by Tobias Pflueger

On the base of the treaty, signed on October 29th, 2004, no peaceful Europe can be achieved.

1. The weighting of votes is for the benefit ofthe big countries - especially Germany
Neither during the governmental conference nor inthe convent for the elaboration of the Europeanconstitutional draft where those aspects of thetreaty seriously disputed in which die EU getsfurthermore militarised. Main point of debate onthe governmental conference was the weighting ofvotes within Europe. According to the proposal ofthe constitutional convent most decisions at thecouncil of the European Union should be reachedwith a "double majority" beginning in 2009: majoritydecisions should be accomplished if at least13 of the 25 Governments representing 60 per centof the population would agree. Poland and Spainopposed to adjust the weighting of the votes onthe number of population, because those countriesbenefited from the current arrangement (the treatyof Nizza) and would clearly loose weight underthe new arrangement. Vice versa Germany as themost populous country would obviously gainweight. This is the status quo, which remained inplace after the agreement on the governmentalconference on June 17/18, 2004. But, to havePoland and Spain get on board, too, the approvalrate had been raised to 55% of the member statesand to 65% of the population. It is interesting tosee how the weighting of votes has switched incontrast to the treaty of Nizza. Germany increasedits votes in the council from 9.0% to 18.2%, whatmeans a huge gain of 9.2%, France raised from9.0% to 13.2 % - that accords to an increase ofvotes of 4.2%, afterwards comes Great Britainwith an increase by 4.0% from 9.0% to 13%, andItaly from 9.0% to 12.6%, that is an increase by3.6 %. Spain had to accept a gain of only 0.6% from 8.4% to 9.0% and Poland had to be contentnot loosing any percentage points at all, stagnatingon an 8,4% share at the council. Every othermember state is loosing between 0.5% up to 1.5%compared to the Treaty of Nizza, which is still inforce at the moment. Therefore it should be clearwho are those having a special interest in the cominginto force of the constitutional treaty. But thereal drama of this reallocation is the annulment ofthe hitherto existing principle of equality betweenthe European member states. The parity of votesbetween the big states Germany, France, GreatBritain and Italy gets abolished. Furthermore, the4 big ones gain 21% of the vote in addition, Spainrises by 3.6%, the medium-sized and smallercountries loose accordingly.

2. Getting Europe fit for the ability to wageglobal war
It is the obvious aim of the constitutional treatyregarding the foreign- and military policy to makethe EU ready for a global ability to wage war. Thetreaty should "provide the Union with an operationalcapacity drawing on civil and military assets"(Art. I-41, Sect. 1). Armament develops intoa constitutional command. " Member States shallundertake progressively to improve their militarycapabilities". (Art. I-41, Sect. 3). And additionally,an "Agency in the field of defence capabilitiesdevelopment, research, acquisition and armaments" (European Defence Agency), [formerly: "European Armaments, Research and MilitaryCapabilities Agency"] should monitor this and "contribute to identifying and, if necessary, implementingany useful measure for strengtheningthe industrial and technological base of the defencesector and for improving the effectivenessof military expenditure" (Art. III-311, Sect 1).

The fact that the European Parliament and theEuropean Court are explicitly excluded from controllingthe foreign and military policy is also seriouslytroubling. The options for intervening aregetting enormously enlarged. The military optionsare described in Article III-309. The so-calledPetersberg-tasks (humanitarian missions up tocombat missions) are amended by so called "disarmamentwars", a neologism by Joschka Fischer,who invented this term before the Iraq war.

But also military actions in the war against terrorare defined. A highly explosive topic is describedin Article III-312: "Those Member States whichwish to participate in the permanent structuredcooperation referred to in Article I-41(6), whichfulfil the criteria and have made the commitmentson military capabilities set out in the Protocol onpermanent structured cooperation shall notify theirintention to the Council and to the Union Ministerfor Foreign Affairs."

All efforts to establish an European constitution,which includes a civil responsibility for the maintenanceof peace in the world, have failed. Insteadof speaking out for a stronger role of the UnitedNations in cross national conflicts and to submit tothe charter of the UN, especially the ban of violence,there is the quotation of the "enhancement"of international law and only a commitment to thefundamentals of the UN charter, which leaves thepossibility of European military interventions, notmandated by the UN, open.

There also aren't explicit formulations, for examplethat there should never again spread war fromEuropean territories. In addition, there is no ban ofpreventive wars or a distinct prohibition of interventionistpolicies. Helpful institutions, whichcould contribute to the creation of a peacefulEurope can’t be found either: Neither an Europeanagency for disarmament and conversion, nor adepartment for the prohibition of arms exports areestablished.

This constitutional treaty is far away from anEuropean Union, which is dismissing war andmilitary means as an solution to conflicts, which iswilling to abolish all weapons of mass destructionand adapting their defence industry to the productionof civil goods as well as ending their armsexports. A peace-providing reduction of all militarycapacities down to the inability to wage offensivewar is turned into the opposite by this constitutionaltreaty. Everything is subordinated to thestructural and actual ability to wage war. Obviously,that’s the only way to reach global powerprojection abilities in the European Union's ownself-conception.

3. The concrete implementation in the EuropeanSecurity Strategy
While the EU constitutional treaty was still underdebate, the heads of government of the memberstates were already busy with the implementationof its military aspects: In December 2003, theypassed an allying military strategy in Rome, theso-called "European Security Strategy" (ESS).

Even before, the German chancellor was amazedabout the fact that all EU countries accepted themaster copy which mirrors mostly the Germanand French agenda: "First of all, with respect tothe inner European differences, it is remarkablethat Javier Solana's European security strategydraft was looked upon so favourably by all EUpartners".(Internationale Politik, Nr. 9-2003)

In fact, the master copy of the High Representativefor the European Common Foreign and SecurityPolicy (CFSP), Javier Solana, was passedessentially unchanged. It names three strategicpriorities:
- First, the fight against Terror;
- Second, the fight against the proliferation ofweapons of mass destruction; and
- Third, support for "failed states" as an instrumentagainst organised crime.

How the EU is going to act militarily is also mentionedin this strategy paper: "As a Union of 25members, spending more than 160 billion Euroson defence, we should be able to sustain severaloperations simultaneously." And elsewhere: "Ourtraditional concept of self- defence - up to andincluding the Cold War - was based on the threatof invasion. With the new threats, the first line ofdefence will often be abroad. The new threats aredynamic."

Regarding „Lines of defence" which are abroad, the so-called preemptive war doctrine of the USAdministration's "National Security Strategy"(NSS) clearly comes into mind. However, the EUavoided words like "preemptive war" or "preventivewar". Concerning this matter, the homepageof the German governments states: "The contentiousterm 'preemptive engagement' was substitutedby 'preventive engagement.'"

Official explanations suggest that the new termnow means "prevention" in terms of the civil preventionof conflicts. But the "Neue Zuericher Zeitung"(15.12.03) assumes that the term "preemptive"was avoided because it is a "buzz word". TheInternational Herald Tribune says the term gotreplaced only because there are no words for "preemptive" in some EU-languages. However, Lines of defence abroad is the paraphrasing term for "attack operations" and attacking before the opponentattacks that is aggression against internationallaw.

4. European Defence Paper includingpreventive war
As a consequence, the Paris Institute for StrategicStudies (ISS), which was working for the EuropeanMilitary Alliance, the Western EuropeanUnion (WEU) until 2001, was assigned to workout different mission scenarios for EU-troops,based on the yet not ratified Constitutional Treatyand the European Security Strategy.

The result was a study made by senior militaryadvisers in October 2004, the "European DefencePaper". Its conclusions are striking: The authorsdemand a resolute, immediate and comprehensivearmament of the EU. The aim should be to gainworld-power-status and to be capable to conductoffensive wars. In this strategy, "preventive engagement"is just taken for granted.

Offensive wars will be fixed on European level.Nuclear options won't be excluded anymore. LotharRuehl, former Assistant Secretary of State inthe German Department of Defence and co-authorof the "European Defence Paper", stated contentedlythat the issue of "Preemption/Prevention" ismostly treated under the aspect of missions withconventional troops and special operational forces.

But "at least" the possibility of "explicitly" or "implicitly" involving British and French nuclearforces is mentioned. (Lothar Ruehl: Lueckezwischen Mittel und Zweck. Das "European DefencePaper"; Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung10/01/.2004) As a matter of fact, the Strategy Paperssays concerning the war settings of the futureEU-force: "(W)e have not avoided presenting scenariosin which the national nuclear forces of EUmember states (France and the United Kingdom)may enter into the equation either explicitly orimplicitly."

5. The new "battle groups"
The EU also generously supports concrete armamentsfor global warfare. Recently the Secretariesof Defence specified the future deployment ofEuropean "battle troops". Appointments made inSeptember 2004 in the Dutch city of Noordwijkled to the domination of the German-French cartelof power over the battle groups, which are rapidly deployable. The fundamental decision in the Constitutionto turn the EU into a power with theglobal ability to wage war was accomplished byBerlin and Paris.

Beneath the realisation of the armament programme,Berlin and Brussels are also promotingthe troop deployment. In March 2004, the EUSecretariesof Defence decided a roadmap for theglobal ability to wage war, the so-called "Head-Line-Goal", which has been ratified on the summitof the heads of state in June 2004.

The plan provides to build up an upgraded army,which should be available for worldwide militaryinterventions under a single EU-command in theyear 2010. Two major aspects of the troops envisionedfor this are now being developed: TheEuropean reaction force, which shall be able todeploy up to 60.000 troops for a sustained periodin a crisis region and the "battlegroups", smallfighting units of 1.500 elite soldiers each, whichshall be sent as the first units into a crisis region tofight the way for the reaction forces.

This refers again to the protocol with the "permanentstructured (military) cooperation", that is dueto fix the dimension of a core European militarizationin the future constitutional treaty. One of thefirst EU-battlegroups shall be the German-Frenchbrigade in Müllheim.

6. Core Europe as "structured Cooperation" inthe military realm
Beside the general steps of militarization applyingto all member states, article I-41 and article III-312 are by way of the so called "structured cooperation"nothing less than a juridical frameworkfor the pooling of only a few states in the field ofmilitary policy - within the EU. The otherwisestipulated unanimity concerning the foreign andmilitary policy of the EU is explicit only referringto those who take part in the structured cooperation,the other ones have to keep out.

For the concrete design of this core Europeanmilitary policy, article III-312 refers on the respectiveprotocol attached to the constitutionaltreaty. In this context, it is necessary to know thatthe public discussion is - if at all - focused on themore than 460 articles of the constitutional treaty.Virtually nobody talks about the 350 pages ofprotocols and the 112 pages of explanations thatwill be binding law after ratification. Actuallythey are unknown to the public. A closer look atthe specific protocol concerning the structuredcooperation reveals that they by no means areaddressing irrelevant aspects. Not only the cooperation with NATO and the asserting of the willingnessto contribute to the "vitality of a renewedAtlantic Alliance" (CIG 87/04) ADD 1) is stressedbut one can also find there unmistakably detailedconstitutional commands for a military coreEurope. Plainly speaking, it is put forward that every member state is allowed to participate in the "permanent structured cooperation" that commitsitself to "proceed more intensively to develop itsdefence capacities through the development of itsnational contributions and participation, whereappropriate, in multinational forces, in the mainEuropean equipment programmes, and in the activityof the Agency in the field of defence capabilitiesdevelopment, research, acquisition andarmaments."

Obviously, this protocol establishes that the coreof those European states that commit themselvesto an outstanding preparedness for military aggressivenessand massive armaments are able tomilitarise their Common Foreign and SecurityPolicy in the context of the permanent structuredcooperation.

This liability is further specified in the protocol.Because the aim is to "have the capacity to supplyby 2007 at the latest ... targeted combat units ...within a period of 5 to 30 days … which can besustained for an initial period of 30 days and beextended up to at least 120 days." To fulfill theseobligations, article 2 of the protocol talks aboutthe "objectives concerning the level of investmentexpenditure on defence equipment, and [to] regularlyreview these objectives, in the light of thesecurity environment and of the Union's internationalresponsibilities." The approximation of the"defensive instruments" is also written down, aswell as the common goals for the deployment oftroops.

To recapitulate, this protocol is a symbol of anunrestricted military core Europe. The relatingprovisions shall be constitutionally enshrined. Onedoesn't want to leave something to chance. If theseconstitutional provisions will turn into reality anobligation for armament and for an increasedreadiness to engage in military missions will begenerated.

This is not only true due to the provisions in articleI-41 but also specifically by the totally new"structures cooperation" in the military sector.

Summary
Because of the German government there will be amuch stronger commitment to obtain a fullyfledgedability to wage war in the context of amilitarised core Europe. Therefore, the crucial question remains whether France and especiallyGermany will be able to gather enough votes afterthe ratification of the constitution to remain onthis track hitherto European wars. As a threat tothe other EU states, the provisions of the "structuredcooperation" are already taking effect today.The danger of an accelerated militarization of theGerman foreign policy with the goal to wageEuropean wars autonomously is taking shape.This is the real problem.

Tobias Pflueger is on the board of directors of theInformationsstelle Militarisierung (IMI) and a Memberof the European Parliament.

Informationsstelle Militarisierung (IMI) e.V., Hechingerstr. 203, 72072 Tübingen
Email: imi@imi-online.de
Website: www.imi-online.de

Militarization by treaty or why Europe's constitutional treaty is endangering peace

by Michel Chossudovsky

The Pentagon has released the summary of a top secret Pentagon document, which sketches America's agenda for global military domination.

This redirection of America's military strategy seems to have passed virtually unnoticed. With the exception of The Wall Street Journal, not a word has been mentioned in the US media.

There has been no press coverage concerning this mysterious military blueprint. The latter outlines, according to the Wall Street Journal, America's global military design which consists in "enhancing U.S. influence around the world", through increased troop deployments and a massive buildup of America's advanced weapons systems.

While the document follows in the footsteps of the administration's "preemptive" war doctrine as detailed by the Neocons' Project of the New American Century (PNAC), it goes much further in setting the contours of Washington's global military agenda.

It calls for a more "proactive" approach to warfare, beyond the weaker notion of "preemptive" and defensive actions, where military operations are launched against a "declared enemy" with a view to "preserving the peace" and "defending America".

The document explicitly acknowledges America's global military mandate, beyond regional war theaters. This mandate also includes military operations directed against countries, which are not hostile to America, but which are considered strategic from the point of view of US interests.

From a broad military and foreign policy perspective, the March 2005 Pentagon document constitutes an imperial design, which supports US corporate interests Worldwide.

"At its heart, the document is driven by the belief that the U.S. is engaged in a continuous global struggle that extends far beyond specific battlegrounds, such as Iraq and Afghanistan. The vision is for a military that is far more proactive, focused on changing the world instead of just responding to conflicts such as a North Korean attack on South Korea, and assuming greater prominence in countries in which the U.S. isn't at war. (WSJ, 11 March 2005)

The document suggests that its objective also consists in "offensive" rather than run of the mill "preemptive" operations. There is, in this regard, a subtle nuance in relation to earlier post-911 national security statements:

"[The document presents] 'four core' problems, none of them involving traditional military confrontations. The services are told to develop forces that can: build partnerships with failing states to defeat internal terrorist threats; defend the homeland, including offensive strikes against terrorist groups planning attacks; influence the choices of countries at a strategic crossroads, such as China and Russia; and prevent the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by hostile states and terrorist groups." (Ibid)

The emphasis is no longer solely on waging major theater wars as outlined in the PNAC's Rebuilding America's Defenses, Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century, the March 2005 military blueprint points to shifts in weapons systems as well as the need for a global deployment of US forces in acts of Worldwide military policing and intervention. The PNAC in its September 2000 Report had described these non-theater military operations as "constabulary functions": The Pentagon must retain forces to preserve the current peace in ways that fall short of conduction major theater campaigns. ... These duties are today's most frequent missions, requiring forces configured for combat but capable of long-term, independent constabulary operations." (PNAC, www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf, p. 18)

Recruitment of Troops to Police the Empire
The underlying emphasis is on the development and recruitment of specialized military manpower required to control and pacify indigenous forces and factions in different regions of the World:

"the classified guidance urges the military to come up with less doctrinaire solutions that include sending in smaller teams of culturally savvy soldiers to train and mentor indigenous forces." (Ibid)

The classified document points to the need for a massive recruitment and training of troops. These troops, including new contingents of special forces, green berets and other specialized military personnel, would be involved, around the World, in acts of military policing:

"Mr. Rumsfeld's approach likely will trigger major shifts in the weapons systems that the Pentagon buys, and even more fundamental changes in the training and deployment of U.S. troops throughout the world, said defense officials who have played a role in crafting the document or are involved in the review.

The U.S. would seek to deploy these troops far earlier in a looming conflict than they traditionally have been to help a tottering government's armed forces confront guerrillas before an insurgency is able to take root and build popular support. Officials said the plan envisions many such teams operating around the world.

US military involvement is not limited to the Middle East. The sending in of special forces in military policing operations, under the disguise of peace-keeping and training, is contemplated in all major regions of the World. A large part of these activities, however, will most probably be carried out by private mercenary companies on contract to the Pentagon, NATO or the United Nations. The military manpower requirements as well as the equipment are specialized. The policing will not be conducted by regular army units as in a theater war:

"the new plan envisions more active U.S. involvement, resembling recent military aid missions to places like Niger and Chad, where the U.S. is dispatching teams of ground troops to train local militaries in basic counterinsurgency tactics. Future training missions, however, would likely be conducted on a much broader scale, one defense official said.

Of the military's services, the Marines Corps right now is moving fastest to fill this gap and is looking at shifting some resources away from traditional amphibious-assault missions to new units designed specifically to work with foreign forces. To support these troops, military officials are looking at everything from acquiring cheap aerial surveillance systems to flying gunships that can be used in messy urban fights to come to the aid of ground troops. One "dream capability" might be an unmanned AC-130 gunship that could circle an area at relatively low altitude until it is needed, then swoop in to lay down a withering line of fire, said a defense official." (Ibid)

New Post Cold War Enemies
While the "war on terrorism" and the containment of "rogue states" still constitute the official justification and driving force, China and Russia are explicitly identified in the classified March document as potential enemies.

"... the U.S. military ... is seeking to dissuade rising powers, such as China, from challenging U.S. military dominance. Although weapons systems designed to fight guerrillas tend to be fairly cheap and low-tech, the review makes clear that to dissuade those countries from trying to compete, the U.S. military must retain its dominance in key high-tech areas, such as stealth technology, precision weaponry and manned and unmanned surveillance systems." (Ibid)

While the European Union is not mentioned, the stated objective is to shunt the development of all potential military rivals.

"Trying to Run with the Big Dog"
How does Washington intend to reach its goal of global military hegemony?

Essentially through the continued development of the US weapons industry, requiring a massive shift out of the production of civilian goods and services. In other words, the ongoing increase in defense spending feeds this new undeclared arms race, with vast amounts of public money channeled to America's major weapons producers.

The stated objective is to make the process of developing advanced weapons systems "so expensive", that no other power on earth will able to compete or challenge "the Big Dog", without jeopardizing its civilian economy:

"[A]t the core of this strategy is the belief that the US must maintain such a large lead in crucial technologies that growing powers will conclude that it is too expensive for these countries to even think about trying to run with the big dog. They will realize that it is not worth sacrificing their economic growth, said one defense consultant who was hired to draft sections of the document. " (Ibid, emphasis added)

Undeclared Arms Race between Europe and America
This new undeclared arms race is with the so-called "growing powers".

While China and Russia are mentioned as a potential threat, America's (unofficial) rivals also include France, Germany and Japan. The recognized partners of the US --in the context of the Anglo-American axis-- are Britain, Australia and Canada, not to mention Israel (unofficially).

In this context, there are at present two dominant Western military axes: the Anglo-American axis and the competing Franco-German alliance. The European military project, largely dominated by France and Germany, will inevitably undermine NATO. Britain (through British Aerospace Systems Corporation) is firmly integrated into the US system of defense procurement in partnership with America's big five weapons producers.

Needless to say, this new arms race is firmly embedded in the European project, which envisages under EU auspices, a massive redirection of State financial resources towards military expenditure. Moreover, the EU monetary system establishing a global currency which challenges the hegemony of the US dollar is intimately related to the development of an integrated EU defense force outside of NATO.

Under the European constitution, there will be a unified European foreign policy position which will include a common defense component. It is understood, although never seriously debated in public, that the proposed European Defense Force is intended to challenge America's supremacy in military affairs:

"under such a regime, trans-Atlantic relations will be dealt a fatal blow." (according to Martin Callanan, British Conservative member of the European Parliament, Washington times, 5 March 2005).

Ironically, this European military project, while encouraging an undeclared US-EU arms race, is not incompatible with continued US-EU cooperation in military affairs. The underlying objective for Europe is that EU corporate interests are protected and that European contractors are able to effectively cash in and "share the spoils" of the US-led wars in the Middle East and elsewhere. In other words, by challenging the Big Dog from a position of strength, the EU seeks to retain its role as "a partner" of America in its various military ventures.

There is a presumption, particularly in France, that the only way to build good relations with Washington, is to emulate the American Military Project,-- i.e. by adopting a similar strategy of beefing up Europe's advanced weapons systems.

In other words, what we are dealing with is a fragile love-hate relationship between Old Europe and America, in defense systems, the oil industry as well as in the upper spheres of banking, finance and currency markets. The important issue is how this fragile geopolitical relationship will evolve in terms of coalitions and alliances in the years to come. France and Germany have military cooperation agreements with both Russia and China. European Defense companies are supplying China with sophisticated weaponry. Ultimately, Europe is viewed as an encroachment by the US, and military conflict between competing Western superpowers cannot be ruled out.
(For further details, see Michel Chossudovsky, The Anglo-American Axis, www.globalresearch.ca/article/CHO303B.html)

From skepticism concerning Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to outright condemnation, in the months leading up to the March 2003 invasion, Old Europe (in the wake of the invasion) has broadly accepted the legitimacy of the US military occupation of Iraq, despite the killings of civilians, not to mention the Bush administration's policy guidelines on torture and political assassinations.

In a cruel irony, the new US-EU arms race has become the chosen avenue of the European Union, to foster "friendly relations" with the American superpower. Rather than opposing the US, Europe has embraced "the war on terrorism". It is actively collaborating with the US in the arrest of presumed terrorists. Several EU countries have established Big Brother anti-terrorist laws, which constitute a European "copy and paste" version of the US Homeland Security legislation.

European public opinion is now galvanized into supporting the "war on terrorism", which broadly benefits the European military industrial complex and the oil companies. In turn, the "war on terrorism" also provides a shaky legitimacy to the EU security agenda under the European Constitution. The latter is increasingly viewed with disbelief, as a pretext to implement police-state measures, while also dismantling labor legislation and the European welfare state.

In turn, the European media has also become a partner in the disinformation campaign. The "outside enemy" presented ad nauseam on network TV, on both sides of the Atlantic, is Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi. In other words, the propaganda campaign serves to usefully camouflage the ongoing militarisation of civilian institutions, which is occurring simultaneously in Europe and America.

Guns and Butter: The Demise of the Civilian Economy
The proposed EU constitution requires a massive expansion of military spending in all member countries to the obvious detriment of the civilian economy.

The European Union's 3% limit on annual budget deficits implies that the expansion in military expenditure will be accompanied by a massive curtailment of all categories of civilian expenditure, including social services, public infrastructure, not to mention government support to agriculture and industry. In this regard, "the war on terrorism" serves --in the context of the neoliberal reforms-- as a pretext. It builds public acceptance for the imposition of austerity measures affecting civilian programs, on the grounds that money is needed to enhance national security and homeland defense.

The growth of military spending in Europe is directly related to the US military buildup. The more America spends on defense, the more Europe will want to spend on developing its own European Defense Force. "Keeping up with the Jones", all of which is for a good and worthy, cause, namely fighting "Islamic terrorists" and defending the homeland.

EU enlargement is directly linked to the development and financing of the European weapons industry. The dominant European powers desperately need the contributions of the ten new EU members to finance the EU's military buildup. In this regard, the European Constitution requires "the adoption of a security strategy for Europe, accompanied by financial commitments on military spending." (European Report, 3 July 2003). In other words, under the European Constitution, EU enlargement tends to weaken the Atlantic military alliance (NATO).

The backlash on employment and social programs is the inevitable byproduct of both the American and European military projects, which channel vast amounts of State financial resources towards the war economy, at the expense of the civilian sectors.

The result are plant closures and bankruptcies in the civilian economy and a rising tide of poverty and unemployment throughout the Western World. Moreover, contrary to the 1930s, the dynamic development of the weapons industry creates very few jobs.

Meanwhile, as the Western war economy flourishes, the relocation of the production of civilian manufactured goods to Third World countries has increased in recent years at an dramatic pace. China, which constitutes by far the largest producer of civilian manufactured goods, increased its textile exports to the US by 80.2 percent in 2004, leading to a wave of plant closures and job losses (WSJ, 11 March 2005)

The global economy is characterized by a bipolar relationship. The rich Western countries produce weapons of mass destruction, whereas poor countries produce manufactured consumer goods. In a twisted logic, the rich countries use their advanced weapons systems to threaten or wage war on the poor developing countries, which supply Western markets with large amounts of consumer goods produced in cheap labor assembly plants.

America, in particular, has relied on this cheap supply of consumer goods to close down a large share of its manufacturing sector, while at the same time redirecting resources away from the civilian economy into the production of weapons of mass destruction. And the latter, in a bitter irony, are slated to be used against the country which supplies America with a large share of its consumer goods, namely China.

-© Copyright MICHEL CHOSSUDOVSKY, GLOBAL RESEARCH 2005.
The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/article/CHO503A.html

New Undeclared Arms Race: America's Agenda for Global Military Domination

The National Platform

The Constitution of any normal State lays down the rules and institutional framework for political decision-making. It does not seek to forestall the ideological content of those decisions. That is left to political debate between the political parties of Left and Right, abiding by those decision-making rules. The EU Constitution contained in the "Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe", which we will have a referendum on in 2005, is different in that it lays down such rules, but it also lays down a right-wing economic ideology which those rules must implement.

1. THE CONSTITUTION ENSHRINES EXTREME NEO-LIBERALISM AS THE BASIS OF THE EU ECONOMY
It turns the fundamental principles of laissez-faire,i.e.free competition across national borders on the basis of the unimpeded movement of goods, services, capital and labour, into constitutional obligations (Arts.I-3 and 4, Arts.III-130, 166 and 167). These are to be implemented by small committees of supranational politicians and bureaucrats under the influence of the big corporate lobbyists such as the European Roundtable of Industrialists, outside democratic control. This is the opposite of public control and economic planning of any kind, which all sections of the Left recognise as necessary in some areas. The EU Constitution suppresses political alternatives. If implemented it would reduce workers' capacity to mobilise and would restrict the policy areas their organisations can effect change in;for they would be constitutionally obliged to conform to neo-liberal economic principles at both EU and national levels. It does not advance a social Europe,which requires social controls on capital, not capital that is free of controls as a matter of constitutional principle. It prevents public enterprises and State aids from serving national social purposes(Arts.III-161 and 162, Arts.166 and 167). The Constitution amounts in effect to a contract not to have socialism, understanding the concept socialism as requiring the imposition of social controls on capital in the interest of workers and the common good, something that socialists and social democrats of all shades have always advocated. The new EC/EU Commission,the body of government nominees that has the exclusive power of proposing EU laws,is dominated by economic neo-liberals. The new Commission President, Jose Manuel Barroso, led an assault on public services and workers' living standards while he was Prime Minister of Portugal.

2. IT ENCOURAGES THE PRIVATISATION OF PUBLIC SERVICES and enshrines a heavy bias against public enterprise in favour of private capital. The Constitution gives Brussels powers to decide by majority vote what counts as a "public service"(Art.III-166). This could mean that it is up to the EU to identify which areas of public health and education services, for example, would be exempt from competition policy, and which areas would be opened up to private sector competitition. It permits such policies to be imposed on developing countries through the trade treaties the EU concludes under the Common Commercial Policy, and the invesment rules it lays down(Arts.III-314,317).

3. IT ENSHRINES THE PERMANENT DOMINANCE OF CAPITAL OVER LABOUR
Article III-156 provides that there shall be no control on the movement of capital either within the Union or between the Union and the rest of the world, even though such controls may periodically be required to serve the social interest.

4. IT MAKES THE MONETARIST ECONOMIC POLICY OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATORY
The ECB's sole brief in setting interest rates and controlling the money supply of the eurozone is to ensure price stability, not maximize economic growth, create jobs or reduce inequalities(Art.III-185). This imposes deflation on the larger eurozone economies. It prevents national governments expanding demand to counter recession and unemployment. It removes credit and financial policy from the sphere of public debate, subordinating it to the priorities of bankers, big business and technical experts, and effectively makes democratic electoral mandates relating to the control of credit, money and interest rates redundant. The Stability and Growth Pact,which imposes rules for national budgets,is regularly flouted by the Big States but has led to smaller States like Ireland being censured.

5. IT MAKES THE ADOPTION OT THE EURO A CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT, even though 13 of the 25 Member States still retain their own national currencies(Arts.I-8 and III-177). Ireland's surrender of its ability to control credit and decide its rate of interest has been an important factor in the country's soaring house prices. If the dollar continues to fall and the euro to rise, as at present, Irish business competitiveness must deteriorate, for we do two-thirds of our trade outside the eurozone. We can no longer counter this by varying our currency exchange rate,something from which we benefited enormously during the "Celtic Tiger" years 1993-1999, for we have surrendered that power by adopting the euro.

6. IT MILITARIZES THE EU
The Constitution points to the end of the formal military neutrality of Ireland, Denmark, Sweden, Austria and Malta by replacing the Nice Treaty provision that the progressive framing of a common defence policy "MIGHT lead to a common defence, SHOULD the European Council so decide with the provision in the Constitution that it "WILL lead to a common defence, WHEN the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides" (Art.I-41). This is clearly only a matter of time. It requires all Member States "to make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of the common security and defence policy" and "to undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities" etc. It permits EU military operations to take place without a UN Charter mandate. Article I-16 gives the EU the power to conduct a common foreign and security policy covering "all areas of foreign policy and all questions relating to the Union's security, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy that might lead to a common defence". The same Article places Member States under an explicit constitutional obligation to refrain from following an independent foreign policy if that clashes with the EU one: "Member States shall actively and unreservedly support the Union's common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the Union's action in this area. They shall refrain from action contrary to the Union's interests or likely to impair its effectiveness."

7. IT CENTRALISES THE EU FURTHER AND TAKES AWAY MORE POWERS FROM NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS AND CITIZENS, TRANSFERRING THEM TO A TINY HANDFUL OF EU POLITICIANS AND CIVIL SERVANTS
The Constitution abolishes existing national vetoes or gives new law-making powers to the EU in relation to over 60 policy areas or issues: for example, harmonising crime and justice matters, criminal sanctions and the definition of offences; border controls; asylum and immigration; energy; culture;tourism; sport; the market for public services; Europol and Eurojust; social security for migrant workers; public health; rules of the structural and cohesion funds etc. This suerrender of over 60 national vetoes is a more extensive transfer of powers to the EU than the 35 areas in relation to which national Parliaments and citizens lost their right to legislate in the 2003 Nice Treaty, or the 19 areas lost under the 1998 Amsterdam Treaty.

8. IT ALLOWS THE POLITICIANS TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION WITHOUT NEED OF FURTHER TREATY RATIFICATION
An "escalator clause" (Art.IV-444) allows the 25 Presidents and Prime Ministers to shift further policy areas - for example harmonizing indirect taxes (Art.III-171) - from unanimity to majority voting without need of new treaties, parliamentary approval or referendums, as long as there is consensus amongst themselves and national parliaments do not object. This creates a permanent democratic deficit and means that the text of the Constitution is not a fully accurate guide to its own provisions. A so-called "Flexibility Clause" (Art.I-18) permits EU Ministers to take new powers to themselves if they think the Constitution does not give the EU sufficient power to attain its very wide objectives. At present they have this power with regard to the single market. The Constitution extends it to all areas of government policy. These two provisions have no place in any democratic Constitution.

9. IT TRANSFERS POWER TO THE NEW EU TO DECIDE OUR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS IN THE LARGE AND EXPANDING AREA COVERED BY EU LAW.
At present it is national Constitutions and Supreme Courts that ultimately decide our rights, as well as the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which is quite independent of and separate from the EU Court of Justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg. The Constitution gives the EU Court a human rights competence for the first time, which would confer on this "court with a mission", as one of its own judges once called it - that mission being to extend EU powers to the maximum possible extent through its case law - a vast new legal territory to rule over. The EU should respect our human rights; it should not have the power to decide what they are. Giving the EU Court the power to do decide human rights matters would introduce a new and expensive tier of judges and lawyers between citizens and the final Court that decides their rights in all areas covered by EU law. That includes national States when implementing EU law, which nowadays makes up the greater part of national legislation. The Constitution then makes it possible for these rights to be undermined by providing that the rights set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights(Part II of the Constitution) may be limited "to meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union" (Art.II-112). The Charter permits the death penalty to be imposed in time of war for EU-mandated military operations, even though all the individual Member States have decided to abolish the death-penalty in war-time (Art.II-62 and Declaration 12 on the Explanations of the Charter of Fundamental Rights).

10. AS A CONCESSION TO EUROPEAN EMPLOYERS, THE CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS FAILS TO STRENGTHEN WORKERS' RIGHTS TO ORGANISE AND ACT COLLECTIVELY
Article II-88 provides that workers have these rights "in accordance with Union law and national laws and practices". The Constitution protects an employer's right to lock out his employees, quite as much as an employee's right to go on strike, depending on what their national labour law lays down. In so far as the Constitution allows fundamental rights to be limited in the interests of the EU, some future ECJ judgement could threaten workers' rights that have been long fought for and established at national level. The Charter of Fundamental Rights is essentially secondary and subordinate to EU commercial and economic policy and is circumscribed by that policy.

11. EURATOM, THE EUROPEAN ATOMIC ENERGY TREATY,WHICH PROMOTES NUCLEAR POWER, IS MADE PART OF THE CONSTITUTION
Protocol 36 continues the EURATOM Community in being indefinitely, side by side with the new EU, and commits the EU Member States to supporting nuclear energy. With the advent of the East European members, the majority of EU States now use nuclear power for civil purposes.

12. THE CONSTITUTION ENSHRINES IRELAND'S ABORTION PROTOCOL, WHICH PREVENTS EU INTERFERENCE WITH IRELAND'S ABORTION LAW, OVER WHICH THERE WAS CONTROVERSY IN THE 1992 MAASTRICHT TREATY REFERENDUM
The Maastricht Treaty is now repealed and the relevant provision is reconstituted as Protocol 31 of the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe.

13. IT SHIFTS EU LAW-MAKING BY THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS TO A POPULATION-BASED VOTING SYSTEM WHICH ADVANTAGES THE BIG STATES AND RELATIVELY DISADVANTAGES MIDDLE-SIZED STATES LIKE IRELAND
The Constitution abolishes the weighted voting system that was agreed in the Treaty of Nice to provide for EU enlargement, and ordains that EU laws will be made in future by a "double majority" of States and population: 55% of the Member States, at least 15, as long as they include 65% of the EU's population (Art.I-25). Thus 15 States, if they satisfy the 65% population criterion, would be able to outvote 10. On the number-of-States criterion a blocking minority must be at least 11 States, so that that will be harder to assemble than before. This shift to a mainly population criterion for EU law-making makes it easier for the Big States with their big populations to get their way. It reduces the relative voting weight of middle-rank Member States like Ireland. It would make EU laws easier to pass, which means there would be more of them. Legislative "efficiency" in the EU is not best gauged by the quantity of laws it makes, but by their quality and democratic character. People want good laws, not more laws.

14. THE CONSTITUTION TRANSFORMS THE PRESENT "EUROPEAN UNION", WHICH IS A DESCRIPTIVE TITLE FOR VARIOUS FORMS OF COOPERATION BETWEEN ITS MEMBER COUNTRIES, INTO AN EU FEDERAL STATE, AND REDUCES IRELAND AND THE OTHER MEMBER STATES TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL STATUS OF PROVINCES INSIDE THIS NEW EUROPEAN FEDERATION
What is called the "European Union" at present is a descriptive term for various forms of cooperation between its Member States (See Title 1, Article A, of the Maastricht Treaty on European Union,1993, which states this). One of these forms is the European Community (EC). This Community still exists. It has legal personality separate from its Member States, all 25 of which still belong to it. Community (EC) law is supranational and has primacy over national law in any case of conflict between the two. The European Community (EC) covers mainly the economic and single market area, including the euro-currency. Here the EC Member States have "pooled" their sovereignty and the EC Commission has the exclusive right to propose EC laws. In all other areas of government, however, the Member States have retained their independence and sovereignty, and cooperate with one another as free and equal partners internationally - or "intergovernmentally" in EU jargon: in foreign affairs and military matters, crime and justice matters, and national policy on health, housing, education, social security etc.

The "European Union" that we currently belong to refers to all these different forms of cooperation taken together. But the EU does not exist as a legal entity as such. The present EU does not have legal personality or an independent corporate existence in its own right. Therefore there is no such thing as "European Union" law, only "European Community" or "EC" law. Propagandists for the Constitution confuse the terms "Union" and "Community" deliberately, to prevent people realising that the proposed new Union, based on its own Constitution, would in legal terms be fundamentally different from the European Union that we are told we are honorary citizens of at present. This new EU would have become a supranational Federal State, within which the present Member States would be reduced to the constitutional status of provincial states. Because the new Union would have the same name as the existing EU,the Federalist State-builders hope that people will not realise what is happening. Their long-concerted plan has been to get people accustomed to the name "European Union" first, and then change its constitutional and legal essence. That is why the 1993 Maastricht Treaty, from which the name "European Union" came, was titled the Treaty "on" European Union, not "of" Union. Maastricht did not set up a real Union that could act in its own right either internally or externally. Only the European Community, which the Constitution abolishes, could do that. The transformation of the present European Union from a mixture of different forms of cooperation between States into a European Federal State, is being done now with the proposed Constitution. Those pushing the Constitution hope that people will not notice the legal sleight-of-hand. If the Constitution is ratified we would become real citizens of a European Union for the first time,and not just honorary ones as at present. We would owe this new Union real allegiance as a State and have obligations directly to it and not just through our own national States, for national Constitutions must be changed to transfer svereignty to the Union and give its Constitution primacy. As with many Federal Constitutions the European Constitution provides that a Member State may withdraw from the new Union if it wishes, although the procedure it lays down for doing this makes it difficult(Art.I-60). Historical experience suggests that individual withdrawals from Federal States seldom take place. The more usual pattern in the case of Federations that do not last, is that they break up because of conflict between their members, so that everyone leaves, as it were.

The EU Constitution turns the EU into a State by means of four precise legal steps. FIRST, it repeals the existing EC and EU treaties (Art.IV-437). It thereby abolishes the existing European Union and European Community. SECOND, it establishes a new European Union founded on its own Constitution rather than on treaties between sovereign Member States (Art.I-1). A Constitution, as distinct from a Treaty, is an independent source of legal authority for a State,although history also shows many examples of States being set up by treaties. THIRD, it lays down that this Constitution and law made under it has primacy over the law, including the constitutional law, of its Member States, without any qualification or exclusions that would reserve powers to its Member States indefinitely (Arts.I-6). This makes the European Constitution the fundamental source of legal authority in the new EU, supplanting the constitutions of the Member States in that respect. FOURTH, it gives this new European Union, which henceforth derives its authority and legitimacy from its own Constitution, legal personality and independent corporate existence for the first time (Art.I-7). This makes the new EU legally separate from its individual Member States, just as Texas and Virginia are legally separate from the US Federation and vice versa, even though the USA includes these provincial states. The Constitution enables the new EU State to act as sovereign over its Members and to enter into treaty relations with other States, just like any other member of the international community of States.

The Constitution could have excluded some national powers and competences permanently from the scope of this new EU and the primacy of its laws, in which case Member States would have retained some of their original sovereignty and independence. But it did not do that. Member States still retain their own national Constitutions of course, just as Texas and Virginia do, but they are subordinate to the new EU Constitution, which is the fundamental source of authority for the new Union, just as the Federal Constitution has primacy in the USA and other Federations.

This does not mean that the new EU State will run everything, anymore than the early American or German or Indian or Russian Federations run, or ran, everything. The EU actually runs lots of things and potentially runs a lot more. How much more will depend on which of their remaining powers or competences the Member States may agree to transfer to the new EU in the future.

The two main powers of Statehood the new EU would not yet possess if the Constitution is ratified is the power to impose taxes and the power to force its Member States to go to war against their will. However the "escalator" clause (Art.IV-444) would allow the European Council of Presidents and Prime Ministers to replace unanimity by majority voting for harmonizing indirect taxes. And the Constitution's Foreign Policy and Security provisions (Arts.I-41 and III-310) would permit some Member States to take the EU to war, so long as others do not object but "constructively abstain".

Apart from that, the new Union would have all the key features of Statehood: a Constitution, citizenship, a population, a territory, a currency, armed forces, a legislature, executive and judiciary, a Foreign Minister and diplomatic corps, some 100,000 pages of federal law, the right to conclude international treaties with other States in the ever-growing area of its exclusive competence - and now of course its own flag, anthem and annual public holiday, which are given a legal basis for the first time in the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe. Moreover, it would have acquired these features in a much shorter period of time than it took the US Federation historically to acquire them, although unlike the latter there is no European people or national community to give them a democratic basis, legitimacy and authority.

15. THE CONSTITUTION WAS DRAWN UP BY A CONVENTION THAT FAILED TO DO ITS JOB
This Convention was set up by the 2001 Laeken Declaration of EU Presidents and Prime Ministers. This Declaration charged the Convention with the task of producing proposals to make the EU more democractic, more transparent and closer to citizens. It was told to consider the possibility of restoring powers from the supranational level to the Member States, and the possibility "in the long run" of an EU Constitution. Instead of doing that the Convention, which overwhelmingly consisted of Federalist EU-State-builders, rushed headlong into drafting an EU State Constitution that does not propose rapatriating a single power from the supranational to the national level, but proposes rather to transfer over 60 further policy areas from Member States to the EU. ange a single European law, even if they wish overwhelmingly to do that.

16. THE CONSTITUTION FUNDAMENTALLY UNDERMINES DEMOCRACY
The Left has always been among the strongest upholders of democracy. The Left has traditionally stood for the right of peoples to self-determination and to chose their own government. This fundamental democratic right, which is a basic principle of international law, enshrined in the United Nations Charter, is violated by the Constitution's proposal to make the proposed new European Union, founded now for the first time on its own State Constitution, into the supreme source of lawful authority for its 25 Member States. The EU becomes the new legal sovereign for EU citizens, who will owe it real allegiance for the first time, over and above their own national States. Under the Constitution the sovereign powers of the new EU would be vested in its Council, Commission, Court and Parliament, to which we would all owe loyalty and obedience. We would become real citizens of the EU for the first time, not just as an honorary title, an adjunct to national citizenship, as at present under the 1993 Treaty of Maastricht, but with rights and obligations direct to the EU Institutions rather than through our national institutions as hitherto. In this EU Federation the laws for 450 million Europeans would be made by what is effectively an oligarchy, a legislative committee, of 25 politicians on the Council of Ministers, who are irremoveable as a group and collectively responsible to nobody. Those laws in turn are based on proposals from the 25-member, eventually 18-member, EU Commission, who are governmental nominees and not individually elected. European laws may be amended by the elected European Parliament, but only with the agreement of the Council and Commission, whose law-making power is therefore primary. The citizens of any EU Member State cannot change a single European law, even if they wish overwhelmingly to do that.

CONCLUSION
These proposed governmental structures for the greater part of Europe are profoundly undemocratic, quite apart from the neo-liberal economic ideology the Constitution makes it legally imperative for them to implement. As democrats therefore, all socialists, Greens, anti-war activists, genuine liberals and others on the Left, need to work side by side with democratic non-socialists and others, rejecting all association with racist or fascist elements, in the common international struggle to defend democracy in face of the proposed EU Constitution.

* * *

SOURCE: This document has been issued for public information. It represents the views of some members of the National Platform who are on the political Left. It has been vetted for legal accuracy by authorities in European law. It may be adapted or used in whole or in part in any way whatever, without need for acknowledgement to its source. Please feel free to draw it to the attention of others who may be interested in this subject.

WHY THE LEFT SHOULD OPPOSE THE EU CONSTITUTION

A Policy document by the Peace and Neutrality Alliance.

Written by Carol Fox, Research Officer of the Peace and Neutrality Alliance and endorsed by the National Executive Committee.

Introduction:
Before the end of 2006, the Irish people will be asked to go to the polls to approve the new EU Constitution. This will be a momentous vote. The importance of creating a Constitution for the European Union has been acknowledged by the fact that nearly half the EU countries, representing over half the EU's population, will also be having referendums. This is not the normal stuff of EU Treaties where very few countries allow their people to vote on ratification: it is normally left up to Parliaments for approval. Ireland is one of the few exceptions where, thanks to the Supreme Court Case of Raymond Crotty in the late 1980s, the Irish Government was forced to submit the Single European Act and all subsequent treaties to the people for approval: a nod and wink through the Dail was not enough. The Peace and Neutrality Alliance is pleased that more countries will be having referendums in this instance but we feel that all the EU Member States should be giving - or withholding - approval of the EU Constitution via a vote of all the people. Referendums should be held throughout Europe on the same day.

However, some EU Member States will be attempting -- like our own Government - to downplay the real significance of the EU Constitution. This is not merely a pulling together of previous EU treaties into one tidy, more readable document, as our Government will argue. It contains a number of new elements, particularly in the areas that the Peace and Neutrality Alliance (PANA) is most concerned with: common foreign, security and defence policy. It is also far more than a Treaty and the term 'Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe' is designed to obscure what is being proposed: this is a Constitution for a developing EU State, with its own Central Bank, citizenship, currency, laws, judiciary, executive and parliament, President, Foreign Minister, Diplomatic Corps, Charter of Fundamental Rights, military headquarters and evolving army and police force. There is a national anthem, a flag, and a motto. The new EU Constitution will have primacy over the Irish Constitution and all the other constitutions of the EU Member States.

The new departures in the foreign policy and defence areas include:

1) institutional measures to give the EU a stronger voice and role in international affairs: these include a permanent EU President (the rotating six month EU Presidencies between the member states will end) and an EU Foreign Minister and EU Department of Foreign Affairs (European External Action Service);

2) an expansion of the 'Petersberg Tasks' to be carried out by the EU's civilian and military forces, to include combating terrorism, and possible pre-emptive military action against perceived 'threats';

3) a new innovation, Structured Cooperation, which allows mini-military alliances to be established within the structures of the EU to carry out the EU's more 'demanding' missions;

4) Mutual Solidarity and Mutual Defence Clauses which oblige all member states to come to the assistance of any member state subject to armed aggression, terrorist threat or attack, or manmade/natural disaster.

All of these innovations have been developed within a post 9/11 international environment, and the controversies of the Iraq War. They are backed up by a new EU Security Strategy, "A Secure Europe in a Better World", written by the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, Javiar Solana, and endorsed by the EU in December 2003.

Download full Document in .doc format, 51Kb eu-pana-nov04.doc

by Kate Hudson

The war on Iraq continues to dominate British politics especially after the government has committed 850 extra troops to be deployed as part of a US marine expeditionary unit to take so-called 'decisive action against insurgents in Iraq'. This is despite the fact that opinion polls show that increasing numbers think the war was a mistake and that the occupation should be ended, with around 70% supporting the setting of an early date for withdrawal of British troops. The deployment of additional troops is widely seen as electoral support for Bush, against Kerry's statement that the US is isolating itself over its position on Iraq.

The view that the war on Iraq was wrong is widely and increasingly shared across the world - one of the most recent to take this view is Kofi Anan, Secretary General of the UN who has concluded that the war was illegal. Public disapproval in Britain has been demonstrated not only via mass demonstrations against the war and occupation, but also through the ballot box in recent elections. Anti-war parties - particularly the Liberal Democrats - have performed well against Labour, and there are concerns within the Labour Party about going into an election under Blair.

The Prime Minister continues to attempt to lay the matter to rest. He has acknowledged that he had been wrong on weapons of mass destruction, but crucially he has still refused to apologise for the war, insisting that the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein. Few people, if any, in the UK would prefer to see Saddam Hussein at liberty, rather than in prison, but Mr Blair's problem is that he is avoiding the real issues, which are widely accepted as the following:

the war was supposedly entered into over wmd and Iraq's non-compliance with disarmament resolutions and treaties
so-called evidence to justify this was hyped up, manufactured, or embroidered - and it is not clear that the prime minister was unaware of the fabrication and deceit. Indeed it is widely believed that he knew and condoned it.
there was not support for war from the UN Security Council - it was an illegal war
Mr Blair had apparently already agreed that he would support President Bush in a war against Iraq in any case.
if the actual motive was regime change this is also illegal under international law.

Mr Blair's failure to respond adequately and honestly to these real issues has led to a massive loss of confidence in his leadership amongst the British population.

Mr Blair also likes to suggest that this is a war of survival by the west, for democracy, against global terrorism, but as was made clear in US security reports, there were no links between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda. As was reported in the papers recently, the White House received warnings in January 2003 that a war on Iraq could unleash a violent insurgency and raise anti-US sentiment in the Middle East. This warning came from the US National Intelligence Council which also warned Bush last month that the violence ion Iraq could descend into civil war. President Bush has dismissed these assessments and has asserted that the situation in Iraq is improving, although the US administration is finally being forced to agree that the opposition to occupation has many more fighters and resources than it has previously acknowledged.

The real tragedy of the war, of course is that the situation is getting worse in Iraq. The decisions of the UK government, whether made knowingly on the basis of fabricated evidence, and wilfully breaking international law, or through the most serious possible errors of judgement, have devastated the lives of the Iraqi people, bringing death, suffering and destruction on a terrible scale. Over 17,000 civilians are estimated to have died so far. More are killed on a daily basis as a result of military actions by US and UK forces. The UK government claims that the forces act only against hostile insurgents and terrorists, yet innocent civilians are killed and injured on a daily basis. Ambulances have been shot at in Fallujah, peaceful demonstrators have been fired on in Baghdad. There is also a myth perpetrated by our own government that somehow in British occupied territories everything is sweetness and light. That is clearly not the case. In Basra, British servicemen have been killed. Over a hundred thousand rounds of ammunition have been used by British troops in Basra which does not suggest a peaceful occupation. But we lay no blame on the British troops - they should not be there, and the loss of every service man or woman is to be deeply regretted. Rose Gentle, mother of Gordon Gentle, the 19 year old British soldier killed by a bomb in Basra in June, has spoken out against the war and occupation. She is working with other service families to ensure their voice against the war is heard.

The occupation - which is tainted by the brutality and abuse revealed at the Abu Ghraib prison - is not solving any of the problems of Iraq. It is creating an escalating cycle of violence and must be ended rapidly. Huge areas of Iraq are out of the control of the occupying forces. There is real mass opposition to the occupying forces from the Iraqi people, and Blair's attempts to characterise them all as terrorists is wrong. Terrorists are a terrible feature of the situation in Iraq, but they are a direct result of the war and occupation, a result of our government's policies in cooperation with the Bush administration.

In addition to those killed in the fighting, it is also the case that people are continuing to die as a result of the munitions used by the aggressor forces. Cluster bombs, which spread small bomblets like land-mines, have been widely used, and are a great danger to civilians, particularly children, who pick up the small canisters when at play, then suffer death or severe injury as a result. Many have suffered loss of limbs as a result of cluster bombs.

Depleted uranium munitions have also been used extensively. These are usually shells tipped with depleted uranium to give them extra armour piercing weight. On impact they spread radio-active dust, which on inhalation or ingestion irradiates the person from inside, giving rise to leukaemia and other forms of cancer. Depleted uranium was widely used in Yugoslavia and Iraq during the first Gulf War and there are major cancer clusters and terrible birth deformities as a result. The indiscriminate nature of both these types of munitions - unable to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants - gives strength to the argument that our government leaders are guilty of war crimes and underpins a case that is being taken to the International Criminal Court to that effect.

A huge clean up operation will be essential, but it is likely that the effects cannot be eradicated. This is a deadly legacy for the Iraqis for generations to come.

There have been other major social and economic effects for the Iraqis too - 60% unemployment, massive destruction of the infrastructure, people barely surviving through scavenging, great personal risk and insecurity, particularly for women, collapse of education affecting children of all ages. Truly it is a devastated society. We take a strong view that companies from aggressor nations should not profit from the rebuilding process. The occupation is tainted by asset-stripping and profiteering by the occupiers.

The consequences of the UK government's policy are a catastrophe for Iraq, but we believe that it is also necessary to consider the wider policy implications, for a number of changes have become apparent during the war and occupation, and they are changes which are fundamentally at odds with the values of the majority of people across the world, which are the values of peace and social justice. Furthermore they are policy positions which are taken by the UK government in conjunction with the US administration and which isolate Britain from the rest of the international community. There is a danger that Blair takes an ideological position vis-a-vis the US and will support US wars in any context. Indeed there is even a concern that Blair has adopted the US neo-con framework.

Firstly the policy of pre-emptive war. Under international law, except under the most exceptional circumstances, war is only legal if it is defensive. To wage aggressive war is illegal. This is what was done to Iraq. Earlier this year in a speech in his Sedgefield constituency, Mr Blair suggested that international law should be changed, to make wars of intervention legal. Given the current balance of forces in the world, this would be a recipe for the US and UK, or potentially any other country, come to that, intervening militarily in any country where they objected to the regime, or had economic or resource interests, under the guise of 'humanitarian' or other forms of intervention. This is not a policy that should be accepted or supported by the peace movement.

Secondly, the question of the use of nuclear weapons. For decades, there has been a basic agreement that nuclear weapons should not be used, as their impact is so disastrous. In particular that they should not be used against non-nuclear weapons states. In the run up to the war on Iraq, UK Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon stated that the government would consider using nuclear weapons even against non-nuclear weapons states. This is a very dangerous direction and is linked closely to the US policy outlined in their US Nuclear Posture Review two years ago - that nuclear weapons should be part of a whole useable arsenal. This is part of the US military's strategic vision for US military 'full spectrum dominance' on land, sea, air and space.

This links to my third point, which is the UK government's likely development of new nuclear weapons. Even though we supposedly went to war on Iraq to prevent proliferation of wmd, our government is currently itself planning to proliferate. Developments are taking place at the atomic bomb factory in Aldermaston in Berkshire to research and develop new useable nuclear weapons. The government may also decide to produce a replacement for the Trident nuclear weapons system, in spite of the fact that we are committed under international treaty to abolish our nuclear weapons. The hypocrisy of our government on these issues is extreme. And beyond that, what use are nuclear weapons against a terrorist threat? They do not deter terrorists in the US or Russia and the very possession of nuclear weapons offers a target to terrorists and offers the potential of terrorists getting hold of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are not appropriate to meet the security challenges of the 21 st century.

These views are very widely shared. At the recent European Social Forum in London, with an attendance of over 20,000, many participated in debates and discussions on the questions of peace and disarmament. We were able to hear Mordechai Vanunu in a live telephone link up. Much of the discussion centred on strategies for achieving our aims. We generally shared the view that the most immediate threat to world peace is the US drive for global domination, which takes the form of neo-liberal globalisation and war. This is currently dressed up as the Project for the New American Century, which is based on the notion that the US has the moral obligation to dominate the world for its own good. In reality it is global impoverishment and the drive to war which has already seen in recent years the wars on Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq. We know the US has its sights on other countries that don't comply with its political and economic goals. We must be vigilant to prevent further wars and to prevent increased militarisation as a response to that, via EU or any other way, which will only compound an escalating cycle of violence.

There was also broad agreement on how we can move forward on our shared aims:

against pre-emptive war
against the increasing militarisation of the EU
for global abolition of nuclear weapons and compliance with NPT obligations
to strengthen international anti-base campaigning
for a world of peace and social justice

We also shared views on how to work together:

greater international cooperation and links between movements
streamline activities at bases and at NPT for global abolition of nukes
cooperation against the militarised constitution
sharing of information via websites
support for cross national lobbying initiatives
development of inclusive movements which welcome all, irrespective of faith, political affiliation or any other factor.

The watchwords for the movement for peace and disarmament must be unity, diversity and international cooperation. Working together we will win a world of peace and justice, free from the fear of nuclear annihilation.

by Kate Hudson,Peace & Neutrality Alliance.

To begin, it is necessary to correct a misconception being deliberately promulgated by the National Forum on Europe. A Constitution is the supreme law of a State, which has primacy over the laws of its provinces or regions in any case of conflict. It is the ultimate source of legal authority for the territory it governs. It is enforced by a Supreme Court, in the EU's case its Court of Justice in Luxembourg. A Treaty is an agreement between sovereign States, the High Contracting Parties.

What the EU Governments are now considering is a "Draft Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe," to give it its proper title. It is not a "Draft Constitutional Treaty for the European Union," as the secretariat of the National Forum on Europe misleadingly titles it in their recently published Summary. It re-founds the EU on an entirely new legal basis, with its own Constitution, as in the case of any normal State. It gives the EU legal personality for the first time and makes it an international actor in its own right, separate from and superior to its Member States. The new Constitution repeals all the existing EU Treaties from the Treaty of Rome to the Treaty of Nice, which become null and void (Article IV- 2).

The proposed Constitution would fundamentally change the legal relationship between the EU and its Member State. Hitherto the EU has been the creation of its Member States under the treaties. The Union has had no legal existence apart from its Members. The Draft Constitution changes that. It makes the EU an international actor in its own right, with its own legal personality, separate from and superior to its Members.

Article I-12 (2) takes away from Member States most of their power to sign treaties with other States. Up to now the EU has negotiated treaties on behalf of its members in relation to tariffs and trade matters. This Article gives the EU power to sign treaties that affects any "internal Union act." This greatly extends the EU's treaty-making powers. In future the EU rather than its Member States will negotiate and sign international treaties and conventions relating to criminal law for example, extradition, foreign and security policy and much else.

Article I-5 (2) provides: "Following the principle of loyal cooperation, the Union and the Member States shall . assist each other in carrying out tasks which flow from the Constitution."

The word "loyal" is significant. It implies that the Member States owe an obligation of loyalty to the Union and again underlines the EU's constitutional/political superiority over its Member States and its Federal State character. The Article goes: "Member States shall facilitate the achievement of the Union's tasks and refrain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the objectives set out in the Constitution."

The import of this is that national governments must give priority to Union objectives, even in areas of policy that have not been transferred to the EU, because of the overarching scope of the Union's objectives. But what if the Union's objectives conflict with national political objectives, especially if the latter have been democratically confirmed by an electoral mandate at home - for example a country's desire to oppose the EU Rapid Reaction Forces's involvement in a war, or to resist EU tax harmonisation, or a government's commitment to expand public spending to counter deflation, even if that might be in breach of the EU's Growth and Stability Pact ? Taken together, these Article imply an obligation on Member States to refrain from any action at national level that is contrary to the interests of the Union or likely to impair its effectiveness. The Court of Justice will certainly take that view when reaching its legally binding judgements.

Article I-5(1) makes a gesture to nationalists by stating that the Union "shall respect the national identities of its Member States ." This is merely rhetoric, for national identity is not a justiciable concept.

National identity is quite different from national democracy or independence, whichthe Constitution fundamentally subverts. A people keeps its identity in servitude as well as freedom, as shown by the many nations around the world that have an identity but no independence, e.g. Kurds, Palestinians, Chechyns - or Poles, whose country disappeared for almost a century.

Most importantly of all, Article I-10(1) provides: "The Constitution, and law adopted by the Union's Institutions in exercising competences conferred on it, shall have primacy over the law of the Member States."

This doctrine has been developed over the years in the case-law of the EU Court of Justice, but it has not been accepted by, for example, the German, French or Italian Constitutional Courts. These have denied in various court judgements that EU law has the supremacy of federal law. They have held that EU law is binding in national law only to the extent that national law allows. The draft Constitution abrogates this position by formally recognising that the EU Court of Justice, like the supreme court of any Federal State, has the legal power to define its own powers.

A second important point concerns the question of 'primacy'. It is European "Community", not European "Union", law that has primacy over national law in any case of conflict. This situation exists at the present time and dates back to the Costa v ENAL and Van Gend en Loos cases of the early sixties at the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

Nonetheless, the Court's pretensions to establish new law are not universally accepted.

The latter judgement stated in part : " the Community constitutes a new legal order in international law for whose benefit the states have limited their sovereign rights, albeit in limited fields". It should be noted that this "new legal order" is not presented in the EC Treaty, but was formulated by the ECJ as a result of its interpretation of the Treaty's overall objects and purposes. It is one of the earliest and most blatant examples of "competence creep". The ECJ is notorious for continually seeking to extend its own reach and the extent of supranational powers through an incremental "federalisation" of Community law.

