The anti-war movement in Ireland: A critical appraisal

national | anti-war / imperialism | news report Tuesday March 09, 2004 00:34 by Dominic Carroll

One year after the US invasion of Iraq, the anti-war movement around the world must ask itself the question: Why were we unable to stop the war? In addition, we urgently need to consider how we can sustain and develop our opposition to US imperialism.

In Ireland, it’s tempting (and many have been tempted) to blame the 'failure' of the anti-war movement on its leadership: the argument goes that a handful of Trotskyists established a stranglehold on the opposition to war and led it up a garden path; specifically, the SWP – and to a lesser degree the Socialist Party – pretty much refused to countenance any tactic other than the set-piece march, and that to ensure they got their way, these organisations engaged in typically undemocratic behaviour.

On one level, all of this is true. More fundamentally, though, we can hardly blame Bush’s ability to wage war or our government’s craven complicity on the SWP (amazingly, some in Ireland have done exactly that). Globally, the anti-war movement did not amount to very much. How could it? The US war machine is a juggernaut. The UN failed to stop it. France and Germany couldn’t stop it. Opposition in the US itself was brushed aside, and governments in Italy, Britain and Spain (and elsewhere) were able to ignore the obvious and widespread anti-war sentiment (I use the word sentiment advisedly, since mass opposition rarely developed beyond sentiment). Paradoxically, the most powerful state on earth – the US – failed to force into line those governments who – for whatever reason – were reluctant to support Bush’s adventure. The fact that the US was itself powerless in some situations serves as a useful reminder of how difficult it can be to get governments to do what you want. In the US, the movement against the Vietnam War took years to ‘succeed’: by then, millions were dead (including 58,000 US combatants), and, in truth, the anti-war movement only succeeded in stopping the war when its opposition coincided with various objective factors which served to convinced Nixon and the American ruling class that the game was up. Until that moment, the anti-war movement was something that had to be faced down with force.

The point of all of this is to remind ourselves of just how difficult – perhaps impossibly so – it is to stop a state from waging war. Equally, we need to acknowledge how long it could take to undo something as powerful as the Project for a New American Century or Bush’s War on Terror (assuming, for the moment, that these are different things), particularly if Bush wins the election. In that case, it could take years. And we have to recognise the kind of forces and organisation we need to bring to bear on the situation. In short, our task is no small thing.

But we must try, and try we have. And perhaps, in our eagerness to stop Bush, we had little to no time to consider what it would take. Instead, from the moment Bush went to war, we went to anti-war. Bush mobilised his forces and we – I mean the worldwide opposition to war – pressed our forces into action. One obvious difference was that the Pentagon had been planning for years; we had to make it up as we went along.

At this point, the role of the traditional far-left parties should be considered, since in many countries they were pivotal in anti-war movements, especially in the West. Typically, they argue that the only sure way to stop the likes of Bush – and war itself – is to overthrow capitalism. Perhaps – at a pinch – a general strike in America might have put the brakes on Bush, but that would amount to a revolution, so it’s the same thing. Revolution, they would correctly contend, won’t be easy and isn’t likely to happen for years. More contentiously, they insist that no anti-capitalist revolution can succeed without the leadership of revolutionary mass parties. The priority, then, is to build the party. Privately – within the revolutionary parties – this thesis is further elaborated along these lines: anti-war movements stand little to no chance of stopping war, but we like them because it gives us an opportunity to increase our profile, recruit new members to the party and participation in the anti-war protests can give workers and students a sense of their own power. The key thing is to make sure these anti-war movements stick to our plan: lots of demos and lots of general anti-war/anti-capitalist propaganda.

That’s it. The no-frills recipe for each and every anti-war movement. To ensure its implementation, far-left parties purposely and actively obstruct any proposal or activity that deviates from this template. To put it another way, the point is not to put the revolutionary party into the service of the anti-war movement (as is claimed by party literature), but to press the anti-war movement into the service of the party. Which is precisely what the SWP/SP succeeded in doing in Ireland. (In fairness, it should be clearly stated that both organisations have worked hard within the anti-war movement, and that many individual members are sincere in their commitment; even the more cynical leadership figures are sincere in that they are genuinely concerned to bring an end to the current wars and war itself – the problem is their dogmatism and the way they have operated within the anti-war movement.)

However, I would argue that those who opposed such naked opportunism and obstructionism also made mistakes. A central criticism of the Irish Anti-War Movement was that it lacked clear objectives, a strategy and tactical nous. This is true. But what of the many individuals and groups beyond the IAWM? Did we take the time to formulate our own goals and strategy? No – not really, or if we did, we failed to communicate our ideas effectively.

