Solidarity Bulletin produced by the ASF

SOLIDARITY BULLETIN Issue 7
OCTOBER 2001

THE WAR ON TERROR

The Anarcho Syndicalist Federation condemns the events of September 11 in New York and Washington and the subsequent US and British attacks on Afghanistan. Both have at their root the ambition of the wealthy and powerful who are prepared to slaughter thousands if not millions of working people to mould the world into the image they desire.

The outrages of September 11th have claimed the lives of thousands of working people. Many more are suffering job losses world wide, and the effects of an upsurge in right wing sentiment, patriotic fanaticism and outright racism are clear. In Belfast the Islamic Centre has been attacked more than once. While the ASF is not in the business of defending particular religions, these attacks are purely racist in nature and must be condemned.

Many more people are set to lose their lives in the US led 'War on Terror'. This war, like all wars before it, will amount to ordinary people killing each other for their leaders – while those parasites breathe a sigh of relief, moving to a war economy to justify further vicious economic attacks on the working class.

Already Soviet veterans of the Afghan war of the 1980s are warning the US to expect daily deliveries of coffins. All over Europe people are falling over themselves to buy gas masks in expectation of chemical or biological attack.

While indiscriminate and murderous attacks such as witnessed on September 11th are to be condemned, the NY and Washington events cannot be condemned in isolation. They must be viewed in the context of long-term US economic and political belligerency overseas (the record of which has been described by Noam Chomsky as 'too rich to sample'), not least in the Middle East, in order to understand why there is such hatred of the US world wide. Osama Bin Laden, the man held responsible for September 11th, was recruited, trained and armed by the CIA and their allies in Pakistani Intelligence to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan, because he was among the cruellest and most fanatical fighters they could find. Bin Laden turned against the US in 1990, outraged at their establishment of a military presence in Saudi Arabia, site of the holiest shrines in Islam. This is a common feature of US foreign policy: One time allies become “Little Hitlers” once they refuse to 'play ball' with the US. Saddam Hussein was supported through his worst atrocities because he provided a bulwark against the uncooperative Iranian state. When he became uncooperative himself he became a target. US policy in the Middle East is of course driven by Oil interest, incidentally the Bush family business.

If the attacks of September 11th were indeed ‘revenge’ attacks, then those responsible have not struck back at the real criminals, only the common people of the US. US citizens have been unfairly made to suffer for their governments brutality overseas. The war on terror will not bring them justice. Real justice for the citizens of the USA would be a socially and economically just society that their current system does not provide them with.

The lesson to be learned is that we can take no lessons on the morality of the wholesale killing of innocents from the US, or any other, State. This war must be opposed, along with the attacks on our liberty and economic security that it will be used to justify. What, we ask is the difference between Bush and Bin Laden ? Both are wealthy powerful fanatics driven by religious conviction to pursue their agendas to the limit while the ordinary people of the world pay the price in death, fear, poverty and repression.

Throughout history, Anarchists and Syndicalists have been jailed, deported gagged and murdered for their fight against global slaughter. We must continue that fight.
Our message must be simple:
NO WAR BUT THE CLASS WAR !!!

STATEMENT FROM THE IWA SECRETARIAT OSLO

THE SEPTEMBER ELEVENTH AND NATO'S NEW STRATEGIC CONCEPT

The US and Great Britain are planning a 5 to 10 years long war against terrorism according to The Times of September 20th. The plan is called "Noble Eagle" and it contains all elements of the new strategic concept of NATO: Having mobile units defending "Western" interests around the globe and having a "total defence" where the political, economical and military interests are closely linked and integrated.

