IAWM Press Release

by MichaelY - iawm Mon Jun 11, 2007 17:30

As Fianna Fail and the Greens jockey and bargain - we would appreciate some of your comments.
This Press Release has been sent to thenational print and electronic media and to all of the Green Party 'decision makers'.

by PaddyK Mon Jun 11, 2007 18:05

Good stuff Michael,

But I fear Bertie Ahern would rather burn all his matresses full of cash than spurn his American handlers in the White House. If the Greens enter government it will have to be on the pretense of "well lads, better to eat our green underpants now in order to be in a position to change Berties underpants once in a position of power".
But power corrupts, and soon the Greens will be eating Berties underpants also, when his new silkies arrive from Washington DC.

I dont believe the Green Soul can survive a deal with the Drumcondra Devil . He will be dancing his manic tune around their dizzy little green heads as he flags through the War planes with a skip and a "Jaysus Lads, How are ye?".

The Greens should go straight to Enda (The other plank) Kenny and Roger Rabbitte and form Ireland's first official Ningcompoop Government. Then the Warplanes would stop. Most likely everything would stop. But isnt that the way things used to be and weren't we happier?.

by AWI'er Mon Jun 11, 2007 18:35

The Greens are at the Rubicon with this one. Ordinary members, and even previous election candidates, of the Green Party are members of AWI and almost certainly of the IAWM, PANA, Cosantoiri and other anti-war groups. We trust that they and others will be loud and vocal at the Green Party conference called to 'ratify' a coalition deal if this deal includes a sell-out on Shannon.

by curious Mon Jun 11, 2007 19:38

What if the offer was inspectors on the planes? Is there no negotiation possible?

Surely it makes sense to give a little too get a little? And aren't the USA using Shannon as part of a UN mandate?

by AWI'er Mon Jun 11, 2007 20:12

Sorry, I don't follow. Inspecting with what in mind? We already know that these planes are full of soldiers, their personal weapons and other material of war. In addition, we already know that they are on their way to Iraq and Afghanistan to assist in an occupation that has resulted in the violent deaths of tens of thousands of men, women and children. We also already know (thanks to a PANA-commissioned poll) that the presence of Bush war machine on Irish soil is opposed by 58% of Irish citizens and only supported by 19%. We also know that 100,000 marched in Dublin on 15th February 2003 in opposition to the war and the facilitation of the US killing machine.

So, what are suggesting? That the mass killing of people by a belligerent war machine is not a Green concern? Yeah, well go ahead and let's see what your voters think come the next election.

by disappointed Mon Jun 11, 2007 20:36

Now you all expect the greens to single handedly take on a very strong FF majority and sort out shannon. Their position is pretty weak.

Fact is, Greens would have been in a much stronger negotiating position if more people had voted for them. Where were all this 58% on voting day??

Answer: voting for FF or FG

People get the government they deserve

by goggle box Mon Jun 11, 2007 20:43

tune in your tv if you have one.

by tom eile Mon Jun 11, 2007 21:21

Now that the election is over the IAWM is calling on the Green Party to prioritize what its own steering committee would not prioritize in the run-up to the election. I pointed out to Michael Y and Kieron O’Sullivan before the poll that the issue of Irish complicity in the war had to be unequivocally the priority for IAWM members and supporters in the election.
see http://www.indymedia.ie/article/81644
All to no avail. The declaration on their website - the same slogan adopted by the SWP - remained “make the war an election issue” (not THE election issue) .
It was a cop-out designed to allow Richard Boyd Barrett to campaign on local concerns as a People before Profit Alliance candidate. If the IAWM couldn’t say to the Irish electorate that the most important issue for the electorate of Ireland was war and the threat of even bloodier future wars it should come as no surprise that parties like the Greens should now vacillate.

by MichaelY - iawm Mon Jun 11, 2007 21:52

Tom Eile is usually a sound Indymedia regular. But in the message above he seems to have lost it.

'Make the War an Election issue' was the position adopted by the alliance between PANA, the NGO Alliance and the iawm. It was neither an SWP nor an iawm 'invention'. Thousands of posters were printed, thousands went up all over the country - Press Conferences were held, two visits to Shannon organised.....the pledge was signed by over 74 potential candiates, six of whom got finally elected. Pickets were held, meetings took place.
To say we 'lightened' the position in order to facilitate Richard's campaign in DunLaoghaire takes the biscuit in sectarianism and paranoia. To suggest, as Tom Eile brazenly does above, that the iawm is 'somehow' responsible for the 'potential' backsliding and somersaulting of Sargent, Gormley and Co. (or thge Labour Party heads, possibly, next week) is to set the pyramid standing on its head.
And I do write 'potential' backsliding as these lines are being written Sargent is still talking to Bertie.....I could, of course, ask a simple question: We in the iawm argued 'Make the War an Election issue' ...and followed through with the best of our ability.....what exactly did the other far more serious and politically competent anti-war components argue during the ame period? And do?

by Bamber Mon Jun 11, 2007 23:36

"I could, of course, ask a simple question: We in the iawm argued 'Make the War an Election issue' ...and followed through with the best of our ability.....what exactly did the other far more serious and politically competent anti-war components argue during the ame (sic) period? And do?"

