I think it would be better to change the way the STWC operates if that was what was needed. I thought the idea of the STWC was to be a coalition of seperate groups that could choose whether to support individual actions by the coalition. Not sure though. It seems that some people think that the seperate groups can't make their own decisions but there don't seem to be any rules against that(?)
I think there is a danger that a new group (of groups) could end up being the same as the STWC.
I suspect the STWC demonstration on 27th September will be a lot smaller than Feb 15th, but would this new group be able to do any better? Have many anti-war people really stayed away from the demonstrations because of the organisation behind them?
Another concern I have is that the STWC aimed to be inclusive by allowing anyone to take part and not be concerned about having to anything that involves getting arrested. The www.j-n-v.org encouraged civil disobedience which not everyone would want to be involved in. Would this new group also encourage this type of action or would it aim to be inclusive? And what about those individuals who would not want to be associated with a group that encouraged disobedience?
It might be a good idea for this new group to have it's meeting to discuss the issues and talk with the STWC steering committee to see if there was a way to avoid fragmentation.

The STWC claims to be open, inclusive and democratic but is not. Although it has done some great work many people are turned off by the hierarchical structure and the politics. It would be great if the STWC could be reformed, and we should push for this, but, as they say, 'don't hold your breath'...

JNV is a highly credible and respected organisation, and I believe it genuinely intends to form a network that is both democratic and non-hierarchical.

I, for one, would have more faith in an organisation based on JNV's principles than one based on STWC's politics.

Giving the bleeding away of independent support for the STWC it makes sense for a *genuine* activist network to emerge from the ashes...so its goodbye to the STWC:a SWP/MAB controlled thuggish front full of lunatics, alleged petty criminals and control freaks and its hello JNV: a broad based genuine coalition whose supporters have got the moral highground due to the widely accepted hardwork that JNV supporters have done to build the high tide of antiwar mood (albiet then frittered away by the ambulance chasers of the STWC)

the stwc did a good job of mobilising hundreds of thousands of antiwar people for the big demos, but it is essentially undemocratic and driven along by a buch of so-called movement building leninists who utilise the big demo's as recruitment events for a revolutionary party that they thinks needs to be built for some struggle in the future...the stwc actively didn't support direct actions and direct action events that were not organised by their central committee. the jnv idea seems more of a networking tool, and less of a centralised dictatorship, which is good.

however, beware of this project as the first line of the proposed core principles of it are

1) We condemn the terrorist atrocities committed on September 11th 2001.


 http://www.j-n-v.org/jnv.htm#coreprinciples

why have an apparently well informed group of people decided to choose this as such arbitrary act of terrorism as something to condemn? i can think of many others, many worse. it is almost as if they are subscribing to the logic behind the "war on terror".

It makes sense when you see it in the context of their other core principles:

JNV's 7 Core Principles for anti-war groups:
1) We condemn the terrorist atrocities committed on September 11th 2001.
2) We also condemn the idea of taking revenge for these deaths by military retaliation against Afghanistan, Iraq or any other countries.
3) We believe that the proper reaction to the September 11th atrocities is to proceed on the basis of international law, following the UN Charter, and working through the extradition law, to bring the perpetrators of these acts to justice.
4) We believe that the right response to the problem of proliferation is to disarm all countries of all weapons of mass destruction, applying the same non-proliferation rules and inspection systems to all the countries of the world.
5) We stand shoulder to shoulder with the Muslim communities in Britain, and demand an end to anti-Muslim attacks and prejudice.
6) We reject the erosion of civil liberties in the name of 'anti-terrorism', whether in Britain or elsewhere. We cannot defend freedom by destroying it.
7) As a network, we are committed to campaigning solely by non-violent means.

i went to the meeting, although i was late i didn't miss much

core principles discussed, many felt them to be too lengthy and complicated, could they be represented with pictures?

the network would not be in competition with the STWC, a different, parrallel, NON-HIERARCHICAL organisation linking all activist groups laterally/horizontally

later... dave

"We believe that the proper reaction to the September 11th atrocities is to proceed on the basis of international law, following the UN Charter, and working through the extradition law, to bring the perpetrators of these acts to justice"
So you want to work through something that is a hierachial organisation, blatanty an unfair organisation...
the security council permanent members are uk, usa, france, russia and china i.e the more imperialist countries in the world!!!
where is the largest democracy in the world?
where is a predominantly muslim country?
what about having a latin american country? hundreds of million people live in latin america you know.
and you want to work through this organisation? i know your reply
'it may be flawed but it is the best thing we have, better than nothing'
it was the un that authorised the sanctions on iraq killing a million or more people i would prefer no un so the aid and food could get through.
because i oppose imperialism i oppose the UN.

sorry for the out burst but i am not a fan of the UN but i know your principles are honorable so i wish you all the best...it is a shame that the UN is so difficult to reform so we can get the changes that need to be made...