So these judgements lacked Treaty authority and consequently were subjected to rejection by the courts in states like Italy, Britain and Germany. Nowhere was the rejection so emphatic as in Germany. There, the German Constitutional Court in the 1994 case, Brunner v The European Treaty, found that : "if the EU institutions were to treat or develop the Union Treaty in a way that was no longer covered by the Treaty in the form that was the basis for the Act of Accession, the resultant legislative instruments would not be legally binding within the sphere of German sovereignty". And so the situation remains today, and though the principle of EU Court supremacy may be long established, it is by no means accepted amongst all Member States, but is rejected by what is arguably the most important one.

Furthermore this claimed primacy of European Community law can only extend to the powers and competencies conferred to date on the Community by its Member States. These powers are grouped under the present "first pillar" - broadly speaking the economy and some related social issues. Under the proposed Union Constitution these powers would be extended to major "second and third pillar" issues, like foreign affairs and defence, crime, justice and domestic affairs, which at present are outside the boundaries of Community law and where Member States retain their sovereignty.

So if we accept the proposed EU Constitution we would for the first time be constitutionally bound to accept the primacy of Union, not Community, laws, whether through rulings of the ECJ or from the EU institutions themselves. We would greatly extend the Union's areas of competence and would give the Union the legal and constitutional character of a Federal State, and Ireland the legal-constitutional character of a mere province of that State.

The purpose and essence of the proposed EU Constitution is to establish a new European Union that is qualitatively, legally, constitutionally and politically different from what we call the European Union today. It does not seek to establish something which is "close to", or "almost", or "virtually" a Federal State but it does establish what is legally and constitutionally a Federal State in its proper legal form. That is what it should be called and is what advocates such as Guy Verhofstadt for instance, call it. This is particularly important if one is to explain properly to the electorate what is proposed.

What we call the European Union at present is a descriptive term for various different forms of co-operation between its Member States. One form of this cooperation is the acceptance of supranational law in certain areas - called the European Community, where sovereignty is "pooled". The other form co-operation occurs where States retain their sovereignty. This is where they make all the laws themselves and where the Commission does not operate because there are no laws it can propose. It is also the area where supranational EC law does not prevail, and where Member States cooperate with one another "inter-governmentally", as independent equal sovereign partners.

The purpose of the Constitution is to change this.

Article I-10 specifically seeks to undo the reservations of national Constitutional Courts and Supreme Courts regarding the supremacy of EU law and replaces national law with EU law as the supreme source of constitutional authority. This amounts to a Constitutional revolution. But it is the logic of giving the Union legal personality separate from its Member States and extending supranationalism to all areas of government.

A relevant point here is that European governments accepted the ECJ's assertion of the primacy of EU law in the 1960s, when the then EEC dealt with a far narrower range of issues than the EU does today. It is one thing for Member States go along with a principle established by the EU Court and applied to a restricted range of matters like customs duties or tariffs. It is quite another to concede national sovereignty to an EU Constitution whose writ covers everything from tax policy to criminal law to foreign policy and fundamental human rights.

Article I-23 (1) provides that the terms "European laws"- regulations- and " European framework laws"- directives - shall replace the words "regulations" and "directives" used at present. This is only a change of name, for EU regulations and directives are of course laws, but the use of the more common word "law" is another indication that this is meant to be the Constitution of an EU State, for only States make laws.

In the light of the these radical changes it is hard to understand how Irish Taoiseach Bertie Ahern can say that the draft Constitution " does not fundamentally change the relaionship between the EU and its member-states." (Irish Times 24-10-2003).

- download full paper as word document: fkeoghan04.doc (77 Kb)

Frank Keoghan (Secretary) People's Movement: www.people.ie

People's Movement paper

by Cllr. Deidre De Burca at the Desmond Greaves Summer School

Good afternoon. I have been asked to speak about democracy and the EU and I’m in the unenviable position of having to follow Andy’s Storey’s presentation, which was excellent, insightful and well researched as always. As many of you are aware, the Green Party intends to promote a vigorous internal debate in the party before arriving at an agreed position on whether to support the ratification of the new EU Constitution or not. The views I am presenting here today are therefore my own personal views, rather than any official Green Party position.

The problem with speaking about the subject of ‘Democracy and the EU’ is that firstly the issue is such a huge one it’s hard to know where to start, or to finish. Secondly, a lot has already been said about the democratic deficit that characterises the EU and how it functions, so I am keen to avoid repeating familiar arguments. The context in which the Summer School is being held this year is one in which the Draft EU Constitution has been agreed by all 25 EU Heads of State at their most recent IGC. However, I do not intend to touch on the subject of the new constitution in any depth today. Rather, I wish to return to a theme that I raised in my talk to this Summer School last year which is the democratic deficit of the European Union, the neo-liberal economic policies that are increasingly being embraced and promoted by the Union, and the relationship which I propose exists between the two.

I will begin by making the assumption that a there is a general consensus about the existence of a democratic deficit in the EU. I believe this is a fairly reasonable assumption to make, as even the most ardent Euro- enthusiasts and indeed the political leaders who have continued to forge ahead with the process of European integration have generally accepted that this deficit exists, and that it is one of the major challenges that continues to face the EU. Michael J. Baun in his book "An Imperfect Union" refers to the democratic deficit in the EU as "the growing gap between the power and authority of the EU". Essentially, as more aspects of national sovereignty are transferred to the European level, the ability of citizens to influence and supervise this new power base has declined significantly. Those who are strong advocates of deeper European integration tend to emphasise the opportunities inherent in what has been described by Habermas and Derrida as the EU’s potential for being a model of ‘post-national governance’. This model is seen as a means of reconciling national identity with a wider, regional identity that supercedes national allegiances and dilutes national rivalries. The EU, it is argued, provides a unique model for how people can live together simultaneously within and beyond nations, thus removing a perennial source of conflict between peoples. Those who subscribe to this view frequently assert that European integration has delivered fifty years of stability, peace and economic prosperity, that it has raised living standards, built an internal market, strengthened the Union’s voice in the world and achieved results which would not have been possible by individual Member States alone.

In fact, it is often asserted that the undeniable peace and economic dividends yielded by the process of European integration require a pragmatic approach to be taken to the corresponding loss of national sovereignty on the part of member states. Indeed many people are satisfied to sacrifice a certain amount of national sovereignty in the interests of jettisoning some of the less appealing features of nationalism, considered responsible in part for the occurrence of both World Wars in the first half of the twentieth century. Little is said however about whether an equally pragmatic approach should be taken to accepting the accompanying reduction in, and impoverishment of, the quality of democracy traditionally enjoyed by citizens within the framework of the sovereign nation state. Those of us who are critical of the current process of European integration see the issue of its democratic deficit as one of central and critical importance, beyond any pragmatic political trade-offs or considerations of ‘realpolitik’. The rapid pace of globalisation has meant that the emerging polity that is the EU has experienced a highly accelerated rate of development. Its citizens have seen a considerable amount of the competences of the nation state transferred to this supranational body by means of dense and complicated legal treaties that are not easily understood. New institutions have been established that operate in unfamiliar ways, and that fail to meet the basic standards of transparency and accountability. Many people are rightfully concerned that the quality of democracy that traditionally has quite successfully been delivered within the framework of the nation state and national constitutions has been weakened and reduced through the construction of the European Union.

The question of whether this diminution in our democracy, resulting from the creation of the EU, should surprise us or not, is one that needs to be asked. Mathias Koenig Archibugi, Research Officer at the London School of Economics and Political Science, in his paper ‘The Democratic Deficit of EU Foreign and Security Policy" states the following: "In the EU, the prospect of democratisation seems particularly problematic because the main actors threatened by it are precisely those in charge of determining the pace and shape of the Union’s institutional change, that is, the governments of the member states". In this paper, Archibugi refers to a theory currently popular in the field of international relations known as "collusive delegation" and he hypothesises that the frequently lamented "democratic deficit" of European governance is actually one of the purposes of integration, and not merely an unfortunate by-product. He refers to various authors who have argued that participation in international policy-making can increase the independence of a government from the domestic actors that are supposed to check its behaviour. He quotes Karl Kaiser who thirty years ago observed : "the intermeshing of decision-making across national frontiers and the growing multi-nationalisation of formerly domestic issues are inherently incompatible with the traditional framework of democratic control".

Kaiser asserted that concerted policymaking within international institutions allows national governments to elude parliamentary control, at least to some extent, since they can refer to the collective character of the decision taken and to the high costs for the country if the parliament rejects the agreement negotiated by the governments. Moreover, governments can use the complexity and lack of transparency of international negotiations to prevent unwelcome intrusions by parliament or public opinion before an agreement is concluded. The parliament’s capacity to control government negotiating behaviour is generally limited by the (real or alleged) need for secrecy and by parliament’s dependence on information provided by the government itself. Further on in his paper Archibugi states : " To succinctly describe the democratic deficit problem : policy-making functions are increasingly performed by European institutions and the resulting diminution of national parliamentary control is not offset by democratic controls at the European level. The collusive delegation thesis accepts this diagnosis but adds a crucial element: it maintains that the democratic deficit is not merely a by-product of the transfer of powers to supranational institutions, but also one of the purposes of this transfer. Governments pool their authority in order to loosen domestic political restraints". Archibugi also quotes Karl Dieter Wolf who argues that states have a priori interest in expanding their autonomy with respect to society. According to Wolf, states used to help each other mainly by perpetuating a threatening external environment, but he suggests that they now tend to achieve the same effect by creating binding intergovernmental arrangements. Now, as then, he argues, "states can co-operate against societies".

As one example of "collusive delegation" Archibugi refers to a section of the detailed history of the European Monetary Union as set out by Kenneth Dyson and Kevin Featherstone "The Road to Maastricht: Negotiating Monetary and Economic Union". These authors describe the situation in Italy at the time where a group of officials within the Italian Central Bank and key ministries conducted the Maastricht negotiations and, according to the authors, "sought to bind Italy by external ties and obligations- in order to secure domestic reforms of an essentially liberal character". These reforms were considered unattainable otherwise because of domestic opposition. Guido Carli, Italy’s Treasury Minister and chief negotiator at the Intergovernmental Conference on EMU came close to openly acknowledging the logic of collusive delegation when he remarked "our agenda at the table of the Intergovernmental Conference on European Union represented an alternative solution to problems which we were not able to tackle via the normal channels of government and parliament".

I would like to propose here today that the creation of the complex polity that is the European Union has generally been subject to the process of "collusive delegation" and that the democratic deficit experienced by its citizens has been largely designed into its architecture rather than being an unfortunate by- product of agreements reached by its well-meaning political leaders and officials. While it appears to be in the nature of politicians and the political class generally to accrue as much power to themselves as possible and to tend to view any process of meaningful democratisation as conflicting with the highly valued objective of ‘political efficiency’, in the case of the European Union I would argue that these natural political tendencies to limit popular democratic involvement have been significantly exacerbated by the growing commitment of its political leaders to transform the European Union into a dominant regional player in the emerging neo-liberal or free-market global economy, without being constrained by popular democratic opinion. Let me explain what I mean. In order to do this, I will have to look briefly at the process of neo-liberal economic globalisation, the parallel development of the EU, and finally the way in which the democratic deficit evident in the way the EU functions serves to advance this economic agenda within the Union, while minimising the possibility of popular democratic opposition.

As far as globalisation is concerned, while there may be divergent opinions amongst experts on the point at which the current process of globalisation actually began, few experts will argue with the fact that the creation of the international institutions such as the Bretton Woods institutions (the World Bank and the IMF) and what eventually became the World Trade Organisation following the second world war was a significant stage in the evolution of the neo-liberal global economy that is now emerging. While the founding rationale for these powerful international institutions was a benign one, it was through them that American free-market economic doctrine gradually became institutionalised and transmitted throughout the world. The combined impact of the lending policies of the World Bank, the Structural Adjustment policies of the IMF and the various trade international trade agreements negotiated through the WTO and its predecessor GATT have meant that formerly separate national economies are increasingly being fused into a single, integrated global free market economy where the rules are largely being dictated by the wealthier countries and multi-national corporations are being given optimal room for manoeuvre on the global stage, free from any meaningful form of international governance or regulation.

How does this relate to the development of the European Union, and in particular to its democratic deficit? A very brief overview of its development shows that that the European Coal and Steel Community was set up in 1952 by six member states with the objective of putting the coal and steel sectors under supranational control, given their importance to the armaments industry and the desire to restrain Germany’s ability to build up its military capacity. The European Community was then established in 1957 and the Common Market was established - a free trade area with its own customs union, which guaranteed free movement of goods, persons and services. However, it was not until thirty years later and the introduction of the Single European Act in 1986 that I believe the European Community visibly began to shape itself in direct response to the imperatives of the process of neo-liberal economic globalisation that was in the ascendancy. The Single European Act essentially amounted to a significant political recommitment to the common market, (now called the single market, or the internal market). It involved a commitment to dismantle trade barriers between the states, harmonise their trade rules and introduce majority voting in new areas. The Single European Act was, in my opinion, a huge ideological project, driven to a large extent by Jacques Delors who worked closely with corporate representatives from the European Roundtable of Industrialists to hammer out the details of the Act. The Maastricht Treaty followed five years later in 1992. This Act established Economic and Monetary Union within the Community, set up a European Central Bank independent of political control and tied Member States in to a Growth and Stability Pact that essentially imposed conditions of budgetary restraint on them and obliged them to adhere to strict limits on public expenditure. It is important to point out that the sense of urgency or momentum which gave rise to the Single European Act also ensured that a new European treaty was ratified every five years after that, in the face of on the one hand, a poorly informed and increasingly apathetic general populace, and on the other hand increasingly effective pockets of what might be termed ‘organised resistance’ to the EU project itself. Finally, the Amsterdam and Nice treaties that followed were, I would argue, to a large extent about facilitating the institutional reforms necessary to make decision-making within the EU more "efficient", and less prone to be hostage to the policy preferences of individual member states or their electorates.

What kind of Europe has this left us with, and how much have these developments contributed to the infamous democratic deficit of the EU? Well, I’d like to use three brief examples to highlight what I would consider clear manifestations of that democratic deficit, but all of them woven into the institutional design of the EU and essentiall to the promotion of the neo-liberal economic agenda within the Union. The first is the powerful role of the politically independent European Central Bank which controls economic and monetary policy within the Union. The ECB’s establishment as part of the Maastricht Treaty was bitterly contested at the time, as Central Banks are typically features of fully-fledged states. The European Central Bank was given the power to introduce and manage the EU’s economic and monetary policy and has been fully operating since 1998. Since it was established, its overriding policy priority has been to maintain price stability across the single market, as price stability is one of the key prescriptions of the neo-liberal economic policy agenda. The ECB’s anti-inflationary mandate leaves little or no room for concerns about issues of growth and employment, despite the fact that these are, or should be, key policy concerns of member state governments. Furthermore, fiscal monitoring by the EU Commission of the Stability and Growth Pact seeks to limit to 3% of GDP states’ capacity to run fiscal deficits, even when these might appear justified by the need to lift an economy out of recession. The central involvement of the ECB and the Commission in these key areas means that Economic and Monetary policy has truly been removed from beyond any real kind of democratic control. It is also worth mentioning that the Common Commercial policy as set out in the new EU Constitution makes a liberal market economy, maximization of economic competition, free movement of capital and the liberalisation of public services into constitutional principles that, if ratified, will be immune to legal challenge because of the superiority of EU law over national law. In effect, a commitment to the neo-liberal economic model will be enshrined in the constitution and regardless of what political shade of government is elected by the citizens of any member state, that government will be obliged to comply with the same neo-liberal economic prescriptions. Meaningful political choice will therefore become a thing of the past as governments of member states find themselves ‘locked in’ to a particular economic agenda, with little room for manoeuvre.

A second example of the way in which the EU’s institutional arrangements appear to have been specifically designed in order to allow for the promotion of democratic deficit serves to promote the neo-liberal economic agenda is the exclusive responsibility that has been given to the European Commission in relation the initiation and negotiation of EU trade policy. The unelected Commision, whose members are appointed by the governments of member states, has no mandate whatsoever from the people and yet has the substantial power and responsibility of proposing and forming laws. The 1957 EEC treaty gave the Commission responsibility for trade policy or what was known as "commercial policy". The scope of the EU’s commercial policy has broadened significantly since the early days of the European Economic Community from its original concentration on manufactured goods to almost every aspect of economic life. With the growing push towards economic liberalisation internationally, most sectors of domestic economies, many of which were traditionally the preserve of the State, can now be opened up to international trade and delivered on a commercial basis by privately owned multi-national companies. This in turn has put great pressure on the EU to expand its own definition of what falls within the remit The Commission was initially given the power to conduct external negotiations within the WTO on behalf of member states in any policy area where it had internal competence and the Council of Ministers then voted by QMV to accept or reject the outcome of the negotiations. Through successive treaties the Commission has extended its competence, and the Treaty of Nice saw trade negotiations in the sensitive policy areas of Health, Education and Cultural/Audiovisual being the last areas to retain the protection of a national veto. The new Constitution will largely remove the existing power of veto on the commercialisation of Health, Education and Cultural services that Member States have in the Council of Ministers. It shifts decisions on trade in these services to QMV and only allows for exceptional circumstances in which states will be able to block the opening up and liberalisation of trade in these services. The burden of proof will rest with the State and it is difficult to imagine how states will manage to successfully protect these areas of their economies from liberalisation should they so wish.

No details of voting will be published so Irish citizens will not know how Irish representatives in the Council of Ministers voted. The European Commission will then have exclusive right to make agreements at the WTO which could liberalise international trade in these services and only inform the public after the deals have been done. Opening key public services such as Health and Education to trade means restructuring them so that they can be run on a commercial basis. The upshot is that infrastructure like schools and hospitals will be privately provided at a high cost to the state and to the taxpayer. And two-tier services emerge - private and high quality services for those who can afford it; and low quality state services for those who cannot. And this will happen regardless of the support or otherwise of the voting public. The European Parliament has had no role whatsoever to date in approving or making amendments to trade agreements being negotiated by the EU, despite the fact that the US Congress has quite significant powers in this regard. The realm of trade policy within the EU is clearly not subject to any kind of satisfactory level of democratic control.

The final example I want to use of the democratic deficit in the EU and the way in which this serves to promote the neo-liberal economic agenda is the way in which its institutions generally function. I don’t have time to deal with this is any great detail but suffice it to say that the unelected and powerful Commission, which has been described as "part civil service, part government" has the jealously guarded the right to initiate legislation. It implements community policy, manages the EU budget, conducts external relations on behalf of the European Union and is widely regarded as the "guardian" of the euro federal ideal. Dinan describes it as a "strategic authority established by the founding fathers to ‘guarantee continuity of the integration project despite the political or geopolitical hazards’. While this may explain the unusual powers given to such an unelected body by the early architects of the EU, the extent to which the Commission as a body appears to have become an ideological champion of neo-liberal economic policies, without reference to the ordinary people of Europe or their ideological preferences, must now be a matter for concern. Charlie Mc Creevey’s recent appointment as EU Commissioner for Internal Affairs highlighted yet again this particular issue. It is widely believed that Mc Creevey’s right-wing, neo-liberal economic policies as Minister for Finance here in Ireland, caused him to become a liability for the Fianna Fail party and contributed to their poor recent election performance. And what happened? He was jettisoned by Fianna Fail in order to improve its domestic electoral prospects but instead was appointed to a very powerful position within the Commission where he will have an opportunity to continue to implement his economic policies in a broader political sphere, but beyond the reach of any electorate. The recent appointment of Mandelson and Barroso to the Commission makes its strong neo-liberal bias very explicit.

As to other institutions, the Council of Ministers appears to be both executive and part legislature, to date has met behind closed doors and the results of its discussions are not readily publicly available. The directly elected European Parliament, the only institution with Europe-wide legitimacy, finds itself excluded from critical legislative and policy decisions that affect the whole of Europe, although its powers have gradually been increased over the last number of EU treaties. Finally the European Council has to be the most undemocratic institution of the Union. It is composed of the Heads of State of all of the member states - 25 in all at present. It evolved from originally being a rather informal gathering of Heads of State to discuss issues pertaining to the Union to an institution that now has legal status within the treaties. This is an extremely powerful body to which matters are often referred for resolution that cannot be resolved by the Council of Ministers. It gives overall policy direction to the Union and has formal power over all fields of external relations. It is the body that agreed to adopt the Lisbon Agenda that sets out the broad parameters of the neo-liberal direction in which the Union intends to continue developing. However, despite its power, the European Council is not subject to any discipline or procedures within the Union. It does not have to consult with any particular bodies or receive an opinion from anyone. While the individual Heads of State are accountable to their own electorates at home, the European Council as a body is not answerable to anyone in the European context.

I will have to finish shortly but am aware that there will be some listening to me who will find it hard to recognise the European Union they support in the rather negative caricature that I have presented. Ivana Bacik spoke with me at this summer school last year, and she, like other Labour Party representatives, is a strong believer in a Social Europe. Unfortunately I don’t have time to seriously challenge that viewpoint but fortunately Andy Storey has written an excellent paper on the subject in which he has called " The European Project : Dismantling Social Democracy, Globalising Neo-liberalism". In it he refers to Apeldoorn’s work which traces the historical trajectory of European regionalism and suggests that the European Project was originally based on a neo-mercantalist vision of a strong European home market, serving as both a stepping stone to conquer the world market as well as a protective shield against outside competition. He proposes that under the protective banner of the neo-mercantilist framework, social democrats envisaged a ‘united Europe (as offering) an opportunity to protect the ‘European model of society’ and its traditions of the mixed economy and high levels of social protection, against the potentially destructive forces of globalisation and neo-liberalism’ (van Apeldoorn, 2001; 76). However, he contends that the vision was not realised and as the internal barriers came down no external barriers were erected and the Internal market provided as much opportunity for US and Japanese as for European firms. It is impossible to deny, however, that the strong social democratic political traditions of many of the continental European countries have greatly influenced the emergence of progressive social, employment and environmental policymaking within the European Union. Those who choose to focus on these positive aspects of the Union are often reluctant to acknowledge that the political and economic dynamics of the Union have been shifting significantly over the past two decades and that the somewhat idealised Social Model of the EU is being gradually undermined.

So, drawing towards the end of my presentation, I suppose the overriding question that needs to be answered is "how do we democratise the EU". I have no magic answers but would just like to point out that any concessions towards greater democratisation that have been made by those driving the process of European integration have been a direct response to public displays of opposition to the process itself. The first Danish rejection of the Maastricht Treaty, the narrow margin of success of the French vote on the same treaty and the first Irish rejection of the Nice Treaty have served as important wake up calls to those who continue to push for more and deeper integration. Critical engagement, resistance and opposition to the more unacceptable aspects of the current process of EU integration are important and as a Green Party councillor, I take great pride in the role that my party has played in critiquing the direction in which the European project has been developing over the past two decades. If there are any ardent Euro enthusiasts in the audience, I’m sure I run the risk of being written off as an out- and- out Eurosceptic who is deliberately distorting an account of the development of the EU in order to support a particular ideological position. It is unfortunate that there only appear to be two positions that one can take when it comes to any kind of debate about European integration – for or against the current model of integration. This kind of crude simplification leaves no room for the growing body of intelligent and engaged citizens who passionately want to believe in a positive and politically progressive Europe, a democratic and globally engaged Europe, a Europe which can provide global leadership in relation to sustainable development, social and environmental protection, human rights, migration, international conflict resolution, fair trade, but these same people have deep concerns about issues such as the economic policies of the EU, its Common Foreign and Security policy, its policies on Immigration and the continuing democratic deficit which characterises its institutions.

The forging of a new economic and political entity that binds together, in close co-operation, countries that have formerly been at war with one another is a very ambitious undertaking. If successful in the long run, this model can serve as a regional model of peaceful political and economic co-operation between states that can set an example for the rest of the world. However for anyone who considers themselves a democrat, the future of this new polity cannot just be left to the politicians and the technocrats. It is our democracy, and essentially our ability to determine our own future that is being transformed and changed in the process of creating this new polity. If we value it enough, we will fight very hard to make sure that the new political entity being created offers us the same, and even an enhanced level of democracy to that which we have already experienced. If we tolerate anything less, the entire basis of the European project is fatally flawed.

There is even very strong opposition to Bush from within the heart of US power structures. Richard Clarke, a central figure within US state put the anti-Bush case very well when he said invading Iraq after 9/11 was like invading Mexico after Pearl Harbour.

It is true Kerry supported the conquest of Iraq, and that the coalitions that make up the Democratic and the Republican Parties are similar. But they are not the same. Clinton was better for the world, especially Ireland and Kerry, warts and all, will be better than Bush. A Kerry victory will be a victory for all those forces opposed to war capitalism. A Bush victory will mean the majority of Americans support Imperialism. A Bush victory will mean an attempted military conquest of Cuba, Iran and any other state that opposes the rule of the American Empire. A Kerry victory will not, or at least is less likely.

It is therefore crucial that powerful and growing anti-war movement coalition in the US, continues to grow and ensures that Kerry wins. If Kerry wins, he will seek to get more troops from other states to go to Iraq especially in Europe to help maintain their Empire.

The peace movement coalitions throughout the world ensure their states do not send troops to Iraq. The reality is the economic figures show that on their own, the American Imperialism has only defeat to look forward to and that without global support the American Empire is finished whether Bush or Kerry leads it.

In short, the global progressive forces need to agree to be part of the coalition than brings together as broad an alliance as possible, including corporations that do not support Bush, to in effect isolate, the war capitalists. Defeat Bush first. Then move on, to ensure Kerry withdraws the US army from Iraq.

After the US withdrawal, there could be a role for a peacekeeping force directly under the auspices of the United Nations, which could play a similar role that it did in East Timor after the withdrawal of the Indonesian army of occupation. The credibility of the UN has suffered by its decision to endorse the illegal conquest of Iraq. A reformed United Nations, reflective of the 21st century, rather than the mid 20th, is needed to create global governance. A global institution is the required institution for global peace and security. A regional grouping, such as the EU/US block will not provide security. It only provides instability as other regional groups are formed to act as counterweights. Any lasting peace must be based on the concept of inclusive and agreed global institutions.

It is this process of global coalition building that is central to the defeat of war capitalism.

When Bush visited Ireland on his election campaign, PANA helped to organise major demonstrations against him. The fact is that in this globalised world, the outcome of the election in the US will have a profound effect on the rest of the world, including Ireland, and it was important to Americans, especially Irish Americans, to see that unlike Clinton, Bush was not welcome here by except the Irish elite.

In Ireland the elite are already strongly supportive of the US version of neo-liberalism. Harney has openly supported the Boston rather than the Brussels version of capitalism, McDowell has stated his support for inequality and Ahern has destroyed Irish neutrality by turning Shannon airport into a US airforce base. The Ahern led FF/PD Government is the most right wing, neo-liberal incompetent in history.

Our purpose in the longer term (say 12 years) in Ireland is to ensure the formation of a government in an all Ireland Republic committed to Irish Independence, neutrality and democracy. We seek to ensure that this Irish Republic would be part of a EU, which a Partnership of Democratic States, legal equals, without a military dimension. That objective is only worth it, if it is part of a struggle for global justice and democracy.

It is to develop an alternative to the institutionalized war economy now on offer from the neo-liberal elite, not just in Ireland, but also globally, by linking up with similar organizations throughout the world. Their vision is global, and if their vision is to be defeated, then our vision has also to be global. The massive demonstrations of over 15 million people that took place on the 15th of February 2003 throughout the world, was their first indication of the potential of our future, the first indication of their weakness, the first indication of our capacity to win.

PANA was one the groups that helped to organise the 125,000 strong march in Dublin. It was a real indication of the potential for building an alternative political coalition throughout Ireland that would defeat Ahern and the rest of the Irish war capitalists. Before the march, PANA had also played a role in gaining a 38% No vote to the Amsterdam Treaty and a 54% no vote to Nice 1 and a 38% no vote to Nice 2 Treaties, treaties that were steps towards integrating Ireland into the EU/US military structures.

On the 11th of June 2004, Fianna Fail (or should it be Fianna Bush) suffered it worst electoral defeat since the 1920’s. The Fianna Fail/PD government, the most right wing neo-liberal and incompetent government in our history suffered a hammer blow. They have lost control of local councils throughout the country and have only 4 MEPS in the European Parliament. Even more important, the political parties that led the opposition to the Fianna Fail decision to support the imperial conquest of Iraq; the Green Party, the Labour Party and Sinn Fein, as well as radical independents, overall increased their vote.

Since PANA’s objective is to seek an Independent Irish foreign policy and Irish neutrality for all of Ireland it is worth looking at the results of the EU Parliament elections on an all-Ireland basis, as our objective can only be achieved if it supported by the majority of the Irish people, from whom all power derives.

FF: 523,000 (23%)
FG:495,000 (22.4%)
SF: 342,000 (15.5%)
Labour: 188,000 (8.5%)
GP: 82,000 (3.7%)
SP/SE: 32,000 (1.4%)
Ind.: 345,000 (15.6%)
DUP: 176,000 (7.9%)
UUP: 91,000 (4.1%)
SDLP: 88,000 (3.9%)

These figures show that while FF has suffered its worst electoral defeat in decades it remains a formidable political force, as is Fine Gael. Sinn Fein has decisively replaced the Labour Party as the major political party on the left, and the Green Party, the SDLP and the far left retain small but significant support from the electorate.

While the DUP has replaced the UUP as the largest party. Together, they have the support of a significant 12% of the electorate. In an all Ireland context they would be a major political force, far greater than they now are within the British state.

Independents also constitute a sizable percentage of the electorate and while it is difficult to categories them on an imperialist/anti-imperialist spectrum, a 50/50 divide is probably reasonable.

The figures also show that to gain the support of the majority of Irish people for a United Independent Irish Republic with its own foreign policy remains a formidable task. Yet power derives from the people. No group can claim the right to speak for them, and they express that power by voting in elections and referendums. Those of us, who wish to establish the Republic, have to gain their support through the democratic process.

On the crucial issue of support for the Imperial war of conquest of Iraq, only the neo-Redmondites of FF/PD alliance and the unionist’s parties actively supporting it. FG formally opposed the war, although they refused to take part in the marches because to quote Gay Mitchell, "it was organized by PANA and Sinn Fein".

A breakdown of 54% against the war and 46% in favour is probably accurate; it also probably is not coterminous with party affiliation as many FF/PD and unionists supporters oppose the war while many FG supporters support it. One way or the other however, there is enough evidence from the marches, elections and public opinion polls to suggest that a majority of the Irish people do not support this Imperial war and that the Green Party, the Labour Party, Sinn Fein, the SDLP, and radical Independents that led the campaign against it have largely benefited by increased electoral support already and as the war continues, can confidently expect that support to grow at the expense of the FF/PD’s and unionist parties.

The nearest historical parallel is when Ireland supported an Imperial war was 1914-18. At the commencement of that war the political parties that opposed the war and that supported the Irish Neutrality League’s foundation in October 1914, only had the support of a small minority of the people, about 5-10%, but by 1918 they had formed an alliance that replaced the Home Rule Party that had dominated Irish politics for decades.

Ahern’s Fianna Fail, however is not the same as Redmond’s Home Rule Party. They have been in power much longer via state structures. Their supporters are in positions of power and influence throughout every level of society. They have integrated and co-opted the trade union leadership and whole layers of NGO’s and community groups through partnership agreements and financial donations via the state. It will be a lot tougher to destroy them.

However, they have made their decision. They supported the conquest of Iraq. Fianna Fail is now an Imperialist party. The Irish Imperialist tradition has been restored, and in the person of Ahern, Redmond has been reborn. FF is the party of war capitalism in Ireland. Imperialism in Ireland cannot be defeated until Fianna Fail has been removed from power. The results of the elections of the 11th of June needs to become the first major step in ensuring that Fianna Fail suffers the same fate as the Irish Home Rule Party.

However, the major opposition party, Fine Gael also openly advocates the destruction of neutrality and the integration of Ireland into the EU/US military structures. They only opposed the Iraq war because they decided to support the then dominant opposition to the war by the then majority of the EU states. Until there is a coherent anti-Imperialist alliance, which has a creditable possibility of providing an alternative government, or at least providing a majority in a coalition government as a stepping stone, then the option of voting for Fianna Fail rather FG will always be the least worst option for many people who otherwise would vote for parties that opposed the war.

Therefore the real question is can the parties, the Green Party, the Labour Party, Sinn Fein and independents that oppose war capitalism, form a government? Can the parties and Independents to the left of the Labour Party substantially increase their electoral support to ensure that a left majority government is an option at the next election rather than the FG/Green/Labour government that is the favoured option of FG and of many in the Labour Party?

Our short tem objective is to build an alliance so that:

An Irish Government in the 26 county Republic that would be committed to adding a Protocol to the proposed EU Constitution, similar to that achieved by Denmark that would exclude Ireland from involvement with the ERRP,
Enshrine Irish neutrality into our Constitution
Withdraw from the PfP
Focus on a reformed US as the institution through which Ireland would pursue its security concerns.
Terminate the use of Shannon airport by the US and its allies.

Since the Green Party, Sinn Fein and radical independents already support these objectives, the key question is can the Labour Party alter its current support for a militarized EU? Can it revert to its critical attitude to the EU it had in the late 60’s, early 70"s? Will its opposition to the Iraqi war result in its willingness to take part in a broad anti-war alliance including Sinn Fein, the Greens and Independents on a more formal basis? Can such an alliance gain the support of the majority of the people so it can form a government?

While the election results show it is not now an option, as the war drags on and on, the possibility of such an option becomes more and more real. As the war capitalists in EU, seek to gain support and send more troops to Iraq, such an option becomes more and more a realistic. It is in building opposition to the militarisation of the EU and in again and again pointing out the EU/US military links that will undermine the imperialists within the Irish Labour Party and gain more and more popular support both within it, and among the general population, for the formation of a Green/Labour/Sinn Fein/Independents government.

The first campaign fought by the Peace & Neutrality Alliance was the Amsterdam Treaty referendum held at the same time as the Good Friday Agreement. Both referendums played a significant role in the process towards achieving our objective. For while the elite saw the Agreement as an end in itself, a defeat for Irish Republicanism, a mechanism of drawing Republicans into supporting the EU/US military structures, the rise of the No vote to the Amsterdam Treaty together with the result of the Good Friday Agreement, instead, strongly indicated a growth in support for Irish Independence, in the desire for structures that would deliver, peacefully and democratically, an Independent and United Irish Republic. This growth of support among the people for National Independence and Democracy increased in subsequent referendums.

In the context of Irish integration into the emerging European Empire the Amsterdam result was a major blow for the EU Empire Loyalists, especially in the context of growing support for Irish Independence and when compared with previous referendums.
Year: No vote
1972: 16.9%
1986: 30.00%
1992: 30.9%
1998: 38.3%
2001: 53.1%
2002: 37.1%

Thus Amsterdam marked a decisive shift towards Irish Independence and while we went on to win Nice 1 and lose Nice 2 it created new plateau of 37/38% electorate support for anti-imperialists, and it was one in which the issues of Irish neutrality, Independence and democracy rather than religious divisions which were central to the debate on the future.

Now we are not only to have another referendum on the EU Constitution, but for the first time there will be a referendum in all 32 counties, and hopefully at the same time.

The EU Constitution creates the legal framework for the creation of an Imperial nuclear armed, neo-liberal, centralized superstate. The EU Constitution, rather than our own Constitution will be the "fountainhead of all law", and the European Court of Justice rather than the Irish Supreme Court will the final arbiter in interpreting the EU Constitution. To date, as each of the EU Treaties were ratified, only the provisions of those treaties became part of the Irish Constitution. This EU Constitution is a completely different concept. The EU itself, as distinct entity, acquires legal personality. The EU itself, rather than the member states will be the sovereign legal authority via the EU Constitution.

It legalizes the transfer of power from, not only the Irish people, but also all the people’s of Europe to a EU political elite. A EU elite that makes decisions in secret in the EU Commission and at meetings of the Council of Ministers. A EU elite that is building its own distinct army via the European Rapid Reaction Force. It is why they support it. It is why all democrats in Ireland and throughout the EU should oppose it.

The EU Constitution is another Act of Union. It destroys the legal basis for Irish National Independence in the same way the Act of Union with the British Empire did at the end of the 18th century. It is the European Union, rather than the British Union, which is now the main opponent of Irish Independence and democracy.

However, just as the Act of Union did not destroy the desire for Irish National Independence, neither will the EU Constitution. It is merely another battle between Irish people that support Irish Independence, Irish Democracy and Neutrality on one side and Irish people that support Imperialism on the other, another battle in a conflict that has raged for generation after generation, and will continue no matter who wins the referendum on the EU Constitution.

Our objective is to defeat the EU Constitution, while accepting that some affiliates are still discussing their attitude to it. Since the latest MRBI survey showed that 51% of the people in the 26 county Republic want more independence from the EU and since the vast majority of the people living in the 6 counties support parties that have declared their opposition to the EU Constitution, then a victory, as in Nice 1, a decisive no vote in all Ireland referendum, is a perfectly reasonable and achievable objective.

We need to continue to build a broad alliance of all those progressive forces, including those sections of business, which do not have a vested interest in war. Such an alliance, like in the US should be based on progressive and inclusive values. There is no doubt that there are political forces that oppose the EU from a reactionary perspective. Political groups that seek to stir up religious or racial hatred and division in opposition to the emerging EU Empire. Political forces that look back and seek inspiration from old Imperial values. Any coalition we participate in will have no role for reactionary elements.

However, we have to accept that many of those who will be supporting those opposing the Empire from a reactionary position are our potential allies. Unionists might see they are supporting a British state, that like the 26 county state, is to become only a small part of a European Empire to which they, no more than Irish Republicans are willing to die for. The British Union, a state to which they give their allegiance, is ceasing to exist. In that context, a United Independent Irish Republic in which they would be 12% of the electorate could become a more attractive alternative than an European Imperial state, where the Irish, will be the cannon fodder in Iraq and elsewhere, for the EU/US elite.

In Ireland PANA has co-operated with two other broad based alliances, the NGOPA and the IAWM both of which, like PANA reject religious or racial hatred. It was this broad based alliance and all the groups affiliated, which provided the leadership to opposing the conquest of Iraq. PANA would seek to ensure that a similar broad based alliance by in the first instance gaining their support to opposing the militarisation of the EU, by opposing the EU Constitution. A Constitution which would bind Ireland into supporting the progressive framing of a EU defence compatible with NATO’s defence policy, more arms production and appoints an EU Foreign Minister.

We need to continually point out that the concept that the EU can develop as an alternative centre of power to the US is not a realistic option. Even if it were, it’s not an option for any progressive forces in Ireland or any other EU state. If history teaches us anything, there is no such thing as a "good Empire". One can be better than the other, as there is no doubt that the 3rd German Empire under Hitler was worse than the American Empire under Roosevelt, but they both remained Empires and the victims of Hiroshima would not have appreciated any great distinction.

A EU State, which includes states such as Belgium, Britain, France, Holland, Italy, Germany, Portugal, and Spain, which have such strong Imperial traditions, cannot but be tempted to revive their imperial traditions. It could be a case of "Empires, united, Shall never be defeated".

Since the EU leaders have just elected Barroso, a strong supporter of the Imperial war in Iraq and a hard line neo-liberal, President of the EU who has in turn appointed neo-liberals to the three economic Commissions and is a strong supporter of the US/EU alliance, there is no evidence that the majority of EU elite want to oppose US Imperialism. The fact that the EU states Britain, The Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Holland, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia and Slovenia have troops in Iraq supporting the US occupation shows that there is ample evidence that a majority of the EU elite now support Imperialism and neo-liberalism and collaboration with, rather than opposition to, American Imperialism.

This is not to say we should not recognize that EU is not the US. The political forces that seek to develop social market capitalism as distinct from the neo-liberal version are much stronger in the EU than it is in the US.

We should recognize that many political activists involved in seeking woman’s rights, as well as trade union and environmental activists are well disposed to the EU that has been for many decades very supportive. We also should recognize that the Imperialist governments in Europe do not have the support of their peoples. It is not just PANA that opposes the EU Imperialist project.

We need to make it clear that we support environmentalists, trade unionists and woman’s rights activists. We have to make it clear that we believe these rights are best protected and developed by promoting Irish Democracy, rather than by destroying it. We have to make it clear their environmental rights, their trade union rights, their woman’s rights, their civil rights, will be destroyed if they support the institutionalization of EU militarism if this EU Constitution is accepted. The neo-liberal Imperialist agenda of the EU is no friend of democratic rights.

We need to ensure that we build an opposition alliance to the militarisation of the EU via this EU Constitution throughout the EU by building up links with similar groups throughout Europe. PANA is already affiliated to TEAM and the European Peace & Human Rights Network. Our slogans in the campaign are, Yes to Europe-No to Superstate, as well as, Support Irish Neutrality, Democracy and Independence. To PANA, the European Union should be a partnership of Independent Democratic States, legal equals, without a military dimension. By advocating such a vision of Europe is to be truly European, but Europeanism that rejects its imperial traditions.

A victory would mean that a different future for the European Union is possible. If we can successfully be part of a EU coalition that has rejected militarisation and Imperialism then we can help build an alternative future for Europe, we can become part the dominant pro-European political alliance.

Even if we defeat the Imperialists, defeat the Empire Loyalists, and win the referendum on the EU Constitution, that victory will not ensure the formation of a Green/Labour/Sinn Fein/Independents government, but it would go long way. For once the broad framework of a vision of a future, United, Independent, inclusive and democratic Irish Republic, a member state of the EU, which is a Partnership of Democratic states, has been seen to have the support of the majority of Irish people, then the formation of a government based on those principles becomes an option. Gaining majority support for such a government would not be easy. All the parties have to develop policies on heath, education, transport, housing and other issues within an economic framework that rejects Imperialism and neo-liberalism. These are major tasks but achievable But since the alternative on offer would be the neo-liberal Imperialists of Fianna Fail and Fine Gael, victory is an a real possibility.

Finally, may I again repeat that this campaign on the EU Constitution is just another battle against Imperialism, and in favour of Irish Independence, Irish Neutrality and Irish Democracy. Win or lose, it is a struggle that has been waged for generations, and we, in waging that struggle are only standing on the shoulders of giants such as Desmond Greaves.

Internationally, the issues of democracy and Independence, of Imperialism and war go back for generations, to ancient Greece, Egypt and what is now Iraq.

In our generation, we are unique, in that we the first to live in an era of weapons of mass destruction, first used in Hiroshima. Now that more and more states are acquiring such weapons, war and Imperialism, which were once able to kill millions, can now obliterate all life on this planet.

If Imperialists like Bush, Blair, and their lackeys like Ahern are not rejected people, then there might not be next generation. It would be more than ironic if all civilization came to an end as a result of a war where in a region where civilization began. So lets hope we win and they lose.

Roger Cole (Chair),Peace & Neutrality Alliance
Speech to the Desmond Greaves Summer School, August 2004.

Building the Alliance for Peace (part 2)

I would like to thank the organizers of the Desmond Greaves Summer School for the invitation to speak. The Desmond Greaves Summer School has always been the only summer school that really challenges the establishment. I look forward to the establishment of a DGS web page containing all the papers given over the years. Such a web page would show the influence of the Summer School over the years and the continuing influence of the democratic values of Desmond Greaves.

The Peace& Neutrality Alliance was established to advocate an Independent Irish Foreign Policy, Irish Neutrality and a reformed United Nations.

The reason why PANA was established was because the Republic of Ireland was being integrated into US/EU military industrial structures through the militarisation of the European Union and a move towards NATO membership via Irish membership of the Partnership of Peace. The six counties of Northern Ireland are already in NATO, so these developments would consolidate all Ireland integration into the established EU/US military structures.

A number of people in 1996 with a background in the Irish peace movement decided there was a need for a broad based alliance that would oppose these developments by focusing on militarisation, the weakest link in the integration process and advocate an alternative future than that on offer from the Irish political elite. Over 30 groups are now affiliated to PANA. Our objective is to ensure the establishment of an all Ireland Republic, with a government implementing its own foreign policy, outside any military alliances, and pursuing that policy through a reformed United Nations where the Security Council, instead of being dominated by the victors of the 2nd World War, was genuinely inclusive and representative of the world’s states.

However, what is happening in Ireland cannot be examined without first outlining the global context in which Irish Independence and Democracy are being destroyed.

The background for the attack on Irish Independence, neutrality and democratic has the steady rise in power of the neo-liberal ideology of many of the global corporations throughout the world, especially in the western states, and the belief by a significant section of them, that the decline in oil stocks would need the sustaining and development of military capitalism and the restoration of direct Imperial domination to ensure their continuing wealth and power. Ireland was being integrated into their economic structures, so it was inevitable that in due course they would seek to integrate Ireland into their military structures as well.

The effect of the growing power of the corporations on the world, especially the poor have been stark.

The total export debt of developing countries rose from $90 million in 1970 to $2,000 billion in 1998.
2.8 billion of the world’s poor live on less than $2 a day.
1.2 billion of the worlds 6 billion people live on less than$1 a day.
30-35,000 children die every day from preventable diseases.
The gap between the richest 20% of the world’s population and the poorest 20% has doubled over the last 40 years.
The assets of the world’s top 3 billionaires exceed the GNP of all the population’s of the least developed countries, which have a total population of 600 million.
80% of the world’s income goes to the top 20% of the world’s population.
60% of the world’s population has only 6% of the world’s income.
51 of the largest 100 economic global entities are corporations.
$1.5 trillion are traded every day in foreign exchanges.
Basic food and raw material prices, the staple income for the majority world, fell by 50% in real terms in the last 20 years.

Russia, a state that adopted neo-liberalism, encouraged by the US Treasury Dept. and the IMF, saw its industrial production fall by 60% between 1990-99 and the percentage of its people living in poverty rise from 2% to 24% (living on less than $2 a day) and more than 40% living on $4 a day.

While Bush and the neo-liberals want to keep it that way, these facts go a long way to explain why he has relatively little support in South America, Africa, Asia, the Middle East, Russia and the peoples if not all the governments in Europe for his decision to invade and conquer Iraq because he wanted the oil and to strengthen Israeli/US military domination of the region.

An example of the lack of support was a recent Pew global survey showed only 7 of 20 nations (Britain, Israel, Kuwait, Canada, Nigeria, Italy and Australia) had a favorable view of the US.

Yet through organizations like the Trilateral Commission, the Bildergerg Group, and the European Round Table, the global neo-liberal elite work together, not in any conspiratorial way, but by and large in an open confident manner, using their domination of the mass media to maintain their control (i.e., every Irish newspaper supported the Irish governments decision to destroy Irish neutrality). They know that neo-liberalism has made them rich and powerful. They believe that war; especially an atmosphere of fear generated by permanent war, consolidates their wealth and power. Bush, Blair, Ahern and Co has nothing to learn from Orwell.

They are aware that conflicting ideologies are necessary to ensure the justification for the massive military expenditure that provides the backbone of the American Empire and the aspiring EU Empire. After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, they needed a new enemy, especially that section of the corporate elite in arms production. They found it in what they now call Muslim Fundamentalism and the so-called war on terrorism, which provides the justification for the destruction of international law, institutionalized and systematic torture, and the erosion of civil liberties. Huntington’s book, "The Clash of Civilizations" provided the intellectual justification. The concept that there is a Judeo/Christian civilization, which is superior to the Muslim civilization and that war, was inevitable between the two civilizations, was just what the US/EU arms industry corporations wanted to hear.

It might be said that fact that the US/EU supported the colonization and occupation of Palestine by millions of European Jews and are now occupying Afghanistan and Iraq and are threatening to invade the Sudan might be a factor in alienating millions and millions of Arabs and Muslims does not appear to have occurred to them. But of course it has, which is why they do it. They need war, they want war, and they love war. It’s great for business.

If the US/EU really wanted peace they would withdraw for Iraq and Afghanistan and impose sanctions on Israel until it withdraws to its 1967 borders. In fact, the EU states and US support Israel, the latest example being their opposition to the role of the International Court of Justice on the issue of the legality in International law of the Israeli wall. Those states that voted against the ICJ issuing an advisory opinion included Ireland, Israel, the USA, Germany, France, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, the UK and the EU. Those in favour included the Palestinian Authority, Cuba, Indonesia, South Africa and the Arab League.

That is not to say Muslim Fundamentalism does not exist, it does, just as does Christian Fundamentalism or Hindu Fundamentalism. Neither is it surprising that many millions of the oppressed people of the world will seek in Muslim Fundamentalism an answer to their oppression, especially since the leaders of Western Imperialism like Bush and Blair and Ahern, who are largely responsible for their oppression, are Christian Fundamentalists and much of their popular support base is explicitly based on mobilising Christian Fundamentalism.

In Ireland, where the exploitation of religious hate and fear by unionism has played such a key role in our domination by Imperialism, Irish Republicans, have long experienced the power of religious bigotry and the use of that power by the rich to divide the people so they stay rich. We should, like Tone and the United Irishmen in a previous generation reject any role for religious fundamentalism in the struggle against Imperialism.

However, it is the US where military capitalism is concentrated, where the use and abuse of Christian Fundamentalism is strongest, and with such power mobilised, is an integral part of the ideology by which the elite retain their wealth.

The American Empire is the power centre of neo-liberal corporate elite. Their power in that state is virtually absolute. Their domination of their own people can be seen by the following facts;

13% of American companies in the US no longer pay paid leave, an increase of 5% from 1997
25% of workers in the United States no longer take an annual holiday.
Of those that do, they typically receive 8 days after one year and 10 days after 3 years.
Only 13% of workers in the US are unionized.
The ratio of the annual income of US Chief Executives to the average workers annual income increased from 42 times in 1980 to 500 in 2000.
43 million Americans have no health care.
The American political parties will spend $1.3 billion on advertising in 2004.
Forty-seven million Americans work for less than $10 an hour.

Yet it is these facts that are providing the backbone to a major challenge to the corporate elite within the US and the anti-globalisation demonstrations in Seattle was a major turning point in the struggle against Imperialism. The growth of the Internet, especially in the US has massively undermined the power of the corporate information giants of Fox, CNN etc. If the printing press led to a transformation in culture and politics then the Internet is having an even more powerful effect. For example, the net provides the mechanism by which Dean, a leading ant-war candidate, propelled the anti-war issue centre stage, it ensured the success of Michael Moore’s book, Stupid White Men, has spawned a growing number of web sites, such as z net, which are replacing the establishment media as the real source of information, and most importantly it is providing a cheap and effective method for those opposed to the neo-liberal elite to build a coalition against them.

The power of Imperialism within the US however cannot be underestimated. Ralph Nader, the only Presidential candidate calling for withdrawal of US troops from Iraq only has the support of 2% of the electorate. Many progressives therefore believe that defeating Bush is a priority and in effect have joined the Democratic Party coalition.

Kerry was selected as the Democratic candidate in the Presidential election this year and the coalition he has built reflects the successful fight back by progressive political forces in the United States. Kerry is a supporter of neo-liberalism, but in the context of the US, a Kerry victory would be a defeat for Bush and his version of military capitalism.

While Kerry’s selection was a defeat for the American anti-war movement but is really a reflection of the fact that not all corporations have an absolute commitment to war capitalism. Many of them are in sectors; such as entertainment where having the rest of the people of the world hating America is not good for business. Other CEO’s of these Corporations would rather make money that die for George W. Bush. The fact that last year the figures show that US corporations invested more money in France than in previous years provides evidence that many did not buy into the anti-French hysteria of the right wing US media.

That large sections of capital, in the US, and even more strongly in other regions such as South East Asia, that have done well out of globalisation largely by ignoring the harsher neo-liberal solutions of the IMF, do not support Bush is indicated by a recent poll of global fund managers that control $940 billion, the majority of whom thought Kerry would win, although the British and US managers thought Bush would win. The reality is that large sections of capital believe war causes instability, such as hugh increases in oil prices, and is not good for business.

Also many people in the elite are aware that the US, with only 4% of the world’s population is not as strong economically as it once was as these figures show:

In 1950 the US supplied 50% of the world’s gross product. It is now 21%.
In 1950 the US was responsible for 60% of manufacturing production, and it’s now 25%.
Of the top 100 corporations ranked by foreign-held assets, only 25 are American.
In 1960, 47% of the world’s stock of direct investment in other countries was American. It’s now 21%.
In global finance, in 1981, 67% of private savings in the world was American. It is now 40%.
In 1971 the US had a deficit in its trade in goods for the first time in 78 years. To date the deficits were offset by trade in services and borrowings. But by 2002 the US was borrowing $503 billion from abroad, 4.5% of GDP and by 2003, foreigners owned 41% of US treasury marketable debt.
The federal budget surpluses of the 1998-2001 are now projected to be budget deficits of $450 billion for 2004-6. The federal government is slashing spending on education, health, transport, etc. Only the military industrial complex is receiving state investments. Federal aid to state government is being cut, and state governments now face deficits of $65-85 billion leading to deeper cuts local expenditure on everything from public safety to libraries.

In short, the American Empire no longer has the economic power to sustain its military domination of the globe. Like all previous Empires, it’s due for a fall. It will be defeated in Iraq, as it was in Vietnam and the sooner the better.

Building the Alliance for Peace (part 1)

Support for Irish neutrality has been a core republican value since the time of the United Irishmen. But it has never been more relevant than in the 21st century.

Irish military neutrality has been a source of our unique position in the world, a source of strength and legitimacy. Through the pursuit of an independent foreign policy in the past, Ireland has built an internationally respected reputation in UN peacekeeping, promotion of anti-nuclear initiatives and the development rights of postcolonial societies. Our international stature has also been enhanced by our experience of building a peace process at home.

A militarily neutral Ireland actively pursuing a global social justice agenda through peaceful means has more to offer than ever before at this time of volatility in international relations. Since the establishment parties have demonstrated that they are either not fully committed to neutrality or are opposed to it, republicans recognise our responsibility to show leadership in this regard.

Sinn Féin therefore proposes "Positive Neutrality in Action" as an independent policy alternative for expanding Ireland’s role in international affairs.

We see Positive Neutrality in Action not only as a policy with immediate relevance for the 26 county state, but also propose that it should form the heart of the international relations policy after reunification.

Recent developments have confirmed the need for such a policy. We offer this document as a clear statement of what Positive Neutrality in Action would entail.

SUMMARY OF SINN FÉIN PROPOSALS
Sinn Féin proposes an independent and progressive Irish international relations policy that opposes military alliances and works for international co-operation and conflict negotiation leading to democratic social change and respect for human rights, universal demilitarisation and nuclear disarmament.

Such a policy of "Positive Neutrality in Action" would require:

Neutrality to be enshrined in the Irish Constitution and codified in legislation;
Withdrawal from the EU Rapid Reaction Force and NATO's Partnership for Peace;
Irish troops to train and serve abroad only under the auspices and leadership of the United Nations, and only with prior Dáil approval;
No use of Irish airports, airspace, seaports, or territorial waters for preparation for war or other armed conflict by foreign powers;
An end to Irish involvement in the arms trade and profit from war;
Clear recognition and legal protection through a binding Protocol of Irish neutrality in any new EU Treaty;
Active promotion of demilitarisation of the EU;
Formation of alliances with other progressive, neutral states to promote a Human Security approach to international relations;
Active promotion of UN primacy, UN reform and capacity-building to create a revitalised UN which is capable of fulfilling the promise of the Charter and Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and of upholding international law.

Download the full document in PDF format: sf-neutralitydocument.pdf (1.1MB)

Positive Neutrality in Action

In a special anti-war issue of Hot Press, (published Thursday 3rd June), Richard Boyd Barrett and other prominent voices in music and politics set the stage for the protests against George Bush and the forthcoming anti-war gig at Dublin's Point Theatre.

In the special issue of the magazine, which is a co-sponsor of the Point event, many prominent figures in the Irish Music and political scene openly criticise the Irish Government for allowing the use of Shannon Airport by the US army, en route to Iraq. They also express their opposition to George Bush's visit to Shannon for the forthcoming summit with Europe, in what is widely perceived to be an effort to secure the Irish American vote in the November US Presidential election. According to Green MEP, Patricia McKenna, "in the interest of peace and global security, it is vital that President Bush is not re-elected."

Referring to the torture of prisoners in Iraq, Boyd Barret says that he blames Bush and the people who started the war rather than the individual soldiers. "It's becoming more apparent that what was going on in that prison wasn't an aberration," he asserts, "but was a policy that came from the top and was a culture that impressionable, young, ill-educated soldiers became immersed in."
Concern is expressed by contributors to the special issue about the fact that the Irish government has failed to respect Ireland's neutrality, Boyd Barrett believes that "there's a longer term strategy to jump on the coattails of US power globally and to become a junior partner in the domination of the world economy."
Labour Candidate Ivana Bacik says there will be a political fall-out from this here. "I think there will be a backlash from younger voters and also from George Bush's visit, the imposition of him coming here and the fact that we seem to be bending over backwards to facilitate him. It seems he invited himself, that he suggested to the Government that he come here".

Presented by the Irish Anti-War Movement, in association with SIPTU and Hot Press, the When Bush Comes to Shove gig takes place at the Vicar Street, Dublin on June 19th. It is the latest in a number of events designed to protest against the war in Iraq. However, it is the first occasion for which musicians have come together to explicitly support the anti-war movement. Headed by Christy Moore, the bill also includes Damien Rice, who recently toured very successfully in the US, Mary Black, Kila, the Revs, Katell Keinig and comedian Barry Murphy from Apres Match – all of whom have agreed to give their services free of charge, because they personally believe in the anti-war cause.

For Damien Rice, "doing a gig is a personal thing, it's a peaceful way of saying 'I live in a democratic country and id like to make my voice heard and help others to be heard, and say we don't agree with something', simple as that. Letting people know we don't agree".

For further information, contact: Deborah Cogley 01-2411500 or 086-3916640 email deborah@hotpress.ie website www.hotpress.ie

HOT PRESS Goes to War with WAR

Vote taken on Neutrality Bill - PMB on Neutrality - (Feb '03)
Private Members' motion re Iraq and Ireland's (supposed) neutrality
Aengus Ó Snodaigh on Brian Cowen's response to his question re Ireland's neutrality
Challenging the EU Common Defence

Vote taken on Neutrality Bill - PMB on Neutrality - (Feb '03)

Total Tá: 35
Total Níl: 100

Tá
Boyle, Dan.; Broughan, Thomas P.; Burton, Joan.; Costello, Joe.; Cowley, Jerry.; Crowe, Seán.; Cuffe, Ciarán.; Ferris, Martin.; Gilmore, Eamon.; Gogarty, Paul.; Gormley, John.; Gregory, Tony.; Harkin, Marian.; Higgins, Joe.; Higgins, Michael D.; Howlin, Brendan.; Lynch, Kathleen.; McGrath, Finian.; McManus, Liz.; Morgan, Arthur.; Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.; Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.; Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.; O'Shea, Brian.; O'Sullivan, Jan.; Pattison, Seamus.; Penrose, Willie.; Quinn, Ruairi.; Rabbitte, Pat.; Ryan, Eamon.; Ryan, Seán.; Sargent, Trevor.; Sherlock, Joe.; Shortall, Róisín.; Stagg, Emmet.

Níl
Ahern, Dermot.; Ahern, Michael.; Ahern, Noel.; Allen, Bernard.; Andrews, Barry.; Ardagh, Seán.; Aylward, Liam.; Blaney, Niall.; Brady, Martin.; Breen, James.; Breen, Pat.; Brennan, Seamus.; Browne, John.; Bruton, Richard.; Callanan, Joe.; Callely, Ivor.; Carey, Pat.; Cassidy, Donie.; Collins, Michael.; Connaughton, Paul.; Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.; Coughlan, Mary.; Coveney, Simon.; Crawford, Seymour.; Cregan, John.; Cullen, Martin.; Curran, John.; Davern, Noel.; Deenihan, Jimmy.; Dempsey, Tony.; Dennehy, John.; Devins, Jimmy.; Durkan, Bernard J.; Ellis, John.; Finneran, Michael.; Fitzpatrick, Dermot.; Fleming, Seán.; Fox, Mildred.; Gallagher, Pat The Cope.; Grealish, Noel.; Hanafin, Mary.; Haughey, Seán.; Hayes, Tom.; Hoctor, Máire.; Hogan, Phil.; Jacob, Joe.; Keaveney, Cecilia.; Kelleher, Billy.; Kelly, Peter.; Kenny, Enda.; Killeen, Tony.; Kirk, Seamus.; Kitt, Tom.; Lenihan, Brian.; Lenihan, Conor.; Martin, Micheál.; McCormack, Padraic.; McCreevy, Charlie.; McDaid, James.; McDowell, Michael.; McEllistrim, Thomas.; McGrath, Paul.; McGuinness, John.; Mitchell, Olivia.; Moloney, John.; Moynihan, Donal.; Moynihan, Michael.; Mulcahy, Michael.; Murphy, Gerard.; Naughten, Denis.; Neville, Dan.; Nolan, M.J.; Ó Cuív, Éamon.; O'Connor, Charlie.; O'Donnell, Liz.; O'Donovan, Denis.; O'Dowd, Fergus.; O'Flynn, Noel.; O'Keeffe, Batt.; O'Keeffe, Jim.; O'Keeffe, Ned.; O'Malley, Fiona.; O'Malley, Tim.; Parlon, Tom.; Perry, John.; Power, Peter.; Power, Seán.; Ring, Michael.; Ryan, Eoin.; Sexton, Mae.; Smith, Brendan.; Smith, Michael.; Stanton, David.; Timmins, Billy.; Treacy, Noel.; Twomey, Liam.; Wallace, Mary.; Wilkinson, Ollie.; Woods, Michael.; Wright, G.V.

