Call for unity in antiwar movement

by Francis - D.C.W (personal capacity) Sun Nov 21, 2004 22:21

It is good to see you attempt to engage the IAWM in open debate. It would appear to me that the difficulties in the anti war movement are a question of personalities and conflicting ideologies. IAWM appear to have become a cover organisation for the S.W.P, and as such seem interested only in promoting the S.W.P agenda and heightening the profile of R.B.B. That this has been allowed to happen is a sad indictment of those non S.W.P people who were origionally involved in IAWM.

You refer to the Ploughshares movement, as I understand it your action was not a Ploughshares action. Correct me if i am mistaken in that belief. It is my understanding that the Ploughshares movement is a pacifist movement. I would be confused if you were aligned with it as you appear to endorse an organisation R.S.F which is most definately not pacifist. If your support for R.S.F is true then at least you are consistent in opposing all foreign troops on this Island and that is an admirable sentiment given that there are twice as many British Crown Forces in Ireland as there are in Iraq.

Is it not best if we each look at the part we have played in the splintering of the anti war movemnt? Is it not time for a fresh start? the building of a genuine Peace movement free of covert political influence and free from any ties with non pacifist organisations? There are few enough genuine peace activists in this country it is sad to see them so divided.

Finally, Will all peace activists be welcome at your sentencing? regardless of the personal differences? I ask this since i am aware that some peace activists were told they were not welcome at your trial.

I can not emphasise enough that this posting is written in a personal capacity and does not represent the views of DCW or any other organisation.

by Michael Sun Nov 21, 2004 22:52

Nobody owns the term "ploughshares", and nobody can tell how particularly pacifist each and every ploughshares activist is or will be in the future. The actions are open, accountable disarmament actions against weapons systems, and nuclear weapons systems in particular. That's all.

Even the unclean can participate. ;-)

BTW If Mary Kelly's airtime on RSF radio can bring one person from violent to nonviolent resistance, it's worth it surely. Rather than spending so much time trying to stir the unstirrables, maybe we could learn a thing or two from Mary (and oh wait, Jesus, Gandhi, etc., etc.) and try help people already struggling employ nonviolence in their struggles. Just an idea...

by nerraw Mon Nov 22, 2004 01:21

Political party flags, logos, literature should be banned from future anti war protests. The anti war movement is bigger than any Political Party. I strongly resent Political parties peddaling their literature at me at every point in a protest. In my opinion this is the reason why there has been a drastic decrease in numbers.

by Mark Mon Nov 22, 2004 08:12

I respect Mary Kelly's attempts to engage in an open debate with thw IAWM. However, we must also think politically. It is highly unlikely that the IAWM will actively support direct action activists (beside the usual crass attempts to capitalise on the successes of direct action for cynical self promotion: remember RBB's "our victory" when US companies pulled out of Shannon). The reason is pretty simple: direct action is something everybody can do and doesn't require a party apparatus to sanction it. The IAWM/SWP will never support that, becouse it undermines its legitimacy as the leadership of the movement. Waht they need is a disempowered mass ready to be used and manipulated by the party machine for its own end: if people find somethiong useful to do about war, it is highly unlikely that they will continue to waste their saturday afternoons selling socialist worker in shopping centres or listening to boring speeches by careerist politicians.

by Friend of Isaiah Mon Nov 22, 2004 14:14

Seems to be a lack of clarity about the plowshares movement here. Might be a case of "football" meaning two different things in the U.S. and U.K.

The Plowshares movement came out of the (anti-Vietnam War) Catholic pacifist left in the U.S. with the first disarmamaent action (1980) by the Plowshares 8 (Berrigans etc). The actions are rooted in the prophecy of Isaiah and the faith based tradiiton. Others who were inspired but did not identify with this faith based tradiiton eg Earth First couple who did the Navstar sattelite in thelate '80's & others in the U.S., those presently awaiting trial in England for Fairford direct disarmament actions/attempts (and one would think Mary Kelly) would refer to their actions as "disarmament" actions rather than "ploughshares" actions.