The US dominate the military, economic, technological and cultural dimensions of power in the world today, so when we consider their military actions, it is also important to analyse their economical motives. The IWA-Secretariat wrote in the First of May appeal the following:

"One of the United States main objectives is both to manipulate and accommodate the countries in the "corridor" from the Baltic countries, Poland, through East and Central Europe, to the Balkans, Turkey, the Caspian Sea and the Caucasus, the former Central Asian Soviet Republics, to Xinjiang and to Tibet. This is to reduce and undermine European, Russian and South - East Asian ambitions and to get control over the vast oil - and natural resources"

Just as the US used the Iraq invasion of Kuwait as an excuse to implement the subordinate goal of placing troops in Saudi Arabia, we have to look for the real motives of the US when they are going to revenge the attacks of September the 11th. It is [in] this context we must draw attention to the California based company Unocal. They had contacts to the Taliban regime until recently, but did not manage to reach an agreement with them about a project of an oil-pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to India. An eventual pipeline could have supplied the growing Asian energy market with oil and gas and given the US - Unocal a dominant role.

Unocals advisor is the former US-Foreign Minister Alexander Haig. Alexander Haig is also a member of the Military Professional Resources Inc. (MPRI) - a company of American generals that were engaged by Croatia in the Krajina offensive, against Serbian forces in Western Bosnia and as advisors in Colombia. We can expect US-military actions to support the US economical interests in order to have a US-dominated Afghanistan and a stable and pro-US Pakistan.

The development in Pakistan is vital: The traditional pro-US military forces in Pakistan have no other choice than to cooperate with the USA. They have also demanded a substantial payment of the Pakistan economical dept and a cancelling of all sanctions. A too strong US-presence in Pakistan can provoke "fundamentalist" revolt in Pakistan and other countries in the region - especially Tajikistan and give nuclear weapons to pro-Taliban forces.

Russia has also, [like] the US, interests in fighting the "fundamentalists". In Chechnya they have used this fight as an excuse [for] violations and murdering of a people just to get a stronghold for Russian interests. The Russia is, in spite of promises of cooperation with the US, highly critical of the increasingly stronger US-presence in Central Asia. US soldiers have had military exercises with troops from Kazakhstan - and Uzbekistan through the so-called "Partnership for peace". The Northern Alliance fighting Taliban in Northern Afghanistan has been supported by Russia and Iran, but can now be supported by the US. A "new" Afghanistan can give US a new stronghold in Central Asia and give Russia another challenge.

The world is now waiting for the next steps of the US and NATO to revenge the terrorist attacks on Tuesday the September 11th. These attacks are as Noam Chomsky says in an interview with Radio B92 Belgrade - quite new in world affairs, not in their scale and character but in the target. For the US it is the first time since the War of 1812 that its national territory has been under attack. Territory has now been globalised to the US and can reach Europe.

The main EU countries with tradition of hundreds of years of imperial violence rally in their support for the USA. Thursday, September 20th the EU decided in Brussels hard measures against terrorism. These laws, that will be implemented in the respective EU countries, are formulated so widely that they can be used against demonstrators, public strikes and generally against everyone that wants to change the political and economical structure!

The IWA-Secretariat hereby makes a call to the Sections and Friends of the IWA to exchange information and take action. Capitalism is an automatic machine producing human and ecological misery, child [exploitation], unemployment, fascism and wars. The IWA - the inheriting of the First International recovers the anti-militarist tradition and proposes boycotts against the manufacturing of arms and general strike against war. Our answer is not terror - but enforced, coordinated work for workers self-emancipation!

THREATENED REDUNDANCIES AT SHORTS: BOMBARDIER BLAME SEPTEMBER 11 ATTACKS YET NO LOSS IN ORDERS

The events of September 11 have been used by Bombardier Shorts to justify the axing of 2,000 jobs in the north.

They cited “reduced demand for products”, as a result of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon , in their redundancies notice to the Government.

At the same time as the Government was being informed of this “reduced demand” the president and chief executive of Bombardier, Robert E Brown, was telling a press conference in Montreal that no orders had been cancelled.

Robbed & Then Lied To.

The announced job losses come on the heels of a bitter dispute centred on the companies theft of around £7million from its workers wages. Two Industrial Tribunals have already found in favour of Shorts workers following the companies unlawful deduction of money from workers wages following their reduction of holiday entitlement.

The company are trying to justify cutting its 38,000 workforce by 10%, possibly to be increased to 17% next year, on the basis of delivering the same number as aircraft as in the “previous fiscal year”. Worse, in Northern Ireland, the up to 2,000 job losses expected is more like 30% of the workforce.

