Villagers: Letters to the Editor 2006-05-11

Ireland deserves better Fine Gael's lack of ideas

As a member of the Labour Party, I voted and campaigned against Labour's pre-election pact with Fine Gael, as I would with any deal which I believe is damaging to the party's support and dilutes the message of the left. The recent Fine Gael conference reminded me why.

The slogan for the conference was "Ireland deserves better". There were few specific policies on how anything would be made better with the exception of a number of deeply reactionary and ultimately un-implementable proposals on crime. Take the concept of the Director of Public Prosecutions taking on new powers to argue in court for specific sentences that "reflect the people's view" in serious crime cases. How will the DPP do this? Via a poll on the internet? A focus group? Or perhaps the letters section of the Irish Times?

I write this not to re-open the debate about Labour party policy, as I fully recognise the authority of the party conference and other mechanisms of internal democracy. I am merely writing to ask your readers to consider whether or not Ireland does not deserve better than a main opposition party which is clearly bankrupt of ideas, with the exception of one or two reactionary gimmicks and fistful of vague slogans.

Paul Dillon, Milltown, Dublin 14

 

 

Social partnership -Ten years too much

The trade union negotiators for a new social partnership agreement have, it seems, agreed to a ten-year duration for it. They had no mandate whatsoever from their trade unions for that time-span. On the contrary, a large slice of ICTU unions have effectively pulled out of the next agreement altogether – a fact that all parties and commentators seem to be dealing with by acting as if it didn't exist as far as the talks are concerned.

Union activists, including those who go along with the strange notion of social partnership or who might opt for the content of this particular prospective agreement, must surely be alarmed at the vista of a decade-long deal.

Although it is, apparently, proposed to break up the deal into two- or three-year segments on pay and other workplace issues, the framework agreement, with all its details, commitments, restrictions and small-print, will go on for ten long years. A prudent trade unionist, whatever his or her views on social partnership or the particular set of proposals that emerge, will think long and hard on the hazard of being held into it for ten years.

Des Derwin, Drumcondra, Dublin 9

 

 

Bray - RAPID not delivering

An article in Village (20-26 April 2006), entitled "Nothing to live for in Bray", quite correctly outlined the fact that the RAPID programme "promised much but hasn't delivered". The article is a very welcome contribution to highlighting the lack of vital services and facilities in areas of disadvantage in Bray, and will enable those of us engaged in various campaigns to bring those issues on to a broader platform, thereby creating new alliances between community groups.

Quite obviously the resources allocated to the RAPID programme are not being delivered, or at the very least are not solving the problems experienced by people living in these communities. Those of us who work in communities and who would consider themselves on the left of the Irish political spectrum, must not be naive. We must be prepared to challenge any waste of resources, abuse of trust, lack of accountability, openness, and transparency at all levels of our society. We must not be afraid to say that a project has failed and we should be prepared to go back to the drawing board.

In relation to expenditure on community projects we must challenge how EU taxpayers' money and resources are being utilised, particularly in Area Partnership and RAPID areas. We can never fully accept that the so-called "Social Economy", which at times can be perceived as perpetuating the "poverty industry" is the solution to all social evils. We must build community, not put up walls or divide them.

We must ask questions as to the real contribution and value of projects such as RAPID and Area Partnerships to the communities they aspire to serve.

Carmel McKenna, Bray, Co Wicklow

 

Health care -Time for Harney to go

Last weekend nurses at the annual conference of the Irish Nurses Organisation (INO) passed a motion of no confidence in Minister Mary Harney. The nurses' motion blamed her for failing to deal with the trolley crisis and "her negative attitude" towards nurses.

Nurses rejected "the cosy consensus" of the social partnership approach to nurses' conditions and the privatisation of the health service. They are demanding a 35-hour week and parity of pay with other therapists. These demands are vital to ensure the retention of nurses and to ensure safe conditions for patients.

At the Irish Medical Organisation (IMO) conference three weeks ago Dr Fergus O'Ferrall called on the Government to publish any research behind the funding of "for-profit" hospitals with billions in tax-breaks. O'Ferrall blamed Mary Harney's "neo-liberal ideals" for putting profits before people.

Harney's refusal to fund public beds and running down the public service is not an error for her – it is the plan. It is designed to scare people into buying health insurance and to force patients to "go private". In a for-profit health system like in the US, Health Insurance for an average family now costs over €10,000 per year.

The People Before Profit Alliance has responded to the current crisis by setting up a Health Action Group to campaign for a publicly funded state of the art Health Service. The neo-liberal ideology that Harney and this Government follow puts profits, privatisation, markets and tax-cuts for the rich before the quality of health and safety of children, the sick and the elderly.

The Health Action Group is calling for support for health service workers who defend their conditions and stand up to this Government's profiteering.

Pat Fitzgerald, Dr Peadar O'Grady, Health Action Group, People before Profit Alliance, www.people-before-profit.org

 

 

Privatisation - Ministers never learn

The ESB, after its latest price rise, warned of further increases on a bi-monthly basis. While fuel costs have increased, this in no way justifies the massive price hikes that are being inflicted on consumers. It seems to me that the ESB is being fattened up for privatisation, just like Eircom.