So, what kind of objectives should the anti-war movement formulate? Here, it gets tricky. Some opposed the war because they are anti-war, full-stop. Some because they are concerned to protect Ireland’s neutrality. Others, because they are particularly opposed to US imperialism (New American Century, War on Terror, etc.). And there are no doubt lots of other reasons. It follows that establishing objectives for the anti-war movement was never going to be straightforward. But hardly impossible.

The grand objective, surely, is to put an end to US imperialism. But we need to formulate subordinate objectives. We also want the US/UK out of Iraq and Afghanistan. No argument there. But is it enough? What does the anti-war movement want from the United Nations? Should we not establish as an objective the removal of Bush, et al from the White House? And the related issues of Palestine (and Chechnya, etc.) surely come into play. Not to mention the arms trade, chemical/nuclear weapons, the militarisation of Europe, defence expenditure – what are our demands on these issues and what will we do to further them?

In Ireland, we also need to firm up our objectives. The demilitarisation of Shannon, yes. An end to Irish government complicity, yes. But what specifically do we demand of our government with regard to the EU and the UN? What have we to say about Irish troops abroad? Should part of our programme be the political realignment of Ireland – say, out of the US camp, into the non-aligned movement? And to return to Irish government complicity, should we favour a Fine Gael government over the FF/PD junta. Or Labour, Sinn Fein and the Greens. Thorny questions, but surely they deserve debate, even if agreement can’t be reached. Undoubtedly, the revolutionary party would have switched off a few paragraphs ago; these issues are no-go areas when your objective – primary, subordinate, every which way – is purely the overthrow of capitalism. To get specific about the UN, says the party, is to foster illusions in it and to prop it up. The same goes for the EU and elections (unless the demand goes no further than a plea to vote for the infinitesimal parties of the left). Which is why the ‘voice’ of the anti-war movement in Ireland – the IAWM – rarely goes beyond generalities and sloganeering: ‘Stop the war’, ‘One solution, revolution’, ‘Bush out [of Ireland, not the Whitehouse – they’re all the same]’.

Hopefully, a revitalised anti-war movement in Ireland will come up with a programme, not just two or three slogans. So how to achieve our objectives? Here, the failure of a strategy becomes most obvious and painful. Since its inception, the IAWM has attempted to restrict the activity of the movement to marches, preferably in Dublin. Its lame argument against those who insist on protests at Shannon Airport is that the government is located in Dublin, so marches must be held there. Ignoring the crass, Dublin-centrist motivation for this assertion, and its outdated and easily refuted rationale (after all, we’re not making a bid for power, are we?), it’s clear that this government – virtually any Western government for the past century or thereabouts – has happily accommodated its citizenry on the march. Ahern even went so far as to praise the 100,000-strong march in February of last year. But what’s also abundantly clear is that both governments – ours and the one in the White House – are sensitive to anti-Shannon protests, and especially sensitive to direct attacks on US warplanes at Shannon.

So why does the SWP/SP oppose a firm focus on Shannon, and why are they so dismissive of direct action (even something as moderate as a blockade, IFA-style)? Before attempting an answer, we should expand the question: why do Trotskyist and Stalinist parties – ostensibly committed to the violent overthrow of the state – oppose direct-action movements in general and those focused on anti-war targets specifically (Faslane, Shannon, etc.). Why do they insist on moderation and pour scorn on those they denigrate as ultra-left and infantile? In brief, because these parties are rooted in the politics and traditions of the late nineteenth century. Back then, Marx convinced a sizeable section of the fledgling socialist movement that the only agency for change is the organised working class, its means the strike (since the 60s, students have been added to the mix, though strictly subordinate to the workers – a useful addition, though, given the preponderance of students in left organisations). And in Karl’s day, there was nought like a demonstration to flex the proletariat’s muscle; aye, look at the bosses cower when we take to tut streets. In fact, back in Marx’ time, any demo was virtually revolutionary – certainly something feared by each and every government. Today, those who subscribe dogmatically to the ideas of Marx insist that the working class are not only key but more or less indispensable in the struggle for meaningful change. An anti-war movement without them, the argument goes, is on a hiding to nothing. Worse, when a section of the anti-war movement can be characterised as somehow counter-cultural (no cloth caps in sight), it poses a danger; worse still if the word anarchism is heard in these circles. The danger is that the working class will become confused about its role as THE agent for change (especially when, as has been the case in Ireland till now, the organised working class is not inclined to involve itself in the anti-war movement). Worst of all, even members of the party might begin to give these non-traditional ‘agencies’ credence. In addition, direct action is problematic in that the working class are generally afraid of it until they ‘undergo a change of consciousness during struggle’; until then, not only is it confusing to show that action other than strike action can be effective, it alienates peaceable and passive workers, vulnerable as they are to the lies of the capitalist media; the Trotskyist party, it follows, must distance itself from such activities – pour scorn on them – in order to keep the ear of the working class. But don’t worry – when the class is ready to take action, you just wait and see what it can do.

