the campaign. Unfortunately this was soon followed by the low point of the campaign two weeks later and the open demonisation of the planned direct action of March 1st. It became clear to the ISN that the SWP were intent on maintaining control of the ‘leadership of the movement’. Whatever about the precise actions proposed it was clear to us in the ISN that there was a need to use the tactic of direct action. We felt that it would have been better if this had have been through the actions of airport workers and the people of Shannon, but in light of the fact that little was done by anyone to advance this option we felt other options should have been considered.

From then on it was clear to us that the movement was on the back foot because of lack of unity, which exposed the lack of democracy within the movement. The state smelt blood and reacted with an arrogant lack of respect for the public mood. The heavy-handed action of the riot squad outside the Dáil was one display of this disregard, as was the over the top policing of subsequent protests at Shannon.

One of the things that we did was put down a proposal on direct action. Through the bureaucratic manoeuvrings of the SWP this proposal was simply ignored. Another example of this was the fact that we in the ISN based all our local anti-war activity in Finglas. We requested on several occasions the names and addresses of people who joined the IAWM from the Finglas area. Needless to say we never received one single name.

We decided at the agm in September 2003 not to put a candidate forward for the new steering committee but to remain affiliated. We were, however, heartened by the diversity of the newly elected steering committee. We continued to work with anti-war activists both inside and outside the IAWM.

On January 31st 2004 we attended our last meeting of the IAWM. In terms of the issues debated and voted on, the ISN delegate took a variety of positions, determined, not by which ‘side’ was making a proposal, but the merits of each proposal as seen from a participatory and democratic socialist position. This was indeed a chaotic and bad tempered meeting. We did not condone the intemperate and insulting language directed at the guest speaker Raymond Deane of the IPSC but it was clear to the ISN that there was also an attempt by the Socialist Workers Party to pack the meeting and that some prominent members of that organisation also engaged in insulting and childish behaviour, including the labelling of opponents as ‘agents’.

The underhand manner in which two steering committee members were subsequently suspended, the lack of accountable democratic structures, the intolerance towards differences of opinion, the dogmatic attitude toward direct action and the attitude towards protests at Shannon, left us with no alternative but to disaffiliate. Before we disaffiliated we wrote to each member of the steering committee outlining our concerns about the direction of the IAWM. We received responses from two members of the Steering Committee; funnily enough, neither of them were members of the SWP.

It is the intention of the ISN to play a positive role in building new anti war initiatives that are firmly based on democracy respect for theoretical and tactical diversity. We will continue to work in a constructive manner with all those who are opposed to war and imperialism.

We cannot predict what a new anti-war alliance would look like exactly, but in light of our experience in the IAWM, we can outline some general principles that we feel should underpin any new movement:

1. It must be fully democratic, no group or individual should dominate or control.

2. Differences on tactics must be respected. There must be a place for all in the movement, including those who we feel over-emphasis direct action or mass work. While recoiling from the SWP’s hostility to direct action, we must be wary of the tendency of some to fetishism direct action tactics or certain types of direct action.

3. The movement needs to be clearly anti-imperialist. We are not just against a war because it doesn’t have a UN mandate, we are opposed to imperialist wars full stop. This anti-imperialism must be pro-active: we need to engage in solidarity with workers, the poor, and the women of Iraq as they struggle against occupation and fundamentalism.