Government must seize opportunity to challenge EU Common Defence
- 3rd October 2003

Sinn Féin Spokesperson on International Affairs and Defence Aengus Ó Snodaigh TD has welcomed the confirmation by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the Dáil today that the Common Defence provisions of the draft EU Constitutional Treaty will be revised. Deputy Ó Snodaigh said: "Ireland must now seize this opportunity to show progressive leadership in the EU and to exercise its responsibility as a militarily neutral state, by seeking changes to draft Article I-40 on Common Defence, the provisions of which significantly further militarise the EU and undermine Irish military neutrality by association with and complicity in the European militarist project.

"Today I urged the Government once again to instruct the Irish negotiators to protect Irish independence in defence policy, and specifically the traditional policies of military neutrality and UN primacy, by at minimum securing a specific article explicitly recognising the rights and duties of neutral states within the Union and explicitly recognising the right of those states requiring a UN mandate for military operations.

"I also urged the Government in line with its policy on nuclear disarmament to take up Sinn Féin's challenge of Positive Neutrality in Action and use the opportunity of the IGC negotiations to argue for a new Treaty Article committing to the objective of a Nuclear Weapons-Free EU, as a concrete step towards making this world genuinely safer for all.

"We want Government commitment to activism on the issue of neutrality and demilitarisation, in the same way that they have actively campaigned for the retention of unanimity in decision-making on taxation. There is no reason why the Government shouldn't fight as hard to protect Irish neutrality as Spain and Poland have to protect their favourable voting weights in Council. And I don't accept the false choice offered by the Government-Fine Gael-Labour axis – that an EU Common Defence is inevitable, and the only option before us is to either fully commit by sending troops or else limit our participation to EU defence policy making. There is another way, and that is to actively campaign against an EU Common Defence and in favour of UN primacy and a demilitarised EU, and to also ensure that Ireland and other militarily neutral states are accorded equal status and explicit recognition in the Union." - ENDS

Ó Snodaigh calls on Government to "admit that Irish neutrality is a lie"
- 9 April 2003

Sinn Féin spokesperson on International Affairs Aengus Ó Snodaigh this afternoon called on the Irish Government to "come clean and admit that Irish neutrality is a lie". Deputy Ó Snodaigh was responding to comments made by Minister Brian Cowen in response to a question on Ireland's neutrality in the Dáil today. Deputy Ó Snodaigh said: "The Government has claimed that they have not breached Irish neutrality but the Irish people have a right to know exactly how the Government defines it and whether it even exists? For many weeks now I have been attempting to conduct what I would call a neutrality audit. I have asked a number of different Ministers a range of questions designed to ascertain to what extent our so-called neutrality is being breached by facilitating foreign military aircraft and ships on their way to war. So far the Government have refused to provide a comprehensive account.

"Again today the Minister refused point blank to answer my specific questions.

However he did acknowledge that the Irish Government, alone amongst the international community, has a different definition of military neutrality to everybody else. He specifically said that he does not accept the Hague Convention definition of neutrality. But rather than provide the Governments alternative definition he claimed that in Irelands case it was best to keep it vague. And in an attempt to try and confuse the matter further he mischievously suggested that a UN Charter had since negated the 1907 Hague Convention in terms of defining the rights and duties of neutral states.

"It is clear from the Ministers response today, or the lack of it, that this Government has long since abandoned any desire or wish to respect and defend what most people regard as a positive aspect of Ireland's foreign policy.

"I am calling on the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs to come clean and to explicitly admit that Irish neutrality is a lie, and has been a lie under successive Fianna Fáil Governments. The time for hiding behind evasive answers, misinformation has long past. It is time to stop treating the people with contempt and to confirm what is the reality – that is, we are not a neutral state." - ENDS

Ó Snodaigh accuses Government of hypocrisy over war on Iraq
- 29 January 2003

Speaking at the Private Members debate on Iraq Sinn Féin spokesperson on International Affairs Aengus Ó Snodaigh said: "This Government has deliberately and repeatedly misled both the Dáil and the Irish people on the use of Shannon Airport to transport troops and munitions on their way to prepare for war on Iraq.

"They have been complicit in war preparations in the absence of a United Nations Security Council resolution.

"The Taoiseach and Minister Cowen have repeatedly assured this House since early October that they consider the UN to be supreme in these matters, and that they will abide by Security Council resolutions.

"Since October the Taoiseach has insisted that no deal exists with the US to allow Shannon to be used for war preparations. But they have also been very evasive in their answers to direct questions put by myself and numerous other Deputies in this House as to whether the Government has offered cooperation with the US Government in their war preparations.

"Yet according to recent revelations the Government has allowed Shannon to be used as a pit-stop on the way to war by both civilian and military aircraft. BUT The Security Council has NOT authorised force, and any facilitation of the current US-led war build-up is NOT in keeping with current Security Council policy. Therefore, they have deceived the Dáil and the public about their true position.
These war preparations have taken place in violation of:

the Air Navigation (Carriage of Munitions of War, Weapons and Dangerous Goods) Order, 1973, section 6, paragraph 2 (a) (i) (ii), which states that it is against the law to carry munitions of war on an aircraft. We now know with certainty that this has happened.
The Air Navigation (Foreign Military Aircraft) Order 1952, at paragraphs 3, and 4, states that no foreign military aircraft shall fly over or land in the state without the express permission of the Minister. To my question of December 10, Cowen said that no routine applications for overflights or landings had been refused, because the government had confirmed that the aircraft did not carry arms or ammunition, and were not part of a military exercise or operation. Yet we know these things have happened. He also said that no applications were made for Ministerial exemption of these conditions. If this is so, then either the Government has already extended permission, so that applications for exemption are not required, or else they have been derelict in their duty to enforce the law. We deserve full disclosure as to which is the case.
the Defence Act, 1954, section 317, paragraphs 1 and 2, states that no one can enter or land in the state while wearing any foreign military uniform, save with the express permission in writing of a Minister. Yet we know these things have also happened.

"This Government have therefore breached the obligations of neutral states as defined by Article 2 and 5 of the Hague Convention V Respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land. (Article 2 states that "belligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of either munitions of war OR supplies across the territory of a neutral power," and article 5 states that it is the responsibility of the neutral power itself to ensure that this does not occur.

"They have done all this without the assent of the Dáil, in violation of Article 28 (3) (1) of the Constitution (and not to mention, contrary to the spirit of Article 29.2 of the Constitution).

"Minister Cowen, in answer to my question of December 3, reassured me that the Government would "at all times act in accordance with its Constitutional and legal obligations" with respect to the granting of overflight and landing permission. They have not done so.

"I must put protest on record that this Government, despite repeated (at least 5) requests by myself and by SF since September 10, has refused to allow a proper and full debate of these issues. It is their responsibility to ensure that this debate happens.

"Why have they refused? They cite Article 29.4 of the Constitution on executive powers allowing for Government and Ministerial discretion in these matters. They don't intend to consult the Dáil, nor to answer to the Dáil until absolutely necessary. Yet at the same time, they claim over and over that they are in compliance with the relevant laws and the Constitution, and they are not.

"They are hypocrites and I will continue to expose their hypocrisy and deceit.

"This Government is systematically abandoning neutrality by stealth:

it joined NATO's PfP despite promises to the contrary
it refused to seek a legally binding neutrality Protocol to the Nice Treaty despite public outcry
it set the precedent of Ministerial authorisation for war complicity without the assent of the Dáil in the case of the US-led war on Afghanistan (pursuant to UNSC resolution 1368)
it failed to use its position on the Security Council and in the EU to avert war on Iraq

"I will finish by demanding the immediate cessation of military overflights and landings by foreign powers preparing for or participating in war, in keeping with our laws, Constitution, and rights and responsibilities as a Neutral Power." - ENDS

Sinn Féin Press Office, 44 Parnell Square, Dublin 1.
Tel: 01 - 8722609 // Fax: 01 - 8733441
Press Officer: Michael Nolan // 086 2477694 // Email: mnolan@oireachtas.ie

Sinn Féin Press Releases on Ireland's neutrality and details of Vote taken on Neutrality Bill - PMB on Neutrality in Feb '03

A draft Discussion Document for the Peace and Neutrality Alliance.
- May 2004

Introduction:
The Peace & Neutrality Alliance was established in 1996 to advocate an independent Irish foreign policy, Irish neutrality and a reformed United Nations as the institution through which Ireland should pursue its security concerns. PANA seeks to ensure that the future of the EU is as a Partnership of Independent, Democratic States, and legal equals, without a military dimension.

Therefore PANA has opposes the militarisation of the EU and campaigned against the Amsterdam and Nice Treaties. It played a key role in defeating the Nice Treaty the first time it was placed before the Irish people, and gained some important concessions from the Irish Government. Firstly, the Government was forced to ensure that there would be a Constitutional obligation to have a referendum before Ireland joined a EU mutual defence pact; secondly, Irish troops would only participate in the ERRF if it had a UN mandate. And thirdly, it made the Seville Declaration confirming Irish neutrality.

PANA, while welcoming these concessions, believed they did not go far enough. Our minimum demand was that a Protocol, which would be legally binding, similar to that which already applies to Denmark, which would exclude Ireland from any involvement with the ERRF, would be added to the Treaty. PANA therefore opposed the Nice Treaty the 2nd time it was placed before the Irish people. They voted in favour the 2nd time, which showed the concessions had some effect in swinging people to vote in favour, even though the Treaty itself was exactly the same. Yet other factors such as the massive disparity in financial expenditure (a 10-1 ratio would be a conservative estimate, and no state expenditure) between the political forces advocating a yes vote and those advocating a no vote also played a major part in the outcome of the 2nd referendum. Even then, 38% of the people voted no.

Since then, the Government has terminated the policy of Irish neutrality by allowing the US to use Shannon airport as a military base in its illegal invasion, conquest and occupation of Iraq, thus making the Seville Declaration on Irish neutrality utterly meaningless. The major opposition party, Fine Gael, has already declared its decision to destroy Irish neutrality and to declare Irish troops should participate within the ERRF without a UN mandate.

Now a draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe is being negotiated, even though the Laken Declaration of January 2001 envisaged a EU Constitution, "in the long run". PANA again demands a rejection of the Constitution for the EU unless a Protocol, which unlike a Declaration is legally binding, to exclude Ireland from participation in the militarisation of the EU, in particular the ERRF, becomes part of the Constitution. Such a Protocol is our absolute bottom line. However the draft Constitution has major implications for the Irish people on issues far wider than Irish involvement with the ERRF and this discussion document therefore covers a wider range of issues than just the militarisation of the EU. The figures show there are massive scope for demilitarization, yet instead the EU Constitution calls for more military expenditure.

An examination of the draft Constitution shows that that it formalizes the establishment of a centralized state structure and institutionalizes a neo-liberal ideology, the kind of laissez faire economic values that were dominate in the mid 19th century when Ireland was part of the British Union. The EU Constitution, as it stands, represents a EU with a strong military dimension, closely aligned with a nuclear military bloc (NATO), and committed to increased arms spending, and support for the arms industry. It also takes several giant steps towards a fully-fledged military alliance, armed not just with a military capacity but also with mutual solidarity commitments and, in some cases, mutual defence commitments between member States, all within the structures of the EU. There is no apparent room for a neutral state in such a Union.

The recent TSN/MRBI poll (9/1/04), which showed 47% support for EU Constitution, did not ask the people had they read it. Since the Irish media gave no coverage to the PANA press statement on the draft EU Constitution, it is clear that the people have not heard any debate on the content of the draft EU Constitution, they have only heard the case for an EU Constitution, and a distorted one at that.

Since the same poll showed that a majority (51%) of the people now wants to ensure that Ireland should do all it can to protect its independence from the EU, we should be confident that if the EU Constitution is ever placed before the Irish people as it is now drafted, and there was a campaign for Irish Independence, it could be defeated.

Those political forces that wish to destroy Irish Independence, Democracy and Neutrality and to restore the Imperial traditions of the British Union will not find it an easy task. The main reason why the political elites of the different states in the EU wish to support the proposed EU Constitution is because it transfers power to themselves and takes it away from their respective peoples and their National Assemblies. The Irish political elite regards their own people as not worthy of having power and that they, together with the elites of the other states of the EU should wield power. PANA however believes all power in Ireland derives from the Irish people, and that they, not an elite, should retain it. The elite have won some battles and we have won others. Next time, we win.

Thanks to the courage of Raymond Crotty, the Irish elite was forced to have referendums every time they transferred power to the EU elite several years ago. Now that Britain has been forced to join Ireland and other states that will have referendums, there will be pressure on all EU states have referendums on the EU Constitution. Our own experience in winning as we did for Nice 1, will allow Ireland to play a significant role in ensuring the defeat of this EU Constitution which seeks to establish a centralized Imperial Superstate. Through our affiliation to the European Peace & Human Rights Network and TEAM, we have already established links with other peace and democratic groups throughout Europe. There needs to be a call for every state to have a referendum and greater co-operation to ensure the defeat of the political forces advocating the creation of a European Imperial State. There defeat, and the building of links with other democratic and anti-imperial groups will allow us to help build a Democratic Europe, a Partnership of Democratic States. This discussion document is a contribution to the building of such a Democratic European Union.

The EU can have a future as such a Partnership. Yet PANA accepts that much of the history of the EU has been benign. Indeed, if the core reason for the foundation of the EU was to ensure that the states of Europe, in particular, Germany, France and Britain no longer were responsible for the deaths of millions of people through imperial wars in Europe, then its establishment must surely be welcomed. Yet anybody with a knowledge of the imperial traditions of Belgium, Britain, France, Germany, Holland, Italy, Portugal, and Spain have every reason to oppose the rapid development of a military dimension of the EU.

The fact that Britain, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Holland, Hungary, Italy, Portugal, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain (up to recently), all have troops in Iraq to support the illegal invasion, conquest and occupation of Iraq is clear and positive proof that the European Imperial tradition is not just history, but is alive and well. That virtually the entire political elite in Ireland actively supports the conquest of Iraq is absolute proof that PANA is totally correct to see the creation of the EU as the restoration of the Irish Imperial tradition, the restoration of Empire. Fianna Fail (or should it be Fianna Bush), Fine Gael, the PD's, a reasonable section of the Irish Labour Party form a neo-Redmondite alliance and are committed to the creation of a centralized Imperial super state. We need to build up an alternative alliance, a government that seeks a Democratic Europe, a Partnership of Democratic states.

Establishing a Constitution for Europe or the Foundation of an Imperial European Superstate

A GREEN PARTY discussion document.
- April 2004

Foreword
Uniquely among Irish political parties, the Green Party will consult its membership on the Party's attitude to the new European Constitution. We have already held one seminar which was attended by Dr. Garrett FitzGerald and Mr Ben Tonra, and we hope to hold at least two more seminars once the Inter-Governmental Conference has concluded negotiations.

The Party will then hold a special convention on the issue, where party members will have the opportunity to debate the issue and come to a conclusion by way of preferendum or vote.

This document offers a brief overview of the key issues in the Constitution. It outlines the pros and cons, and should be seen as the starting point for our internal party debate. The document is availabe in '.pdf format' eu_const_greenparty04.pdf and there will also be a discussion forum on the issue, which will be open to party members, on the green party website - www.greenparty.ie. Those outside the party who wish to participate can do so using e-mail.

We want to see a full, open and honest debate on these issues. There may be arguments which we have overlooked, but we would be more than happy to include all points of view in the discussion forum.

On the 22nd of February 2004 the Irish Green Party celebrated along with our other European colleagues the formation of a European Green Party. As European Greens we have made it clear that the Constitution, if it is to have real democratic legitimacy, should be ratified in a European-wide referendum.

We look forward to the debate within the Irish Green Party, the European Greens and amongst the people of Europe about the future shape of the European Union.

Download full Document: eu_const_greenparty04.pdf (.PDF format, 220 Kb)

John Gormley, T.D.,
Green Party Chairman & Foreign Affairs Spokesperson,
Irish Representative on the European Convention.
The Green Party / Comhaontas Glas
5a Fownes Street, Temple Bar, Dublin 2.
Tel: 01 679 0012
Email: info@greenparty.ie
Web: www.greenparty.ie

A Constitution for Europe

by Andy Storey (Centre for Development Studies, UCD)

Pierre Defraigne, Deputy Director General for Trade at the European Commission, professes himself puzzled by Europeans' attitudes towards the phenomenon of globalisation:

"Today, Europeans are ambivalent as regards globalisation. How is it that a people that ‘discovered the world’ at the time of the Renaissance and, for two or three centuries, colonised four continents, can fail to see the many benefits that the conquest of new markets and the emergence of new producers present for their own well-being?" (Defraigne, 2002).

While Defraigne is baffled by the inability of Europeans to correctly perceive where their own best interests lie vis-a-vis globalisation, other commentators are exasperated at the inability of some to recognise what it is that Europe can and does contribute to the world. According to Senator Martin Mansergh (2003), the EU is not a "a neo-liberal militarised superstate" in the making, but rather "a force for peace, development and social and environmental progress".

There are two important arguments at work here: first, globalisation is good for Europe (Defraigne); second, Europe is good for the world (Mansergh). But do the best interests of Europeans truly lie in the more thoroughgoing embrace of globalisation, as currently constituted? Is the EU, as Senator Mansergh claims, a force for good in the world? More broadly, what is the relationship between the regional project that is the European Union (EU) and wider issues of globalisation and global governance? And how should those concerned with issues of social justice – both within Europe and globally – respond to the current pattern of European interaction with globalisation?

These are the questions that this paper addresses. Download:
» european-project.04.pdf (PDF file, 188Kb) or
» european-project.04.doc (WORD file, 112Kb)

The European Project: Dismantling Social Democracy, Globalising Neoliberalism

Deaglán de Bréadún’s article in the Irish Times January 12 says that Neutral Ireland will have key role in implementing EU security strategy. In some respects he is right, but on one key matter his article is misleading. Ireland is no longer neutral by any credible definition of neutrality. This was a clear and definitive finding by Mr Justice N Kearns in the High Court on 28th April 2003 in the Horgan v. An Taoiseach, et al.

For the record, neutrality is a legal status and obligation in international law that applies only in time of war. In peacetime, a state that wishes to be considered neutral in future wars must establish credibility in order to have its neutrality respected by belligerents. Ireland established its credibility as a neutral state during World War II.

It was arguably far more neutral than either Sweden, Portugal or Spain, and minor infringements such as its treatment of captured British personnel, compare very favourable with much more serious infringements by Sweden and others. In the intervening period Ireland has maintained its credibility as a neutral, by insisting on curtailing military transit through Ireland even in times of peace. Ireland remained strictly neutral during the Korean, Vietnam and Afghanistan/USSR wars. This is borne out by documents discovered by me before the High Court.

The critical change in our neutrality status came during the Kosovo war when Ireland allowed US armaments, including Cruise type missiles to pass through or over its territory while the US was engaged in an attack on Serbia, without UN Security Council approval. Further serious violations of Irish neutrality occurred during the US-led war against Afghanistan, even if the UN status of this war was less clear-cut. In the ongoing war against Iraq, the Irish government allowed the passage through Ireland of over 100,000 heavily armed US troops in the preparation for and the conduct of the US-led war against Iraq. The independent MEDACT report has confirmed that up to 30,000 people were killed in this war. No definition of neutrality allows countries such as Ireland to facilitate military operations to that extent. Ireland is therefore not a neutral country under international law at present and its credibility as a neutral country in the event of future wars can only be restored by including a clear neutrality clause in the Irish Constitution.

Deaglán de Bréadún’s assertion that fears for Irish neutrality have been ‘... allayed, to some extent, by the new constitutional provision that there will be no Irish participation in a common European defence without a further referendum’ is also misleading. This refers to the arguably bogus clause inserted in the Irish Constitution (Article 29.4.9) in the second Nice referendum to mislead Irish voters that they were enshrining neutrality into the Constitution. Our participation in Iraq war in the meantime proves the extent to which the Irish people were misled.

Now we are being told that Ireland has a role to play in EU common security strategy. Notice the way the weasel words "security strategy" have conveniently replaced "common defence" to get around the new Article 29.4.9. The Irish people should be alerted also that Mr Justice Kearns ruled that Article 29.1, 2 and 3., of the Constitution was purely "aspirational" anyway, in his ruling in Aril 28 last, thereby effectively re-writing our constitution.

The arguments for Ireland abandoning its neutrality in favour of joining a common EU defence (sorry, security strategy) are as bogus as Article 29.4.9 of the Constitution.

UN collective security and support for the institutions of international law are now being replaced by the weasel word "multilateralism" in EU-speak and Irish Foreign Affairs lingo. Let me remind readers that multilateralism means three or more countries deciding to attack another country, and killing thousands of people, innocent or otherwise.

Tony Blair has used the term with this meaning repeatedly to justify British involvement in Iraq. All such talk of unilateralism and multilateral action has the effect, intended or otherwise, of undermining the UN and international law, and avoiding the necessary reform, or transformation of the UN.

Why waste time reforming the UN when we can trust the US instead? Indonesia, East Timor, Chile, Central America, Vietnam and Cambodia could tell us why not to trust the US. The European Union, as it drifts erratically towards becoming a super-state now wishes to challenge the US superpower militarily as well as economically.

This is the crazy logic of school-yard bullies and those that will suffer will be innocent victims of resource-wars like that in Iraq, fought on the bogus lies about weapons of mass destruction, against US erstwhile ally turned poacher, Saddam Hussein.

Other collateral victims will be poorer class Western conscripts fighting for the Clinton’s and Bushes who conveniently manage to avoid such war.

Ireland lost some 50,000 your men in the mud and blood fields such as the Somme, in that most useless of wars, World War I. Ireland has been playing its part with UN peacekeeping in important missions such as Lebanon, East Timor and Liberia, and brave Irish soldiers have justifiable fallen in the cause of global peace and justice.

Let those who want to fight energy-resource-wars fight them themselves. Ireland should harvest the wind and its renewable energy resources and stop participating it the exploitation of the poorer peoples of the world. The old truism inter arma, silent leges, "in times of war, the law is silent", must be proved wrong. It is in times of war that law is needed most, as the people of Srebrenica, Rwanda, Iraq and elsewhere could tell us, if they were still alive.

Raphael Lemkin who lost his family in the Holocaust warned ‘large countries can defend themselves by arms: small countries need the protection of the law’ Caveat emptor. Let the buyer of European security ‘pigs in a poke’ beware. The European Union is great idea but a militarised European super-state is not. Neutrality of small states such as Ireland is one way of keeping Europe from reverting to imperialism and supporting UN reform against US multilateralism.

Edward Horgan, Newtown, Castletroy, Limerick.
Phone 061-330567

Bio: Edward Horgan is a retired army Commandant, and expert on neutrality and international affairs. He is currently a Government of Ireland Scholar, researching towards a PhD. on the topic of United Nations reform, at the University of Limerick.

Neutral? Ireland on the slippery slopes back to the Somme?

The General Features of the New Constitution in Relation to Public Services
The proposed new EU Constitution is meant to incorporate all of the existing Treaties of the EU but it goes much further than that. The Constitution not only sets out how the EU should be run but it also determines what economic and social policies should be followed in the Member States.

The new EU Constitution must be viewed in the context of the evolution of the social and economic policies of the Union. As it stands, the new Constitution signals the abandonment of the ‘social’ or ‘Welfare State’ model of the EU – in which state provision of high quality public services, protection against unemployment, citizens and workers rights, environmental protection, etc. were the priority. A framework for the further advance of neo-liberal globalization, which clearly points to this abandonment, is embedded in the new Constitution. Key to this framework are the changes which will allow the European Commission to negotiate trade agreements involving the commercialization of public services at the World Trade Organisation through the mechanism of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS).

The new Constitution would remove the existing power of veto on commercialisation of Health, Education and Cultural Services that Member States have in the Council of Ministers. It shifts decisions on trade in these services to Qualified Majority Voting (QMV). No details of voting would be published, so Irish citizens would not know how Irish representatives in the Council of Ministers voted. The European Commission would then have exclusive right to make agreements at the WTO through the GATS agreement which could liberalise international trade in these Services, and only inform us of the details after the deals have been done.
The Irish State is already part of ongoing GATS negotiations, making offers to other WTO members on what services it will agree to open up to competition. None of this can be monitored by Citizens / Opposition Parties / The Dáil / The Social Partners etc. It is done in secret by the Article 133 Committee, which has Irish members. In the aftermath of the Nice Treaty referendum, thirty two Freedom of Information requests were made about the activities of the Irish members of the Article 133 Committee: only one was granted.
The exclusive right given to the European Commission to make trade deals in all Services, combined with the commitment in the common commercial policy to liberalise trade in all Services, means that the new Constitution would prepare the way for commercialising Education, Health and Cultural / Audiovisual Services. It would put a framework for commercialising these Services into basic EU law – a framework that democratically elected governments would be powerless to change in the future.
To those who say that Member State control of Education, Health and Cultural / Audiovisual Services is protected by various Articles in the Constitution, we say this: protection by such Articles is contradicted by giving the EU exclusive rights to make international agreements to open trade in these Services. If democratic control is to be retained, decisions must remain unanimous: any Member State must have the right to use a veto in the Council of Ministers against proposals to open trade in these Services.
Some regional governments are critical of the powers that the Constitution gives the EU. The Austrian Lander are opposed to decisions on how public services should be provided being determined by EU ‘framework law’. They argue that giving exclusive rights to the EU to make trade agreements for these services means the rights of Regional Governments – subsidiarity – are at an end; and that considerations other than commercial values should be taken into account in the provision of public services. In this they are defending democratic accountability and a ‘social’ model for the EU - as against the commercial framework in the new EU Constitution. The Irish Government are happy to make complaining noises about the loss of the veto in the areas of Foreign Policy and Taxation Policy but have completely ignored the implications of the loss of a veto when it comes to the possible forced liberalisation of core public services.

The New Constitution and the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS)
At present, public services are still provided by the state in some of the countries of the EU. But steady pressure from the Commission via the Common Commercial Policy, the new Constitution, and the GATS agreements, will progressively bring that to an end. The state which carries out the most commercialization of public services will set the agenda for all the other Member States – note the British experience. So rather than providing protection against globalization, the EU – and especially the new Constitution – is actually advancing the agenda of neo-liberal globalization. The new Constitution is designed to create the optimal conditions for big business, while removing mechanisms for democratic accountability and control.

Why is the GATS so important? "The GATS is not just something that exists between governments. It is first and foremost an instrument for the benefit of business." - European Commission (1998). Agreements at the WTO, in negotiations on the GATS, to open services to trade on the international market are irreversible, binding commitments. Opening services to trade means restructuring public services so that they can be run on a commercial basis, for a profit. The upshot is that infrastructure like schools and hospitals are privately provided at high cost to the state and the taxpayer. And two tier services emerge – private and high-quality services for those who can afford it; and low quality state services for those who cannot. When it comes to having high-quality public services, democratically accountable and available to all, who provides them does matter.

The Proposed New Constitution
The Irish government will hold the EU Presidency for six months starting on January 1, 2004. During the Irish Presidency, the Member States of the EU, and the ten new Accession States, will be working to get final agreement on the proposed new EU Constitution. The Constitution is scheduled to be formally agreed by the Heads of State on May 9, 2004. It must then be ratified by all states before December 31, 2005. Ratification in Ireland will be by referendum, but no date has been set.

There are conflicting commitments within the Constitution in relation to the Common Commercial Policy, Art III 216 and 217, and to the competencies of the EU versus the member states as laid down in Art 16 – which says the EU may take Supporting, Coordinating or Complementary action in relation to education, health and culture, industry and civil protection; and that such action may not harmonise laws or regulations. The common commercial policy is one of the fundamental elements of the EU, based on "uniform principals" in relation to "the conclusion of tariff and trade agreements relating to trade in goods and services" and "uniformity in measures of liberalisation" (Art. III 217-1). In practise this means that the State which pushes the furthest with liberalisation – and the Commission is also actively promoting liberalisation - will set the terms for all of the others.

While Art 16 formally restricts EU input to a ‘supporting’ role, it also gives the EU a significant input into these areas of policy. But the common commercial policy will take precedence in any aspects of the provision of health and education and cultural services that are regarded as commercial – e.g.: catering, cleaning, transport, maintenance, and even operational management – as in Britain.

Common commercial policy is decided exclusively by the EU. The Commission takes the initiative, and the Council of Ministers decides on policy by Qualified Majority Vote (QMV). Present proposals are that any aggregate of States’ votes representing more than 60% of the population of the enlarged EU will constitute a majority. No details or minutes of Commission / Council debates and voting are published – citizens of the Member States cannot find out how their representatives vote or call them to account.

At present, Article 133 of the Nice Treaty states that any changes in common commercial policy on Education, Health and Cultural Services have to get a unanimous vote in the Council of Ministers. They are exempt from QMV – so a veto is available to Member States if they don’t agree with a particular policy.

Liberalisation and Commercialisation Under the New Constitution
Dr. Stummann of the Assembly of the European Regions argues that failure to get unanimity for further liberalisation of Education and Health in the GATS negotiations earlier this year was the reason that the Commission was unable to make more offers to open these services up to trade at that time. He also notes that those pushing hardest for liberalisation in these services - Britain, the Netherlands, and chief EU negotiator at the GATS Pascal Lamy - are also pushing strongly for QMV to determine policy on Health and Education. They evidently think they can get a majority vote for liberalisation, where they could not get a unanimous vote. So some States will have liberalisation forced upon them.

The present exemption of Education and Health from QMV is not included in the proposed new Constitution. Under the new Constitution, the Commission would make proposals to the Council of Ministers, which could decide by QMV to open up trade in the commercial aspects of Education and Health Care.

This can include almost anything – from catering to full operational management, as in Britain. The Commission and the Council of Ministers would decide by QMV what constitutes ‘commercial aspects’ of these services. So attention should be paid to the commercialisation of these Services in Britain; and to what parts of these Services are already up for trade in the GATS.

As more and more aspects of public service provision in Europe, such as health and education, are opened up to commercial forces, the greater will be the influence of the common commercial policy on the provision of these services. The increasing use of public private partnership (PPP / PFI) contracts, allowing private operators to design, build, maintain and sometimes manage schools is a case in point. Member States would only be allowed to formulate general policy with regard to these services, not how or by whom they should be delivered, despite the provisions of Articles 179 on Health and 183 on Education.

Articles Providing Protection Against Liberalisation?
It might be argued that Articles 16, III-179-7 on Health, III-181 on Culture, III-183-1/4 on Education, III-217-4 of the common commercial policy on cultural and audiovisual services, and III-217-5 of the common commercial policy on the delineation of the competences of Member States as against those of the EU - protect the rights of the Member States to determine policy on Health, Education and Cultural / Audiovisual Services.

But these Articles offer little legal protection against the provisions of Article 12-1 which gives the Union exclusive right to determine common commercial policy; and thence 217-1 of the common commercial policy, which includes the right to make ‘trade agreements in relation to trade in goods and services’. This element of the common commercial policy allows the Commission, after a QMV vote in the Council of Ministers, to make deals in the GATS and the WTO on what the Commission itself defines as the ‘commercial aspects’ of these Services. The commercial aspects of these Services are not defined in the Constitution or elsewhere. So a Member State would have to go to the European Court of Justice to challenge the Commission, arguing a defence that would have to show that the Commission was opening trade in non-commercial aspects of these Services.

This would be a very difficult legal argument to make, since many parts of these Services can be broken into individual functions and contracted out. Examples of this can be seen in Ireland and in especially in Britain.

Formal ‘harmonisation’ of laws and regulations would be unnecessary, since it would take place in practise through the application of trade agreements.

In practise the so-called protection Articles are but a fig-leaf covering the overriding drive towards uniform liberalisation of trade in Services contained in the common commercial policy. If those who cite these Articles are serious about protecting Health, Education, and Cultural / Audiovisual Services from commercialisation, they should at least press for the retention of the unanimity requirement in the Council of Ministers on decisions to open trade in these Services.

Cultural and Audio Services
With regard to culture, Art III 217-4 of the Constitution gives a veto on changes in the common commercial policy only in ‘the conclusion of agreements in the field of trade in cultural and audiovisual services, where these risk prejudicing the Union’s cultural and linguistic diversity’.

How such risk is defined, when it is defined, and by whom it is defined, is open to interpretation. Would a general opening up of the University sector, or of the primary school sector (as is happening in Britain), to unlimited competition pose a threat to cultural and linguistic diversity? Would the same levels of support to linguistically specific radio and TV – like TG4 and projects it supports – also have to be given to private commercial channels like TV3? How would defenders of linguistic diversity establish, in advance - rather than when deals have been made and the damage is done - that certain trading agreements pose risks to culture? Who decides what constitutes a risk is not defined, so those who might see their culture as being at risk will not have veto powers. In practise the European Court will determine which services should be protected and which should be commercialised.

Subsidiarity and Regional Policy
‘Subsidiarity’ and EU Regional Policy will be heavily undermined by the new Constitution. In Austria subsidiarity means a choice by the communities as to how public services are provided – people can vote for different political parties and proposals. The Länder, the regional and local territorial authorities can freely decide whether they provide public services themselves, by means of a hived off structure (possibly in the form of in-house allocation), or – after the completion of a public allocation procedure - by means of a third party.

The Austrian Länder are against the introduction of a general obligation for open competitive tendering in the ‘services of general interest’ (public services) in Europe. But Art III-6 states that in relation to the ‘principles and conditions’ whereby these services are provided, ‘these principles and conditions are laid down by European law’. The Länder argue that this goes against the principle of subsidiarity and would give the Union a competence that at present it does not have in some services - such as drinking-water supply, waste and wastewater disposal, social services as well as education and culture. Similarly, giving the Union exclusive right to negotiate trade agreements in Services means that regions, such as the Länder, lose their rights to determine policy for those Services. Subsidiarity would be made meaningless. The people of these regions would lose their democratic right to control how their Services are structured and delivered.

Art III-6 also undermines Regional Policy. Art III-117 states that the Union’s policies and action should take into account the objectives of reducing disparities between the levels of development of the various regions. Determining policies on the basis of ‘European law’ - as provided for in Art III-6 – would give primacy to competition rules and thereby undermine measures to reduce regional inequality - such as providing subsidies for regional transport links that would not be commercially viable on their own.

In the Altmark Trans decision of 24 July 2003 the European Court of Justice established that certain state subsidies for public transport services were not ‘improper state aids’, as outlawed by the current European aid and competition rules. The common position of the Austrian Länder is that this judgement should be extended to cover other public services so that considerations other than market forces – including security of supply, continuity, sustainability, general right of access, territorial and social cohesion, should be taken into account.

Direction of a future EU: welfare for citizens or profits for the service industry
In summary, the proposed new Constitution would take the EU further away from a ‘social’ or ‘Welfare State’ model and closer to a commercial model of Public Service provision. Liberalising trade in Health, Education, Cultural and Audiovisual Services in the GATS will not improve the quality of service or the conditions of work for those who deliver them. To quote again the European Commission: "The GATS is not just something that exists between governments. It is first and foremost an instrument for the benefit of business."

The Commission, via the new Constitution, is working to create the best conditions for big business to reap profits from the provision of essential Public Services. Is this what the people of Europe want from a new Constitution?

The Lander in Austria are the regional states. They have considerable powers, including the power to determine policy on education. The Lander in Germany have similar powers; as have the Cantons in Switzerland. (back)

This briefing draws on the work of Dr. Franz-Josef Stummann, Executive Secretary of the Assembly of the European Regions. Legal comment by Rania Georgoutsakou of the Assembly of the European Regions. Drafting is by Brendan Young in collaboration with Deirdre DeBurca, Eamonn Crudden and Orla Drohan.

DAPSE was formed after a workshop on the GATS at the Irish Social Forum in October 2003. It is an open campaign group that welcomes participation. For copies of briefing papers or details of meetings, please contact:
DAPSE, c/o IPSC, p/o Box 9124, Dublin 1.
Email: dapse@eircom.net

Europe at the Crossroads: Health and Education as Business Opportunity?

Experiences from Iraq
A few weeks before the war broke out I went to Iraq with a delegation from the European Parliament. We wanted to see, whether there was any kind of information, we could get, which could help us prevent the war.

We talked to the weapons inspectors, to UN-officials and to doctors and teachers. From the weapons inspectors we learned, that in all likelihood there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. A control system was anyway being put in place , and within a very short time it would be completed and would make it virtually impossible to use any such weapons.

The weapons inspectors also confirmed, what had already been said by the FBI, that if any chemical weapons existed in Iraq, the prospect of Saddam Hussein handing them over to terrorist organisations would be much bigger if a war was started. Taking into consideration, that there is a very long borderline between Iraq and Iran, and that Iran is beyond any doubt hosting terrorist organisations, it would not be difficult for Saddam Hussein to hand them over.

The weapons inspectors also confirmed, that El Quida was not present in Iraq. A fact we knew already since Saddam Hussein was one of the top figures on El Quida’s list of unwanted persons.

The UN –officials told us about the effects of the embargo on Iraq. The value of the dinar had fallen with several 100%s. A medical doctor had a salary of 10 dollars per month, a professor 25 dollars per month. 60% of the population were unemployed and their only source of income was the food distributed from the food for oil programme. That consisted of 16 kilos of food, but the composition of the food meant that most people suffered from malnutrition. Many people had to sell part of their food to buy other necessities.

Because the food for oil programme was a humanitarian programme and not a development programme everything bought with that money would have to be imported. That obviously meant the total collapse of the Iraqi economy. Even though the food supplies did not include farm products the farmers could not sell theirs because nobody had money to buy them.

The food for oil programme was administered by Saddam Hussein and thus made the people even more dependable on him. Allegations that the programme was mismanaged and that Saddam Hussein profited from the programme himself was completely untrue. The programme was excellently managed. Many of the problems arose partly because of the co laps of the local economy, partly because a number of things including vital medicines had dual uses and could therefore not be traded.

We visited hospitals and saw a lot of malnourished children looking 2 or 3 years old but being 10 or 12, we saw children dying because there was no medication and deformed children . In the schools we visited the class rooms were hardly fit for stables, there were no school books, the children did not go to school any more also because they had to make money.

The situation of woman used to be very good in Iraq prior to the embargo. They were teachers and doctors, lawyers and scientists but they were to first to be badly affected by the embargo.

The UN-officials predicted a catastrophe in case of war. Nobody knew what would happen to the food for oil programme. But if the electricity system was bombed, there would be no clean water since the water system is electricity driven. Drinking polluted water would mean that many people, who were already suffering from malnutrition especially children, would die. The UN-officials estimated that the number could raise up till 2 millions.

The Iraqi people could easily distinguish between the terrors of Saddam Hussein and the suffering inflicted upon them by the embargo decided by UN but maintained by the US. Therefore they would also not see an invasion as a liberation but rather as an occupation. It was totally naïve to believe that any soldier would be welcomed as a liberator. What the Iraqi people wanted was for the rest of the world to lift the embargo and empower the Iraqi people to get rid of Saddam Hussein themselves.

Our delegation of 33 MEPs returned from Iraq more convinced than ever that going to war would be a major mistake.

After Iraq we went to New-York and Washington to speak to Kofi Annan and to the congress and the senate.

In the States it became more clear why mr Bush wanted the war at all costs.

Surely the oil played a part in it. Especially since China as a potential super power in a few years is going to need much more oil. With the US controlling the Iraqi oil they would indirectly also control China.

Another element was, that Saddam Hussein had threatened to trade his oil in euros instead of dollars. If euros were to replace the dollars as the worlds trade currency that would mean the end of the US being able to rub off its deficit on other countries. The way it is now, the rest of the world which is utterly opposed to the war in Iraq is paying for it because the US can just print more dollars and raise the deficit without ever paying it back.

Clearly the reaction after September 11th would have led Bush to believe, that a war would stimulate his popularity.

But most importantly the war was prompted by right wing religious fundamentalist fanatics who believe that Christianity is superior to all other religions and that the US should be an empire builder forcing democracy on the rest of the world with arms.

Europe divided
The European positions are well known. They were totally divided for various reasons.

The conflict in Iraq has as far as I am concerned shown the world, that a common foreign EU policy is perhaps desired by many leaders of the member states, but this being said, it is currently not possible.

The pro-American Eastern Europeans
I think the Iraq conflict is a solid starting point for another important discussion - that is the prospects of the power balance in an enlarged Europe.

Whereas the member states of the EU were taking quite different positions on the issue of Iraq, the situation in Central and Eastern Europe was quite different. Observers have pointed out that many Eastern European countries were very pro-American when taking position in the conflict.

I must in this context underline that what we in Western Europe traditionally think of as Central and Eastern Europe is not to be perceived as a homogenous group. Great differences between the accession countries persist, both economically and politically.

This does not change the fact, however, that most notably the governments of Poland and the Czech Republic has during the recent and ongoing crisis in Iraq taken a position that is not at all in line with expecially the positions of Germany and France. This has stirred up quite some reactions in Western Europe, and has drawn the attention of the current members of the EU to the fact, that the balance of power within the Union will be altered due to the enlargement.

America's Trojan Horse?
Some has even talked about whether Eastern Europe constitutes a 'Trojan Horse' for the Americans into the EU.

The question is whether Eastern Europe will continue the pro-American line when they become full members of the EU.

In short: Will the new Eastern European member states advocate American views in the European community?

According to the American Secretary of State, Donald Rumsfeld there is no question about the answer to these questions. Eastern Europe has to a high degree shown their peace-loving nature and appreciation of democracy in relation to their sympathy statements in the Iraqi conflict. Mr. Rumsfeld seems to think, that Eastern and Central Europe are showing adaptability and vitality by showing preferences for the American policy in Iraq. Rumsfeld has recently labelled these countries the "New Europe". These countries are opposed to what Mr. Rumsfeld diagnosed as "Old Europe". In the Rumsfeld diagnosis "Old Europe" is unlike Eastern Europe starting to show invitality and are stucked in an old fashioned perception of their role in the world.

The diagnosis has been subjected to extensive discussion throughout Europe and is still going on. I would like to contribute to the discussion by addressing the issue.

In my opinion the core question is: What are the prospects of the Eastern European behavior as an American ´Trojan Horse´ in the future?

Bearing in mind that the countries of Central and Eastern Europe differ in many ways, they have at least one thing in common.

Until recently they where governed by communist dictator-regimes, and their foreign policy has consequently been dictated from Moscow.

As we all know, the governments of Eastern Europe took quite another position on the Iraqi conflict compared to some of the most prominent members of the European Union. This can simply be understood as a process of normalization, after the recent changes in their history. The Eastern Europeans are still remembering the Warshaw-pact from which they suffered for so long. They most probably have a strong desire to actively use the newly acquired status as full members of the international community.

This fact should indeed be taken into account when analyzing why for example Poland is currently deploying troops in Iraq.

Security Guarantee
In my opinion the most obvious reason for the pro-American position in the accession countries is anchored in their quest for security.

With the Soviet regime still fresh in mind, the Eastern Europeans are on the look out for a real security guarantee.

For their part the signing of the pro-American statement prior to the intervention of Iraq could be seen as an attempt to facilitate American approval of NATO enlargement within the US Congress. The common statement would ensure that any hesitant senators have no doubts about the loyalty of the Eastern Europeans to the US.

One could argue, that the security guarantee has now been provided with their entry as members of NATO why their new status will diminish future appreciation of a pro-American agenda.

There is no question that the Eastern European approach to the US should be seen as a matter of security. But one should also consider the prospects of security understood as political and economical stability gained by their upcoming EU-membership.

Accession Prospects
For many years to come the new accession countries will be economically dependent on the old members, which will probably have strong influence on their political strategies. Their increasing economic integration into the Union will also affect their perspective bringing them politically closer to their European neighbours rather than their trans-Atlantic allied.

A counter-argument to the "Trojan Horse" is therefore that the future Eastern European member states will become increasingly forced into the EU's way of doing business. The economic advantages of sticking to a European agenda should not be overlooked.

Though the question remains whether there will be a so-called European agenda. If not, like in the Iraq-crisis the political prerequisites will be different and the outcome of an analysis different. But if we look at the position taken by the Eastern Europeans on less high profiled issues, they tend to be in line with EU preferences. They support the EU on issues like non-proliferation, the Kyoto protocol, the death penalty and the International Criminal Court. And they support the EU despite US opposition. Also their voting patterns in the United Nations are usually consistent with the other European nations.

Public Opinion
One last, but in my opinion overlooked aspect of the disagreement between some European member states and their Eastern European conterparts on the Iraqi conflict is, that the population in most countries are against the war. Public opinion polls in Eastern European countries is overwhelmingly against the war, just as it is in the rest on Europe. The war in Iraq may prove to be a special case, and Washington should in my opinion not count on Eastern Europe in future military adventures.

Concluding remarks
Much of what I have described so far will depend on the development of the international political and institutional situation. If the situation in Iraq stabilizes and the United Nations becomes a significant actor in Iraq, all EU-member states will support the rebuilding of Iraq. This will facilitate an improvement in the relationship between most notably Germany and France and the Eastern European accession states. Especially if no new international incidents occur in the nearest future. If new incidents indeed occur, one could very well expect that this would provoque additional disagreements among Member States and deepen the political gap we are witnessing today even further.

Whether the accession countries will behave accordingly in the future is of course difficult to predict. Especially due to their new status as NATO-members and soon to be members of the EU. But the framework outlined by the foreign and defence policy in the draft constitution will in a long term perspective support a common European position on international issues. The establishment of common bodies of analysis and forums for dialogue will diminish both the prospects of European differences and the national sovereignity.

The balance of power within the European Union will in the long term perspective be subjected to changes with the accession of the new Member States. But it is very difficult to predict exactly in which direction with the many unknown variables that we are currently heading towards with the draft constitution as the most pressing.

The power balance in an enlarged Europe

Today, 23.10.03 the Peace and Neutrality Alliance calls on the Irish Government to insist that the military powers in the new draft EU Constitution are substantially amended at the upcoming EU Intergovernmental Conference in October. Otherwise, PANA will be joining with many other organisations and individuals to campaign for rejection of the EU Constitution in the subsequent referendum.

The EU Constitution as it stands represents an EU with a strong military dimension, closely aligned with a nuclear military bloc (NATO), and committed to increased arms spending and support for the arms industry. It also takes several giant steps towards a fully fledged military alliance, armed not just with a military capacity but with mutual solidarity commitments and, in some cases, mutual defence commitments between Member States, all within the structures of the European Union. There is no room for a neutral state in such a Union.

PANA is concerned with a number of provisions, including the following:

There will be a greatly strengthened EU Foreign Minister who will oversee a Foreign Affairs Council and be assisted by a European External Action Service (an EU Foreign Service). He/she will also serve as a Vice President of the Commission, handling all the Commission’s external affairs. Any hopes of Ireland ever pursuing an independent foreign policy, which is imperative for any active and positive Irish neutrality, will be further diminished if not eliminated. (Title IV: Article 27)

Member States are obliged to make civilian and military capabilities available to the EU’s common security and defence. (Title V: Article 40.3)

"Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities". This will require Ireland to increase its arms spending, a particularly alarming prospect given the state of the Irish economy and Irish public services, and the levels of poverty existing in Ireland and internationally. (Title V. Article 40.3)

A European Armaments, Research and Military Capabilities Agency is to be established. It will be directed at improving the EU’s military capabilities and strengthening the "industrial and technological base of the defence sector". The EU was founded on the principle of peaceful and beneficial cooperation between States, some of whom were former enemies in war. For the EU Constitution to now promote the military approach to resolving conflicts is to undermine much of what the EU has achieved through cooperative methods. (Title V. Article 40.3)

Enhanced Cooperation is introduced into the defence area for the first time. The Government made much of the fact, during the Nice Treaty debate, that enhanced cooperation (which could lead to a two-tier EU) did not apply to defence. This new provision will allow States to form mini-military alliances, using the EU’s institutions, and to engage in military alliances, using the EU’s institutions, and to engage in military operations in the name of the EU. (Title V. Article 40.6)

One element of this new enhanced cooperation in defence is that certain member states "shall" establish mutual defence agreements within the Union framework until the EU itself has agreed a common defence. The formula given in the draft Constitution for an automatic military response to any attack is from Article 5 of the Western European Union’s military treaty. The EU Constitution also states that those states involved in this enhanced cooperation on mutual defence "shall work in close cooperation with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation". (Title V. Article 40.7)

A Solidarity Clause has been inserted into the Constitution, stating that Member States and the Union shall act jointly against terrorism and disasters, enabling the Union to mobilise all instruments at its disposal, including military resources. This is a very broad mandate for it covers the threat of terrorism as well as an actual terrorist attack. Such a blank cheque would have, for example, allowed Ireland to become involved in attacking Iraq or Afghanistan. This clause is yet another building block in the construction of an EU military alliance. (Title V. Article 42)

PANA calls on the Government to work for the removal of these constitutional article directed at militarising the EU.

PANA also, once again, calls on the Government to negotiate a Protocol similar to that of Denmark which will exempt Ireland from the military aspects of the EU. Such a Protocol is provided for in Article IV – 6 of the Constitution: ("The Protocols annexed to this Treaty shall form an integral part thereof"). During the last referendum, we were told it was too late to seek such an opt-out. What better time to negotiate such an agreement than when a new EU Constitution is being written? Such a Protocol will continue to remain a principal demand of PANA.

Roger Cole (Chair)
Peace & Neutrality Alliance.

The EU A Partnership of Democratic States - PANA press statement on the EU Draft Constitution

The Peace and Neutrality Alliance seeks to ensure that the future structure of the EU is as a Partnership of Democratic States without a military dimension. The UN, not the EU, should be the body through which Irelandshould pursue its security concerns.

Today, the Peace and Neutrality Alliance called on the Irish Government toinsist that the military powers in the new draft EU Constitution aresubstantially amended at the upcoming EU Intergovernmental Conference in October. Otherwise, PANA will be joining with many other organisations and individuals to campaign for rejection of the EU Constitution in the subsequent referendum.

The EU Constitution as it stands represents an EU with a strong militarydimension, closely aligned with a nuclear military bloc (NATO), and committed to increased arms spending and support for the arms industry. It also takes several giant steps towards a fully fledged military alliance,armed not just with a military capacity but with mutual solidarity commitments and, in some cases, mutual defence commitments between Member States, all within the structures of the European Union. There is no room for a neutral state in such a Union.

PANA is concerned with a number of provisions, including the following:

There will be a greatly strengthened EU Foreign Minister who will oversee a Foreign Affairs Council and be assisted by a European External ActionService (an EU Foreign Service). He/she will also serve as a Vice President of the Commission, handling all the Commission's external affairs. Any hopes of Ireland ever pursuing an independent foreign policy, which is imperative for any active and positive Irish neutrality, will be further diminished if not eliminated. [Title IV: Article 27].

Member States are obliged to make civilian and military capabilities available to the EU's common security and defence. [Title V. Article 40.3]. "Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities". This will require Ireland to increase its arms spending, a particularly alarming prospect given the state of the Irish economy and Irish public services, and the levels of poverty existing in Ireland and internationally. [Title V. Article 40.3].

A European Armaments, Research and Military Capabilities Agency is to be established. It will be directed at improving the EU's military capabilities and strengthening the "industrial and technological base of the defence sector". The EU was founded on the principle of peaceful and beneficial cooperation between States, some of whom were former enemies in war. For the EU Constitution to now promote the military approach to resolving conflicts is to undermine much of what the EU has achieved through cooperative methods. [Title V. Article 40.3].

Enhanced Cooperation is introduced into the defence area for the first time. The Government made much of the fact, during the Nice Treaty debate,that enhanced cooperation (which could lead to a two-tier EU) did not apply to defence. This new provision will allow States to form mini-militaryalliances, using the EU's institutions, and to engage in military operations in the name of the EU. [Title V. Article 40.6]. One element of this new enhanced cooperation in defence is that certain member states "shall" establish mutual defence agreements within the Union framework until the EU itself has agreed a common defence. The formula given in the draft Constitution for an automatic military response to any attack is from Article 5 of the Western European Union's military treaty. The EU Constitution also states that those states involved in this enhanced cooperation on mutual defence "shall work in close cooperation with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation". [Title V. Article 40.7].

A Solidarity Clause has been inserted into the Constitution, stating that Member States and the Union shall act jointly against terrorism and disasters, enabling the Union to mobilise all instruments at its disposal, including military resources. This is a very broad mandate for it covers the threat of terrorism as well as an actual terrorist attack. Such a blank cheque would have, for example, allowed Ireland to become involved in attacking Iraq or Afghanistan. This clause is yet another building block in the construction of an EU military alliance. [Title V, Article 42].

PANA calls on the Government to work for the removal of theseconstitutional article directed at militarising the EU.

During the last referendum, we were told it wastoo late to seek such an opt-out.

What better time to negotiate such an agreement than when a new EU Constitution is being written? Such a Protocol will continue to remain a principal demand of PANA.

Roger Cole (Chair)
Peace & Neutrality Alliance.

The EU A Partnership of Democratic States

James Connolly, the founder of the Irish labour party in 1912 was an early advocate of Irish Neutrality.

Connolly believed that Irish Independence, Democracy and Neutrality were one and the same. In 1914 he helped to establish the Irish Neutrality League and in 1916 was a member of the Provisional Government of the Irish Republic.

Ireland had become an integral part of the British Union in 1800 when the then Irish political elite having helped crush the United Irishmen in 1798, voted, in return for money, to terminate the Irish Parliament.

For well over 100 years Irelad had a Common Foreign and Defence policy within the British Union. Over 30% of the Army of the British Union were Irish and not a year went by, but they took part in humanitarian wars where the natives were brought the benefits of what was called "British civilization".

By 1914 the Irish political elite led by Redmond and Carson actively supported the British Union and Empire and they encouraged over 180,000 Irishmen to fight to defend the British Union in the 1st World War. In that year only about 5% of the people opposed the war, because the vast majority were carried away on a wave of emotion to volunteer to die to show how British they were.

1916 changed their minds and in 1919 Ireland declared its Independence. The Irish Republican Army under its Commander in Chief, Michael Collins forced the British to withdraw from the 26 counties. In the Treaty negotiations, Collins ensured our right to become Independent and to remain neutral in the event of a war between other states. Collins also made it clear that in accepting the Treaty, it only provided freedom to achieve freedom, a stepping-stone to a United, 32 county, Independent, Democratic Irish Republic with our own Independent Foreign and defence policy.

The Peace and Neutrality Alliance in advocating an Independent Irish Foreign policy and in rejecting a common foreign and defence policy is the natural successor to the values as advocated by James Connolly and Michael Collins and de Valera. We have no desire to prove how 'European' we are just as some used to need to show how 'British' they were.

After Indpendence, far from being isolationist, Irish Governments sent representatives to the Peace conference after the 1st World War and took an active part in the League of Nations. They took advantage of the Treaty as negotiated by Collins and remained neutral in the 2nd World War, a policy supported by the overwhelming majority of the people in our state, including Fine Gael.

It joined the United Nations and our Army has taken part in peacekeeping directly under the auspices of the United Nations since the 1960's.

Thus PANA's commitment to Irish Independence, Democracy, Neutrality and support for the United Nations as the institution through which we should pursue our security concerns are values deeply rooted in our history. They have the support of a substantial number of Irish people.

How else can it be explained, when despite the support of Fianna Fail, Fine Gael, the PD's, the labour Party, IBEC, the ICTU, the Bishops, etc, 38% of the people voted against the Amsterdam Treaty, 54% voted against the 1st Nice Treaty, and 38% voted against it against the 2nd time. This, despite the Declaration on Neutrality, which PANA said at the time, and we now know, to be meaningless, massive amounts of money being spent by IBEC, a commitment not to take part in EU military ventures without a UN mandate, and a constitutional amendment to ensure Ireland would not join an EU Common Defence without a referendum.

The next EU referendum will be advocated by a government led by Ahern, who lied to the people before the last election, and who has already totally destroyed the policy of Irish Neutrality by supporting the illegal conquest of Iraq by the American Empire through allowing Shannon to be turned into a US airforce base.

Ahern's vision of the Future of Europe is as a collection of vassal states of the American Empire.

By the time of the next referendum, the economic recession will have deepened, the American Empire will have occupied Iraq for over a year and it will still be supporting the expansionist, nuclear armed, imperial state in the Middle East, Israel. By that stage the struggle against the Empire and its allies in the Coalition of the Willing, such as Ireland, will have developed to a much higher level. PANA has won one and lost two referendums; next time we could even the score.

On February 15th, PANA, the NGO Peace Alliance and the Irish Anti War Movement organized the largest anti-war demonstrations in the history of the state. There is no doubt that at the time the vast majority of the people opposed the war, and there is no doubt that since then, frightened by Ahern that the US would withdraw its investments, many have changed their mind.

But fear is not a lasting basis on which to develop Irish government policy, and we will regain that support. Because fear turns to hate, and throughout the world, especially among the poor, and particularly the Muslims, fear is turning to hate. The Irish people do and will not fear and hate the American people; they do however have contempt for the Emperor Bush as reflected by the fact that Michael Moore's book, 'Stupid White Men' has topped the bestselling book list for months.

The American Empire, anymore than previous Empires, cannot last.

It constitutes only 3% of the world's population
It's budget surplus of $trillions is now a budget deficit of $trillions
43 Million Americans are functionally illiterate
1% of the population owns 30% of the wealth
39 million Americans have no health care
Its CEO's earn 200 times more than the pay of an average industrial worker
Its Supreme Court appointed President has just ensured $726 million in tax cuts to the rich.

Such an Empire has millions of its own American citizens opposed to it and as Bush's Imperial wars drag on, internal opposition will grow.

For despite that fact that it spends a great deal of money on defence, it is overstretched. While the British maintained its Empire in India with only 50,000 soldiers, the US needed 150,000 to conquer Iraq.

It needs its vassal states to provide extra troops.
Now Mr. Smith, our Minister for Defence is advocating we send Irish soldiers to help with the occupation of Iraq to fight alongside troops from Poland and the other Coalition of the Willing states of Eastern Europe. He should remember Vietnam. He should remember that Muslims constitute 20% of the world's population, far more than the Vietnamese.

By actively supporting the US Empires conquest of Iraq in order to ensure US/Israeli control of the oil and water resources of the region, Ahern has not only destroyed our policy of neutrality, but he has backed a loser, he has tied the future of Ireland to a doomed Imperial Empire.

The EEC was established in order to ensure that Germany and France did not go to war again. Between 1870 and 1945 they fought 3 horrific wars. By steadily integrating their economies their political leaders sought to make sure there would be no more such wars.

Over the decades it has steadily expanded and more and more states joined in was seen by the vast majority of the different peoples of Europe as a progressive and inclusive mechanism of co-operation of democratic states. PANA always welcomed the steady expansion of the European Union provided it was democratic process.

We look forward to Turkey, the Ukraine and Russia in due course also joining. It should be open to any European state, which is a signatory of, and respects fully, the European Convention on Human Rights.

PANA believes in a Democratic Europe. A Europe of Independent, Democratic States, Legal Equals, organized on an interparliamentary basis by means of a Treaty on European Co-operation. The EU could be called the ED, a Europe of Democracies.

Laws should be valid if they are passed by National Parliaments
If some states wish to have a common defence and foreign policy, that their decision. PANA, however. seeks a legally binding Protocol to exclude Ireland, similar to that achieved by the Danes, from the militarisation of Europe.

PANA advocates that the the United Nations, the only inclusive global institution charged with collective security, should be the institution through which Ireland should pursue its security concerns, not a militarized EU.

The response to the US conquest of Iraq showed clearly that the EU currently does not have a Common Foreign and Defence policy. If however, one includes the applicant states, such as Poland, the majority of the states of the emerging EU support that illegal conquest. So if a CFSP were to emerge, then the "new Europe", would support the American Empires effective destruction of the United Nations. The rich white Christians of Europe and the rich white Christians of the US would stand together, shoulder to shoulder, and with their Imperial might crush the poor Arab Muslims into the ground so they can control the oil.

If a Commom Security and Defence policy did emerge it would also require Ireland to spend a great deal of money on purchasing military equiptment. This means that there will have to be a substantial increase in taxation and cuts in health, education and social welfare. This is a reality.

PANA seeks to reflect the views of those Irish people who do not support the restoration of the Imperial Redmondite tradition as advocated by Fianna Fail, Fine Gael and the PD's. In doing so we are not alone. Millions upon millions of people throughout Europe, America and the rest of the world as seen in worldwide demonstration on the 15th February, do not support the New Imperialism. We stand shoulder to shoulder with them.

For the choice is not between Brussels and Boston. The choice is between Dublin and Dallas.

Do the Irish people want an Independent Democratic Irish Republic with a Foreign Minster, responsible directly to the Irish people, implementing an Independent Irish Foreign policy through a reformed and renewed United Nations? or do they want a common EU foreign policy of a collection of vassal states of the American Empire? That's the choice.