What a disaster that turned out to be. Before privatisation, due to investment by taxpayers, we had the best telecoms network in Europe. Now, due to lack of investment and refusal to unbundle local loops, we have one of the most backward and most costly in Europe. We are even being overtaken by many emerging economies in Asia and there is a real danger that much of our high-tech industries will move out because of our inadequate and overpriced telecoms infrastructure.

Government ministers seem to have learned nothing from these privatisation scandals. They continue to hand over toll roads to well-connected private companies who make multimillion euro profits for minimal risk by overcharging for roads that drivers have little choice but to use. They plan to sell off (probably at a knockdown price, given recent fuel increases) the national strategic asset that is Aer Lingus. When will they ever learn?

Dessie Ellis, Finglas, Dublin 11

 

Israel/Palestine - False assertions

Sean Gannon of the "Irish Friends of Israel" (Village 4-10 May) makes many false assertions in his reply to my opinion piece published by you the previous week.

The Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign (IPSC) does not "unquestioningly adhere" to any narrative, Palestinian or otherwise, nor did it "generally defend... Yasser Arafat", nor "champion... as his successor Marwan Barghouti", nor "embrace" Hamas. The IPSC promotes solidarity with the Palestinian people, not with any particular individual, administration or tendency.

Mr Gannon mentions Hamas' "12-year reign of terror, which left 500 Israelis dead", presumably dating this "reign" from Hamas's first suicide bombings in 1994. These were in retaliation for the massacre by US-born Jewish settler Baruch Goldstein of 29 Palestinian worshippers at a mosque in Hebron, following which the Israeli army shot dead 23 unarmed protestors. This clearly doesn't trouble Mr Gannon, nor that the army has illegally killed over 3,000 Palestinian civilians since 2000.

The IPSC has consistently condemned the targeting of civilians by either side. Mr Gannon fails to mention that Hamas has unilaterally observed a truce for some 15 months, and was seeking to convince Islamic Jihad to follow its example. Hamas is the only group with the power to achieve this end – another reason why starving the Palestinian administration of funds is a stupid move.

Concerning the illegal nature of Israel's occupation of the West Bank (and Gaza, which is still under de facto occupation), Mr Gannon attempts to obfuscate the issue by dragging in irrelevancies. The July 2004 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) reaffirms the universally accepted "principle of the non-acquisition of territory by force", thus closing the issue.

Mr Gannon claims that UN resolution 242 calls for an Israeli withdrawal "only in the context of a negotiated settlement, something that has yet to be achieved with the Palestinians."

242 undoubtedly calls for negotiations, but does not make withdrawal contingent on their taking place first. Furthermore, it takes two to negotiate.

It was Israel that broke off the Taba final status negotiations in 2001 just as they were bearing fruit, and it is Israel that has refused to negotiate with any Palestinian partner ever since, however "moderate".

It is also untrue that Israel "officially accepts the Road Map as the means to" the creation of a Palestinian state, since Israel made such acceptance conditional on 14 hefty "reservations" that robbed the document of any limited meaning it might originally have possessed.

Finally, to assert that Israel "now explicitly recognises the Palestinian right to a state" is like saying that apartheid South Africa explicitly recognised the blacks' right to a homeland. If Mr Gannon and his associates are true "friends of Israel", they should be advising it to comply with international law and negotiate its way in good faith into that "family of nations" to which its Declaration of Independence craves admittance.

Raymond Deane, Irish Palestine Solidarity Group

 

 

The destruction of landscape - Invading the Norman landscape

Just over 800 years ago a traitor to the Irish people, Dermot McMuragh invited the Normans to invade this country. He had only his short term political aim of regaining his kingdom of Leinster. His name is now cursed.

History has repeated itself, as it often does, and we have still failed to avert tragedy. This time around the traitor is another Irish leader obsessed with short term election issues: Bertie Ahern.

He has invited the NRA (Norman Rule Again) to invade the Tara landscape.

Will this be the name we will curse when remembering the destruction of the landscape?

Martin Reid, Navan, Co Meath

 

 

STATEMENT - New social partnership agreement should be meaningful to those without a voice

The 28 national anti-poverty and equality organisations which make up the Community Platform call on those involved in the social partnership talks to make sure that any new agreement be meaningful to those without a voice.

Now that the talks have started to progress, there is a responsibility on those involved in the process to ensure that a future agreement does not exclude those marginalised communities and groups without a voice in the current talks. These include women, Travellers and other ethnic minorities, lone parents, migrant workers, refugees and asylum seekers. Any future agreement must involve real improvements in the lives of these most marginalised in society. It also must ensure that mechanisms are found to include these voices in social partnership in an inclusive and participatory way.

Most Community Platform member organisations were unable to endorse the 'Sustaining Progress' Agreement, and as a result are excluded from the current talks. Nonetheless, the Community Platform remains committed to the principle of social partnership. The Community Platform has produced a joint position paper on the new agreement laid out in the form of four key tests that it believes any new agreement should be assessed against. These tests are:

1. Will it deliver on the Government's long-standing promise to eradicate poverty and reduce inequality?

2. Will it advance the right to decent and appropriate employment, services and supports for all people and communities?

3. Have existing Government targets for reducing poverty and inequality, including those in previous partnership agreements, been met or are there clear steps to meeting these laid out in the new agreement?