Following the acquittal of the "Seeds of Hope Ploughshares" in Liverpool (1996). One of the women, Angie Zelter, attempted to blend Ploughshares tradition with, '60's Commitee of 100 concept, '80's experiences from Greenham Common and a heavy dose of Ghandism to kickstart the "Trident Ploughshares" campaign...which has been a very successful single issue campaign. TP2000 emphasis on the law and accountability are some of the major differences with the radical Catholic pacifist tradiitons of Plowshares which tends to align law with "sin and death" and is invitational (to continue the disarmament started by the communities) rather than accountability to the law etc and placing hope in the institution of the courts etc.

Many non pacifist groups (LVF, Provisional IRA and event the Soviets & U.S. governments have carried out acts of disarmament) and they are all very welcome acts even though they are not located in the Plowhsares tradition and maybe in a broader context merely manouevering politically or refining their weapon systems.

The other issues raised in the initial article about a lack of mutuality bewtween the broader anti-war protest movement and the small amount of nonviolent resistance that has occured in Ireland against the war are significant.

The wisdom of opening a can of worms on indymedia (a medium heavilly surveilled by state agencies) before Mary is sentenced or the PIt Stop Ploughshares are put on trial may not be wise.

by dunk Mon Nov 22, 2004 14:42

http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=67586
DGN lawrence cox and SWP/ AEIP/ IAWM have a debate this weekend in trinity where these issues will hopefully be brought up

things can be improved
attempts are being made to deal with that, new spaces are popping up giving the oportunity for open imaginative debate, and from that action

by Michael Mon Nov 22, 2004 15:47

Indymedia might not be such a good place to have this discussion. I don't think that a debate will help much either, cause I think it would be too confrontational (that's how debates work), which is part of the problem surely.

by fionnuala - none Mon Nov 22, 2004 20:28

Mary,

when i first read your posting i thought you had received my tv licence bill in error as i couldn't understand how anyone else could be in court for me!

But, jokes aside, there are serious issues raised in your post which the anti-war movement in this country will have to overcome if we are ever to mount a serious unified challenge to the pro-war policies of this government.

One challenge is that we have all different ideas on both what causes war and how to oppose it.

In my opinion, judges tend to hold their positions because they have upheld the status quo in the past and not because of their principled views on justice. For that reason, I don't believe that arguing a moral case in the courts is the way to shut down the warport in Shannon, which is why i haven't taken large amounts of time off work to travel to Kilrush.

That does not mean that I, or others like me, don't want to support you. Many people that I know have nothing but admiration for the action that you took and your dedication to seeing this through in the courts. But beyond donations and telling people about your case I'm not sure what else I can do.

A mistake made by the larger anti war organisations is to lump all the "direct actionists" together. The action that you and others took is obviously very different from a crowd of eejits doning balaclavas and trying to win brownie points for the pub by jumping fences.

An appeal for unity is very welcome. It should be followed by representatives from various anti-war organisations sitting down together and discussing solidarity work ,for you and the others facing imprisonment, and a broad anti-war campaign together like adults.

In the past, bizarre individuals (some of whom sadly have fairly serious alcohol and psychiatric conditions) have tended to disrupt meetings, while another, adopting a particular form of à la carte catholicism where humility and truth are lacking, appears to spend more time misrepresenting and denouncing other anti-war activists than trying to build support for peace.

This is already much longer than I'd intended, so i'll finish with this. My level of consciousness is probably the same as yours, but my ideas on strategy and tactics are different.

I will continue to support you in whatever way I can and hope that you, and others from the anti-war organsations, can agree a plan of action together, and desist from the endless bickering and mud-slinging which has characterised the anti-war movement in Ireland.

by F Tue Nov 23, 2004 07:58

What anti-war movement? Your a la carte Catholics seem to be the only ones on the streets on any regular basis?

by TP Supporter Wed Nov 24, 2004 13:12

This may be splitting hairs (and we have more important work to do than to split hairs on Indymedia, right?!), but I don't think it's right to characterise UK ploughshares activists as "placing hope in the institution of the courts etc.".