For let us be clear. What Bush's Empire is offering us is war and more war. War so the rich Americans and rich Europeans can stay rich. War so the rich in the US and Europe can drive their petrol guzzling SUV's.

Let us be also clear that the rich will be defeated, there are just to many poor people throughout the world.

PANA is part of a global peace movement offers the alternative of peace, of negotiation, of dialogue. A world where global and inclusive institutions such as transformed United Nations, where the Security Council is elected in a regional basis, is the institution with the legal authority for collective security.

A United Nations that it the only institution with a Rapid Reaction Force.

A United Nations that is independently funded through a Tobin Tax.

PANA is part of global movement that seeks security through a more equitable distribution of wealth; where money is spend on health and education rather than military equipment. It is they only option where we all win.

In South Africa, the rich white Christians finally realized that dialogue and negotiation rather than war was better for them as well as the poor.

It was a peace process that we in Ireland learnt from, and while ours is still ongoing; we are much better off than when the Irish war process was in full swing. We in Ireland know the dangers of religious war more than most, and while the Clash of civilizations, of war between Christians and Muslims as advocated by Bush and his neoconservative supporters has strong supporter in Ireland among Irish Christian fundamentalists, we should seek to ensure that the Irish peace process is a success not only in Ireland, but it's principles of inclusive dialogue and negotiation as a mechanism of conflict resolution, like that in South Africa, becomes the acceptable form of international conflict resolution.

Call PANA wishy-washy namby pamby if you like. But PANA do not believe war is the best way of resolving problems. War should be the last option, and only within the context of International Law. Destroying Irish Independence, democracy and neutrality so that we can become and insignificant member of a collection of vassal states to the American empire, or even a EU Empire, does not inspire PANA much, especially since it means permanent war. Maybe the FF/FG axis that supports such a future will continue to dominate Irish politics, but not with PANA's help.

The last MRBI poll showed that the political parties and independents that supported neutrality had the support of nearly 40% of the people. PANA will seek to ensure that support increases to a level so that they will form or dominate the Government after the next election which is likely to be held in 2006, the 90th anniversary of the 1916 Rising, and 30 years after my first vote.

PANA will give a hell of a good party if we succeed, and your all invited.

Roger Cole (Chair)
Peace & Neutrality Alliance.

Irish Independence or American Empire, Dublin or Dallas

The Irish Times (IT) use of polls by TSN/MRBI has always been one of the most useful contributions to political debate in Ireland. A key point, however, is that they only provides a view of what the people think in response to the particular question at the time they were asked.

When Ben Tora (IT 23/5/03) says we have a canny electorate as a result of the latest TSN/MRBI poll result, it suggests they were not canny when the same polls were showing they did not support the use of Shannon to help the American Empire conquer Iraq. They changed their mind not because of a sudden injection of cannyness, but because of a sudden injection of fear.

This right wing government threatened the people that if they did not change their mind, the US multinational corporations would withdraw from Ireland. A large percentage of the Irish people, so threatened, decided to touch the forelock to the Empire.

Neither should that considerable minority of us that remain committed to Irish Independence, Democracy, Neutrality and a transformed United Nations take a high moral tone approach. People have a right to be scared. They have jobs, they have a responsibility to their families, and survival is a very strong instinct. The question now is, who long will the fear last? The US budget surplus measured in trillions of dollars a few years ago is now a budget deficit of trillions of dollars. An American Empire where 43 million Americans are functionally illiterate, where 1% of the population own 38% of the wealth where 39 Million Americans have no health care, where weekly earnings are falling, where CEO's earn 200 times the pay of the average industrial worker, where the Emperor has just got the support for $726 billion in tax cuts for the rich is the kind of Empire Ahern and Harney like.

By allowing Shannon to be turned into Imperial outpost they have terminated the long-standing policy of neutrality and ensured that Ireland is now a member of the Coalition of the willing, a vassal state of the American Empire. The Government will now have to "stand by their friends" as Bush invades and conquers Syria, Iran, North Korea, and Cuba etc.

However, the Bush Empire will not last. At some stage the workers of America who earn 200 times less than Bush's CEO supporters will stop being mesmerized by Fox and CNN. The massive American peace movement (see www. unitedforpeace.org) will restore the powerful American anti-imperial and democratic traditions that helped end the Vietnam War.

The reality was that the largest mass public demonstrations against the war in Ireland were part of a Hugh global opposition to American Imperialism, including many million Americans. It is this fact that totally undermines the typical Anti-American slur by Tora on those of us that oppose the war and the militarisation of the EU.

The division is not between Americans and Irish. The division is between those that support Imperialism and those that seek a global order based on justice, as reflected, for example in George Monbiot's latest book, 'The Age of Consent'.

Finally, there is the issue of the Future of European Union. The government quiet rightly, wants taxation of Irish people to be an issue to be decided by an Irish Government elected by the Irish people. Nobody is accusing them of being "anti-European". The Peace & Neutrality Alliance want an Independent Irish Defence and Foreign policy to be decided by an Irish Government elected and responsible to the Irish people, yet we are accused of being, "anti-European".

PANA believes that a willingness not to die in other people's wars is at least as important as paying taxes. While there is a strong Imperial and Home Rule tradition in Ireland, after all, it was only 84 years ago Dail Eireann declared our Independence, PANA seeks to build an alliance of all those who support Irish Independence. We oppose the steady but incremental efforts to transform the EU into a Federal state, even as a counterweight to the US. There is no such thing as a good Empire, there is no such thing as a "social Europe" that will be both Imperial and benign. A European Federal state with its own Constitution will inevitably turn into an Imperial state. Its "peacemaking" will become just like the conquest of Iraq, which happened because Bush wanted US/Israeli control of the oil and water resources of the region. Future EU "peacemaking" will just be more of the same. A "common defence" even on a case-by-case basis, will quickly turn into a "common attack". If the polls show that 58% support it, then the fault lies with PANA, not the people. We need to try harder to put our case for the United Nations rather than the US or EU as the institution through which we should pursue our security concerns.

The United Nations is in need of transformation. But it is the only inclusive global body committed to global security. Rich white Christians from the US or the EU are just not capable of bringing global justice. In today's world interests and values are the same. Either we, the people of the world, work together through the United Nations or we die together. There is no other choice.

Roger Cole (Chair)
Peace & Neutrality Alliance.

Irish Independence, Democracy, Neutrality and the United Nations

One of the most historic local elections in Ireland took place in 1920 when politicians who had supported the Imperial War of 1914-18 were defeated and replaced by those who advocated Irish Independence, Irish Democracy and Irish Neutrality. As a symbol of their defeat where I come from, Kingstown was renamed Dun laoghaire.

Those that supported Imperialism, however, did not go away you know; they merely waited in the long grass, waiting for their time to come again.

The decision of the American Empire to invade and conquer Iraq in order to ensure US/Israeli control of the oil and water resources of the region provided the Empire Loyalists with their opportunity.

Andrews, Hanafin and O'Malley, the TD's for Dun Laoghaire, voted in favor of allowing Shannon to be turned into a US airforce base. By doing so they voted to destroy Irish Neutrality, they voted to actively participate in an illegal and unjust war. They voted to ensure that from now on, Ireland would become a member of the Coalition of the Willing, which is a collection of vassal states of the Bush Empire.

Andrews, Hanafin and O'Malley by voting in favour of allowing Shannon to be used were voting for the effective destruction of the United Nations as the inclusive global institution, which under International law used to be the organization, which had the recognized legal authority for collective security.

Andrews, Hannifan and O'Malley might as well now vote to change the name of Dun Laoghaire to Bushtown.

Neither is their commitment to be part of the American Empire likely to end with the establishment of a US airforce bas in Shannon. Other states that are part of the COW, such as Spain, Italy, Holland, Poland, Denmark etc, have already agreed to send troops to help in the consolidation of the conquest of Iraq and to bolster US military domination and to aid the puppet government now being established.

Ireland will also be asked, and will be expected to send in our soldiers to also help with the occupation. Andrew, Hanafin and O'Malley will vote to send in our army, to play a similar role in Iraq, as Irish soldiers did when they were members of British Regiments occupying Iraq in the 1920's.

Indeed, their vision of the future of the European Union is the same as their Leader, the neo-Redmondite, Ahern, which is as a collection of vassal states of the American Empire. A vision, which includes the destruction of the Social Europe so that it becomes to, resembles Bush's America. An America where 38% of the wealth is owned by 1% of the population. An America where 38.7 million Americans are without health care. An America where 43 million Americans are functionally illiterate.

An America where the rich get the tax cuts.

Andrews, Hanafin and O'Maley, however, have a problem. The majority of the Irish people do not like Empires. Having fought for so long for their national Independence against the British Empire they do not want to become part of an American empire. They do not want to kill for Bush. They do not want to die for Bush.

They like living in Dun Laoghaire. They do not want to restore Kingstown or live in Bushtown, or Chiractown, for that matter.

There are however those who do want to live in Chiractown. Those who believe that the European Union should be developed into a European Superstate to provide a "counterweight" to the American Empire. Many of them are in the Labour Party and in the trade union movement. There vision of the future of Europe is now shattered.

The governments of the eastern European states together with those of Ireland, Britain, Spain, Portugal, Holland and Denmark all support the future of the EU as a collection of vassal states of the US. In short, the majority of EU governments support the Blair/Azner/Ahern axis. They support the "New Europe". However even if it had remained an option, an Empire, even if European, should not be supported.

The era of Empires is over. The only institution through which Ireland, the other states of Europe, and all the other states in the world should support is the United Nations, transformed and renewed.

On the 15th of February this year, over 120,000 people took part in the largest anti-war march in Irish history. They reject the future as advocated by Andrews, Hanafin and O'Malley and their boss, Ahern.

Millions upon millions of people throughout the world, in fact, the vast majority of the people of the world, including many millions of Americans marched against Bush's Imperial war, marched against bush's vision of war without end, of war to defend the interests of the rich owners of the oil companies that use the US Army as their bodyguards.

Marched against an American Empire, which like the British Empire before is doomed to self-destruct and defeat. The British ruled their vast Indian Empire with 50,000 soldiers. The US Empire needed 250,000 troops to conquer a small state of 23 million. An empire those 2 years ago was expecting a budget surplus of trillions of dollars and is now looking at a budget deficit of trillions of dollars.

Ahern like his predecessor, Redmond, has backed a loser.

Next year in 2004, there will be an opportunity in the local, European and Presidential elections for the Irish people to again, as they did in 1920, to reject those who now wish to restore the Imperial tradition, whether it's American or European. There will be an opportunity for the people to reject the Bushites like Ahern and Harney.

An opportunity to show their commitment to the European Social model, without the militarisation, and to reject the Irish followers of Bush such as Andrews, Hanafin and O'Malley. There will be an opportunity to show their commitment to the only inclusive body charged with global collective security, the United Nations.

It will be their choice. The American/European Empire or the United Nations. Irish Independence or vassal state of Empire.

Roger Cole (Chair)
Peace & Neutrality Alliance.

I would like to thank Sinn Fein for the opportunity to address its Conference. The Peace and Neutrality Alliance was established in December 1996 to bring together all those throughout Ireland that sought to have an Independent Irish Foreign policy, to defend Irish Neutrality and to promote a reformed United Nations as the institution through which Ireland should pursue its security concerns. Sinn Fein was one of the first parties to affiliate to PANA and has co-operated with it very closely ever since.

In 1914 the Irish Home Rule Party had dominated Irish politics for the best part of 50 years. In that year, the party and it's leader, John Redmond, advocated that the Irish people support an Imperial war by the British Empire. By 1918, the party had been destroyed, and replaced by Sinn Fein as the major political force in Ireland.

Padraic Pearse said of Redmond and the other Home Rule leaders:
"The men who have led Ireland for the last twenty-five years have done evil, and they are bankrupt. They are bankrupt in policy, bankrupt in credit, bankrupt now even in words. They have nothing to propose to Ireland, no way of wisdom, no counsel of courage. When they speak they speak only untruth and blasphemy. Their utterances are no longer the utterances of men. They are the mumblings and the gibberings of lost souls."

In 2003 the Fianna Fail Party has dominated Irish politics for over 70 years. In that year, the party and its leader advocated support for an Imperial war by the United States Empire. The words of Pearse echo down the generations and now apply to Ahern and Fianna Fail. Whether the next four years see a new political force emerge to replace the born again Redmondites that are the Fianna Fail party remains an option that depends on those in this hall as much as anywhere.

This Imperial Crusade of conquest of the land of poor arab Muslim by rich white Christians in order to ensure US and Israeli military domination of the regions oil and water resources will have a catastrophic impact on the people of Iraq. Out of a population of 24 million, 46% are under the age of 15. Nearly 70% are dependent on the food for oil programme. The horrific bombing campaign by the Christian Fundamentalist Crusaders will have a devastating impact on the people.

This Crusade is illegal. It is in contravention of the Charter of the United Nations. It is outside of International Law. There is no basis in International Law for "pre-emptive war". Resolutions 678, 687 and 1441 do not provide a legal basis for war. For a war to be legal the Security Council must indicate its clearly expressed assent and it did not do so.

The FF/PD Government by allowing the use of Shannon Airport to assist the Crusaders is an illegal act under International law.

The Peace and Neutrality Alliance will be writing to the International Criminal court in The Hague asking them to investigate if Mr. Ahern and his Government are guilty of acts against humanity. If they do so, and if they are found guilty, Mr. Ahern and the members of his government could go to jail.

The US Government did not sign the Convention to establish the International Criminal Court and cannot be brought before it for committing war crimes. But then that decision is only a part of a wider agenda of the rulers of the United States, the new Masters of the Universe, or the "Stupid White Men" as Michael Moore calls them, including the opposition to participation in International agreements such as the Kyoto Accords.

A Manifesto published in June 1997, entitled, "Project for a new American Century- signed by Donald Rumsfeldt and Paul Wolfowitz, and other right wing Americans, called in effect for an American Empire to dominate to world for the next century. Richard Perle, another of these right wing Americans, nicknamed "the Prince of darkness" has openly said that the United nations as the International institution charged with Collective Defence is effectively redundant and is to be replaced by the Coalition of the Willing.

President Bush has already made it clear that this Crusade is only the first of many. He has declared that Iran, Iraq and North Korea are the " axis of evil"; so that we can expect that Iran and North Korea are the next two states that are to be targeted for conquest and "regime change". There is also a long list of what are termed 'rogue states" which are also to be targeted. What Bush and his vassals, such as Blair, Ahern and Sharon are now offering the world is permanent war outside International Law.

The response of people and the vast majority of states see the greatest mobilization against Imperialism the world has ever seen.

On the 15th of February in over 600 cities throughout the world tens of millions of people marched against the war, including millions of Americans and British. In Dublin over 120,000 people marched in the largest anti-war demonstration in recent history. Gay Mitchel refused to attend because PANA and Sinn Fein were helping to organize it, but it did not stop people marching. The latest MRBI poll showed 68% of the Irish people were against allowing Shannon to be used as an US air force base if there was no UN support for the war.

Thus on one side we have the Coalition of the Willing, the US, Britain, Ireland, Spain, Italy, all the applicant states of Eastern Europe and other states such as Uzbekistan and Qatar whose total populations are about 10% of the world, and even in many of those states, the people do not support their governments.

On the other, there are states like Germany, France, Russia, South Africa, China, Syria, Egypt, whose total populations equal 90% of the world's population that oppose the war and support the United Nations.

Just as the original Crusaders were defeated, we know that the new Crusaders will be beaten and sooner than they think.

PANA calls for an Emergency meeting of the General Assembly of the United Nations and the withdrawal of the Anglo-American armed forces from occupied Iraq. The only people who can decide the future of Iraq are the people of Iraq. States such as Britain, that conquered Iraq and used poison gas on the Iraqi people at the same time they were allowing the black and Tans to run riot in Ireland, do not have any authority to use its military might to impose a quisling government on Iraq. Iraq is not the only country where there should be withdrawal by British troops.

Finally, PANA supports International law as the only basis of civilized relations between states. PANA believes that Ireland is an Independent democratic Irish Republic that should have an Independent Irish Foreign policy operated through a reformed United Nations. A UN independently funded by having an income based on a global tax like the Tobin Tax. A Un where the Security Council is elected on a regional basis for a 6-year term. A UN where there is a greater role for the General Assembly. A UN where it, rather than the EU, has a Rapid Reaction Force.

An Independent, United Irish Republic taking its place among the Nations of the Earth was the objective of Robert Emmet 200 years ago. It is an objective that has survived the rise and fall of the British Empire, itself now only a vassal state of the US.

Its achievement remains the objective of the Peace and Neutrality Alliance. However must be part of a victory in the global struggle for justice and equality. If peace is to be achieved in Ireland, it can only be on the basis of equality and justice. If peace is to be achieved on the earth it can only be achieved on the basis of equality and justice. In the struggle for National Independence, whether it be the Irish, Palestinian or Iraqi people against Imperialism, there can only be one victor, the people, for united, we can never be defeated.

Roger Cole (Chair)
Peace & Neutrality Alliance.

War and Peace in the new century

In 1790 in response to a possible War between the British Union and the Spanish empire, Wolfe Tone wrote a pamphlet advocating Irish Neutrality. Tone and the United Irishmen sought to establish an Independent Irish Republic but were crushed by the military power of British Imperialism and their Irish allies.

For generations therefore, Irish people have fought for Irish Independence, Irish Democracy and Irish Neutrality. For generations Irish people have also supported Imperialism.

Those that supported the Imperial tradition accepted a common foreign policy, and a common defence policy, although some wanted Home Rule. Isaac Butt urged thousands of Irish people to fight and die in the Crimean War while John Redmond encouraged tens of thousands to die in the common defence of the British Union in the 1st World War.

Others, such as Connolly who established the Irish Neutrality League in 1914 and Michael Collins who ensured the right to Irish Independence, Democracy and Neutrality by supporting the Treaty that established this State maintained their support for Independence. Indeed, Collins made it very clear that the Treaty was only a stepping-stone to a United Independent Democratic Irish Republic.

The Peace & Neutrality Alliance in advocating an Independent Irish foreign policy, Irish Democracy and Irish Neutrality are merely sustaining the values of Tone, Connolly and Collins.

We strongly oppose the Redmondite revivalists that seek to effectively destroy our right to Independence by advocating the future of the European Union as either a collection of vassal states of the American Empire or as a new Federal European state where Ireland would have in effect, Home Rule status.

PANA seeks to build an alliance that sees the future of the European Union as an Association of Independent, Democratic States that co-operate for the purpose of trade and commerce but with no military dimension. PANA believes that this vision of the future of Europe is one, which reflects the views of not only a substantial number of Irish people but millions of French, British, Danish, Spanish and all the other varied nationalities that exist in Europe. People who identify with the anti-imperial and democratic tradition of their respective states. That is why we sought a legally binding Protocol to exclude Ireland from the ERRF. While defeated in the last referendum, we accept that all power derives from the people. If they can change their mind once, they can change it again.

The massive demonstrations that took place in Dublin and other cities throughout Europe and the rest of the world on the 15th of February against the Bush Administration's intention to conquer Iraq to ensure US/Israeli control of the oil and water resources of the region shows that opposition to Imperialism and war is a growing force in the states of Europe. That the governments of Ireland, Britain, Spain, Italy and the applicant states of Eastern Europe support Bush's war for oil and ignore the clearly expressed wishes of their own people is an indication of their Imperial and anti-democratic vision of the EU as a clone of Bush's United States.

The Irish governments refusal to accept the recently proposed Neutrality Amendment to the Constitution and their decision to turn Shannon into a US air force base is clear evidence of its rejection of Irish Independence, democracy and neutrality.

It is PANA's contention that European Security only makes sense in an international and global context. Neither is security a purely military concept. The massive level of poverty that exists throughout the world provides the wellspring of violence. The values of a 'Social Europe' provide the world with a better chance for peace, Justice, human rights and security than Bush's United States. The 'Old Europe' values of social solidarity are preferable to the 'New Europe' values of Blair, Berlusconi and Ahern, values that are based on brute power, which will bring the world to a new Dark Age.

The only inclusive global institution with responsibility for collective security is the United Nations. It is the United Nations, transformed and renewed, rather than a militarized EU that should be the institution through which Ireland and the other states of the European Union should pursue their security concerns.

Denis J. Halliday, former UN Assistant Secretary-General and Vice-President of PANA, makes the case that the current structure of the Security Council means its domination by a few states, especially the US. Its members should be elected on a regional basis for a 6-year term. In such a context the establishment of a UN Rapid Reaction force as proposed by Erskine Childers would gain widespread support. As it is, the UN is in danger of losing its moral legitimacy by surrendering to the world's only superpower, the US, a path it has already followed by giving legitimacy to horrific sanctions imposed on the people of Iraq, that have caused the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. Law and legitimacy can only survive if they are underpinned by morality and the consent of the people. If the governments of the world no longer wish to gain that consent, as is now the case, for example, in Britain, Spain and Ireland, in their proposal to support an Imperial war of conquest of Iraq, then the legitimacy of the United Nations and their own governments will vanish just as happened after the Great War.

Two hundred years ago Robert Emmet, Irish Republican, was executed by the British Union because he believed that Ireland should be an Independent Irish Republic, taking its place among the Nations of the Earth. That dream will never die.

Roger Cole (Chair)
Peace & Neutrality Alliance.

Ireland and European Security

The Bush Administration intends to wage an Imperial war of conquest on Iraq, take control of the oil fields, ensure the crushing of Kurdish self rule by the occupation of Northern Iraq by the Turkish Generals and appoint a US military ruler in Iraq. At a later stage it will allow a puppet US supporting Administration to take nominal control but the US will hold "in trust" the oil fields of Iraq. It intends to ensure the military domination of the region by Israel and the US to consolidate their control over the oil and water resources of the Middle East. Bush is willing to wade through the blood of Iraqi children to do so. Bush, since he has described Iran as a state which is part of "the axis of evil" and Syria as a "rogue state" probably intends to invade Iran and Syria as well, organizing "regime change" in these states as well. Control of the oil of the Middle East will mean that China and Europe, which import oil, will in the future not be a threat to US domination.

Their ally, Sharon has already called for the invasion of Iran. Israel, which has defied over 50 UN Security Council resolutions and is already armed with nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, will use the opportunity to expel or kill Arafat and expand the size of their state at the expense of even greater suffering of the people of Palestine.

The Imperial nature of the US state is not new, it reflexes the nature of the formation of the state.

George Washington was a terrorist. He led an armed struggle for national Independence against the then legally established order, the British Empire. The long and bitter struggle resulted in the establishment of an Independent Republic, the United States of America. Like all struggles for National Independence, it brought together a wide range of social classes and a variety of ideologies. Some US army officers, for example, sought to convince Washington that he should become King of the new state.

What emerged in the process of the constitutional formation of the new state, however, was a Democracy, which in the context of it time, was progressive. But the new state, which grew and expanded through land purchase, and wars of genocide against the native Indians, as well as wars with Mexico and Spain, became, in the process, an Imperial state, occupying the Philippines and Cuba at end of the 19th century.

However there were always those who opposed this imperial tradition and sought to develop their democracy. Lincoln opposed the war against Mexico, and abolished slavery. Connolly sought to help organise the American working class, Eleanor Roosevelt was an inspirational force in the establishment of the United Nations, and the US anti-Vietnam war movement changed history, helping in the defeating the US Imperial tradition by the people of Vietnam. The Democratic Party in the US Congress have recently elected as their leader a person who voted against Bush's war, a reflection of the rapidly growing number of Americans opposed to Bush's oil war. It was these democratic values, which were, and remain, part of the nature of the United States, values that ensured that the US Empire never sunk to the levels of the opposing Empires, such as Nazi Germany, Japan or the Soviet Union. An indication of the continuation of those democratic values is seen in the growing anti war movement throughout the United States against Bush's oil war on Iraq. Look at the web site. www.unitedforpeace.org Indeed millions of American citizens oppose the policies of the Bush Administration.

Therefore, it is not an option to be anti-American, because very many Americans also seek a more democratic and just world. The division on this war is not between Americans and Irish, or between Muslims and Christians.

The division is between those who meet together in Seattle, Port Alegre or Florence, and on the 15th of February those who marched in Dublin, Belfast and in over 600 cities throughout the world, and on the other side, those that serve the interests of the rich and powerful, the major corporations, in the US, and Ireland, or other parts of the globe, especially those in the arms industry, that seek and need enemies in order to boost their profits and their power. Bush is there to serve the interests of the Enron's of this world, the oil and arms industries that paid for his election, not the interests of the American people. It is Bush and his corporate backers that want to own and control the $3 trillion worth of oil reserves in Iraq.

We recently had a referendum to endorse the Nice Treaty, a key aspect of which was to consolidate the militarisation of the EU by the establishment of a European Army, the European Rapid Reaction Force. The entire political elite, funded by the Irish corporate sector spent millions of euro to win. It was a taste of the emerging corporate power in Ireland that the American people are used to.

As President Chirac said at Nice on the 9/12/02 in reference to the ERRF;
" We have now set up the military means and the capabilities for the European Union to do what is necessary to defend its interests"

The European Rapid Reaction Force is a European Army to be used to impose the military will of the EU political elite. That this army is to be used in war is clear and obvious from the military equipment being allocated to it by the states of the EU. It has established strong institutional links with the US dominated nuclear-armed military alliance NATO. A NATO Admiral has just been appointed to oversee its first military action in Macedonia.

This link will become even stronger with the entry of the eastern European states into the EU as most of them are already in, or intend to join, NATO. The ERRF is an extension of NATO, it cannot function without NATO, and NATO is an extension of US Imperial power. Most of the elites of the new states who have recently joined NATO support the US in the current divisions in NATO and oppose the Franco-German position on Iraq, who seek to ensure the emerging EU Federal state is not subservient to the US Empire. The people in applicant states however, like the people in Britain, Spain and Italy, and Ireland, whose governments support the US, like people throughout the world, do not support the Bush oil war. Their governments like that of Britain, Spain and Italy do not speak for their people.

Irish Neutrality and US Foreign Policy (part 1)

The values as expounded by corporate America have strong and powerful support in this state and the other states of the EU. The political elite in Ireland is one of the most pro US corporate elites throughout the EU. In the last five budgets the richest 10% of the population received 25% of the budget giveaways and the poorest 20% received fewer than 5%. It will be the poor who will suffer most from the cutbacks. It will be the poor suffer most from this war.

The rich corporate sector organised in IBEC, and the mainstream media will continue to give massive support to the right wing FF/PD government. A clear and obvious example of this right wing government's support for corporate America is that it is that it is allowing Shannon to be used as a US military base, and Kenmare Bay as a military training area. Fianna Fail is not so much an Irish Republican Party as a branch of the US Republican Party. Ahern has how turned our Army into Bush's bodyguards.

Our elite, look to the corporate dominated US state for inspiration, so let us look at the future Ahern and Harney have in store for us since they have made it clear that they would like the EU to become like the US.

The US spends more on its armed forces than the rest of the world put together.
The military accounts for $343 billion of the total Federal budget of $1,900 billion in 2002.
Between 1995-99 the US accounted for 48% of all conventional arms exports, the nearest rivals were Russia at 13%, France 11% Britain 7%.
In February 2000, there were 2 million people in US prisons, which is 25% of the entire world's prison population. This in a state with only 3-4% of the world's population.
The US devoted just 0.1% of its GNP to overseas aid, the smallest % of the OECD states.
40 million Americans are functionally illiterate.
31 million Americans live in poverty.
Real wages in the US are now 12% less than what they were in 1973.
Of the tax cuts made by Bush 43% have gone to the richest 1% of Americans.
38.7 million Americans, including 8.5 million children were without health care.
1% of the population own 38% of the wealth of the US.

In order to sustain their control of the state, the US corporate elite give Republicans and Democrats party's massive amounts of money to ensure they do what they are told. There was hardly a single elected representative in the US Congress who had not got money from Enron. Since the corporate sector also controls the media, no opposition to their dominance is given a voice. Indeed it finds an echo in the solid united front of the Irish political/media support for the destruction of Irish Independence, democracy and neutrality during the Nice referenda.

The United States gave massive support to Muslims in Afghanistan in order to weaken the Soviet Union. Now the US alleges that they have turned and bit the hand that fed them. They bombed Afghanistan and made Karzi, an ex Uncol employee, guarded by US Special Forces, the new ruler. It ensures access to the oil in the states of central Asia. The happiest people are the corporate sector leaders, as they have a new enemy, i.e. "Muslim fundamentalists" to replace the Soviet Union and "Communism" to justify their military expenditure. Iraq had nothing to do with the Sept. 11 attack, but those that did, do not have the resources to justify the massive military expenditure needed to provide the required profits, so states, such as Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Cuba, have to be defined as enemies in its nuclear posture review to provide that justification.

What the Cold War provided was permanent war for a permanent arms industry and what the "war on terrorism" provides is a similar justification.

A simpler solution would be to give the UN Inspectors in Iraq more time.

A simpler solution, would be a massive boycott of Israel until it withdraws from East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza strip, to allow the establish a Palestinian state, with it's capital in Jerusalem.

A simpler solution would be for UN arms inspectors to be sent to Israel at the same time as they are sent to Iraq.

A simpler solution would be a real and sustained effort to have a more equitable distribution of the world's wealth.

For while Iraq is ruled by a dictator, that was not an issue while he fought Iran. States such as the US, France and Britain provided Iraq with massive military equipment during that war. Any states such as the US or Britain that provided massive amount of arms to Indonesia while their elite committed genocide in East Timor cannot be taken seriously when they say they support democracy and that is the reason they wish to go to war on Iraq.

The desire of the US oil companies to establish a pro US regime to give them control and ownership of the oil is the reason for the war on Iraq.

The US with 3-4% of the world's population consumes 25% of the world's oil. From 2008 it is estimated that oil production will decline at the rate of 2 million barrels a day. The US National energy plan produced by Dick Cheney showed that by 2020 the US would be importing 17 million barrels of oil a day. Its blood for oil.

That is not to say the current regime should be allowed to have weapons of mass destruction. Iraq, like every other state, such as Israel, France, Russia, North Korea, Britain, the US, India, etc should be visited by UN inspectors and their weapons of mass destruction destroyed.

But Iraq is no threat to the US. US military expenditure is 293 times that of Iraq.
The people of Iraq have suffered terribly from UN sanctions imposed by the enormous power of the US over that institution. An American Prof. Joy Gordon who studied sanctions wrote,
"The US has fought to minimize the humanitarian goods that enter the country in the face of enormous human suffering."

Child mortality has tripled since 1990. 1/4 of Iraqi children are underweight and 1/5 is stunted from malnutrition. The UN sanctions allow $100 per person per day.

The Iraqi people are now among the poorest in the world. The UNICF has said that in the event of war the horrific situation will get even worse. A war will mean not only mean thousands of deaths, but also a massive humanitarian disaster.

If Iraq was the first state to have such weapons destroyed then the current situation in Iraq is a step in the right direction, and the Inspectors should be given more time. If it is to indicate however, that only states loyal to corporate America can have such weapons, then it is a process towards permanent war rather than permanent peace. A permanent war, or Crusade, as Bush called it led by the rich white Christians, a crusade which they cannot possibly win.

Irish Neutrality and US Foreign Policy (part 2)

There are alternatives to war as a method of solving problems, in particular the issue of Democracy, equitable distribution of wealth and the right of self determination of the Palestinian people, an absolutely core issue of the Middle East. They are issues that should be central to those of us who do not want permanent war. A war, which the rich corporate sector will lose, as there are just too many poor people in the world. The total population of the US and the EU only constitutes 12% of world's population. Bush cannot kill everybody.

The real challenge can be seen from the following facts:

The total external debt of developing countries rose from $90 million in 1970 to $2,000 in 1998.
2.8 billion people live on less than $2 a day.
Of the worlds 6 billion people. 1.2 billion live on less than $1 a day.
30-35,000 children die every day from preventable diseases.
The gap between the richest 20% of the world's population and the poorest 20% has doubled over the last 40 years.
The assets of the worlds top 3 billionaires exceeds the GNP of all the populations of the 48 least developed countries with a total population of 600 million.
80% of the world's income goes to the top 20% of the world's population.
60% of the world's population has to do with 6% of the world's income.
51 of the largest economic entities are corporations.
Basic food and raw material prices fell by 50% in real terms in the last 20 years.

The purpose of Bush Blair and Bertie Ahern it to use their military to keep it that way.

Those of us that do not support the corporate elite need to build an alliance against the war not just in this country but also on a global basis.

We can take some initiatives in Ireland. PANA seeks support for a Nuclear Free Zone Bill and an amendment to the Irish Constitution to enshrine neutrality, and oppose the use of Shannon by the US.

The Irish elite will however continue to support the war, allows Shannon to be used and oppose the Nuclear Free Zone Bill and Neutrality. Their problem, however, is that the Irish people do not agree with them. The global corporate elite will continue to support the war. Their problem is that people all over the world do not support with them.

The Peace & Neutrality Alliance believes power derives from the people. If the poor are turning to the fundamentalists it is because those who claim to support democracy, such as Blair, Bush and Ahern have decided to back the corporates, to back the International arms industry.

The poor of the world see no difference between those who call themselves democratic socialists, liberals or conservatives. To the poor, they are all the parties of the rich.

To the poor, the only alternative on offer is that of fundamentalist version of religion, and because most of the rich are nominally Christian, they will turn to Muslim fundamentalists.

But the war is not about religion it is about oil. If the people of Iraq were Hindu, then the enemy would be "Hindu fundamentalists" if they were Christian, then the enemy would be "Christian fundamentalists."

A true interpretation of "fundamentalism" is a return to justice, a return to the basic and fundamental nature of all religions, which is "to love God, and thy neighbors as thyself". If love of thy neighbor is the fundamental, then we should all be fundamentalists, whether it is a fundamentalist Muslim or a fundamentalist Christian.
It is the job of those of us that support democracy, equality and justice to show that there is an alternative to corporate power. If we fail, then we all lose. If we are successful, then there is a future for us all.

On Saturday 15th of March there was an International Day of Protest in capital cities throughout the world. In Dublin, the demonstration was the largest peace march in history. Throughout hundreds of cities throughout the world people marched for peace and justice. A new "superpower" is being born. The superpower of the peoples of the world.

There is no justification in International law for an invasion of Iraq. Resolution 1441 does not give Bush the legal authority to go to war. Therefore preparations for war, or helping to prepare for war like allowing Shannon to be turned into a US air force base are not supported by International law. The UN Charter explicitly prohibits the threat of force as well as the use of force, unless such threat or actual use is enabled by the Security Council and comes as a result of the exhaustion of all other means. There is no basis in international law for a "pre-emptive war".

War can only be declared under the UN Charter fewer than two circumstances;
"In collective or individual self defence against actual or imminent armed attack and where the Security Council has directed or authorized the use of force to maintain or restore International peace or security."

There is no evidence that Iraq currently poses a threat to its neighbors let alone international peace and security. That Iraq has rockets that can go a mere 20 K further than UN regulations is not a threat to International security let alone the US which is thousands of miles away. If the security Council does agree to a 2nd resolution authorizing war, at the request of Bush and the leaders of the vassal states of the US, it will reflect the fear that the enormous military power of the US now gives rise to, rather than any justification in international law
Bush will win the battle for Iraq. He has so many powerful weapons at his disposal; he is so willing to kill so many Iraqi children that if he goes to war he will conquer Iraq. He will win the battle, but he will lose the war. The entire population of the US only constitutes 3-4% of the world's population. Their rich elite which Bush represents is so small, it cannot sustain his ambition the ensure US Imperial rule of the entire world for very long. Even with the support of the political elites in its vassal states like Britian, and Ireland they will not be able to sustain their power for long. Even if the political elites of the states on the Security Council reject the will of their own people and bow to the power of the US Emperor, they will not be able to sustain their power for long. The Era of the American Empire is coming to an end.

The need is to ensure that what replaces the Empire is not barbarism.

The need is to renew, revitalize and transform the United Nations as the inclusive global organization to in the words of the Charter to:

Reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of man and women and of nations large and small and

To establish conditions under which justice and respect for obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

To promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, and for these ends

To practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors, and

To unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

To ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

To employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

have resolved to combine our efforts to accomplish these aims. By adopting the United Nations Charter and establishing the United Nations.

Two hundred years ago Robert Emmet, a leader of the United Irishmen who sought to establish an Independent, Democratic Irish Republic that would take its place among the nations of the earth was killed by the British Empire. The struggle to establish an Independent, United, and Democratic Irish Republic that would take its place in a transformed United Nations remains the objective of the Peace & Neutrality alliance. The Irish people have made great progress towards that objective in 200 years and we will not revert to supporting the Imperial tradition now.

Irish Neutrality and US Foreign Policy (part 3)

Speech of the Executive Secretary WPC Iraklis Tsavdaridis at the public meeting organized in Dublin by the Peace and Neutrality Alliance (PANA) of Ireland on 24th March 2011
“The Peace Movement vs. EU and NATO”

Dear friends and comrades

First of all we want to thank the Peace and Neutrality Alliance (PANA) of Ireland for the invitation to come to Dublin and attend this important public meeting. We are very glad to
be amongst friends and fellow fighters for
peace, especially in these moments where another imperialist war has started against
the people of Libya.

Coming from a country like Greece which is passing through a similar phase and situation in our economy like you here in Ireland, allow me to start with some words on this topic.

In both our countries the international economic crisis of capitalism has been used by the governments to put new and heavy burdens on the working class and popular masses, by cutting salaries, allowances and pensions, by de-regulating working relations and rights and by privatizing further state enterprises and social services to the detriment of huge masses in each country and by that guaranteeing the profits and privileges of capital and its class. Unemployment is increasing (in Greece officially 14,6%) and more than 20% of population is going below the official poverty line. Our both peoples are facing a common front of EU, IMF and local oligarchy, which are elaborating plans and programs of social cuts, while the foreign debts are still increasing along with the budget deficits. The big beneficiaries of the crisis are in both cases the Foreign Banks from Germany, France and UK, which are increasing their profits and revenues. The local banks in our countries are getting cash subventions and low rate loans in order to run their business. In both our countries we had very massive protests and manifestations, in Greece we had within one year more than 12 general workers strikes.

But there is not only poverty and unemployment in Greece and Ireland. There is also wealth and richness for the few. Recently for example a German magazine published information that the savings of Greek citizens only in Swiss Banks exceed the € 650 billions Euros. This is where the money flows to!

It is very interesting to observe how Democracy is being applied in Ireland (not only in Ireland of course). If a people, a nation does not agree to be part of the EU, or does not want to ratify an international treaty like the Lisbon treaty (or “European Constitution”) it has to go again and again to referendum till its outcome will comply with the needs and interests of the capital and of the monopolies.

While this economic crisis of the system is going on, the military expenses worldwide are reaching new record highs. In the year 2009 more than $1,5 Trillion USD was spent world wide, the half of it by the USA alone. The war industry is making huge profits and Imperialism is increasing its aggressiveness in all corners of the world, new wars and aggressions are on, while the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan is still continuing.

Dear comrades and friends

The recent period several peoples of the Middle East and North Africa have shown with their massive uprisings that it is possible to achieve democratic changes and to get rid of totalitarian regimes. The massive popular participation especially in Tunisia and Egypt is an encouraging signal for all the peoples of the region and the world. The teachings of these uprisings are valuable for all of us. They show that it is not true that such revolts and upsurges belong to the past; that people can impose their will, despite the complex situation and the contradictions from case to case. We consider Libya to be a different case. We have no illusions about the character of the regime in Libya, particularly in the last years. The genuine and popular protests of Libyan people can not be expressed by some ex-ministers of Ghadafi and by a tribal competition within the Libyan society. The imperialists did everything to reach the decision of the UN Security Council for the imposition of a Non-Fly Zone in order to unleash a criminal attack on the country which has rich oil and gas reserves.
This aggression like the previous ones against Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq has many sides and aspects, but it has one thing in common with all the others. Imperialism, its leading forces and structures, is neglecting and violating every sense of International law as it was established for decades long and is carrying out a bloody war against a sovereign country, once again with the pretext of humanitarian intervention.

Imperialism is used to impose violent “regime changes”, even in cases which were serving long time their interests and collaborating with them. The cases of Mubarak in Egypt or Ben Ali in Tunisia, both outstanding members of the club of the Socialist International till their recent expulsion, shows how the imperialists are dealing with their collaborators after they have no use for them anymore.

Their goals and intentions are becoming meanwhile so obvious. We can even observe the different competitive interests which are clashing between the imperialists in the case of Libya, while altogether are bombing and attacking a country which was selling big part of its oil to the European Oil multinationals, namely British Petroleum and TOTAL. Is it a diabolic coincidence that the Libyan contracts with the French TOTAL expired just the day France started first its military attacks? Was it by chance that French President N. Sarcozy not only received the “opposition” forces in Paris but also recognized them as “legitimate representative of the Libyan people”?

The imperialist aggression against Libya has of course main and secondary “players”. France, the UK and USA have launched a full scale war, from air and sea. More NATO partners have announced their readiness to be part of the aggression like Norway, Denmark, Canada, and Belgium. From the Arab world two first class allies of imperialism have joined, the UAE and Qatar, while Saudi Arabia, first invaded Bahrain in order to “export Democracy” there. Greece and its government led by the President of the Socialist International G.Papandreou already gave all ports and airports, facilitating the military operations from the very first moment. But even the governments of other NATO states which are not openly participating in the aggression like Germany are not objecting the operations; neither will they veto a decision in NATO to assume the coordination of the operation “Odyssey Dawn” after the first week of bombings.

Developments prove that the inter-imperialist rivalries are more than ever existing, only that they do not mean anything positive for the peoples and their rights. We call upon all the peace loving peoples of the world not to accept and to fight back the decisions of the UN, of the willing alliance under the French President and of NATO tomorrow.

Just a few months ago when NATO held its summit in Lisbon adopting its “new strategic concept” we were stating that it constitutes a further expansion of NATO’s actions under new pretexts and “threats”, with the abolition of even the last respect to the International law and the founding charter of the UN, serving clearly and offensively the interests of the Multinational corporations and big International capital. NATO is the “world sheriff” which is becoming a force of execution of the arbitrary decisions of the UN and the case of Libya is one more example for the manipulation of the UN and its abuse.

The imperialists of the EU and NATO are speaking about International Law and the protection of the lives of civilians. Apart from hypocritical and dubious it is also of double moral. Where is the International law in the case of the Palestinian people who are suffering from a slowly genocide and are deprived of their right for an independent State, not to mention the dozens of resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly of the UN? Why the International Law is not applied in the case of the occupation of Western Sahara or the partial occupation of Cyprus till today?

In the course of preparations for the military aggression and occupation of Iraq in 2003, the main argument was that the regime in Baghdad was in possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Later, when this flagrant lie was revealed nobody amongst the governments of the EU or NATO raised the question of withdrawal of the foreign troops from Iraq, the killings of civilians and destruction went on and is still going on. Meanwhile the oil of the country is flowing under the US control and a puppet regime has been installed.

In the case of Afghanistan the US and its allies called for a “war against terror”, against the Taliban, which were trained, financed and guided for decades long by the CIA. The invasion and occupation of Afghanistan resulted again in a puppet regime in Kabul and in new records of the opium production and its export for use of the International drugs trafficking.

But also in the murderous 78 days long bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 by NATO, many lies have been revealed especially afterwards. The goal of USA, the EU and NATO to divide the former Yugoslavia in parts and create EU and NATO protectorates like the ones of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo was serving the goals of Imperialism in the broader region, their plans for the “Missile Defense Shield”, their interests in Central Asia and the “New Middle East Plan”.

The strategy of imperialism is very clear all these years, despite the contradictions or rivalries which appear from time to time. It is at least naive and dangerous if somebody believes that the various imperialist forces are different from each other or the one better than the other.

The WPC is proud for its firm and principle positions for more than 60 years towards NATO for example. Our peoples know that NATO was behind dictatorships and reactionary regimes and dozens of coups in all corners of the world.

The WPC did not discover NATO just recently, or only after the invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq, neither did we ever believe that the new US President Obama would bring the slightest change in the US foreign policy, even before he was awarded with the Nobel Peace Price, which constitutes a farce for the award itself. The WPC never believed in the EU as a “democratic counter pole” to the USA. The imperialist character of the EU is clearly stated and reaffirmed in its Lisbon Treaty and on daily basis in various parts of the world. The EU’s complicity is visible in relation to the crimes against the Palestinian and Saharawi people who are under Israeli and Moroccan occupation respectively. The double standard policy towards the Israeli aggressions against Syria, Lebanon or the threats against Iran is speaking for themselves. The reactionary role of the EU is visible with the so-called “common position” towards Cuba.

All governments of the EU and NATO states share the responsibility for the imperialist crimes and plans of the two organisms. The whatsoever contradictions between the forces inside the NATO or/and EU or between them, are underlining only the fierce competition of their ruling classes for bigger shares in profits and markets. Thus we denounce not only NATO, but also each and every government which signs and steers its policies.

We are very concerned with the situation regarding peace and security worldwide. The preemptive doctrine of the USA, the new strategic concept of NATO, the militarization of the EU along with the abuse of the UN and the prevailing of the “law of the jungle”, creates an explosive framework for humanity worldwide.

The WPC will keep on its firm positions and actions on the side of the poor and the oppressed, till the workers and the peoples will defeat imperialism in each country and worldwide. The future of humankind can not be seen in imperialist wars, occupation and social injustice.

The struggle continues the victory will be ours!

The Peace Movement vs. EU and NATO

Vote on the Neutrality Bill in Dail Eireann which was defeated by a relatively narrow vote of 52-42

Forum
DÁIL ÉIREANN
AN DÓÚ DÁIL IS TRÍOCHA
_______________

LIOSTA VÓTÁLA

_____________

Uimh:
120

Dáta:
01/12/2016

Úair:
13:10.

Ceist:
"PMB: Thirty-Fifth Amendment of the Constitution (Neutrality) Bill 2016 - Second Stage. Motion as amended: "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to.""

Fine Gael

Tá - (45)

Staon - (0)

Níl - (0)

Not Recorded - (5)

Bailey, Maria.
Barrett, Seán.
Breen, Pat.
Brophy, Colm.
Bruton, Richard.
Burke, Peter.
Byrne, Catherine.
Carey, Joe.
Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
Coveney, Simon.
Daly, Jim.
D'Arcy, Michael.
Deasy, John.
Deering, Pat.
Doherty, Regina.
Donohoe, Paschal.
Doyle, Andrew.
Durkan, Bernard J.
English, Damien.
Farrell, Alan.
Fitzgerald, Frances.
Fitzpatrick, Peter.
Griffin, Brendan.
Harris, Simon.
Heydon, Martin.
Humphreys, Heather.
Kehoe, Paul.
Kyne, Seán.
Madigan, Josepha.
McEntee, Helen.
McLoughlin, Tony.
Mitchell O'Connor, Mary.
Murphy, Dara.
Murphy, Eoghan.
Naughton, Hildegarde.
Neville, Tom.
Noonan, Michael.
O'Connell, Kate.
O'Donovan, Patrick.
O'Dowd, Fergus.
Phelan, John Paul.
Ring, Michael.
Rock, Noel.
Stanton, David.
Varadkar, Leo.

Cannon, Ciarán.
Creed, Michael.
Flanagan, Charles.
Kenny, Enda.
McHugh, Joe.

Fianna Fáil

Tá - (0)

Staon - (34)

Níl - (0)

Not Recorded - (9)

Aylward, Bobby.
Brassil, John.
Breathnach, Declan.
Browne, James.
Calleary, Dara.
Casey, Pat.
Cassells, Shane.
Chambers, Lisa.
Chambers, Jack.
Collins, Niall.
Cowen, Barry.
Curran, John.
Fleming, Sean.
Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
Haughey, Seán.
Kelleher, Billy.
Lahart, John.
Lawless, James.
MacSharry, Marc.
McGrath, Michael.
McGuinness, John.
Moynihan, Aindrias.
Murphy O'Mahony, Margaret.
Ó Cuív, Éamon.
O'Brien, Darragh.
O'Callaghan, Jim.
O'Dea, Willie.
O'Keeffe, Kevin.
O'Loughlin, Fiona.
O'Rourke, Frank.
Rabbitte, Anne.
Scanlon, Eamon.
Smith, Brendan.
Troy, Robert.

Butler, Mary.
Byrne, Thomas.
Cahill, Jackie.
Dooley, Timmy.
Martin, Micheál.
McConalogue, Charlie.
Moynihan, Michael.
Murphy, Eugene.
Smyth, Niamh.

Sinn Féin

Tá - (0)

Staon - (0)

Níl - (19)

Not Recorded - (4)

Brady, John.
Buckley, Pat.
Crowe, Seán.
Cullinane, David.
Doherty, Pearse.
Ellis, Dessie.
Ferris, Martin.
Kenny, Martin.
McDonald, Mary Lou.
Mitchell, Denise.
Munster, Imelda.
Nolan, Carol.
Ó Broin, Eoin.
Ó Laoghaire, Donnchadh.
Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
O'Brien, Jonathan.
O'Reilly, Louise.
Stanley, Brian.
Tóibín, Peadar.

Adams, Gerry.
Funchion, Kathleen.
Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
Quinlivan, Maurice.

Labour Party

Tá - (0)

Staon - (0)

Níl - (6)

Not Recorded - (1)

Burton, Joan.
Kelly, Alan.
O'Sullivan, Jan.
Penrose, Willie.
Ryan, Brendan.
Sherlock, Sean.

Howlin, Brendan.

Anti-Austerity Alliance - People Before Profit

Tá - (0)

Staon - (0)

Níl - (5)

Not Recorded - (1)

Barry, Mick.
Boyd Barrett, Richard.
Coppinger, Ruth.
Murphy, Paul.
Smith, Bríd.

Kenny, Gino.

Independents 4 Change

Tá - (0)

Staon - (0)

Níl - (6)

Not Recorded - (1)

Broughan, Thomas P.
Collins, Joan.
Connolly, Catherine.
Daly, Clare.
Pringle, Thomas.
Wallace, Mick.

O'Sullivan, Maureen.

Rural Independent Group

Tá - (1)

Staon - (2)

Níl - (0)

Not Recorded - (4)

Collins, Michael.

Grealish, Noel.
Harty, Michael.

Healy-Rae, Danny.
Healy-Rae, Michael.
Lowry, Michael.
McGrath, Mattie.

Social Democrats-Green Party Group

Tá - (0)

Staon - (1)

Níl - (5)

Not Recorded - (0)

Donnelly, Stephen S.

Healy, Seamus.
Martin, Catherine.
Murphy, Catherine.
Ryan, Eamon.
Shortall, Róisín.

Others

Tá - (6)

Staon - (0)

Níl - (1)

Not Recorded - (1)

Canney, Seán.
McGrath, Finian.
Moran, Kevin Boxer.
Naughten, Denis.
Ross, Shane.
Zappone, Katherine.

Fitzmaurice, Michael.

Halligan, John.

The Dáil divided:

Tá: 52;
Staon: 37,
Níl: 42.

Question declared:

carried.

Tellers:

Tá, Deputies: Regina Doherty and Tony McLoughlin
Níl, Deputies: Aengus Ó Snodaigh and Denise Mitchell

Tá

Staon

Níl

Bailey, Maria.
Barrett, Seán.
Breen, Pat.
Brophy, Colm.
Bruton, Richard.
Burke, Peter.
Byrne, Catherine.
Canney, Seán.
Carey, Joe.
Collins, Michael.
Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
Coveney, Simon.
D'Arcy, Michael.
Daly, Jim.
Deasy, John.
Deering, Pat.
Doherty, Regina.
Donohoe, Paschal.
Doyle, Andrew.
Durkan, Bernard J.
English, Damien.
Farrell, Alan.
Fitzgerald, Frances.
Fitzpatrick, Peter.
Griffin, Brendan.
Harris, Simon.
Heydon, Martin.
Humphreys, Heather.
Kehoe, Paul.
Kyne, Seán.
Madigan, Josepha.
McEntee, Helen.
McGrath, Finian.
McLoughlin, Tony.
Mitchell O'Connor, Mary.
Moran, Kevin Boxer.
Murphy, Dara.
Murphy, Eoghan.
Naughten, Denis.
Naughton, Hildegarde.
Neville, Tom.
Noonan, Michael.
O'Connell, Kate.
O'Donovan, Patrick.
O'Dowd, Fergus.
Phelan, John Paul.
Ring, Michael.
Rock, Noel.
Ross, Shane.
Stanton, David.
Varadkar, Leo.
Zappone, Katherine.

Aylward, Bobby.
Brassil, John.
Breathnach, Declan.
Browne, James.
Calleary, Dara.
Casey, Pat.
Cassells, Shane.
Chambers, Jack.
Chambers, Lisa.
Collins, Niall.
Cowen, Barry.
Curran, John.
Donnelly, Stephen S.
Fleming, Sean.
Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
Grealish, Noel.
Harty, Michael.
Haughey, Seán.
Kelleher, Billy.
Lahart, John.
Lawless, James.
MacSharry, Marc.
McGrath, Michael.
McGuinness, John.
Moynihan, Aindrias.
Murphy O'Mahony, Margaret.
O'Brien, Darragh.
O'Callaghan, Jim.
O'Dea, Willie.
O'Keeffe, Kevin.
O'Loughlin, Fiona.
O'Rourke, Frank.
Ó Cuív, Éamon.
Rabbitte, Anne.
Scanlon, Eamon.
Smith, Brendan.
Troy, Robert.

Barry, Mick.
Boyd Barrett, Richard.
Brady, John.
Broughan, Thomas P.
Buckley, Pat.
Burton, Joan.
Collins, Joan.
Connolly, Catherine.
Coppinger, Ruth.
Crowe, Seán.
Cullinane, David.
Daly, Clare.
Doherty, Pearse.
Ellis, Dessie.
Ferris, Martin.
Fitzmaurice, Michael.
Healy, Seamus.
Kelly, Alan.
Kenny, Martin.
Martin, Catherine.
McDonald, Mary Lou.
Mitchell, Denise.
Munster, Imelda.
Murphy, Catherine.
Murphy, Paul.
Nolan, Carol.
O'Brien, Jonathan.
O'Reilly, Louise.
O'Sullivan, Jan.
Ó Broin, Eoin.
Ó Laoghaire, Donnchadh.
Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
Penrose, Willie.
Pringle, Thomas.
Ryan, Brendan.
Ryan, Eamon.
Sherlock, Sean.
Shortall, Róisín.
Smith, Bríd.
Stanley, Brian.
Tóibín, Peadar.
Wallace, Mick.

Vote on the Neutrality Bill

John Lannon, Shannonwatch
Speech given at Public Meeting 'US Army Out of Shannon; Troops Out of Afghanistan', Wynn's Hotel Dublin 27 May 2010. Organised by the Peace and Neutrality Alliance (PANA) and the Irish Anti-War Movement (IAWM)

“We’d all prefer if there were no wars …”
This is a quote from a Clare Fianna Fail TD, speaking on a local radio show in early May 2010. It was a few days after Omni Air International, the main airline company transporting U.S. troops through Shannon, stopped using the airport. They did so because of the volcanic ash from Iceland which was drifting in and out of Irish airspace. As a result of the pull-out, 30 workers were laid of at the airport and this prompted local media interest and discussion.

During the radio programme which I and two others took part in, it became clear that nobody knew if or when the U.S. troop carriers would come back, or even when a decision would be communicated to the airport authorities. Being a member of a government that has gone out of its way to help the U.S. in its so-called “war on terror”, bending their rules on neutrality to breaking point to do so, you might think the TD would have been given some indication. Especially since the U.S. President Obama expressed such gratitude for the use of the airport to our Taoiseach Brian Cowan when they met on St Patrick’s Day.

As it happens the Omni Air planes were back on Thursday 20th May. It was a return (as far as we know) to the routine 600 foreign troops a day through the airport. But given the speed with which the U.S. military carrier switched to a different route in early May, nobody should expect any job security based on their presence.

The arguments in favour of keeping the U.S military in Shannon usually come down to a few precarious jobs like the ones temporarily lost earlier this month. And the corporate investment fallacy. An Ireland Chamber of Commerce president in the U.S. said in 2008 that “the United States played an integral role in steering corporate investment into Ireland as a priority track in ensuring economic stability and accelerated growth”. This is frequently linked to the U.S. military use of Shannon - the argument is that refusing the use of our airport to their army will jeopardize the corporate investment. But the decision of Dell Computers to lay off 1,900 workers in Limerick in 2009 has shown that corporate decision making and U.S. army logistics are not that closely connected.

There is also perhaps a tendency to latch ourselves onto an imperial superpower that might throw scraps our way from their global pillaging. Given our proud fight against colonialism, this should present the main party in government in Ireland with a dilemma. But it doesn’t seem to … the sovereign independence that they as a republican party and we as Irish people claim to hold dear is being forsaken without the issue being adequately addressed in public discourse.

So we can put the economic arguments in favour of the U.S military business at Shannon to bed. It is of little economic benefit to the mid-West region. There is no investment by the U.S. military in infrastructure that could contribute to regional development. The airport has become an empty barn, apart from the 600 or so soldiers in combat gear airside. There is no attempt to promote tourism; there is no vision beyond short term financial gain by the DAA. In fact I would argue that economically Shannon Airport has been run down either by accident or design to the extent that jobs are immediately gone when one customer – the U.S. army - stop using it for a few days.

Granted, some money changes hands when these planes land. No landing fees charged as far as we know, but airport workers tell us that when a cargo plane contracted by a U.S. government department lands and is serviced, a credit card payment is often made directly to the Fixed Base Operator. The equivalent of our political brown envelopes - no questions to be asked about what or who is on board; just follow the instructions on the ramp chit and take the payment.

Sadly the Fianna Fail TD who claimed to be against war seemed quite happy with the war in Afghanistan and Irish involvement in it. We didn’t get around to debating the seven Irish soldiers serving in Afghanistan, nor do I don’t plan to cover it here. But it is worth noting that even by the measure of a “just war”, a somewhat flawed concept revived by President Obama at his undeserved Nobel prize acceptance speech, there is no justification for our involvement in this war of occupation. The six essential elements of a supposedly “just war” are: just cause, proportionality, proper authority, last resort, right intention, and reasonable hope for success. How many does the U.S./NATO occupation of Afghanistan satisfy? None.
Before I get back to the specific issues surrounding Shannon, I want to say something about the group I represent, Shannonwatch. We are a small group of peace and human rights activists based around Limerick/Shannon. In the tradition of the Irish anti-war protest that began almost a decade ago, we continue to hold monthly protest vigils at Shannon on the second Sunday of every month. We also do continuous monitoring of all military flights in and out of Shannon and through Irish airspace. Summaries are available on our website www.shannonwatch.org.
For me there are four areas of concern surrounding the U.S. military use of Shannon, all based on legal and normative frameworks. They are:

breaches of international and European human rights law, as well as domestic Irish law. These relate to known and suspected involvement in rendition – in other words kidnapping and torture. This is best known as a CIA program but the military have also been shown to be active in this regard.
the application of aviation law in relation to the transportation of munitions of war and other explosive substances;
possible breaches of international humanitarian law, again relating to the transportation of certain types of munitions;
breaches of Irish neutrality.

Human rights laws and renditions
Amnesty International, European Parliament, Council of Europe, and the Irish Human Rights Commission have all drawn attention to the use of Shannon in the shameful U.S. renditions programme. We (Shannonwatch) have logged known or suspicious planes landing there over the years. Even in 2009 some of these continued to use Shannon – and as we know the use of torture and CIA holding sites around the world is not a thing of the past.

A number of international treaties apply to Shannon in the relation to rendition flights. The main one is the United Nations Convention Against Torture which Ireland has ratified through the Criminal Justice (United Nations Convention against Torture)Act 2000.

At European level there’s the European Convention on Human Rights. Ireland is also bound by this.

So Ireland has an obligation to arrest and charge anyone reasonably suspected of having committed torture. But the Gardai have always ignored requests to inspect suspicious planes – I was told on one occasion by a sergeant that this was a “policy decision”.

Aviation Law
International civil aviation is governed by the Chicago Convention to which Ireland is a party. This is relevant in the case of the use of Shannon Airport by rendition planes. It is also relevant in relation to the movement of war munitions through Ireland by a foreign power. Article 35 states that “no munitions of war may be carried in or above the territory of a State in aircraft engaged in international navigation, except by permission of such State”.

The provisions of the Chicago Convention have come into effect in Ireland through the Air Navigation and Transport Act. Section 33 of this Act allows an authorised officer (a Garda for example) to stop, detain and search any person or vehicle on an aerodrome in the interests of safety and security. This would allow inspection of aircraft, but it has not been used to search planes suspected of involvement in renditions or possible illegal arms transportation as far as we know. However the Gardai regularly use Section 33 to impede peaceful protest and the monitoring of the US military planes, resulting in local activists being repeatedly ordered to leave the aerodrome, forcibly removed, or arrested.

