anti-war | ukwatch.net

5,000 march against the war at Labour Party conference

JamieSW — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:48:37 +0000

5,000 protestors marched to the Labour Party Conference on Saturday demanding an end to the government’s slavish support for Bush’s wars. The march was organised by the Stop the War Coalition and CND and called for all troops to come out of Iraq and Afghanistan and for an end to a foreign policy that risks spreading war.

The demonstration brought together trade unionists, students, pensioners, muslim activists and peace campaigners of all sorts. It was led off by Rose Gentle and other members of Military Families Against the War. As it approached the conference centre the demonstration stopped to hand in a letter of protest to the Prime Minister.
There was then two minutes silence to respect the hundreds of thousands who have been killed as a result of this government’s foreign policy.Then protestors marched right up to the conference centre fence chanting ‘Troops Out’ and ‘No to Nato’ loud enough for every delegate in the conference to hear. Many came out to listen.

The march ended with a rally nearby addressed by Tony Benn, Jeremy Corbyn, Tony Woodley, Lindsey German, Rose Gentle, Seumas Milne, Karen Reissman, Andrew Murray, Nahela Ashraf, Kate Hudson, Sabah Jawad and others. They all spoke of the need to continue and expand this remarkable campaign.

War Resisters League Listening Project

Ellie Keen — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 21:45:02 +0000

Survey results recently published in The Independent newspaper showed that 66% of the British population thought we should never have gotten involved in Iraq and 74% thought British troops should be withdrawn as soon as possible. Notwithstanding this overwhelming support for the anti war position, the associated movement is currently not sufficiently supported to achieve its objectives.

In order to learn from a similar situation in their country, the oldest secular peace organisation in America the War Resisters League (WRL), conducted structured interviews with a hundred activists from a wide range of peace movement organisations and published their findings in a special edition of their journal WIN. Needless to say there is much for the British peace movement to learn from WRL’s enterprise.

Interviewees were all asked a series of questions and their responses were collated and presented by major themes. Obviously responses were not homogonous but WRL manage to convey a consistency in their presentation that clearly points to a direction going forward. For me this was conveyed in WRL’s national field organiser Matthew Smucker’s closing words in the report. Addressing the question ‘can we do it’, he replies “the answer-the future-depends on who the ‘we’ is”.

Most respondents to the question ‘what is lacking in the peace movement’ thought there was a shortage of active participants together with an absence of opportunities for newcomers to get involved in productive work. Many suggested that the movement was out of touch and Greg Layton from US Labor Against the War suggested using standard market research approaches to craft messages for target constituencies. Most people thought that the movement lacked strategy both in terms of overarching framework and short term winnable campaigns.

Funding and resources were thought by most to be lacking and Patrick Reinsborough from the smartmeme Strategy & Training Project, identified the peace movement’s alienation from philanthropic foundations as a major cause of funds deficiency.

Interviewees perceptively highlighted many constraints to the peace movement. Michael Mc Phearson of Veterans for Peace felt that the movement should shift its appeal from moral argument to explaining in practical terms why war is bad for the public at large. Co Chair of United for Peace & Justice Judith Leblanc believes a major constraint is politics, she says “if people conceptualise this (anti war) as a left movement then you automatically cut yourself off from 65 of the 70 percent of people who oppose the war”.

Many interviewees identified a dearth of skilled organisers and a lack of organisational development holding back the movement. Kelly Campbell of the September Eleventh Families for Peaceful Tomorrows said “we need organisations willing to take on a focus on skills building …you talk about (the campaign planning tool) power mapping for a campaign and some people have no idea what that is”. Other respondents noted a lack of leadership development. Xiomara Castro of the Ella Baker Centre observed “it’s the same people running the meetings, or the same people are part of a few overlapping organisations. There are no stepping stones, no mentorship, no room to grow into involvement”.

WRL’s major conclusion is that to be effective, the anti war movement has to increase capacity. It notes that mass movements are typically not built by recruiting members individually. Rather they come about by getting buy-in from already organised and resourced sectors. But as Michael Mc Phearson says “sometimes if you work with one group you risk alienating a wing of your organisational core”.

WRL believe for the anti war movement to realize its full potential its objectives have to be accepted as their own by existing organisations. It points to the West Coast Longshoreman’s Union 2008 Mayday anti war strike as an example. Instead of individuals having to assimilate into a counterculture to participate, the antiwar movement should be developing relationships with the leaders of established labour, student, community and faith groups etc, whereby those organisations adopt, necessarily winnable, campaign objectives of the anti war movement.

