This article addresses Direct Action in the
> context of the sometimes hysterical debate
> about the Grassroots Network Against War
> (GNAW) action at Shannon on March 1st.
> > What is Direct Action?
> Direct action simply means acting for yourself
> without intermediaries. For example, with regard
> to the use of Shannon by the US military we could
> plead with TDs to plead with the cabinet to plead
> with the US authorities to move their operations
> to Germany. That type of action relies on other
> people acting on behalf of you.
>
> Direct action is simply where you act for yourself.
> An example would be if thousands of people
> occupied the runway at Shannon preventing US
> Military from refuelling there.
>
> Is Direct Action always Violent?
>
> Nope, though they're not mutually exclusive
> either. Anyway violence against people (as
> opposed to property) usually originates from the
> state forces as they react (by batonning &
> imprisoning) demonstrators. The morality of
> violence is a separate though not unrelated
> question and, in my opinion, each use of force
> needs to be justified on its own merits.
>
> Why publicise a Direct Action?
>
> In the afterglow of February 15th it was reasonable
> to assume that a couple of thousand would show
> up at Shannon. The reason for publicising it was
> to encourage the maximum number of
> participants in the direct action itself. The plan
> to tear the fence down was dependent largely on
> numbers. The fact that the numbers didn't
> materialise was disappointing, and all the
> publicity, far more than expected, probably served
> to scare away people rather than attract them.
>
> If people don't know about an event then they we
> can't expect them to participate. Open
> publication of the plan allows people to make an
> informed decision about the extent of their
> involvement. It minimises the chances of them
> being drawn into events they are uncomfortable
> with.
>
> On the other hand, it could be fairly argued that
> direct action instigated by a few can be more
> successful than a pre-planned one. For example,
> the fence destruction at Shannon in October was
> a spontaneous action instigated by a few which
> led to a mass trespass. The very public plan on
> March the 1st failed in its objective and may even
> have appeared as a standoff designed to attract
> media attention. I think there's merit to both
> positions.
>
> Does Direct Action frighten people off, particularly
> those new to political activity?
>
> This argument is often connected to the cry 'let's
> build the movement' first. There are hundreds of
> thousands of people against this war. The
> movement is built. The question is what to do
> now?
>
> There was no change in policy after February 15th.
> We can either sit back and hope that the
> government will change it's mind about refuelling
> in Shannon or we can try to stop it ourselves
>
> The latter is the harder option and it's entirely
> possible that such attempts will be both
> unpopular and a failure, but a start has to be
> made. If direct action isn't appropriate at this
> time and on this issue then it'll never be.
>
> Direct action also leads to people feeling
> empowered in the struggle as it has an achievable
> aim and does not rely on our 'masters' doing what
> we ask them.
>
> If peaceful protesters are attacked by police then
> surely it's the protesters' own faults ?
>
> In the run up to March 1st concerns were
> expressed that attempts to cause a security
> breach at Shannon would bring violent retribution
> form the security forces and therefore the action
> was inappropriate.
>
> This highlights the degree to which some people,
> even anti-war supporters, are committed to the
> legitimacy of State violence even if such violence
> is used to continue an unethical policy in the face
> of peaceful civil disobedience.
>
> The GNAW demo, whatever its organisational
> flaws, was intended to be entirely peaceful, as
> indeed it turned out. At its most extreme a fence
> was going to be torn down. This is so minor
> compared to punching someone in the face or an
> aerial bombardment that I'm embarrassed it
> needs pointing out.
>
> The security forces on the other hand were
> prepared to violently resist this peaceful (or at
> most barely aggressive action) action by thumping
> people &endash; hence the batons &endash; and
> imprisoning them against their will.
>
> Therefore any violence was likely to come from
> them and it is they and their masters who ought
> to be called upon to desist from acting violently,
> particularly as they were acting in the service of
> an unethical (and unpopular) war. Excusing the
> security forces because they're "just following
> orders" has a long and inglorious history.
>
> Is DA is a Distraction ?
>
> A distraction from what? The Green Party
> leadership disassociated themselves from the
> actions of the Catholic Workers and the March 1st
> demo partly because they considered such action
> a "distraction". In fact the opposite is true. Every
> time an action took place more attention was
> focussed on Shannon, the scene of the Irish
> State's complicity in the war effort.
>
> Not only is direct action not a distraction it has
> had specific positive results, namely the
> withdrawal of some of the airlines ferrying the
> hardware to the Middle East.
>
> Ireland's role in the war is minor and no doubt
> dispensable. Nevertheless it's our responsibility
> to stop that involvement. It's not up to us to stop
> the war, we can only change that which we have
> control over.
>
> But you must admit that the cost to the State of
> securing the airport is a waste of taxpayers'
> money?
>
> Defiantly true, the quickest way to stop it would
> be to prohibit the planes from using the facilities
> in the first place.
>
> Aren't Workers strikes are the best form of direct
> action?
>
> True again, and while we should do our bit to
> encourage and support them there's no reason to
> wait for them to do it. They mightn't be agreeable
> to the anti-war case or they mightn't have the
> confidence to risk going on strike. If we're going
> to call for them to take a risk we should at least
> be prepared to take a few ourselves. Workers'
> strikes and breaching security are not mutually
> exclusive tactics.
>
> James O'Brian
>
>
> This page is from the print version of the
> Irish Anarchist paper 'Workers Solidarity'.
>
http://struggle.ws/wsm/paper.html
