Report: 18th of March demonstrations in Dublin

by worker Fri Mar 24, 2006 12:52

How does it feel to be irrelevent? A movement of two people!

by what... Fri Mar 24, 2006 13:12

Imperialism=Bad in the Middle East,doesn't exist anywhere else?

by MichaelY - iawm Fri Mar 24, 2006 13:22

As a member of the iawm who worked quite hard for over three months to organise the March 18th demo, it is with certain, what shall I say, 'mirth' that I read the WP comment above.

One, during those three months, and following Cindy Sheehan's visit before Christmas, we have organised over 20 meetings across the country, including the latest series with an Iraqui and a Vietnam veteran from the us. We gave out over 50,000 leaflets, there were stalls every Saturday in central Dublin and in Dun Laoighaire. There were very successful meets in Derry, Sligo, Galway and Limerick. There was also masses of media coverage, particularly in the provincial papers and local radio stations.
Two, the march drew over 1,300 people including two WP militants - it was colourful, it was vibrant and was also blessed by the [temporary/]presence of the anarchist bloc.
Three, the work continues. Meetings are being planned to discuss the way forward.

Finally, I am sure everyone of us in the iawm would be delighted if the experienced and conscious comrades and contingent of WP joined us, educated us, galvanised us, energised us, made us feel more powerful with a greater cutting edge. Who can be against such an eventuality?

With solidarity

by G. Davy - WSM (pers cap) Fri Mar 24, 2006 14:12

"many young and serious people looking for answers and leadership". Leadership is not being sought in the type that trots mean. Its leadership that the anarchist bloc was challenging. This is indicative of the reasons why the anrtiwar movement failed, one faction believing that people need to be lead in and they have a Marx and Engels given right to do it.

How is the break away sectarian? We knew what the march would be like so we tried (and in my opinion failed) to pull off something drastically better. its perhaps foolish on our part not to have leafleted the march but sectarian? no. Its a strong word to use and I don't think its fair to label a bunch of people who don't like the format do something else as sectarian. Something we all advocate is not to moan unless you're gonna do it yourself. We didn't moan and we tried something else and it will succeed someday when we are more prepared and not in a mess after paddy's day.

by krossie - wsm (very much in a personal capacity) Fri Mar 24, 2006 14:24

I guess Anarchist Youth can argue for themselves - I thought the break way was 1% better then the march and, at least, deserved marks for orginality.
l think they did, at least, have some stuff up on indy media previous to the demo?
(I might be wrong on that)

As for creativity well credit where credit is due
what about this one!

"victory to the iraqi resistance"

- jesus!!!!! - For sheer "will to muppetry" it takes the stale biscuit in its paws and runs with it

Here's links to a couple of good critical articles on the "resistance" and their heroic war against people shopping in markets

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2006-03/24/content...9.htm

http://www.equalityiniraq.com/english/2006/YanarMuhamad...6.htm

and their "revolutionary" programme(s) to put Iraqi women behind the veil

"The US-UK occupation has pushed Iraqi society back into a medieval world in which “honour killings”, beheadings, forced veiling and seclusion and sexual servitude are now a part of everyday life."
(he Organisation of Women's Freedom in Iraq (OWFI)

http://www.equalityiniraq.com/english/2006/OWFIAbroad-C...6.htm

http://www.fundforward.org/uswomenwithoutborders/iraqst...y.php

Instead of this ancient skool headless chicken sloganeering
why not look to the actual left/feminist groups in Iraq who need our help.... pretty badly

krossie

by Pushkin - VLL PIS-FI (ICR) Fri Mar 24, 2006 14:30

Well it cant be a big planet, more like a micro-meteorite. Anyway you are right, support the Iraqi Women against the Mullahs and less of this generic "resistance" nonsense. The break away was better thsan listening to more boring tirades. I always wondered if wearing the Hijab is such a good thing then why dont female SWP members do so?

As for Michael Ys claim that there was 1,300 on the march: Ha! Maybe in a parallell universe but not in this one. More like 800 tops. Why bother Michael? You are not even fooling yourself.

by dangler - caucus of cosmic absurdists Fri Mar 24, 2006 16:28

Statement by Iraqi expatriates on the Third Anniversary of the Occupation of Iraq

Statement by Iraqi expatriates on the Third Anniversary of the Occupation of Iraq by Iraqi Expatriates

March 18, 2006

We the undersigned expatriate Iraqi workers, students, scientists, academics, writers, artists, professionals and business people, witnessing with horror the destruction of our people under an illegal foreign occupation, stand together with the peace movement throughout the world in commemorating three years of a brutal military occupation that has killed and maimed hundreds of thousands, displaced millions, blighted the lives of an entire population and spoiled their environment, shattered our country's physical infrastructure, its civic institutions and its life-support systems, assaulted our culture and desecrated sacred sanctuaries, violated people with deviant cruelty and racist intent, implanted mercenaries and death squads, and encouraged corruption and sedition that threaten us as a people.