4. Will it advance democracy, meaningful participation and access to rights, especially for the most marginalised?

Orla O Connor, National Women's Council of Ireland.Sean Regan, Community Workers Cooperative. Robin Hanan. European Anti-Poverty Network. More: www.cwc.ie/work/cp.html

 

 

1916 - Super revisionism

Thanks to Donnchadh MacGill and Jack Lane, (Village, 4-10 May), for their kind words.

Jack Lane builds a picture of a massive Ulster Volunteer Army willing to die rather than submit to Rome (sic) Rule. An instant 32-county political entity was not an achievable possibility in 1916 – but it was not negotiable so far as the organisers of the Rising were concerned.

Pat Muldowney, (Village 4-10 May 2006), loves nothing more than the pathological wickedness of all Brits. The problem is that the Amritsar Massacre and the measures by which the British government brought the Boers (temporarily) to submission actually happened.

The IRA did not "bring the British Empire to its knees". Unquestionably, the military campaign made the Truce attractive to the British. However, the key factor was that they had lost the battle of world (and British) public opinion. The capacity of the IRA to pursue its campaign endlessly was limited. Had Winston Churchill got his blank cheque to repeat what had been done in South Africa, whatever "independence" we did get in 1922 would have been postponed for at least a generation. At what cost to the Irish people? Armchair revolutionaries love shedding large quantities of blood, preferably that of civilians. Also they do not "do" factual evaluations of the situation on the ground.

For the second time, you publish that extraordinary image of Dublin after the 1916 "makeover". Dominating it is the statue of a solid personage looking grimly but calmly over the ruins of the city of which he was the first Papist Lord Mayor since the 17th century. (I will confess that he is a class of a relative of mine.)

This personage did not need any imported ideas from France, America, let alone the English Parliamentarians of the 17th century who are also among the progenitors of Irish republicanism (sic). He knew, in the most direct way, that British rule of Ireland did not work and never would work. He always knew that he was and always would be a foreigner in Westminster. He came from a sense of separate Irish identity which was more solid, permanent, persistent – and more relevant to the long-term future – because he was the result of survival.

Above all he laid the foundations for an Ireland which would be ruled, within the context of the supremacy of law and constitutionality, by the people. If I am to be convicted of revisionism, let it be, not to the Union or some Ballingarry cabbage-patch borrowed 19th century fantasy nationalism, but a super-revisionism back to his vision of an Ireland that was (incidentally) inclusive, European and global.

Maurice O'Connell, Tralee, Co Kerry

 

 

1916

Pat Muldowney's grovelling at the plinth of his rebel icons, who brought death and destruction to Dublin in April 1916, has blinded his reason, and paralysed his emotions to such an extent that he appears to actually believe what he claims. His depiction of your friendly republican revolutionary, delivering pamphlets, and then dutifully retreating indoors "patiently" awaiting to be attacked, owes more to his frenzied imagination, than to the historiography of the insurrection.

Dubliners bravely fought with rebels in an attempt to disarm them, civilians were beaten up in the GPO by the armed minions of a violent para-familias revolutionary cadre, and thrown out onto the streets. Republican terror, Mr Muldowney, was the order of the day on the streets of Dublin in 1916.

It should be remembered that most of the civilian causalities were not the result of the bombardment from an armed yacht, or the 18-pounders. The truth is that civilian deaths and woundings resulted from pockets of rebel positions in the ferocious exchanges that occurred during the insurgency. Pearse's reason for surrendering had far more to do with the condition of the rebel HQ, and the clear realisation that the Germans were most certainly not going to join them in their little adventure, rather than any real humanitarian consciousness on his part.

Mr Muldowney misconstrues, in a most disingenuous way, Redmond's point regarding Imperial force. Redmond wished to marry nationalist Ireland's connection with Britain and the Empire with the moral force of the Irish catholic nation, in order to liberate Ireland from the historic political trammels of Grattan's Parliament. Redmond's aim was to catapult Catholic Ireland into the modern sphere, where it would assume a shared responsibility in the governance of the Union, and Empire. He courageously spurned the 'gospel of anti-English' hatred represented by separatists, and contrasted it sharply with the democratising path of Home Rule.

In a hypothetical national context of a popular desire for independence, rather than Home Rule, mass mobilisation would have occurred from within constitutionalism, and most likely from without. Under such pressure, the idea that Ireland was held by force in an advanced democracy within the Empire would have been exposed as fictive.

Mr Muldowney cannot accept that nationalist Ireland had found its long constitutional way home, (Home Rule was "statute law" from 18 September 1914 ). This historical course was destroyed by a tiny minority of fanatics.

Jack's 1912-1916 fixation myth is becoming boring; has he ever heard of Pearse's "apostolic succession", a creed stretching back to Emmet. This was one, among other internal factors within separatism, and nowhere else, that produced the insurrection. I suppose one can't teach an old dog new tricks!

Pierce Martin, Celbridge, Co Kildare

Tags: