Sunday, February 11, 2007
Being Irish means they're guilty
The case of the Bogota three is an old one but will never be forgotten so i decided to post two articles on this topic.The first is an extract from ZNet newspaper by Toni Solo and the other is an article by Irina Malenko.
The Irish Connection
In the summer of 2001, three Irishmen were arrested in Colombia and accused of terrorism as they left a zone controlled by the FARC armed opposition group during a truce period. A look at the background to their plight exposes the US-uk coalition's hypocrisy on terrorism. Every sign is that the three men, now in prison in Bogota, are victims of a crude frame-up. They insist they were on a fact finding visit carrying video equipment so as to record material for use with organizations promoting peace back in Ireland.
The men - Niall Connolly, Martin MacAuley and James Monaghan - are all republicans who support the Good Friday peace agreement in Ireland. MacAuley and Monaghan are ex-political prisoners. Both have promoted conflict resolution work since their release from prison. Niall Connolly is a carpenter who has worked in community development and solidarity activities in Latin America since the early 1990s.
Before they were arrested, Sinn Fein was making steady electoral progress throughout Ireland, and the Unionist leadership in Belfast was in trouble. At the time, the Ulster Unionists and British government were using the issue of disarmament to stall full implementation of the Good Friday peace agreement. In that context, the men's arrest was timely and convenient.
"BEING IRISH MEANS THEY'RE GUILTY?"
Do you remember how suddenly "the case of the Bogota Three" arose out of nowhere, after it became increasingly clear that the IRA decommission is not at all what David Trimble wants, but something he is rather afraid of? After the British government has shown yet again that it doesn't respect its own word and still acts like in "good old" colonial days? After the majority of the Irish people could clearly see who are the real enemies of peace in Ireland?
The "Irish Times" Editorial in August was claiming that the whole Irish nation demanded to know what happened in Colombia.. To be honest, I haven't heard anybody (on the streets, in a bus, at work)
asking about Colombia. Except for politicians on TV opposed to Sinn Fein and desperately wanting to distract Irish people from what they are really demanding for already 3,5 years: full and speedy implementation of the GFA.
It is becoming more and more obvious that the so-called "case of the Bogota Three" was created at the most politically suitable moment by those who oppose peace processes, both in Ireland and in Colombia.
IT IS NOT BY ACCIDENT THAT THE "COLOMBIAN AFFAIR" - arrest of 3 Irishmen with Republican political views in Bogota - IS BEING BLOWN UP OUT OF THE PROPORTIONS BY THE MEDIA AND POLITICIANS. IT IS ALSO NOT BY ACCIDENT THAT THIS ARREST TOOK PLACE IN THAT PARTICULAR MOMENT IN TIME IN THE PEACE PROCESSES OF BOTH COUNTRIES.
As the Colombian security services have confessed, they would have never done it without British intelligence's (MI5 etc.) and the CIA's involvement.
The British government is trying to distract the Irish people and the world's public opinion from the fact that it renegades on its own commitments to implement the GFA in full and that it is in breach of the INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT (as the GFA is an international agreement!). Judging by its actions, the British government still believes it can get away with stopping the clock for political institutions in the North at any time that suits its securocrats, in order to use the suspension as blackmailing tool against the Republicans. But, in fact, by doing so, the British government is demonstrating its disrespect for all the Irish voters who voted for Agreement, and for the international law. Some within the British establishment are still attempting to revive the "political corps": "to save" David Trimble yet again . But the main reason for them is to shift the blame for the deepest crisis in the Irish peace process from their Unionist allies and themselves towards Republicans. These people couldn't succeed in finding the "reason" in Ireland itself as
the IRA has shown a truly iron discipline in face of the constant strain of the Loyalist provocative attacks on the most vulnerable Nationalist civilians - and so, they looked overseas. And for these people, any man with Republican political sympathies being in a "hot spot" "would do".
If you looked at the news bulletin on TV (for example, UTV news on 22/08), the "Colombian affair" as they call it, was a priority topic. But ALL THAT WAS TOLD TO THE AUDIENCE, WERE BARE SPECULATIONS. For the hard facts on the very same news bulletin you could come to the conclusion that the only real threat to the peace in the North comes not from some far Colombia, but from the Loyalism that continues to use its weapons on a daily basis. And that the Unionist and the British politicians are not willing to face those responsible for that. They prefer to speculate on what the IRA might have been doing or planning - instead of facing what the Loyalists are ALREADY DOING TODAY AND HAVE BEEN DOING NON-STOP FOR A LONG TIME. Actions - or the lack of such - speak louder than words.
The Unionists' reasons making the hype about the Bogota Three are obvious. The whole world could see that it was Mr. Trimble who ignited the most recent crisis in the Irish Peace Process by his resignation. The Unionists had to cover Mr. Trimble's bare behind after this "peacemaker" who claimed that the only thing preventing GFA from full implementation is the Republican refusal to disarm, REJECTED the historical IRA offer on decommission. . Now the same David Trimble is claiming that the only thing that prevents him from going back to government and allowing political institutions to work, is what happened in Colombia. In such situation any war zone country visited by any Republicans, "would do". Whatever happens in the world, even if it will be an earthquake in another part of the planet, in twisted Unionist logic is always the fault of "Sinn Fein /IRA" - or, as the anti-Semitic racists in Russia say, "if the water is not running from a tap, that's because Jews have drunk it all!"
What is much more remarkable and interesting to see, is the reaction of SDLP and the Irish government. Both have supported the suspension of the political institutions - (even though publicly said that it was regrettable), because they are both afraid of Sinn Fein's inevitable electoral gains.
It is particularly clear when you see how drastically the policy of the Irish government towards the Republican movement has changed after its recent electoral success in the 6 counties. The Southern political parties are clearly panicking at the thought that the same will happen at the next elections in the 26 counties.
It is also particularly clear when you listen to who within SDLP is demanding "clarity on Columbia" the loudest. It was astonishing to see Brid Rogers on UTV among those talking about "need to come clean on Colombia" as their main political priority - that is, over the Loyalist attacks on Nationalist people in the North? But it is quite understandable to talk about something far, far away- if you consider her own tremendous electoral humiliation and dramatic loss to Sinn Fein in the recent elections. It is also a good question why Mrs. Rogers and likewise politicians were not interested before these elections in what is actually happening in Colombia - and what exactly are the US military doing there? Neither was this question raised by the Irish government.
SDLP is also desperately trying to distract the Irish people from a far more important for them question of the Irish reality today: why did the party start supporting the flawed British police "reform" that is far short of the Patten recommendations, AFTER the elections in which it has promised its voters NOT TO? In order to do so, again, Colombia or anything else "would do".
The US intelligence and securocrats also have their own reasons to blow "the Colombian situation" out of proportion.
Gerry Adams is acting as a truly independent politician by planning a visit to the "Father of all Enemies" for the American imperialism - Fidel Castro. Those within the US establishment who saw Adams as a "pocket revolutionary", were extremely unhappy of his independent steps, and decided to prevent it by all possible means. They desperately needed an excuse for that. Even though, at the first sight, modern America believes that it does not need any excuse for any of its actions, including bombing and starving civilians on a daily basis as they do in Iraq, interfering into civil wars in different countries and "making peace" by choosing one side over the other, what leads to the new ethnic cleansings as it is happening in the Balkans, and arming itself to its teeth, against the wishes of the virtually whole European continent. The US see Latin America as its "backyard" - and will not allow peoples of this continent to take their freedom into their own hands. The whole world witnessed in 1973 what happened to democratically elected President Allende in Chile. Little changed since.