We support the call for world-wide demonstrations on 18 March and the demand for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq, the dismantling of US bases, and an end to US domination of economic and social policies and its interference in domestic Iraqi affairs.

We believe that the occupation is the main cause of insecurity in Iraq, encouraging mistrust among Iraqis, and fomenting sectarian strife and ethnic conflict. The occupation has nurtured corruption and fostered gang crime, and it bears primary responsibility for the activities of murderous sectarian terrorists and criminals. The US occupation prevents Iraqis from overcoming the legacy of 35 years of corrupt and vicious dictatorship and of decades of sanctions and war. It promises nothing except more war of one kind or another for a generation to come. We do not believe that the occupation acts as an insurance against civil war, but that sectarian attacks and the threat of civil war are being used to prolong the occupation.

The Iraqi people have a legitimate inalienable right, under International Law, to resist the occupation. We call upon all Iraqi civil society and political activists, community and religious leaders to cease forthwith all meetings and communications with US, British and other occupation officials and military commanders in Iraq, and to pursue instead a national Iraqi dialogue that is inclusive of the genuine patriotic resistance. The United States must not be allowed to wage its war by proxy, and Iraqi security forces will only gain legitimacy if they break links with the US occupation and dedicate themselves to the service of the Iraqi people. We call upon officials in the new Iraqi military and police, together with civilian officials in government, local authorities, public institutions and state enterprises to end co-operation with US and British occupation forces and to boycott all US and British official personnel, except for withdrawal negotiations.

The objective must be to terminate the abnormal relationship between Iraq and the United States and to establish a healthy state–to-state relationship that is based on Iraqi sovereignty, independence, mutual respect and the principles of international legality.

Peaceful resistance, resistance by other means, and non-cooperation with occupation forces and officials must be a prelude for the new Iraqi Parliament to remove the fig leaf of legitimacy from the forces of occupation. Only then would the new state institutions and political process gain respect and acceptance. Iraqis want unity, peace and stability in order to rebuild their shattered lives and to pursue a national programme of reconstruction and development.

The American and British peoples and the whole world can help Iraq by exerting maximum pressure upon the US and British administrations to remove all their troops and bases, along with the forces of the so-called "Coalition of the Willing" from Iraq; to acknowledge the injustice committed against the people of Iraq; and to help a unified democratic fully independent Iraq in a reconstruction effort.

Professor Abbas Alnasrawi Vermont, USA

Professor Tareq Ismael Alberta, Canada

Dr Scheherazade Hassan Paris, France

Dr Sami Albanna Bethesda, MD, USA

Dr Kamil Mahdi Exeter, UK

Dr Mohammed Alwan Boston, USA

Sami Ramadani London, UK

Professor Kamal Majid London, UK

Ghazi Sabir-Ali Bath, UK

Dr Ahmed Al-Kawaz

Dr Haifa Jawad Birmingham, UK

Ja'far al-Samarrai Toronto, Canada

Sabah Jawad London, UK

Hani Lazim London, UK

Fenik Adham London, UK

Mayada Akrawi Geneva, Switzerland

Dr Ali Al-Assam London, UK

Dr Nada Shabout Texas, USA

Valerie Sabir-Ali Bath, UK

Dr Nadje Al-Ali Exeter, UK

Rashad Salim London, UK

Zaid Albanna San Francisco, CA, USA

Ali AlShahwani New Zealand

Badia Albanna Takoma Park, MD, USA

Nesreen Melek Toronto, Canada

Mumtaz Kamala UK

Nadhim Al-Qazzaz UK

Dr Jennan Ismael Sydney, Australia

Fay Mahdi London, UK

Dr Adnan Aldaini Exeter, UK

by (",) Fri Mar 24, 2006 19:53

Who the feck are the Workers Power?

by BRIAN Fri Mar 24, 2006 20:58

I"ve been protesting against "The Machene" for a long number of years. nothing changes,still the same old story,"The Romans" march on,while the J.P.P.F.,+P.F.J. etc continue to spend most of their energy, havin a go at each other. Too many Ego"s,not enough heroes."Nice One Centurions"!

by NPK Fri Mar 24, 2006 21:51

noticed of all the left parties the author noted, he oddly left out the communist party of ireland, who I thought were one of the more visible left parties there..Nice banner!