Michael you are the co-chair of the IAWM. Are you not? So go ahead answer your own simple question(s). You know who did what on the 'issue'. Name or shame! But the way I see it your statement above implies the 'more serious and politically competent anti-war components' didn't argue the same. What is your understanding of the 'more serious and politically competent?

by MichaelY - iawm Mon Jun 11, 2007 23:59

Bamber,

You have obviously a good knowledge of therapy and turning the questions back to the point they originated. And that's good.
I didn't answer you immediately as I was watching Q&As...I saw and enjoyed two members of the iawm put their points of view forward and deepen our objective which was AGENDA SETTING!! I saw Green Ryan squirming.....articulate and presentable as he thinks he is! We, in the iawm, or I personally, never felt for a moment that the war and Irish collaboration through Shannon could become THE election issue....that would have been absurd!! However, we tried, and to a certain extent we succeeded in getting the war to become AN election and now post-election issue!! Shannon is now on the agenda!
And it doesn't stop here......the Greens most likely will have their membership conference in less than 48 hours....we'll be there, in and out of the Mansion House if that's where it will be held. Our Press Release above has gone to the Press and the electronic media and phone calls have followed.......visits to Shannon and a summer camp are being planned. A Conference may be in the offing.

We believe the war will continue, Iran may be attacked...and we should reformulate our strategy.

Finally, good bamber, I am not going to respond to your request to publicly answer some of the questions I posed above....I have a fairly good idea what the other components of the anti-war movement have and have not done....but they should be the ones answering those questions. Naming and shaming is not part of my and the iawm's strategy....others think they can play this game and we are delighted to let them at it. Unity in action is my purpose and within that framework I hope you will appreciate my stance.

Fraternally

by an anti-war activist (school of 2003) Tue Jun 12, 2007 09:42

God MichaelY, you're an awful blowhole for someone who advocates parliamentary lobbying yet can't even keep the greens on board. Over the years the iawm bent over backwards to keep the greens etc on your platforms and you did so, particularly in 2003, by excluding anybody who was considered too 'radical', hence after the pitstop ploughshares action, no mention of them from the platform on february 15th and no ploughshares speaker. Likewise you condemned and criticised direct actionists and advocates of civil disobedience. In fact it wasn't until the iawm, and anti-war movement, was at a very low level that you became 'comradely' with the so-called "ultra-leftists" (read: those who believed in deploying direct action and civil disobedience alongside marches and demos). So all that work to marginalise and exclude in 2003-4 just to keep the 'moderates' (read: those who want us all to smile at policemen and warmongering politicians) on board. And where has it got you. The 'moderates' have sold you out.

by an anti-war activist - (school of 2003) Tue Jun 12, 2007 09:59

The iawm also entreated activists to bury themselves in the election (though to do what was never clear beyond the vague "make the war an election issue" slogan). Lots of energy expended, what's been gained from all this lobbying? Tell us. You admit yourself that Labour (another of the 'moderate' elements you drooled over in 2003) will sell out as well if they get a chance next week. Since 2002 and esp. in 2003-4, the iawm put a huge effort into portraying itself as 'respectable': it was afraid to go near civil disobedience (a mainstream tactic in most European countries), it damned direct actionists, it was afraid to be associated with the ploughshares and Mary Kelly, all to keep the 'moderates' on board. Well done. Was it worth it?

by MichaelY - iawm Tue Jun 12, 2007 10:34

Dear activist,

Thank you for the history lesson - I presume that the use of 'you' in your message is that royal or collective YOU for, as you should know if you were around, that I, personally, was not involved in all those shananigans you describe. However, there is a certain truth in your stuff that as a member of the iawm I take 'collective' responsibility. My personal stance, however, since I started working in the iawm has been one of the widest possible unity in the anti war movement....from the 'radical' to the 'moderate' wings to use your expressions. Ask around and people will tell you.
If we now go to the Blowhole - I must say I have been called lots of things in the past but this is a first. Are you using the concept in its biological sense,i.e the hole at the top of a whale or a dolphin's head, homologous with a nostril, or perhaps in a geological sense, i.e a hole at the inland end of a sea cave through which waves funnel up and out ? Either way there is a certain charm don't you think in all this.
As for you belonging to the class of 2003 - I thought that was spot on as I can figure that your understanding of politics, in general, or in specific anti-war terms, stopped and crashed sometime around then. I am sorry.....but I'm sure if you put your heart at it you may reverse the situation.....
Best of luck

by MichaelY - iawm Tue Jun 12, 2007 15:07

PRESS RELEASE - June 12th ’07 15.00 pm

As Dan Boyle is back in Government Buildings negotiating further, PANA, the Irish Anti War Movement and the NGO Alliance issued the following statement:

