Welcome to the first edition of what may become an irregular update,
focussed on how we can best put the war drive into reverse by using
Direct Action to Stop The War. Apologies if you see this bulletin
more than once in you inbox - as wide as possible distribution may
occasionally mean multiple arrivals by different paths. The HTML
version got truncated for 5/8ths of recipients, so I'm hoping this
text_only_version reaches you intact.

==============================================================
Direct Action to Stop The War - Bulletin One.text_only_version
==============================================================
Tue 12 Nov 02 - internationalism_plus@...

Contents
--------
Introduction
Why Direct Action? Why Not Another Traditional March?
And Aren't Protesters Undemocratic?
Are Our Actions Proportionate to the Threatened Death Toll We
Oppose?
Is Direct Action Popular?
Is Signing the Direct Action to Stop The War Petition Safe?
What Happened When You Presented the BREAK THE BOND Proposal to
the STWC National Steering Committee?
Shall We Promote Direct Action to Stop the War by Email?
Shall We Promote Direct Action to Stop the War on the Web?
Shall We Promote Direct Action to Stop The War at the STWC
Conference on Sat 7 Dec 02?
Cars Not People, or What's The Point of BREAK THE BOND DAY?
National Or Local Action?
Is Arrest Automatic and Is There a Role for Supporters?
How Long Do We Maintain Our Blockade?
Can We Make Links to the Firefighters Strike?
Any Other Messages of Support?
Conclusion

==============================================================
Introduction
------------
Thank you to all the people who have expressed interest and support
for Direct Action to Stop The War. In particular, my thanks to all of
you who have contributed to the development of the BREAK THE BOND
Proposal for an anti-war nonviolent direct action (NVDA) to deliver a
short, sharp gridlock shock to central London on Sun 21 Dec 02 - for
the full low down on the current shape of the proposal please see:

* http://www.internationalism.plus.com

And if you haven't done so already, please take a moment RIGHT NOW to
add your name to the Direct Action to Stop The War Petition at:

* http://www.petitiononline.com/DA2STW/petition.html

I wish I had the time to reply to you all individually, but this
bulletin will (I hope) deal with all the issues you've raised
collectively. Warning: it's a long 'un, so you may want to print it
out and/or set aside 30 minutes to read it through. Some names may
have been changed to respect the privacy of contributors.

==============================================================
Why Direct Action? Why Not Another Traditional March?
And Aren't Protesters Undemocratic?
-----------------------------------------------------
This is such an important, coherent and congruent opinion that I feel
obliged to quote it in full (other contributions have been edited).

On Sun 10 Nov, Lee Smith wrote:
"I've just logged in and found your message, felt that you deserved a
reply quickly, so please bear in mind that the following reflects
only my own opinions, and not those of the Exeter Stop the War
Coalition. We will certainly be discussing your email at our next
meeting.
I'm glad that you agree that the March on the 28th was a success,
and I'm glad that you felt that the success of the event lay in the
broad spectrum of those attending. I'm also glad that you felt that
the 31st was also a success. Locally we know that events went well,
and it's good to hear news from the rest of the country.
As you say, however, the number of people taking part in non-
violent direct action on the 31st represented only 3% of those
attending the march. The issue for those of us already convinced of
the danger and immorality of what we perceive as an imminent attack
on Iraq must be that of how to convince others to join us in active
opposition.
And this is a very serious problem, when we consider that the four
hundred thousand who marched in London represent roughly only 0.6% of
the population.
We must persuade others to join us.
The question I would ask you is what are we trying to achieve with
non-violent direct action? Obviously the aim is to change our
government's mind over the issue of an attack in Iraq. But how? Are
we hoping to make life so uncomfortable for citizens that the
government is forced to change its policy? To hold the country to
ransom? Or are we simply trying to raise our profile, persuade
others that we are right, and to join us?
I have to confess that I feel that non-violent direct action would
be unsuccessful and maybe counterproductive in achieving either end.
I would even question whether it is democratic for 0.6% of the
public to attempt to determine the policy of the whole country.
What I feel is that direct action will only appeal to those
already committed. We must reach out to those who are not. These
are the ordinary people, who would normally never dream of joining a
public demonstration, let alone breaking the law with political
motive. Opinion polls suggest that around 65% of the voting public
are either opposed to, or are undecided about an attack on Iraq. We
need to turn this silent dissent into active opposition. If a
million turned out in February, that could not be ignored. Achieving
those numbers would be a hard task. Persuading them to turn to non
state sanctioned protest would be even harder.
As I said, these views are my own, and we will certainly discuss
what you suggest at our next meeting. I will also distribute your
email as widely as I can.
In Peace, and with Love"

Thanks so much, Lee - for the clarity of your argument, and
especially for both re-distributing a message with which you have
such principled disagreements and for raising the issue of direct
action in the Exeter STW Group - your democratic actions are
exemplary.

First, the numbers game - or the Condoleeza Rice argument that "Only
350,000 in a country whose population runs in millions is just a drop
in the bucket. No wonder the New York Times did not find it news fit
to print." Methinks the lady doth protest too much! But as Dubya's
hawkish, ideologue Assistant to the President for National Security
Affairs, she was only doing her job for the Washington warmongers.

To belittle the biggest peace demonstration the UK has ever seen, you
can look at it this way: UK population = 60m, Demo = 400,000 so only
0.67% were demonstrating. On the other hand, as Helen Salmon has
pointed out, one in every 150 UK citizens were on that demonstration!
And as numerous polls point out, only a minority of the UK population
approve of a military attack on Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein - 38%
according to the latest ICM/Guardian poll (for full details see
http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2002/OmIraq8.pdf). So how do we
get the 40% who tell pollsters they disapprove of a military attack
on Iraq to turn their opinion into EFFECTIVE anti-war action?

I'll deal with that vital question shortly, but next there's the
question of 'democracy'. On 28 Sep, John Pilger said:
"Today is the beginning of true democracy. Today we represent the
majority of the British people. If they attack Iraq, Bush and Blair
will be war criminals. We are the moderates. They are the extremists.
Our resistance to their murderous plans must be unrelenting."

Those who 'disapprove' or 'don't know' when questioned about a
military attack on Iraq outnumber those who 'approve' by nearly 2 to
1. Our protests DO fairly represent the democratic will of the UK
population. Tiny Blur only very belatedly recalled Parliament, for a
discussion about the war, under the pressure of public protest - but
not for a debate, because that would involve a vote, and he couldn't
afford the embarrassment of 58 MPs rebel New Labour MPs voting
against attacking Iraq. Jack "Head Full of" Straw has said there may
be a vote in Parliament, but only AFTER UK forces are already
attacking Iraq!?! Eeee, I don't know, but there's nowt like war to
expose just how much of a hollow sham the stiflingly narrow
parliamentary 'democracy' the capitalist class 'allow' us really is,
eh?

I could spin off into how disempowering their shambolic parliamentary
circus really is, and conversely how personally empowering it is to
NOT give your political power away to one of three thoroughly pro-
capitalist politicians in local or national elections; but rather to
use your autonomous political power DIRECTLY, through direct
participatory democracy and through taking collective direct action
with like minded citizens. But it's more important to focus on the
differences between the 'left wing of capital' and revolutionary anti-
capitalists in their approaches to political protest.

The traditional UK left and NGO approach has evolved as a 'softly-
softly' strategy: sign a petition, wear a badge/sticker, put a poster
in your window, write to your local paper, to your MP and to the
national press, vote for the lesser of two evils, lobby your MP in
the Palace of Westminster, listen to 'leaders' (often MPs, TU bosses,
clerics, etc) at OUR rally, wave one of OUR placards on OUR A to B
route march, and most importantly join OUR party so we can tell you
what to think and how to behave. In the logical limit, their protests
must be symbolic, tokenistic and apologetic for the regrettable
disruption they cause.

In pursuing this approach, as left communists have pointed out, they
are acting as the 'left wing of capital' - doing all the things the
capitalist state 'allows' its citizens to do in protest at the
atrocities which decomposing capitalism visits upon people and
planet, decade after decade. They are acting as the safety valve that
releases the dangerous pressure of anti-capitalist anger, in all its
myriad single-issue forms, in a safe and - most importantly -
INEFFECTIVE way. Subjectively, they sincerely believe they are doing
great work for human and environmental improvement, a compassionate
tomorrow, a progressive global revolution, etc. Objectively, they are
stifling the potentially revolutionary anti-capitalist anger of
citizens by channelling disobedience, revolt and rebellion into state-
sanctioned 'legitimate' protest; and by showing the capitalist state
which particular crumbs of reform will buy off the current most
numerous factions of anti-capitalist anger - be it a UN resolution,
an anti-fox hunting bill, or whatever - they actively help perpetuate
a crumbling economic system which can only bring global humanity more
famine, war and environmental degradation. How? By helping to paper
over the ever-widening cracks in the new world order with INEFFECTIVE
protests.