The Chicago Convention clause about not taking munitions of war through a State’s territory is covered here in Ireland by the Carriage of Munitions of War, Weapons and Dangerous Goods Order. Any civilian aircraft seeking to land - or overfly - the State requires the permission of the Minister for Transport to carry military weapons or munitions. In 2009 the Minister granted 1,276 permits; the vast majority of these were from American civil airlines chartered by the U.S. military.

Apart from the Omni Air troop carriers there are several airlines landing at Shannon that are likely to be carrying cargo that is (a) a safety hazard for airport workers and visitors and (b) possibly used to commit war crimes or human rights abuse in another part of the world.
For example

For most of 2009 there were regular weekly flights via Shannon by Murray Air to Bagram Air base;
Kalitta Air – and airline that was found to be covertly transporting laser-guided bunker busters through Prestwick a few years ago for use by the Israeli Defense Forces in Lebanon – use Shannon regularly;
Another defense contractor, Evergreen International, is often there. Like the others we don’t know what its cargo contains
And over the years Volga Dnepr and Vega Airlines have taken cargo for the U.S. Department of State through Shannon – often including munitions.

Incidentally the provisions of the Chicago Convention do not apply to military, customs or police aircraft such as U.S.Air Force jets as these are regarded as “State aircraft”. You have to ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs about these – not the Minister for Transport. But of course he’s not likely to tell you anything. Ministerial answers to questions relating to Ireland/Shannon/war tend to be very, very brief.

International Humanitarian Law

The protection of civilians from the effects of armed conflict is best known through the Geneva Conventions. But in the case of Shannon international humanitarian law is relevant in relation to the type of munitions that might be transported through the airport - or indeed through Irish airspace.

We know that landmines are outlawed – but of course the U.S. have not signed up to the treaty.
So too are cluster munitions. And Ireland played a large part in the adoption of the cluster munitions treaty. Wouldn’t it be a great embarrassment to the government and the Minister for Foreign Affairs Micheal Martin if it was discovered that there were cluster bombs coming through Shannon?
And then there’s depleted uranium. Currently there is no international ban on the use or transport of this, shamefully. So that too might be on some of the planes coming through Shannon.

Neutrality
Irish governments have claimed that allowing aircraft to use Irish soil does not constitute participation in any particular conflict and is compatible with a neutral stance. The relevant international law is the Hague Convention V – and even though Ireland hasn’t ratified it, a 2003 High Court judgement stated that Ireland was in breach by allowing US troops to use Shannon airport on their way to and from a war in Iraq.

Here are some of the statistics relating to Shannon in “neutral” Ireland:

There are an average of 20 landings per week at Shannon by U.S. troop carriers. Over 600 soldiers a day go through the airport. There have been 2 million U.S. soldiers in Shannon since 2002. That’s not a small army – that’s half the population of Ireland.
There are 20, 30 – sometimes 40 – U.S. Air Force / navy planes per month at the airport. These include in-flight refueling aircraft, executive jets, transport jets such as Boeing 737’s. There are also Hercules C-130 military transport aircraft, typically used to deliver weapons and other equipment to areas of military operations. They are capable for example of transporting the robotic Predator drones used by the U.S. to track and hit from the air in Afghanistan & Pakistan. These have caused the sad loss of life of far too many innocent civilians.
We have 2 U.S. officers of military rank stationed at Shannon. They rotate every 6 months and are well known to the fixed base operators. The constitutionality or otherwise of their presence is yet to be determined.

Also of course under the 1954 Defense Act military personnel are forbidden to enter or land in the State while wearing a uniform, except with written Ministerial permission. However the U.S. Embassy sought and was granted permission for their troops to wear duty uniform in the “immediate vicinity of an arrival/departure airfield.” In other words they have been given carte blanche to behave as if they were at home at Shannon.

I want to finish by thanking the IAWM and PANA for organising this meeting. It can be a thankless task sometimes campaigning down in Shannon but we are determined to keep going. We need to re-energise the campaign – put it in the context of the corruption and the slipping of standards we have seen at the highest levels in this country; the lack of respect those who hold power have for the dignity and rights of ordinary people. The U.S. military at Shannon and the unjust nature of the war in Afghanistan have been removed from public discourse. Very few people even know that there are over 3,000 armed U.S. soldiers in Shannon every week. Or that we’re helping to foster instability, corruption and human suffering in Afghanistan by providing personnel to take part in the occupation.

The challenge for us all is to put this back on the national agenda. Even if the U.S. military do decide to pull out of Shannon permanently the next time a cloud of ash blows in, the campaign has not been won. We are still part of the global war industry. Our standards as an unaligned peaceful nation have slipped and they need to be restored.

U.S. Army at Shannon Airport - Unjustifiable On Any Level

The Ukranian regime that came into existence after President Yanukovich was removed from power on 22 February 2014 is illegitimate.

It is illegitimate because the Ukrainian parliament, the Verkhovna Rada, did not follow the procedure to impeach and remove a president from power set out in the Ukrainian constitution.

Impeachment procedure

Article 108 of the constitution specifies four circumstances in which a president may cease to exercise power before the end of his term. Those are:

resignation;
inability to exercise his or her powers for reasons of health;
removal from office by the procedure of impeachment;
death.

The procedure for removal from office by impeachment is laid down in Article 111. It is not unlike that required for the impeachment and removal from power of a US president, which could take months. This makes sense, since it would be absurd to allow a parliament to remove a popularly elected president on a whim without proper consideration.

Thus, Article 111 obliges the Rada to establish a special investigatory commission to formulate charges against the president, seek evidence to justify the charges and come to conclusions about the president’s guilt for the Rada to consider. To find the president guilty, at least two-thirds of Rada members must assent.

Prior to a final vote to remove the president from power, the procedure requires

the Constitutional Court of Ukraine to review the case and certify that the constitutional procedure of investigation and consideration has been followed, and
the Supreme Court of Ukraine to certify that the acts of which the President is accused are worthy of impeachment.

To remove the president from power, at least three-quarters of Rada members must assent.

The Rada didn’t follow this procedure at all. No investigatory commission was established and the Courts were not involved. On 22 February, the Rada simply passed a bill removing President Yanukovych from office.

Furthermore, the bill wasn’t even supported by three-quarters of Rada members as required by Article 111 – it was supported by 328 members, when it required 338 (since the Rada has 450 members).

According to Article 94 of the constitution, laws passed by the Rada require the signature of the President to come into force, so no law passed by the Rada since 22 February has been properly enacted.

Putin on legitimacy of Kiev authorities

President Putin questioned the legitimacy of the authorities in Kiev at his press conference on 4 March:

“Are the current authorities legitimate? The Parliament is partially, but all the others are not. The current Acting President is definitely not legitimate. There is only one legitimate President, from a legal standpoint. Clearly, he has no power. However, as I have already said, and will repeat: Yanukovych is the only undoubtedly legitimate President.

“There are three ways of removing a President under Ukrainian law: one is his death, the other is when he personally steps down, and the third is impeachment. The latter is a well-deliberated constitutional norm. It has to involve the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court and the Rada. This is a complicated and lengthy procedure. It was not carried out. Therefore, from a legal perspective this is an undisputed fact.”

There is a fourth way – ill health – but, aside from that, Putin is undoubtedly correct.

Acting president not constitutional

The constitution was also breached when it came to the appointment of an Acting President. Article 112 specifies that “the execution of duties of the President of Ukraine, for the period pending the elections and the assumption of office of the new President of Ukraine, is vested in the Prime Minister of Ukraine”.

On 22 February, there was no prime minister – Mykola Azarov had resigned as prime minister on 28 January 2014 (when efforts were being made by Yanukovych to bring the opposition into government) and he hadn’t been replaced. Instead, the speaker of the Rada, Olexander Turchynov (a close ally of opposition leader and former prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko) was appointed as Acting President on 23 February. He had become speaker the day before, upon the resignation of Volodymyr Rybak, an ally of Yanukovych, who resigned that morning because of ill health. The BBC reported that, according to Yanukovych, Rybak “was forced to resign because he had been physically beaten”. Whatever about that, Turchynov became speaker one day and Acting President the next, thereby securing the presidency for the opposition.

Government not representative of the east and southeast

The opposition then proceeded to set up a “government” which is not representative of the east and southeast of Ukraine.

What is more, the government contains five ministers, including the deputy prime minister, from the Svoboda (Freedom) party, led by Oleh Tyahnybok, which was described by the European Parliament as holding “racist, anti-Semitic and xenophobic views” that “go against the EU's fundamental values and principles”. It seems to believe that Ukraine would be a better place without Russians and Jews. According to the BBC, in 2005 its leader signed an open letter to Ukrainian leaders calling for the government to halt the "criminal activities" of "organised Jewry", which, the letter said, … ultimately wanted to commit "genocide" against the Ukrainian people (see Svoboda: The rise of Ukraine's ultra-nationalists, 26 December 2012).

21 February agreement

Despite its illegitimacy and the ultra-nationalist credentials of some of its ministers, and the fact that it is not representative of the east and south-east of Ukraine, the EU (and the US) has backed the new authorities in Kiev wholeheartedly and the “prime minister”, Arseney Yatsenyuk, has been feted in Brussels (and Washington).

It is now virtually forgotten that on 21 February, the day before the President was overthrown, the foreign ministers of France, Germany and Poland (Laurent Fabius, Frank-Walter Steinmeier and Radoslaw Sikorski) acting on behalf of EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton (who was in Iran) had brokered an agreement which provided for very different governing arrangements for Ukraine. These arrangements included:

Within 48 hours, re-introduction of 2004 constitution thereby reducing presidential powers

Within 10 days, creation of a “national unity government”
Constitutional reform “balancing the powers of the President, the government and parliament” to be completed in September 2014
Presidential elections, once a new constitution is agreed
A 3rd amnesty for participants in the recent disturbances

The implementation of these arrangements would not have involved any action in breach of the Ukranian constitution, unlike the removal from power of the President on 22 February.

This agreement was signed by President Yanukovych and three opposition leaders and supported by Russia – and it was wholeheartedly endorsed by Catherine Ashton on behalf of the EU:

“I welcome the agreement reached today by the President and the opposition leaders. This agreement opens the way for a political solution to the crisis in Ukraine. A democratic and peaceful solution is the only way forward. The EU has been very much engaged in all the efforts that led to this important breakthrough. I particularly commend the important work on my behalf of the Foreign Ministers of France, Germany and Poland who facilitated this agreement. Implementation is now key. I call upon all signatories to respect the agreement and recall full Ukrainian ownership and responsibility for its immediate implementation.”

EU backs illegitimate regime

The opposition signatories did not honour the agreement and proceed to its immediate implementation. Instead, the day after they signed it, they reneged on it and backed the unconstitutional overthrow of a co-signatory to the agreement, President Yanukovych, and the establishment of a “government” representative of the opposition, and not a “national unity government” provided for in the agreement.

And what did the EU do then? It backed the new authorities, led by people who had made a deal on 21 February and reneged on it a day later. In a press conference, on a visit to Ukraine on 25 February, Catherine Ashton never mentioned the EU brokered deal of 4 days earlier in her opening statement, a deal which 4 days earlier she had said “opens the way for a political solution to the crisis in Ukraine”.

When she was asked about the deal, she muttered that “the situation has moved on”. Indeed it had, a President had been overthrown by unconstitutional means, which had it happened in other parts of the world the EU would most likely have condemned it. When asked if she agreed with the Russian government that “the situation in Ukraine is illegal”, she avoided answering the question.

Putin raises interesting questions

At his press conference on 4 March, President Putin queried why the 21 February agreement hadn’t been implemented:

“I would like to draw your attention to the fact that President Yanukovych, through the mediation of the Foreign Ministers of three European countries – Poland, Germany and France – and in the presence of my representative (this was the Russian Human Rights Commissioner Vladimir Lukin) signed an agreement with the opposition on February 21.

“I would like to stress that under that agreement (I am not saying this was good or bad, just stating the fact) Mr Yanukovych actually handed over power. He agreed to all the opposition’s demands: he agreed to early parliamentary elections, to early presidential elections, and to return to the 2004 Constitution, as demanded by the opposition. He gave a positive response to our request, the request of western countries and, first of all, of the opposition not to use force. He did not issue a single illegal order to shoot at the poor demonstrators. Moreover, he issued orders to withdraw all police forces from the capital, and they complied. He went to Kharkov to attend an event, and as soon as he left, instead of releasing the occupied administrative buildings, they immediately occupied the President’s residence and the Government building – all that instead of acting on the agreement.

“I ask myself, what was the purpose of all this? I want to understand why this was done. He had in fact given up his power already, and as I believe, as I told him, he had no chance of being re-elected. Everybody agrees on this, everyone I have been speaking to on the telephone these past few days. What was the purpose of all those illegal, unconstitutional actions, why did they have to create this chaos in the country? Armed and masked militants are still roaming the streets of Kiev. This is a question to which there is no answer. Did they wish to humiliate someone and show their power? I think these actions are absolutely foolish. The result is the absolute opposite of what they expected, because their actions have significantly destabilised the east and southeast of Ukraine.”

President Putin raises interesting questions.

David Morrison
12 March 2014

The Ukrainian regime is illegitimate, but the EU backs it to the hilt

February 20, 2012
"Responsibility to Protect" as Imperial Tool
by JEAN BRICMONT
Louvain-la-Neuve

The events in Syria, after those in Libya last year, are accompanied by calls for a military intervention, in order to “protect civilians”, claiming that it is our right or our duty to do so. And, just as last year, some of the loudest voices in favor of intervention are heard on the left or among the Greens, who have totally swallowed the concept of “humanitarian intervention”. In fact, the rare voices staunchly opposed to such interventions are often associated with the right, either Ron Paul in the US or the National Front in France. The policy the left should support is non-intervention.

The main target of the humanitarian interventionists is the concept of national sovereignty, on which the current international law is based, and which they stigmatize as allowing dictators to kill their own people at will. The impression is sometimes given that national sovereignty is nothing but a protection for dictators whose only desire is to kill their own people.
But in fact, the primary justification of national sovereignty is precisely to provide at least a partial protection of weak states against strong ones. A state that is strong enough can do whatever it chooses without worrying about intervention from outside. Nobody expects Bangladesh to interfere in the internal affairs of the United States. Nobody is going to bomb the United States to force it to modify its immigration or monetary policies because of the human consequences of such policies on other countries. Humanitarian intervention goes only one way, from the powerful to the weak.

The very starting point of the United Nations was to save humankind from “the scourge of war”, with reference to the two World Wars. This was to be done precisely by strict respect for national sovereignty, in order to prevent Great Powers from intervening militarily against weaker ones, regardless of the pretext. The protection of national sovereignty in international law was based on recognition of the fact that internal conflicts in weak countries can be exploited by strong ones, as was shown by Germany’s interventions in Czechoslovakia and Poland, ostensibly “in defense of oppressed minorities”. That led to World War II.

Then came decolonization. Following World War II, dozens of newly independent countries freed themselves from the colonial yoke. The last thing they wanted was to see former colonial powers openly interfering in their internal affairs (even though such interference has often persisted in more or less veiled forms, notably in African countries). This aversion to foreign interference explains why the “right” of humanitarian intervention has been universally rejected by the countries of the South, for example at the South Summit in Havana in April 2000. Meeting in Kuala Lumpur in February 2003, shortly before the US attack on Iraq, “The Heads of State or Government reiterated the rejection by the Non-Aligned Movement of the so-called ‘right’ of humanitarian intervention, which has no basis either in United Nations Charter or in international law” and “also observed similarities between the new expression ‘responsibility to protect’ and ‘humanitarian intervention’ and requested the Co-ordinating Bureau to carefully study and consider the expression ‘the responsibility to protect’ and its implications on the basis of the principles of non-interference and non-intervention as well as the respect for territorial integrity and national sovereignty of States.”

The main failure of the United Nations has not been that it did not stop dictators from murdering their own people, but that it failed to prevent powerful countries from violating the principles of international law: the United States in Indochina and Iraq, South Africa in Angola and Mozambique, Israel in its neighboring countries, Indonesia in East Timor, not to speak of all the coups, threats, embargoes, unilateral sanctions, bought elections, etc. Many millions of people lost their lives because of such repeated violation of international law and of the principle of national sovereignty.

In a post-World War II history that includes the Indochina wars, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, of Panama, even of tiny Grenada, as well as the bombing of Yugoslavia, Libya and various other countries, it is scarcely credible to maintain that it is international law and respect for national sovereignty that prevent the United States from stopping genocide. If the US had had the means and the desire to intervene in Rwanda, it would have done so and no international law would have prevented that. And if a “new norm” is introduced, such as the right of humanitarian intervention or the responsibility to protect, within the context of the current relationship of political and military forces, it will not save anyone anywhere, unless the United States sees fit to intervene, from its own perspective.

US interference in the internal affairs of other states is multi-faceted but constant and repeatedly violates the spirit and often the letter of the UN Charter. Despite claims to act on behalf of principles such as freedom and democracy, US intervention has repeatedly had disastrous consequences: not only the millions of deaths caused by direct and indirect wars, but also the lost opportunities, the “killing of hope” for hundreds of millions of people who might have benefited from progressive social policies initiated by leaders such as Arbenz in Guatemala, Goulart in Brazil, Allende in Chile, Lumumba in the Congo, Mossadegh in Iran, the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, or President Chavez in Venezuela, who have been systematically subverted, overthrown or killed with full Western support.

But that is not all. Every aggressive action led by the United States creates a reaction. Deployment of an anti-missile shield produces more missiles, not less. Bombing civilians – whether deliberately or by so-called “collateral damage” – produces more armed resistance, not less. Trying to overthrow or subvert governments produces more internal repression, not less. Encouraging secessionist minorities by giving them the often false impression that the sole Superpower will come to their rescue in case they are repressed, leads to more violence, hatred and death, not less. Surrounding a country with military bases produces more defense spending by that country, not less, and the possession of nuclear weapons by Israel encourages other states of the Middle East to acquire such weapons. If the West hesitates to attack Syria or Iran, it is because these countries are stronger and have more reliable allies than Yugoslavia or Libya. If the West complains about the recent Russian and Chinese vetoes about Syria, it has only to blame itself: indeed, this is the result of the blatant abuse by Nato of Resolution 1973, in order to effect regime change in Libya, which the resolution did not authorize. So, the message sent by our interventionist policy to “dictators” is: be better armed, make less concessions and build better alliances.

Moreover, the humanitarian disasters in Eastern Congo, which are probably the largest in recent decades, are mainly due to foreign interventions (mostly from Rwanda, a US ally), not to a lack of them. To take a most extreme case, which is a favorite example of horrors cited by advocates of the humanitarian interventions, it is most unlikely that the Khmer Rouge would ever have taken power in Cambodia without the massive “secret” US bombing followed by US-engineered regime change that left that unfortunate country totally disrupted and destabilized.
Another problem with the “right of humanitarian intervention” is that it fails to suggest any principle to replace national sovereignty. When NATO exercised its own self-proclaimed right to intervene in Kosovo, where diplomatic efforts were far from having been exhausted, it was praised by the Western media. When Russia exercised what it regarded as its own responsibility to protect in South Ossetia, it was uniformly condemned in the same Western media. When Vietnam intervened in Cambodia, to put an end to the Khmer Rouge, or India intervened to free Bangladesh from Pakistan, their actions were also harshly condemned in the United States. So, either every country with the means to do so acquires the right to intervene whenever a humanitarian reason can be invoked as a justification, and we are back to the war of all against all, or only an all-powerful state, namely the United States (and its allies) are allowed to do so, and we are back to a form of dictatorship in international affairs.

It is often replied that the interventions are not to be carried out by one state, but by the “international community”. But the concept of “international community” is used primarily by the United States and its allies to designate themselves and whoever agrees with them at the time. It has grown into a concept that both rivals the United Nations (the “international community” claims to be more “democratic” than many UN member states) and tends to take it over in many ways.

In reality, there is no such thing as a genuine international community. NATO’s intervention in Kosovo was not approved by Russia and Russian intervention in South Ossetia was condemned by the West. There would have been no Security Council approval for either intervention. The African Union has rejected the indictment by the International Criminal Court of the President of Sudan. Any system of international justice or police, whether it is the responsibility to protect or the International Criminal Court, would need to be based on a relationship of equality and a climate of trust. Today, there is no equality and no trust, between West and East, between North and South, largely as a result of the record of US policies. For some version of the responsibility to protect to be consensually functional in the future, we need first to build a relationship of equality and trust.

The Libyan adventure has illustrated another reality conveniently overlooked by the supporters of humanitarian intervention, namely that without the huge US military machine, the sort of safe no-casualty (on our side) intervention which can hope to gain public support is not possible. The Western countries are not willing to risk sacrificing too many lives of their troops, and waging a purely aerial war requires an enormous amount of high technology equipment. Those who support such interventions are supporting, whether they realize it or not, the continued existence of the US military machine, with its bloated budgets and its weight on the national debt. The European Greens and Social Democrats who support the war in Libya should have the honesty to tell their constituents that they need to accept massive cuts in public spending on pensions, unemployment, health care and education, in order to bring such social expenses down to an American level and use the hundreds of billions of euros thus saved to build a military machine that will be able to intervene whenever and wherever there is a humanitarian crisis.
If it is true that the 21st century needs a new United Nations, it does not need one that legitimizes such interventions by novel arguments, such as responsibility to protect, but one that gives at least moral support to those who try to construct a world less dominated by a single military superpower. The United Nations needs to pursue its efforts to achieve its founding purpose before setting a new, supposedly humanitarian priority, which may in reality be used by the Great Powers to justify their own future wars by undermining the principle of national sovereignty.
The left should support an active peace policy through international cooperation, disarmament, and non-intervention of states in the internal affairs of others. We could use our overblown military budgets to implement a form of global Keynesianism: instead of demanding “balanced budgets” in the developing world, we should use the resources wasted on our military to finance massive investments in education, health care and development. If this sounds utopian, it is not more so than the belief that a stable world will emerge from the way our current “war on terror” is being carried out.

Moreover, the left should strive towards strict respect for international law on the part of Western powers, implementing the UN resolutions concerning Israel, dismantling the worldwide US empire of bases as well as NATO, ceasing all threats concerning the unilateral use of force, stopping all interference in the internal affairs of other States, in particular all operations of “democracy promotion”, “color” revolutions, and the exploitation of the politics of minorities. This necessary respect for national sovereignty means that the ultimate sovereign of each nation state is the people of that state, whose right to replace unjust governments cannot be taken over by supposedly benevolent outsiders.
It will be objected that such a policy would allow dictators to “murder their own people”, the current slogan justifying intervention. But if non-intervention may allow such terrible things to happen, history shows that military intervention frequently has the same result, when cornered leaders and their followers turn their wrath on the “traitors” supporting foreign intervention. On the other hand, non- intervention spares domestic oppositions from being regarded as fifth columns of the Western powers – an inevitable result of our interventionist policies. Actively seeking peaceful solutions would allow a reduction of military expenditures, arms sales (including to dictators who may use them to “murder their own people”) and use of resources to improve social standards.

Coming to the present situation, one must acknowledge that the West has been supporting Arab dictators for a variety of reasons, ranging from oil to Israel, in order to control that region, and that this policy is slowly collapsing. But the lesson to draw is not to rush into yet another war, in Syria, as we did in Libya, claiming this time to be on the right side, defending the people against dictators, but to recognize that it is high time for us to stop assuming that we must control the Arab world. At the dawn of the 20th century, most of the world was under European control. Eventually, the West will lose control over that part of the world, as it lost it in East Asia and is losing it in Latin America. How the West will adapt itself to its decline is the crucial political question of our time; answering it is unlikely to be either easy or pleasant.

JEAN BRICMONT teaches physics at the University of Louvain in Belgium. He is author of Humanitarian Imperialism. He can be reached at Jean.Bricmont@uclouvain.be

The Case for a Non-Interventionist Foreign Policy

h3>Empire Carries On

by SHAMUS COOKE
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/06/19/syria-is-becoming-obamas-iraq/19/

In perfect Bush-like fashion, President Obama has invented a bogus pretense for military intervention in yet another Middle East country. The president’s claim that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons — and thus crossed Obama’s imaginary “red line” — will likely fool very few Americans, who already distrust their president after the massive NSA spying scandal.

Obama has officially started down a path that inevitably leads to full-scale war. At this point the Obama administration thinks it has already invested too much military, financial, and diplomatic capital into the Syrian conflict to turn back, and each step forward brings the U.S. closer to a direct military intervention.

Much like Obama’s spying program, few Americans knew that the United States was already involved, neck deep, with the mass killings occurring in Syria. For example, Obama has been directly arming the Syrian rebels for well over a year. The New York Times broke the story that the Obama administration has — through the CIA — been illegally trafficking thousands of tons of guns to the rebels from the dictatorships of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. If not for these Obama-trafficked guns, thousands of deaths would have been prevented and the Syrian conflict over.

But even after the gun trafficking story broke, the mainstream media largely ignored it, and continued “reporting” that the U.S. has only been supplying the Syrian rebels with “non-lethal aid,” a meaningless term in a war setting, since all military aid directly assists in the business of killing.

The U.S. media also buried the truth behind the ridiculous chemical weapons claims by the Obama administration, which, like Bush’s WMDs, are based on absolutely no evidence. Having learned nothing from Iraq, the U.S. media again shamelessly regurgitates the “facts” as spoon-fed to them by the government, no questions asked. In reality, however, a number of independent chemical weapons experts have publicly spoken out against Obama’s accusations.

The U.S. media also refuses to ask: on what authority does the United States have to determine the usage of chemical weapons in other countries? This is the job of the UN. What has the UN said on the matter?

Top UN rights investigator Carla del Ponte said:

“According to the testimonies we have gathered, the [Syrian] rebels have used chemical weapons, making use of sarin gas.”

Again, the “rebels” have used chemical weapons, not the Syrian government, according to the UN representative. Many analysts have pointed out the obvious fact that the Syrian government would have zero military or political motive to use chemical weapons, especially when they have access to much more effective conventional weapons. Obama’s Bush-like lies are too familiar to the American public, who overwhelmingly do not support military intervention in Syria, or giving direct military aide to the Syrian rebels.

What has the UN said on giving military aid to the rebels?

UN chief Ban Ki-moon has called the Obama’s decision “a bad idea” and “not helpful.” This is because pouring arms into any country where there is a conflict only increases the bloodshed and risks turning the conflict into a broader catastrophe.

But like Bush, Obama is ignoring the UN, and there’s a logic to his madness. Obama has invested too much of his foreign policy credibility in Syria. His administration has been the backbone of the Syrian rebels from the beginning, having handpicked a group of rich Syrian exiles and molded them into Obama’s “officially recognized” government of Syria, while pressuring other nations to also recognize these nobodies as the “legitimate Syrian government.” Assad’s iron grip on power is a humiliation to these diplomatic efforts of Obama, and has thus weakened the prestige and power of U.S. foreign policy abroad.

More importantly, Obama’s anti-Syria diplomacy required that diplomatic relations between Syria and its neighbors — like Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey — be destroyed. These nations have peacefully co-existed for decades with Syria, but have now agreed — under immense U.S. pressure — to sever diplomatic relations while helping destroy the Syrian government by funneling guns and foreign fighters into the country, further destabilizing a region not yet recovered from the Iraq war. Obama’s Syria policy has turned an already-fragile region into a smoldering tinderbox.

If Obama were to suddenly tell his anti-Syria coalition that he’s realized his efforts at regime change have failed and that he would instead pursue a peaceful solution, his allies and Middle East lackeys would be less willing in the future to prostitute themselves for the foreign policy of the United States; and the U.S. would thus find it more difficult in the future to pursue “regime change” politics abroad. If Obama doesn’t back up his “Assad must go” demand, the U.S. will be unable to make such threats in the future; and U.S. foreign policy is heavily dependent on this type of political bullying.

Furthermore, Obama’s anti-Syria puppet coalition is taking tremendous political risks when it shamelessly follows in Obama’s footsteps, since the U.S. is terribly unpopular throughout the Arab world. This unpopularity is further proof that the “official” Syrian opposition that is asking for U.S. intervention has zero credibility in Syria, since very few Syrians would like to invite the U.S. military to “liberate” their country, especially after the “successful” liberations of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.

Obama, too, is worried about domestic politics in his own country over Syria. He knows that Americans are sick of Middle East wars, while the American public is also worried that arming the Syrian rebels would mean giving guns to the very same people that America is supposedly fighting a “war on terror” against.

In response to this concern Obama has said that the U.S. will only give arms to “moderate” rebels. A European Union diplomat mockingly responded:

“It would be the first conflict where we pretend we could create peace by delivering arms… If you pretend to know where the weapons will end up, then it would be the first war in history where this is possible. We have seen it in Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq. Weapons don’t disappear; they pop up where they are needed.”

In Syria U.S. weapons will thus end up in the hands of the extremists doing the majority of the fighting. These are the people who will be in power if Syria’s government falls, unless a full U.S. invasion and Iraq-style occupation occurs. It’s difficult to decide which outcome would be worse for the Syrian people.

It’s now obvious that President Obama is escalating the Syrian conflict because his prized rebels have been beaten on the battlefield. Obama has thus chosen the military tactic of brinksmanship, a risky strategy that involves intentionally escalating a conflict in the hopes that either your opponent gives in to your demands (regime change), or your opponent gives you an excuse to invade.

Here’s how former U.S. General Wesley Clark explains Obama’s brinkmanship tactic in a New York Times op-ed, which is worth quoting at length:

“President Obama’s decision to supply small arms and ammunition to the rebels is a step, possibly just the first,toward direct American intervention. It raises risks for all parties, and especially for Mr. Assad, who knows that he cannot prevail, even with Russian and Iranian military aid, if the United States becomes fully engaged. We used a similar strategy against the Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic in Kosovo in 1999, where I commanded American forces, and showed that NATO had the resolve to escalate.

“The risk of going beyond lethal aid to establishing a no-fly zone to keep Mr. Assad’s planes grounded or safe zones to protect refugees — options under consideration in Washington — is that we would find it hard to pull back if our side began losing. Given the rebels’ major recent setbacks, can we rule out using air power or sending in ground troops?

“Yet the sum total of risks — higher oil prices, a widening war — also provide Syria (and its patrons, Iran and Russia) a motive to negotiate.” [emphasis added]

Clark’s innocent sounding “no-fly zone” is in fact a clever euphemism for all-out war, since no-fly zones require you destroy the enemy’s air force, surface to air missiles, and other infrastructure.

In Libya Obama swiftly turned a no-fly zone into a full-scale invasion and regime change, in violation of international law. A no-fly zone in Syria would also immediately turn into an invasion and “regime change,” with the possibility that the U.S. or Israel would exploit the “fog of war” to attack Iran.

All of this madness could be stopped immediately if Obama publicly announced that the Syrian rebels have lost the war — since they have — and will be cut off politically, financially, and militarily by the U.S. if they do not immediately proceed to negotiations with the Syrian government. But this peaceful approach will instead be ignored in favor of untold thousands more dead, millions more made refugees, and a broader regional fracturing of Middle East civilization.

Shamus Cooke is a social service worker, trade unionist, and writer for Workers Action (www.workerscompass.org) He can be reached at shamuscooke@gmail.com

Syria Is Becoming Obama’s Iraq

American Statement of Support for the Peace & Neutrality Alliance and Shannonwatch and their Opposition to Irish Participation in the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq

As American peace activists working to end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, we support the efforts of our colleagues in the Irish peace movement to draw attention to and to oppose the use of Shannon Airport by the Pentagon as part of the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In particular, we support the demonstration called by PANA & Shannonwatch for October 10, 2010, marking the ninth anniversary of the US invasion of Afghanistan.

Robert Naiman, Policy Director, Just Foreign Policy
John Feffer, Co-Director, Foreign Policy in Focus*
Tom Hayden, Peace and Justice Resource Center, Culver City, CA
Kevin Martin, Executive Director, Peace Action
Judith LeBlanc, National Field Organizer, Peace Action
Medea Benjamin, Co-founder, CODEPINK
Gael Murphy, Co-founder, CODEPINK
Dave Robinson, Executive Director, Pax Christi USA
Ray McGovern, Tell the Word, Church of the Saviour, Washington, DC
Jake Diliberto, Co-Founder, Veterans for Rethinking Afghanistan
Seamus O'Sullivan, Assistant Professor, Social Sciences, American University of Afghanistan
Michael Carrigan, Community Alliance of Lane County, Eugene, Oregon
David Swanson, Founder, War Is A crime.org
Mark D. Stansbery, Columbus, Ohio

*Affiliation for identification purposes only.

American Statement of Support for PANA and Shannonwatch

Dec 5 2009

Thanks to PANA for inviting me to speak at their 2009 AGM on behalf of Shannonwatch.

Shannon Airport is the embodiment of the erosion of Irish neutrality and of Irish involvement in the business of global warfare. Sadly a large share of its business now is US military stopovers, although Ireland claims to be a neutral country. A state that has had a proud tradition of peacekeeping with the UN is now trying to profit from immoral and unnecessary wars. But offsetting the loss of commercial traffic – due to the ending of the Shannon stopover, the downturn in the global aviation industry, and other factors – with war traffic is not something we can or will ever accept.

Since the start of this decade – soon after the September 11 attacks on the Twin Towers & Pentagon - the Irish government has made Shannon available to the US government. Its not the first time this happened – the US were also allowed to use Shannon during the 1991 Gulf War (bombers were seen at Shannon, en route to Iraq). But when the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, the Irish government stepped up its support for the imperialist warmongering and allowed them to use Shannon as a refueling stopover. As a result the majority of soldiers being transported between the US and Iraq for most of this decade have passed through Ireland.

We know also that Shannon has been used by the CIA as part of its so-called extraordinary renditions policy (a sanitised name for kidnapping and torture). This has been well documented by Amnesty International, the European Parliament and others. It breaches international human rights norms as well as Irish law – in particular the Criminal Justice Act – UN Convention Against Torture) 2000.
For those of you who don’t know us, Shannonwatch is a group of peace and human rights activists based in the mid-west of Ireland. In the proud tradition of Irish anti-war protest, we continue to hold weekly protest vigils on the second Sunday of every month. We also do continuous monitoring of all military flights in and out of Shannon and through Irish airspace. Summaries are available on our website www.shannonwatch.org.

We work with media people who are still interested in investigating the cover-ups around Shannon, and with supportive politicians, to get to the truth of what is really going on in our “civilian” airport. Ultimately we want accountability from our government for the millions of lives we have helped destroy; for becoming part of an imperialist military power block driven by greed for energy resources; for the manner in which they took control of Irish foreign policy away from the people. And for the years of human rights abuse we have condoned & supported, and for the fact that we have covertly violated international and Irish law for most of this decade. We want it to end, and to ensure that it never happens again.

We often speculate about the real role Shannon has played in the wars of George Bush, in the renditions networks, and is now playing in Obama’s Afghanistan war. And about what deals have been done with the Americans in years past to give them open access to our runways. But we don’t even need to speculate – the known facts speak for themselves. Here are some of these facts …

There are an average of 20 landings per week by airline contracted to carry US troops to/from Iraq. Over 1,000 US soldiers wander wide-eyed around the duty free lounges every week. Omni Air International is the carrier … there are usually one or two there everyday.
There are 20, 30 … sometimes 40 USAF / navy planes per month at the airport. These include in-flight refueling aircraft, executive jets and transport jet aircraft such as Boeing 737’s. They also included Hercules C-130 military transport aircraft, typically used to deliver weapons and other equipment to areas of military operations. They are capable, for example, of transporting the robotic Predator drone aircraft used by the US Air Force to track and hit targets from the air in Afghanistan and Pakistan. On Tuesday last for example – the last day I have data to hand for – there was a USAF DC9 and a Gulfstream 4 at the airport.
We’ve logged known and suspect rendition planes at the airport. N54PA, N379P, N71PG … these have all become familiar to those of us monitoring the airport activity. Regular requests have been made over the years to inspect these but the requests have been ignored; no action has ever been taken - except to arrest the ones asking for the inspections in some cases. And we continue to see known or suspect rendition planes at Shannon; in the last couple of months we’ve had 2 in particular - N478GS and N71PG.
There are weekly flights by Murray Air (a subsidiary of National Airlines) carrying cargo to Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. One of their planes, N872SJ, was there this week already. The true nature of their cargo is never made known to us – and we don’t know if it is properly declared to the Irish authorities.
Kalitta Air – an airline that was found to be covertly transporting laser-guided bunker busters through Prestwick a couple of years ago – uses Shannon from time to time. One landed at the airport a few days before last Christmas when the Israeli Defence Forces were receiving new supplies of white phosphorus. Again we don’t know what its cargo was.
Some of you may remember the airline Evergreen International … well on 4 Nov, an Evergreen International Boing 742 reg number N488EV landed at Shannon. Origin and Destination unknown. Again cargo unknown. This is a civilian aircraft and as such it requires permission from the Minister for Transport to land if it is carrying munitions of war.

Note: Civil aviation standards are governed by the provisions of the Chicago Convention, established in 1944, and Ireland is one of the signatories. Article 35 of this Convention states that “no munitions of war may be carried in or above the territory of a State in aircraft engaged in international navigation, except by permission of such State”. The provisions of the Convention have been put into law in Ireland through the Air Navigation and Transport Act (Carriage of Munitions of War, Weapons and Dangerous Goods).

We have 2 US officers of military rank stationed at the airport. And the Irish army and Gardai provide security for many of the planes of the US military or their contractors. This once again shows the level to which our neutrality has been compromised.

We were pleased to have had two conferences organised by PANA at Shannon in 2009. These recognised the importance of the airport issue in the debates around neutrality, Lisbon and so on, and reminded people that we too are guilty for the loss of many, many lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. Shannonwatch looks forward to continuing to work with PANA, the Irish Anti War Movement and others in 2010, to keep drawing attention to Irish complicity in war and human rights abuse at Shannon. We will continue the monitoring and publishing of flight data, and the monthly vigils (2nd Sunday of the month from 2pm – 3pm) will remain in place until the soldiers and the torturers are gone, or there is no-one left to protest.
Together we will ensure that it is the former – and not the latter – that brings the protests to an end!

Presentation to PANA AGM by John Lannon, Shannonwatch

Opinion: The Army, born in a national struggle against imperialism, is being increasingly integrated into Battle Groups of the EU, a strategic military partner of Nato
Roger Cole

A protest at Shannon in 2003 about US military equipment and troops passing through the Shannon Airport. Photograph: Alan Betson

Published: Monday, June 23, 2014, 19:07

"A small nation has to be extremely cautious when entering into alliances which bring it, willy nilly, into those wars... we would not be consulted in how a war should be started – the great powers would do that – and when it ended, no matter who won... we would not be consulted as to the terms on which it should end." - Taoiseach Éamon de Valera, Dáil Éireann, July 12th, 1955.

On February 15th, 2003, millions of people throughout the world marched in protest against the plan by the US and its vassal states to invade, conquer and occupy the secular state of Iraq. In Ireland well over 100,000 marched in Dublin against the war as did thousands more in Belfast. We failed.

The US and the UK invaded and destroyed the state, the consequences of which are continuing to played out in the current phase of the ongoing war on Iraq. Of course, the destruction of the state of Iraq and its replacement by a Kurd state, a Sunni state and a Shia state might be the outcome after a prolonged vicious and bitter war with the only winner being Israel, could be exactly what the US wants.

In Ireland, the Fianna Fáil party finally terminated the values of its founder, de Valera, and backed the war, destroying Ireland’s long-standing policy of neutrality as defined in international law by the Hague Convention of 1907 by allowing millions of US troops use Shannon Airport on their way to and from the war, and by voting against enshrining Irish neutrality into the Constitution (which was proposed by Sinn Féin and supported by Labour and independents).

Since then, the forces in favour of perpetual imperialist wars have grown stronger. Germany, which opposed the war in 2003, is now dominated by Chancellor Angela Merkel, a strong advocate of the Iraq war. France, which also opposed the war, is now an integral part of Nato, the nuclear armed military alliance dominated by the US.
The state of Libya was bombed and destroyed by Nato. Every effort has been made by the US and its allies to destroy the state of Syria, as over the past few years it has actively supported the Salafi jihadi rebels, who are now taking over large parts of Iraq. The US is actively seeking a confrontation with Russia. With its “shift to the East”, the US also seems to want to take on China as well.

Nato partner

In Ireland, the Army, born in a national struggle against imperialism, is being increasingly integrated into battle groups of the EU, a strategic military partner of Nato. Despite the massive economic crisis no banker has seen the inside of a prison, but Margaretta D’Arcy, an opponent of Ireland’s support for the Iraq war, is imprisoned.

The Labour Party, which under the leadership of its then spokesperson on foreign policy, Michael D Higgins, in 2003 played a key role in opposing the Iraq war; in government it supports the aviation policy announced by Minister for Transport Leo Varadkar on December 12th, 2012, in which he advocated “additional military flights” for Shannon Airport.

The section in the agreed Labour Party/Fine Gael programme for government which stated, “We will enforce the prohibition on the use of Irish airspace, airports and related facilities for purposes not in line with the dictates of international law”, has been rejected in favour of the additional military flights. With US president Barack Obama now sending US troops back into Iraq, one can only assume the Government will be pleased its policy of additional military flights through Shannon Airport will be a success.

However, the doctrine of perpetual war that was expressed in the Project for the New American Century produced in the 1990s is in trouble. Simply put, the American people are increasingly becoming tired of these never-ending wars.

The American people are beginning to say that it’s about time we focused on nation building at home. In the UK when for the first time since the 18th century a British prime minister’s proposal to launch yet another war, as David Cameron did, was rejected by the British House of Commons, a decision in no small measure due to the campaign by the Stop the War Coalition, a British peace group with which the Peace and Neutrality Alliance (Pana) has a strong association. One suspects opposition to this doctrine of perpetual war is growing not just in the UK but throughout the EU. When UKIP and the National Front in France oppose these perpetual wars they are gaining support from voters who in previous years would have voted for parties such as the Democratic Socialists that used to oppose them.

Neutrality

The RedC poll commissioned by Pana in September 2013 showed 78 per cent supported a policy of neutrality and 79 per cent opposed a war with Syria without a UN mandate. Maybe the time is coming when article 2.4 of the UN charter that says all UN states “shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state” shall be restored as the keystone of international law.

Finally, in the local elections in 1920, the Unionists and Home Rulers in Kingstown were replaced by an alliance of Sinn Féin and Labour councillors that changed its name to Dún Laoghaire as a symbol of their commitment to Irish independence. Some would now like it to return to its old name while a good deal more would like to call it Merkeltown. Those of us who support Irish independence, democracy and neutrality remain happy with Dún Laoghaire – but with more pride, more self confidence and a greater willingness to resist imperialism.

Roger Cole is chair of the Peace and Neutrality Alliance and was one of the main organisers of the demonstration in Dublin against the Iraq war on February 15th, 2003
© 2014 irishtimes.com

Shannon policy facilitates Ireland's role in Iraq crisis

Since 1996 the Peace & Neutrality Alliance has campaigned for the right of the Irish people to have an independent foreign policy with Irish neutrality as its key component.

We therefore opposed the termination of that policy by the decision of successive governments of allowing millions of US troops use Shannon Airport in wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

In September 2013 PANA commissioned RecC poll to ask the Irish people their views on a policy of Irish neutrality. The results (see attached) show that 78% of the Irish people support a policy of Irish neutrality. In the 18-34 age group support increases to 85%.

Now the crisis in the Ukraine could escalate from sanctions to war as it did in Iraq. However a war with Russia, a Second Crimean War, would be far more devastating than the wars on Yugoslavia, Afghanistan. Iraq, Libya, Syria etc, for the people of Ireland, especially as Mr. Gilmore, the Irish Minister of Foreign Affairs & Trade has continued to reject the policy of Irish neutrality as advocated by PANA, a policy supported by the vast majority of the Irish people, and is determined to support the road to sanctions and war.

That Mr. Gilmore and the rest of the current Irish Government are heading down the road of sanctions and war with Russia will be a disaster for the Irish people, and PANA strongly opposes it. We call for the immediate restoration of an independent Irish Foreign Policy with neutrality as its key component.

This is especially that case with the crisis in the Ukraine. Dr. David Morrison, Research Officer of PANA in the attached document shows that the current Ukraine regime is illegitimate.

The Irish people are now facing a crisis that could transform into a major European war. In 1914 the vast majority of the then Irish political elite supported what became a major European war. Those that opposed Irish participation in that war, James Connolly, Padraigh Pearse, Michael Collins and Eamon De Valera and other's were despised and ignored by the then political elite. For PANA, however, they were and remain our hero's. They were people willing to stand up for Irish Independence, democracy and neutrality and who opposed Irish participation in an imperialist war.

That choice is with us again.

Yours Sincerely

Roger Cole
Chair
Peace & Neutrality Alliance
www.pana.ie

A Second Crimean War?

Six weeks ago UK Coalition government announced the outcome of its Strategic Defence Review. It signified the delay and cancellation of many defence projects - cuts in armed forces personnel, scrapping the fleet of Harrier Jump Jets, scrapping of the Nimrod surveillance programme, deep cuts in the order for F35 Joint Strike fighters and scrapping of the Arc Royal (Britain's only current aircraft carrier). The two new aircraft carriers which are currently being built in shipyards across Britain are to go ahead (because they are two expensive to cancel) but there will be no planes to fly from them for 10 years and even then only 12 planes per carrier. The closure of airbases such as RAF Kinloss and probably RAF Lossiemouth will mean thousands of job losses in the north of Scotland. So there are plenty of cuts planned in conventional defence.

But from our point of view the key issue was the announcement on Trident - Britain's submarine based nuclear weapons system. The project will be delayed with deployment put back by 4 years from 2024 to 2028 and the Main Gate (the announcement of the main contracts) delayed to 2016. The total number of warheads will be reduced from 225 to 180 and operationally available (or deployed) warheads reduced from 160 to 120.

In addition there is to be a delay in the decision about the production of a new warhead. We are told that this will not now be needed till at least the late 2030s and, therefore, a decision on this is not needed until the next parliament (after 2015).

We, of course, welcome all of this. It is a victory for common sense, a victory for the peace movement and one that was boosted by Britain's economic crisis and the squeeze on the Defence Budget.

The problem is that we still haven't stopped the Trident replacement project. The Initial Gate (the start of the detailed design phase) will go ahead and we expect it to be announced in December 2010 or January 2011. This will mean continuing to spend millions as the design process gathers pace and, of course, we are still spending almost £1bn a year on upgrading Aldermaston, Britain' bomb factory. All of this is clearly designed to keep both wings of the governing coalition happy. The Liberal Democrats will claim it as victory for their policy of opposition for like-for-like replacement, and the Tory faithful will be happy that the project has not been halted or cancelled.

How should we react to this situation? We should welcome the delay and the reduction in size of Britain's nuclear arsenal and the postponement of the new warhead. But we must point out two major contradictions in the government position.

Firstly, there is a huge mismatch between main the 'tier one' threats outlined in the Strategic Security Strategy - terrorism, cyber attack, civil emergencies, and instability and conflict overseas - and the government response. Are these actually threats in a military sense? How exactly do you make a military response to terrorism, cyber attack or civil emergencies? In particular, how exactly can you respond with nuclear weapons? This is a weapons system which is rooted in the Cold War past and is irrelevant to the threats we face today. Indeed, it could make things worse, as, for example, providing juicy targets for potential terrorists.

Secondly, in May this year (2010) our government signed up to a final document at the Non Proliferation Treaty Review Conference to 'accelerate concrete progress' towards nuclear disarmament. Going ahead with Trident replacement takes us takes us in opposite direction. It binds us into the possession of nuclear weapons for the next 40 or 50 years. We are thus breaking our international obligations. Britain, along with the other nuclear weapons states, signed up to this document. The majority of nations at the conference wanted something much stronger - a Nuclear Weapons Convention which would involve all nuclear weapons states joining a process with a clear timetable to reduce and eliminate nuclear weapons worldwide.

But perhaps the most positive thing about this delay in the Trident programme is that it keeps Trident as a live political issue up to and beyond the next general election. So far from closing off the issue, this partial victory can be springboard for building a broader and deeper alliance for outright cancellation of the project.

How can we build that broader alliance? There are new opportunities to work with disaffected Liberal Democrats, many of whom are upset about the abandonment of the their pledges on Trident and deeply unhappy about the savage programme of cuts in jobs and services launched by the Coalition.

Perhaps more importantly, there are new opportunities to work with Labour Party at all levels. Remember that many Labour MPs voted against Trident in 2007 and have not changed their position. Many others can be won to an anti-Trident position now that Labour is no longer on government. So also can many MSPs, councils and Labour party constituencies. This could strengthen the commitment of councillors to support the local authority Nuclear Free Zones movement and sign up to Mayors for Peace. Pressure from below could even shift the position of Parliamentary Labour Party and the new Labour leader Ed Milliband to an anti-Trident position. Already former Defence Secy Bob Ainsworth has suggested that the party needs to rethink its position on Trident.

Part of this process will be to develop our work with trade unions, especially those unions like UNITE and GMB who organise defence workers. The election of Len McCluskey as UNITE general secretary could be really helpful in that respect. We also need to link up with the growing anti-cuts campaign. Scrapping Trident and getting out of Afghanistan will save up to £7bn a year. This could be invested in jobs and services. It is, therefore, a key part of the alternative to a programme of cuts as outlined in the STUC's There is a Better Way campaign.

In addition we need to continue our work through Scotland's for Peace with our partners in the wider peace movement - the churches and faith groups.

So our demand to Scrap Trident is linked with the with demand for a global ban on nuclear weapons. We are not unilateralists. We are part of a global movement for peace which is getting stronger by the day and now encompasses the great majority of nations and peoples. And if we can get rid of Trident in Britain, and get these weapons out of Scotland, what a victory that would be for the global movement for peace. For the first of the original nuclear powers to say that nuclear weapons don't defend us, don't deter anyone and put everyone, including us, at greater risk, and we are getting rid of them. That would send shock waves across the world and what pressure it would put on France, the US and others to do likewise.

What are we doing in Scotland. Well, remember that all Britain's NWs are based in Scotland at Faslane and Coulport. In March of this year (2010) we held a demo in Edinburgh with over 1,000 in attendance demanding Cut Trident Not Jobs and a broad platform of speakers including First Minister Alex Salmond. In May of this year we held a post election conference entitled 'Trident - the first thing to cut' which helped chart the way forward in the new situation. In September (as part of Scotland for Peace) we launched a new campaign in the Scottish Parliament for a Nuclear Weapons Convention and produced a four page folder to help explain and popularise the idea. 80 attended including 10 MSPs from Labour, SNP, Lib Dems and the Greens. We also did a piece of research for British CND entitled 'Trident Jobs and the UK economy' . This was launched at the TUC in September showing that going ahead with Trident will destroy jobs across Britain. It put the case for defence diversification and posed the real alternative to weapons of mass destruction was to develop wave and tidal power.

In conclusion, getting the Trident project cancelled is not fantasy, it is now more possible today than ever. That's why we are in business. We still have much to do but there is every reason to be optimistic about the future.

Alan Mackinnon

ScrapTrident - for a Nuclear Weapons Convention<

The door to the sleeping compartment was flung open just as my friend and myself were had managed to fall asleep. ‘Passports, please’. My friend, a fluent Spanish speaker, translated. It’s the Spanish police. They say Portugal’s borders are closed and we may be thrown off the train at the frontier because of the NATO Summit conference in Lisbon. Sleep was even more difficult after that as we rocked and rolled across Spain. In the event the police did not throw us out at the border, nor did they bother with our two new friends on the train, Swedish young women who belonged to a peace group dedicated to non violent direct action. On arrival in Lisbon, we rushed to the international conference to hear the opening speeches from Sandra Monteiro of Le Monde Diplomatique in Portugal and Vitor Lima from the host Portuguese group PAGAN. There were also contributions from the International Coordinating Committee, including Reiner Braun from Germany, Arielle Denis from France and Andreas Speck (War Resisters International) Jan Majicek from the Czech Republic and the NO Bases Network and Jo Gerson from the American Friends Service Committee. Extremely interesting was the contribution from Shams Arya from Afghanistan – sadly revealing how desperate conditions were now in Afghanistan and his straightforward opinion that the presence of the NATO foreign troops would never ease the situation.

The rest of the day was divided into three workshop blocks. Yes, it was long but well worth it. As the Summit was due to publish its new Strategic Concept, that is NATO’s policies for the next few years, the first block focussed on different aspects of this for example, NATO and Afghanistan and NATO, War and Global Crises.

I convened a workshop on NATO and the Military Industrial Complex for which I had prepared a paper. Among other facts, I wanted to show how NATO is swallowing money and resource for the military and war making. Greece, for example, has recently spent $2 billion on buying 20 F16C52S and 10 F16D52s military aircraft from the huge military manufacturer Lockheed Martin. More than one delegate mentioned the contrast between the billions spent by NATO on weapons and war by NATO and the lack of money and resource for the stricken children, women and men of Haiti.

The group from the UK, mainly from CND, including the Chair, Dave Webb and the Vice Chair, Jeremy Corbyn MP, were of course involved in all the discussion on NATO’s nuclear policies. Among other concerns of delegates were the link with and the militarization of the European Union and the agreement with the United Nations which breaches the spirit and the letter of the UN Charter.

On the Saturday, which was occasionally showery but with bright sun, a rainbow appeared over Lisbon. We wondered about the symbolism. Certainly the demonstration and walk to the central square was peaceful and good-humoured. However the march had been organised by a (well supported) Portuguese political party of the left and, regretfully, they did not want the international group at the front. Nonetheless, we knew that, although probably because there was no violence, we did not appear in the mainstream press of the NATO member states, we were certainly filmed and interviewed by media outlets such as the Japanese press, Al Jazeera and some local press. My well travelled CND (peace symbol to our overseas friends) beret from behind apparently featured in many a picture! 45 people were arrested for non-violent direct action and blockading a road outside the NATO meeting, but they were later released.

More than 250 participants from 21 countries attended the conference and discussed non –military solutions to conflict and the dangers of NATO’s expansionist military policies. Using modern technology the debates and speeches at the conference were live streamed on the internet which gave the discussion a much wider global reach.

In the final statement, the conference members called for a just world without war and without nuclear weapons. They called for an immediate withdrawal of NATO troops from Afghanistan. There was also a strong call for the removal of the five NATO/US nuclear armed bases from Belgium to Turkey. Members were united in their determination to continue their international cooperation. They would expose and campaign against the dangers of the NATO nuclear armed military, an undemocratic body which is continually expanding, now with links to, among others, Israel, countries in Africa and around the Pacific. This is an alliance which promotes the arms trade not disarmament.

As Reiner Braun said, on behalf of the International Coordinating Committee, ‘We have made a small step towards the de-legitimisation of NATO. Wherever NATO meets, where armaments and war are promoted, the international peace movement will be there.’

Footnote: 150 peace activists were not allowed into Portugal, including a bus load of Finnish peace activists and the internet organiser from Germany. Our long standing friend, Ben Cramer, (he recently published the booklet, the ‘Costs of Trident’) who came to represent the International Peace Bureau, was questioned for three hours at Lisbon airport.

Rae Street

November 2010

Notes From The International Counter Summit in Lisbon

QUESTION NO:--_272_

* To ask the Minister for Defence the number of Irish troops deployed with the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan; their role and function in that conflict; the number who have taken part in the mission since its inception; the cost to the Exchequer of the deployment to date; if he has plans to withdraw Irish troops from this mission in view of the fact that it is led by a military alliance involving combatant nations; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

- DEPUTY CAOIMHGHÍN Ó CAOLÁIN.

* FOR WRITTEN ANSWER ON TUESDAY, 1ST DECEMBER, 2009.

Ref No: 44375/09

REPLY

Minister for Defence, (Mr. Willie O’Dea, T.D.): On 20 December 2001, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1386 under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, authorising the establishment of an International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. Ireland has participated in the NATO–led UN mandated mission since 5 July 2002, following the Government Decision of 2 July 2002, authorising the provision of seven (7) members of the Permanent Defence Force for service with the force. Over the past number of years the UN is increasingly relying on regional organisations such as the European Union, African Union and NATO to launch and manage operations on its behalf and under its authority.

Since 2002, the Government has reviewed and approved, on an annual basis, the continued participation by seven (7) members of the Permanent Defence Force in ISAF. On 30 June 2009, the Government approved continued participation by seven members of the Permanent Defence Force in ISAF for a further period from July 2009 subject to ongoing review by the Department of Defence.

Since July 2002, a total of 140 members of the Permanent Defence Force, including the contingent currently deployed, have served with the force. The additional cost to the Defence Vote arising out of Defence Force participation in ISAF is approximately €270,000 per annum.

The seven Irish personnel currently participating in ISAF, comprising 4 Officers and 3 Non Commissioned Officers, are located in the two ISAF Headquarters in Kabul. The Irish personnel work in staff appointments in planning and administrative roles.

Decisions such as the continued participation of members of the Permanent Defence Force in ISAF and in other overseas missions, will be a matter for the Government in the context of the Estimates.

Oireactas Question on Irish Troop deployment with NATO ISAF in Afghanistan

December 9th

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)

Question 152: To ask the Minister for Transport the number of US troops bound for Afghanistan who have passed through Shannon Airport to date in 2009; if he anticipates an increase in numbers in view of the recent announcement by the US administration of the deployment of more troops in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46196/09]

Noel Dempsey (Minister, Department of Transport; Meath West, Fianna Fail)

The Department of Transport does not collate information with regard to the number of military troops onboard civilian aircraft. However I am informed by the Shannon Airport Authority that some 243,000 US troops have passed through Shannon Airport in 2009 to date. My Department does not have information on the final destination of US soldiers on civilian aircraft that have stopped at Shannon Airport.

It is a matter for the carriers concerned as to where they choose to make a transit stop. It is not possible to say if the US administration’s recent announcement will have any impact on numbers of troops transiting through Shannon.

Dail question - 243,000 troops through Shannon Airport

by VIJAY PRASHAD
Published in CounterPunch.org

On the dusty reaches out of Sirte, a convoy flees a battlefield. A NATO aircraft fires and strikes the cars. The wounded struggle to escape. Armed trucks, with armed fighters, rush to the scene. They find the injured, and among them is the most significant prize: a bloodied Muammar Qaddafi stumbles, is captured, and then is thrown amongst the fighters. One can imagine their exhilaration. A cell-phone traces the events of the next few minutes. A badly injured Qaddafi is pushed around, thrown on a car, and then the video gets blurry. The next images are of a dead Qaddafi. He has a bullet hole on the side of his head.

These images go onto youtube almost instantly. They are on television, and in the newspapers. It will be impossible not to see them.

The Third Geneva Convention (article 13): “Prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.”

The Fourth Geneva Convention (article 27): “Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honor, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity.”

One of the important ideological elements during the early days of the war in Libya was the framing of the arrest warrant for Qaddafi and his clique by the International Criminal Court’s selectively zealous chief prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo. It was enough to have press reports of excessive violence for Moreno Ocampo and Ban Ki-Moon to use the language of genocide; no independent, forensic evaluation of the evidence was necessary. [Actually, independent evaluation was soon forthcoming from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, decisively debunking Ocampo’s charges. AC/JSC.]

NATO sanctimoniously said that it would help the ICC prosecute the warrant (this despite the fact that the United States, NATO’s powerhouse, is not a member of the ICC). This remark was echoed by the National Transitional Council, NATO’s political instrument in Benghazi.

Humanitarian intervention was justified on the basis of potential or alleged violations of the Geneva Conventions. The intervention’s finale is a violation of those very Conventions.

It would have been inconvenient to see Qaddafi in open court. He had long abandoned his revolutionary heritage (1969-1988), and had given himself over to the U. S.-led War on Terror at least since 2003 (but in fact since the late 1990s). Qaddafi’s prisons had been an important torture center in the archipelago of black sites utilized by the CIA, European intelligence and the Egyptian security state. What stories Qaddafi might have told if he were allowed to speak in open court? What stories Saddam Hussein might have told had he too been allowed to speak in an open court? As it happens, Hussein at least entered a courtroom, even as it was more kangaroo than judicial.

No such courtroom for Qaddafi. As Khujeci Tomai put it, “Dead men tell no tales. They cannot stand trial. They cannot name the people who helped them stay in power. All secrets die with them.”

Qaddafi is dead. As the euphoria dies down, it might be important to recall that we are dealing with at least two Qaddafis. The first Qaddafi overthrew a lazy and corrupt monarchy in 1969, and proceeded to transform Libya along a fairly straightforward national development path. There were idiosyncrasies, such as Qaddafi’s ideas about democracy that never really produced institutions of any value. Qaddafi had the unique ability to centralize power in the name of de-centralization. Nevertheless, in the national liberation Qaddafi certainly turned over large sections of the national surplus to improve the well-being of the Libyan people. It is because of two decades of such policies that the Libyan people entered the 21st century with high human development indicators. Oil helped, but there are oil nations (such as Nigeria) where the people languish in terms of their access to social goods and to social development.

By 1988, the first Qaddafi morphed into the second Qaddafi, who set aside his anti-imperialism for collaboration with imperialism, and who dismissed the national development path for neo-liberal privatization (I tell this story in Arab Spring, Libyan Winter, which will be published by AK Press in the Spring of 2012). This second Qaddafi squandered the pursuit of well-being, and so took away the one aspect of his governance that the people supported. From the 1990s onward, Qaddafi’s regime offered the masses the illusion of social wealth and the illusion of democracy. They wanted more, and that is the reason for the long process of unrest that begins in the early 1990s (alongside the Algerian Civil War), comes to a head in 1995-96 and then again in 2006. It has been a long slog for the various rebellious elements to find themselves.

The new leadership of Tripoli was incubated inside the Qaddafi regime. His son, Saif al-Islam was the chief neoliberal reformer, and he surrounded himself with people who wanted to turn Libya into a larger Dubai. They went to work around 2006, but were disillusioned by the rate of progress, and many (including Mahmud Jibril, the current Prime Minister) had threatened to resign on several occasions. When an insurengy began in Benghazi, this clique hastened to join them, and by March had taken hold of the leadership of the rebellion. It remains in their hands.
What is being celebrated on the streets of Benghazi, Tripoli and the other cities? Certainly there is jubilation at the removal from power of the Qaddafi of 1988-2011. It is in the interests of NATO and Jibril’s clique to ensure that in this auto-da-fé the national liberation anti-imperialist of 1969-1988 is liquidated, and that the neoliberal era is forgotten, to be reborn anew as if not tried before. That is going to be the trick: to navigate between the joy of large sections of the population who want to have a say in their society (which Qaddafi blocked, and Jibril would like to canalize) and a small section that wants to pursue the neoliberal agenda (which Qaddafi tried to facilitate but could not do so over the objections of his “men of the tent”). The new Libya will be born in the gap between the two interpretations.

The manner of Qaddafi’s death is a synecdoche for the entire war. NATO’s bombs stopped the convoy, and without them Qaddafi would probably have fled to his next redoubt. The rebellion might have succeeded without NATO. But with NATO, certain political options had to be foreclosed; NATO’s member states are in line now to claim their reward. However, they are too polite in a liberal European way to actually state their claim publically in a quid-pro-quo fashion. Hence, they say things like: this is a Libyan war, and that Libya must decide what it must do. This is properly the space into which those sections in the new Libyan power structure that still value sovereignty must assert themselves. The window for that assertion is going to close soon, as the deals get inked that lock Libya’s resources and autonomy into the agenda of the NATO states.

VIJAY PRASHAD is the George and Martha Kellner Chair of South Asian History and Director of International Studies at Trinity College, Hartford, CT His most recent book, The Darker Nations: A People’s History of the Third World, won the Muzaffar Ahmad Book Prize for 2009. The Swedish and French editions are just out. He can be reached at: vijay.prashad@trincoll.edu

NATO's Agenda for Libya Qaddafi, From Beginning to End

The Irish Government is considering joining PESCO. This will be one of the most important decisions this FG/Independeny Alliance will ever make. There needs at the very least a serious debate on the issue, and in any genuine debate form all sides in the corporate media. On the evidence so far this is highly improbable, as is their total lack of coverage of the use of Shannon Airport by US troops.

These are the key points.

An article about the recent signing up to Pesco: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2017/11/13/defence-cooperation-23-member-states-sign-joint-notification-on-pesco/#

1) the NATO dimension; 2) the necessity to increase defence spending ("regularly increasing defence budgets in real terms in order to reach agreed objectives",); and 3) that the Petersberg Tasks are not as innocent at portrayed. The underlying thread of supporting the arms industry is also a huge point.
2. Also this article from French TV (http://www.france24.com/en/20171113-eu-defence-defense-joint-military-development-cooperation-pesco) which has the following:

"EU officials insist this is not just bureaucratic cooperation, but real investment that will help develop Europe's defense industry and spur research and development in military capabilities that the bloc needs most.

Mogherini said the move would complement NATO's security aims. The EU, she said, has tools to fight hybrid warfare - the use of conventional weapons mixed with things like propaganda and cyber-attacks - that the military alliance does not have at its disposal."

3. Also, this German news site: http://www.dw.com/en/pesco-eu-paves-way-to-defense-union/a-41360236 'EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini described the signing of PESCO as a "historic moment in European defense."The decision to launch PESCO indicates Europe's move towards self-sufficiency in defense matters instead of relying solely on NATO. The EU, however, also stressed that PESCO is complimentary to NATO, in which 22 of the EU's 28 countries are members.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg welcomed the launch, saying that he saw it as an opportunity to "strengthen the European pillar within NATO." Stoltenberg had previously urged European nations to increase their defense budget.

"I'm a firm believer of stronger European defense, so I welcome PESCO because I believe that it can strengthen European defense, which is good for Europe but also good for NATO," Stoltenberg said.

4. Finally interesting document re EU/NATO Council Conclusions on the Implementation of the Joint Declaration by the President of the European Council, the President of the EuropeanCommission and the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization: http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-15283-2016-INIT/en/pdf

See the attached for more (word doc).

Let us fight for Global Peace, Disarmament and the End of NATO!

NATO will adopt a new strategy in its summit meeting in Lisbon from November 19th to 21st 2010. This new strategy should, according to former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright , who fronted the NATO deliberations over the last couple of years, "lead NATO through the uneasy and dangerous times at the beginning of the 21st century".

Our first glimpse of this proposed strategy document is that it reflects pure militarism, continuation of the wars, especially in Afghanistan (where Irish soldiers and policemen fight) and, above all, further nuclear armament, including the first strike option. Press reports have said that a major innovation of this new NATO strategic concept is that the EU is now a"strategic partner," that is, a military partner of NATO.

The critique of the peace and anti-war movements is still necessary and correct: NATO is a dinosaur that should be abolished. A number of us who demonstrated during the last NATO Summit in Strasbourg 18 months ago, will be going to Lisbon to take part, with tens of thousands of anti-war and peace activists, in the NATO counter-Summit. If you agree with our stance - join us.

We’re fighting for a society that respects its citizens; fighting for a society where the rich and powerful should pay for the crisis they created. Fighting for a just society is part and parcel of fighting for a society with no wars... where our taxes are spent judiciously for proper health, good education for our kids and not on missile defence systems, nuclear submarines and more bullets and drones!!

Campaign for Social Europe
Dalkey Business Centre, 17 Castle Street, Dalkey, Co. Dublin
Contact: Roger: 087 261 1597 or Michael 086 815 9487

NO to the new NATO-Strategy!

The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament has been saying ‘No to NATO’ for many years. NATO is a military alliance which was formed before the Warsaw Pact. When the Warsaw Pact disappeared after the end of the Cold War, it had been understood that NATO would be dissolved too. But this was not to be. NATO had always been dominated by the US government and NATO had become one of the prime military arms supporting the US policy of, ‘full spectrum dominance’ and control over resources. After the end of the Cold War, plans were made not only to keep NATO but to expand the membership. Governments in central and eastern Europe turning away from totalitarian communism were keen to join this powerful ‘western’ alliance.

NATO has been expanding since its inception when the North Atlantic Treaty was signed in April 1949 by 12 countries. Now it is comprises 28 member states and 22 Partners for Peace. In addition the Mediterranean Dialogue was established in 1994 to make military links with Israel (many both inside and Israel and in the US would like Israel to be a NATO member) and countries in North Africa and the Alliance has links with Contact Countries around the world including Australia, New Zealand, South Korea and Japan. In Europe, NATO has reached Russia’s western borders. Its recent plans for expansion to include Georgia, the Ukraine as NATO, up to Russia’s southern borders, has caused more problems and was one of the factors in last year’s conflict in the Caucasus.

NATO’s policy continues to be ruled by the US and the UK governments, so now it embroiled in war in Afghanistan which is achieving very little except further suffering for the Afghan people and for the hundreds of families of the military killed and severely injured in the conflict.

The military industrial complex has played, and does play, a hugely important role in the expansion and policies of NATO. Looking back to the 90s, the Technical Director of Lockheed Martin was Chair of the Expand NATO Committee in the US. NATO works under a policy of ‘interoperability’ for the military equipment of the member states. So the more NATO expanded, the more sales improved for the US military contractors.

NATO had always since its inception kept a nuclear weapons policy, but in 1999 this was reinforced. The Strategic Concept affirmed that nuclear weapons ‘preserve the peace’ and that nuclear weapons provide the ‘supreme guarantee’ of the member states’ security. NATO also retained policy of first use of nuclear weapons. There was to be a ‘minimum nuclear deterrent’. When it is considered that the UK part of the US Trident arsenal, the four submarines at Faslane, equipped to carry over 1000 times the killing power of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, are ‘integrated’ into NATO, it can be seen what a nonsense word ‘minimum’ is. Deterrent? Did the US 14 Tridents deter the September 11th attacks?

Three NATO members – the UK, the USA and France - are nuclear weapon states, but five states that are technically non-nuclear, Belgium, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands and Turkey – maintain ‘a nuclear sharing’ agreement, which means that in time of war they could be given use of the 200 plus US nuclear bombs stored at the bases in their countries. ...It was NATO too which agreed to the military bases in Poland and the Czech Republic for missile interceptors and tracking radar to support US ballistic, so-called, defence. The UK had already agreed to the use of the Fylingdales and Menwith Hill bases in North Yorkshire. If nuclear armed NATO expansion had angered the Russian administration, the US push for the European missile defence bases angered them more.

All of the nuclear policies are in breach the principles of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty where the nuclear weapon states signed up to bring about nuclear disarmament in ‘good faith’. So how can they support NATO’s nuclear policies?

Yet just this year in the government’s ‘Road to 2010’ report, it was stated,

‘The UK places great importance on the nuclear role of NATO, as reaffirmed by the declaration of Alliance Security issued at the 2009 NATO summit. …. We will continue to contribute our strategic nuclear deterrent to NATO’s collective security.’

NATO continues to pursue its disastrous war in Afghanistan; similarly it will pursue its nuclear armed policies, if we, the people, do not mount powerful pressure to change the militaristic drive. NATO is not acting in the interests of the mass of people. NATO itself has started a public debate on a new Strategic Concept, for which the Secretary General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, has called for the widest possible participation - as far as ‘Town Halls’.

So let us all join in. There will be an opportunity in Edinburgh 14/15 November when the NATO Parliamentary Assembly meets there. It is our role in CND and all the peace and social justice groups to expose the dangerous nature of this huge military alliance.

Rae Street

September 2009

It was President Eisenhower who with brilliant foresight used the phrase ‘the military industrial complex‘, 50 years ago.. He said, in 1961, “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted.”

He was right and nowhere has this been more true than in the history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. NATO had already become a huge force under the domination of the US and its close allies such as the UK, before the end of the Cold War. At the end of totalitarian communism and as the regimes began to tumble across Europe at the end of the 80s, NATO began to hatch its plan for expansion. The governments of Central Europe – the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland – were eager to join this military alliance, as they saw it, which promised them defence against any rise of the USSR again and, in the case of Poland at least, their old enemy Russia. The eastern European nations – Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were drawn in under the same arguments.

What of course was never explained to the populations clearly was that the new expanding NATO was not bringing security but dangers. NATO was growing heady with power as it had always been. It saw itself as dominating the world. You only have to look at the picture on the cover of the 2000 NATO Review. There is a map of the world; the area where NATO states are is a glowing golden yellow representing one is supposed to think, light, peace and goodness. The rest of the world is benighted in dark green and black.

This new global dominating NATO was not there for the well being of the citizens in the member states or indeed across the world. NATO was there as the military arm of the US ‘empire’ and to maintain power over resource for the countries of the global north.

NATO even managed, with little outcry, in October, 2009, to make an agreement with the United Nations. According to reports, Ban Ki-Moon was pressurised into signing the agreement by France, the USA and the UK. The agreement stated that ‘cooperation will continue to develop in a practical fashion, taking into account each Organisation’s (that is NATO and the UN) mandate, expertise, procedures and capabilities, so as to contribute to improving coordinated response to global challenges.’

This agreement goes completely counter of course to the spirit and wording of the UN Charter. How can the UN remain ‘independent’ if it is aligned with one large scale military alliance? The very opening words of the charter are, ‘We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war,… are made hollow by this agreement. NATO does not prevent war, it provokes it and even now is carrying out a violent and futile war in Afghanistan.

So these are the pressures for the expansion of NATO which come from the western powers in pursuit of power and the energy sources. But what other pressures are there?
Here we must go back to Eisenhower’s far-seeing speech and words. We could first look at the expansion in the 90s into Central and Eastern Europe. A key word is ‘interoperability’, an ugly word for an ugly policy. The new members of NATO’s military - land and air forces - had to be able to fly the same planes and drop the same bombs as the existing NATO states. That is the new NATO states were told to throw out the old Soviet military hardware and buy the new, bright and shiny American military hardware. These were countries which were, and are now, in extremely difficult financial conditions. In 1996, Bruce Jackson helped to found the ‘US Committee on NATO’. Now Bruce Jackson was also Vice President for Strategy and Planning at the Lockheed Martin Corporation. Lockheed Martin is the world’s largest manufacturer of military strike aircraft. Jackson was also President and Founder of the Project on Transitional Democracies which aimed at speeding up the ‘reform’ of the post 1989 democracies and bringing those countries into the ‘institutions of the Euro-Atlantic. The Euro Atlantic institution was NATO. As soon as the states of central Europe came into NATO, they had to be prepared to buy US planes and military hardware. Linked was yet another post Bruce Jackson held when he was the Chair of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (CLI) This was a body aimed at persuading the US public that a war on Iraq was need to get rid of Saddam Hussein. But the other agenda was to make sure US oil companies controlled the oil in Iraq – and of course the war brought about new sales of military hardware.

When we speak of military hardware, we should look at which countries have bought, or are buying, Lockheed Martin planes; a policy which was carefully planned over 15 years ago. Between 2006 and 2009, the Polish government which was, and is, the strongest supporter of the US government, bought no fewer that 36 F16C52s and 12 F16D 52s (each costing about $34 million) military aircraft.. Yet Poland is one of the poorest countries in Europe. At the same time another country which is in grave economic difficulties, Greece, bought in the last two years 20 F16C52 and 10 F16D52s, the latter order at a cost of $2 billion.

It never ends. Last year on the 10th anniversary of the NATO Strategic Concept, the Heads of State in Strasbourg asked the Secretary General to develop a new Strategic Concept, which is defined as an authoritative statement of the ‘Alliance’s objectives and to provide the highest level of guidance on the political and military means to be used in achieving them.’ It was termed a ‘major intellectual exercise’... So a conference was held in July, 2009, to launch the, so called, public debate.

Who would you invite to such a conference to give their advice? You or me or our representatives from civil society? Parliamentarians? Well, no, that is not who attended. NATO invited Madeline Albright, she who replied when asked about a possible half a million children dying under the sanctions regime, ‘We think the price is worth it’. NATO invited the Supreme Allied Commander - Transformation, James Mattis; the Chief Executive Officer of ENI and the Chairman of Lloyds (the world wide insurers) of London, the grandly named, Lord Levene of Portsoken (you might believe this was mediaeval times from the title). Lord Levene had good experience for this new role; he had been Chief of Defence procurement in the UK Conservative government in the 80s. NATO apparently wanted to start a dialogue between a wide range of experts and the broader public. The trouble is the broader public never really seem to have entered the picture.

Over the year there were also other documents published by ‘experts’. And who were these ‘experts’? One of great interest was the Strategic Advisors Group, (SAG) which was set up by the Atlantic Council to tackle the tough issues facing NATO. It was co-chaired by the Atlantic Council Chairman, General James L. Jones, General Brent Scowcroft and former Norwegian Defence Minister, Kristin Krohn Devold. SAG is hardly independent; it is ‘generously sponsored by the Scowcroft Group, EADS North America and Airbus’. All these are military manufacturers or military ‘advisors’! Now where are the likes of you and me?

This group of experts produced a paper for the Strategic Concept of ‘NATO’s Nuclear Policy in 2010: Issues and Options’. Not surprisingly, the Group came up with the recommendation that the new SC should not address nuclear sharing arrangements as, they said, ‘There is no consensus within NATO for withdrawal of existing weapons so to propose altering the existing arrangements would set off a deeply divisive debate on a marginal issue.’ Are nuclear weapons marginal? They were looking to ‘a more visible system to committing survivable nuclear forces to NATO missions’. What nonsense is that? What are survivable nuclear forces? Were they suggesting more money for more research into new forms of nuclear weaponry?

SAG came to the following conclusions.

The nuclear doctrine need to be up-dated :
By focusing on deterrence of nuclear attacks
Enhancing nuclear burden sharing beyond the ‘dual key’’ arrangements
Pledging robust resistance to nuclear proliferation
Supporting reduction in both strategic and theatre nuclear arsenals and Endorsing the long term goal of a world free of nuclear weapons.

But there are no positive steps to the latter mentioned. The rest is the same old story. There never was such a thing as ‘deterrence’; it is simple a useful policy presentation to allow the nuclear weapons states to continue to develop nuclear arms.
Resistance to nuclear proliferation is a complete contradiction. It is NATO countries themselves, including the USA, the UK and France, which are proliferating nuclear weapons, while nuclear burden sharing is proliferation by another name….

But then look at the Group board members who come from, among others:
Thales, EADS North America, Dornier Aircraft, The Cohen Group, the RAND Corporation, The Scowcroft Group, The Krull Corporation, The Spectrum Group Caplin and Drysdale, Deloitte….. There is one solitary member of the European Parliament.
NATO policies are being forged by huge corporate companies - mainly American.
The military industrial complex is well and truly with us – and thriving.
It is helping to build yet again NATO’s deadly dangerous policies.
We need to expose this because NATO policies are dragging the world into more and more conflict which neither protects the citizens in its member states nor those across the world. Bonanzas of weapons spending gobble vast amounts of money at a huge cost to the poor of the world.

Rae Street
November 2010

NATO and the Military Industrial Complex

On http://mcmilitary.org/en/afghanistan_deployment you can find the result of our project to Map the troop deployment to Afghanistan and the military infrastructure involved in this war.
The overview is not 100% complete in terms of units and bases, but we have been able to cover the main forces in the most important European states. Concerning announcements of extra troops the overview is quite complete.
We also tried to map the political debate: http://mcmilitary.org/en/political_debate_on_afghanistan. This stays a fragmentary picture.

Feel free to use this information for press or public work concerning the Afghanistan Conference in London on 28th January 2010. And feel free to contribute with information on deployments and the political debate in your country.

On the meeting of the Afghanistan-network in Berlin on 16 October one of the agreements was to make an inventory of the military bases involved in the Afghanistan-war. With this mapping project we have a first result, which can be developed further. This website will in a later stage be integrated in the www.no-bases.org-website and others, when technically possible.

Hans Lammerant
Bombspotting - Vredesactie / ICC member No to NATO-network and No Bases-network
www.bombspotting.org - www.vredesactie.be

Mapping the troop deployment to Afghanistan

What does 'globalisation' mean?

‘Globalisation’ is a term that has suddenly become very common. It refers above all to the rapid increase in economic activity that is taking place across national boundaries. It includes the way that goods, services and financial capital are produced, traded and moved around the whole world.
Globalisation has profound social and political, as well as economic, implications. It is stimulating a level of interdependence that goes far beyond the international trade and communication of the past. It is having an enormous impact on the lives of workers and their communities everywhere.

Is it a good or bad thing?

Globalisation could be beneficial. Trade has the potential to generate wealth, stimulate technological innovation that improves living standards, and bring ordinary people in distant parts of the globe closer together, increasing mutual understanding and spreading values of social justice.
But this is not what is happening. At a time of unprecedented wealth and technological capability for some, the majority of the world's population finds that things are getting worse. The free market model of globalisation that is being promoted is focussed on the needs of business, particularly large-scale multinational companies, not on the needs of ordinary people.
Workers everywhere are seeing an erosion of their job security, working conditions, and wages. Hard-won rights to organise trade unions and negotiate collectively with management are being undermined. Millions of workers, particularly in the developing countries and Eastern Europe, are experiencing greater poverty and hardship.
The globalisation we are experiencing is increasing the gap between rich and poor, both within and between countries. Ever larger numbers of the poor are having to leave their traditional homes and migrate to wealthier cities or countries in the hope of earning a livelihood.
Meanwhile very powerful media and entertainment corporations from the industrialised countries dominate and marginalise other cultures, languages, and ways of living and thinking. These trends encourage resentment and bear the seeds of conflict.

Who Are the Key Players driving Globalisation?

Multinational Enterprises: otherwise known as ‘transnational corporations’, these are companies which run their business across national boundaries; they are the major beneficiaries of free trade.

World Trade Organisation (WTO): this is the international body through which international trade agreements are negotiated and enforced; it champions the freeing up of trade from those government restrictions which are said to interfere with the activities of business.
World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF): these international financial institutions provide loans and technical assistance to governments; they also champion policies of free trade and the privatisation of public services, often making these policies a condition for their loans.
Governments: those from the industrialised countries dominate the international institutions and so have great influence over what kind of globalisation is promoted.

Today’s globalisation is sometimes portrayed as an inevitable, technologically-driven process that we must adapt to if we are to survive and prosper. But this is not true. It is being driven by a laborious process of international rule-making and enforcement by governments that support the needs of business above those of their own citizens. Meanwhile, the regulations that protect workers and their communities are being downgraded.
Little wonder that many ordinary people have become angry or cynical at governments and democratic political processes. This lack of legitimacy will only worsen until people’s social, developmental and environmental concerns are properly addressed.

All workers have rights

Today's globalisation is not providing the resources needed for living and working conditions to improve for the mass of the world's people. Rather, governments are all too often undermining workers' rights and conditions so that business can minimise its labour costs.
Yet all workers have rights, as has been repeatedly agreed by the same governments over the past half a century. Four decades after signing the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, governments at the World Summit for Social Development in Copenhagen in 1995 again committed themselves to:
"safeguarding and promoting respect for basic workers' rights, including the right to organise and bargain collectively; the prohibition of forced and child labour; equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value, and non discrimination in employment."

International Labour Organisation

The body of the United Nations which oversees labour issues is the International Labour Organisation (ILO), based in Geneva, Switzerland. The ILO is the only international body that is tripartite, having representatives of governments, employers and workers. They come from 182 countries. At the ILO, the ICTU represents workers on the island of Ireland.
One of the ILO's most important functions is the development of international labour standards. The ILO agrees Conventions which aim to create binding obligations on governments, and Recommendations which give guidance to governments on policy, legislation and practice.
There are over 180 ILO Conventions and even more Recommendations. As well as basic trade union rights and freedom from harassment, coercion and discrimination, they cover many issues such as safe and healthy workplaces, hours of work, paid leave for agricultural workers, or contracts of employment for seafarers, etc.
Establishing standards is one thing. Making sure they are observed is quite another. The ILO examines how governments are putting the standards into practice through legislation and activities. It can shame governments in the eyes of the international community. In the end, though, the ILO can only persuade governments; it cannot force them.

The Fundamental Rights

In 1998, the ILO adopted the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. This says that certain rights are so fundamental that they apply to all workers, irrespective of whether or not their governments have signed up to the relevant Conventions, and no matter how rich or poor their country is. They are called the 'core labour standards'. They are:

The right to form trade unions ('freedom of association')
The right to effective collective bargaining between workers and management
Freedom from forced or compulsory labour
An end to child labour
Freedom from discrimination in the workplace.

All ILO member states are obliged to promote and realise these fundamental rights. It is clear, however, that many governments are ignoring their duties. They are instead undermining workers' fundamental rights in the interests of attracting investors in the global economy.
Core labour standards are basic human rights that help people break out of the poverty trap. They are the building blocks of democracy, and crucial to the empowerment of working people, especially the poor and marginalised.
Respect for the fundamental rights of people at work is essential if there is to be economic, social and political development for the whole world.

Union Rights

The right to form trade unions ('freedom of association') and to bargain collectively with employers are the fundamental rights of all people at work.
These rights are laid down in two Conventions of the International Labour Organisation (ILO):

ILO Convention on Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise, No.87 (1948) bans any act of discrimination against trade unions. It protects employers' and workers' organisations from mutual interference and promotes collective bargaining.
ILO Convention on the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining, No.98 (1949) protects workers who exercise their right to organise.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read more about Congress’ Global Solidarity Work: www.ictu.ie/globalsolidarity

Other important links:
International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC): http://www.ituc-csi.org/
International Labour Organisation (ILO): http://www.ilo.org/global/lang--en/index.htm
Clean Clothes Campaign/Ireland : http://www.cleanclothescampaignireland.org/
Justice For Colombia: http://www.justiceforcolombia.org/

ICTU Global Solidarity Committee presentation

In September 2001, as Chair of the Peace & Neutrality Alliance which was one of the very few organisations in Ireland opposed to the then coming invasion conquest and occupation of Afghanistan by the US Empire and its vassal states I was asked by the Irish Times to write an article entitled 'Justice, not revenge, is the way to peace' which was published in the paper on Wednesday 26 September 2001.

The Afghan War has been a disaster for the people of Afghanistan. Soon after the US Empire also invaded conquered and occupied Iraq, It has spread the war to Pakistan and it also continued to give total support to the Zionist State of Israel as it seeks to crush the people of Palestine into submission.

In these continuing wars of conquest and oppression the Irish political/media elite with its absolute commitment to the neo-liberal militarist ideology has backed the US Empire to the hilt, destroyed the long standing policy of neutrality by turning Shannon Airport into a de facto Airforce base, sent Irish troops to fight in them, so for the first time since the 1914-18 war Irish troops from all parts of Ireland are taking part in an imperial war. These wars and the ideology that underpins it have also caused rapidly growing poverty and Ireland, and in the US, 40 million of its citizens are on food stamps. We stand shoulder to shoulder with the US citizens and the British people that oppose these wars.

In Ireland the Irish corporate media in response to this growing crisis virtually excludes PANA. The major conference which we just organised on the topic of an Independent Irish Foreign Policy in which we went out of our way to include supporters of this imperial ideology was virtually ignored.

So let us be clear. It is now the intention of the political/media elite in Ireland to support the coming US war on Iran. If the get their way will be a war that will make the Afghan War look like a teddy bear's picnic. PANA and the Irish Anti War Movement have worked closely together for nearly a decade now. But unless we can build a stronger and more powerful alliance we will not be able to stop the war, or at the very least, prevent the use of Shannon Airport in the coming Iran War. We need more than ever to campaign on the issue of the use of Shannon Airport. The PANA/Shannonwatch demonstration on October 10 to mark the 9th anniversary of of the Afghan War needs to be the start of revitalising struggle against imperialism and the born-again Irish Redmondites that support it.

Here is a PDF copy of the original article.

Justice, not revenge, is the way to peace

JAMIE SMYTH Irish Times Social Affairs Correspondent

IRISH-BASED firms exported €6.74 billion worth of components that can be used by the military and defence industries last year.

The trade in such items, referred to as dual use, was almost three times the value exported in 2008. New figures also show the value of military export licences issued to firms by the State increased to €32.5 million during 2009, up from €30.7 million a year earlier.

Amnesty International said yesterday the rise in such exports was “staggering”. It also criticised the Government for repeatedly failing to publish a promised annual report on military and dual use exports by Irish-based firms.

Dual-use goods are components, software or chemicals which can be used by military or defence forces as well as civilian commercial firms. Controls which prevent technologies falling into the hands of states accused of human rights abuses mean firms must apply for licences to export these goods.

Statistics on the value and destination of military and dual-use exports should be published every year by the Government under the terms of the Control of Exports Act 2008. But it has still not published an annual report on military and dual-use exports for 2008, the first year covered by the new export law.

“What kind of products are we issuing licences for? Where were they sent? Have we been exporting military technology to countries where they could be used in human rights abuses and attacks on civilians?” said Colm O’Gorman, executive director of Amnesty International Ireland.

Amnesty says it has no problem with Irish companies manufacturing weapons or dual-use goods. But it says more transparency is needed to ensure any weapons containing Irish-made components do not end up in the hands of human rights abusers.

The NGO has identified several companies in the Republic, which it claims have exported either military or dual-use goods, such as Moog Limited, Timoney Technologies and Iona Technologies.

In 2007, Amnesty raised concerns about computer chips made by Data Device Corporation, a US firm which until recently had a manufacturing operation in Cork. The chips are used in Apache attack helicopters, which have been used by Israeli forces in incidents criticised by human rights campaigners

The NGO’s research was a factor that led the Government to tighten export controls in 2008.

Labour Party spokesman on foreign affairs Michael D Higgins said the Government’s failure to publish the promised 2008 annual report means no one can be clear where dual-use goods end up. “It is an appalling lack of transparency that the annual reports outlined in the Control of Exports Act have not been published. They should be immediately laid before the Oireachtas.”

The Government said last night it would publish the annual report shortly and include information on the destination of exports and detail on any new legislative developments. It denied that Irish-based firms were involved in the global arms trade. “No armaments are manufactured in Ireland . . . Some small amounts of controlled military goods are exported under license and in compliance with national and EU law. This situation cannot be interpreted as the country having an involvement with the global arms industry,” said a statement noted.

The increase in value of dual-use goods was revealed in a parliamentary question from Sinn Féin TD Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin.

The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment refused to answer a question on whether any licences to export military or dual use goods have been refused. it also does not release information on the identity of firms exporting dual-use or military components.

Shane O’Neill, chief executive of Timoney Technologies, a Navan-based firm that licenses military technology for export, said the rise in value of Irish exports in 2009 may reflect an increase in US defence spending.

He said developing products for the military was good for business and supported jobs. It should not be seen as a negative or in some way supporting despots abroad.

Military component trade increases to over €6bn

By Conor Ryan, Investigative Correspondent - Thursday, September 22, 2011
IrishExaminer.com

IRISH-BASED companies have been authorised to export over €10.7 billion worth of military related goods in the last three years.

Almost €90 million of this was equipment specifically designated for ammunition and arms’ purposes, and included guns and weapons sensors.

The remaining €10.6bn related to products that were so hi-tech the international community requires strict controls on their sale. These rules were developed in case the materials fell into the wrong hands.

These so-called dual-use products were primarily electronic and telecommunications materials, which can be used for day-to-day purposes but have the potential for development by defence manufacturers.

The export figures are contained in the first national report under the Control of Export Act 2008, which requires the Government to document the country’s involvement in the international arms trade. This covered the licensing regime for first three years of the act.

Enterprise Minister Richard Bruton said the information needed to be transparent.

"The human rights, security and regional stability concerns which underpin export controls are of paramount importance to my department," he said.

"The report marks a new chapter in communicating with civil society and others. What we do affects others, including concerned members of civil society and those who earn a living from international trade."

The figures for 2010, when €1.5bn worth of military components were licensed to be sold, represented a significant fall on 2009, when licences were given for €6.7bn worth of deals.

The department said a relatively small number of operators are licensed to export military-only equipment from Ireland. In total, they were given 98 approvals to carry out business internationally.

Britain, Germany, the US, the Netherlands and Kuwait were the most valuable destination countries for Irish military products last year.

In the broader "dual-use" category, the number of licenses issued in 2010 jumped from 345 to 715, despite a significant fall in the value of these deals.

The department said the change was largely due to one unnamed company which dealt in multiple international shipments.

Several licences relate to goods that never arrive in Ireland but are owned and controlled by firms based here.

In the period 2008-2010 Irish-based companies were licensed to trade with countries including Libya, Iraq, Egypt, Algeria, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Lebanon.

In 2009, Egypt was listed as the marketplace for 13 contracts worth over €100,000 each.

The vast bulk of deals involved Britain, the US, Germany and China.

Irish military exports worth €10.7bn

Editorial - Neutrality

The issue of neutrality is in the air again. It needs as a foundation a treatment of the one positive act of neutrality—the wartime neutrality—from the viewpoint that sustained it, and a cold look at the war in which it was sustained. And it needs to be understood that it was armed neutrality made effective by a will to fight

The neutrality of the Irish state in Britain's Second World War of the 20th century was a forceful action which depended for its effectiveness on the existence of a degree of military power and of willingness to use it.

Neutrality was maintained without the actual use of force against Britain, but in the certainty that any breach of it would be met by the reunited force of Irish nationality.

Irish military history in the twentieth century is officially unwritten because it is the history of the IRA.

The army of the Irish state has fought no war except the 1922 war against the elected Irish Republic, which is best considered as a proxy British war. It was Britain that enabled that anti-Republican army to exist. It could not have fought its war against the IRA if the British Government had not financed it, armed it and insisted that it should make war on the IRA.

It would not have wanted to make war on the IRA if the British War Cabinet had not insisted on it.

The 'Civil War'

That war between the Free State Army and the Irish Republican Army is called a Civil War but there were no civil grounds for it. It was not fought over some divisive issue that had arisen within the body politic, civilian or military, in 1919-21. Those who waged the Free State campaign against the Republic in 1922 had shown no yearning for the Crown in 1919-21. They fought for the Crown in 1922 only because the Crown threatened to mobilise the resources of the Empire for a comprehensive reconquest of Ireland if the Irish did not submit to its will.

A case can be made for the submission to the British Imperial will. It is the eternal case for submission to dictatorial Power. And it is the case that was made by many Free Staters. But it was not the case that was made by the Strong Man of the Treaty, Michael Collins, or by his political colleague, William Cosgrave.

Collins denied that he acted under duress when he made a deal with the British Government that was in breach of the terms set by his own Government. That is understandable. Saying that he submitted to the dictate of the overwhelming power of Empire when he signed the Treaty, and made his colleagues sign it, would have been an act of rebellion. It was necessary to say that he had freely accepted a good deal that was generously offered.

But that was a game that wouldn't play. The Treatyites won their 'Civil War'. But, since it was not a war for an ideal, they did not know what to do next with the Crown and the Empire for which they had fought.

A few, with Kevin O'Higgins as their standard bearer, tried to enter into the spirit of the thing that they had been obliged to fight for—Crown and Empire—but they couldn't bring it off. They were not to the manner born, and natives who copy it bear the mark of the slibhín, both in spirit and style.

Cosgrave tried to destroy the Republican principle in the populace by making the taking of the Treaty Oath not only a condition of entering the Treaty Dáil but of standing for election. He was willing to exclude representatives of the majority of the population from sitting in his Legislative Assembly in order to make a debating point about the Treaty in the mid-1920s, just as a couple of years earlier he said he was willing to kill 60,000 anti-Treatyites with British guns rather than negotiate an end to his 'Civil War'.

Unconditional Surrender—those were his only terms. He failed to get them. Arms were buried, to rise again. The populace, as soon as the prospect of a British terrorist re-conquest faded, voted Republican again. The Treaty Oath was circumvented by use of mere signatures without a Bible anywhere nearby.

Treatyism withered because it no longer knew what it was about after winning its 'Civil War'—which must be the only time the victor in a Civil War had no ideal to realise and therefore had to make way for those whom he had defeated in war without being able to poison their motives.

Historians of recent times have begun to write about a "physical force movement" pure and simple in Irish political history. I know of only one such: the physical force body armed by the British Government that fought a war without an ideal and then withered.

Britain, acting through Michael Collins, subverted a section of the IRA and caused it to make war on the other section. If Collins had not been armed by Britain, he would have lost the war which he chose to launch in July 1922.

But we must be charitable in these things. If he had not been armed by Britain, and if his every move had not been monitored by Britain, it is a virtual certainty that he would never have launched this 'Civil War'.

He was not a monster, after all. He was only a bungler, who greatly overestimated his influence with the IRA, and his manipulative abilities in his relationship with Whitehall.

The Free State Army won its only war and then it shrivelled. In victory it had to ward off a mutiny of Republican officers who had joined it on a false promise. Thereafter it was understood that the only war it would ever engage in was a war of the Crown and Empire.

The IRA was beaten in 1923 but survived. Fianna Fail emerged from it and took power before Britain was ready to call on the Free State for support in another World War, as it had called on the Home Rule Government-in-waiting in 1914.

Difficult though it is to imagine today, Fianna Fail was a Republican Party in those times. When Britain was ready for its next World War, in 1939, De Valera had been in power for seven years and Free State Imperial sentiment was demoralised and Fine Gael, emerging from its Fascist period, did not dissent when the Government declared that it did not intend to make war on Germany at Britain's call.

Churchill's Claim

Churchill came to Office. He denied that the Irish state had the constitutional authority to make its own decisions on war and peace. The Irish Government, having repudiated the Treaty, took no heed. And Churchill did not try to make good his assertion that Britain had continuing Constitutional authority over the Irish state in matters of war and peace.

If he had acted, he would have been met by the re-united force of Irish nationality with the IRA at its core—the IRA having already declared war on Britain.

The Free State Army, fed by a new intake, substantially shed its Free Statism.

The war in defence of Irish neutrality in the World War did not have to be fought because it was taken to be certain that it would be fought if necessary.

The position of the Government was that, if the neutrality of the Irish state was violated by Britain, in the general war declared by Britain, it would resist British incursion by force—meaning, in Churchillian terms, that it would rebel against the Crown—and would ally itself with Britain's enemy.

This was stated in general terms—it would ally itself with the Power that did not invade it—but it was generally understood that the only Power that was likely to invade it was Britain.

Germany had no designs on Ireland—or on Britain either. It was Britain that declared war on Germany, in 1939, after five years of close collaboration with it. And Churchill declared that Britain had the right to occupy the Irish state for the purpose of making war on Germany.

Churchill chose not to occupy Ireland, but he said at the end of the War that this decision was taken on the ground of expediency, and that, if he had decided to occupy Ireland, he would have been within his rights in doing so. We can assume that the ground of expediency on which the decision not to invade was taken was the probability that invasion would have reunited the Irish national forces that had been broken up and set in conflict with each other in 1922, and the probable effect of a second Anglo-Irish War on American opinion, America being a fellow-neutral of Ireland for the first two years of Britain's war on Germany, and having within it a strong Irish component.

Was Churchill right in his opinion that, under the terms of the Treaty, the Irish state did not have the right to be at peace with the King's enemy? There is no system of law under which the matter can be judged. There is no objective right and wrong about it. If Churchill had decided to invade the Irish state, Parliament would have supported him, and the legality of the matter would have been settled by action.

Parliament did not recognise any judicial function in the state which could pass judgment on its decision, or any moral function either. In the English Constitution the Judiciary and the Church are instruments of the Government, as the Crown in Parliament. (And it is the purpose of Brexit to restore that Constitutional position, which was in danger of being undermined by membership of the EU.)

Nationalist Ireland had asserted itself as sovereign by the 1937 Constitution, and had made that sovereignty practically effective in wartime by securing British withdrawal from the Irish Ports in 1938. Differences between two sovereignties are ultimately resolved by war, which used to be known as "the reason of Kings".

Ireland in 1939 was by its own reckoning a sovereign state, although by Britain's reckoning it remained under British sovereignty on certain matters. Other states were in a similar position with relation to Britain. Two of them were Iran and Iraq. Each of them declared itself neutral when Britain launched its second war on Germany, and maintained diplomatic relations with Germany. Britain invaded both of them, remade their Governments, brought them into its war, and demonised as Nazi stooges the national Governments it destroyed.

If it had chosen to invade the Irish state it would undoubtedly have presented De Valera as a Nazi stooge—and George Orwell would have applauded. For ulterior reasons, not for reasons of principle, it chose not to invade—and as Churchill put it, he left the Irish to "frolic with the Nazis".

Empire v. League

In everything that it did in 1939-40—and for many years before 1939—Britain acted on its own Imperial authority. An international body existed: the League of Nations. The League was a largely British creation. But Britain chose not to act internationally through the League.

De Valera put much effort into the League in the mid 1930s before coming to the conclusion that it was a bogus institution that did more harm than good by fostering illusions. Britain created the League for a short-term purpose of its own in 1919, and then subverted it by giving priority to the Empire in international affairs.

We can assume that, if Britain had been acting as a member of the League, and if in 1939 it had dealt with Germany through the League, instead of acting unilaterally as an Empire, Ireland would not have been neutral. But, since it acted only as an Empire, De Valera acted as the leader of a sovereign nation-state whose credentials were still being questioned by the Empire.

The Empire declared war on the issue of Danzig—an inconceivably trivial issue on which to throw the world into war. Danzig in 1939 was an unsustainable remnant of the Versailles Treaty, which had been shredded by Britain during the preceding five years.

Danzig was a German city close to East Prussia, which was a physically detached region of the German state as reconstituted by Versailles in 1919. It lay within the territory of the Polish State, though not under its sovereignty. It was a kind of city state under the sovereignty of the League, but with its own Government. Relations of mutual hostility existed between Danzig and the Polish State. The Polish State had constructed the new port of Gdynia, rather than use the port of Danzig. There was in 1939 no possibility of bringing Danzig under Polish government without war, but it might easily have been transferred to adjacent East Prussia. And it was over this anomalous remnant of the Versailles Treaty—the rest of which had been shredded by Britain without reference to the League—that Britain chose to launch a World War—without reference to the League. And yet, accepting the Versailles Treaty was a condition of League membership!

Germany had been acting in breach of the conditions of the Versailles Treaty ever since Hitler came to power in 1933. It was able to do so only because Britain supported it.

Germany was not a major European Power when Hitler took Office in 1933. The responsibility to hold it under the Versailles conditions lay with Britain. The United States had repudiated the Treaty and disengaged from European affairs. Britain had established its ascendancy over France, and therefore actual responsibility for upholding the Treaty lay with Britain. What Britain was neither to uphold the Treaty, nor repudiate it, but destroy it piecemeal by means of particular bilateral arrangements with Germany.

Germany was a middle-ranking European military Power in 1939 only because Britain had decided that it should be so. It had a conscript Army because Britain allowed it. It had a Navy because Britain, under the Naval Agreement of 1935, authorised it to build one. It had merged with Austria because Britain permitted it, after having forbidden the merger of democratic Germany with democratic Austria. And Britain had broken up Czechoslovakia for it, giving it the Czech arms industry.

All of this was done outside the League. And then, when Britain in 1939 suddenly decided to make war on the Germany it had created, that too was done outside the League.

And De Valera did not comply with an international obligation to fall into line with the latest turn in erratic Imperial policy!

The Slibhín View

"Ireland managed to stay out of the war. Yet at the end he gratuitously stained Ireland's international reputation through offering his sympathies upon the death of Hitler to the German minister Edward Hempel. This act of diplomatic pedantry done in a fit of pique following a heated row with the overbearing American minister, put Ireland in the dock of world opinion as a neutral that mourned Hitler, and it did enduring damage to its post-war reputation. Dev's lame excuse that Hempel had behaved impeccably was simply not true. Furthermore, and unlike the Irish public at large, shielded by strict censorship, Dev knew plenty about Hitler's monstrosities across Europe…" (Eunan O'Halpin, in the Irish Times, November 3rd).

This fits in with the modern view, largely written by Irish slíbhíns, that the Irish lived in illusion during Britain's second war on Germany, mistaking the shadows cast for them, by a State that was only a short step away from fascism, for substance—not even allowed to know that there was a World War on because their shepherds assured them that it was only a local Emergency. We lived in the flickering darkness of Plato's Cave, seeing shadows with weakened eyes that would be blinded by sunlight, and then for a further generation we lived in mental darkness etc. And, if truth be told—and in the end truth must be told—it all had to do with the fact that we were ruled by priests who deprived us of the Bible.

A flock of Professors tell us that we called the World War "the Emergency". I was there and I know that we called it the World War. I asked my mother why it was happening and she explained that Britain seemed to need a Great War every generation. I don't recall that anybody thought that it was anything but a British War. Britain was the great war-making state in the world. And I recall a particular night when it was thought that the British Army would be back amongst us in the morning and preparations were made for resistance.

Towards the end of the War I was reading the papers, and the War was the big news in the papers.

The War was discussed freely. So were the post-War arrangements, particularly the Trials. Possibly the Trials were not as freely discussed in the papers as they were by the populace. The general opinion was that they were show trials, without law. I found out later that that was also the opinion of a senior American Judge, who refused to take part in them.

Ireland was not in the condition of Plato's Cave during the War, but a strong case could be made that University life in Ireland today is, in its History Departments, living in a Plato's Cave, in which it studies the world through shadows cast for it by Whitehall.

Neutrality 1939-41

With what world opinion was Ireland's reputation damaged by De Valera's Neutrality policy? There wasn't any world opinion in 1939 or 1940. Britain declared war on Germany, with France in tow, and bungled it, and then denounced France for making peace with Germany, with the approval of its democratically-elected Parliament, in the war which it had declared on Germany, at the instigation of Britain, and lost.

Ireland recognised the Vichy Government as the legitimate Government of France. It recognised Petain as the legitimate President of France. Four years later Petain was sentenced to death as a traitor because he did not continue the war without an Army to fight it, and with the victorious enemy in a position to take over the state if it did not make an agreement. And I recall the view of the Slieve Luachra peasant that it would be an outrage on natural justice if Petain was executed.

Britain "fought alone" from June 1940 to June 1941—so it tells the world. By means of the Royal Navy, which still dominated the oceans of the world, it prevented a settlement of Europe with pin-pricks here and there, but it did not in any real sense fight the war. It had relied on France to do most of the fighting, as in 1914 and, when France fell in May/June 1940, it looked for somebody else to do the fighting—hoping it would be the United States.

But the United States was neutral, just like Ireland. And Roosevelt had won a third term as President by bending to the popular demand that there should be no American military return to the European mess.

And Russia was neutral too. And its propaganda was directed against what it described as British efforts to "Spread The War".

The two potentially dominant states in the world, which became dominant through the success of Britain's efforts to spread the war, stood, as neutrals, for the settlement of the European War in 1939 and 1940 and most of 1941.

They only went to war after they were attacked.

When do the shadow-watchers in Trinity College judge that a world-opinion came into being which judged neutrality in Britain's war on Germany to be indefensible? Surely not before the United States was brought into it in December 1941!

But, before America came in, Russia was in. The British refusal to allow peace to be made in Europe brought about the German/Russian War.

There was an opinion among the German military that Britain would settle if the Bolshevik State in Russia was knocked down. And there was an expectation, not only in Germany, that Russia would be knocked down easily because Stalin had destroyed the Officer Corps of the Russian Army with his insane purges.

But the Russian defences held firm, despite some initial reverses. And then the Russian will to fight, combined with population, resources and industrial capacity, ensured the defeat of Germany. And Britain became, in effect, an onlooker in the War it had started, engaging in some actions which in terms of the German/Russian War can only be regarded as skirmishes.

The most consequential British action was a provocation of Japan—its ally in the 1914 War—which led to its Asian Empire being swept away by Japan, never to be restored even though Japan was defeated by the USA in a separate war.

The USA entered the war in Europe only because Germany declared war on it when the Japanese/American War began. Japan did not reciprocate this German gesture by entering the war in Europe, i.e., the war between Germany and Russia. It had made a peace agreement with Russia, and it held to it until Russia broke it in 1945, when Japan was on the verge of collapse.

When the US was brought into the war in Europe it was eager to fight it, but Britain insisted on skirmishing for a further two years while the issue was being decided on the Russian Front. It held out against American pressure for engagement in France in 1942 and 1943, and only agreed in 1944 when further delay would possibly have brought the Russian Army to Calais.

The ideal outcome from the British viewpoint was that Germany and Russia should inflict irreparable damage on one another. Churchill could not say so at the time, but he admitted soon after that he had never seen Communist Russia as anything but the fundamental enemy. And he was concerned long before the end of the War that defeat of the incidental enemy against which the British war had been launched was bringing the fundamental enemy to power in Central Europe.

The War, as far as Churchill was concerned, was never about Fascism. Churchill was a Fascist. He said so plainly. He made a pilgrimage to Rome to do homage to Mussolini and to praise Fascism as the antidote to Communism. He was opposed to Appeasement, but what he meant by Appeasement was concessions that damaged the Empire—such as the transfer of the Irish Ports to the Irish state in 1938—which made Irish neutrality in the War a practical proposition.

Germany became an enemy because of the gross mishandling of British foreign policy, and not because it became Fascist. The war against Germany is represented as being an unnecessary war in Churchill's account of it.

Nationalist Ireland, as a principled neutral, was under moral obligation to produce a principled account of the war that accorded with its part in it. It failed to do so and allowed itself to be swamped with sub-Churchillian rhetoric.

Fascism

A review in the Irish Examiner (20 October 2018) of an American book about Spain (Scots And Catalans by J.H. Elliott, reviewed by Frank MacGabhann), is illustrated with a portrait of General Franco, and the reviewer comments that the author—

"praises the Spanish 'transition' to democracy, which allowed lifelong fascists to become democrats overnight and left the crimes of General Franco go nearly 40 years unpunished in the interests of national harmony following Franco's death in 1975. Elliott might have mentioned that Franco remains the only European fascist dictator whose reputation is protected by the state that he so cruelly ruled over and who was allowed to die peacefully in his bed, unlike his allies, Hitler and Mussolini…"

Well, the War was Churchill's War, insofar as it was not Stalin's War, and Churchill, to the best of my recollection, was a Francoite. And Franco was not an ally of Hitler, only a fellow-Fascist. And Fascism was not internationalist. Nationalism was the whole point of it.

Franco might have put Britain out of the Second World War by making common cause with Hitler in 1940 and taking Gibraltar, instead of which he blocked Hitler at the Pyrenees—a thing which Britain chose not to do in the Sudetenland.

He deplored the Anglo/German War as a European Civil War, but was a de facto ally of Britain in it. He was only an ally of Hitler in the war on Russia. If the US had failed to pressurise Britain into opening the Second Front in 1944, the Red Army might have reached the Pyrenees and put paid to Franco, but there was never any prospect of Churchillian Britain doing that. And then in the 1950s Fascist Span became a pillar of the Free World.

As for Fascists becoming democrats overnight—how did Germany become a democracy almost overnight after 1945 if fascists did not become democrats on a mass scale? Opposition to Nazism had been scarce, but a moment later there were democrats in plenty—and Communist East Germany published detailed accounts of where they had come from.

But there was nothing wonderful, or fraudulent, about it, in the light of Churchill's view that Fascism was the means by which capitalist civilisation was saved from Bolshevism in Europe.

India

The notion that Ireland was a pariah in the post-War world because of De Valera's conduct in the war is a strictly Anglophile notion. Dev made a triumphal visit to India in 1948 just after it became independent. It is customary to treat India as a democracy, and if it is, then it was the most populous democracy in the world. And it was ruled by a political party that had refused to take part in Britain's War. The Government of India was in the War only because it was a Department of the British Government.

The Congress Party had demanded independence and, unlike the Irish Home Rule Party, without it refused to play a part in world politics in the service of Britain. It declared neutrality. And there was a strong movement in India, led by Subas Chandra Bose, that in 1941 allied itself militarily with Japan.

The British Government of India made use of India as a resource in the War, and in the course of doing so it caused a Famine in Bengal, 1943-44, in which the deaths were not counted carefully. The death of Bengalis through starvation weighed very light in the British scale of values. The Bengalis were, in the language of the eminent Liberal ideologue of Progress, Gladstone's lieutenant, Sir Charles Dilke, "a cheap people" (see his Greater Britain).

The Bengal Famine of 1943 is not mentioned at all in Churchill's History of the War, and Churchill's Nobel Prize-winning literature dominated academic history for a generation.

A recent account by an Indian, published in America, Churchill's Secret War: The British Empire And The Ravaging Of India During World War 2 by Madusree Mukerjee, says that, according to the best estimates, between one and a half million and three million Bengalis died in the Famine, while Britain had ample resources to relieve them, and that British conduct might have been prosecuted as a War-Crime.

But of course the victors are incapable of having committed War-Crimes!

There was, after 1945, a congenial world out there in which Irish neutrality against Britain appeared not only sensible but heroic. But it is a world about which Anglophile academia knows nothing.

The Northern War

The second Irish military action of the 20th century was the IRA war against the British State, on behalf of the Catholic community in the undemocratically-governed region of the British state that is called Northern Ireland. At one point in that war a British Army of 26,000 was deployed against the IRA.

I did not support that war. At the outset I proposed that the government of the Northern Ireland region of the British state should be democratised into the political system by which the state was governed. If that had been done, it is extremely improbable that there would have been a war. But it was not done, and there was a war. And, while I did not support it, I could not deny the evidence all around me that it existed.

The Irish State de-legitimised British sovereignty in the Six Counties by asserting Irish sovereignty over them. The IRA made war on the British State over this region of it. The Irish Constitution declared that British sovereignty in this region was illegitimate. But the Irish Government did not support the War launched within the disputed region, and did not even acknowledge that the Republican military action constituted a war.

And, when a settlement was made, Irish Governments would not even acknowledge that Republican actions had been military, but insisted on treating them as outbursts of criminality.

Ireland, according to the ideology of its State, has had no military history in recent centuries. It lives next door to, and heavily under the influence of, the most belligerent war-making state in the world in recent centuries. No other State in the world is in the same league as Britain when it comes to major war-making.

The Irish citizen, left with no Irish military history, is naturally subject to the gravitational pull of British militarism. And the more respectable the citizen, the more he lives in British military history. And the most respectable seem to feel that British war-making is next door to pacifism—if it is not the most effective form of pacifism.

Brendan Clifford

These are the views of Brendan Clifford as a contribution to the neutrality debate, but they are not endorsed by PANA.

IRISH FOREIGN AFFAIRS EDITORIAL, DEC. 2018

Is Obama's New Start treaty on nuclear reductions enough to revitalise US resolve on disarmament?
- Kate Hudson, General Secretary of CND
Published on guardian.co.uk, Saturday 5 February 2011

The long-awaited New Start treaty, securing nuclear reductions between the US and Russia, enters into force this weekend. Hillary Clinton and Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov are exchanging "instruments" at a security conference in Munich today.

This is an important moment for President Barack Obama, as despite the Republican resurgence in the US mid-term elections, he has finally been able to achieve the treaty, which has been one of his key foreign policy goals. Reducing the number of US and Russian deployed nuclear weapons, the treaty has been central to Obama's visionary goal – spelled out in Prague in April 2009 – of a nuclear weapons-free world. With the treaty's progress dogged by the vexed question of US missile defence plans and Russian hostility to them, the shift in the political balance in the US led to fears that it would fall at the ratification hurdle. In the event there was enough bipartisan support to get it through, subject to various provisos. In Russia, where the president's party has a huge majority in parliament, ratification proceeded smoothly.

Senate concerns focused on the right to keep developing US missile defence systems – excluded from the treaty text, but included in the additional paperwork, while Russia reserved the right to withdraw from the treaty if it considered its security impaired by such US developments. And coming up the political agenda was the question of Russian tactical nuclear weapons – landmines, artillery shells and short-range missiles. Russian stockpiles are larger than their US equivalents and Nato, as well as the Senate, has expressed renewed interest in the disparity, as revealed by WikiLeaks. As a Nato document notes: "Russia's tactical nuclear arsenal, estimated at 2,000-4,000 warheads, was cited as a particular threat, and Moscow's lack of willingness to engage in discussions on the issue was cited as troubling." Obama has recently told the Senate that he will seek to initiate negotiations with Russia on this matter within a year. But he may not get very far – Sergei Ryabkov, for the Russian foreign ministry, has said it is too early to talk about limiting tactical nukes.

So the question now is where Obama is going with his disarmament project – if indeed he can go anywhere, given the new political balance of forces. Although there is a strong establishment lobby to diminish the role of nuclear weapons in US military postures – Henry Kissinger and George Shultz are key exponents of this trend – nevertheless there are powerful forces at odds with this. There was much controversy about the deals Obama was reported to have made to secure New Start, including vast amounts of money for nuclear modernisation. So is there any mileage in further steps?

What Obama would like to do is clear enough, also set out in the Prague speech: to secure US ratification of the comprehensive test ban treaty, to work towards a fissile material cut-off treaty – ending the production of nuclear explosive material – and to secure nuclear materials worldwide to prevent terrorist access. Although some steps have been taken to achieve the latter point, notably at the April 2010 national security summit in Washington, what are the chances for the others?

Obama's recent state of the union address perhaps gives some pointers. While the president noted the achievements on nuclear reductions and security, he failed to indicate any forward programme of further reductions. And there was no reference to a world without nuclear weapons – the most popular feature of his Prague speech. Not surprisingly, Obama's address focused primarily on the US economy and matters of urgent domestic concern, but is the nuclear question just temporarily down, or is it out? US commentary suggests that the administration has not yet decided where it is going on the issue, but the outcome of its deliberations will be of major significance, and not just within the US. It would be a major setback for global security if the US reverts to the nuclear belligerence of former times.

Has the US given up on a nuclear-free world?

By Selig S. Harrison
This article appeared in the January 11, 2010 edition of The Nation.

With the Taliban growing steadily stronger, 30,000 more US troops will not lead to the early disengagement from the Afghan quagmire envisaged by President Obama, even in the improbable event that Hamid Karzai delivers on his promises of better governance. What is needed is a major United Nations diplomatic initiative designed to get Afghanistan's regional neighbors to join in setting a disengagement timetable and to share responsibility for preventing a Taliban return to power in Kabul.

The timetable should provide not only for the early withdrawal of all US combat forces within, say, three years but also for the termination of US military access to air bases in Afghanistan within five years. It should set the stage, in short, for the military neutralization of Afghanistan.

A commitment to categorical disengagement has long been demanded by Taliban leaders as the condition for negotiations. It would test whether they are ready for the local peace deals that the Obama administration appears prepared to accept, or will insist on power-sharing in Kabul as the price of peace.

Even without a regional diplomatic framework, such a withdrawal timetable would be desirable and will become increasingly inescapable; but its political risks can be minimized by mobilizing regional support for the political containment of the Taliban.

Russia, India, Iran and Tajikistan all helped the United States to dislodge the Taliban in 2001. All of them, together with China, fear that a resurrected Taliban regime would pose a terrorist threat and would foment domestic Islamist insurgencies within their borders.

Russia faces nascent Islamist forces in its Muslim south. India worries that Taliban control in Kabul would lead to more Pakistan-based attacks like the 2008 one in Mumbai. The Shiite theocracy ruling Iran fears that a Sunni Taliban regime would help the Sunni Jundullah separatist movement in the Iranian part of Baluchistan and Salafi extremists in other non-Persian ethnic minority regions. Tajikistan faces Sunni extremist groups led by Hizb ut-Tahrir and is increasingly unsettled by an influx of Afghan refugees, which could grow if the Taliban return to power. China is beset by Islamist Uighur separatists in Xinjiang.

It is significant that all these neighboring countries are disturbed in varying degree by the expansion of US air bases near their borders; they recognize that no Taliban faction is likely to negotiate peace until the United States and NATO set a timetable that covers both withdrawal of their forces and closure of US bases. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's March 2009 proposal for a regional conference, revived recently by Henry Kissinger, has been ignored by potential participants because it assumes the indefinite continuance of a US military presence.

Iran and India are already giving large-scale economic aid to Kabul. Both might well increase it if US-NATO aid diminishes. New Delhi is helping to train the Afghan police and is prepared to join the United States and NATO in their faltering efforts to train the army.

China might well step up economic aid once the United States departs, as Li Qinggong, deputy secretary general of the China Institute for National Security Studies, hinted in a September 29 statement that also envisioned talks on "how to dispose of the forces of al-Qaeda" if and when the United States disengages and the possible establishment of "an international peacekeeping mission." Beijing is investing $3 billion in Afghanistan's Aynak copper mine and is "considering" a US request for help in police training. As members of a regional grouping known as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, all of Afghanistan's neighbors signed a March 27 statement spelling out detailed action plans for counterterrorism and narcotics control.

The culmination of a UN-led regional diplomatic initiative would be an agreement that would not only set a timetable for military disengagement but would also bar the use of Afghanistan as a base for terrorism and seek to neutralize it as a focus of regional and major power rivalries. The agreement would be signed by the regional neighbors, the United States, NATO and others, like Saudi Arabia, that are playing a role in Afghanistan. Signatories would pledge to respect the country's neutrality, not to provide arms to warring factions and to cooperate in UN enforcement of an arms aid ban.

Neutrality was Afghanistan's traditional posture during the decades of the monarchy, until Soviet intervention dragged it into global power rivalries. "The best and most fruitful policy that one can imagine for Afghanistan," said King Nadir Shah in 1931, "is a policy of neutrality." The late Zahir Shah continued this policy and expressed his dismay to me when the Bonn Agreement of December 2001, following the ouster of the Taliban, spoke only of "non-interference" and studiously avoided references to "neutrality" and "nonalignment."

To be sure, one of Afghanistan's neighbors, its historic adversary Pakistan, created the Taliban and has continued to support it in the hope of establishing an anti-Indian client state in Kabul. But Islamabad would have two powerful reasons for joining in the accord and for stopping its aid. First, India, like other signatories, would be barred from operating out of Afghanistan militarily in the event of an India-Pakistan conflict and from using Afghanistan as a base for supporting Baluch and other ethnic insurgents in Pakistan. Second, the accord would be designed only to prevent the Taliban from re-establishing control in Kabul and using its local strongholds as a base for terrorist operations elsewhere, not to remove all Taliban influence in Afghanistan itself. Thus, Pakistan would still have political allies in future Afghan power struggles.

At present, the United States is dependent on Pakistan as a conduit for shipping supplies to its forces in Afghanistan. Thus, even though Washington gives more than $1 billion a year in military hardware and cash subsidies to the Pakistani army, it has been unable to use the threat of an aid cutoff to curb Pakistan's aid to the Taliban. Disengagement would free the United States to use its aid leverage. Pressure from China, which provides Islamabad with fighter aircraft, would also help assure Pakistani participation in a regional accord. No UN monitoring system could completely seal off arms aid to the rival Afghan factions or bring an end to the competition between India and Pakistan for influence in Kabul; but a framework for regional cooperation could prevent a return to anarchy and civil war.

The principal obstacle to a regional neutralization accord is likely to be the Pentagon's desire to have "permanent access" to its network of Afghan bases near the borders of Russia, China, Iran and Central Asia to facilitate intelligence surveillance as well as any future military operations. Some of the seventy-four US bases in Afghanistan have been developed for counterinsurgency operations and might be expendable. But the big airfields at Bagram and Kandahar, which accounted for $425.7 million in the fiscal 2008 Pentagon military construction budget alone, are expected to expand steadily in the years ahead.

President Obama has yet to address the future of the air bases, and until he does, no diplomatic cover for US disengagement will be possible. The underlying issue that he confronts is what an "exit strategy" means and whether the United States will be using Afghanistan to further its global power projection long after he has left office and long after the Taliban and Al Qaeda are forgotten.

About Selig S.Harrison
Selig S. Harrison is the author, with Diego Cordovez, of Out of Afghanistan and author of In Afghanistan's Shadow. He is the director of the Asia Program at the Center for International Policy and a senior scholar of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

How to Exit Afghanistan

At a time of harsh cuts in social services, it is morally unjustifiable to spend money on weapons that should be invested in creating jobs and tackling poverty.

High levels of European military spending played a key role in the unfolding EU debt crisis and continues to undermine efforts to resolve the debt crisis, alleges a new report by Transnational Institute and the Dutch Campaign against Arms Trade.

The report, Guns, Debt and Corruption: Military spending and the EU crisis, demonstrates how military budgets across Europe have been largely protected, at a time of severe social cuts. EU's military expenditure totalled €194 billion in 2010, equivalent to the combined annual deficits of Greece, Italy and Spain. The latest data released today by the Stockholm International Peace Institute suggests little change in these overall trends.

The report unveils how high levels of military spending in countries such as Greece, Cyprus and Spain at the epicentre of the euro crisis played a significant role in their debt crises. Much of the military spending was tied to arms sales by creditor countries like Germany and France.

In Portugal and Greece, several major arms deals are being investigated for serious irregularities. Yet creditor countries continue to hawk new arms deals to debtor countries whilst demanding ever more stringent cuts in social services.

The report argues that resolving the debt crisis will require cancellation of the debt tied to corrupt arms deals and a redirection of military spending towards social needs. It highlights research that spending on education and public transport creates double the number of jobs as investments in defence.

Report author Frank Slijper said: “Global military spending was still at a record €1.3 trillion in 2011 despite the global economic crisis. Even in Europe most countries still spend more than ten years ago. The only austerity that Europe really needs is one imposed on the military and the arms industry.”

“It is time for Brussels and EU member states to publicly acknowledge the 'elephant in the room' of the current EU debt crisis and that is the role of military spending. At a time of harsh cuts in social services, it is morally unjustifiable to spend money on weapons that should be invested in creating jobs and tackling poverty.”

The report Guns, Debt and Corruption has been released in the EU as campaigners in around 30 countries held over 100 events worldwide to protest record levels of military spending and to call for resources to be reallocated to anti-poverty and environmental sustainability programmes. For details of the Global Day of Action on Military Spending, see: http://www.gdams.org

/ Ends

Notes:

1. The report can be downloaded at www.stoparmstrade.orgFor more information, please contact Frank Slijper (email: frank@stopwapenhandel.org; telephone +31 (0)6 28504778)

2. Transnational Institute (TNI) was established in 1974 as an international network of activist researchers committed to provide intellectual support to movements struggling for a more democratic, equitable and environmentally sustainable world. http://www.tni.org

3. The Dutch Campaign against Arms Trade - Campagne tegen Wapenhandel - is a small grass roots organisation founded in 1998 to fight one of the root causes of war: arms production and arms trade. www.stoparmstrade.org

4. The Global Day of Action on Military Spending brings together organisations worldwide to raise public awareness of the human costs of high military spending. It coincides with the annual release of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s (SIPRI) new annual figures on world military expenditures.

EU military spending is 'elephant in the room' and key factor in European debt crisis

9th of June 2007 in Rome

On th 9th of June the president of the USA , George Bush, will come to Italy, invited by the Prodi Government in order to reinforce the italian military and political alliance with the United States. Today President Bush is opposed by the majority of the Usa people but still mantains the support of the military,oil, and weapon industries lobbies. Bush is the main interpreter of the will for world egemony of the USA ruling classes ; this will brings the USA, regardless of the government's turnover, to carry out military interventions, everywhere, with their army, with coup d'etat, with mass murders and attacks.

This hunger for absolute power makes war a real political strategy with the possibility to export conflicts from Africa to Asia,from Latin America even to Europe ( Balcans) and produces political and cultural subjection.

In Italy the right wing sees Bush as a benchmark, but also the Prodi government, elected in part thanks to the votes of the No War movement " without ifs and buts", is proud of the alliance with such an administration and is getting ready to welcome in grand style president Bush in Rome.

This subordination portrays also the purposeful military intervention policy that the Prodi government is practicing even though in the "multilateral" version, that is, "agreed" with the other politically powerful States. These politics are deep rooted in the logic of the war that push to mantain troops in Afghanistan, that visibily increased the military expenditures (+13% in the last budget law), that want to impose on populations united in the opposition new military bases like the one in Vicenza (but also in Cameri and in other places in way of expanding); that partecipate in the costruction of homicidal weapons like the war airplane F35 or the missile shield, and preserve the atomic bombs disseminated in our territory, like Ghedi and Aviano.

Its' this cultural and political subordination, that abandoned one of the cleanest experiences of italian pacifism, the one of Emergency, deceived and sacrificed to the Kharzai government and to their Secret Services that illicitly hold Rahmatullah Hanefi.

But war is war, indipendently from the vessils used to conduct it and must be strongly refused, like the military policy of our governament, that reconfirmed and promoted war missions.

Because of this, like many men and women all over the world and from all walks of life, we are preparing to welcome Bush like a real warmonger.

We do it for the tortured people of Guantanamo, for the people burned alive in Falluja, for the deported people, for those that are pent up in the internment camps spread out all over the world. But we do it also to say that another Italy exists.

An Italy that already lives in another possible and concrete world. Its' the Italy of the movements that struggle against military bases, against the environmental devastation, for social rights, against the centers of temporary detention, against the privatization of water and common goods theft, against military expenditures and global rearmament.

Therefore the nineth of June is an important day for the recovery of the path of No War movement in our country.

We want the italian troops withdrawn from all the war fronts, first of all Afghanistan; the closure of all USA and NATO military bases, the restitution of those places to the populations for civil use.We want Italy to exit from military alliances.

We require the removal of nuclear weapons and of the mass distruction weapons from the national territory.

We say stop to military expenditures; we refuse the Missile Shield and the new war planes, so that the dozens of billions euros could be used for education and public health services, for social services, environmental improvement, for labour and public welfare system.

We demand that the Prodi government obtain the immediate liberation of Hanefi and restitute to Emergency its proper role in Afghanistan.

We propose that the No-War Movement mobilization, that has already three important stages;

the demostration against the projected military base in Novara and those in Aviano and Sigonella on the nineteenth of May;
the caravan against war, that will arrive in Rome on the second of June to protest against the military parade on the Fori Imperiali ;
the European mobilization against the G8 in Rostock-Heiligendamm;

culminate on the 9th of June in a great popular mobilization in Rome that maks Bush and Prodi feel the opposition against the wars and agains the rush to arms, that DECLARES THE USA PRESIDENT AN UNWELCOMED GUEST and makes Prodi feel the refusal of war and militarysm, in accordance with article 11 of the Italian Costitution.

We join the population of Vicenza to state again to Bush the clearest determination and the strongest possible opposition against the building of the military base Dal Molin.

Confederazione COBAS, Global Project, Sinistra Critica, ATTAC, Rete sempre contro la guerra, Confederazione Unitaria di Base, Forum Palestina and many others organizations, networks, comitees and associations.

The Peace & Neutrality Alliance was established in 1996 to advocate that Ireland should have its own independent foreign policy, that neutrality should be a key component of this policy and that it should be pursued primarily through a reformed United Nations. Our vision of the future of the EU is as a Partnership of Independent Democratic States, legal equals, without a military dimension.

The United Nations with all its faults is the only inclusive global institution committed to collective security. The EU on the other hand is an institution dominated by states such as Britain, France and Germany with deeply rooted imperial traditions, whose elites having lost their empires in the 21st century seek by combining, to restore their imperial power in the world.

While there is an imperial tradition in Ireland, PANA belongs to that other deeply rooted tradition of independence, democracy and neutrality founded in Ireland by Wolfe Tone and the United Irishmen in the 1790’s. While is open to all groups and individuals, we focus on seeking to ensure that as many groups that agreed with our objectives affiliated and do not have an individual based branch structure. Over 30 groups are now affiliated, the most recent being the Irish Palestinian Solidarity Campaign and Shannonwatch.

It was established because we believed that the Irish political/media elite intended to destroy Irish independence, democracy and neutrality by integrating Ireland into the EU/US/NATO military structures in order to ensure Ireland’s full and active participation in the resource wars of the 21st century. We believed that an effort had to be made to bring together all the political forces opposed to this imperialist project and defeat them.

This commitment to a neo-liberal militarist ideology will have only one absolutely inevitable outcome. The military defeat of the EU/US/NATO axis and the collapse of the economy. All they offered is war and poverty. This reality is a great deal clearer now than it was in 1996.

The then leader of the opposition, Mr. Ahern professed his support for neutrality to the extent of calling for a referendum on Ireland’s membership of NATO’s Partnership for Peace. We did not believe him. On achieving power Mr. Ahern ensured Ireland join the PfP without the referendum. He ensured that there was a substantial increase in military expenditure focused on upgrading the Irish Army’s military equipment to be compatible with that of the NATO. So that while the Irish Army remained small (about 10,000), he increased the total military expenditure to €1billion per annum so that, per soldier, it became one of the highest in Europe.

Mr. Ahern in fact, played a key role in supporting and advocating all the growing military provisions of the Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon Treaties.

His support for the Irish peace process should be understood as seeking to ensure not only that the 6 counties remained part of NATO, but also that the 26 county state became integrated into the EU/US/NATO structures. For Mr. Ahern, the peace process was in reality a war process so that all of Ireland and not just the 6 counties, became actively involved in imperial wars. Mr. Ahern is a true neo-Redmondite ensuring all Ireland support for the Imperialist wars of the EU/US/NATO axis in Palestine, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan and possibly in Iran as well.

The reality is that the emergence of the EU as a militarised neo-liberal Superstate can only be understood as part of the process of the expansion of the EU/US/NATO axis. The key to this process has been the decision by the Ahern government to destroy the long standing policy of neutrality and to turn Shannon Airport into de facto US Airforce base in the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan. So far the EU and the states of the states of the EU support these wars by sending thousands upon thousands of troops to help (including 7 troops from this state).

PANA held the first demonstration at Shannon Airport in May 2002 and organised or taken part in many demonstrations about the use of Shannon by NATO forces since then including the massive demonstration in 15/2/03. By 2007 the numbers turning out on demonstrations but convinced that the Irish people still opposed its use, PANA commissioned an independent polling company Lansdowne Marketing at a cost of over €1,000 (a considerable sum for PANA) to ask the people about the use of Shannon Airport just before the last election. 58% were opposed and 19% were in favour. Even if in the unlikely event all 21% who had no opinion broke in favour of its use in war, a decisive majority were opposed.

It could be said that the process of Ireland’s integration into supporting these wars culminated in the use of Shannon Airport.

This process included a series of treaties including the Single European Act that initiated this political/military project, but it was the Maastricht Treaty that really accelerated militarisation.

The Danish people rejected the Maastricht Treaty and gained a number of key concessions by way of Protocols which are legally binding parts of a treaty, one which ensured that Denmark would not pay for or be involved with the militarisation of the EU. This Protocol was then added to the next treaty, the Amsterdam Treaty.

In our campaign against the Amsterdam Treaty, PANA focused on seeking to ensure that a similar Protocol be added to include Ireland. This demand has been central to our campaigns against the Nice Treaty and the EU Constitution/Lisbon Treaty.

The military provisions of the various treaties that sought to transform the EU into a centralised, militarised, neo-liberal superstate, or “Empire” as President Barroso calls it, are well documented on the PANA site: www.pana.ie

I intend to focus in my remaining remarks on what has happened since the Irish people were bullied and intimidated into reversing their decision to reject the Lisbon Treaty.

One of the key provisions of the Lisbon Treaty was Article 28 A(7) which provides a mutual assistance clause for all EU member states in case of armed aggression. It states:

“If a member State is a victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all means in their power, in accordance with Art.51 of the UN Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States. Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those States which are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation.”

PANA’s contention during the debate (such as it was) on the treaty was that this was a mutual defence clause that would make the last remaining competence of the Western European Union ( a European based version of NATO) redundant leading to its abolition. This view was supported by Andrew Duff MEP, Rapporteur of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Lisbon Treaty.

As predicted the Western European Union has now been abolished thus validating PANA’s contention that the EU is committed legally to collective defence.

The Lisbon Treaty was also ensured the appointment of a Minister for Foreign, Security and Defence (called the High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy) and Baroness Ashton of Upholland was appointed to the post. With a level of power sharing with other institution such as the EU Commission and the EU Council of Ministers (the EU Parliament seems to have lost out) throughout the world and allocating her budget.

Her budget over the next three years is €51 billion. Her own annual salary is €375,000. Her annual pension after five years is €74,000 plus a €530,000 lump sum payment. These massive amounts of money gives some idea of how much the rest of the members of the new EU Dept. of Foreign Affairs are being paid and why so much money was spent by the Irish Dept. of Foreign Affairs to ensure a yes vote so they could get a reasonable number of the jobs allocated to themselves.

She has also withdrawn her alleged opposition to the creation of an EU Military HQ and centralised EU Secret Service.

Crucially, the new de facto EU Minister for Foreign, Security and Defence Policy has control over the development budget. From now on Oxfam, Trocaire, Concern are to be an integral part of EU military strategy. One might say the EU elite with a bag of rice in one hand and a military drone in the other seek, via they're newly emerging EU State to dominate the world.

There is however one major problem. The people living in the EU don’t agree with this Imperialist vision. The crucial decisions that will lead to their defeat have already been made.

The first is that the Dutch people forced their political elite to withdraw 2,000 soldiers from Afghanistan. While most EU states including Ireland have not yet also declared their intention to withdraw their troops, when the Dutch troops leave this August this decision will accelerate the rapidly growing demand by the people from all the EU states to ensure their governments invest their diminishing resources to job creation at home rather than wasting money in an unwinnable war by also withdrawing their troops, will become unstoppable. For example polls in Britain show that 77% of the British people want them withdrawn and 65% of the German people want to withdraw their troops.

In short, the EU elite in Holland have lost control. The dam has broken. There is no way back. They will not be able to hold back the torrent that will destroy their dream of Empire.

This torrent will also sweep away the European Defence Agency which was to ensure the expansion of the EU military-industrial complex.

In recent visits to the Brussels both Clinton and Gates have called upon the EU to spend more money on weapons as unlike the US that spends over $1 trillion a year on defence, over 50% of its annual income, the EU states spend on 2% of its GDP (less than half that of the US). They have not received a favourable response. The EU elite under pressure to provide for health, education and social welfare for their own people from a declining income have to in fact cut military expenditure, all of which will leave the EDA underfunded and force the EU to ignore Article 28(3 ) of the Lisbon Treaty which said EU states to:

“undertake progressively to improve their military capability”.

The second key decision has been the fact that the role EU Battle Groups have been massively constrained by the judgement of the German Constitutional Court on the Lisbon Treaty that German troops can only be sent abroad by a decision of the German Parliament which the second key decision.

The whole point of the EU Battle Groups and the Lisbon Treaty was that they were military formations which could be sent to any part of the world via a decision of the EU Council of Ministers without reference to the national Parliaments or people.

While Article 28 allows for a small number of EU states to create military groups “in accordance with the principle of a single set of forces” (in short an army) with the Germans now not able to send its troops abroad without the consent of their Parliament the EU military force to be created via structured cooperation is now very unlikely.

Even the provisions that state; “Convinced that a more assertive Union role in security and defence matters will contribute to the vitality of a renewed Atlantic Alliance” are becoming meaningless as the people’s of Europe refuse to back their political/media elite as they send their armies, mercenaries and drones to perish in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan. The EU/US/NATO axis is being smashed to pieces on the rocks of the Himalayas as have so many Empires before them

Ahern, Cowen, Kenny etc did not lick their imperialist values off the stones. Up to January 1919 Ireland was part of a centralised militarised neo-liberal Superstate, the British Union. It sent its Battle Groups (which included large numbers of Irishmen) all over the world, using its military power to expand the Empire. They seek, like born again Redmondites to restore that tradition. They now celebrate Gallipoli, but for those of us who reject the Redmondite tradition, the lives of those Irish soldiers where lost in the service of a ruthless and vicious Empire.

The reality however is that no matter how much they call themselves European rather than Irish. No matter how much they identify more and more with Ireland’s imperial tradition such as Gallipoli, the Irish people will not go down that Imperialist road again.

For while they won the 2nd battle of Lisbon, it was Pyrrhic victory and they have cracked. Its rejection by the French and Dutch people and their need to spend € millions to crush the Irish people into the ground has drained the imperialists of their energy and confidence. This is a reality made manifest by their decision to appoint a complete nonentity, Baroness Ashton as the EU Foreign Affairs Minister.

Thus while the war between those of us who believe in the EU as a Partnership of Democratic States and those who want it to become an Imperial State is by no means over, we have already turned the tide. The Empire Loyalists are in retreat. As the neo-liberal militarist ideology cracks we need to

continue to build the links we have been developing with those in the other EU states and the United States even stronger and drive the stake deeper into the crack.

We should never underestimate them. For example the German SPD affiliated Friedrich Ebert Foundation in April 2010 published a strategy document which advocated even stronger EU/NATO links and the EU states should maintain a military force of 2 million soldiers financed by €2 billion a year.

They have no intention of giving up, but then neither do we.

Our vision of Europe as a Partnership of Independent Democratic States, without a military dimension operating through a reformed United Nations is more achievable now than it ever has been. We are building our own transatlantic alliance and our ability to ensure that Ed Horgan, PANA’s International Secretary regained his visa to attend a peace conference is the latest example of that process. The links between the progressive and democratic forces in the EU/US/NATO area are getting stronger.

Our victory is by no means assured but we should have the confidence to see it is a real option.

Speech to the Ireland Institute

22/4/10

Roger Cole

Chair, Peace & Neutrality Alliance

The EU in the 21st Century - a Democratic or Imperial Future?

QUESTION NO:--_272_

- DEPUTY CAOIMHGHÍN Ó CAOLÁIN.

* FOR WRITTEN ANSWER ON TUESDAY, 1ST DECEMBER, 2009.

Ref No: 44375/09

REPLY

Decisions such as the continued participation of members of the Permanent Defence Force in ISAF and in other overseas missions, will be a matter for the Government in the context of the Estimates.

Oireactas Question on Irish Troop deployment with NATO ISAF in Afghanistan

Rev. Livingstone’s book on the history of Fermanagh included a chapter on the famine years when the population fell by 40,000. However if the research for the book had been restricted to the columns of the local newspaper, The Impartial Reporter, it would have been difficult to know if there had been a famine.

Exactly the same applies to virtually our entire corporate media since the policy of Irish neutrality was terminated and millions of US troops land in Shannon Airport on their way to wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan where they are responsible for the death and injury of hundreds of thousands of people. While it is absolutely true that the corporate media is not a homogenous block and they take very different positions on a whole range of issues, apart from a handful of journalists when it comes to the these imperial wars, the entire Irish corporate media supports them. No Irish newspaper has called for the termination of the use of Shannon Airport by the US troops and the withdrawal of Irish troops from Afghanistan. When it comes to that issue, the vast majority of Irish journalists, columnists, economic and political commentators are little more than intellectual mercenaries for the neo-liberal militarist ideology that has dominated and continues to dominate Ireland. The media solve the problems arising from Ireland’s participation in wars, by giving them virtually no coverage, and all but ignore the Irish peace movement, which includes PANA, that opposes them.

The media could not ignore the 100,000 that marched against war on the 15th of February 2003, although the Sunday Independent did its best, as it headlined some story about President McAleese. In time, the demonstrations faded away and the media started to ignore the war. Before the last general election, PANA convinced that the people had not changed their minds, commissioned Lansdowne Market Research to carry out an independent survey on people’s attitude to the war. It showed that over 58% of people wanted the use of Shannon Airport by the US to be terminated. True to form, the media ensured the results were given little or no coverage and the use of Shannon by the US was not an issue in the 2007 election.

This process was repeated in the British 2010 election. Two newspapers, the Sunday Mirror and the Independent on Sunday commissioned a poll which showed that 77% of the British people wanted the British soldiers to be withdrawn from Afghanistan. The issue was ignored by the rest of the media so the war in Afghanistan was not an issue in their election either. Like the use of Shannon in Ireland, it exposed the reality of what passed for democracy in Britain: that despite the results of the poll, most of the media and all the leaders of the three mainstream parties back the war.

The reality is of course is that the corporate media in Ireland is totally committed to the continuing dominance of the neo-liberal militarist ideology that justifies and supports these wars. It seeks to prevent any challenge by excluding, with rare exceptions, PANA and other anti imperialists access to the media. This is not a grip. It is a simple description of reality.
Ignoring reality however does not stop reality. The tide is coming in, as King Canute pointed out nearly 1,000 years ago, cannot be stopped by simply ignoring it.

The reality is that the US and its vassal states like Ireland and Britain do not have the resources to fight and win their imperial wars any longer.

The real facts are that the number of US citizens on food stamps has now reached a record 40 million. The number of US homeowners behind on their mortgage repayments is at record levels. One out of every ten missed a payment in the first quarter of this year. 3-5 million more foreclosures are predicted. 1 in every 5 US children is below the poverty line. Official unemployment figures in the US show there are 15 million US citizens out of work. US Banks will be seriously affected by the massive cut backs being planned in the EU. JP Morgan Chase, for example, has a $1.4 trillion exposure in Europe. In the US, the real personal loss of income means that annual income is $500 billion less than it was sixteen months ago. US state and local government have cut their workforces by on average 65,000 a month and the political elite voted not to extend unemployment benefit. In short, as Prof. Elizabeth Warren has pointed out in her studies, the middle class of the US is being destroyed by the neo-liberal militarist ideology of the Bush-Obama Presidencies.

The US deficit as a % of GDP is now nearly 100% (up from 57% in 2007) and the US national debt is $689,000 per family when the average annual income per family is $63,000. Despite this, President Obama is spending $1 million per soldier per annum on the Afghan War and has just got an extra $33 billion for the war in Afghanistan. The total annual US military expenditure is over $1 trillion, the same as the rest of the world combined, at a time when the total expenditure of the entire world per annum is $60 trillion.

In simple terms, the people of the US are becoming impoverished. They can no longer generate the taxable income to sustain the revenue needed to fund the US Empires massive military expenditure to fight wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq and maintain over 700 military bases all over the world, a number that does not include the de facto US base, Shannon Airport. The American Republic is being destroyed by the
American Empire.

PANA in opposing the US Empire and the Bush/Obama Imperial wars is supporting the people of the US and their Republic in a struggle against their Empire. It makes PANA is one of the most pro-American groups in Ireland.

Instead of improving the quality of life of its own people the US Empire has borrowed the money from other states, for example, nearly 25% of its national debt is supported by the Chinese purchase of US Treasury Bonds. Federal interest on the bonds will soon reach 1/8 of all annual US tax revenue. The continuous purchase of US Treasury Bonds by China, Japan and other states cannot and will not continue indefinitely especially as their own financial surpluses will have to be diverted to the economic needs of their own people.

At the same time, China must also not be too pleased by massive US arms sales to Taiwan despite the fact that the recent China agreement with Taiwan suggests that the Taiwanese sees their future with China and not as a vassal state of a declining Empire. The decision of the US to humiliate the Japanese Prime Minister and forcing him to resign over the issue of the continuing US base in Okinawa can hardly be popular with the people of Japan and they too are sure to envision the end to their vassal status.

This decline in support by the vassal states for the US Empire is beginning to accelerate. They have withdrawn all their troops from Iraq. In August the Dutch government in response to the wishes of their own people will start the withdrawal of their 2,000 troops from Afghanistan. The Canadians will withdraw their troops in 2011. With massive cut backs in social welfare throughout Europe well on the way, the people in the different states in Europe will hardly accept an increase in military expenditure. In face of major cutbacks, people are much more likely to demand, like the Dutch, the withdrawal of their troops.

There are other examples of the emergence of a multi-polar world such as when the US allies made it clear they would not support Georgia that seeks NATO membership when it attacked South Ossetia and was crushed by Russia. More recently Turkey, an existing NATO member supported the Gaza flotilla and together with Brazil sought a settlement with Iran and opposed sanctions.

We should however not underestimate the deep held imperialist values of the political elite of the EU/US/NATO including Ireland. In response to the economic crisis German Chancellor has called for a single European currency and a single Army and increased the number of German troops in Afghanistan even though poll show that 65% of Germans want their troops withdrawn. There is already a NATO led de facto European Army with over 30,000 troops taking part in the Afghan War. Albania, Belgium, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Estonia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Slovakia, Sweden, and the UK all have troops there despite opposition from most of their own people.

There are seven Irish soldiers serving with NATO in Afghanistan. The government says the cost is only €470,000 a year. However since the cost of each US soldier is $1 million per annum, we should take that declared cost with a pinch of salt.

PANA in the last few months campaigned within the Labour Party and it has now called for the withdrawal of the Irish soldiers from Afghanistan. At their recent Party Conference, delegates warmly welcomed the reiteration of opposition to the use of Shannon Airport by US troops by its spokesperson on Foreign Affairs Michael D. Higgins. This means that the Labour Party together with Sinn Fein and other progressive groups agree. The recent Irish Times TSN/MRBI poll, which is far more accurate than the Red Sea poll, showed that a Labour Party/Sinn Fein/Independent Left government is an option. Now PANA can campaign for a government committed to the withdrawal of Irish troops from Afghanistan, the termination of the use of Shannon Airport by US troops in the war and the restoration of Irish neutrality
with evidence to show that this is a more realistic option that this can be achieved than it was at the last election. In truth, this opposition is as has been stated earlier, merely reflecting the growing global opposition the wars of the US Empire including among its vassals.

So while progress is being made among the opposition political forces, the same cannot be said of the existing government which is making no moves whatsoever to terminate the use of Shannon Airport in these wars or to withdraw troops.

There is however some evidence to show the ruling elite is divided. At a conference organised by the Finnish and Irish Departments of Foreign Affairs when it was pointed out that 77% of the British people wanted their troops to be withdrawn, while the EU military representative said public opinion did not matter, the representative of the Irish Dept. of Defence said a war could not be fought if their was no popular support.

At the same conference the issue of use the EU Battle Groups was discussed. It is clear that since the Finnish government is increasing the number of troops it is sending to Afghanistan and Irish taxpayers are going to spend an estimated €800,000 in 2010 to pay for Irish troops to have military training with the EU Nordic Battle Group
that there will be a growing demand that the Nordic Battle Group be sent to Afghanistan. Therefore for the Irish peace movement has to highlight the issue of the EU Battle Groups especially as the government is considering integrating the Irish Army into a 2nd EU Battle Group.

I have focused on the effects of the war on the peoples of the US and Europe. While they are on the receiving end of social welfare cuts they have not suffered as have the people of Afghanistan where 142 babies die out of every 1,000 before they reach their 1st birthday and 50% of the population earn less that $2 a day. Faced with such poverty they are turning to growing poppies. From 2004-2010 the estimated number of hectares growing poppies grew from 25 to 90,000. If only a fraction of the $1 trillion President Obama and his Empire spends on war was spent aid then Afghanistan could look to a better future.

Finally PANA held its first demonstration against the Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan wars at Shannon Airport in May 2002. If the demonstration PANA helped organise with the IAWM and the NGOPA in February 2003 had not been so large, there is little doubt that the Fianna Fail/PD government would have sent Irish troops to Iraq and there would be a large contingent of Irish troops now serving in Afghanistan.

Nevertheless, so far we have failed to defeat the Irish political elite. Since 1996 PANA has opposed Ireland’s integration into the neo-liberal militarist ideology of EU/US/NATO structures. We see our struggle against the militaristion of the EU and Ireland’s participation in the Iraq and the AF/Pak war, let alone the elite’s support for the crushing of the people of Palestine, as witnessed by CRH’s investment in Israel, Ireland’s support for Israeli membership of the OSCE and the purchase by the Irish Army of Israeli weapons, as being totally interconnected.

However, their imperial world is coming to an end, not so much from our efforts, but from its own internal contradictions. Our task now is to seek to ensure that as coming disintegration and collapse of the EU/US/NATO axis accelerates, what emerges is not one base on racist and fascist values, a realistic possibility as can be seen from the recent election result in Hungary and Holland, but on national democracy and social justice. This is not an easy task and as a small country we can only play a marginal role in that process. But the interconnections between all the social and political groups in Ireland, Europe and the US that has been built up during our campaigns against imperialism since 1996 can stand the test of time and lay the foundation for victory. The establishment of a united independent democratic Irish Republic with its own independent foreign policy with positive neutrality as a key component pursued primarily through a reformed United Nations remains PANA’s objective. Its achievement will be our victory.

Roger Cole
Chair
Peace & Neutrality Alliance

Shannon Airport, the Afghan War & the Fall of the US Empire

International Peace Conference with the Irish Peace Society:

on Saturday 11 November 2006
at University of Limerick (John Holland Lecture Theatre, D1050)

Why now?

11 November is Remembrance Day (War to end all wars? Genocide never again?)
655,000 killed in Iraq since 20 March 2003.
One million (1,000,000) US troops through Shannon Airport since Oct 2001.
The UN and the international community failed to prevent the killing fields of Cambodia, Somalia, Bosnia, Rwanda, Congo and Darfur , and many more.
Is the UN beyond reform as Ban Ki-moon takes over from Kofi Annan?

Purpose of the conference:

To help peace activists continue their quest for peace and justice by sharing skills and experiences, and by reviewing strategy.
Examine Ireland's complicity in the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon/Palestine.
Commemorate all those unlawfully killed in recent wars, including attacks on USA.

Programme

09.30: Registration, coffee, informal networking, book-signing

10.00: Hans von Sponeck - Global confrontation, human security and the imperative of UN reform - followed by questions and discussion

11.00: Minute's silence to mark Armistice signing 1918 and all dead in wars since 1918

11.01: Gernot Biehler - Ireland's responsibilities under international law in view of unlawful wars - followed by questions and discussion

11.45: Coffee

12.00: Workshops

Workshop 1
Legal support for peace activists practicalities. Preventing conflict and creating peace by peaceful means.

Workshop 2
Airport neighbourhood watch practical issues for monitoring crime and militarisation of your local airport. Facilitated by Hourigan, Conor Cregan.

12.45: Book launch: A Different Kind of War: The UN Sanction Regime in Iraq by H. C. von Sponeck

13.15: Lunch

14.00: Workshops

Workshop 3
Strategic planning towards a diversity of strategies for the demilitarisation of Shannon airport facilitated by Kieran Clifford / Coiln hAiseadha

Workshop 4
The role of the individual in UNCIVIL society - upholding and enhancing the rule of law: practical, peaceful and legal approaches. Facilitated by Edward Horgan.

15.30: Coffee

16.00: Craig Murray: Why torture is counter-productive

16.30: Closing Session Expert Panel: Hans von Sponeck, Gernot Biehler, Craig Murray

Bookings and enquiries (Admission free):
- Edward Horgan edward.horgan@ul.ie, 085-1026631
- Fraser Gray fraser.gray@ul.ie, 087-4167849
- Coiln hAiseadha aatchoo@gmail.com, 086-0603818 .

Updates will be posted at www.indymedia.ie/article/79061

From supporting war to promoting peace

2 September 2013, Final Draft

At about 3.45 pm on Sunday September 1st peace activists Margaretta Darcy and Niall Farrell were arrested in Shannon airport in the vicinity of the main runway. They were taken to Shannon Garda station where they were questioned and detained overnight. They were then brought before Limerick District Court at on 2nd September 2013 with Judge Eugene O’Kelly presiding. About 45 minutes after the arrests of Darcy and Farrell two other individuals, including photo-journalist and human rights activist Tommy Donnellan, were arrested several miles from the scene of the airport incursion. Tommy and his friend were later released without charge.

In a statement the Galway Alliance Against War said it wanted to highlight the use of the airport by the US.

"By allowing the US military to use Irish airspace and Shannon airport to wage wars we have become a willing accessory to mass murder. We have blood on our hands," the group said.

D'Arcy and Farrell have been charged over a similar protest at Shannon on 7th October 2012n when the perimeter fence was breached and an incursion made on to the runway.

They are due in court on the 11 September 2013 over the previous incident.

This is just one of very many incidents where peace activists have been arrested and subsequently prosecuted at Shannon airport while they were attempting to expose very serious crimes of torture, extraordinary rendition and crimes against humanity that have been facilitated at Shannon airport since 2001. No one has been arrested, charged or even investigated or questioned by Gardaí in connection with these most serious human rights abuses, or in connection with the facilitation of these crimes. Yet a large number of peace activists have been arrested and brought before the courts on spurious charges, most of which have been subsequently dismissed, most notably the five Catholic Workers who were acquitted by a Jury in Dublin, and Mary Kelly who was acquitted by the appeals court.

Surely its time the real criminals were brought to justice and that US military and CIA use of Shannon airport was prohibited.

When Niall Farrell was brought before the court Judge O’Kelly asked him if he wished to have a solicitor appointed to represent him, but Niall Farrell declined the offer and said he wished to represent himself. When Inspector Kennedy stated that Mr Farrell was arrested on the runway, Niall Farrell asked if there was proof that he was on the runway. Judge Kelly then intervened and said this hearing was primarily about a bail application and the main issues would be debated at a later hearing. When Inspector Kennedy referred to the seriousness of this matter, Niall Farrell stated that “all I want is peace” and their action was a statement about society and the issue should be the war machine and US military use of Shannon airport. Judge Kelly objected to political statements being made in court. Inspector Kennedy referred to the dangers of this incident and the issues of safety of the protestors themselves and the safety of airport staff and dangers to flights and air passengers. He said that all movements within the airfield were strictly controlled by Air Traffic Control. Niall Farrell and Margaretta Darcy had entered the airfield wearing orange boiler suits and carrying signs relating to the war in Syria. Photos had been taken by others of the incident and these photos were immediately published on the internet.

Judge O’Kelly asked if Niall Farrell was given bail for the incident last year and Inspector Kennedy said that the issue of bail did not arise on the previous occasion. Judge O’Kelly asked what were the penalties for this offense and Inspector Kennedy replied that the penalties carried a maximum of three years on indictment. Niall Farrell asked what about the other dangers arising from the US warplanes using Shannon, but Judge O’Kelly again ruled such matters out of order. Niall Farrell explained that the incident took place during a quiet window when no planes were landing, and Inspector Kennedy agreed that no aircraft were delayed on this occasion because of the incident, but he also explained (after being prompted by Judge O’Kelly) that Shannon airport was an emergency airport for all flights in the Western Europe region of the Atlantic and that aircraft could arrive unexpectedly at short notice. Niall Farrell asked if he was more of a danger than the military aircraft.

Judge asked Niall Farrell if he was prepared to give a written sworn undertaking not to trespass onto the airside area of Shannon airport between now and the completion of this case. Inspector Kennedy said that the Gardai also wanted the defendants to be prohibited from going anywhere near Shannon airport during this period. Judge O’Kelly did not agree with this and limited the bail undertakings to an undertaking not to trespass onto the airside area of Shannon airport between now and the completion of this case. After some discussion Niall Farrell agree to this undertaking. Judge O’Kelly then granted bail on their own recognisance of €1,000.

A similar but shorter “conversation” took place when Margaretta Darcy was brought before the court. There was a sharp exchange of views between Judge O’Kelly and Margaretta Darcy when the Judge tried to silence her when he claimed that her comments were “political”. "How can you try to depoliticise a political action" she asked him. The Judge threatened to have her removed from the court and held in contempt of court if she persisted in making political comments and a number of Gardai moved towards her at one point as if to remove her from court. Clearly the US military and CIA use of Shannon airport is a very political act, as well of course as being in breach of international laws, and involving the Irish Government, the Gardai and the airport authorities in being complicit with war crimes. The Judge seemed determined to silence this aspect of the case and if this behaviour by judges in this case continues, then the judges can be accused of failing to allow all the facts and factors in the case to be heard before the court, particularly the factor of the reasons and justification for the actions taken by Margaretta Darcy and Niall Farrell. Their actions were clearly taken in order to expose and try and prevent the far greater evil and crimes involved in US military and CIA use of Shannon airport. If they are denied the opportunity to explain this to the court, then a mistrial will have taken place. Eventually Margaretta Darcy also agree to the bail condition to give a written sworn undertaking not to trespass onto the airside area of Shannon airport between now and the completion of this case and both defendants were released on bail.

Shortly after this Niall Farrell got into a friendly conversation with one the Gardai during which Niall was complementing the hospitality of the Gardai at Shannon Garda Station during their overnight stay. It would then appear that Niall Farrell jokingly made what may have been an inappropriate remark to the Garda, as a result of which Niall was then arrested on the suspicion that he had made a threatening remark to the Garda. After a few hours questioning at Shannon Garda Station, Niall Farrell was released without charge on this last incident.

Both Niall Farrell and Margaretta were remanded in bail to appear at Ennis District Court on 11 September 2013.

The separate arrest of Tommy Donnellan and his colleague, who had recorded the presence of Margaretta Darcy and Niall Farrell during their protest, is of serious concern especially the alleged unduly rough manner of the arrest in which some photographic equipment may have been damaged and some alleged abusive comments made by one of the detectives concerning one of the protesters. The Gardai also impounded the photographic equipment, mobile phones, laptop computer, car and other equipment belonging to Tommy Donnellan and his friend, and told them they will be holding all these items for a period of at least 4 days.

The behaviour of the Gardai in all these matters is in marked contrast with the complete failure to search or investigate any of the US military and CIA aircraft that have transited through Shannon airport or to arrest any of the US war criminals that are known to have transited through Shannon. There also have been no arrests or Garda investigations into those Irish citizens, Irish Government officials, and Gardai who may have been complicit in the war crimes and acts of torture committed by US troops and US government agents who travelled through Shannon airport.

It is worth noting that Margaretta and Niall were both given bail on condition that they do not access the runway again until after both their cases are heard. The state is accusing them of having interfered with the "proper" use of the runway. Margaretta and Niall argue that they went on the runway to highlight the "improper" use of a civilian airport by the US military. President Higgins has called for "conversations" in public places about Irish society, GAAW wishes to hold the conversation about Ireland's role in foreign relations, on war and peace in the court. By agreeing this limited bail condition, the court appears to be accepting that the state has a case to answer over the misuse of Shannon airport by the US military and CIA associated aircraft. D'Arcy and Farrell informed the court (and the Gardai beforehand) that they would not accept any further limitation of the bail i.e. to include an exclusion order from Shannon as a whole. Their view was plain: if the US war machine can be in Shannon then so can peace activists who wish to protest peacefully against such misuse of the airport.

Court Report Margaretta Darcy and Niall Farrell

Bunaíodh Comhaontas na Síochána is Neodrachta i mí na Nollag 1996 i mBaile Átha Cliath. Tá cead isteach ag gach grúpa agus gach duine a ghlacann lenár gcúig chuspóir.

Tá réimse fairsing grúpaí agus méid breisiúil daoine aonair comhcheangailte le PANA.

Déanann PANA iarracht ar pholasaí eachtrach neamhspleách d'Éirinn a mholadh, neodracht na hÉireann a chosaint, agus Náisiúin Aontaithe leasaithe a mholadh mar eagraíocht trína gcuirfidh Éirinn a cúraimí slándála chun cinn.

Ba é an chéad fheachtas mór ag PANA cur in aghaidh Chonradh Amsterdam. D'iarramar aguisín, cosúil leis sin a bhí bainte amach cheana ag an Danmhairg, a d'fhágfadh Éirinn as míleatú an Aontais Eorpaigh. Ba é PANA an príomh-chomhaontas i bhfeachtas reifrinn a rinne iarracht ar dhiúltú don chonradh, agus vótáil 37 faoin gcéad den phobal ina choinne.

Méadú suntasach é seo ar líon na nÉireannach a vótáil "ní hea" i reifrinn a bhain leis an Aontais Eorpach cheana.

Ina dhiaidh sin chuamar i mbun feachtas chun a chinntiú go mbeadh reifreann ann sula rachadh Éirinn isteach sa PFP de chuid NATO. Chailleamar an athuair, mar gur cheangail an Rialtas leis gan reifreann. Ach arís nochtadh creimeadh neodracht na hÉireann.

D'eagraíomar comhdháil mhór ar leasú na Náisiún Aontaithe, a chabhraigh linn ár stádas méadaitheach mar chomhaontas a dhaingniú.

Chuamar i mbun feachtas in aghaidh Chonradh Nice, mar ar iarramar arís aguisín cosúil leis sin a bhí bainte amach cheana ag muintir na Danmhairge, agus an babhta seo bhuamar.

Níor mhór don Rialtas glacadh le Fógairt ar an Neodracht, aguisín leis an mBunreacht a chiallaigh nárbh fhéidir le hÉirinn cloí le comhpholasaí cosanta de chuid an Aontais Eorpaigh gan reifreann. Cé gur é irigh leis an dara reifreann, mhéadaigh ar an vóta ina choinne, in ainneoin na lamháltas.

Tá fianaise shoiléir ann, mar sin, go dtacaíonn timpeall is 37-40 faoin gcéad de mhuintir na hÉireann le neamhspleáchas, daonlathas agus neodracht na hÉireann agus go gcuireann i gcoinne chlaochlú an Aontais Eorpaigh ina ollstát cónaidhme.

Tá PANA i mbun feachtas anois in aghaidh chinneadh an Rialtais ar ligean d'úsáid Aerfort na Sionainne ag na Stáit Aontaithe ina gcogadh concais ar an Iaráic.

Tá Comhaontas na Síochána is Neodrachta comhcheangailte le Gréasán na Síochána agus na gCeart Daonna agus le TEAM (an Ghluaiseacht Eorpach i gcoinne Maastricht), a dhéanann iarracht ar ghrúpaí ar aon intinn leo a thabhairt le chéile san Eoraip agus ar chomhoibriú le grúpaí cosúil leo ar fud an domhain.

In 1996 the Peace and Neutrality Alliance was established to advocate that Ireland should have its own independent foreign policy, and that neutrality should be a key component, of this policy, which should be pursued primarily through a reformed United Nations and the OSCE.

The reason we did so was because we believed that the Irish political/media elite intended to destroy Irish independence, democracy and neutrality and to integrate Ireland into the EU/US/NATO/Israeli military-industrial structures to ensure Ireland full and active participation in the resource wars of the 21st century; wars in which the defeat of the axis was the only and absolutely inevitable outcome.

We campaigned against the steady process of the growing militarisation of the EU via the Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon Treaties, and the termination of policy of Irish neutrality by the decision to turn Shannon Airport into a de facto US air force base in March 2003.

PANA has been a small organisation, focused on research and seeking to build unity among all the groups opposed to this process, rather than building an individual based membership organisation. Therefore in November 2004 PANA organised a conference that brought together groups involved in opposing the neo-liberal agenda and the erosion of national democracy as well as those in favour of Irish neutrality and opposed to militarism, out of which grew the Campaign Against the EU Constitution-Say No to Lisbon Alliance.

Apart from having over 30 Irish groups affiliated to PANA we had also built up international links, in particular, with British CND, the Bertrand Russell Foundation and the Transnational Institute which had a similar analysis, as our campaign only makes sense if it is part of the larger international struggle against militarism and war.

During the campaigns on the 1st and 2nd referendums on the Lisbon Treaty we were able to not only build up a stronger broad alliance in Ireland but also international links with Die Linke in Germany, the Dutch Socialist Party and the Left Party in France. We also established our first tentative links with progressive forces in the US via Foreign Policy in Focus.

In both referendums the no side consisted of three groups, Coir, Libertas and CAECU. Coir and Libertas never mentioned war and militarism. Only CAECU made it part of its campaign against the treaty, despite the fact that the TSN/MRBI polls in May and June 2008 showed that concern over neutrality and militarism was a key issue in the decision of the Irish people to reject the treaty in 2008.

The no vote in 2008 was a great victory for the values of Irish Independence, Democracy and neutrality and a defeat for imperialism. But the elite learnt their lesson and decided immediately after their defeat to force the Irish people to vote again on exactly the same treaty.
All the current affairs programmes from June 08 ensured that those who had played a role in the no campaign were largely excluded from debate; the corporate media provided massive coverage to the yes campaigners, the Forum on Europe that provided the opportunity for equal democratic debate was abolished, and so called “civil society” yes groups heavily funded by the corporate sector were established. Major corporations like Intel and Ryanair spent millions of euro advocating a yes vote. They won. It was a victory for imperialism. Our vision of a Partnership Europe, a Partnership of independent democratic states, legal equals, without a military dimension was rejected in favour of a centralised militarised neo-liberal Superstate.

But it was a pyrrhic victory. The EU elite were forced to ram through their new EU Constitution/Lisbon Treaty without holding referendums in any EU state except Ireland. Their appointment of an unknown British Baroness as EU Foreign Minister was a real indication that it was a victory that had exhausted them.

The imperialist forces in Ireland, the bankers, the major corporations and their corporate media, the vast majority of the trade union leaders, the leadership of Fianna Fail, Fine Gael, the Green Party and the Labour Party do not believe that they have suddenly converted the people who voted no in 2008 into active supporters of their emerging militarised, neo-liberal and centralised Superstate.

They know the reason, indeed the only reason, why people changed their mind was fear, a fear that grew out of the massive crisis caused by the values of the militarist, neo-liberal capitalist system which this elite have supported for decades and which were an integral part of the Lisbon Treaty. The elite was successful in convincing the people that bad as it was it would be even worse unless they reversed their decision. The 54% no vote in 2008 however, is far more reflective of the real level of resistance to their project than the 33% that voted no this year. The 2008 vote is the expression of popular vote that is achievable by the progressive political forces, especially if those political forces brought together in CAEUC consolidated into a political alliance.

Because that fear that turned 54% into 33% could turn into hate as the elite bail out their bankers and the rich via NAMA, impose massive cuts in the living conditions of the people and refuse point blank to introduce a wealth tax and a graduated income tax system which would ensure they, the rich and powerful, that did very well out of the so called Celtic Tiger would pay for the economic crisis for which they are responsible.

The people are now turning to Fine Gael and Labour because they are seen as the opposition, as no progressive alliance is being created. But it will not take long for the people to discover that FG & Labour support exactly the same imperialist values as Fianna Fail. In that context the demand for such a progressive alliance will become unstoppable and a key part of that process will be the growth in anti-imperialist values by ordinary members of the trade unions.

The existing trade union leaders are already being forced by their own members to take a more aggressive attitude to defend wages and working conditions. But most of these leaders have become an integral part of the ruling elite and they want to remain part of it. They did all they could, including advocating a deal to their members that ensures the existing class structure and the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the elite remains unchanged.

But even if they had achieved such a local deal, they would not succeeded because the imperialist values that they endorse are only a reflection of values that are centred in the United States that leads this US/EU/NATO/Israeli axis, and it is about to disintegrate. The crisis in Dubai is only the latest example of this process.

The global leader of this US/EU/NATO/Israeli axis, President Obama, has made it clear he will escalate these wars by sending thousands of more US troops to Afghanistan. It will be a decision that will mean the destruction of the American Empire and its vassal states including the Republic of Ireland will not be immune from the consequences.

In response to these developments PANA needs to accelerate and deepen the strategies we have developed over the years for while PANA did all it could to build unity between all the groups opposed to imperialism, the result showed we were just not strong enough to win a second time against a very determined enemy.

We need to seek to establish PANA groups in every Dail and Northern Ireland Assembly constituency. The main purpose of these groups would be to do locally what PANA has sought to do on a national level. That is, contact local groups, such as the local trade union councils and other civil society groups and seek to ensure they affiliate to, or at least work with PANA. They can contact the local groups of the organisations affiliated to PANA nationally as well as those affiliated to CAECU.

We helped to establish CAECU to build links between the issues of war, neo-liberalism and democracy and the fact that it has agreed to continue is a very progressive development. It has the potential to build a stronger and broader national alliance. Whether they do so, does not depend on PANA, it depends on the willingness of the political parties that led the campaign to learn from the experience of victory, the experience that only through unity can we actually win.

We need to continue the process of building links with groups throughout the world,
in particular with those in the other EU states and the US.

None of these developments can take place without the support of the existing affiliates.

As part of this process PANA should plan out its activities for 2010 with a focus on the following events:

1. A demonstration at the end of February outside ACRA Controls Ltd that makes component parts of the military drones used in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We hope to do so in conjunction with the IAWM and other progressive groups.

2. Organise a meeting of shannonwatch.org in March as part of the IAWM events.

3. Hold a conference on An Independent Irish Policy in September in Dublin by seeking to bring together all the international solidarity groups.

4. To begin the planning of another International Peace Conference in Shannon in 2011.

5. Hold at least one major demonstration at Shannon Airport, including an international “fly-in”.

The overwhelming reality is that the neo-liberalist militarist ideology that has dominated the world for the last 40 years is facing a massive crisis. The US budget deficit is now $1.4 trillion, 10% of its GDP. The US national debt as a % of its GDP has risen from 58% in the year 2000 to a projected 98% in 2010 and a massive 148% in 2018. This debt does not include the debts of its individual states nor the US states guarantee’s to its failed banking system. Since China and Japan own over 20% each of that debt via their ownership of US treasury holdings they are unlikely to buy more and if anything they will sell dollars to ensure a more balanced portfolio.

It is also having problems finding recruits despite rising unemployment. The US Army Times newspaper recently published an article stating that 33% of all US males between 17-24 are unqualified for military service because they are too fat. Which is another reason why it has to spend massive amounts of money on hiring mercenaries in firms like Blackwater.

In short, the US just cannot and will not be able to sustain its spending of 21% of its annual tax take on its military, especially when this figure does not include expenditure on nuclear weapons which are under the Dept. of Energy budget, and grants to foreign states which is under the control of the State Dept. The US Empire will self destruct as a consequence of the Bush-Obama wars, and if there is a massive run on the dollar, which could happen at any moment, then its destruction will be sudden and swift, as happened with the Soviet Union, which also militarily overextended itself. The figures speak for themselves. The US is spending $11 million an hour on the Afghan war alone. The $100 billion it sends in a year could provide all people in the 21 poorest countries in the world with clean water, primary education and healthcare.

PANA in advocating a rejection of the Bush/Obama militarist neo-liberal agenda is simply surfing the tide of history as they drive their Empire to its destruction. The consequence for those states that have decided to ally themselves with the US; for example, there are 35,000 troops from EU states including 7 from Ireland already in Afghanistan and they plan to increase that number by at least 5,000, will be equally disastrous.

Finally, in a few years time in 2016, PANA will be marking its 20th anniversary. These next few years have the potential to see not just a defeat of the neo-liberal militarist values in Ireland and the creation of a government committed to the values of independence, democracy and neutrality, but similar transformations in the political structure throughout Europe and the US.

In Ireland, that means continuing our campaign to terminate the use of Shannon Airport as a de facto military airforce base by the US and its allies and to eliminate the military provisions of the European Union. These are practical and achievable objectives.

For some that is far fetched, but the Soviet Union collapsed because of its commitment to imperial war in Afghanistan and very few predicted its demise. Can there be any real doubt that the commitment to imperial war by the US/EU/NATO/Israeli axis in Iraq, Afghanistan/Iran/Palestine and Pakistan will led to an even greater collapse of the dominant neo-liberal militarist ideology?

PANA and CAECU should play a role in that process. We should seek to ensure that the alternative that will develop out of its collapse is based on democratic values, as there is no guarantee that this will be the case. We have to continually work in building a network of contacts with other genuine civil society groups and those individuals in all the existing mainstream parties that have a commitment to democracy.

The absolute reality is clear. As the global crisis deeps it is only the agenda of the peace movement that can ensure stability and survival. The slogan of the peace movement; Protest and Survive, is more valid now than it ever was.

Roger Cole
Chair
Peace & Neutrality Alliance
www.pana.ie
PANA AGM 5/12/09

The Bush-Obama Wars 2001-2012 and the Fall of the American Empire

International conference jointly organised by
CND (UK) and Mouvement de la Paix (France)
- Saturday 5th March 2005
- Mechanics Institute, Central Manchester, UK

This year sees the 60 th Anniversary of the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United States in 1945. Despite all the consequent death, devastation and suffering the world has not yet achieved a ban on nuclear weapons. Although as recently as 2000, at the UN Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, the nuclear weapons states made an 'unequivocal undertaking' to take positive steps to nuclear disarmament, very little has happened. This year we must press governments to carry out their legal obligations to achieve global nuclear disarmament.

NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the military alliance which includes the USA and Canada, has been expanded to 26 states across Europe. Yet NATO is a block to the furthering of the aims of the N.P.T. as it still holds policies of retaining nuclear weapons, of using nuclear arms first and a policy of nuclear sharing so that the US can store nuclear weapons at bases on the land of non-nuclear weapon states. NATO's total military budget is over $400 billion.

The new European Constitution includes articles which support a European army, support for selling more arms from Europe and recommendations that member states should spend more on defence.

The above issues are urgently in need of public debate, because there is no doubt that people are seeking ways to achieve peace and human security.

Will they find it through military security? Can governments still threaten the use of nuclear weapons?

What is the effect of the spending of huge amounts of money on more advanced technological, including nuclear, weapons? If we are to change hearts and minds, how will we do it?

We will raise these questions in the workshops at the conference where every participant will have a chance to contribute. .

The speakers will include:

Tobias Pflueger, Member of the European Parliament, (Germany)
Jeremy Corbyn, Member of the UK Parliament
Arielle Denis, Co President of the Mouvement de la Paix (France)
Kate Hudson, Chair of CND (UK)
Roger Cole, Peace and Neutrality Alliance (Republic of Ireland)

On Sunday, 6 th March , there will be a cultural programme including optional visits to the Imperial War Museum and the People's Museum. This is also Irish Festival Week in Manchester which includes music, concerts and craft markets.

You will receive a warm welcome in Manchester - we do hope you can come .

Registration forms and full information on the programme, accommodation and travel are available from
Greater Manchester CND, 22a Beswick Street, MANCHESTER M4 7HR
e-mail gmdcnd@gn.apc.org ,
website www.gmdcnd.org.uk

Tel +44 161 273 8283 - Fax +44 161 273 8293

Speech by Roger Cole to the 2010 AGM of PANA

On Saturday November 27 members of PANA took part in the 50,000 plus strong ICTU march in Dublin against the neo-liberal economic policies being pursued by the Irish/EU/IMF political elite. At that march the 1916 Proclamation was read out at the GPO and the call was made to build a new Republic.

A week earlier on Saturday November 20, members of PANA took part in the 40,000 strong Portuguese Council for Peace and Cooperation’s march in favour of peace and against NATO.

By participating in these two marches which are the latest expressions of the growing resistance against the EU/US/NATO political elite and their neo-liberal militarist ideology, PANA is making it crystal clear that it has maintained its core policy that this elite can only be defeated if there is no distinction make in the resistance whether it is the military, economic or political dimension of their ideology or whether it is national or international.

This analysis was the reason why PANA called a conference on November 2004 to build a broader alliance covering the economic and democratic as well as the military dimensions, out of which grew the Campaign Against the EU Constitution-Vote No to Lisbon which played such a key role in winning the first Lisbon referendum and in achieving a high no vote in the second, despite the €millions spent by the rich and powerful EU/Irish elite.

It was this analysis that ensured that CAECU was not disbanded but renamed the Campaign for a Social Europe so that a structure would be maintained to ensure that it was available when the broad alliance of all the progressive anti-imperialist groups again went into battle. It is the reason why members of PANA play an active role on the National Executive of the CSE.

We need to ensure that in 2011 the CSE website is revamped and that it plays a more decisive role in the economic aspects of the debate in the way that the PANA site does in the anti-militarist arena.

Since its foundation in 1996 PANA has always sought to build international links with peace groups in Europe and throughout the world. While in Lisbon PANA ensured that delegates attend conference organised by the CPPC and the World Peace Council as well as the conference organised by PAGAN and the No-to-NATO-No-to-War network at which as Chair of PANA I made a presentation on a workshop the links between NATO and the EU.

While at the CPPC/WPC conference, it became absolutely clear that the analysis presented there was virtually the same as PANA’s.

I therefore strongly recommend to the incoming NEC of PANA that we proceed to building stronger links with the WPC in 2011.

PANA is of course already linked with the No-to-Nato-No-to-War European network and we are honoured by their decision to ask PANA to host their Executive AGM in Dublin in April 2011.

Thus 2011 is sent to mark a major growth in PANA’s role in the European and global peace movements. We have always made the case that PANA has no right to exist except as part of the global peace movement. Our ability to mobilise support for the US Army out of Shannon Campaign by most of the US peace movement was a good example of the goodwill and knowledge that already exists in the US towards PANA.

Thus our input into that global peace movement has steadily grown over the years and hopefully 2011 will mark an acceleration of that process.

Throughout 2010 PANA has sought to highlight the continuing use of Shannon Airport by the American Empire in its ongoing wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan. We have worked very closely with Shannonwatch in that process, a group that is now affiliated to PANA and is at the vanguard of that campaign.

We also decided in 2010 to organise a Conference on an Independent Irish Foreign Policy in order to restore the concept of the right of the Irish people to have their own foreign policy back on to the political agenda and to build stronger links with a wide a range of political parties and ngo’s involved in foreign policy issues. It was a very successful conference and we certainly achieved our objective in building stronger links with the ICTU Solidarity Committee, Trocaire, the Burma Action Group and many more. In fact, virtually every group involved in foreign affairs attended including a good few embassies.

However, once more, the corporate media gave this PANA event little or no coverage. Their focus instead was on the visit to this state by the war criminal Tony Blair. The lack of coverage can be easily explained by going on the PANA website and studying the amount of money paid to Irish journalists by the EU during the “debate” on the Lisbon 2 referendum. The reality is that most of the political and economic journalists have been little more than intellectual mercenaries for the EU/US/NATO elite. Nevertheless as the economic crisis deepens and their wars expand it is possible that more than a few Irish journalists are reconsidering their position.

PANA knows that there is no justifiable reason why the media should report our AGM, but we should in fact take it as a major complement that the corporate media decided to also ignore our major conference despite the wide range and inclusive nature of the conference. The reality is it does not want the people to know that PANA already has the status and ability to organise such a conference; neither do they don’t support the ideas and values of Irish Independence, Democracy and Neutrality advocated by PANA since 1996.

The truth, of course is that PANA is essentially just an idea. With a turnover of less that €10,000 what else can we be. It is, however an idea that stretches back over 220 years when Irish Neutrality, Democracy and Independence were first advocated by Wolfe Tone in his pamphlet ‘The Spanish War’.

There is a case to be made that it is an idea whose time has come again and events are providing real evidence for it.

Only a short while ago the leaders of the ICTU and newspaper columnists in the Irish Times were campaigning to force the Irish people to vote again on the Lisbon Treaty. Yet on Nov 27 they organised a march to the GPO where once more the 1916 Proclamation was read, and this time to massive applause.

For the leaders of the ICTU and the more progressive elements in the media it is perhaps a case of Irish democracy for slow learners.

In the Donegal by-election the Sinn Fein candidate won and Thomas Pringle another supporter of PANA’s values did well, so a clear majority of the people there voted for people who are affiliated to or support PANA.

Therefore there is real evidence that we are living in historic times and
the upcoming election could be the most decisive since 1918.

A large and substantial section of the electorate could not just humiliate Fianna Fail, they could also swing past Fine Gael and Labour, and on towards Sinn Fein and the United Left Alliance that were part of the Campaign Against the EU Constitution. After all, it was not that long ago that the majority of the people rejected the Lisbon Treaty and since then the campaign promises of the yes people have been exposed for the lies that they were.

PANA needs to draw up a series of questions to put to all the candidates so that is clear which of them do or no support Ireland’s integration into the EU/US/NATO military structures.

This is not guaranteed however. Even the emerging social democratic alternative led by TASC and Claiming Our Future has sought to ignore Ireland’s involvement in the imperial wars of the EU/US/NATO axis. It is a core part of our job to ensure they are not successful, and if the response to our leafleting of some of their events is anything to go by, they will not succeed. Wars like elephants in the room just cannot be ignored for long.