We would like to thank Green Party members for their continued support and specially thank those Green party candidates who signed our anti-war pledge. We would like to state that
· The use of Shannon airport by planes carrying armed US troops to and from Iraq and Afghanistan and the stopover of CIA directed rendition (aka torture) flights carrying prisoners to undisclosed destinations constitute criminal acts of collusion by the past Fianna Fail led government. The new Government, particularly if the Greens are in it or supporting it, must put an end to that criminality. Bear in mind that Bertie Ahern has flatly rejected ending the US’ military use of Shannon , “I will not change my position on Shannon” he said on May 31st.
· Section 13 of the Green Party election manifesto declares that that the Party is committed to ending “the use of Shannon airport by US military forces involved in the war in Iraq and insist that any aircraft suspectedof being involved in illegal movements of prisoners must be searched”. And John Gormley’s letter to the IAWM Press Conference on May 22nd stated:”…..The Green Party is totally committed to ending the use of Shannon for the illegal war in Iraq………..people can be assured that in any negotiation with other parties the issue of Shannon will be an absolute priority”.
· Given the above facts, any compromise or fudge by the Green leadership that would allow Fianna Fail to continue being part of this criminal and illegal military alliance that had killed over 650,000 Iraqis…..any such move would be a clear and unambiguous betrayal of the anti-war movement and a clear rebuttal on the strong humanitarian and anti military principles that the Green Party have long espoused.. The IAWM?PANA pledge stated “We the undersigned give a firm commitment that if elected, we will not participate in any government that allows Shannon airport or any other Irish facility to be used by the US to conduct war in Iraq….” We stand by that pledge.
· We are convinced that Green party rank-and-file members and activists and their leaders that stood with us on countless marches and protests on this issue and whose voters in large number voted for them must stand firm. Their opposition to the war reflects the fact that 58% of the Irish people are against the use of Shannon by US troops. We believe that the Greens could bring integrity and principle to the process of democratic government in our country.
Roger Cole from PANA said: “The Green Party needs to send out a message that it will not enter a FF/Green Party Coalition Government unless the use of Shannon Airport by the US troops going to and from the Iraq war is terminated.”
· Richard Boyd Barrett, chairperson of the Irish Anti-War Movement said:
"For the Greens to enter into government with Fianna Fail and allow the US military to continue to pour through Shannon on route to kill and be killed in Bush's bloody war would be a monstrous betrayal of the anti-war movement and those that voted for them. Surely the blood of innocent men, women and children, counts for more than gaining ministries and political power. I appeal to the Green Party - both its leaders and members - not to sully their hands with the blood of innocents murdered by the US war machine."

www.irishantiwar.org www.pana.ie www.ngopeacealliance.com

by leak Tue Jun 12, 2007 15:32

A deal has already been agreed, despite Dan Boyle's break-time waffle, and the Greens have agreed to look the other way with regard to Shannon. There is no point in calling on the Green negotitors to do anything at this stage; they had ruled out making Shannon a deal-breaker a long time ago.

The only hope now resides in the Green Party rank and file membership. It is up them now to firmly reject this blood-soaked deal at their conference.

by MichaelY - iawm Tue Jun 12, 2007 15:48

Dear leak,

You're probably right and we fully agree that while we would like to think that there is a chance that the Green rank-and-file may, just may, have something to say about ' the deal', our hopes are measured at the moment. A meeting of this kind, and with all the pressure, may be swayed by the leadership waffle that is to come.
It was good to see an AWI Press Release come out in the meantime
To answer your question., what we're on about is to get as many people as possible outside the Mansion House tomorrow. The Greens have booked the place from 1.00 - 9.00 but the meeting is likely to start, if it happens at all, a bit later. So pass the word around.
Finally, re:Shannon, our info is that there will be a sop that the new Gvt will start checking a few incoming rendition flights - randomly and from time to time. What do your informants tell you leak?

by Observer Tue Jun 12, 2007 20:26

I think we can be absolutely sure that there will be no ending of the use of Shannon by the US Military as part of Green negotiations for Government. Unfortunately, at present there is a UN resolution for the "rebuilding of Iraq" which the US and other military forces in Iraq are operating under. Yes yes, before you all scream, I know you wont like me saying that, but it happens to be true, however appallled those who read this site are by that fact. Don't forget we facilitated the US during Korea, Vietnam and the bombing of Lybia, and indeed, all throughout the cold war.