Fortunately, increasing numbers of people are beginning to see just
how hollow and worthless this traditional approach is. The most clear-
sighted sections of the emergent anti-capitalist movement recognise
that the law is a tool of capitalism, specifically designed with one
principle task in mind: to guarantee the unfettered accumulation of
capital - and inversely to outlaw effective anti-capitalist action,
be it 'secondary picketing', political strikes or collective direct
action. Since we can't escape the logic with which our class enemies
are increasingly criminalising dissent and protest, then we should -
and indeed are - beginning to celebrate disobedience, revolt and
rebellion. We should APPEAL to people angered by the blatant and
increasing injustices perpetrated by decomposing capitalism:

* DITCH the traditional approach of begging for crumbs of reform
or a
bigger sliver of pie from the high table; and

* JOIN US in planning for how we expropriate the whole bakery
(without compensation to the former capitalist 'owners'), so we
can
plan and run a classless, peaceful, just and rational global
society.

Or, as a certain Mr V. I. Lenin would have it, "One can never be
radical enough."

In my opinion, the concrete consequence of this revolutionary
approach to the current anti-war movement is that we need to design
and mobilise for a single, concentrated, MASS direct action, that
aims to achieve these four objectives.

1. To encourage the hundreds of thousands of peace protesters who
comprised
the UK's biggest ever peace demonstration, AND the millions
of 'disapprovers'
who wished they had been there, to take the next logical step
forward - into
nonviolent civil disobedience.

2. To create an act of mass civil disobedience which transcends
tokenistic or
symbolic-only actions by having a significant and non-trivial
effect on the
smooth economic running of London by targeting the busiest
shopping day of
the year.

3. To give participants a direct and uplifting experience of our
enormous
collective strength, when we all choose to pull together in an
imaginative
and well co-ordinated way.

4. To minimise the risk of arrest while maximising our economic
impact, and to
emphasise the VITAL role of non-arrest-risk supporters play on the
ground.

Now, to deal with two of Lee's very important questions:

* "Are we hoping to make life so uncomfortable for citizens that the
government
is forced to change its policy?" NO!

* Are we hoping to demonstrate how we will make life so
uncomfortable for
capitalist profitability and accumulation that the government
is forced
to change its policy? Why, yes, Yes and thrice YES!!

* "Or are we simply trying to raise our profile, persuade others that
we are
right, and to join us?"

* This may or may not be simple, but it is NOT mutually
exclusive; and I

think we'll succeed rather than just keep on trying. So, YES,
we are
going to raise our profile, persuade others that we are right,
and to
join us in taking Direct Action to Stop The War!

Now I don't doubt for a moment that the media will use every slur in
the cesspool of their sub-editorial minds against us - 'holding the
country to ransom', 'dangerous scrooges', 'violent hell-bent
anarchists', and so on and so forth, and things of that nature
generally. But remember that the media ARE after all the Fourth
Estate, alongside the monarchy, the lords and the commons - and are
therefore the mouthpiece of the capitalist class dictatorship against
which we wage our anti-war struggle. So we must NEVER allow any "Oh,
I don't know, really - what will the papers say?" considerations to
constrain us for a moment in the design and execution of our mass,
collective direct actions. In our press work, we may justifiably
demand that our point of view be reported fairly, but the presses and
the TV stations are currently owned and run by capitalists, and (as
yet) beyond our direct control.

To some, like Lee, this may seem a little too 'extreme' to try to win
the active support of 'ordinary people'. But I say this: the rewards
of winning these arguments in favour of mass, collective, EFFECTIVE
direct action are immeasurably great; while the consequences of
steering people towards yet more tokenistic, symbolic, INEFFECTIVE
traditional action are dire indeed.

======================================================================
========
Are Our Actions Proportionate to the Threatened Death Toll We Oppose?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu 10 Oct, Jello Biafra wrote:
"I have been thinking recently about the extremely polite nature of
direct action in the UK and how it can make us lack credibility. If
we are REALLY taking direct action to stop the bombing and starving
of hundreds or thousands of men, women and children in our names,
(which is what we claim in all our propaganda), if we REALLY believe
that, then surely we should be more resolute and more angry about it.
Often I feel that our actions don't measure up to the issues we
claim to be doing them for. I am not saying we should hold up fire
engines, just that we should think long and hard about making our
actions as hard hitting as the issues we say they are about, and not
just automatically go for the polite, non-arrestable, symbolic option
without questioning it.
[...]
If we can shut down London [...] then we can raise a lot of issues
and I feel that the more convincing our actions, the more
convincingly we can make those points.
Gridlock, combined with good direct publicity (flyers etc) and
press (yuk, but in this case probably really important) could (for
example, just some ideas) really effectively raise the issues of how
having your city bombed can "inconvenience" the inhabitants.
It can also raise awareness of the fact that the only way to
actually stop Britain backing Bush into the third world war is to
stick a spanner in the countries infrastructure (shutting roads,
demonstrating, workers strikes against the war etc...) so big that
the government physically cannot go to war. (This can be seen from
the examples of the few SUCCESSFUL people power mobilisations against
war, such as Germany in 1918-9 or Russia in 1917)
I hope this is seen as interesting stuff for debate/use in action
and not just annoying e-mail list bashing!!"

Abso-blinking-lutely, Jello! The Tiny Blur/G. Dubya Shrub proposal to
slaughter scores of thousands of our Iraqi sisters and brothers to
win control of Iraqi oil reserves DEMANDS that we design and
participate in the most serious and hard-hitting NVDA we can devise -
to hit the capitalist warmongers in the only language they truly
understand: the bottom line. Crippling London's retail economy for
one afternoon may not be enough; yet at least it points us in the
right direction, towards the kind of economy-halting mass,
collective, direct action measures you mention, and with a nod of
appreciation of the historical successes such actions have won from
WW1 to today.

If we can harness the resources of the national Stop The War
Coalition, and hopefully other national organisations like (but not
limited to) CND, MAB, etc, then we can more readily produce "good
direct publicity (flyers etc) and press" by flooding national and
local papers with pro-BREAK THE BOND DAY letters and other media-
related advances in preparation for taking the action itself.

======================================================================
========
Is Direct Action Popular?
-------------------------
On Sun 20 Oct, Alan Lipcher asked:
"What sort of response have you had from London groups to your call
for action on 31st?"

Extremely encouraging and even more so on the national scale, as you
may be able to judge from the upbeat tone of this bulletin. Which is
why I chose to use a tool of mass popular direct democracy and create
the Direct Action to Stop The War Petition at:

* http://www.petitiononline.com/DA2STW/petition.html

...so everybody can add his or her name to a call for direct action
in Dec 02, BEFORE the war begins.

However, the timescale may be too short for this tactic to work as
effectively as it might. Which is why it is SO important for everyone
who thinks we should be taking action against the war BEFORE it
begins to circulate the URGENT ACTION APPEAL email message at:

*
http://www.internationalism.plus.com/URGENT_ACTION_APPEAL_Email.html

*
http://www.internationalism.plus.com/URGENT_ACTION_APPEAL_Email.doc

...as widely as possible - to friends, relatives, peace contacts and
relevant email lists (and I recommend that you follow it up by
forwarding this message to the same people and places).

======================================================================
========
Is Signing the Direct Action to Stop The War Petition Safe?
-----------------------------------------------------------
On Sun, 10 Nov Steph Steel wrote:
"Good effort Tim,
If you don't get too many signatures don't be put off. A lot of
people are worried that the state might access them. And there's also
the worry about viruses. The later strains collect email address from
web sites."

Unfortunately, there are, as you rightly to point out, some technical
drawbacks to using an online petition. As the hosts at
petitiononline.com point out:

"PetitionOnline.com has temporarily disabled the display of email
addresses for signatories who chose to make their address public. We
have done this to reduce the spread of the SirCam virus which
harvests email addresses from the web cache of infected computers. To
learn more about the SirCam virus and download a free tool for
removing the virus, visit Symantec's virus definition page."

...but you don't see that unless you 'View Current Signatures' before
signing yourself.

In the signing process, you get to see the following:

"Explanation of Email Address Privacy Options:
- "Private" means your email address is stored in a secure private
location, for signature validation only."

Finally, if you click on the 'Privacy' link, you get to see the
following:

"Privacy Policy
Artifice, Inc. has created this privacy statement in order to
demonstrate our firm commitment to privacy. The following discloses
our information gathering and dissemination practices for this
website: http://www.PetitionOnline.com.
A valid email address is required as part of each petition signature.
This email address is used to privately confirm signatures. It is not
added to any mailing list at PetitionOnline.com, and it is not sold
to third parties. [...]"

Sure, it may not suit everybody's criteria for privacy. However,
given the jurisdictional issues of UK state access to US-based
privately-owned servers, I'm hoping it's good enough privacy for a
big majority of potential signatories.

======================================================================
========
What Happened When You Presented the BREAK THE BOND Proposal
to the STWC National Steering Committee?
------------------------------------------------------------
On Sun 10 Nov, a STWC national steering committee member wrote:
"Hi Tim, somebody suggested I forward a copy of my (unauthorised)
minutes to you. [For which many thanks, comrade.]
[...]
Report on STOP THE WAR STEERING COMMITTEE
04/11/02 6.30 prompt - 8.00
Present 35+, 20 of whom spoke. Various Socialists represented either
as reps from their party or from TU, STWC officers. CND (observer),
Palestine Solidarity Campaign, 2 reps from Moslem organisations, 2
Kurdish reps. 2 direct action representatives. Green Party - Margaret
Wright, [...] Jeremy Corbyn MP.
[...]
2) FUTURE EVENTS & STWC by Lindsey German
[...]
Tim Jones (S London STWC) proposed - in a well prepared submission -
that we block [many key strategic transport nodes simultaneously] -
for a period of time one Saturday before Xmas, say 21/12/02. (Ref:
http://www.internationalism.plus.com) This proposal came out of the
discussion at the South London STWC aggregate, etc - significantly
because this level of district organisation does not exist in most
areas therefore this type of discussion is not taking place
elsewhere. Most subsequent speakers are against this proposal but
there is no thorough discussion. For instance, John Rees (SWP) says
there must be a massive turn out for 15/02/03 and we cannot do much
else really; mass turn out not minority action."

