Irish Government's (non) response to US Election Results

international | anti-war / imperialism | other press

Wednesday November 08, 2006 19:26

by Dáil observer

Today in the Dáil, Minister for Finance Brian Cowen was questioned by Joe Higgins T.D. on the significance of the results of the US Midterm Elections and the Irish Governments continued facilitation of the US Military at Shannon Airport.

Dáil Éireann, Leaders’ Questions, 8/11/2006

Joe Higgins (The Socialist Party): Will the Government draw meaningful conclusions from the drubbing received by American President George Bush and his party in the mid-term elections, which was, above all, a rejection by swelling numbers of ordinary Americans of the unspeakable barbarities unleashed on the Iraqi people by the imperialist invasion of their country? Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, men, women and children, have been slaughtered and maimed and millions have been terrified as a result of the actions of the forces that went there allegedly to liberate them. Let us not forget the thousands of American soldiers, working class youths in uniform, who have also been slaughtered.
In January 2003, two months before the invasion, the Independent Deputies and this Socialist Party Deputy moved a Private Members' motion pointing to the catastrophe that would result from the then imminent invasion of Iraq. The then Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, answered our motion on behalf of the Government. The Taoiseach and the Government gave credence at all times to the monstrous lies of Bush and Blair that their invasion was about removing weapons of mass destruction and peace when we said it was to remove oil resources and secure imperialist domination of the Middle East.
The Minister made crucial facilities available to the US war machine at Shannon Airport and continues to do so. On an annual basis, 250,000 American soldiers are facilitated at Shannon in pursuance of the occupation of Iraq. He dismissed with contempt 100,000 people who marched in Dublin on 15 February 2003 and defied with contempt the views of the majority of the Irish people who opposed the invasion and the use of Shannon Airport by the US military. He allowed the commander-in-chief, President Bush, to parade in Shannon with his troops. Now that the American people have rejected the bloody carnage that Mr. Bush and his neo-conservative cabal have inflicted on the people of Iraq, will the Irish Government implement the wish of the Irish people and withdraw forthwith its facilitation of, and de facto support for, the Bush war machine at Shannon Airport?

Brian Cowen (Minister for Finance): The only conclusion I can draw at the moment is that they only elected one socialist Deputy. A Government motion was debated in this Chamber and passed, defeating Deputy Joe Higgins's motion. The decisions made and explained by Government at the time, which were consistent with our foreign policy traditions, were approved of in this House. It is not the work of a cabal but a democratic decision of this assembly.

J. Higgins: That is a contemptible response from an Irish Government when the entire world is today talking about the profound meaning of the outcome of the mid-term elections in the United States. The Democratic Party is not a radical, revolutionary or socialist alternative to the Republican Party but that is not the point. The point is that the vote amounts to a massive rejection of the atrocities that the Bush regime has inflicted on the people of Iraq facilitated by the Government of which Mr. Cowen is a Minister. If he was convinced that the support he continues to give to American troops was right he would speak for more than ten seconds to explain to the Irish people why he defies their wishes. This morning innocent Palestinian people were massacred in the village of Beit Hanoun by the Israeli defence forces, carrying all the hallmarks of the Rumsfeld-Bush shock and awe tactics. It was a further devastation of the peoples of the Middle East as a result of their interference, which has been supported at all stages by the Minister.
Does the Minister agree with the majority of the American people now that the invasion and ongoing occupation of Iraq are a disaster? Does he regret the role the Irish Government has played and is playing in facilitating the ongoing occupation? Does he apologise for his role? Will he continue with the same subservient policy to the Bush and Blair regimes in support of their agenda, which has nothing to do with world peace or the welfare of the peoples of the Middle East? We should not be surprised he supports them when the Government follows their neo-liberal capitalist policies such as privatising our public industries. The Minister must do better and show respect to the Irish people by answering the crucial questions raised by the outcome of this election in the United States.

B. Cowen: I have no respect for the Deputy's anti-Americanism. I never have and never will.

J. Higgins: That is another easy diversion. What does he mean by anti-Americanism? Do I hate the Rocky Mountains? Do I hate the Great Lakes?

B. Cowen: I refer to the Deputy's vituperative approach, which is entirely predictable.

J. Higgins: The Minister shows the Irish people contempt.

An Ceann Comhairle: I ask Deputy Joe Higgins to resume his seat.

B. Cowen: The Irish Government continues to support UN resolutions on these matters, which were unanimously adopted. In the debate to which the Deputy referred, the Irish Government set out its position and I stand over every word of it because it was consistent with our foreign policy traditions, despite Deputy Joe Higgins's assertions to the contrary. I do not agree with anything else the Deputy has to say on the subject and never will. We will just have to disagree.