Finally, while all the attention has been on the economic crisis caused by our own neo-liberal militarist political/corporate media elite has focused on the EU, let me draw your attention to some other global events. Russia, China and Brazil have agreed to use each other’s currencies in bi-lateral trade, which will accelerate the decline of the US dollar as the global reserve currency.

This is happening at a time when the Commission established by President Obama is advocating the increasing of the old age pension to 69, cutting social security and reducing the tax for the rich people, all to ensure that the US Empire and its European NATO allies can continue their wars.

At their Lisbon Conference the NATO elite described the EU as a strategic (i.e. military) ally, they declared their intention to continue their imperial wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan and to threaten war on Iran. They also decided to keep their nuclear weapons and on top of all that, to spend € billions on a missile shield against attack.

This is what the leaders of IBEC, the ICTU, the Fianna Fail Party, the Fine Gael Party, the Labour Party and the Green Party all supported when they forced the Irish people to reverse their decision on Lisbon. All they offered the Irish people is poverty and war.

PANA has opposed these warmongers since our foundation. We have sought to build an alliance that advocates Irish Independence, Irish Democracy and Irish Neutrality. If those that have opposed us in the past, like the ICTU and the Labour Party, are now changing, then we welcome that change. After all, James Connolly not only helped to found the ITGWU and the Labour Party, but he also founded the Irish Neutrality League in 1914.

In 2014 marks the 100th anniversary of foundation of the Irish Neutrality League, so let have hope that it is an event celebrated not just in the Ireland Institute by PANA, not just in Liberty Hall by SIPTU, but also by the Irish people in the New Irish Republic.

Building the Republic

Bunaíodh Comhaontas na Síochána is Neodrachta chun polasaí eachtrach neamhspleách a mholadh, chun neodracht na hÉireann a chothú, agus chun Náisiúin Aontaithe leasaithe a mholadh mar eagraíocht trína gcuirfidh Éirinn a cúraimí slándála chun cinn.

Tá cead isteach ag gach grúpa agus gach duine a ghlacann lenár gcuspóirí.

** Nuacht is déanaí:
Sínigh an achainí a iarrann reifreann a bhuanfadh an neodracht i mBunreacht na hÉireann (traschóipeáil comhad Word, 350 kb).

* Ailt:
Neutral?? Ireland on the slippery slopes back to the Somme?
le Edward Horgan, an Baile Nua, Caladh an Treoigh, Luimneach (13 Eanáir 2004)

Europe at the Crossroads: Health and Education as Business Opportunity?
Páipéar eolais ón ngrúpa Democracy and Public Services in Europe (DAPSE) ar na forálacha i ndréachtbhunreacht an Aontais Eorpaigh a bhaineann an bonn ó smacht daonlathach ar chinnteoireacht san Aontas Eorpach agus a chuireann chun cinn liobrálú i dtráchtáil, oideachas, sláinte, agus seirbhísí cultúrtha agus closamhairc. (Nollaig 2003)

The power balance in an enlarged Europe (10 Nollaig 2003)

The Eropean Union: A Partnership of Democratic States
Preasráiteas PANA ar Dhréachtbhunreacht an Aontais Eorpaigh (2 Deireadh Fómhair 2003)

- Tuilleadh alt >

Why Humanitarian Interventionism is a Dead End
Beware the Anti-Anti-War Left
by JEAN BRICMONT
Louvain, Belgium

Ever since the 1990s, and especially since the Kosovo war in 1999, anyone who opposes armed interventions by Western powers and NATO has to confront what may be called an anti-anti-war left (including its far left segment). In Europe, and notably in France, this anti-anti-war left is made up of the mainstream of social democracy, the Green parties and most of the radical left. The anti-anti-war left does not come out openly in favor of Western military interventions and even criticizes them at times (but usually only for their tactics or alleged motivations – the West is supporting a just cause, but clumsily and for oil or for geo-strategic reasons). But most of its energy is spent issuing “warnings” against the supposed dangerous drift of that part of the left that remains firmly opposed to such interventions. It calls upon us to show solidarity with the “victims” against “dictators who kill their own people”, and not to give in to knee-jerk anti-imperialism, anti-Americanism, or anti-Zionism, and above all not to end up on the same side as the far right. After the Kosovo Albanians in 1999, we have been told that “we” must protect Afghan women, Iraqi Kurds and more recently the people of Libya and of Syria.

It cannot be denied that the anti-anti-war left has been extremely effective. The Iraq war, which was sold to the public as a fight against an imaginary threat, did indeed arouse a fleeting opposition, but there has been very little opposition on the left to interventions presented as “humanitarian”, such as the bombing of Yugoslavia to detach the province of Kosovo, the bombing of Libya to get rid of Gaddafi, or the current intervention in Syria. Any objections to the revival of imperialism or in favor of peaceful means of dealing with such conflicts have simply been brushed aside by invocations of “R2P”, the right or responsibility to protect, or the duty to come to the aid of a people in danger.

The fundamental ambiguity of the anti-anti-war left lies in the question as to who are the “we” who are supposed to intervene and protect. One might ask the Western left, social movements or human rights organizations the same question Stalin addressed to the Vatican, “How many divisions do you have?” As a matter of fact, all the conflicts in which “we” are supposed to intervene are armed conflicts. Intervening means intervening militarily and for that, one needs the appropriate military means. It is perfectly obvious that the Western left does not possess those means. It could call on European armies to intervene, instead of the United States, but they have never done so without massive support from the United States. So in reality the actual message of the anti-anti-war left is: “Please, oh Americans, make war not love!” Better still, inasmuch as since their debacle in Afghanistan and in Iraq, the Americans are leery of sending in ground troops, the message amounts to nothing other than asking the U.S. Air Force to go bomb countries where human rights violations are reported to be taking place.

Of course, anyone is free to claim that human rights should henceforth be entrusted to the good will of the U.S. government, its bombers, its missile launchers and its drones. But it is important to realize that that is the concrete meaning of all those appeals for “solidarity” and “support” to rebel or secessionist movements involved in armed struggles. Those movements have no need of slogans shouted during “demonstrations of solidarity” in Brussels or in Paris, and that is not what they are asking for. They want to get heavy weapons and see their enemies bombed.

The anti-anti-war left, if it were honest, should be frank about this choice, and openly call on the United States to go bomb wherever human rights are violated; but then it should accept the consequences. In fact, the political and military class that is supposed to save the populations “massacred by their dictators” is the same one that waged the Vietnam war, that imposed sanctions and wars on Iraq, that imposes arbitrary sanctions on Cuba, Iran and any other country that meets with their disfavor, that provides massive unquestioning support to Israel, which uses every means including coups d’état to oppose social reformers in Latin America, from Arbenz to Chavez by way of Allende, Goulart and others, and which shamelessly exploits workers and resources the world over. One must be quite starry-eyed to see in that political and military class the instrument of salvation of “victims”, but that is in practice exactly what the anti-anti-war left is advocating, because, given the relationship of forces in the world, there is no other military force able to impose its will.

Of course, the U.S. government is scarcely aware of the existence of the anti-anti-war left. The United States decides whether or not to wage war according to the chances of succeeding and to their own assessment of their strategic, political and economic interests. And once a war is begun, they want to win at all costs. It makes no sense to ask them to carry out only good interventions, against genuine villains, using gentle methods that spare civilians and innocent bystanders.

For example, those who call for “saving Afghan women” are in fact calling on the United States to intervene and, among other things, bomb Afghan civilians and shoot drones at Pakistan. It makes no sense to ask them to protect but not to bomb, because armies function by shooting and bombing.[1]

A favorite theme of the anti-anti-war left is to accuse those who reject military intervention of “supporting the dictator”, meaning the leader of the currently targeted country. The problem is that every war is justified by a massive propaganda effort which is based on demonizing the enemy, especially the enemy leader. Effectively opposing that propaganda requires contextualizing the crimes attributed to the enemy and comparing them to those of the side we are supposed to support. That task is necessary but risky; the slightest mistake will be endlessly used against us, whereas all the lies of the pro-war propaganda are soon forgotten.

Already, during the First World War, Bertrand Russell and British pacifists were accused of “supporting the enemy”. But if they denounced Allied propaganda, it was not out of love for the German Kaiser, but in the cause of peace. The anti-anti-war left loves to denounce the “double standards” of coherent pacifists who criticize the crimes of their own side more sharply than those attributed to the enemy of the moment (Milosevic, Gaddafi, Assad, and so on), but this is only the necessary result of a deliberate and legitimate choice: to counter the war propaganda of our own media and political leaders (in the West), propaganda which is based on constant demonization of the enemy under attack accompanied by idealization of the attacker.

The anti-anti-war left has no influence on American policy, but that doesn’t mean that it has no effect. Its insidious rhetoric has served to neutralize any peace or anti-war movement. It has also made it impossible for any European country to take such an independent position as France took under De Gaulle, or even Chirac, or as Sweden did with Olof Palme. Today such a position would be instantly attacked by the anti-anti-war left, which is echoed by European media, as “support to dictators”, another “Munich”, or “the crime of indifference”.

What the anti-anti-war left has managed to accomplish is to destroy the sovereignty of Europeans in regard to the United States and to eliminate any independent left position concerning war and imperialism. It has also led most of the European left to adopt positions in total contradiction with those of the Latin American left and to consider as adversaries countries such as China and Russia which seek to defend international law, as indeed they should.

When the media announce that a massacre is imminent, we hear at times that action is “urgent” to save the alleged future victims, and time cannot be lost making sure of the facts. This may be true when a building is on fire in one’s own neighborhood, but such urgency regarding other countries ignores the manipulation of information and just plain error and confusion that dominate foreign news coverage. Whatever the political crisis abroad, the instant “we must do something” reflex brushes aside serious reflection on the left as to what might be done instead of military intervention. What sort of independent investigation could be carried out to understand the causes of conflict and potential solutions? What can be the role of diplomacy? The prevailing images of immaculate rebels, dear to the left from its romanticizing of past conflicts, especially the Spanish Civil War, blocks reflection. It blocks realistic assessment of the relationship of forces as well as the causes of armed rebellion in the world today, very different from the 1930s, favorite source of the cherished legends of the Western left.

What is also remarkable is that most of the anti-anti-war left shares a general condemnation of the revolutions of the past, because they led to Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc. But now that the revolutionaries are (Western backed) Islamists, we are supposed to believe that everything will turn out fine. What about “drawing the lesson from the past” that violent revolutions are not necessarily the best or the only way to achieve social change?

An alternative policy would take a 180° turn away from the one currently advocated by the anti-anti-war left. Instead of calling for more and more interventions, we should demand of our governments the strict respect for international law, non-interference in the internal affairs of other States and cooperation instead of confrontation. Non-interference means not only military non-intervention. It applies also to diplomatic and economic actions: no unilateral sanctions, no threats during negotiations, and equal treatment of all States. Instead of constantly “denouncing” the leaders of countries such as Russia, China, Iran, Cuba for violating human rights, something the anti-anti-war left loves to do, we should listen to what they have to say, dialogue with them, and help our fellow citizens understand the different ways of thinking in the world, including the criticisms that other countries can make of our way of doing things. Cultivating such mutual understanding could in the long run be the best way to improve “human rights” everywhere.

This would not bring instant solutions to human rights abuses or political conflicts in countries such as Libya or Syria. But what does? The policy of interference increases tensions and militarization in the world. The countries that feel targeted by that policy, and they are numerous, defend themselves however they can. The demonization campaigns prevent peaceful relations between peoples, cultural exchanges between citizens and, indirectly, the flourishing of the very liberal ideas that the advocates of interference claim to be promoting. Once the anti-anti-war left abandoned any alternative program, it in fact gave up the possibility of having the slightest influence over world affairs. It does not in reality “help the victims” as it claims. Except for destroying all resistance here to imperialism and war, it does nothing. The only ones who are really doing anything are in fact the succeeding U.S. administrations. Counting on them to care for the well-being of the world’s peoples is an attitude of total hopelessness. This hopelessness is an aspect of the way most of the Left reacted to the “fall of communism”, by embracing the policies that were the exact opposite of those of the communists, particularly in international affairs, where opposition to imperialism and the defense of national sovereignty have increasingly been demonized as “leftovers from Stalinism”.

Interventionism and European construction are both right-wing policies. One of them is linked to the American drive for world hegemony. The other is the framework supporting neoliberal economic policies and destruction of social protection. Paradoxically, both have been largely justified by “left-wing” ideas : human rights, internationalism, anti-racism and anti-nationalism. In both cases, a left that lost its way after the fall of the Soviet bloc has grasped at salvation by clinging to a “generous, humanitarian” discourse, which totally lacks any realistic analysis of the relationship of forces in the world. With such a left, the right hardly needs any ideology of its own; it can make do with human rights.

Nevertheless, both those policies, interventionism and European construction, are today in a dead end. U.S. imperialism is faced with huge difficulties, both economic and diplomatic. Its intervention policy has managed to unite much of the world against the United States. Scarcely anyone believes any more in “another” Europe, a social Europe, and the real existing European Union (the only one possible) does not arouse much enthusiasm among working people. Of course, those failures currently benefit solely the right and the far right, only because most of the left has stopped defending peace, international law and national sovereignty, as the precondition of democracy.

JEAN BRICMONT teaches physics at the University of Louvain in Belgium. He is author of Humanitarian Imperialism. He can be reached at jean.Bricmont@uclouvain.be.

A French version of this article will be published soon by the author.

Notes.

[1] On the occasion of the recent NATO summit in Chicago, Amnesty International launched a campaign of posters calling on NATO to “keep up the progress” on behalf of women in Afghanistan, without explaining, or even raising the question as to how a military organization was supposed to accomplish such an objective.

Counterpunch
Tells the Facts and Names the Names
Published since 1996
Copyright © CounterPunch
All rights reserved.
counterpunch@counterpunch.org

Beware the Anti-Anti-War Left

on Saturday 29th of November 2008 (11.00am –5.30pm)
at the Ireland Institute, 27 Pearse Street, Dublin 2
Speakers include:

Kieran Allen, National Secretary, Socialist Workers Party
Roger Cole, Chair of PANA
Hans van Heijningen, General Secretary Dutch Socialist Party
Ed Horgan, International Secretary of PANA
Padraig Mannion, Secretary of PANA and Research of the WP
Mary Lou McDonald MEP, Chair of Sinn Fein
Patricia McKenna, Chair of the Peoples Movement
Dr. Andy Storey, Afri

Admission is free, but donations will be requested.

All welcome but votes are restricted to paid up members
For further information contact Roger Cole at
01-2351512 / 087-2611597

Hans van Heijningen

Hans van Heijningen was born in Naaldwijk - a small agricultural village between The Hague, Rotterdam and Delft - on 15th March 1953 and attended primary school in the village. He finished his secondary education at the Stanislas College in Delft. From 1972 to 1979 Van Heijningen studied sociology at the University of Amsterdam.

In 1980-81, Hans van Heijningen was a member of the executive committee of the soldiers' union VVDM, representing conscripts. Following his military service he worked as a neighbourhood development worker in Amsterdam.

In 1984 he left for Nicaragua where he would work until 1992, at first as a freelance consultant and journalist, and later, in the period of the Sandinista revolution, as a policy advisor to the Nicaraguan government and a researcher. From 1992 to 1995 Van Heijningen wrote a thesis on the relations between the peasantry and the Sandinista government, taking his doctorate in 1994 from the Catholic University of Nijmegen.

In addition to his thesis, he has written or edited numerous publications on Central America and has been a writer and editor at the Latin American periodicals Fuente, America Ventana and La Chispa. Hans van Heijningen was co-initiator of Attac Nederland, the Dutch affiliate of an organisation with branches worldwide which campaigns against neoliberal globalisation.

From 1998 to 2002 Van Heijningen worked as a coordinator of the development solidarity fund Solidariteitsfonds XminY in Amsterdam.

Via the anti-war movement (Afghanistan, Iraq) and globalisation initiatives he came into contact with the SP - www.international.sp.nl

From 2002 to 2005 he worked as a foreign policy advisor to the party's parliamentary group and was a member of the SP executive. In June 2005 he was elected General Secretary of the party.

Annual Conference 2008

22 November

Sinn Féin spokesperson on Defence Aengus Ó Snodaigh TD has expressed anger and disbelief at the decision of the Irish Government to approve Ireland’s involvement in the European Union’s Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) at a recent cabinet meeting. The issue was raised by Sinn Féin TDs Sean Crowe and Aengus Ó Snodaigh during a debate on the issue in the Dáil yesterday.

Teachta Ó Snodaigh said:

“Article 29 (4) (9) of the Irish Constitution specifically states that the state will not adopt a common EU defence where such a defence would include the participation of the state. The government's decision to join PESCO runs totally contrary to that Article.

“The clear aim of PESCO is to jointly develop the EU's military capabilities and to make them available for EU military operations.

“These missions are not confined to peacekeeping missions, and would allow the EU to intervene in conflicts such as those in Libya and Syria outside of UN and NATO structures.

“PESCO is being driven by France and Germany, both key members of NATO and in reality the strategic aims of PESCO are inseparable of that of NATO.

“By signing up to this, the Government would, as well as committing to provide troops to PESCO missions, be committing to trebling current spending on defence at a huge cost to the Irish people.

“The Minister for Defence has confirmed that the Government has approved a proposal to notify the EU of our intention to participate in PESCO.

“This flies in the face of the state's Constitution and, to add insult to injury, it appears that the Minister has not even taken the minor precaution of obtaining legal advice before proceeding with this reckless action. This is the biggest policy decision in relation to Irish Defence Forces since Irish soldiers were first sent on UN duties in 1960s.

“I am flabbergasted that the Independent Alliance ministers John Halligan, Shane Ross, and Finian McGrath agreed at Cabinet to this clear breach of Irish neutrality, a policy they stated in the past that they would protect and cherish. Maybe they should have thought about taking a real stand for world peace, by rejecting this.

“Despite being such a momentous decision and being at odds with what was promised and committed to during the Lisbon Treaty debates, Minister Paul Kehoe it seems is hellbent on rushing this through the Oireachtas with little debate. The government are expected to try and rush this volte-face through the Dáil with as little debate as possible in next fortnight.

“I am calling on the government to halt their headlong move into this fledgling EU Army and, in particular, I am calling on the Independent Alliance Ministers to stand true to their stated position, protect Irish neutrality and to reverse this Cabinet decision or vote with us in the Houses of the Oireachtas who want to see Irish neutrality protected and enhanced.”

Cabinet approval for Ireland's participation in EU Army violates Irish Neutrality

The AGM of the Peace & Neutrality Alliance will be held on Saturday 18th of October from 2.00 – 5.00pm In the Students Hall, Belfield, UCD.

There will be reports from the Secretary, Treasurer, International Secretary and Chair.

There will be elections to; Chair, Secretary, Treasurer, International Secretary, PRO, Research Officer and 3 ordinary members.

There will be the following proposals to change the PANA Constitution:

a. Replace in section 3, "decide policy" with "implement" policy.
b. Add "principal" before the word spokesperson in article 5.
Proposed Roger Cole
Add, "The Peace & Neutrality Alliance (PANA) stands for a world free from prejudice and discrimination where difficulties between peoples and nations are resolved on the basis of mutual respect and equality of treatment. We believe in a multilateral approach to international security within the framework of a reformed United Nations."
The Annual General Meeting is the supreme policy making body of the PANA.
PANA's elected officers will act as a steering committee with responsibility for the implementation of all policy decisions made by the Annual Conference and to ensure the smooth running and development of the organisation.

It’s main functions include:
The administrative aspects of all meetings including those of the National Executive and Annual General Meetings; the recruitment of new members; the management of finance and fund raising; the drafting, publication and distribution of Pane’s Newsletter etc; the maintenance and updating of Pane’s web page; relations with similar organizations that share our vision in Ireland and internationally.
Currently the National Executive comprises of one delegate from each affiliated organisation and the elected officers. In order to ensure that individual members of PANA have equal opportunity to participate in the work of PANA, three places should be reserved on the National Executive for them. The main role of the National Executive should be to oversee the work of the Steering Committee and to monitor the implementation of policies made by the AGM and other decisions in line with agreed policies.

Resolutions 2, 3, 4, 5, proposed and seconded by Des McGuinness and Noreen Byrne.

ULLA SANDBAEK MEP will give the AGM’s Frank Aiken Memorial Lecture. Ulla is a member of the Danish June Movement who campaigned against the conquest of Iraq and the militarisation of the EU.

The PANA AGM is open to the public, but only paid up members can vote.

The Annual General Meeting of the Peace and Neutrality Alliance

Dear PANA members,

I cannot be with you today because I am in the Ukraine as part of an OSCE team monitoring the forthcoming presidential elections.

The two past years has been very busy ones for PANA from national, regional (EU) and international points of view. We campaigned very actively in the European Union Lisbon Treaty referendum campaigns, and against all the odds we helped the Irish people to reject the Lisbon Treaty in the 2008 referendum. Due to the gross incompetence and corruption of the Irish Government, the Irish economy collapsed in the meantime and the Irish people have been persuaded to vote for the Lisbon Treaty in the second referendum, on the fraudulent basis that we cannot afford to offend the European Union in the hope that they will bail us out of our economic crisis. The truth is that it is not the EU or IMF who will bail out our corrupt bankers, developers and politicians, but our children and grandchildren who been mortgaged to pay for our government’s incompetent corruption, while the bankers and developers and some politicians will still have their bonuses and offshore accounts.

Meanwhile, the militarisation of Europe continues apace with the few remaining neutral states being sucked into NATO and EU militarisation projects. These projects include the now doomed foreign occupation of Afghanistan, the French neo-colonial interference in Chad and the Central African Republic, and the ongoing debacle in Iraq. Meanwhile the Genocide in Darfur and the deaths of over four million people in the Congo are being largely ignored. The economic and foreign policy incompetence of the Irish Government has been surpassed by the incompetence of their international masters in Brussels and Washington, and the cost of this incompetence and crimes against humanity has been over one million dead in Iraq and Afghanistan. This incompetence was also demonstrated by the precipitous and unwarranted expansion of NATO into the eastern European states on the borders of Russia. The people of Georgia have paid a very heavy price for this, and they have now probably permanently lost the provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia to Russia.

It has recently been exposed that the Government of Lithuania traded membership of NATO for the establishment of a CIA torture prison at a location called Antivilai near Vilnius. This agreement was reached between US President George W Bush and President Dalia Grybauskaite of Lithuania in early 2002, just around the same time (16 March 2002) that Irish Prime Minister Ahern probably made a similar agreement with the same G W Bush to allow US troops to transit through Shannon airport, and to allow CIA torture planes to refuel at Shannon. We don’t yet know what Bertie Ahern got in return, or what threats were made by Bush, or in what account dollars might have been lodged. We do know that the US Government at the time was threatening to introduce legislation that would force US companies to transfer foreign direct investment from countries such as Ireland back to the US. Following the Bush/Ahern’s agreement in 2002 to allow US troops and CIA planes to use Shannon, the proposed US legislation did not materialise. In the meantime over one and a half million armed US troops have passed through Shannon airport, over 1,000 CIA associated flights have been refuelled, and thousands of tons of highly dangerous munitions have also transited through Shannon. Over the past year Air France/City Jet, Aer Lingus and Ryanair have withdrawn many of their services from Shannon airport, to such an extent that the US military are now one of the largest user of this airport, and have troops permanently based at Shannon. The reality now is that Shannon airport is a US military base, and this is not just an anti-war cliché. Irish neutrality has not just been degraded it has been abandoned in a smokescreen of government lies at Shannon airport.

We as Irish citizens and as members of PANA could just accept all this as reality and take no further action, particularly after having lost round two of Lisbon. That would be a serious mistake and would be inherently wrong. We must continue to do what is right because it is right. We must ally ourselves with similar human rights and peace groups in Ireland and internationally and we must increase our efforts for peace and justice in Ireland and internationally. While the restoration of Irish neutrality is, and should remain, one of our key objectives, the PEACE element of our PANA organisation is our primary objective. Neutrality is one of the ways of promoting peace, and peace without JUSTICE is just a temporary ceasefire.

As International Secretary of PANA I have been active in a wide variety of ways, not least of which was the completion of a PhD thesis on reform of the United Nations in 2008. At Shannon airport I have been part of a very small group of peace activists who have been exposing the complicity of the Irish government in crimes against humanity in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo. For a while there were just two or three of us, but now we are getting increasing valuable support from the local Amnesty group and others and this has led to the holding of monthly peace vigils at Shannon on the second Sunday of every month from 2pm to 3pm, and to the setting up of the website www.shannonwatch.org. We also organised two successful international peace conferences at Shannon in March and September of this year, with substantial help from PANA and IAWM. We have established contacts with peace groups in the United States, Sweden and Germany, with the objective of sharing information on CIA torture flights.

Looking back, while we can claim some successes, we must acknowledge a deep sense of shame at the actions of our government, supported by many Irish people and probably by a majority of Irish politicians, in being actively complicit in crimes against humanity. With over one million fellow members of humanity unlawfully killed and very many more seriously injured, and many thousands tortured, we all owe a debt of atonement to these victims. We must do all we can into the future to ensure some retrospective justice for these people and to ensure some accountability by our politicians and others who have been guilty of the most serious crimes in these matters.

Looking forward, we must be steadfast in our determination to pursue peace with justice. I recommend that all members of PANA should make the restoration of Irish neutrality and the ending of the US military abuse of Shannon airport a priority. We need to put an action plan in place to achieve this, and this should include the following:

Continuing support for the monthly peace vigils at Shannon airport, and the organisation of larger peace protests at Shannon on specific occasions such 20 March and 11 November each year.
Consider the setting up a war-crimes tribunal in Ireland at which Irish politicians and others who were complicit in crimes against humanity would be tried in a people’s court.
There should be a separate investigation, led by PANA, into Irish complicity in the CIA torture rendition programme.
Find ways of making some atonement to the victims of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Since the complicity by Ireland in these crimes was primarily financially driven, we must find ways of ensuring that as many of the victims as possible can claim some financial compensation and reparations for the Irish Government, in proportion to the Irish Government’s complicity, with added exemplary penalties. This should apply in particular to prisoners who were tortured. It is vital that neither the Irish taxpayer nor other individuals should have profited from war crimes.
Most importantly, we must do everything in our power, using non-violent means, to end the US military and CIA use of Shannon airport, even if this means the temporary closing of Shannon airport, and other necessary peace actions including acts of so-called “civil disobedience”. The real civil disobedience and serious breaches of the law have been committed by the Irish Government and its agents including the Gardai at Shannon. Our actions to repair some of the injustices committed and make some atonement will be acts of “civil obedience”, and acts to restore the proper rule of law, and uphold the principles of justice.
On an international level, we should form further alliances with other likeminded peace and justice groups in Ireland and internationally to promote our common aims. These groups should include organisations that promote neutrality in other countries, groups that seek the reform and transformation of the United Nations so that it can achieve its primary objective of creating international peace, and groups such as the Nonviolent Peaceforce.
PANA should promote the specific objective of encouraging the countries that border on Russia to become neutral states, thereby creating a buffer zone or a zone of peace of neutral states between Russia and NATO member states. This should include encouraging the continuing neutrality of Sweden and Finland, and promoting neutrality for the following countries: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Mongolia.

Finally, we must not underestimate the scale of the tasks ahead, but we must also appreciate how much we can achieve if we work together and with others. International peace by peaceful means is achievable. War and military aggression, and so-called peace-enforcement, are the opposite to peace, and only promote further violence and mayhem, as is evident in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Edward Horgan, International Secretary, PANA

Report by Edward Horgan to the AGM on 5 October 2009

By Mícheál MacDonncha,
- Aibreán 2003.
- (Air: Banna Strand)

Come Irishmen and women all and listen to my song
A song of war and shattered peace, a song of right and wrong.
The crimes of this false government committed in our name
The crimes of hopeless hirelings who bring our nation shame.

Robert Emmet stood condemned two hundred years ago
An enemy of England’s crown, to the gallows he did go
He died to win our freedom, our liberty to gain
But shameless men have made our land a province once again.

Remember brave James Connolly in ’14 did declare
‘Neither King nor Kaiser but Ireland we will serve’
He stood against the Empire’s war and raised the Starry Plough
But Ireland’s cowardly leaders serve another Empire now.

The British Empire’s dead and gone but John Bull’s a bully still
A corner boy for Uncle Sam he does his master’s will
Warmongers and war criminals George Bush and Tony Blair
With cluster bombs and poison shells they slaughter from the air.

The Global Empire wages war in Iraq and Palestine
And Irish lackies bend the knee, colluding in their crime
They sell the nation’s soul again by the River Shannon’s side
It flows with bitter tears for countless innocents who died.

Now Irishmen and women all you’ve listened to my song
A song of war and shattered peace, a song of right and wrong
The crimes of this false government that bring our nation shame
We say to them ‘no blood for oil’ we say ‘not in our name’.

Ireland’s shame - not in our name

Preferences Decline Accept

Your privacy preferences

When you visit websites, they may store or retrieve data in your browser. This storage is often necessary for the basic functionality of the website.

The storage may be used for marketing, analytics, and personalisation of the site, such as storing your preferences.

Privacy is important to us, so you have the option of disabling certain types of storage that may not be necessary for the basic functioning of the website. Blocking categories may impact your experience on the website.

Close this window Privacy Policy

Thank you! Your submission has been received!

Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

Click here to review your Cookie Preferences.

Open letter from Irish Academics on Triple Lock

March 6, 2025

Archival

Article

PANA

Download the Press Release

↓

↗

Shared with PANA by Academics for Palestine. See follow-up letter of 2026 here.

‍

4th March 2025

‍

An Taoiseach, Mr. Micheál Martin TD

Department of the Taoiseach

Government Building

Merrion Street

Dublin 2

‍

A Thaoisigh,

‍

On behalf of the undersigned academics and university workers we write in response to the recent draft legislation to amend the State’s “triple lock” on the deployment of Defence Forces peacekeepers overseas.

For many years, Ireland has been a courageous voice on the international stage proudly championing peace initiatives even when doing so meant challenging the interests of the world’s most powerful nations. At the height of the Cold War, Minister Frank Aiken led efforts at the United Nations (UN) towards the creation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Similarly, Ireland advanced processes on the prohibition of nuclear weapons, cluster munitions, and anti-personnel landmines. Moreover, Ireland is the only nation with a continuous presence in the UN and UN mandated peace-support operations since 1958. Since the foundation of the state, Ireland has upheld its constitutional commitment to resolving international disputes peacefully, adopting a policy of neutrality that has kept Ireland out of foreign wars. Though this made Ireland an outlier among many of its European peers, it demonstrated a clear and unwavering commitment to peace. Ireland’s neutrality has served it well, earning it credibility and legitimacy on the global sphere as a peace-maker, a reputation that the people of Ireland are rightly immensely proud of.

We write today because we are alarmed at the cabinet’s decision to approve the scrapping of Ireland’s Triple Lock. The Triple Lock is a central component of Ireland’s neutral position because it essentially stands as a bulwark against deploying Irish troops unless there is a UN mandate to do so. In other words, the Triple Lock guarantees that troop deployment may only take place under the auspices of the UN system, as a guarantor of international peace and security. Removing the Triple Lock may sound the death knell on Irish neutrality.

In your capacity as opposition leader, you described the Triple Lock as being ‘at the core of our neutrality’. You now claim otherwise and your Government regularly informs the public not to conflate neutrality with the Triple Lock. Similarly, you acknowledged that although ‘the United Nations is not working as it should ... we must not abandon it as an essential part of the international system’. While the geopolitical and international context has changed over the past few years, there is no obvious justification to now abandon this ‘essential part of the international system’. It is easy to be neutral in times of peace. The real test, and where it matters most, is being neutral in times of war and heightened conflict. By undoing the Triple Lock, Ireland will significantly weaken its commitment to the UN system, UN peace-keeping and multilateralism. This would come at a time when the UN faces unprecedented challenges, particularly in the context of Israel’s genocidal war on Palestine.

The Government’s main argument for removing the Triple Lock rests on the claim that the UN Security Council holds a veto over the deployment of Irish troops overseas. This is misleading and incorrect. Yes, the United Nations Charter, a foundational document of international law, grants veto powers to the Permanent Five (P5) members. However, the government’s framing of these powers would suggest that P5 members specifically set out to stop Ireland from deploying troops. This is not the case. P5 vetoes are driven by geopolitical tensions, and a veto in respect of a peacekeeping mission would almost certainly stem from such tensions and the security concerns arising from the deployment of a proposed peacekeeping mission. In other words, if a peacekeeping mission was vetoed by a permanent member, and it was to attempt to deploy anyway, there is little likelihood that it would actually be able to keep the peace.

Moreover, although the UN Charter gives primary responsibility for international peace and security to the Security Council, General Assembly resolution 377 (V) also known as the ‘Uniting for Peace’ resolution sets out that ‘. . . if the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in any case where there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately with a view to making appropriate recommendations to Members for collective measures, including in the case of a breach of the peace or act of aggression, the use of armed force when necessary, to maintain or restore international peace and security’. In this regard, the Defence Amendment Act 2006 specifically makes reference to ‘a resolution of the Security Council or the General Assembly of the United Nations.’

Given the weak arguments for removing the Triple Lock, we are left to wonder if other motivations are at play, particularly at a time when the Government is also looking to significantly ramp up military spending. If Ireland acts outside the remit of the UN Charter and deploys troops on EU or NATO missions, it may quickly find itself in direct conflict with the world’s most powerful armies, some of which have nuclear warheads at their disposal. For us, it seems clear that the benefits of operating within the UN system far outweigh the risks associated with operating outside it.

Ireland is a small island nation. Its contribution on the global stage has been immense, punching far above its weight to promote peace and reject war. Considering that a recent opinion poll showed that 75 percent of Ireland’s population favours maintaining Ireland’s current policy of neutrality, it would appear that your Government has no mandate to revoke the Triple Lock. To the contrary, in a healthy democracy, a Government would transform such overwhelming popular support into concrete action by holding a referendum to enshrine neutrality in the Irish constitution.

At a time when the world appears to be on the brink of a global war and potential nuclear catastrophe, we urgently need global leaders to courageously face down warmongers and redouble their commitment to peace and neutrality, to genuine multilateralism, and to upholding the rule of law. Protecting the Triple Lock would send a message to the Irish people and to the global community that Ireland intends to do precisely that.

‍

Is sinne, le meas

‍

1. Prof Dónal Hassett, Maynooth University

‍

2. Prof Camilla Fitzsimons, Maynooth University

‍

3. Prof Karen Till, Maynooth University

‍

4. Prof Gerry Kearns, Maynooth University

‍

5. Prof John Barry, Queen’s University Belfast

‍

6. Dr. Patrick Bresnihan, Associate Professor, Maynooth University

‍

7. Dr. Rory Rowan, Assistant Professor, Trinity College Dublin

‍

8. Dr. Sharae Deckard, Associate Professor, University College Dublin

9. Dr. James Beirne, Critical Skills, Maynooth University

10. Dr Conor Crummey, Assistant Professor, Maynooth University

‍

11. Dr. Barry Cannon, Associate Professor, Maynooth University.

12. Dr. Harun Šiljak, Assistant Professor, Trinity College Dublin

‍

13. Dr. Eilish Dillon, Assistant Professor, Maynooth University

‍

14. Dr. Eoin Flaherty, Maynooth University

‍

15. Dr. Mark Walsh, Associate Professor, Mathematics and Statistics, Maynooth University

‍

16. Dr. Anne Mulhall, Associate Professor, University College Dublin

‍

17. Dr. John Reynolds, School of Law & Criminology, Maynooth University

‍

18. Dr. Niamh Keady-Tabbal, Maynooth University

‍

19. Dr Niamh Gaynor, Dublin City University

‍

20. Ciarán Nugent, Maynooth University

‍

21. Dr Peter Doran, School of Law, Queen’s University Belfast

‍

22. Prof. John Morrissey, University of Galway

‍

23. Dr. Patrick Brodie, University College Dublin

‍

24. Dr. Illan Wall, University of Galway

‍

25. Dr Paola Rivetti, Dublin City University

‍

26. Dr. Karen Devine, Dublin City University

‍

27. Dr. Brendan Ciarán Browne, Associate Professor, Trinity College Dublin

‍

28. Dr. Rhiannon Bandiera, School of Law and Criminology, Maynooth University

‍

29. Dr Heather Laird, School of English and Digital Humanities, University College Cork

‍

30. Criostóir King, Maynooth University

‍

31. Dr Niamh Wycherley, Maynooth University

‍

32. Dr Susan Giblin, Maynooth University

‍

33. Dr Theresa O'Keefe, Senior Lecturer, University College Cork

‍

34. Dr Paul Michael Garrett, University of Galway

‍

35. Niamh Rooney, Maynooth University

‍

36. Dr Catherine Ann Cullen, University College Dublin

‍

37. Prof. Maggie O’Neill, University College Cork

‍

38. Dr Deirdre Curran, University of Galway

‍

39. Kevin Hearty, Queen’s University Belfast

‍

40. Dr Mikael Fernstrom, University of Limerick

‍

41. Dr Maria Barry, Dublin City University

‍

42. Dr Deirdre Dunlevy, The Open University Ireland

‍

43. Peter Maybury, TU Dublin

‍

44. Dr Deirdre Kelly, TU Dublin

‍

45. An Dr Dorothy Ní Uigín, Ollscoil na Gaillimhe

‍

46. Seán Breathnach, Ollscoil na Gaillimhe

‍

47. Dr Orla Kelleher, School of Law and Criminology, Maynooth University

‍

48. Prof Colin Coulter, Maynooth University

‍

49. Dearbhla Ní Chúláin, Ollscoil na Gaillimhe

‍

50. Dr. Ellen McCabe, Atlantic Technological University

‍

51. Orla Murphy, University College Dublin

‍

52. Dr Harry Browne, TU Dublin

‍

53. Dr. Fiona Murphy, Dublin City University

‍

54. Dr Elizabeth Kiely University College Cork

‍

55. Dr Rebecca Usherwood, Trinity College Dublin

‍

56. Eimear Ní Mhaoldomhnaigh, Coláiste na hOllscoile Corcaigh

‍

57. Dr Patrick Doyle, University of Limerick

‍

58. Prof Aoife Daly, University College Cork

‍

59. Brian Hand, National College of Art and Design

‍

60. Prof. Jane Grogan, University College Dublin

‍

61. Dr Rosie R Meade, University College Cork

‍

62. Dr V’cenza Cirefice, University of Galway

‍

63. Elaine Mears, Atlantic Technological University

‍

64. Louise Glynn, Institute of Art, Design and Technology, Dun Laoghaire

‍

65. Prof Cathal Seoighe, University of Galway

‍

66. Prof John Gray, University College London

‍

67. Dr Aoife Titley, Maynooth University

‍

68. Dr Marie Moran, UCD

‍

69. Dr Morten Greaves, UCD

‍

70. Romeo Fraccari, University College Dublin

‍

71. Robin Steve, University College Dublin

‍

72. Prof Gavan Titley, Maynooth University

‍

73. Dr Edel Hughes, Irish Centre for Human Rights, University of Galway

‍

74. Dr Mark Garavan, Atlantic Technological University

‍

75. Prof. Abhay Pandit, University of Galway

‍

76. Dr Michael. G. Cronin, Maynooth University

‍

77. Dr Jo Murphy-Lawless, University of Galway

‍

78. Alanna McLoughlin, University of Galway

‍

79. Dr Roisin McMackin, Trinity College Dublin

‍

80. Karen Young, University of Galway

‍

81. Dr Aoife Boyd, University of Galway

‍

82. An Dr Áine Nic Niallais, Ollscoil na Gaillimhe

‍

83. Dr Danielle Hynes, Maynooth University

‍

84. Professor Máire Leane, UCC

‍

85. Dr Amin Sharifi Isaloo, UCC

‍

86. Geraldine Doolan, University of Galway

‍

87. Darragh Coakley, Munster Technological University

‍

88. Dr Heike Vornhagen, University of Galway

‍

89. Professor Lucy-Ann Buckley, University of Limerick

‍

90. Dr Deirdre Byrne, Atlantic Technological University

‍

91. Marnie Holborow, Associate Faculty Dublin City University

‍

92. Dr. Sarah Brazil, University of Geneva

‍

93. Dr Verena Commins, University of Galway

‍

94. Dr Alicia Castillo Villanueva, Dublin City University

‍

95. Brian McMahon, Dept.Of Applied Social Studies, MTU Cork

‍

96. Dr Fiadh Tubridy, Maynooth University

‍

97. Dr Cian O’Callaghan, Trinity College Dublin

‍

98. Alexandra McDonagh, University of Galway

‍

99. Mairéad Ní Scanláin, Ollscoil na Gaillimhe

100. Sian Cowman, Department of Media Studies, Maynooth University

‍

101. Jacqueline Ní Fhiannachta, Ollscoil na Gaillimhe

‍

102. Seán Rainford, Dublin City University

‍

103. Stephanie Larkin, University College Cork

‍

104. Cáit Fahy, University of Galway

‍

105. Dr Noha Atef, University of Galway

‍

106. Dr Juliette Davret, Maynooth University

‍

107. Dr Matt Prout, University College Dublin

‍

108. Dr. Nessa Ní Chasaide, Maynooth University

‍

109. Dr Máire Ní Mhórdha, Ollscoil Mhaigh Nuad

‍

110. Prof. Des Fitzgerald, University College Cork

‍

111. Dr Rita Sakr, Maynooth University

‍

112. Dr Alessandra Accogli, Dublin City University

‍

113. Dr Jamie McLoughlin, University College Dublin

‍

114. Dr Chris Noone, Ollscoil na Gaillimhe / University of Galway

‍

115. Dr Natasha Remoundou-Howley, UCD & AUG

‍

116. Dr. Majella Mulkeen, ATU

‍

117. Edel Sullivan MTU Cork School of Music

‍

118. Dr. Keefe Murphy, Maynooth University

‍

119. Dr Edward Brennan, TU Dublin.

‍

120. Dr. Tristan Sturm, Queens University Belfast

‍

121. Dr. Gillian McNaull, Ulster University

‍

122. Dr Sinéad Hynes, Ollscoil na Gaillimhe

‍

123. Sara O’Rourke, Maynooth University

‍

124. Dr Tom Campbell, Assistant Professor, Maynooth University

‍

125. Dr Amy Strecker, University College Dublin

‍

126. Dr Eman Abboud, Trinity College Dublin

‍

127. Maeve McGandy, Trinity College Dublin

‍

128. Deirdre Winrow, University of Galway

‍

129. Robert Heffernan, Munster Technological University

‍

130. Dr. Michael Hinds, Dublin City University

‍

131. Prof. Laurence Cox, Maynooth University

‍

132. Prof. Cahal McLaughlin, Queen’s University Belfast

‍

133. Dr. Úna Monaghan, Queen’s University Belfast

‍

134. Dr Julie Bates, Trinity College Dublin

‍

135. Dr. Eoin Daly, University of Galway

‍

136. Dr Darren J. Murphy, Munster Technological University

‍

137. Dr Martha Shearer, University College Dublin

‍

138. Sinéad Mercier, University College Dublin

‍

139. Dr. Karen Smith, University College Dublin

‍

140. Dr. Brenda Gallagher, University of Galway

‍

141. Dr. Rachel O’Dwyer, National College of Art and Design

‍

142. Dr Elizabeth Meade, Maynooth University

‍

143. Prof. Shane Darcy, University of Galway

‍

144. Dr Ailish Breen, ATU

‍

145. Prof. Eugenia Siapera, UCD

‍

146. Dr Su-ming Khoo, University of Galway

‍

147. Dr Thomas Conway, University of Galway

‍

148. Dr David Hughes, University College Dublin

‍

149. Elaine O’Mahony, University College Cork

‍

150. Dr Chris Doyle, University of Galway

‍

151. Dr Stephen O’Neill, Trinity College Dublin

‍

152. Dr Maeve Connolly, Dun Laoghaire Institute of Art, Design and Technology

‍

153. Dr. Shivaun Quinlivan, Associate Professor, University of Galway

‍

154. Prof. Mary Gallagher, University College Dublin, MRIA, Chevalier dans l’ordre des palmes académiques

‍

155. Prof, Emeritus Phil Scraton, School of Law, Queen’s University, Belfast

‍

156. Prof. Ray Murphy, University of Galway

‍

157. An Dr Andrew Ó Baoill, Ollscoil na Gaillimhe

‍

158. Dr. Kevin Farrell, TU Dublin

‍

159. Dr Caroline Jagoe, Trinity College Dublin

‍

160. Dr Melanie Labor, Maynooth University

‍

161. Dr. Peter Tansey, Assistant Professor, UCD

‍

162. Dr Richard Lombard-Vance, Dublin City University

‍

163. Dr Lydia Sapouna, University College Cork

‍

164. Kevin O’Callaghan, Atlantic Technological University

‍

165. Dr Fergal Finnegan, Maynooth University

‍

166. Dr Kate McCarthy, South East Technological University

‍

167. Órla O’Donovan, University College Cork

‍

168. Dr Úna Kealy, South East Technological University

‍

169. Dr Davy Walsh. Atlantic Technological University

‍

170. Dr Maria Lichrou, University of Limerick

‍

171. Prof. Emeritus Lionel Pilkington, University of Galway

‍

172. Dr Susan McDonnell, ATU Sligo

‍

173. Dr Gerard Farrell, Trinity College Dublin

‍

174. Dr Brian Kelly. Queen’s University Belfast

‍

175. Dr Jennifer O’Mahoney, South East Technological University

‍

176. Conor Lawlor, ATU Sligo

‍

177. Dr John Murray, Maynooth University

‍

178. Maggie Ronayne, University of Galway

‍

179. Dr. William Abbott, Trinity College Dublin

‍

180. Cáit Murphy, Trinity College Dublin

‍

181. Mnemosyne Rice, Trinity College Dublin

‍

182. Jonathan Cosgrove, Trinity College Dublin

‍

183. Maria Dimitropoulou, Trinity College Dublin

‍

184. James Cumiskey. Trinity College Dublin.

‍

185. Soraya Afzali. Trinity College Dublin

‍

186. Begoña Sangrador-Vegas, University of Galway

‍

187. Dr Kathleen Stokes, Dublin City University

‍

188. Prof. Roger Little, Trinity College Dublin

‍

189. Kevin Organ, Trinity College Dublin

‍

190. Dr Maeve O’Rourke, University of Galway

‍

191. Dennis McNulty, Trinity College Dublin.

‍

192. Dr. Siobhán Airey, Erasmus University Rotterdam

‍

193. Dr. Elizabeth Nixon, Trinity College Dublin.

‍

194. Dr. Donna Rodgers-Lee, Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies

‍

195. Dr. Kevin Brennan, Technical University of Denmark

‍

196. Dr Mary McAuliffe, University College Dublin

‍

197. Prof Evan Keane, Trinity College Dublin

‍

198. Samantha Williams, Trinity College Dublin

‍

199. Dr. Féilim Ó hAdhmaill, University College, Cork.

‍

200. Dr Alfredo Ormazabal, Trinity College Dublin

‍

201. Dr. Fionnuala Conway, Trinity College Dublin

‍

202. Luke Hussey, Trinity College Dublin

‍

203. Dr Michael Pierse, Queen's University Belfast

‍

204. Dr Síobhra Aiken, Queen’s University Belfast

‍

205. Dr Alastair Daly, Trinity College Dublin

‍

206. Dr. Pádraig Fhia Ó Mathúna, Ollscoil na Gaillimhe

‍

207. Dr. Ann-Marie Morrissey, University of Limerick

‍

208. Anne Kelly, National College of Art and Design

‍

209. Dr Billy O’Brien, MTU Cork School of Music

‍

210. Dr Ricki O’Rawe, Queen’s University Belfast

‍

211. Gabriel Coleman, Trinity College Dublin

‍

212. Dr. Alan D.P. Brady, Trinity College Dublin

‍

213. Ailbhe Smyth, University College Dublin

‍

214. Charles Zemp, Trinity College Dublin

‍

215. Dr. Jeremy Auerbach, University College Dublin

‍

216. Prof. John Maguire, Emeritus, University College, Cork.

‍

217. Dr Sarah Comyn, University College Dublin

‍

218. Mairéad O’Donnell, Trinity College Dublin

‍

219. Elizabeth O’Shaughnessy, Trinity College Dublin

‍

220. Dr Scott McKendry, Queen’s University Belfast

‍

221. Sinéad Kelly, Trinity College Dublin

‍

222. Dr Susie Deedigan, Queen’s University Belfast

‍

223. Dr Mary Rambaran-Olm, Public Historian, Public Humanities Editor

‍

224. Dr Michelle Rouse, Ulster University

‍

225. Prof Helena Sheehan, Dublin City University

‍

226. Christopher McAteer, Social and Political Thought, York University, Canada

‍

227. Coralie Mureau, University of Galway

‍

228. Isabel Milano, Trinity College Dublin

‍

229. Dr Sharon Lambert, University College Cork

‍

230. Dr. Laurence Davis, University College Cork

‍

231. Prof Pat Brereton. Dublin City University

‍

232. Maryam Yabo, Trinity College Dublin

‍

233. Dr Conor Caldwell, Ollscoil Luimnigh

‍

234. Dr. Eamonn Slater, Maynooth University

‍

235. Paul Goldrick-Kelly, Maynooth University

‍

236. Shane Reynolds, University of Limerick

‍

237. Caroline Godard, Ollscoil Luimnigh / University of Limerick

‍

238. Zoë Lawlor, University of Limerick

‍

239. Dr Emer McHugh, Queen’s University Belfast

‍

240. Prof Mary Gilmartin, Maynooth University

‍

241. Dr Elizabeth Farries, University College Dublin

‍

242. Dr Martin Sokol, Associate Professor, Trinity College Dublin

‍

243. Dr Kate Antosik-Parsons, Trinity College Dublin

‍

244. Professor Fintan Sheerin, Maynooth University

‍

245. Dr. Sarah Robinson, University College Cork

‍

246. Dr. Samuel Mutter, Maynooth University

‍

247. Dr Niamh McCrea, SETU

‍

248. Prof. David Lloyd, University of California, Riverside

‍

249. Dr Mike Murphy, University College Cork

‍

250. Dr Emanuela Ferrari, Maynooth University

‍

251. Siobhan Kangataran, Munster Technological University

‍

252. Kathryn Ammon, Trinity College Dublin

‍

253. Adrienne Horan, University of Limerick

‍

254. Bernie Grummell, Maynooth University

‍

255. Dianne Kirby, Ulster University

‍

256. Prof. Seán Kennedy, Saint Mary’s University, Halifax/Kjipuktuk

‍

257 Michael Mahadeo, Ulster University

‍

258. Dominic Guilding, Trinity College Dublin Libraries

‍

259. Dr Claire Bracken, Union College, New York

‍

260. Míde Power, Trinity College Dublin

‍

261. Dr Emma Campbell, Ulster University

‍

262. Dr Clare Gallagher, Ulster University

‍

263. Jeffrey Seathrún Sardina, Coláiste na Tríonóide

‍

264. Dr Kevin De Ornellas, Ulster University

‍

265. Dr Deirdre Foley, Trinity College Dublin

‍

266. Dr Liam McGlynn, TU Dublin

‍

267. Dr. Edward Molloy, Saint Mary's University, Halifax/Kjipuktuk

‍

268. Dr Gertrude Cotter, UCC

‍

269. Prof. Patricia Lundy, Ulster University

‍

270. Dr Oona Frawley, Maynooth University

‍

271. Enda Russell, Trinity College Dublin

‍

272. Dr Ross Carroll, Dublin City University

‍

273. Dr Alexandros Minotakis, University College Dublin

‍

274. Prof. Patrick Crowley, University of Galway

‍

275. Dr Maria Parsons, IADT

‍

276. Dr Celeste McNamara, Dublin City University

‍

277. Srimoyee Biswas, Trinity College Dublin

‍

278. Nora NiFhlatharta, Technical University of the Shannon

‍

279. Marion Kiely, University College Cork

‍

280. Dr Marcas Mac Coinnigh, Queen’s University Belfast

‍

281. Dr Beatrice Smyth, Queen's University Belfast

‍

282. Morgiane Noel, Trinity College Dublin

‍

283. Professor Luigina Ciolfi, University College Cork

‍

284. Kevin McParland, Dundalk Institute of Technology

‍

285. Professor Maeve McCusker, Queen’s University Belfast

‍

286. Professor Michael Cronin, Trinity College Dublin

‍

287. Dr. Beyza Yaman, Trinity College Dublin

‍

288. Mairéad Cluskey, Atlantic Technological University

‍

289. Dr Will Fleming, Trinity College Dublin

‍

290. Professor Jennie Stephens, Maynooth University

‍

291. Ciarán Hartley, Dublin City University

‍

292. Dr Charlie Kerrigan, Trinity College Dublin

‍

293. Sarah Dunne, Trinity College Dublin

‍

294. Dr Max Bledstein, University College Dublin

‍

295. Dr Adam Kelly, University College Dublin

‍

296. Dr Cathal Billings, University College Dublin

‍

297. Dr. Katherine Fama, University College Dublin

‍

298. Dr. Giulia M. Cipriani, University College Dublin

‍

299. Dr Mary Naughton, University College Dublin

‍

300. Dr. Seán Clancy, University College Dublin

‍

301 Dr Kelly Fitzgerald. University College Dublin

‍

302. Dr Sarah Donnelly,University College Dublin

‍

303. Cristin O’Gorman, University College Dublin

‍

304. Dr Declan Fahie, University College Dublin

‍

305. Dr. Niamh Pattwell, University College Dublin

‍

306. Oksana Osiniene, University College Dublin

‍

307. Dr Adrian Howlett, Trinity College Dublin

‍

308. Dr. Lori-Rae van Laren, University of Galway

‍

309. Dr Avishek Nag, University College Dublin

‍

310. Niall James Holohan, University College Dublin

311. Dr Thomas Waller, University College Dublin

‍

312. Dr. Páraic Kerrigan, Assistant Professor, University College Dublin

‍

313. Dr Naomi McAreavey, University College Dublin

‍

314. Professor Kalpana Shankar, University College Dublin

‍

315. Andrew Breen, Trinity College Dublin

‍

316. Dr. Lucy Blennerhassett, University College Dublin

‍

317. Dr Adrian Scahill, Maynooth University

‍

318. Professor Ian Davidson, University College Dublin

‍

319. Dr Ciara Bracken-Roche, Maynooth University

‍

320. Niamh Whelan, University College Dublin

‍

321. Dr Irial Glynn, University College Dublin

‍

322. Dr Ríona Nic Congáil, University College Dublin

‍

323. Dr Dean Phelan, University College Dublin

‍

324. Fiona Power, University College Dublin

‍

325. Emeritus Professor Alan Titley UCC

‍

325. Dr Christie Nicoson, University College Dublin

‍

326. Dr Werd Al-Najim, University College Dublin

‍

327. Kathryn Kane, University College Dublin

‍

328. JoAnn McComish, University College Dublin

‍

329. John Cassidy, University College Dublin

‍

330. Dr Kevin Daly, University College Dublin

‍

331. Dr Paul Hudide, University College Dublin

‍

332. Dr Maly Morshad Ahmad, University College Dublin

‍

333. Dr Fangzhe Qiu, University College Dublin

‍

334. Dr Luca Pistilli, University College Dublin

‍

335. Natalia Silverio, University College Dublin

‍

336. Prof. Desmond J Tobin, University College Dublin

‍

337. Alexandra Day, Trinity College Dublin

‍

338. Dr Orlaith Darling, University College Dublin

‍

339. Patrick Ryan University College Dublin

‍

340. Dr John P Gilmore, University College Dublin

‍

341. Professor Kathleen Lynch University College Dublin

‍

342. Dr. Muhammad Shahid University College Dublin

‍

343. Dr Bartosz Bieszczad, University College Dublin / Technological University Dublin

‍

344. Dr Sarah Sinnamon, University College Dublin

‍

345. Oisin O’Connor, University College Dublin

‍

346. Joe Houghton, University College Dublin

‍

347. Dr Garrett Greene , UCD

‍

348. Dr. Dimuthu Rathnayake, University College Dublin

‍

349. Karen O’Shea University College Dublin

‍

350. Dr Marina Everri, University College Dublin

‍

351. Frances Downey, University College Dublin

‍

352. Professor Eleni Mangina, University College Dublin

‍

353. Aisling Judge, University College Dublin

‍

354. Jamie Plant, University College Dublin

‍

355. Félix Balado, University College Dublin

‍

356. Dr. Brynne Gilmore, University College Dublin

‍

357. Dr. Karen Wade, University College Dublin

‍

358. Professor Katherine O’Donnell, University College Dublin

‍

359. Dr. Matthew Donoghue, University College Dublin

‍

360. Mikhail Romanov, University College Dublin

‍

361. Dr Niamh Campbell, University College Dublin

‍

362. Dr Jacqui O’Riordan, University College Cork (retired)

‍

363. Mike FitzGibbon, University College Cork (retired)

‍

364. Dr Marco Bellardi, University College Dublin

‍

365. Dr Iarfhlaith Watson, University College Dublin

‍

366. Dr Mary Moran, University College Dublin

‍

367. Dr Róisín Ní Ghallóglaigh, University of Limerick

‍

368. Dr Sarah Raine, University College Dublin

‍

369. Dr Joanne McEntee, University College Dublin

‍

348. Dr. Dimuthu Rathnayake, University College Dublin

‍

349. Karen O’Shea University College Dublin

‍

350. Dr Marina Everri, University College Dublin

‍

351. Frances Downey, University College Dublin

‍

352. Professor Eleni Mangina, University College Dublin

‍

353. Aisling Judge, University College Dublin

‍

354. Jamie Plant, University College Dublin

‍

355. Félix Balado, University College Dublin

‍

356. Dr. Brynne Gilmore, University College Dublin

‍

357. Dr. Karen Wade, University College Dublin

‍

358. Professor Katherine O’Donnell, University College Dublin

‍

359. Dr. Matthew Donoghue, University College Dublin

‍

360. Mikhail Romanov, University College Dublin

‍

361. Dr Niamh Campbell, University College Dublin

‍

362. Dr Jacqui O’Riordan, University College Cork (retired)

‍

363. Mike FitzGibbon, University College Cork (retired)

‍

364. Dr Marco Bellardi, University College Dublin

‍

365. Dr Iarfhlaith Watson, University College Dublin

‍

366. Dr Mary Moran, University College Dublin

‍

367. Dr Róisín Ní Ghallóglaigh, University of Limerick

‍

368. Dr Sarah Raine, University College Dublin

‍

369 Dr Joanne McEntee, University College Dublin

‍

370. Martin Heduan, University College Dublin

‍

371. Dr Niamh McGuirk, Dublin City University

‍

372. Dr Barbara Gornicka, University College Dublin

‍

373. Niamh Byrne, Community Engagement Officer, University College Dublin

374. Dr. Enrico Secchi, Assistant Professor, University College Dublin

‍

375. Cari Burke, University College Dublin

‍

376. Dr Karen Keaveney, University College Dublin

‍

377. Dr. Catriona Clutterbuck, University College Dublin

‍

378. Dr. Boris Kholodenko, University College Dublin

‍

379. Dr Nasrin Khandoker, University College Cork

‍

380. Professor Mary Gallagher, University College Dublin

‍

381. Dr. Alexey Lastovetsky, University College Dublin

‍

382. David Ó Laigheanáin, University College Dublin

‍

383. Brian Spring, University College Dublin

‍

384. Ann Marie Byrne, University College Dublin

‍

385. Dr Thomas Cummins, University College Dublin

‍

386. Dr. Katharina Swirak, University College Cork

‍

387. Dr Ricardo Segurado, University College Dublin

‍

388. Dr. Ana Ivasiuc, University College Dublin

‍

389. Dr. Fionnuala Brennan, South East Technological University

390. Dr Seán L’Estrange, University College Dublin

391. Dr Paul Breen, University College London

392. Dr. Henry Silke, University of Limerick

393. Dr. Tom O’Dea, National College of Art and Design

394. Dr. Laure Tymowski, Maynooth University

395. Renee Prendergast, Queen’s University Belfast

396. Dr. Alessio Cozzolino, University College Dublin

397. Dr. Claire Brophy, Centre for Cultural Analytics, UCD

398. Dr. Alessia Paccagnini, University College Dublin

‍

399. Dr. Eimear Rosato, independent researcher

‍

400. Fiona Roche, Ollscoil na Gaillimhe

‍

401. Dylan Murphy, University College Dublin

‍

402. Tim Groenland, Research Fellow, University College Dublin

‍

403. Dr Linda Moore, Senior Lecturer in Criminology, Ulster University

‍

404. Dr. Aisling O’ Beirn Ulster University

‍

405. Dr Isabel Arce Zelada, University College Dublin

‍

406. Dr. Teresa Degenhardt, Queen's University Belfast

‍

407. Ralph Armstrong-Astley, Trinity College Dublin

‍

408. Dr Eileen Hogan, University College Cork

‍

409. Dr Gerard Cagney, University College Dublin

‍

No items found.

Essential

Marketing

Personalisation

Analytics