All they can hope for, at best, is a review of the use of Shannon by US forces. We all know what that will mean. A review group is appointed, considers for a few years, concludes it needs to consider more and on its goes, though I dont think FF will even concede this point for fear of offending President Bush.

There may, and should be, an agreement to inspect civilian planes operated by the CIA , or whoever,through Shannon. The Gardai presently have that power and therefore there is no need for legislation on the subject. They just have not done it.

If the Green's abandon that point in negotiations it will have been the first and only time I will have voted for them.

by MichaelY - iawm Wed Jun 13, 2007 00:24

Dear Observer,

Nobody in Indymedia screams at a post that tries to tell the truth - at least as the person who's posting sees it.
Most of your conclusions I'd agree with...with certain questions.
(1) The UN resolution you refer to was passed by the Security Council about 4 months after the Iraq invasion had started....and in law, retrospective legislation is quasi invalid.
(2) Countries whose official constitution defines them as neutral, however abstract and superficial that definition may be, have no obligation in international law to comply with UN resolutions. That compliance in Ireland's case is a clear case of complicity....nothing more nothing less! Switzerland, for example, has refused to allow US troops to use Zurich Airport on the basis of its neutrality!
(3)As Green Party member Ed Horgan's case against the government proved, there are no examples and no precedents of US troops granted OFFICIAL permission to use Shannon during a previous war. Your statements re: Korea and Vietnam are hot air. Finally, and
(4) We hear that there may be a sop in the FF/GP deal to be discussed tomorrow re: rendition flights. In other words, that FF may say that as they believe that that there have been no prisoners ferried through Shannon to be tortured, they wouldn't have any problem boarding a few flights AT RANDOM and FROM TIME TO TIME to carry out a few tests. Check it out.

The iawm, btw, would be lobbying the Green Party rank-and-file tomorrow, Thursday 13th, from 13.00 to 21.00 hours outside the Mansion House. All welcome.

Invitation to lobby the Greens

by Roger Cole - Peace & Neutrality Alliance Wed Jun 13, 2007 00:27 pana at eircom dot net 17 Castle Street, Dalkey. Co. Dublin

The immediate objective is to take part in the vigil outside the Mansion House where the Green Party is having their conference from 1.00-9.00pm where we will lobby delegates to vote against a FF/Green Party Government unless the programme for Government has agreed to terminate the use of Shannon Airport by US troops on their way to and from Bush's imperialist war for oil in Iraq.
Inside the conference we can expect Green Party members like Patricia McKenna and Ed Horgan and other peace activists to be making the case against a FF/GP Gov. if the use of Shannon is not terminated as forcefully as possible in their speeches to the delegates. We would urge all other peace activists to join the vigil.
Fianna Fail has supported Bush's war for oil from the start, while the Green Party has always opposed it. There is no compromise on the issue of an imperialist war, and is always at times like this when the outer layers are pealed off to expose people's real values. Now is the time when the members of the Green Party have to decide whether they want to support Bush's war or to oppose it. There is no middle ground, there is no compromise on the issue of war and peace.
Bush with the support of the US Democrats and Republicans is continuing to not only fight this war but to escalate it. The numbers of troops passing through Shannon is increasing and next year we can expect Irish soldiers to be sent to Iraq and/or Afghanistan as members of the EU Battle Groups. This war will go on and on for many years to come. Bush has already compared the occupation of Iraq to the occupation of Korea. It will be many years before Bush and his successor to the throne of the US Empire will be defeated as they were in Vietnam, but defeated they will be.
If at the end of tomorrow, the Green Party voted to support Bush's war it will be like rats jumping on to a sinking ship. And you can be sure of one thing. They will go down with it.

by Red Tito - CYM Wed Jun 13, 2007 00:45

Solidarity with all those who oppose Imperialism.

US Military Out Of Shannon!

by Observer Wed Jun 13, 2007 01:24

Dear Michael,

Thanks for the questions.

Would answer as follows.

1) The UN resolutions presently operational( I think there are three post invastion) were indeed adopted post facto. I think there may be some confusion, if you dont mind me saying so, in relation to your point re retrospective legislation. In Irish law generally you cannot have retrospective legislation, though this is not an absolute. In relation to the UN, and the Security Council resolutions post invasion, the same situation does not apply. Some say, as do I and the Irish Government did also at the time by the way, that the invasion was illegal. We all know who thought it legal! The present resolutions to not purport to change history or confer some kind of legality on the invasion, merely to deal with the aftermath of the invastion.

Additionally, in international law the principle of retrospectivity does not apply to the extent as it does under Irish law. Nurenburg, dont' forget, quite rightly criminalised the Nazi's post facto. Also the International Criminal Court has retrospective effect.

A final point on this topic I would make is that if the Security Council pass a resolution, following all the UN charter procedure, it is legal. It cannot be argued that it is not. If the UN say it is, it is. That unfortulately is International Law, UN style.

2) I would have to totally disagree Michael in that we most certainly do have an obligation under International Law to comply with UN resolutions. Your are correct in so far as that issue is indeed tied to the Constitutional one as in the Irish legal system we only incorporate international law/obide by it to the extent that the Constitution allows.

The Irish Constitution does perscribe neutrality and says specifically that the Irish State shall not assist a beligerant nation in wartime. Ed Horgan's case in the High Court was on that point and the Judge said quite clearly that it was a matter for the executive (ie Bertie) to decide what constituted a war and that the courts would not interviene, save for exceptional circumstances, which he did not elabourate on. The Government obviously did a volte face and decided, oops, now that they have invaded, illegally at the time so the Government held, we better not now upset the Americans so did not recognise the Americans as beligerants in a war. That was their privelage under the Constitution.

Our Government's facilation of the US on this point was therfore legally sound but, of course, morally very dubious.

3) I never said they had official permission. I just noted that we have facilitated the Americans since the forties. I am not sugesting for one moment that we were doing it under any UN resolution etc. Was that what you were getting at?

4) I wonder if they will get inspections. I hope so. Government have been asked to do so by the human rights commission since late 2005. Mind you im sure the bird has flown. I just think that if the inspections are undertaken it is an appalling reflection on the body politic that it took a quest for return to power by FF rather that the thought of people being possibly rendered through Shannon to finally get it. I personally would be quite sickened in a funny way.

by Observer Wed Jun 13, 2007 01:44

Just reading the Irish Times online now and they report that the Green's have accepted that there will be continuing use of Shannon by the US as they are doing so on the basis of a UN resolution!!!! The only stipulation is that in future Dail approval will be needed for any military landing not UN mandated.

Not a word about rendition flights, but that may come out tomorrow.

by anon Wed Jun 13, 2007 04:09

"A compromise on Shannon means that Dáil approval will be required before any non-United Nations mandated military flight will be allowed to land, but this will not interfere with the Americans' current use of the airport, since they now operate on a UN mandate."

If this is the case then it will allow them to repeat exaclty what they've did before, fly USAF planes to "Italy", "Germany" + "Kuwait" and then use them to invade some other country.

by Roger Cole - Peace & Neutrality Alliance Wed Jun 13, 2007 08:27 pana at eircom dot net 17 Castle Street, Dalkey. Co. Dublin

In response to Observer, it is absolutely clear that there is no legal obligation for the Irish Government to allow Shannon Airport to be used in an Imperialist war for oil and to consolidate US/Israeli military domination of the Middle East that arises out of our membership of the United Nations. Switzerland is a member of the United Nations and there are no US military planes landing in Zurich Airport.
The reason why there are US planes landing in Shannon is because the Irish political/media elite supports Bush's Imperial war and the integration of all of Ireland into the US/EU military structures in order to ensure Ireland's full and active participation in the resource wars of the 21st century.
I know because as the representative of PANA I attend the Forum on Europe and at virtually every meeting over the last few years the main political parties advocate support for Bush's war and the militarisation of the EU.
If the Green Party now joins in support of Bush's war for oil then those of us who remain in the peace movement will just have to deal with it.
Let there be no mistake or confusion. Contributors to this debate either support Bush's war or oppose it. As the wars gets even more vicious in the months and years to come, and as it escalates, with for example, the bombing of Iran, people like Observer, will no longer be able to sit on the fence. It should also be absolutely clear that the US Empire will be defeated. With only 3-4% of the world's population they do not have the resources in men or treasure to win. The defeat of the US and it's vassal states like Ireland isinevitable. Our job in the Irish peace movement is to oppose Irish Imperialists of what ever colour, so that the victims of Imperialism, the Arabs and Muslim people know that not all the Irish people support crushing them into the ground, so that when the Crusader Armies are driven out of their lands they now occupy, we can finally build the peace.

by LeftWatch Wed Jun 13, 2007 09:31

I'm sure those who voted for the Greens can now feel justifiablly agrieved, if not cheated, after the Greens completly selling out on the Shannon issue last night.

I am sick to my stomach with the consessions made and want Trevor Sargents head to roll for this.

The Greens are finished.

by MichaelY - iawm Wed Jun 13, 2007 09:53

Check Sargent's positions during the Green Ard Fheis last February in http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0224/green.html

Some instructive comments there - especially as he says he may resign as Party leader if the Greens go to government with FF but he may, at the same time, accept a position as a Minister in the same government. This is orthodox fundamentalist greenspeak!!

As far as I am concerned, the Green rank-and-file have a chance this afternoon to undo some of the damage - and sort out their wounds afterwards.....