The US Bush administration has (and let's finally face it!)- a different position on the Irish peace process than the Clinton administration had. This government is also seeking for an extra excuse to interfere into other countries' internal affairs all around the world, Columbia and the American "Plan Columbia" being just one of the examples. What really worries the US administration, is not that FARC are "involved in drugs" (FARC only taxes drugs profits while the US-backed through the
Colombian army right wing paramilitaries are actually actively involved into trafficking and a worker of the US embassy in Bogota was caught recently sending drugs by diplomatic post), but that they are MARXISTS! Just like in the 50s with their witch-hunting of McCarthy, being a Marxist is a crime by itself for the Bush administration: because Marxists are actively opposing the US' led New World Order and their countries being ripped off by the West.
The National Mobilization on Colombia in the US, the Amnesty International, the Human Right Watch, the UH High Agency for Human Rights - all of these organizations have condemned the American military involvement into this country's long and bitter civil war. "Current US military aid to Colombia including military training and private contracting, is a failed policy,"- writes The National Mobilization on Colombia (NMC). It is planning a major all-American manifestation against "Plan Colombia" at the end on this month.
The US government is claiming that is fighting against drugs trafficking, but the numbers are showing that "to achieve 1 % reduction in US cocaine consumption, US could spend an additional $ 34 mln. On drugs treatment programs or 23 TIMES MORE, $ 783 mln. - on efforts to eradicate supply at the source." (Rydell & Everyngham, Controlling Cocaine). That will make any reasonable person think that, perhaps, the US have very different reasons for being involved in Colombia that they claim to have..
The real reason is, as usually economical - profits of the big corporations that are so high in a country where "government policy labels trade union activists as "terrorists" (NMC). More that 3800 Colombian trade unionists have been killed since 1986. Of every 5 trade unionists killed in the world today 3 are Colombians. The numbers speak for themselves. And the vast majority - about 80% - of the killings of trade unionists are committed either by the Government forces directly or through its indirect agents- right wing paramilitaries whom they arm and supply with intelligence (sounds all too familiar for the Irish people here!). The reasoning of violence against trade union activists - "industrial opposition in Colombia to the exercise of labor rights." Trade union activities are being considered "subversive" - because they challenge corporate profits! Primary purpose of the US's policy and "aid" to Colombia is not "War to Drugs", as they claim, but the protection of super-profits and interests of the big corporations in this area. There is evidence that "several US companies maintained open relations with murderous death squads as part of their program to intimidate trade union leaders". Coca-Cola was brought to the Federal court "for its role in such violent attacks on labor and other large corporations are being investigated".
Do you hear Mr. Trimble or Mr. Robinson or Mrs. Rogers demanding from the American authorities "to come clean" on what exactly are they doing in Columbia? I don't.
Meanwhile, more than $ 1 billion of the US taxpayers money are being propped into Colombian government which is the 3rd largest recipient of the US' military aid in the world. According to NMC, "Colombian military has a horrendous human rights record towards labor. Official Colombian military has in some cases created paramilitary units to carry out assassinations" - it is documented by US State Department, by UN High Commission for Human Rights, by Amnesty International and various other organizations.
Today's Colombia is a place where 10 people die every day due to political violence and where 2 million people have been displaced since 1985 - far more than in Kosovo or in Macedonia that are constantly on our TV screens.
The US media were so outraged about 3 Irish Republicans visiting FARC's zone that they accused then in all sorts of crimes without any factual evidence. But what they are forgetting to mention, is that over 60.000 Latin American officers, many of them - Colombians, were trained in the US's very own military School of Americas (currently Western Hemispheric Institute for Security and Co-operation, WHISC), and that SOA graduates are "consistently linked to some of the worst human rights atrocities" (NMC). In Colombia, as the report of the Human Rights Watch shows, SOA-trained officers "are linked to formation and operation of paramilitary groups, such as "Calima Front" . The report, called "Ties that bind", shows that this group is responsible for displacement of over 10.000 people and for at least 200 murders in its first 12 months of existence. Colombia remains until now one of the main recipients of the US military training. "In addition to the SOA, approximately 4000 Colombian military personnel are trained in combat each year in other locations".
And this very state, involved into all these "activities", dares to say something about "danger" of the 3 Irishmen with Republican views visiting Colombia as tourists?
Let's look at the so-called non-military parts of the American "Plan Colombia": does it bring anything good to the Colombian people?
The biggest part of "Plan Columbia" is forced aerial eradication of coca and poppy crops. But according to a study conducted by the UN at request of Colombia's own government, coca crop production has increased since US began the aerial eradication campaign back in 1995, by 268%! In year 1999 alone it has increased by over 60%.
Eradication is a threat to bio-diversity of the Amazon region and to human health. The herbicide that is being used for aerial eradication, is Roundup Ultra that has a lot of untested activities. According to its own manufacturer, it is designed to be applied manually and not aerially and it is dangerous if falls into drinking water sources. There is an increasing number of reported health problems in the region, respiratory, skin problems, gastrointestinal problems, particularly with young children. The eradication just makes people to move (last year alone there were 300.000 internally displaced persons in Colombia, for various reasons, eradication being just one of them). According to NMC, "for every acre of cola crops eradicated in Southern Colombia, 3 acres of Amazon rain forest are cut down to replace it."
The rest of the world may not be very aware of the fact that just in recent times 2 new American military air bases have been established near Columbia - in the last Dutch colony, on Antillean islands Curacao and Aruba. The Lower Chamber of the Dutch Parliament approved in May this year a law about these FOL bases. The approval of the Higher Chamber was recently received.
By this law, among other things, American military will not be prosecuted on these islands' territory for anything they will commit, be it a traffic accident or a murder. There was already one nearly accident with one of the planes.
The American administration claims that the bases are needed purely for intelligence surveillance purposes. Apart from the fact that this so-called "free world" doesn't even to question the right of the superpower to spy over the territory of any sovereign country that it picks, at present most planes on those bases are the F-16 bombers that are far too fast for this type of work.
There is growing evidence that Colombia might become US's new Vietnam.
The biggest evidence of the hypocrisy of American "War on Drugs" in Colombia is the little known to the ordinary people fact that actual coca production WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSSIBLE IN COLOMBIA WITHOUT USA AND EUROPE: it requires
the use of toxic chemicals that ARE NOT BEING PRODUCED IN COLOMBIA ITSELF, but are being IMPORTED IN THERE FROM THE VERY SAME USA AND EUROPE. Every hectare of coca needs approximately 1.3 tones of precursor chemicals - and all these chemicals end up in the Colombian rivers.
FARC - the Colombian Marxist guerilla movement - was holding quite a large territory in the South of the country: the so-called Demilitarized Zone. The status of this zone was to be reviewed in October, and by August there were already many signs indicating that this would be the breaking point for the Colombian peace process as the American government was forcibly pushing the Colombian authorities back to a full-scale war with FARC. The war that has finally started now.
There are, as we see, reasons enough for each interested party - the Unionists, the British and the American securocrats, the SDLP and the Irish political parties in the South and, not to forget, the Colombian authorities - to find a scapegoat for its own political failures or its own dirty goals.
AND WHAT ARE THE FACTS? WHERE IS THE PROOF OF ANY OF THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE BOGOTA THREE?