Pulling Out

Concerns have been expressed that Bombardier are manipulating the tragedy of September 11 to realise a long-term corporate plan to consolidate design in Montreal and reduce its base in the Northern Ireland to, according to Joe Bowyer, writing in the ’Business Telegraph, 09-10-01;
“a low wage producer and extract more money from the public purse”.
In 1989 £984million of public money was spent privatising Shorts and handing it over to Bombardier – since then workers wages have been reduced and they are now among the worst in the industry in the ‘developed world’.

Profit

Shorts declared profits of £54.7million in 1999/00 and £57.7million in 2000/01. Cash dividends from Shorts to Bombardier were £70million in 1999/00 and £195million in 2000/01.

Who created these profits for Robert E Brown? The Shorts workers now being threatened with being cast on the scrap heap.

CHOMSKY ON THE 'WAR ON TERROR' - INTERVIEW WITH NOAM CHOMSKY BY RADIO B92, BELGRADE FOLLOWING THE ATTACK ON THE WTC AND THE PENTAGON

Q: Why do you think these attacks happened?

To answer the question we must first identify the perpetrators of the crimes. It is generally assumed, plausibly, that their origin is the Middle East region, and that the attacks probably trace back to the Osama Bin Laden network, a widespread and complex organisation, doubtless inspired by Bin Laden but not necessarily acting under his control.
Let us assume that this is true. Then to answer your question a sensible person would try to ascertain Bin Laden's views, and the sentiments of the large reservoir of supporters he has throughout the region. About all of this, we have a great deal of information. Bin Laden has been interviewed extensively over the years by highly reliable Middle East specialists, notably the most eminent correspondent in the region, Robert Fisk (London ‘Independent‘), who has intimate knowledge of the entire region and direct experience over decades. A Saudi Arabian millionaire, Bin Laden became a militant Islamic leader in the war to drive the Russians out of Afghanistan. He was one of the many religious fundamentalist extremists recruited, armed, and financed by the CIA and their allies in Pakistani intelligence to cause maximal harm to the Russians -- quite possibly delaying their withdrawal, many analysts suspect -- though whether he personally happened to have direct contact with the CIA is unclear, and not particularly important. Not surprisingly, the CIA preferred the most fanatic and cruel fighters they could mobilise. The end result was to "destroy a moderate regime and create a fanatical one, from groups recklessly financed by the Americans" (‘London Times’ correspondent Simon Jenkins, also a specialist on the region). These "Afghanis" as they are called (many, like Bin Laden, not from Afghanistan) carried out terror operations across the border in Russia, but they terminated these after Russia withdrew. Their war was not against Russia, which they despise, but against the Russian occupation and Russia's crimes against Muslims. The "Afghanis" did not terminate their activities, however. They joined Bosnian Muslim forces in the Balkan Wars; the US did not object, just as it tolerated Iranian support for them, for complex reasons that we need not pursue here, apart from noting that concern for the grim fate of the Bosnians was not prominent among them. The "Afghanis" are also fighting the Russians in Chechnya, and, quite possibly, are involved in carrying out terrorist attacks in Moscow and elsewhere in Russian territory. Bin Laden and his "Afghanis" turned against the US in 1990 when they established permanent bases in Saudi Arabia -- from his point of view, a counterpart to the Russian occupation of Afghanistan, but far more significant because of Saudi Arabia's special status as the guardian of the holiest shrines.
Bin Laden is also bitterly opposed to the corrupt and repressive regimes of the region, which he regards as "un-Islamic," including the Saudi Arabian regime, the most extreme Islamic fundamentalist regime in the world, apart from the Taliban, and a close US ally since its origins. Bin Laden despises the US for its support of these regimes. Like others in the region, he is also outraged by long-standing US support for Israel's brutal military occupation, now in its 35th year: Washington's decisive diplomatic, military, and economic intervention in support of the killings, the harsh and destructive siege over many years, the daily humiliation to which Palestinians are subjected, the expanding settlements designed to break the occupied territories into Bantustan-like cantons and take control of the resources, the gross violation of the Geneva Conventions, and other actions that are recognised as crimes throughout most of the world, apart from the US, which has prime responsibility for them. And like others, he contrasts Washington's dedicated support for these crimes with the decade-long US-British assault against the civilian population of Iraq, which has devastated the society and caused hundreds of thousands of deaths while strengthening Saddam Hussein -- who was a favoured friend and ally of the US and Britain right through his worst atrocities, including the gassing of the Kurds, as people of the region also remember well, even if Westerners prefer to forget the facts. These sentiments are very widely shared. The ‘Wall Street Journal’ (Sept. 14) published a survey of opinions of wealthy and privileged Muslims in the Gulf region (bankers, professionals, businessmen with close links to the U.S.). They expressed much the same views: resentment of the U.S. policies of supporting Israeli crimes and blocking the international consensus on a diplomatic settlement for many years while devastating Iraqi civilian society, supporting harsh and repressive anti-democratic regimes throughout the region, and imposing barriers against economic development by "propping up oppressive regimes."
Among the great majority of people suffering deep poverty and oppression, similar sentiments are far more bitter, and are the source of the fury and despair that has led to suicide bombings, as commonly understood by those who are interested in the facts. The U.S., and much of the West, prefers a more comforting story. To quote the lead analysis in the ‘New York Times’ (Sept. 16), the perpetrators acted out of "hatred for the values cherished in the West as freedom, tolerance, prosperity, religious pluralism and universal suffrage." U.S. actions are irrelevant, and therefore need not even be mentioned (Serge Schmemann). This is a convenient picture, and the general stance is not unfamiliar in intellectual history; in fact, it is close to the norm. It happens to be completely at variance with everything we know, but has all the merits of self-adulation and uncritical support for power. It is also widely recognised that Bin Laden and others like him are praying for "a great assault on Muslim states," which will cause "fanatics to flock to his cause" (Jenkins, and many others.). That too is familiar. The escalating cycle of violence is typically welcomed by the harshest and most brutal elements on both sides, a fact evident enough from the recent history of the Balkans, to cite only one of many cases.