by Liam Obriain Sat Mar 25, 2006 14:00

All the infighting with in the Anti War Movement is bad fun,stop it, have a look at what is comeing up from the back,Donegal man Paddy Harte is going into the schools to get the kids to list the names of all the WW1 dead in each county,so we can have a Book of Honour for all them that were sacrificed.NO,NO,NO, there can be Book of Honour only a book of SHAME and more SHAME.This man has to be stoped,the kids have to be protected from this BULLSHIT ,if there is honour in the WW1 then there is honour in the war that is going on today.Any one who thinks as I do,and wants to have a go , my No is 074 97 30972.

by Cian - Socialist Youth & Socialist Party Sat Mar 25, 2006 18:03 ComradeCian at eircom dot net Limerick 085 7077919

Hi,
There is a good article in the current edition of the Irish Socialist Party's paper on this available from our website, but the one in the english paper i much more relevant. WP appear to be turning a blind eye on sectarianism, as have SWP andothers, this argues for recognition of the truth. Also, it argues against uncritical support, and for a united resistance, that would unite workers on the demands for public ownership of the oil and a democratically run and publiy owned eonomy that would be able ot develp without relying on foreign imperialism....

Is there a way out of the Iraq quagmire?

Mar 21, 2006
By Ken Smith, Socialist Party, England and Wales

The statement by the US ambassador to Baghdad, Zalmay Khalilzad that the Iraq invasion had opened up a 'Pandora's Box of sectarian conflict', has focused attention on the prospect of a slide towards open civil war in Iraq. Is this the most likely development in Iraq? And, therefore, is it light-minded to call for the 'immediate end to the occupation?' Ken Smith from the Socialist Party England and Wales addresses these crucial questions.

Is Iraq really sliding into a sectarian civil war? And if so, is it a divide and rule tactic of imperialism?
Some in the anti-war movement argue that the occupying powers are exaggerating the threat of civil war in order to justify the continuation of their brutal subjugation of Iraq.

They correctly point out there has been a long secular tradition alongside ethnic and religious tolerance inside Iraq. And that, in recent years, despite the attempts to stir up inter-ethnic and sectarian conflict there have been many mass displays that have cut across divisions in society.

This, however, reflects only one side of the reality now existing in Iraq. The other side is increasingly bloody sectarian conflict. There is no doubt that the occupation itself, and the divide-and-rule policies of the US and Britain, are the major reasons for the slide towards civil war. However, the increased ethnic and religious divisions are real, and very far from being under the control of the occupying powers.

Iraq, like the other countries of the Middle East, was created by British imperialism, the barbaric occupying power of the time. It created an artificial state which suited its interests. Just as the US-led coalition acts today, it used a divide-and-rule policy of balancing between the different ethnic and religious forces in the country and playing one off against the other. Inevitably ethnic and religious tensions have been a feature of Iraq ever since.

On the other side there have been united national movements of Iraqis, including the struggle that led to the forcing out of British imperialism. Most importantly were the development of mass struggles of the working class and poor - leading to the growth of a mass Communist Party (CP) in Iraq in the 1950s. More recently, there were many examples in the aftermath of the first Gulf War of class unity between Sunni and Shia Arabs and Kurds, against the Saddam regime.

However, events in the latter part of the twentieth century severely weakened independent workers' organisation.

The Saddam dictatorship, with the backing of US imperialism, crushed the mass workers' organisations. This was made easier by the mistaken policies of the leadership of the CP. Combined with the collapse of the Stalinist regimes in Eastern Europe (which were falsely equated with genuine socialism by capitalism worldwide) it meant that when Saddam was toppled the idea of recreating a mass united movement of the working class and poor was not present.

This reflected the ideological collapse of the leaders of the former workers' parties and left a vacuum. This has been mainly filled in the post-Saddam era by political groupings that are based on fostering religious divisions in society or appealing to one side of the sectarian divide or the other.

The support for these groupings is not just based on religious affiliation but is also based on the geographical division of the economic wealth of the country. In particular, Sunni Arabs - who formed much of the elite under Saddam - now find themselves a minority in the country and in areas outside of where the oil wealth is based, which are controlled by Kurdish and Shia organisations.

Imperialism has deliberately fostered sectarian division, in order to maintain power, by leaning on different ethnic and religious-based militias, including bringing them into the state forces. One senior US government official had to admit that the US-backed Shia-dominated government was fuelling the civil war, particularly by the Interior Ministry's use of death squads and secret prisons against Sunnis.