Space limits doing full justice to the WRL report and peace activists should get a copy of their own from the WRL website (It costs $4 www.warresisters.org). The September Convention of the Left in Manchester devotes a full day to the issue of peace. Participants at this important day should bear in mind Judith Leblanc’s remarks above, that the peace movement is not an exclusively left movement and also when she says “The vitality of the left is only realized when it’s related to that broad cross-section of folks in the political centre …. We must do whatever we can to engage and activate and leverage that (anti war) majority”.

Raytheon-9 Acquitted!

Ellie Keen — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0000

A statement by the 9 Raytheon protestors from Derry.

After their acquittal on three charges of criminal damage to the computer equipment and office of Raytheon, the world’s largest supplier of Guided Bomb Units, Colm Bryce and Eamonn McCann spoke to supporters and press outside the court. Colm Bryce began:

The Raytheon 9 have been aquitted today in Belfast for their action in decommissioning the Raytheon offices in Derry in August 2006. The prosecution could produce not a shred of evidence to counter our case that we had acted to prevent the commission of war crimes during the Lebanon war by the Israeli armed forces using weapons supplied by Raytheon.

We remain proud of the action we took and only wish that we could have done more to disrupt the ‘kill chain’ that Raytheon controls.

This victory is welcome, for ourselves and our families, but we wish to dedicate it to the Shaloub and Hasheem families of Qana in Lebanon, who lost 28 of their closest relatives on the 30 July 2006 due to a Raytheon ‘bunker buster’ bomb.

Their unimaginable loss was foremost in our minds when we took the action we did on 9 August, and the injustice that they and the many thousands of victims of war crimes in Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan have suffered, will spur us on to continue to campaign against war and the arms trade that profits from it.

We said from the beginning that we came to this court not as the accused but as the accusers of Raytheon. This court case proved that Raytheon in Derry is an integral part of the global Raytheon company and its military production. This is no longer a secret or in doubt. Raytheon have treated the truth, peaceful protest, local democracy and this court with complete contempt. The most senior executive who appeared said that the charge that Raytheon had ‘aided and abetted’ the commission of crimes against humanity was “not an issue” for him. Raytheon should have that contempt repaid in full and be driven out of Derry and every other place they have settled. They are war criminals, plain and simple. They have no place in our society and shame on all those in positions of power or influence who would hand them public funds, turn a blind eye to their crimes, cover their tracks or make excuses for them.

These crimes continue daily and hourly in the Middle East. It is up to those of us who oppose those wars of domination and occupation to build a movement that matches the enormity of what is being done by Western governments. We hope that this victory gives courage and heart to all those involved in that movement and the many more who need to be for us to achieve our aim of stopping these wars. Until then, the very least we can do, to show solidarity with our brothers and sisters in the Middle East is to dissociate ourselves from the corrupt governments of the US and Britain. That means opposing the visit to Belfast of the world’s biggest war criminal, George W Bush on 16 June.

We feel totally vindicated by this decision and wish to extend our heartfelt thanks to all of those who gave us support, especially to our families and friends, to the members of the Derry Anti War Coalition and the Irish Anti-War Movement , to our excellent legal teams. Of course, we particularly want to thank the jury who listened intently through three weeks of evidence before ensuring that justice was done today.

Eamonn McCann then addressed supporters and press saying:

The outcome of this case has profound implications.

The jury has accepted that we were reasonable in our belief that: the Israel Defence Forces were guilty of war crimes in Lebanon in the summer of 2006; that the Raytheon company, including its facility in Derry, was aiding and abetting the commission of these crimes; and that the action we took was intended to have, and did have, the effect of hampering or delaying the commission of war crimes.

We have been vindicated.

We reject entirely and with contempt the statement by Raytheon this evening suggesting that the result of the trial gives them concern about the safety of their employees. This is an abject attempt to divert attention from the significance of the outcome. Not a shed of evidence was produced that we presented the slightest danger to Raytheon workers. The charge of affray was thrown out by the court without waiting to hear defence evidence.

Our target has always been Raytheon as a corporate entity and its shareholders and directors who profit from misery and death.

There is now no hiding place for those who have said that they support the presence of Raytheon in Derry on the basis that the company is not involved in Derry in arms-related production. We have established that not only is the Derry plant involved in arms-related production, it is also, through its integration into Raytheon as a whole, involved in war crimes.