Q: What consequences will they have on US inner policy and to the American self reception?

US policy has already been officially announced. The world is being offered a "stark choice": join us, or "face the certain prospect of death and destruction." Congress has authorised the use of force against any individuals or countries the President determines to be involved in the attacks, a doctrine that every supporter regards as ultra-criminal. That is easily demonstrated. Simply ask how the same people would have reacted if Nicaragua had adopted this doctrine after the U.S. had rejected the orders of the World Court to terminate its "unlawful use of force" against Nicaragua and had vetoed a Security Council resolution calling on all states to observe international law. And that terrorist attack was far more severe and destructive even than this atrocity.
As for how these matters are perceived here, that is far more complex. One should bear in mind that the media and the intellectual elite's generally have their particular agendas.
Furthermore, the answer to this question is, in significant measure, a matter of decision: as in many other cases, with sufficient dedication and energy, efforts to stimulate fanaticism, blind hatred, and submission to authority can be reversed. We all know that very well.

Q: Do you expect U.S. to profoundly change their policy to the rest of the world?

The initial response was to call for intensifying the policies that led to the fury and resentment that provides the background of support for the terrorist attack, and to pursue more intensively the agenda of the most hard line elements of the leadership: increased militarisation, domestic regimentation, attack on social programs.
That is all to be expected. Again, terror attacks, and the escalating cycle of violence they often engender, tend to reinforce the authority and prestige of the most harsh and repressive elements of a society. But there is nothing inevitable about submission to this course.

Q: After the first shock, came fear of what the U.S. answer is going to be. Are you afraid, too?