We'll be there at 1.00 and again at 6.00. All welcome

The leader and his words

by AWI'er Wed Jun 13, 2007 09:54

It's a long shot but there is still a chance to stop this dead at the Green Party special conference. Anti-war Greens should make it their business to be there, but don't go alone - round up a few other members who you know are opposed to a sell-out on Shannon. Drive them to the Mansion House if necessary.

Remember that the leadership must win two-thirds of the vote to get away with this, so a good bloc of anti-war Greens can stop this. Get there and do it. The alternative is to have your party co-equally responsible for the US military presence at Shannon. In such circumstances, the Greens will have blood on their hands and will never live it down.

If you support the Bush war effort, vote for this deal

If you oppose the mass murder of men, women and children in the Middle East, then vote against it.

Ireland's complicity is bad enough, without the Greens endorsing US militarism and the misuse of Shannon airport, and shaming themselves.

by MichaelY - iawm Wed Jun 13, 2007 10:14

Just heard that RTE News at 1 team will be outside the Mansion House at 12.30. If any of you were planning to join us at 1.00, you could perhaps try to be there half an hour earlier.

C u all there.

by Anger at the Greens Wed Jun 13, 2007 10:50

Green with Ministerial Envy!

Have the Greens lost the plot entirely. Let’s hope they don’t reach the 2:1 ratio needed today to get this Policy document ratified by it’s members.

What of their anti-war position, co-location etc; simply their reputation is now in tatters, only salvageable by their membership.
Possibly this is a case of a minority leadership bulldozing ahead of Rank & File membership??
Watching them over the last week has been cringe worthy, especially John Gormally admitting he actually “got to like them”(FF) ?

But we cannot ignore what a class act the latter have proven themselves to be yet again. While seamlessly playing on the desperation of three power hungry imbeciles, they managed to destroy any credibility the Greens had left and fulminated a genuine Green deal.

Granted this was likely the biggest moment in the Green Party’s life, so emerging downbeat and depressed after a very short period did not do their negotiation skills any justice; on the contrary they emerged like schoolboys in a sweet shop tantilised by their new found friends, who on the other hand sat back and enjoyed the excruciating show!

Shannon obviously is not a problem but amazingly it can be deduced from Morning Ireland that there will be no imposition to the remaining PD Minister and her Co-location policy. Should I be surprised?
The Green Leadership has lost any credibility it had- let’s hope its faculties will not be lost to the membership.

But who are the biggest Losers here-clearly it is at first sight, the People of Iraq and Public Patients but not to worry there will always be a couple of lucky ducks like those about to tender investment in Private Hospitals, rendering our Public Health Service nothing but a Betting Shop, i.e. which illness will accumulate the greatest profits! Cheery picking and shrewd negotiation skills will certainly not be lost to this minority class and if this deal is borne out the reality is the Greens played an active part in this travesty.
If you cannot hang tight on the bear basics of your manifesto, then at least pretend for a few minutes (even 5 would be an improvement) that you won’t concede all just for the Merc.

by leftie Wed Jun 13, 2007 11:27

Michael, your statement is basically asking the greens to 'reflect' on the shannon issue. You haven't - anywhere I've checked - explicitly called for a 'no' vote to this green party programme for government.

One clear message to green party members is needed.

Is the IAWM asking green party members to vote 'no' to this deal? If so, then say it explicitly and say it now, not later.

by sasquatch Wed Jun 13, 2007 13:37

It doesn't actually mention the word "neutrality" anywhere in the constitution of Ireland does it?

(Just listening to a member of the SWP [Marnie] speaking on behalf of the "Irish anti War Movement" on RTE, plus ca change...)

by Observer Wed Jun 13, 2007 13:52

No, there is no specific reference to neutrality. It is covered in article 28 and the most particularly relevent section is;

Article 28 (3)(1) "War shall not be declared and the State shall not participate in any war save with the assent of Dáil Éireann."

In Ed Horgans case before the high court it was made clear that the Government did not consider that the Iraq invastion constitutated a war, thus they did not need a resolution of the Oireachtas, and that therefore it was legal for the Government to facilitate the US in Shannon. The court also made clear that it was the executives function to make such decisions and the courts would be very slow to intervene.

Unfortunate but true.

by leftie Wed Jun 13, 2007 13:53

It's a bit late now, but none of the statements issued by the IAWM have explicitly called on green party members to vote 'no' to this pact. They are simply reminded of the party's previous opposition to the stopover, etc. etc. All of the IAWM calls have been of a lobbying nature and aimed at the green leadership.