Which is pretty fair reading of what happened. If I had had more
notice (my written request to the STWC officers went unanswered - a
comrade in a Disobedients Network gathering the day before told me
about the meeting details) I could have got a summary of the proposal
to committee members beforehand. A number of committee members did
complement me on the proposal after the meeting was over, but the
meeting culture seemed to be mostly about hearing what the STWC
officers had to say and approving it, without a single vote, because
there were no alternatives being proposed (other than BREAK THE BOND
DAY).

On Sun 10 Nov, Jesus Aphrodite wrote:
"I'm active in Sheffield StWC. I'm also in the Green Party. I came
close to representing the GP on the StWC steering committee, and if I
had been there last Monday I would have supported your idea
wholeheartedly. However, Margaret Wright is our rep. I did ask her to
raise these issues at the meeting as there are many people in
Sheffield (Greens and others) who are feeling dissatisfied with the
StWC's proposed actions. It seems she did not. I wonder if you recall
if/how she responded to your idea?"

As I recall, Margaret was one of the number of committee members who
did complement me on the proposal after the meeting was over. Good to
here of the stirrings of rebelliousness in Sheffield (of which more
below)!

======================================================================
========
Shall We Promote Direct Action to Stop the War by Email?
--------------------------------------------------------
On Sun 10 Nov, Charlie Green wrote:
"Re-posted your E-Mail to various other group listings that I am a
member of, primarily to make sure the message is out there. Tim
the 'Break the Bond' sounds great, however, will it be incorporated
with the 'Days of Disobedience' which has also been set for the 21st
Dec. The initial plans for that are mass shoplifting, which I don't
really condone as I see that as possibly setting the cause back and
will probably detract from the more serious stuff. I will post the
petition page details as I was number 7 and I think the more the
merrier."

Many thanks, Charlie! Please take a moment to review the nine action
points at the end of the URGENT ACTION APPEAL email message,
available at:

*
http://www.internationalism.plus.com/URGENT_ACTION_APPEAL_Email.html

*
http://www.internationalism.plus.com/URGENT_ACTION_APPEAL_Email.doc

As you'll see, one third of them involve using email. There's also
the phone, the fax, text messaging and snail mail - please use YOUR
own creative intelligence and every affordable means at your disposal
to promote Direct Action to Stop The War on a daily basis. In
particular, I'd ask that you point people towards...

* Direct Action to Stop The War Petition:
http://www.petitiononline.com/DA2STW/petition.html

* BREAK THE BOND Proposal:
http://www.internationalism.plus.com

As for the 'Days of Disobedience', in solidarity with our rebellious
Argentinean sisters and brothers - personally, I'd far rather see
thousands of people taking anti-war direct action, overwhelming met
police resources, and costing retailers millions of pounds in lost
business, as opposed to having scores or possibly hundreds of people
risking arrest for shoplifting and costing them maybe thousands of
pounds in lost goods. And let a thousand flowers of rebellion bloom ;-
)

======================================================================
========
Shall We Promote Direct Action to Stop the War on the Web?
----------------------------------------------------------
On Fri 8 Nov, Bonny Sweetyton wrote:
"Good to see you're pushing the direct action thing hard - like your
logos too."

Why thanks, Bonny. I've suggested to Bonny where I think those logos
should go on the web site she administers.

If you administer a web site, I'd ask you to consider putting a link
and icon to the following two places on your home page (or wherever
you may feel is more appropriate) and tell me the linking URL by
email to internationalism_plus@....

Direct Action to Stop The War Petition
Logo: http://www.internationalism.plus.com/DAtSTW_B100W.gif
Link: http://www.petitiononline.com/DA2STW/petition.html

BREAK THE BOND Proposal
Logo: http://www.internationalism.plus.com/BTB_100W.jpg
Link: http://www.internationalism.plus.com/BREAK_THE_BOND_index.html

======================================================================
========
Shall We Promote Direct Action to Stop The War
at the STWC Conference on Sat 7 Dec 02?
----------------------------------------------
On Sun 10 Nov, a STWC national committee member also wrote:
"Also I think we should be organising a series of fringe events for
the STWC Conference on Dec 7th since it's quite obvious that the real
discussion will not be taking place on the conference floor. Keep in
touch."
With you all the way on that one, comrade! In my URGENT ACTION APPEAL
email message I recommended the following two action points.