Every sane person should be afraid of the likely reaction - the one that has already been announced, the one that probably answers Bin Laden's prayers. It is highly likely to escalate the cycle of violence, in the familiar way, but in this case on a far greater scale. The U.S. has already demanded that Pakistan terminate the food and other supplies that are keeping at least some of the starving and suffering people of Afghanistan alive. If that demand is implemented, unknown numbers of people who have not the remotest connection to terrorism will die, possibly millions.
Let me repeat: the U.S. has demanded that Pakistan kill possibly millions of people who are themselves victims of the Taliban. This has nothing to do even with revenge. It is at a far lower moral level even than that. The significance is heightened by the fact that this is mentioned in passing, with no comment, and probably will hardly be noticed. We can learn a great deal about the moral level of the reigning intellectual culture of the West by observing the reaction to this demand. I think we can be reasonably confident that if the American population had the slightest idea of what is being done in their name, they would be utterly appalled. It would be instructive to seek historical precedents. If Pakistan does not agree to this and other U.S. demands, it may come under direct attack as well - with unknown consequences. If Pakistan does submit to U.S. demands, it is not impossible that the government will be overthrown by forces much like the Taliban - who in this case will have nuclear weapons. That could have an effect throughout the region, including the oil producing states. At this point we are considering the possibility of a war that may destroy much of human society. Even without pursuing such possibilities, the likelihood is that an attack on Afghans will have pretty much the effect that most analysts expect: it will enlist great numbers of others to support of Bin Laden, as he hopes. Even if he is killed, it will make little difference. His voice will be heard on cassettes that are distributed throughout the Islamic world, and he is likely to be revered as a martyr, inspiring others. It is worth bearing in mind that one suicide bombing - a truck driven into a U.S. military base - drove the world's major military force out of Lebanon 20 years ago. The opportunities for such attacks are endless. And suicide attacks are very hard to prevent.

Q: "The world will never be the same after 11.09.01". Do you think so?

The horrendous terrorist attacks on Tuesday are something quite new in world affairs, not in their scale and character, but in the target. For the US, this is the first time since the War of 1812 that its national territory has been under attack, even threat. Its colonies have been attacked, but not the national territory itself. During these years the US virtually exterminated the indigenous population, conquered half of Mexico, intervened violently in the surrounding region, conquered Hawaii and the Philippines (killing hundreds of thousands of Filipinos), and in the past half century particularly, extended its resort to force throughout much of the world. The number of victims is colossal. For the first time, the guns have been directed the other way. The same is true, even more dramatically, of Europe. Europe has suffered murderous destruction, but from internal wars, meanwhile conquering much of the world with extreme brutality. It has not been under attack by its victims outside, with rare exceptions. It is therefore natural that NATO should rally to the support of the US; hundreds of years of imperial violence have an enormous impact on the intellectual and moral culture. It is correct to say that this is a novel event in world history, not because of the scale of the atrocity -- regrettably -- but because of the target. How the West chooses to react is a matter of supreme importance. If the rich and powerful choose to keep to their traditions of hundreds of years and resort to extreme violence, they will contribute to the escalation of a cycle of violence, in a familiar dynamic, with long-term consequences that could be awesome. Of course, that is by no means inevitable. An aroused public within the more free and democratic societies can direct policies towards a much more humane and honourable course.

‘OLD HEAD’ DIRECT ACTION CONTINUES

On September 30th it was over the walls once more as protestors climbed the ancient castle walls that enclose the Old Head of Kinsale golf course. It was the fourth occasion in as many months that the people had reclaimed their right to walk this headland. Despite new fences and a heavy security presence the
protestors were not deterred.
The Golf course was built by the millionaire O'Connor brothers as an exclusive retreat for the rich elite of the world (with Green Fees of £190, the highest in
Ireland) However hundreds of people have made it their business too defend the right to walk the headland, a tradition that goes back to who knows when. I met a man on the August peoples picnic who had walked there as a child he is now eighty years old.
The entire approach of the campaign has been direct action. Most effort has been put into getting people down there and publicising the campaign. On the day things just follow a natural course. The success of the campaign and the widespread sympathy it has evoked thus far has resulted in a campaign of black propaganda by the golf course. It is clearly a sign that the campaign is beginning to bite. The recent US tragedy resulted in the deaths of at least 8 clients of the course and the cancellation of hundreds of bookings. The increasingly desperate O'Connors have threatened to close the course if the Supreme Court rules that they must allow public access in accordance with the planning permission.
For the campaign it is case of looking beyond the courts. No one has any illusions in the supreme court, experience has demonstrated that people power alone will secure unfettered access to the Old Head. The campaign is now reviewing what tactics to adopt as the Winter comes in.