We call on all elected representatives in Derry, and on the citizens of Derry, to say now in unequivocal terms that the war criminal Raytheon is not welcome in our city.

We call on the office of the Attorney General and the Crown Prosecution Service, in light of this verdict, to institute an investigation into the activities of Raytheon at its various plants across the UK, with a view to determining whether Raytheon is, as we say it is, a criminal enterprise.

We believe that one day the world will look back on the arms trade as we look back today on the slave trade, and wonder how it came about that such evil could abound in respectable society. If we have advanced by a mere moment the day when the arms trade is put beyond the law, what we have done will have been worthwhile.

We took the action we did in the immediate aftermath of the slaughter of innocents in Qana on July 30th 2006. The people of Qana are our neighbours. Their children are the children of our neighbours. We trashed Raytheon to help protect our neighbours. The court has found that that was not a crime. This what the Raytheon case has been about.

We have not denied or apologised for what we did at the Raytheon plant in the summer of 2006. All of us believe that it was the best thing we ever did in our lives.

Related Link: http://www.raytheon9.org

Demonstration Attacked by Police

Ellie Keen — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0000

More than 2,500 anti-war protesters descended on parliament yesterday Sunday for an angry protest at the visit of warmongering mass murderer, US president George Bush.

Bush praised British prime minister Gordon Brown for being “tough on terror” and said that the invasion of Iraq – estimated to have killed over a million Iraqi civilians – was “the right thing to do”. The real aim of Bush’s visit became clear on Monday, when Brown announced more British troops for Afghanistan and “further sanctions” on Iran.

No surprise then that so many people were angry that Bush was invited to visit Britain in the first place and were determined to make their voices heard.

Many were shocked at the excessive policing operation that was put in place to stop people from exercising their democratic right to protest. The operation was rumoured to have cost over £1 million.

Police blocked off Whitehall with metal barriers, rows of police vans, horses and lines of riot police, preventing demonstrators from marching to Downing Street. They attacked protesters with batons, causing many injuries and hospitalising some people.

23-year old Peter Simpson was one of the protesters injured by police at the demonstration. “Police were hitting our hands with their truncheons,” he said. “They were standing over us like bullies with their weapons. I was hit on my arm, shoulder and head. Blood was steaming down my face.”

Several demonstrators were arrested after police attacked the protest. Carole Vincent, an anti-war activist from Walthamstow was one of them. She told Socialist Worker, “I was at the front of the protest against the railing and was being pushed forward. A bit of the barrier fell and some people tried to get through to go to Downing Street.

“Once the first barrier had been pushed over I was pushed forward again and had to put my hands out or I would have fallen down. I had to put my hands on the next barrier – and as soon as I did the batons started flying.

“I was hit on my arms and hands. The police were hitting people indiscriminately.

“I heard two senior officers were getting descriptions of people in their earpieces. There were loads of descriptions – they were obviously targeting people to grab and arrest later.

“I was arrested for violent disorder. The police said that I picked up a barrier and threw it at them. I told them that I just chanted with others and then left, but the police grabbed me very tightly and dragged me away.

“I was kept in a cell overnight and had to be given painkillers for the injuries I’d received. My arms and hands are covered in bruises. So many people were injured after being whacked by the police.”

Despite the disgraceful behaviour of the police, the protest had a big impact, with lots of support from passers by and media coverage. The protest was angry and young, with many people demonstrating for the first time.

Nimco Ismail is a health care assistant in London. “This is my first anti-war demonstration,” she told Socialist Worker. “I came after watching a documentary about US involvement in Somalia. We have to make our voices heard – the world has to know what Bush is doing.”

Pau from Watford was another first-time protester. “I believe that war is not the way to get peace,” he said. “It’s important that we’re here as people will be watching around the world.”

People were angry that their right to protest had been squashed at the behest of George Bush. “It’s ironic that our march had been banned on the anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta,” said Jyotrmishra, an anti-war musician from Derby.

“The US is interfering with our civil liberties. Yet if a demonstration was banned in China there would be an outcry.”

“It’s still important to demonstrate against Bush because he needs to be held accountable for what he’s done,” said Sarah from Stanmore. Andrew from Bristol Stop the War Coalition agreed. “I’m completely opposed to everything that Bush stands for,” he told Socialist Worker. “He’s not only unwelcome in Britain – he’s unwelcome on this earth.”