First of all, it is very strange that the Western countries that speak so much of importance of the presumption of innocence as the corner stone of the Western democracy, are allowing their media to convict these 3 men without even being put on trial! This is a classical example of defamation. In any European jury system that would have influenced the future jury to such a degree that the whole trial would inevitably collapse. The "free" media are acting against these men in a shamelessly Stalinist style. We have been told that we would be shown, for example, "an additional proof " of the links between IRA and FARC. All what we have been shown in that news bulletin, was the FARC commander Reyes strongly denying these men's involvement into any "terrorist training" - and then we were told by the presenters that we shouldn't believe him and that the Colombian authorities have found an unnamed man who claims that he saw Martin McCauley there back in the late 80s doing that. What a great memory this unnamed source has - and why do we have to believe him and not to believe the FARC commander?
If you will put the well-paid for it media and the involved politicians' emotions aside and look at the presented facts, it is obvious that the only proof of "guilt" of the 3 Irishmen they have, are these 3 men's political
ideas.
There were no traces of explosives found on their clothes by the Colombian experts - only the American one "found" it. There is no announced with such a triumph on the first day's video evidence against them. There is virtually nothing - except for the false passports, but they already explained very logically as why did they use them.
Is it their past convictions of some of them (far back in time when the war was going on in Ireland full-scale) or their voting patterns that they are being accused of?
An example of what Britain's own citizens are doing abroad in the war zones of other countries without needed documents, as recent as August 2001. British citizen Brian Graham was arrested by Russian army in Chechnya, without proper documents, but with enough evidence on him to accuse him of connections with Chechen guerilla. He was deported from Moscow.
Are we asking what party is Brian Graham member of or what party was he voting for? There is a big possibility that he was a Labor voter (too adventurous for being a Tory!). Is his sympathies to the Chechen rebels a threat to the Peace Process, especially since the British embassy in Moscow was aware of his travel plans? Does any Russian politician or any British political party demand from any other party Brian Graham might have voted for, an explanation of what he was doing in Chechnya? Why then does have SF to explain anything to anybody about travel plans of these people just because of their assumed political views?
By convicting 3 Irishmen based on their political ideas, Western democracies are setting an interesting pattern: from now on, will they decide all the travel destinations for people with political ideas that do not suit their securocrats?
That is, indeed, a very interesting concept of freedom of movement which is remarkably close to that of the late USSR that the West was so fiercely condemning.
The Colombian authorities have gone now even further, declaring the Demilitarized Zone virtually a no-go zone for all Irish nationals. THE ARREST OF AN IRISH TOURIST KEVIN CRENNAN IN SOUTHERN COLUMBIA - A MAN WHO HAS NOT ONLY NOT COMMITTED ANY CRIME, BUT WHO DOESN'T EVEN HAVE REPUBLICAN POLITICAL VIEWS, has been a huge embarrassment for the Colombian government and its Western sponsors. It has CONFIRMED THE FACT OF THEIR ANTI-IRISH PARANOIA - AND THAT "THE SEASON OF HUNTING FOR THE IRISHMEN" IN COLOMBIA HAS BEGAN.
There was from the very beginning a strong indication that these few months were desperately needed by the Colombian authorities not in order to prepare a fair trial, but in order to have enough time to construct the non-existing evidence against the 3. It is exactly for these purposes the 2 members of the RUC, the most discredited police force in Western Europe - police force that can't even prevent Loyalist bombs being thrown at Nationalist children going to school, not to mention their own record in fabricating evidence against innocent people - have traveled to Columbia.
There is no doubt, considering all the anti-Republican hysteria, that, if there was any clear evidence of the "guilt" of the Bogota Three, it would have been produced to the media by now.
The question is: Who is going to guarantee the fairness of the process that these Irish people will be getting? Who is going to guarantee that they will survive in Colombian prison even for these few months?
The Colombian authorities' record of the human rights violations are, to put it mildly, not very encouraging in this sense.
Do we still remember what happened in "democratic" Britain to the Irishmen who needed to be used as a scapegoat for political reasons in the past and who have paid a very dear price while being innocent: the Guilford Four and the Birmingham Six?
All the facts are showing that the Bogota Three are just yet another scapegoat for the enemies of the Irish and Colombian peace processes. These enemies do not mind that they will most probably have to compensate their victims for their false accusations in the future: it is only taxpayers' money anyway. For them, to destroy the Irish peace process on Unionist and British terms, putting the blame on the Republicans, is such a desirable goal that they believe any price is well worth to pay. Even innocent people's lives.
The main question is: will the Irish people allow these 3 Irishmen in Colombia become a new scapegoats for those in Ireland, Britain and US who do not want the Peace Processes here and in Colombia to succeed?
"Not for them a judge of jury,
Nor indeed a crime at all,
Being Irish means they're guilty,
So we're guilty one and all!"
Have we learnt something from history lessons?
All i can say i don't believe in this claim that 'Colombia can become new Vietnam'.It won't.If we ever 'learned something from history lessons' there will be no Cold War again.Do i sound sickingly pacifist...?
The Irish Connection
In the summer of 2001, three Irishmen were arrested in Colombia and accused of terrorism as they left a zone controlled by the FARC armed opposition group during a truce period. A look at the background to their plight exposes the US-uk coalition's hypocrisy on terrorism. Every sign is that the three men, now in prison in Bogota, are victims of a crude frame-up. They insist they were on a fact finding visit carrying video equipment so as to record material for use with organizations promoting peace back in Ireland.
The men - Niall Connolly, Martin MacAuley and James Monaghan - are all republicans who support the Good Friday peace agreement in Ireland. MacAuley and Monaghan are ex-political prisoners. Both have promoted conflict resolution work since their release from prison. Niall Connolly is a carpenter who has worked in community development and solidarity activities in Latin America since the early 1990s.
Before they were arrested, Sinn Fein was making steady electoral progress throughout Ireland, and the Unionist leadership in Belfast was in trouble. At the time, the Ulster Unionists and British government were using the issue of disarmament to stall full implementation of the Good Friday peace agreement. In that context, the men's arrest was timely and convenient.
"BEING IRISH MEANS THEY'RE GUILTY?"
Do you remember how suddenly "the case of the Bogota Three" arose out of nowhere, after it became increasingly clear that the IRA decommission is not at all what David Trimble wants, but something he is rather afraid of? After the British government has shown yet again that it doesn't respect its own word and still acts like in "good old" colonial days? After the majority of the Irish people could clearly see who are the real enemies of peace in Ireland?
The "Irish Times" Editorial in August was claiming that the whole Irish nation demanded to know what happened in Colombia.. To be honest, I haven't heard anybody (on the streets, in a bus, at work)
asking about Colombia. Except for politicians on TV opposed to Sinn Fein and desperately wanting to distract Irish people from what they are really demanding for already 3,5 years: full and speedy implementation of the GFA.
It is becoming more and more obvious that the so-called "case of the Bogota Three" was created at the most politically suitable moment by those who oppose peace processes, both in Ireland and in Colombia.
IT IS NOT BY ACCIDENT THAT THE "COLOMBIAN AFFAIR" - arrest of 3 Irishmen with Republican political views in Bogota - IS BEING BLOWN UP OUT OF THE PROPORTIONS BY THE MEDIA AND POLITICIANS. IT IS ALSO NOT BY ACCIDENT THAT THIS ARREST TOOK PLACE IN THAT PARTICULAR MOMENT IN TIME IN THE PEACE PROCESSES OF BOTH COUNTRIES.