HEAD TEACHERS UNION EXPOSES BIAS AGAINST MEN AND ITS DAMAGING EFFECTS ON OUR SCHOOLS

Fem Turner, regional official for the National Association of Head Teachers has claimed at that unions recent annual conference in Templepatrick that male teachers are suffering a new era of discrimination in schools across the north.

Mrs Turner said: "I believe that we are in a new era of discrimination in which men are being victimised... this is having a detrimental impact on the education system and our children. It would appear that many people believe that only men are capable of abuse and that we should question the integrity and intention of any man that chooses to work in education. The result is that fewer men are choosing education as a career and those who are live in terror of an allegation being made against them."

Mrs Turner told the unions delegates at the Dunadry Hotel that the importance of child protection cannot be overstated.

"However it is beholden on us to ensure that our children are not taught to fear one half of the population. By exposing them to the 'male menace' we leave them vulnerable to people like Hindley and West."

She also stated that men found themselves in a vulnerable position when harassment charges were made between staff.

THE 3rd WORLD WAR - MESSAGE TO THE ANTI-GLOBALALISATION MOVEMENT FROM LORENZO-KOM'BOA ERVIN

Message to the Anti-Globalisation Movement by Lorenzo Komboa Ervin 5,000 people have been killed in a murderous attack just a few days ago, clearly stemming from past events in the Middle East. Although the President of the United States correctly refers to this as "acts of war", he does not tell us that this war has been raging for many years, and is fuelled by long standing American support of Israel, acting as its military proxy. The US is "no peace loving country," it is the world's largest salesmen of military armaments and has its hands in most of the wars waging around the globe. Although millions have died around the world because of these wars, thousands have now died in this country because of the militaristic policies of this government, not just because of some scapegoat "Mad Mullahs" in Afghanistan, Iran or Palestine. The USA is the world's most hated colonial power. But in the name of those thousands recently killed in the USA, the President is planning for what he calls a "global war against terrorism". This global war, based on the new "Bush-Powell interventionist doctrine" will allow them to assemble an international war coalition of western powers to invade, occupy, and destroy numerous countries in the name of retaliation and "fighting terrorism”. President Bush says that this war will last for years, and will essentially allow political assassination of heads of state, terrorist suspects, and other individuals and groups on the anti-American "death list" of the CIA and military forces. This is state terrorism itself, if not outright imperialist aggression, even if it is cloaked in the garb of "national defence." It could lead to World War 3 and it must be opposed.But instead of opposing this new stage of capitalist military and political domination, the anti-globalisation movement is retreating. It is mourning, instead of organising. The Movement for Global Justice (and other organisations which make up the movement) recently postponed its demonstrations in Washington, D.C. against the International Monetary Fund because of the attacks on September 11th. It is not clear that they intend to do anything in this period of crisis at all, and may even be dismantling its coalition entirely.Even though this act of terror in the USA could be just the beginning of an all out war, the anti-globalisation movement, a mass movement of millions and probably the most active anti-capitalist movement to be seen in decades, is taking a position of neutrality, if not outright abstention. However, if they passively stand by, these events could ultimately result in the slaying of millions, even resulting in the use of nuclear weapons. Further, the USA is not immune to another attack, killing even more like at the WTC. Where does it stop? According to Bush "if we hit them hard enough, they will give up". This will not happen.Because there can be no peace without social justice, we must oppose this war on political and moral grounds. International poverty and racial/neo-colonial oppression are at the root of the conflict in the Middle East and many parts of the world. The same international elite that exploit the 3rd world and poor people at home are the same ones who would benefit from a war. They make and sell the military armaments, they benefit from Defence Department government contracts, and they have the cosiest relationship with the Wall Street. The International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organisation, and other capitalist international institutions would love a war, and clearly covet Middle East oil reserves, which would be theirs outright if they can take over from those "meddlesome" Arab nationalist regimes and the oppressed peoples of those countries. And if they can silence the anti-globalisation movement and other international movements, they can do that with ease. Clearly this movement cannot police itself for international capitalism, no matter the nature of this war, that is whether it seems "just" from the U.S. side. We cannot see the world as Americans, but rather as internationalists.It is racism and national chauvinism to only be concerned with American deaths instead of consistent international mass murders of innocent civilians. Using right-wing patriotism, the U.S. politicians are pushing us towards a global catastrophe. The task of the Anarchists especially in the anti-globalisation movement has to be to build an *anti-war* movement in opposition to any further military engagement. This retaliation is not for the good of the people of the USA or the rest of the world, it is for global domination. This anti-war movement has to understand that it must call for an end to international terrorism, both that of small internal non-state resistance groups and that of nation-states. It must use its force of numbers and ability to gum up the works to prevent what clearly could be world war 3. After a few years of war, it will not matter who started it, the blood of civilian victims will flow like wine or water. We need to put ourselves in harm's way to stop this military preparedness, and prevent further attacks by the war-mongers on both sides. Clearly, the anti-globalisation movement has the numbers and the organisation to be a major factor in building an international anti-war resistance, now whether it has the political will to do so is another matter entirely. One thing for sure, whatever it does now will impact its legacy, and either the victims of the future will curse its inaction or praise its bravery.
Lorenzo Komboa Ervin