Which is why the SWP/SP have been to keen to keep the movement away from Shannon: the commitment required to reach demos in Shannon (not the effortless walk up O’Connell Street for Dubliners), the ‘character’ of the protests themselves, the increased relative weight of anarchists/counter-culturalists, the heavy police presence – these are the real reasons for the anti-Shannon thrust of the IAWM/SWP/SP.

But here I wish to take issue with those who, when advocating militant protests at Shannon, made something of a fetish of the tactic (not everyone interested in Shannon is guilty of this). In a sense, those who became fixated on this single tactic to the exclusion of all others (beyond lip service) mimicked the traditional left. One tactic, it hardly needs saying, is not enough.

It’s undoubtedly true that the IAWM has failed us. But we failed to take the initiative from the SWP/SP/IAWM. That’s also a failing. The grassroots anti-war movement (I use this as a tag of convenience) failed to take the initiative, primarily – I think – because of a lack of cohesion and – in some cases – an understandable but nevertheless debilitating aversion to permanent, directive structures. Ninety-nine years of Leninism, Stalinism and Trotskyism have taken their toll.

We also failed to broaden the base for the anti-war movement. Yes, radical groups and individuals are a legitimate component of the anti-war movement. But the widespread anti-war sentiment evident here as elsewhere was hardly tapped. Anyone who speaks out, writes against or in any way opposes the Bush adventure is part of the anti-war movement. Yet, we have failed to incorporate them, or invite them in. And too often, an insensitivity to the fears and concerns of others has been all too apparent (sorry Black Bloc – this includes you, amongst others; I always enjoy seeing you on the protests, but I don’t doubt for one moment that you know how off-putting and frightening you are to so many others who, but for your presence, might join the protests).

Strategy has also been woeful. Direct action at Shannon and associated activities can’t be the be-all and end-all. We need a multi-faceted strategy that encompasses the varied facets of life in Ireland: campaigning groups, trade unions, political parties, students, young people, the media, sport, music, journalism, TV, art, theatre, etc. etc. And we need a strategy that gives a role to the individual; each and every one of us has limited individual power; our strategy must suggest ways of exercising it.

Which leads into the question of tactics: we need tactics that can encompass in many and varied ways the hundreds of thousands in this country opposed to war. Demos, yes. But what else? Most people won’t go to Shannon and face the cops – who can blame them? Those who will should continue to do so because it’s effective. But we need other, more inclusive tactics: the set-piece march has a part to play, but we need to be far more imaginative. We need to devise tactics that will appeal to different individuals and groups in different but complementary ways. Nor must we shy away from promoting tactics that lack the ‘edge’ of direct action – to do so amounts to posturing, the very thing the Trotskyists have been accused of.

Flowing from all of this is the question is the practical need for organisation – democratic, of course, but effective. We may even need professional, full-time organisation. But always democratic. The Pentagon is full-time and professional (and undemocratic – at least the Pentagon and the IAWM has that in common). There is surely a role within radical politics for organisation that goes beyond ad-hoc amateurism.

Ultimately, we need to recognise that the goal of stopping war and promoting social justice will require such a leap in human behaviour and societal organisation as to be – sorry to say – nigh impossible (but I haven’t given up hope). As to revolution? Who knows? But while we’re waiting (and again, I use these words advisedly), we need amelioration. Lives must be improved now. Serious, non-devious consideration must be given as to how a problem can be tackled and, if not resolved, at least diminished (for instance, no war would be great, but less war is preferable to more war). During the past several centuries, amelioration – rarely revolution – has accounted for the improvements in our lives. The process of improving things is ongoing. Any time we oppose injustice, we tip the scales in the direction of justice. And vice versa. Our task is to combine with others across the world to tip the scale in favour of justice and against war and reactionary politics. We can’t be certain of quick success (if at all), but surely our very efforts will be an ameliorating influence? And, who knows, if we keep at it, we might one day put the likes of Bush and Blair out of business for good.