Many pointed out the hypocrisy of the “war on terror”. Lindsey German, convenor of the Stop the War Coalition, was cheered when she said from the platform, “What right does Bush have to preach about democracy when the US is leaving permanent bases in Iraq? What right does Brown have to talk about freedom when he passes laws to detail people without charge for 42 days?”

Protesters were also clear that the campaign against the war would continue until all troops are brought out of Iraq and Afghanistan – and that the movement would fight any attack on Iran.

As Tony Benn, president of the Stop the War Coalition, said, “This is about more than just Bush, Blair and Brown. We will not stop until all the troops are out and Palestine is free.”

Anti-war marches: who goes and why

JamieSW — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 17:22:56 +0000

The media has recently been marking the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq – and of the massive anti-war demonstrations that preceded it. One minor hobby horse throughout the coverage has been the supposed dwindling of the anti-war movement since then.

At the same time, the mainstream media has waxed lyrical over the role played by new technologies such as the internet in organising political action, especially among the young.

In neither case does the media’s arguments rest on much evidence. While it’s undoubtedly true that the Stop the War demonstration on 15 March this year was a fraction of the size of that on 15 February 2003, it does not necessarily follow that the anti-war movement has shrunk to a “hardcore of protestors”.

Similarly, although you will be hard pressed to find a political group or campaign without some sort of a web presence, it does not necessarily follow that the internet is the essential ingredient for mobilising young people politically.

Myself and a colleague set out to do some research into who is marching against the war and how they are mobilising. We surveyed protesters at three national Stop the War demonstrations – Manchester in September 2006, London in February 2007, and most recently London last month.

Is it just a hardcore of activists left marching? The evidence suggests not. About 22 percent of the marchers we surveyed at these demonstrations were on their first anti-war demonstration since 9/11. This shows that even five years on from 15 February 2003 the anti-war movement is attracting new supporters.

Another 22 percent had been on just one or two other demonstrations, 21 percent had been on three to five, leaving 35 percent of demonstrators who had been on six or more anti-war demonstrations since 9/11. In other words the “hardcore” makes up about a third of current anti-war demonstrators.

Notably a higher proportion of “first timers” were found on the Manchester demonstration than on either of the two demonstrations held in London.

It might be imagined that “first time” demonstrators are overwhelmingly those too young to have been politically active five or six years ago. Indeed, some 47 percent of “first timers” are 25 or less. But that still means over half the “first timers” are older adults.

There were more surprises when we examined what role the internet played in mobilising demonstrators.

About 24 percent of protesters found out about the demonstration through a website, with the national Stop the War site being the most common source of information. But it is not the “internet-savvy kids” who rely most on the web, but older age groups – 36 to 50 year olds in particular.

Young people were less likely than others to have found out about the demonstration through an email from someone outside of their immediate social circle. Just 3 percent of the under 18s and 7 percent of those aged 18 to 25 mentioned this, compared to 22 percent of the over 50s.

This suggests it is the older activists who make the best use of internet and email communication. Online communication was also used more by activists who had already participated in several demonstrations.

The most frequently mentioned information source for the demonstrations was neither the web nor email, but personal networks – friends, family members or colleagues.

About half of respondents found out about the demonstration in this manner, and it was especially important for younger people (the under 18s) and for first time demonstrators.

Posters and leaflets, a more traditional form of mobilisation, were mentioned by about a quarter of demonstrators. They were especially important for demonstrators of university age (18 to 25 year olds).

In contrast, public meetings were a source of information for about 20 percent but were mentioned more often by older protestors and by those who had been on six or more demonstrations already.

The news media – TV, radio, or newspapers – provided information for about 13 percent of the demonstrators, with men mentioning it more than women. The media was much more important for informing participants at the Manchester than the two London protests, perhaps because national Stop the War events are rare occurrences outside of the capital and generate more interest.

What does this mean for future organising? The first thing to focus on is the good news – new people are still getting involved in the Stop the War, and not just the young.

Our research also shows that the Internet and email are seen by demonstrators as useful information sources and are especially important for informing and maintaining contact with existing activists. But personal relationships between friends, work colleagues and families continue to be central to the effectiveness of the movement.

A friend or family member is more likely to motivate people to join a demo for the first time than a website posting or chain email. Posters and leaflets seem to be effective in attracting students, while public meetings are useful for motivating older people and existing activists. Online communication is important – but it does not act as a replacement for traditional means of mobilising.

Rachel Cohen and Natalie Pitimson surveyed 446 randomly selected protesters. For more information on their results go to www.go.warwick.ac.uk/antiwar