As the Colombian security services have confessed, they would have never done it without British intelligence's (MI5 etc.) and the CIA's involvement.
The British government is trying to distract the Irish people and the world's public opinion from the fact that it renegades on its own commitments to implement the GFA in full and that it is in breach of the INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT (as the GFA is an international agreement!). Judging by its actions, the British government still believes it can get away with stopping the clock for political institutions in the North at any time that suits its securocrats, in order to use the suspension as blackmailing tool against the Republicans. But, in fact, by doing so, the British government is demonstrating its disrespect for all the Irish voters who voted for Agreement, and for the international law. Some within the British establishment are still attempting to revive the "political corps": "to save" David Trimble yet again . But the main reason for them is to shift the blame for the deepest crisis in the Irish peace process from their Unionist allies and themselves towards Republicans. These people couldn't succeed in finding the "reason" in Ireland itself as
the IRA has shown a truly iron discipline in face of the constant strain of the Loyalist provocative attacks on the most vulnerable Nationalist civilians - and so, they looked overseas. And for these people, any man with Republican political sympathies being in a "hot spot" "would do".
If you looked at the news bulletin on TV (for example, UTV news on 22/08), the "Colombian affair" as they call it, was a priority topic. But ALL THAT WAS TOLD TO THE AUDIENCE, WERE BARE SPECULATIONS. For the hard facts on the very same news bulletin you could come to the conclusion that the only real threat to the peace in the North comes not from some far Colombia, but from the Loyalism that continues to use its weapons on a daily basis. And that the Unionist and the British politicians are not willing to face those responsible for that. They prefer to speculate on what the IRA might have been doing or planning - instead of facing what the Loyalists are ALREADY DOING TODAY AND HAVE BEEN DOING NON-STOP FOR A LONG TIME. Actions - or the lack of such - speak louder than words.
The Unionists' reasons making the hype about the Bogota Three are obvious. The whole world could see that it was Mr. Trimble who ignited the most recent crisis in the Irish Peace Process by his resignation. The Unionists had to cover Mr. Trimble's bare behind after this "peacemaker" who claimed that the only thing preventing GFA from full implementation is the Republican refusal to disarm, REJECTED the historical IRA offer on decommission. . Now the same David Trimble is claiming that the only thing that prevents him from going back to government and allowing political institutions to work, is what happened in Colombia. In such situation any war zone country visited by any Republicans, "would do". Whatever happens in the world, even if it will be an earthquake in another part of the planet, in twisted Unionist logic is always the fault of "Sinn Fein /IRA" - or, as the anti-Semitic racists in Russia say, "if the water is not running from a tap, that's because Jews have drunk it all!"
What is much more remarkable and interesting to see, is the reaction of SDLP and the Irish government. Both have supported the suspension of the political institutions - (even though publicly said that it was regrettable), because they are both afraid of Sinn Fein's inevitable electoral gains.
It is particularly clear when you see how drastically the policy of the Irish government towards the Republican movement has changed after its recent electoral success in the 6 counties. The Southern political parties are clearly panicking at the thought that the same will happen at the next elections in the 26 counties.
It is also particularly clear when you listen to who within SDLP is demanding "clarity on Columbia" the loudest. It was astonishing to see Brid Rogers on UTV among those talking about "need to come clean on Colombia" as their main political priority - that is, over the Loyalist attacks on Nationalist people in the North? But it is quite understandable to talk about something far, far away- if you consider her own tremendous electoral humiliation and dramatic loss to Sinn Fein in the recent elections. It is also a good question why Mrs. Rogers and likewise politicians were not interested before these elections in what is actually happening in Colombia - and what exactly are the US military doing there? Neither was this question raised by the Irish government.
SDLP is also desperately trying to distract the Irish people from a far more important for them question of the Irish reality today: why did the party start supporting the flawed British police "reform" that is far short of the Patten recommendations, AFTER the elections in which it has promised its voters NOT TO? In order to do so, again, Colombia or anything else "would do".
The US intelligence and securocrats also have their own reasons to blow "the Colombian situation" out of proportion.
Gerry Adams is acting as a truly independent politician by planning a visit to the "Father of all Enemies" for the American imperialism - Fidel Castro. Those within the US establishment who saw Adams as a "pocket revolutionary", were extremely unhappy of his independent steps, and decided to prevent it by all possible means. They desperately needed an excuse for that. Even though, at the first sight, modern America believes that it does not need any excuse for any of its actions, including bombing and starving civilians on a daily basis as they do in Iraq, interfering into civil wars in different countries and "making peace" by choosing one side over the other, what leads to the new ethnic cleansings as it is happening in the Balkans, and arming itself to its teeth, against the wishes of the virtually whole European continent. The US see Latin America as its "backyard" - and will not allow peoples of this continent to take their freedom into their own hands. The whole world witnessed in 1973 what happened to democratically elected President Allende in Chile. Little changed since.
The US Bush administration has (and let's finally face it!)- a different position on the Irish peace process than the Clinton administration had. This government is also seeking for an extra excuse to interfere into other countries' internal affairs all around the world, Columbia and the American "Plan Columbia" being just one of the examples. What really worries the US administration, is not that FARC are "involved in drugs" (FARC only taxes drugs profits while the US-backed through the
Colombian army right wing paramilitaries are actually actively involved into trafficking and a worker of the US embassy in Bogota was caught recently sending drugs by diplomatic post), but that they are MARXISTS! Just like in the 50s with their witch-hunting of McCarthy, being a Marxist is a crime by itself for the Bush administration: because Marxists are actively opposing the US' led New World Order and their countries being ripped off by the West.
The National Mobilization on Colombia in the US, the Amnesty International, the Human Right Watch, the UH High Agency for Human Rights - all of these organizations have condemned the American military involvement into this country's long and bitter civil war. "Current US military aid to Colombia including military training and private contracting, is a failed policy,"- writes The National Mobilization on Colombia (NMC). It is planning a major all-American manifestation against "Plan Colombia" at the end on this month.
The US government is claiming that is fighting against drugs trafficking, but the numbers are showing that "to achieve 1 % reduction in US cocaine consumption, US could spend an additional $ 34 mln. On drugs treatment programs or 23 TIMES MORE, $ 783 mln. - on efforts to eradicate supply at the source." (Rydell & Everyngham, Controlling Cocaine). That will make any reasonable person think that, perhaps, the US have very different reasons for being involved in Colombia that they claim to have..
The real reason is, as usually economical - profits of the big corporations that are so high in a country where "government policy labels trade union activists as "terrorists" (NMC). More that 3800 Colombian trade unionists have been killed since 1986. Of every 5 trade unionists killed in the world today 3 are Colombians. The numbers speak for themselves. And the vast majority - about 80% - of the killings of trade unionists are committed either by the Government forces directly or through its indirect agents- right wing paramilitaries whom they arm and supply with intelligence (sounds all too familiar for the Irish people here!). The reasoning of violence against trade union activists - "industrial opposition in Colombia to the exercise of labor rights." Trade union activities are being considered "subversive" - because they challenge corporate profits! Primary purpose of the US's policy and "aid" to Colombia is not "War to Drugs", as they claim, but the protection of super-profits and interests of the big corporations in this area. There is evidence that "several US companies maintained open relations with murderous death squads as part of their program to intimidate trade union leaders". Coca-Cola was brought to the Federal court "for its role in such violent attacks on labor and other large corporations are being investigated".