7. If you are in a local, regional or national group that campaigns
for peace
(STW, CND, Pledge of Resistance, trade union, left/green/anarchist
group,
mosque or church, etc) then please raise this issue as soon as
possible.
A. Contact your fellow members in advance by
email/phone/fax/txt/post to
let them know that you support Direct Action to Stop The
War, and get
the issue on the agenda of your next meeting.
B. At the next meeting, get the online petition Direct Action
to Stop The
War passed as a resolution of your group.
C. Contact Andrew Murray and/or Lindsey German by email to tell
them that
your whole group supports Direct Action to Stop The War (I
would
suggest) as follows.
To: office@...
CC: international_plus@..., [all your anti-
war
contacts]
Subject: FAO STW Officers - [Your Group's Name] supports
Direct
Action to Stop The War

To which I might add that - providing your group is affiliated to the
national STWC (and if it isn't, affiliate now) - I recommend that you
submit the text of the Direct Action to Stop The War petition as your
group's resolution to Conference: send it to the STWC office before
the resolution deadline of Mon 2 Dec.

9. If you are in a STW local group and would like to see the STW
Coalition
become a body that sees direct action as our tactic of first
resort, then
please seek and win one of your group's four nominations as
delegate to the
national STW delegate conference on Sat 7 Dec 02. With a
sufficient
groundswell of support for Direct Action to Stop The War, the
election of the
new national steering committee at that conference could produce a
organisation that lives up to its promise to "move from words to
deeds, ...
to move from demonstrations to direct action, ... [to] build a
movement the
government cannot ignore."

On that basis, my 'optimism of the will' hopes that hard-hitting
direct action will be the conferences' mainstream, while the placard-
waving, MP-lobbying, marching-up-and-down traditionalists will be
marginalised. However, my 'pessimism of the intellect' suggests
otherwise, at least as a possibility. So, if you'd like to join in
with organising direct-action-oriented fringe events at the STWC
Conference then let me know and we'll begin putting a program
together. Which begs the question: what issue(s) would you like such
a direct action program of events to cover? Answers in an email to
the usual address a.s.a.p. please.

On Sun 10 Nov, Jesus Aphrodite wrote:
"Personally, I am concerned that this conference is a deliberate ploy
to divert our attention and use our energies to no effect, when we
should be out there protesting. I wonder whose idea it was and who
supported it most strongly, etc. True agendas are not always
transparent!"

My impression was that it was those people from the traditional left
("Various Socialists represented either as reps from their party or
from TU, STWC officers" ie: the post-stalinists and trotskyists of
the CPGB, SWP, Socialist Party, etc.) who most favoured the
conference and were most dismissive of Direct Action to Stop The War.
My fellow "direct action representative" pointed out after the
meeting that Lindsey German (SWP and STWC convenor) had even tried
the semantic acrobatics involved in re-defining a traditional A to B
march as direct action!

======================================================================
========
Cars Not People, or What's The Point of BREAK THE BOND DAY?
-----------------------------------------------------------
On Tue 22 Oct, Neddie Cutter wrote:
"I thought this was a great idea for the 31st. However, as you said,
there is not enough time. But surely by then we can organise [a
number of] people to park their cars in the middle of traffic [at the
target nodes] for half an hour and have the same effect? Just a
thought."

Hmmm... well... this tactic has been used elsewhere in more, shall we
say, pre-revolutionary situations, with stolen vehicles, to impede
the progress of police and army transports, APCs and tanks. I
wouldn't rule it out, but neither would I argue it its favour.

For me, the principle point of a mass, collective, direct action is
to demonstrate three issues very clearly to the UK and US capitalist
warmongers, and to the citizens of the world:

1. International Solidarity - thousands of UK citizens are willing to
risk
arrest and prosecution, and thousands more are there on the ground
to support
them, in the knowledge that by doing so they are helping prevent
the
slaughter of scores of thousands of Iraqi citizens.

2. Flexing Our Economic Muscles - thousands of UK citizens are
willing to put
the retail economy of the capital city in harm's way, on the
busiest shopping
day of the year, to drive home to the UK capitalist warmongers
this message:
if you continue to pursue your oil-grabbing military aggression,
your
domestic economy (and the source of some of your biggest profits)
will be
jeopardised by anti-war mass, collective, direct action protests.

3. Collective Direct Action Gets Quantifiable Results - no doubt the
London
Chamber of Commerce (or some such other bosses bean-counting
cabal) will tell
the media exactly how many millions of pounds our action has 'cost
London',
thereby helpfully quantifying the potential economic costs to the
UK
capitalist warmongers of continuing their war drive (not to
mention the
'costs to social cohesion in time of war' - which I'd say are
benefits to the
anti-war movement).