It is now well documented that the US deliberately used Shia troops to do all the most brutal jobs during the flattening of Najaf, inevitably fuelling religious divisions. But while it is imperialism that has fanned the flames, it is also now the case that a Frankenstein monster has been created that imperialism cannot control or wish away. Although sectarian division is not prevalent in all areas of Iraq, nevertheless there is a rising trend of sectarian conflict which is becoming more predominant, especially in major urban areas.

Imperialism's dreams of a compliant regime in Iraq which would allow it to withdraw its troops as soon as possible are in tatters. They would have preferred to avoid the break-up of Iraq, given its consequences for the whole region, but the reality is that the continuation of the occupation means that a full-blown civil war or even the break up of the country into religious or ethnically based enclaves is increasingly likely.

Will withdrawing the troops end strife?
The presence of the occupying powers is undoubtedly intensifying the level of conflict and violence inside Iraq. The Socialist Party calls for the immediate withdrawal of the troops and supports the right of the Iraqi people to defend themselves and to resist and drive out the occupying powers.

However, this does not mean we give unqualified backing to every action claimed to be in the name of the resistance. The anti-war movement also needs to put forward an alternative to the threat of sectarian civil war.

In Ireland, for example, the Socialist Party and its forerunner, Militant, supported a united Ireland and the removal of British troops. But we did not support the methods of the IRA or Sinn Fein which also wanted a united Ireland and the troops out.

We argued that the methods of individual terrorism were divisive and cut across the possibility of united working-class action by Catholic and Protestant workers. Ultimately, we correctly argued, these wrong methods could not build a united struggle capable of removing British forces.

Instead, their methods, along with the methods of Protestant paramilitaries, entrenched the sectarian polarisation of society in Northern Ireland. And, although there has been a decrease in the number of British troops in Northern Ireland, with them mainly confined to barracks, sectarian conflict remains with an increasingly sectarian demographic division of the population.

The continuation of the occupation in Iraq is a disaster for the peoples there. The withdrawal of the troops must remain the central demand of the anti-war movement worldwide. However, alone, this demand is inadequate

One of the key questions to be addressed by the anti-war movement is: 'if you are successful in withdrawing the troops what force in society can avoid a descent into chaos?'.

The millions who marched on 15 February 2003 will undoubtedly want to see an end to the occupation and the troops withdrawn. But at the same time - as shown by the smaller turnouts on recent anti-war demonstrations - many will also question can they can achieve this just by marching. They will want to be convinced that the long-suffering Iraqi people will not face a worse situation through the withdrawal of the troops.

To argue simply that withdrawing the troops will end the sectarian conflict will not convince this mass of people whose sympathies are with the anti-war movement, particularly given the experience of Ireland over many decades. Indeed, many will observe that the only thing that unites many of the groups inside Iraq at present is they all want the troops withdrawn.

And once the troops are withdrawn a power vacuum could open up which would lead to sectarian conflict on a much bigger scale. So the anti-war movement needs to put forward a programme that would mean that the withdrawal of the troops and a struggle by the Iraqi people for self-determination would not end in bloody civil war or an Islamic regime which will drive the rights of working-class people, women and minorities back centuries.

A mass anti-war movement in Britain and the USA, seriously campaigning for an end to the occupation and removal of the Bush and Blair regimes, would need to build a struggle linked to the workers' movement that caused their ruling elites more problems at home than they experienced abroad.

Such a movement, combined with an unwinnable conflict that led to a collapse in morale of US troops, forced the US withdrawal from Vietnam. In Vietnam, however, there was a united mass resistance against the occupying powers, which led to the overthrow of the pro-US regime in South Vietnam and the unification of the country under communist rule.

In Iraq, regrettably, the resistance is divided along religious and ethnic lines each trying to win control of different parts of the country. A descent into a fragmented - or 'Balkanised' - country with contending factions competing for power and territory is an increasingly likely scenario.

The occupying powers have withdrawn to bases in many areas and are more and more reliant on brutal aerial bombing, combined with using Iraqi forces that are often aligned with the various groupings controlling the sectarian militias.

Already, many areas of the country are controlled by sectarian-based militias. There may be genuine resistance fighters involved in these organisations but in the main they are led by disparate elements - including former elements of the Baathist regime, criminals and gangsters and reactionary religious ideologues.

Some Shia leaders, like Moktada al-Sadr, whose base is in Shia-Sunni areas, such as Baghdad, the South and even in parts of the 'Sunni triangle', have put forward a mixed message.

On the one hand they have called united demonstrations of Shia and Sunnis: "After all, we are one united people whether we are Sunnis or Shiites, Kurds or Arabs", proclaimed a prominent Sadr supporter. (Associated Press/IHT 20 August 2005).