Do you hear Mr. Trimble or Mr. Robinson or Mrs. Rogers demanding from the American authorities "to come clean" on what exactly are they doing in Columbia? I don't.
Meanwhile, more than $ 1 billion of the US taxpayers money are being propped into Colombian government which is the 3rd largest recipient of the US' military aid in the world. According to NMC, "Colombian military has a horrendous human rights record towards labor. Official Colombian military has in some cases created paramilitary units to carry out assassinations" - it is documented by US State Department, by UN High Commission for Human Rights, by Amnesty International and various other organizations.
Today's Colombia is a place where 10 people die every day due to political violence and where 2 million people have been displaced since 1985 - far more than in Kosovo or in Macedonia that are constantly on our TV screens.
The US media were so outraged about 3 Irish Republicans visiting FARC's zone that they accused then in all sorts of crimes without any factual evidence. But what they are forgetting to mention, is that over 60.000 Latin American officers, many of them - Colombians, were trained in the US's very own military School of Americas (currently Western Hemispheric Institute for Security and Co-operation, WHISC), and that SOA graduates are "consistently linked to some of the worst human rights atrocities" (NMC). In Colombia, as the report of the Human Rights Watch shows, SOA-trained officers "are linked to formation and operation of paramilitary groups, such as "Calima Front" . The report, called "Ties that bind", shows that this group is responsible for displacement of over 10.000 people and for at least 200 murders in its first 12 months of existence. Colombia remains until now one of the main recipients of the US military training. "In addition to the SOA, approximately 4000 Colombian military personnel are trained in combat each year in other locations".
And this very state, involved into all these "activities", dares to say something about "danger" of the 3 Irishmen with Republican views visiting Colombia as tourists?
Let's look at the so-called non-military parts of the American "Plan Colombia": does it bring anything good to the Colombian people?
The biggest part of "Plan Columbia" is forced aerial eradication of coca and poppy crops. But according to a study conducted by the UN at request of Colombia's own government, coca crop production has increased since US began the aerial eradication campaign back in 1995, by 268%! In year 1999 alone it has increased by over 60%.
Eradication is a threat to bio-diversity of the Amazon region and to human health. The herbicide that is being used for aerial eradication, is Roundup Ultra that has a lot of untested activities. According to its own manufacturer, it is designed to be applied manually and not aerially and it is dangerous if falls into drinking water sources. There is an increasing number of reported health problems in the region, respiratory, skin problems, gastrointestinal problems, particularly with young children. The eradication just makes people to move (last year alone there were 300.000 internally displaced persons in Colombia, for various reasons, eradication being just one of them). According to NMC, "for every acre of cola crops eradicated in Southern Colombia, 3 acres of Amazon rain forest are cut down to replace it."
The rest of the world may not be very aware of the fact that just in recent times 2 new American military air bases have been established near Columbia - in the last Dutch colony, on Antillean islands Curacao and Aruba. The Lower Chamber of the Dutch Parliament approved in May this year a law about these FOL bases. The approval of the Higher Chamber was recently received.
By this law, among other things, American military will not be prosecuted on these islands' territory for anything they will commit, be it a traffic accident or a murder. There was already one nearly accident with one of the planes.
The American administration claims that the bases are needed purely for intelligence surveillance purposes. Apart from the fact that this so-called "free world" doesn't even to question the right of the superpower to spy over the territory of any sovereign country that it picks, at present most planes on those bases are the F-16 bombers that are far too fast for this type of work.
There is growing evidence that Colombia might become US's new Vietnam.
The biggest evidence of the hypocrisy of American "War on Drugs" in Colombia is the little known to the ordinary people fact that actual coca production WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSSIBLE IN COLOMBIA WITHOUT USA AND EUROPE: it requires
the use of toxic chemicals that ARE NOT BEING PRODUCED IN COLOMBIA ITSELF, but are being IMPORTED IN THERE FROM THE VERY SAME USA AND EUROPE. Every hectare of coca needs approximately 1.3 tones of precursor chemicals - and all these chemicals end up in the Colombian rivers.
FARC - the Colombian Marxist guerilla movement - was holding quite a large territory in the South of the country: the so-called Demilitarized Zone. The status of this zone was to be reviewed in October, and by August there were already many signs indicating that this would be the breaking point for the Colombian peace process as the American government was forcibly pushing the Colombian authorities back to a full-scale war with FARC. The war that has finally started now.
There are, as we see, reasons enough for each interested party - the Unionists, the British and the American securocrats, the SDLP and the Irish political parties in the South and, not to forget, the Colombian authorities - to find a scapegoat for its own political failures or its own dirty goals.
AND WHAT ARE THE FACTS? WHERE IS THE PROOF OF ANY OF THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE BOGOTA THREE?
First of all, it is very strange that the Western countries that speak so much of importance of the presumption of innocence as the corner stone of the Western democracy, are allowing their media to convict these 3 men without even being put on trial! This is a classical example of defamation. In any European jury system that would have influenced the future jury to such a degree that the whole trial would inevitably collapse. The "free" media are acting against these men in a shamelessly Stalinist style. We have been told that we would be shown, for example, "an additional proof " of the links between IRA and FARC. All what we have been shown in that news bulletin, was the FARC commander Reyes strongly denying these men's involvement into any "terrorist training" - and then we were told by the presenters that we shouldn't believe him and that the Colombian authorities have found an unnamed man who claims that he saw Martin McCauley there back in the late 80s doing that. What a great memory this unnamed source has - and why do we have to believe him and not to believe the FARC commander?
If you will put the well-paid for it media and the involved politicians' emotions aside and look at the presented facts, it is obvious that the only proof of "guilt" of the 3 Irishmen they have, are these 3 men's political
ideas.
There were no traces of explosives found on their clothes by the Colombian experts - only the American one "found" it. There is no announced with such a triumph on the first day's video evidence against them. There is virtually nothing - except for the false passports, but they already explained very logically as why did they use them.
Is it their past convictions of some of them (far back in time when the war was going on in Ireland full-scale) or their voting patterns that they are being accused of?
An example of what Britain's own citizens are doing abroad in the war zones of other countries without needed documents, as recent as August 2001. British citizen Brian Graham was arrested by Russian army in Chechnya, without proper documents, but with enough evidence on him to accuse him of connections with Chechen guerilla. He was deported from Moscow.
Are we asking what party is Brian Graham member of or what party was he voting for? There is a big possibility that he was a Labor voter (too adventurous for being a Tory!). Is his sympathies to the Chechen rebels a threat to the Peace Process, especially since the British embassy in Moscow was aware of his travel plans? Does any Russian politician or any British political party demand from any other party Brian Graham might have voted for, an explanation of what he was doing in Chechnya? Why then does have SF to explain anything to anybody about travel plans of these people just because of their assumed political views?
By convicting 3 Irishmen based on their political ideas, Western democracies are setting an interesting pattern: from now on, will they decide all the travel destinations for people with political ideas that do not suit their securocrats?
That is, indeed, a very interesting concept of freedom of movement which is remarkably close to that of the late USSR that the West was so fiercely condemning.