======================================================================
========
National Or Local Action?
-------------------------
On Thu 10 Oct (back when the proposal was only for a London-wide
mobilisation), Jello Biafra wrote:
"As to the gridlock idea, I think it is really cool. Maybe we should
take the time co-ordination and try to shut roads in other cities
too?"

From reports received at the national STW office [thanks for
forwarding the spreadsheet, comrade!], my estimate of the total
number of people involved in local actions on DON'T ATTACK IRAQ DAY
Thu 31 Oct is around 12,500 - or about 3% of the 400,000 or so who
protested in a nationally mobilised central London event on Sat 28
Sep. While acknowledging the dissimilarities between the variety of
31 Oct events (some of which were direct action) and the 28 Sep
march, nevertheless I think we can deduce two provisional conclusions:

1. An event organised for a Saturday rather than a weekday means many
more
people are free to attend without compromising their work and
childcare
commitments.

2. A single, nationally mobilised, and focussed event (co-organised
with the
Muslim Association of Britain) draws in around 100 times more
people than 300
simultaneous locally mobilised events.

======================================================================
========
Is Arrest Automatic and Is There a Role for Supporters?
-------------------------------------------------------
On Thu 17 Oct, Adam Sunningham wrote:
"It sounds like a good idea. Would attending mean an automatic arrest
or could people come to offer support and not get arrested?"

First, even if you do intend to join in the sit-down blockade, and
thereby risk arrest, the risk is by no means 100% or automatic.
Judging by my past experience, it's possible to design actions which
minimise the risk, and the BREAK THE BOND DAY action is designed with
arrest risk minimisation in mind. For instance, two things on our
side are numbers and time: if we have way too many people blockading
a particular key strategic transport node than the cops can hope to
arrest - from the time they arrive to the time at which we will
dissolve the blockade anyway (which they know) - then they cannot
hope to end the blockade any earlier by arresting people. That's not
to say they won't pick off some people, but by doing so they cannot
compromise the effectiveness of our blockade. Note also there's a
world of difference between being arrested and being charged. The
police may use arrest as a tactic to try to clear a blockade, but
then release those arrested without charging them, some time later.

Second, from my prior experience, there's an optimum balance between
those willing to risk arrest - let's call them the 'sitters' - and
those who are there to help the action run smoothly but without
personally risking arrest - let's call them the 'supporters'. During
the action, the supporters liase with the police and officials,
leaflet the public on the reason for the disruption, and look after
the needs of the sitters for refreshments, communications, morale
support, etc. For the direct action planned for BREAK THE BOND DAY
the optimum balance between sitters and supporters is about 50 / 50,
ie: equal numbers of sitters and supporters. Each segment is VITAL
for the success of the action as a whole, ie: the supporters' role is
equally valuable as the sitters' role. If the action goes as well as
possible, the consequences for each segment are equal too, in that
nobody gets arrested. However, if the police do decide to make
arrests, it is the sitters they succeed in arresting for whom the
action's consequences may be more significant, provided they aren't
simply released without charge.

======================================================================
========
How Long Do We Maintain Our Blockade?
-------------------------------------
Jello Biafra also wrote:
"I am concerned about the 30 minute time limit though. I think it is
important that where direct action has the potential to be more than
just symbolic (like in London where there are lots of groups that can
co-ordinate and come together).
Maybe 30 minutes is long enough to cause real havoc, but we should
know if it is, and if not, think about the trade offs of really
stopping the city, against the threat of obstruction charges (a very
minor charge, unlikely to come to court if large numbers are arrested
and an opportunity to make a big public outcry if it did) and the
impact on emergency services (perhaps a more serious consideration
but still worth thinking about).
[...]
I am not saying it is wrong to stop after 30 minutes. I am just
trying to open up the debate. "

I agree, to the extent that I have now suggested we blockade for an
hour, from 14:30 to 15:30. This is one of the fine tuning details
around which I'd really love to hear other people's opinions. Another
possibility is that we use a direct democracy mechanism, such as, for
instance: all the 'sitters' in each blockade vote once an hour as to
whether to dissolve all the blockades together or not; and we agree
to dissolve them all together when a simple majority of blockades
vote to do so.

======================================================================
========
Can We Make Links to the Firefighters Strike?
---------------------------------------------
On Mon 21 Oct, Adam Sunningham wrote:
"I've forwarded your email to all the peace people I know and
everyone has said how well thought out it seems. Just wondered if,
with regard to your own safety concerns and the media attention the
firefighters are getting, you'd considered liasing with them and
having a joint action?"