On the other hand it has been reported that members of Al-Sadr's 'Mahdi Army' have taken part in attacks on Sunni mosques. Al-Sadr's Islamic aims and support for clerical rule, and the Shia make-up of his supporters, severely limit his movement's ability to appeal to broad layers of workers and the oppressed.

Is there any force capable of uniting the opposition to imperialism on non-sectarian lines?
Socialists believe that the only basis upon which the Iraqi people can freely decide their future is liberation from both the foreign occupation and the forces of the Iraqi state and militias. Concretely, this means striving to establish a non-sectarian defence force, made up of Arab Shias, Sunnis and Kurdish workers, youth and all the Iraqi peoples, that is controlled by democratically elected committees of workers, students, the unemployed and peasants.

The formation of these sorts of bodies would be part of building a genuine movement of ordinary working Iraqis, forming democratic independent labour unions and other mass organisations. It is essential to unite workers and the rural poor with a programme that cuts across religious, communal, and ethnic divisions.

A revived workers' movement is required to fight to end the occupation and imperialist domination of the economy, particularly the sweeping programme of privatisation which is placing Iraqi assets into the hands of multinational corporations.

A fight for democratic and trade union rights has to be combined with a struggle against capitalism, landlordism, and tribal fiefdoms, which provide the basis for oppressive feudal practices. Given the explosive character of the national question in Iraq, it is vital that the workers' movement puts forward a socialist programme. This should be based on the right of the national groups to self-determination, while guaranteeing the rights of minorities.

Such a programme, however, has to be linked to the idea of a planned, socialist economy - the only way of avoiding a divisive struggle over scarce resources.

Given the current weakness of the working class in Iraq, such a revival of workers' organisations and socialist ideas may seem somewhat distant. Working-class solidarity and socialist policies, however, offer the only way of avoiding civil war and bloody ethnic clashes.

Without a powerful initiative from the working class, Iraq faces the prospect of a vicious cycle of bloody national conflicts, ethnic cleansing, and so on, along the lines of the former Yugoslavia in the early 1990s.

So how should the anti-war movement be taken forward?
The recent events inside Iraq and the complicated mood in Britain following the 7 July suicide bombings have required a more thought out approach from the anti-war movement in Britain and internationally.

Whilst the aim of removing the troops and ending the occupation is still the primary unifying goal of the anti-war movement, the question of how to achieve this now is more complex than simply organising demonstrations or repeating yesterday's slogans; or worse advocating slogans and solutions which are confusing and simplistic and ultimately could serve to weaken the anti-war movement's effectiveness.

The Socialist Party (which has been part of the Stop the War Coalition and on its steering committee since its foundation), has argued recently that "it is necessary for the STWC to link its call for withdrawal of troops to an appeal for a solution which emphasises the importance of unity across non-sectarian lines against the occupying powers."

We believe the leadership of the Stop the War Coalition are underestimating the degree of sectarian conflict in Iraq. For example, a recent Stop the War bulletin stated that: "There is a civil war in Iraq right now... between those who oppose the occupation and those who are collaborating with it. The US occupiers want to replace that civil war with a civil war which sets Iraqi against Iraqi on sectarian grounds."

They have also gone too far in giving unqualified prominence to the al-Sadr movement - in a way that could have given the impression that the anti-war movement was uncritically backing the al-Sadr movement - and dangerously repeating statements by Muslim commentators which were divisive in blaming all "Europeans" for Islamaphobia.

The Socialist Party has argued that there need to be slogans and demands which unite the majority rather than give undue emphasis to issues which could potentially divide the anti-war movement. In particular, given the unpopularity of Blair and the Labour government's attacks on education, we suggested the slogan "Education not occupation".

In the USA the anti-war movement has undergone a big resurgence following Hurricane Katrina, where the stark contrast between the over $1,000 billion spent on the war and occupation compared to the miserable government response in the aftermath of Katrina graphically exposed all the seeping class divisions in US society.

There also had to be transmitted from the leadership of the Stop the War movement a belief that going on a demonstration could make a difference and the troops could be withdrawn and the occupation ended.

As explained above this requires an explanation of the complicated situation inside Iraq and taking an internationalist position which advocates a class-based, non-sectarian alternative to take the struggles of the Iraqi people forward.

If the anti-war movement showed that there is a way of ending the occupation of Iraq - in particular, by linking it in to the anger and desire of working-class people to remove the hated Blair regime - which represented a genuine step forward for the majority in Britain, Iraq and internationally, then a movement mobilising the millions, like in February 2003, could once again emerge.