The Colombian authorities have gone now even further, declaring the Demilitarized Zone virtually a no-go zone for all Irish nationals. THE ARREST OF AN IRISH TOURIST KEVIN CRENNAN IN SOUTHERN COLUMBIA - A MAN WHO HAS NOT ONLY NOT COMMITTED ANY CRIME, BUT WHO DOESN'T EVEN HAVE REPUBLICAN POLITICAL VIEWS, has been a huge embarrassment for the Colombian government and its Western sponsors. It has CONFIRMED THE FACT OF THEIR ANTI-IRISH PARANOIA - AND THAT "THE SEASON OF HUNTING FOR THE IRISHMEN" IN COLOMBIA HAS BEGAN.
There was from the very beginning a strong indication that these few months were desperately needed by the Colombian authorities not in order to prepare a fair trial, but in order to have enough time to construct the non-existing evidence against the 3. It is exactly for these purposes the 2 members of the RUC, the most discredited police force in Western Europe - police force that can't even prevent Loyalist bombs being thrown at Nationalist children going to school, not to mention their own record in fabricating evidence against innocent people - have traveled to Columbia.
There is no doubt, considering all the anti-Republican hysteria, that, if there was any clear evidence of the "guilt" of the Bogota Three, it would have been produced to the media by now.
The question is: Who is going to guarantee the fairness of the process that these Irish people will be getting? Who is going to guarantee that they will survive in Colombian prison even for these few months?
The Colombian authorities' record of the human rights violations are, to put it mildly, not very encouraging in this sense.
Do we still remember what happened in "democratic" Britain to the Irishmen who needed to be used as a scapegoat for political reasons in the past and who have paid a very dear price while being innocent: the Guilford Four and the Birmingham Six?
All the facts are showing that the Bogota Three are just yet another scapegoat for the enemies of the Irish and Colombian peace processes. These enemies do not mind that they will most probably have to compensate their victims for their false accusations in the future: it is only taxpayers' money anyway. For them, to destroy the Irish peace process on Unionist and British terms, putting the blame on the Republicans, is such a desirable goal that they believe any price is well worth to pay. Even innocent people's lives.
The main question is: will the Irish people allow these 3 Irishmen in Colombia become a new scapegoats for those in Ireland, Britain and US who do not want the Peace Processes here and in Colombia to succeed?
"Not for them a judge of jury,
Nor indeed a crime at all,
Being Irish means they're guilty,
So we're guilty one and all!"
Have we learnt something from history lessons?
All i can say i don't believe in this claim that 'Colombia can become new Vietnam'.It won't.If we ever 'learned something from history lessons' there will be no Cold War again.Do i sound sickingly pacifist...?
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Traveller's 10 Commandements
1. Never talk about the IRA.
2. Never discuss the English.
3. Don't say, "Oh my God."
4. Don't say, "Wow, you have a refridgerator."
5. Don't look for thatched roof cottages.
6. Don't wear green.
7. Kiss the Blarney Stone.
8. Buy a piece of Waterford Crystal.
9. Visit the Aran Islands.
10. Have a pint (or 10) of Guinness
Sourse: Lonely Planet bluelist
2. Never discuss the English.
3. Don't say, "Oh my God."
4. Don't say, "Wow, you have a refridgerator."
5. Don't look for thatched roof cottages.
6. Don't wear green.
7. Kiss the Blarney Stone.
8. Buy a piece of Waterford Crystal.
9. Visit the Aran Islands.
10. Have a pint (or 10) of Guinness
Sourse: Lonely Planet bluelist
What do YOU think of IRA?!
There are many polemics about this rhetorical question. Thats what they say on Yahoo answers. Just look at the variety!
The question was:
IRA - terrorists or freedom fighters?
I just want the numbers. Try to give your grounds briefly. This is a kind of a bit ticklish question but please do try to avoit stuff like "terrorist scumbags rot in hell" even if it's your point. Hopefully it's not a discussion so it'll be easier to avoid. Thanks.
The answers were:
1.I haven't read too much into the IRA, but I think they were more like freedom fighters. I think they used some questionable tactics, but at least they identified themselves as soldiers and wore uniforms. They didn't cover their faces and hide like cowards, and then kill innocent women and children like these Islamic terrorists do now. Sure their tactics were questionable, but no comparison can be made. I could be wrong, but that's just my opinion.
2."Freedom fighters" is a buzzword created by stupid liberals who think that a word can hide the true character of people.
Anyone who takes it upon themselves to blow up innocent men, women and children is a terrorist and a murderer. You can't paint a pig pink and expect it to smell like a petunia! (ha, i like the allegory!)
3.I believe they started out as freedom fighters but are now just an extremist "terrorist" group the 6 counties in the north will never be part of Ireland and a majority of the people in the north like being part of the UK but everyone has their battles I guess
4.What numbers? IRA were Freedom fighters and still are! They are considered heroes to Ireland, for they have been used by Great Britain for years to sacrifice in the front lines in every war too. They might have used some guerilla warfare, but that is because they couldn't win their freedom against britain fighting a conventional war. But they only wanted their freedom! They were not religious fanatics, brainwashed zombies committing suicide in a country that did not have them by the throat! like the islams?
They bombed the innocent and we were not the ones that enslaved them and they had no rythme or reason to that ignorant tragedy. we are not oppressing their ragged out butts. It is just the opposite, we gave them too many liberties. We should have just built those rigs and sent our guys to farm the oil and take it! We paid for it all anyway! The IRA has nothing to hold over anyones head like oil? What do they have? Irish linen? Whiskey?
They are a very good people and meak and hard working more than most here in America the Irish paid their dues for sure!
5.Cold blooded murderers alias TERRORISTS and if TE doesn't think they hide their faces and didn't kill women or children maybe he should read some more or maybe watch the movie OMAGH they are no different to Al-Queda they had cause and nobody was allowed to stop them.Micheal Collins one of their leaders realized that to really hurt the enemy you terrorise them sound familar.Also do you know they helped the Nazis in WW2 (wow, where did she get that info from?)
6.Terrorists !!!The one who kills the innocent and that too for wrong purpose is teorrists ! and they are doing g this for the past 100 years and have done dozens and dozens blast killing thousands of peoples !! They are terrorists !
7.most Irishmen are drunkards (sorry, but on this one i reported abuse!)
8.Don't have enough info, but if they targeted innocent women and children then yes they were terrorists. (if you 'don't have info' don't write anything...!)
9.The fact is the British Government was recently found to have been colluding with unionist terrorist organisations during the troubles. Unionist terrorist groups killed many innocent civilians, layers etc, with the British Governments blessing..
The IRA (although the most well known) werent the only successful terrorist group operating in N.Ireland. The British Government (who they opposed) were recently revealed as being state sponsors of terrorism (by any modern definition).
So if the IRA's enemy is a state sponsor of terrorism - how can the IRA be?
10.TERRORISTS.
I have always had some sympathy for the Irish "cause" and if it was my call (and I was actually around at the time), I would have given Ireland back to the Irish at least by the beginning of the 20th Century. And I take my hat off to Sinn Fein for abandoning violence.
However, having lived in the UK since 1979 and been a victim of the IRA's relentless and bloody campaign during the following two decades, there is no way that I could consider them "freedom fighters". Obliterating the city centre of Manchester. Setting off bombs in Harrods department store. Setting off bombs in Victoria Station (where a friend of mine was seriously injured). Setting off bombs in Canary Wharf (where my husband was nearly killed). Setting off a nail bomb in the Kings Road, killing innocent people on the street. Setting off a bomb in a shopping mall in Warrington, killing toddlers. Blowing up pubs all over the mainland. Rousting innocent families out of their beds in Northern Ireland and executing them. Blowing up churches. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
"Freedom fighters" do not deliberately target civilians. The IRA did, for much of its existence. Hundreds of innocent people were not just caught in the crossfire, but killed wantonly, because the IRA's attacks on infrastructure and on government and military targets (if you want to call blowing up a pavillion where an Army band was performing, or the horses at the Royal Horseguards "military targets"), did not cause the UK government to hand over half an island which is Royalist and Protestant over to a radical militia.