Is this because the IAWM is wary of completely alienating themselves from the green party leadership? Do they think they can continue to lobby or 'work on' the green leadership when they are installed in ministerial mercs? If so, this is lobbying gone mad. the emphasis for the past two days should have been on persuading the rank and file of the greens to vote 'no' to this deal. Appealing to the leadership is and was a complete waste of time.

by MichaelY - iawm Wed Jun 13, 2007 15:50

Dear Leftie,

To answer your pertinent questions:
(1) Don't know if you were outside the Mansion House from 12.30 this morning. A whole set of people, iawm members, PANA and NGO members, non-aligned activists, Labour Youth and CYM activists, we all together tried to influence Green Party rank-and-file people filing in to vote NO! We talked, we argued, we chanted in the pouring rain.......and we'll be back at 5.30 before the vote is taken. We talked to the Press, we talked to the TV people.....
(2) Our whole election pledge campaign that got 74 signatures including six prospective GP candidates (Patricia McKenna, David Healy,Bronwen Maher,Niall OBroachain,David Grey and John Hickey) was designed to argue and influence people to reject a deal with the FF warmongers.
(3) Our main leaflet/Press Release, distribited to Green rank-and-file people this morning, says: "What credibility would the Green Party have if they engaged in a trade off over the use of Shannon?.....Such terms of negotiation are simply unacceptable"!! (see above)
(4) A number of anti-war activists, including Ed Horgan, members of the Green Party, are currently inside the hall and will speak against the deal.
(5) You say "the emphasis for the past two days should have been on persuading the rank and file of the Greens to vote 'no' to this deal". It was that, that very objective, good friend, and continues to be......
Finally and (6) here is a comment of mine in a message above posted early this morning: "As far as I am concerned, the Green rank-and-file have a chance this afternoon to undo some of the damage - and sort out their wounds afterwards.....".

Are we going to be listened to? Chances are not great!! But lets be fair and say - We tried!! You can hardly blame anti-war or left activists for the somersaults, flipbacks, greenspeak and the betrayal of a few budding politicians.....

by leftie Wed Jun 13, 2007 16:06

No, I agree...responsibility for a spectacular flip-flop will lie entirely at the feet of the green party. Let's hope the membership understand this.

by Fintan Lane - Anti-War Ireland and ISN (pers cap) Wed Jun 13, 2007 18:21

Too bad this conference was scheduled for a working day rather than a weekend, as it made it impossible for many people to join the anti-war picket. Well done to those who organised it and participated!

It doesn't look good at this stage, but let us hope that the ordinary members reject this pact when the vote is taken. The Green Party leadership should be ashamed to be putting such a 'deal' before its members.

by anon Thu Jun 14, 2007 00:38

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0613/greendocu.html

Extraordinary Rendition

* The Irish Government is completely opposed to the practice of extraordinary rendition. To that end, the Government will encourage and support An Garda Síochána in the investigation an enforcement of these Statues. It will do this by making resources available for specialised training in the provisions of those Statutes to members of An Garda Síochána and by other means as may be required by An Garda Síochána in order to ensure effective protection for the dignity of all persons within or passing through the State. We will ensure that all relevant legal instruments are used so that the practice of extraordinary rendition does not occur in this State in any form.

What about the invasion/occupation troops?

by Leaping Salmon Thu Jun 14, 2007 12:21

Finian's getting off rather lightly isn't he. I think some on the left had pretensions as to value. Probably just as well Catherine Murhpy didn't get elected in Kildare as she was Finian's siamese twin in the Dáil and believed in the strategy he carried out.

by Darragh Thu Jun 14, 2007 18:59

I voted for the Green Party on this occasion and I swear to f*uk, never again! I voted for a party that I thought had a clear position on the use of Shannon by the US war hounds and what do I get??? I get the person I voted for now in government with Fianna Fail, the party that bends to the US multinational presence in our country and their threat of their economic withdrawal if the US military are told to get out of Shannon. I don't remember seeing a fu*king box on the ballot paper for Microsoft or HP, but it seems to me that when the ballots have been counted, these organisations have more sway with the government than the electorate???

Of all policies that the Greens have thrown out the window, the one that dealt with the US war machine in Shannon is the one that should not have been compromised. The Green Party are a shower of piss-ants that have thrown every bit of honour and respect for themselves out with window in an effort to get into government by compromising on this issue.

As for that fu*king plankhead Trevor Sargeant, stepping down as head of the party but cute enough to accept a cabinet seat from the Taoiseach of the party that he will not lead his party into government with??? I've seen it all now, I honestly couldn't say any more.

by tom eile Sun Jun 17, 2007 17:45

Michael
You replied to Bamber saying that the IAWM must reformulate its
strategy. Could you outline what its strategy has been up to now? As far
as I can see there hasn’t been any strategy outside of the one endorsed by the SWP – the one which ensured prominent antiwar activists could fight the election on local concerns:

Below is the introduction to Richard Boyd Barrett’s election address to
the people of Dun Laoghaire at http://www.richardboydbarrett.org/ . In
it you will note there is no mention of war whatsoever.