GLOBAL & LOCAL - A GRASSROOTS GATHERING

Friends,The last ten years have seen an upsurge in radical activity. From the Zapatistas in Mexico, to the anti-road protests, to the campaigns against the Bin Tax and Reclaim the Streets actions to anti-incinerator/dump struggles and the mass demonstrations against the WTO and IMF in Seattle, Prague, Quebec and Genoa, people have been organising to take back control of their lives.We've all been inspired by the way actions like these have brought so many different people together, organised as equals and without hierarchy. This wave of increasing mobilisation has offered fierce resistance to the notion that the world must be ruled from above by a tiny elite of bankers, politicians and billionaire tycoons, showing how millions of people can effectively organise without them.In Ireland, although there have been many campaigns on these issues, we haven't always been as successful at keeping campaigns open and decentralised, in getting a radical message across or in avoiding the co-optation, fragmentation and professionalisation of activism. That's why we* think it's time to set
up a new bottom-up (grassroots, libertarian, anarchist, participatory, anti-authoritarian) network.This network would- Be based on the principle that people should control their own lives and work together as equals, as part of how we work as well as what we are working towards.- Within the network this means rejecting top-down and state-centred forms of organisation (hierarchical, authoritarian, expert-based, Leninist etc.) We need a network that's open, decentralised, and really democratic.- Call for solutions that involve ordinary people controlling their own lives and having the resources to do so: the abolition, not reform, of global bodies like the World Bank and WTO, and a challenge to underlying structures of power and inequality.- Organise for the control of the workplace by those who work there.- Call for the control of communities by the people who live there.- Argue for a sustainable environmental, economic and social system, agreed by the people of the planet.- Working together in ways which are accessible to ordinary people, particularly women and working-class people, rather than reproducing feelings of disempowerment and alienation within our own network.This won't stop us from working with other groups, of course. We still think it's essential that, when we campaign against the effects of economic globalisation, we have as many people as possible on board. So we will continue to work with NGO's for example, even if they spend as much time attending summits as protesting against them.But we think that it's time for us to start talking to each other and making our voices heard as a distinct trend within the movement. So we'd like to invite you to a meeting on 24th November in The Teachers Club, 36 Parnell Square, Dublin, where we can talk about what we have in common and what we might gain from working together. While we will be bringing some proposals to the meeting we think it's important that there is plenty of room for your ideas as well and that decisions should only start to be made once everyone in agreement with this letter has a chance to participate.Signed by
Nick Jones (Irish Mexico Group - personal capacity)
Eoin Ó Broin (Gluaiseacht - personal capacity)
Laurence Cox (Maynooth community researcher)
Members of Workers Solidarity Movement
Members of Anarcho-Syndicalist Federation
Members of Alliance of Cork Anarchists* The initial group (above) calling this gathering includes men and women from Dublin, Belfast, Cork, Derry and Limerick. We intend to dissolve once it is underway so that the gathering itself can freely choose if, how and who will continue to co-ordinate the network.