Also, let me remind you in case you forgot that the IRA has trained and cooperated with terrorist groups in South America and the Middle East, including Al Qaeda. They have funded themselves by selling drugs and weapons.
There is no doubt what they are, and I find it rather shocking that anybody who has any knowledge of the IRA would still consider them to be anything but TERRORISTS.
This is it ladys and gents. At least nobody swore a lot, cause when i participated in discussions of this kind i heard a lot of swearing, believe me...
The question was:
IRA - terrorists or freedom fighters?
I just want the numbers. Try to give your grounds briefly. This is a kind of a bit ticklish question but please do try to avoit stuff like "terrorist scumbags rot in hell" even if it's your point. Hopefully it's not a discussion so it'll be easier to avoid. Thanks.
The answers were:
1.I haven't read too much into the IRA, but I think they were more like freedom fighters. I think they used some questionable tactics, but at least they identified themselves as soldiers and wore uniforms. They didn't cover their faces and hide like cowards, and then kill innocent women and children like these Islamic terrorists do now. Sure their tactics were questionable, but no comparison can be made. I could be wrong, but that's just my opinion.
2."Freedom fighters" is a buzzword created by stupid liberals who think that a word can hide the true character of people.
Anyone who takes it upon themselves to blow up innocent men, women and children is a terrorist and a murderer. You can't paint a pig pink and expect it to smell like a petunia! (ha, i like the allegory!)
3.I believe they started out as freedom fighters but are now just an extremist "terrorist" group the 6 counties in the north will never be part of Ireland and a majority of the people in the north like being part of the UK but everyone has their battles I guess
4.What numbers? IRA were Freedom fighters and still are! They are considered heroes to Ireland, for they have been used by Great Britain for years to sacrifice in the front lines in every war too. They might have used some guerilla warfare, but that is because they couldn't win their freedom against britain fighting a conventional war. But they only wanted their freedom! They were not religious fanatics, brainwashed zombies committing suicide in a country that did not have them by the throat! like the islams?
They bombed the innocent and we were not the ones that enslaved them and they had no rythme or reason to that ignorant tragedy. we are not oppressing their ragged out butts. It is just the opposite, we gave them too many liberties. We should have just built those rigs and sent our guys to farm the oil and take it! We paid for it all anyway! The IRA has nothing to hold over anyones head like oil? What do they have? Irish linen? Whiskey?
They are a very good people and meak and hard working more than most here in America the Irish paid their dues for sure!
5.Cold blooded murderers alias TERRORISTS and if TE doesn't think they hide their faces and didn't kill women or children maybe he should read some more or maybe watch the movie OMAGH they are no different to Al-Queda they had cause and nobody was allowed to stop them.Micheal Collins one of their leaders realized that to really hurt the enemy you terrorise them sound familar.Also do you know they helped the Nazis in WW2 (wow, where did she get that info from?)
6.Terrorists !!!The one who kills the innocent and that too for wrong purpose is teorrists ! and they are doing g this for the past 100 years and have done dozens and dozens blast killing thousands of peoples !! They are terrorists !
7.most Irishmen are drunkards (sorry, but on this one i reported abuse!)
8.Don't have enough info, but if they targeted innocent women and children then yes they were terrorists. (if you 'don't have info' don't write anything...!)
9.The fact is the British Government was recently found to have been colluding with unionist terrorist organisations during the troubles. Unionist terrorist groups killed many innocent civilians, layers etc, with the British Governments blessing..
The IRA (although the most well known) werent the only successful terrorist group operating in N.Ireland. The British Government (who they opposed) were recently revealed as being state sponsors of terrorism (by any modern definition).
So if the IRA's enemy is a state sponsor of terrorism - how can the IRA be?
10.TERRORISTS.
I have always had some sympathy for the Irish "cause" and if it was my call (and I was actually around at the time), I would have given Ireland back to the Irish at least by the beginning of the 20th Century. And I take my hat off to Sinn Fein for abandoning violence.
However, having lived in the UK since 1979 and been a victim of the IRA's relentless and bloody campaign during the following two decades, there is no way that I could consider them "freedom fighters". Obliterating the city centre of Manchester. Setting off bombs in Harrods department store. Setting off bombs in Victoria Station (where a friend of mine was seriously injured). Setting off bombs in Canary Wharf (where my husband was nearly killed). Setting off a nail bomb in the Kings Road, killing innocent people on the street. Setting off a bomb in a shopping mall in Warrington, killing toddlers. Blowing up pubs all over the mainland. Rousting innocent families out of their beds in Northern Ireland and executing them. Blowing up churches. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
"Freedom fighters" do not deliberately target civilians. The IRA did, for much of its existence. Hundreds of innocent people were not just caught in the crossfire, but killed wantonly, because the IRA's attacks on infrastructure and on government and military targets (if you want to call blowing up a pavillion where an Army band was performing, or the horses at the Royal Horseguards "military targets"), did not cause the UK government to hand over half an island which is Royalist and Protestant over to a radical militia.
Also, let me remind you in case you forgot that the IRA has trained and cooperated with terrorist groups in South America and the Middle East, including Al Qaeda. They have funded themselves by selling drugs and weapons.
There is no doubt what they are, and I find it rather shocking that anybody who has any knowledge of the IRA would still consider them to be anything but TERRORISTS.
This is it ladys and gents. At least nobody swore a lot, cause when i participated in discussions of this kind i heard a lot of swearing, believe me...
Friday, February 9, 2007
Over 200 years before The Troubles – part one.
Don't be silly, i don't expect you to read this, i just expect you to comment that this 'is a nice piece of work'...Enjoy!
Over 200 years before The Troubles – part one.
Preface.
This period saw a profound social, political and economic transformation of Ireland. In 1783 Ireland was controlled, as she had been since the Glorious Revolution*1 by Irish protestants and Anglican persuasion; and the Constitution of 1782*2 was essentially their constitution. It also excluded from power two important groups of Irishmen: Presbyterian dissenters (mainly in the North) and Roman Catholics (completely defeated and degraded) who were now about to take first steps towards asking the removal of political disabilities.
Secret societies
The 18th century was thick with outbound secret societies. The Whiteboy movement was directed against rents, tithes*3 and Roman Catholic fees. The Whiteboys were robbing, burning crops and houses, murdering*4. In Ulster, the Oakboys and Steelboys were equally fearsome. Religious feuds (Protestants and Presbyterians ) in the north (in Armagh, Tyrone and Down) found expression in such societies as Beep of day Boys and afterwards called Protestant boys and Wreckers, forerunners of the famous Orange Order of the Protestants. Decent Roman Catholics founded the Defenders, that late merged into The Society of United Irishmen. Roman Catholic priests lost former influence because of highly disapproving of secret oaths. All this had nothing to do with the battle of Dublin Parliament to shake free from Westminster.