“Richard Boyd Barrett is the People Before Profit Alliance candidate for
Dun Laoghaire constituency in this year’s general election.
He stands for a real alternative that places the needs of people,
community and environment before the interests of developers and big
business.
The government and the establishment political parties are already
spending vast amounts of money, making promises about what they will do for us.
Richard Boyd Barrett has a proven track record at local and national
level of organising community and grass-roots movements to raise the
issues that matter.
He believes that it is People Power not promises that bring real change.
If elected he will ensure the voice of the People is heard in the Dail”
------------
Here are the Dun Laoghaire People Before Profits Alliance priorities for the election as listed on :
www.richardboydbarrett.org/resources/rbb-paper-final-draft.pdf
War does get a mention on the list, but right at the very end .. .

A free comprehensive national health service
Fund our schools and childcare
Save our Seafront
Public Housing and amenities now
Keep our Green spaces
Real local democracy
No to Bin Tax and Water Charges
– Free re-cycling facilities
Stop Global Warming—Fund public transport and renewable energy
No to Bush’s war – US troops out of Shannon
----------
Political parties sought to maximise their votes by pulling in the punters with such orders of priorities at the election . Sinn Fein , the Socialist Party ,the SWP/PBPA and of course the Greens did. That’s understandable and expectable. They all made war “an issue” in their own ways – they all gave it a bit of a mention . The IAWM isn’t a political party though . If it couldn’t say – scream – that war was the main issue facing the Irish people in the election as it is the main issue for people throughout the world right now, how can they complain when the Greens treat war as just another issue? And Richard is the chair of the IAWM - the “principle organizer” of the massive February 15 2003 march according to the SWP newspaper’s election edition ( please never call me brazen again Michael )-see:
http://www.swp.ie/socialistworker/2007/sw274/sw-274-7.htm

By allowing its leading public face to appeal to the people of Dun
Laoghaire on local environmental issues rather than on the threat to
humanity posed by a possible third world war, the IAWM made a big
mistake in the election .That’s just my opinion Michael ,but I am surely entitled to give it without you accusing me of sectarianism and paranoia.

by MichaelY - iawm Sun Jun 17, 2007 19:55

Tom Eile,

Your contribution and your questions appreciated. To clarify at the outset, paranaoia, sectarianism or brazenness are not exclusive or permanent characteristsics of one political current or another - they impact on us all, on some more than others, as we try to defend our corner in a world and under a system where power and decision making is usually denied to people like you or I. My response here will focus solely on the iawm and will, almost by default, be a personal opinion as our meeting(s) to confront some of the issues you raise have not as yet taken place.
(1) The pre-election work of a whole set of iawm activists I know and respect spread over the territory and was not focussed exclusively on Richard and Dun Laoghaire. I have argued this point extensively before, see above, and no point repeating myself.
(2) The strategy adopted by PB4P or the SWP, on the war issue or indeed on any other issue, was determined locally by a whole set of people - most of them in SWP but not only. However, the point I am making here is that the iawm Steering Group had no input on (or endorsement of) that. The responsibility and the success or not of that strategy lies not in the iawm as much as the iawm bears absolutely no responsibility for the shambolic behaviour of the Green leadership. In this respect, Richard and his comrades ran their campaign separately and independently.
(3) The iawm stance on making the war an election issue, and the pledge and the 3,500 posters that went with that strategy, were worked in tandem with PANA and the NGO Alliance. That strategy did not ask for an 'endorsement' of any of PANA's affiliated organisations (like SF, the Greens or the LY) and , most certainly, the SWP! We in the iawm decided to support all anti-war candidates standing, and particularly those who signed our pledge....thus, for example, my own personal involvement with Joan Collins' campaign around the area where I happen to live or other activists involvement with Patricia McKenna, Catherine Connolly and so on.
(4) I am sure all of us who witnessed the developments, if you call them that, with the Greens and Finian on the issue of the war and supporting FF/Bertie etc have our views and analyses on whether the iawm strategy was right, half right or half wrong! Your statement that "By allowing its leading public face to appeal to the people of Dun Laoghaire on local environmental issues rather than on the threat to humanity posed by a possible third world war, the IAWM made a big mistake in the election...." made me smile. Firstly, pls refer yourself to point (2) above, secondly I think you would need to elaborate on that key word "allowing" that you used and thirdly accept that we all have views about that situation and will express them in due course. That's how you should situate my reference to a "re-evaluation of strategy".

Again, thanks for the contribution which was not at all brazen, sectarian or paranoid this time round - lol!! Take it from me that I would be asking the debate and positions taken by the iawm comrades on these questions to be made public through our bulletins and Indymedia over the next few weeks. Watch this space and thanks again.