I'm 100% behind the firefighters in their demand for £30K, both
because they ARE worth it AND because, as other commentators have
pointed out, the drain that staffing all those decrepit Green Goddess
fire wagons places on the army compromises its effectiveness in
waging war against the people of Iraq. As and when we get BREAK THE
BOND DAY off the ground, then we should certainly make approaches to
rank and file firefighters and ambulance drivers as to how we can be
mutually supportive - to address the tension between minimising the
risk to human life while maximising the effectiveness of our action.
And if we can directly link the firefighters strike with BREAK THE
BOND DAY, then we're both definitely on to a winner!

======================================================================
========
Any Other Messages of Support?
------------------------------
On Fri 08 Nov, Steve Sharrif wrote:
"Hello brother (comrade). Thanks for your efforts and your rant of
8th November re: Stop the war on Iraq/other. Nice one mate, KEEP IT
STIRRED UP, FOCUSED AND IN YER FACE. Today is 8.11. Regards [from]
Sheffield."

On Sat 26 Oct, Elle Havenson wrote:
"I support the idea of BTB but cannot be involved in the co-
ordination of this project at this point in time. [...] It is a
popular idea, so leave it until the [31 Oct] day of action is over
yeh? Gotta go Tim, hope that this mail wasn't too negative, but that
you take it as friendly advice from someone who wants to see the best
thing happen."

On Sun 10 Nov, Steph Steel wrote:
"Good effort Tim,
[...]
Quite a few people here in Sheffield have been saying that the Feb
demo was too late and want something sooner so you're definitely not
alone. We are having a demo here on the 23rd Nov, and other DA is
being planned."

On Sun 10 Nov, Jesus Aphrodite wrote:
"We have already had a discussion re direct action at a StWC meeting -
and it was decided to defer further discussion to after our local
demo on Nov 23rd. However, a few of us have decided to raise it again
on Wednesday and we are also having another meeting to discuss the
situation later that night. I'll let you know the outcome, but I feel
sure that many in Sheffield will support you idea - either by taking
action here on Dec 21st or coming down to London to take part in the
Break the Bond action.
I have already sent a personal email to the StWC office asking why
they are not supporting more NVDA. (I'm assuming what you are
advocating is NV - I wonder if StWC won't support it because they
think it might turn violent???) I haven't had a reply yet, but will
let you know if I do. I know a few other committee members and will
hassle them some too. [...]
I've also forwarded you email to a couple of other StWC groups."

On Sun 10 Nov, Michelle Churchill wrote:
"I appreciate your point. I've forwarded your e-mail to some other
members of 'Darlington for Peace', as I won't be able to get to the
next meeting - I have suggested they discuss it and see what the
group's response is.
I hope that you will be successful. Our campaign is made all the
more urgent by the Security Council resolution. Like you, I am not
resigned to war starting - let's carry on trying to prevent it."

And finally, on Sat 9 Nov, Jeffrey Fowler wrote:
"I agree totally with what you are saying, and I've 'signed' the
petition. Don't you think, though, that you should sign it as well?"

D'OH! Yep, ...er... thanks for pointing that out, Jeff [scarlet
blush]. I've now 'signed' the petition too.

======================================================================
========
Conclusion
----------
Just agreeing with one, some or all of the points in this bulletin is
valuable, but not sufficient. Like the old fella buried up in
Highgate cemetery said, "Philosophers have only interpreted the
world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it."*

If you want to see mass, effective, collective direct action which
can seriously inhibit the Westminster warmongers, then YOU need to
grasp the responsibility of making it happen. As I said above, please
do use your own creative imagination and every affordable
communication channel at your disposal to make Direct Action to Stop
The War into YOUR top political priority, and build it on a daily
basis. Then afterwards, as and when we've saved the lives of scores
of thousands of our Iraqi sisters and brothers, you'll be able to
answer your grandchildren's question, "What did YOU do to Stop The
War?" with honour and pride!

By concerted, collective, mass direct action, we stand our best
chance to Stop The War - let's make it so!!

Peace & Love,

Tim Jones
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
internationalism_plus@...
http://www.internationalism.plus.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
"Fighting for freedom is not letting your leaders think for you and
decide, and following obediently behind them, or from time to time
scolding them. Fighting for freedom is partaking to the full of ones
capacity, thinking and deciding for oneself, taking all the
responsibilities as a self-relying individual amidst equal comrades.
It is true that to think for oneself, to think out what is true and
right, with a head dulled by fatigue, is the hardest, the most
difficult task; it is much harder than to pay and to obey. But it is
the only way to freedom. To be liberated by others, whose leadership
is the essential part of the liberation, means the getting of new
masters instead of the old ones."
Anton Pannekoek
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
*Karl Marx (1818-1883), Theses on Feuerbach, No. 11, 1845