Proposed structure for gathering

We propose that our gathering take place over two days, the first to be comprised of general discussions between those who attend as below and the second, for those interested in ensuring this process continues, to set up some form of formal co-ordination structure.

Agenda -
Day 1 Saturday Nov 24 2001 - Teachers Club - (reg 11.00 sharp)
Three sessions each of which will comprise a very short introduction followed by small group facilitated discussions of the topic with key points being noted and displayed around the venue for people in the other groups. This method has been used with some success at similar gatherings internationally
Session 1 - (Introduction Nick Jones)
Who are we and why have we come here
Session 2 - (Introduction by Eoin Ó Broin)
The what, why and when of bottom up organisation
Session 3
(Introduction by Laurence Cox) - What can we do together in the future
Agenda Day 2 - Sunday 25 Nov - Spacecraft – (Start time to be announced)
Discussion of concrete proposals of structure and activity for those who agree with the points outlined in the letter. We encourage groups and individuals to submit written proposals in advance of this session but also hope that the
previous days workshops will result in new ideas which can be made concrete at these discussions.
Day 1 of this event will be held Saturday 24th November in the downstairs hall in the Teachers Club, 36 Parnell Sq, Dublin.
Day 2 will take place in Spacecraft, North Wall. Dublin
This is a preliminary notice to which changes may be made. Contact us to make sure you are told of these changes and also so we can have an idea of how many are likely to attend and plan accordingly.
To receive further updates about this gathering by email send an email to
grassrootsgathering-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
By post send a letter to Grassroots gathering at any of the PO Boxes below
Belfast - c/o PO Box 505, Belfast, BT12 6BQ
Dublin - c/o PO Box 1528, Dublin 8
Cork - c/o PO Box 31, Sorting Office, Cork
By phone ring Andrew at 087 9934150 --- By email contact us at GGcontact@yahoogroups.com
More information on the web at
http://grassrootsgathering.freeservers.com
[A nicely laid out two page PDF file of this text is available on the web page. Please consider downloading this, printing it out and distributing it to interested people]

BIN THE TAX

The focus of the Dublin anti-bin tax campaign has been on non payment. Locally organised groups have been canvassing leafleting and postering against the bin tax. The numbers show that they are having a substantial success rate. A major show down is looming with a belligerent city management determined to follow the rest of the country first in imposing the tax and ultimately farming out refuse collect to the private sector. There are fortunes to be made. However the anti-bin tax campaign is putting this master plan in danger.
In Cork the number of campaigners gaoled has reached seven. The first week in October saw Antoin O hAnnrachain imprisoned for 3 days in Cork prison for
refusing to pay a litter fine levied as a result of placing domestic refuse on the steps of City Hall. This is part of an ongoing protest over non collection. The City manager has stopped sending litter wardens to give out fines at the protest as a result of the obvious resolve of the campaigners and the reams of negative publicity the gaolings have generated.
The situation is deadlocked. The sticker system introduced over a year ago to demarcate payers and non-payers has been quietly abandoned or suspended (depending who you are) but the council is still insistent that the payments must be made.
The campaign group Householders Against Service Charges is now planning to return to a campaign of actively encouraging non payment through leaflets
posters and canvassing. This will mirror the fight taking place in Dublin and elsewhere. The idea of backing election candidates has been mooted by people
in the Cork campaign, this will be strongly opposed by those of us who believe in direct action, unfortunately some parts of the Dublin campaign have already decide to back local candidates. This is a big distraction from the important work that needs to go on at a community level, the struggle will be won or lost through mass action by people refusing to pay and acting in solidarity with one another when the heat comes on whether that is through non collection or court proceedings.
Overall the campaign is growing stronger with more and more people becoming involved. It will lead to a serious confrontation between local government and the people.