Same as the Plowshares (note US spelling) actions are "invitational", the court witness of UK ploughshares activists is also an invitation for others to join. If a jury were to find Mary Kelly innocent it could help open the flood gates for others to take similar action at Shannon Airport too. That's a feature of the Common Law system we share with the UK. Ignoring it, or likening it to "sin and death" doesn't make a lot of sense.

by Fence Puller Wed Nov 24, 2004 13:43

It also strikes me that the Plowshares activities across the water are different in that the activists go into the actions with their eyes wide open. Love it or loathe it - the courts serve a function and if you get involved in the process, you should know a bit about it. It strikes me that Mary never took this into consideration. We need to be better prepared when getting involved in the system.
To paraphrase the eloquent Bob Dylan:
They are courts of Law not Courts of Justice.

by Friend of Isaiah Wed Nov 24, 2004 14:34

Thanks for the responses. In the US Plowshares preparation takes a mininimum of 4 months, can take up to a year of weekend retreats where issues such as prison preparation, the court scene, the weapons system, scriptual base for the action, problems with previous plowshares actions are addressed.

A minimum of 4 participants are usually required to carry the symbol of community - the alternative to empire- into the witness. The community are accompanied by Plowshares veterans through the process. Community building and accountability, life sharing, questioning each others motivations, ability to cope with the consequences (jail time, family reaction etc) are all addressed.

Appealing verdict and sentence are not usually on the agenda (appeals can often create bad precedents for the next plowshares crew). An acquittal - Seeds of Hope, Losch Goil- does not necessarilty "open the floodgates" for risk free resistance as legal as precedent is only created at appeal level. From a radical faith base, state is law is based on the sanctitiy of private property not human life. Scritpually the law emboidies the priorities and values of empire.

There may have been a sea change in TP 2000 attitude and amphasis on the legal approach/emphasis after the State successfully appealed against the Loch Goil judge's direction to the jury to find the three women innocent ruling that Trident was indeed an illegal weapon system.

There are strenghts and weakness in both the Plowshares and TP2000 approach and either approach is more authentic to peoples various fith/political starting points. A commitment to nonviolence is shared by both. Doing a disarmament action from a nationalist/anti-imperialist starting point without a commitment to nonviolence would appear to be located outside of both paradigms. This is not to say is isn't a good thing to do, but to locate it in either TP2000 or US Plowshares paradigm may not be legitimiate.

by Rory Mann Wed Nov 24, 2004 19:33

Mary Kelly: the Irish people to a great degree are anti-imperialist and most of them are against the U.S. war in Iraq. The Irish anti-war movement is composed of committed, aware, politically-conscious people.(O.K. you get a few opportunists too). That you have received scant report from either the Irish people or the IAWM indicates the fault may lie with you rather than with them. People doubt your commitment to nonviolence. Shortly after your action you received an award from a New York, the Irish Freedom Committe, led by John McDonagh. This is a support group for Republican Sinn Fein/Continuity IRA. They are still conducting the 'armed struggle'. McDonagh has neo-Fascist associations, for example with the New Irish Fascism of Gerry McGeough. You recently appeared at the RSf ard-fheis with Mcdonagh. How can you support a terrorist campaign in Ireland and be committed to non-violence? Father Berrigan may support you but he does not live in Omagh.

by Friend of Micah Thu Nov 25, 2004 02:22

"It [ploughshares] has always had a complementary relationship to the protest movement"

I think Mary is mislead (and perhaps therein lies her obvious frustration with the IAWM) in that ploughshares has shared some kind of harmonious marriage with the wider protest movement. History has shown that ploughshares/plowshares have been alienated and ostrosized by campaigns and the peace movement. When the Berrigans et al carried out the draftboard raids during the Vietnam War there was not a huge outpouring of support for this kind of action which was a prelude to the first ploughshare action. Phil Berrigan became more marginalised through each successive ploughshare action he participated in. It was because he was a part of a strong resistance community (Jonah House) that he was able to persevere with these high risk actions and not because there was such a great relationship with the peace movement backing him all the way. Aside from the Gandhian style Trident Ploughshares campaign in the UK the peace movement (and this movement rarely seems to get a ground swell happening or sustain one) has struggled to provide strong support for ploughshare actions/activists or even other activists for that matter. Solidarity that is not dependent on ideological agreement needs to develop in our society. One way this can be fostered is through community and celebration.

by Ummmmm Tue Nov 30, 2004 23:31

Ummmmmmm!!!

Wonder who "Finnula" is????

checkout the language

http://irishantiwar.org/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0002O2&topic_id=1&topic=Irish%20Anti%2dWar