J. Higgins: What is the Minister's interpretation of the American election result?

save preference

Comments (3 of 3)

Any difference?

by Ian

Thu Nov 09, 2006 00:05

I am pessimistic. The Democrats may have won but they probably won't change anything. Both US parties are the same. Remember that most Democrats have consistently supported the Iraq war. I'm quite sure that they won't halt the use of Shannon. Irish people generally oppose the US military presence there, but for most it's not the #1 issue.

The election changes nothing just the people doing the killing

by Political Analyst

Thu Nov 09, 2006 13:31

The American people's support for the Iraq War only diminished as more American soldiers died than expected in Iraq. Remember less than 200 actually died in the three week fighting between March and April 2003 and Bush's and Republican popularity peaked for the second time after 9/11.
Had there been a saturation of Iraq with an occupying force of more than 500,000 US troops post invasion it is less likey that troop casualties would be so high according to most Democrats who initially supported the war.

The real motive for the political change is Republican corruption and pork barrel politics and the perception that Republicans arrogance at their majority motivated them to ignore their election promises on a range of domestic issues.

I think that the American people actually voted for a change of course ( read that as a course that is a better garantee of victory in Iraq than the present one) and they believe that Democratic oversight of Republican domestic activities and pressure on their handling of the war in Iraq and the War on Terror is a better combination than the present set up which encouraged Republican spoof and incompetance.

The real winner that has emerged is the faction of the Republicans gathered around McCain and other "moderates." These people are behind the appointment of Robert Gates as Donald Rumsfeld's successor. I predict they will push for an increase in troop numbers and recieve mainstream Democrat support.

Colin Powell's differences with Rumsfeld and the disagreement and bitterness which led to so many mistakes are a direct result of the policy of too few troops in Iraq after the success of the initial invasion in 2003.

The extreme left of the Democrat want an immediate pullout and never supported the war to begin with.
The centre of the Democrat party want a timetable for withdrawl through they originally voted in favour of the war.
The right of the Democrat party represented by Lieberman want victory in Iraq before a pullout and want a change of course in the interim.

Most Democrats have lost faith in the war - Iraq is a mistake in their eyes but only because of troop casualties and the perception that they were deceived about how easy the post war situation would be. They would prefer a return to the Clinton policy of firing cruise missiles offshore and aerial bombing rather than putting troops on the ground. Once America pulls out its troops and Iraq becomes a problem in the future then they can respond in the old way.

The truth is that the majority of the American public both Democrat and Republican, both the mainstream of both parties (the soccer moms) and the extremes - the Cindy Sheehans and the Christian Right Evangelicals - are more concerned for their American boys and girls in uniform and American lives and American prestige.

If Iraq fails it is a tragedy for the Iraqi people - but more importantly for Americans it means their prestige is battered - not a good idea when China is on the rise.

In fact many Americans and many Chinese believe that both world powers will be at war with each other some time this century.

The majority of Americans still want to be a global superpower and to enforce their will on the Middle East and the world. The Democrats are negative toward the war in Iraq but they are not negative towards tackling the percieved threat in Iran and North Korea even with military action.

Most Americans both Democrat and Republican are still supportive of the War on Terror.

Iraq seems likely at this stage to end with a humiliating American withdrawl. The Americans might have won by sending more troops to police the country in the crucial months after April 2003. But we will never know now.

McCain's and Gate's proposals to increase troops levels are far too late now 3 years on.

This does not mean that in a few years time America will not send troops to some other Middle East battle field.

Expect more fighting in Iraq and more bloodshed in the Middle East and perhaps another 9/11 style attack on American soil by angry Muslims.

Nothing will change much. Just the people doing the killing.

Fianna Fail and US Mid-term elections

by Fred Johnston

Sat Nov 11, 2006 16:44

sylfredcar at iolfree dot ie

Fianna Fail will not change its views on US policy in Iraq or the use of Shannon by US military, because Fianna Fail courts an enormous rural vote whose instincts on America are guided by a tradition of having family members living in the US - many illegally - or who, historically, emigrated there, and who consequently see the US as a mythic Promised Land and 'better' than Ireland. This ties in with a fear that US firms will pull out of Shannon if our government sticks up for a 'Lefty rabble', so to speak. The previous US ambassador to Ireland made this clear when he addressed business people in Limerick some months ago - basically, according to The Limerick Leader, he threatened the area. Job losses in Shannon as a result of removal of US military rights at Shannon would rebound on Fianna Fail at the polls. Fianna Fail are tugging on particularly well-dug in heart-strings here; there is no intellectual debate. In fact, intellectualism is seen as inimical to the very nurture of day-to-day living. 'My-Johnny-is-doing-well-out-above-in-Boston-so-God-bless-America!' is the only argument on the table in rural Ireland. Depressing, I know.

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Anti-Empire

The Saker

Lockdown Skeptics

Voltaire Network

Irish Government's (non) response to US Election Results

Comments (3 of 3)