Foreign influence
Just at that time America won its independence and the French revolution emerged, changing the state of affairs and bringing people’s movements closer to the parliamentary battle. In 1783 Irish troops who had served in the American war returned home under impression, because American grievances were like the Irish and America proved the possibility of success.
Henry Grattan
In 18th century oratory was nearly the greatest distinction; power of persuasion was a fatal gift. But all of them couldn’t stand their grounds for long, one persuader changed the other, and this only encouraged the instability and disunity. Until in 1775 an orator appeared in the House of Commons; his name was Henry Grattan. “His life bids Irish Protestants not to entertain harsh prejudices against their Catholic fellow-countrymen, to look on all with a loving heart, to be tolerant of their infirmities caused by their unhappy history, and, like Grattan, earnestly to sympathize with all that is brave and generous in their character. It reminds the Irish Catholic that the brightest age of Ireland was when Grattan, a steady Protestant, raised it to proud eminence; that in the hour of his triumph he did not forget the state of the Catholics, but labored through his virtuous life that all Catholics should enjoy unshackled liberty of conscience. He bids Irishmen of every creed to ponder upon the spirit and principles which governed the patriot's career in public and private,"-says Daniel Owen Madden.
Constitution. The Patriots
The Protestants, especially Grattan himself, knew that in Ireland liberty was controlled not by themselves but by ‘The Castle’ (the Government). Every good constitution has some safeguards. Firstly, no government can remove judges from office. Secondly, there must be an Act which protects a man from being imprisoned for a long time without trial (in England it was called an Act of Habeas Corpus). Irish constitution had none of the safeguards listed above. Grattan and his followers, known as The Patriots, fought for these safeguards successfully. Grattan wanted Ireland to be as free as England but still united to her.
First steps to Catholic emancipation
In 1779, with a sympathetic Whig Government at Westminster, Grattan secured removal of many of the dreadful custom duties. In 1793 he pressed the Roman Catholic franchise*5, though they were still denied full political freedom, for they could only vote, not sit in the Parliament. In the latter years of the century the worst of the Penal laws*6 were abolished or fallen into disuse. By 1782 the priest had no longer to register. It was now easier for Roman Catholics to own land and they had been admitted to university degrees. These measures had the support of George III, Pitt (prime minister), and the majority of Protestants in the Irish Parliament. Grattan believed that men of property were the best guardians of the law, so the electors and the elected had to have a property worth 40 shillings. This disqualified many more Catholics than Protestants.
Finally the Irish Parliament itself won the independence – it was the greatest victory of the Patriots. In 1782 they managed to persuade the Westminster to repeal Poynings’ Law*7 and the Declaratory Act*8 except as final royal veto. For 18 years Ireland had a free parliament.
The corrupt government body
The grant of independence did not suffice to check the corruption of Parliament. It was still formed of a purely Protestant oligarchy, whose boroughs were regarded as private property, generally of considerable money value, and who sold their interest, when it suited their convenience, to the Government. There was no real or open election; seats were purchased from their owners for large sums of money. In 1790, eight years after the grant of independence, Grattan, speaking in the Commons, had still to confess that "above two-thirds of the returns to the House are private property; of those returns, many actually are sold to the minister. The country is placed in a sort of interval between the cessation of a system of oppression and the formation of a system of corruption."
The Lord Lieutenant lived in at Dublin Castle for like half the year. During his absence in England, government was in the hands of his council (the executive) with its chief secretary, justices and other officials, all nominated by the British Cabinet. The method of controlling both the executive and parliament was through agents known as undertakers. They did it by filling them with a body of followers, called the junta. The undertakers’ duties included buying votes for junta.
The Volunteers
Meanwhile, England was too busy with France and America and her troupes were in such demand that there was no one to defend Ireland from possible French or pirates invaders. So Britain called on Ireland to form Volunteer companies. In the end there was no invasion, so the Volunteers used their energy to make political demands. They declared that Ireland would never be safe until she could make her own laws. Grattan met Volunteers at Dungannon and helped them to draft resolutions demanding an independent parliament; the demand was carried.
Views on parliamentary reform
Parliament was badly in need of reform. The executive was still appointed by the British Council, not by the Irish Parliament. Roman Catholics couldn’t sit in it. It only represented men of property. It had a share of ‘rotten boroughs’*9 and ‘pocket boroughs’*10. And of course the corruption.
Finally the parliament owed much of its independence to the Volunteers and it’s not wise for a parliament to depend on an army, even an unpaid one. Plus the Patriots had no common program and not much sense of party loyalty: Grattan had many rivals like Henry Flood, who saw the reform as giving the franchise to tenants. Grattan’s idea of reform was to keep the parliament to the owners of property but to end corruption.
Footnotes(*)
*1. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 or the Bloodless Revolution, was the overthrow of James II of England in 1688 by a union of Parliamentarians and William III of Orange. Never again would the monarch hold absolute power; the Bill of Rights became one of the most important documents for Britain. The deposition of the Roman Catholic James II ended any chance of Catholicism becoming re-established in England. It also led to toleration for nonconformist Protestants
*2. A series of concessions made by the British government which excluded the legislative independence of the Irish Parliament
*3. Church’s tenth
*4. Not so much of a good start…
*5. Right to vote
*6. The Penal laws in Ireland refers to a series of laws imposed under British rule that sought to discriminate against Roman Catholics and Protestant non-Conformists (those not conforming to the Anglican Church in Ireland in favour of the established Church of Ireland which recognized the English monarchy as its spiritual head.
*7. Poynings Law of 1494 made the Irish parliament subservient to the English one.
*8. The Declaratory Act asserted Britain's exclusive right to legislate for and tax its unrepresented colonies.
*9. Small places with few voters
*10.Places controlled by the landlord
Well, how was it? Seriously, i'm not jeering at you...
Over 200 years before The Troubles – part one.
Preface.
This period saw a profound social, political and economic transformation of Ireland. In 1783 Ireland was controlled, as she had been since the Glorious Revolution*1 by Irish protestants and Anglican persuasion; and the Constitution of 1782*2 was essentially their constitution. It also excluded from power two important groups of Irishmen: Presbyterian dissenters (mainly in the North) and Roman Catholics (completely defeated and degraded) who were now about to take first steps towards asking the removal of political disabilities.
Secret societies
The 18th century was thick with outbound secret societies. The Whiteboy movement was directed against rents, tithes*3 and Roman Catholic fees. The Whiteboys were robbing, burning crops and houses, murdering*4. In Ulster, the Oakboys and Steelboys were equally fearsome. Religious feuds (Protestants and Presbyterians ) in the north (in Armagh, Tyrone and Down) found expression in such societies as Beep of day Boys and afterwards called Protestant boys and Wreckers, forerunners of the famous Orange Order of the Protestants. Decent Roman Catholics founded the Defenders, that late merged into The Society of United Irishmen. Roman Catholic priests lost former influence because of highly disapproving of secret oaths. All this had nothing to do with the battle of Dublin Parliament to shake free from Westminster.
Foreign influence
Just at that time America won its independence and the French revolution emerged, changing the state of affairs and bringing people’s movements closer to the parliamentary battle. In 1783 Irish troops who had served in the American war returned home under impression, because American grievances were like the Irish and America proved the possibility of success.
Henry Grattan
In 18th century oratory was nearly the greatest distinction; power of persuasion was a fatal gift. But all of them couldn’t stand their grounds for long, one persuader changed the other, and this only encouraged the instability and disunity. Until in 1775 an orator appeared in the House of Commons; his name was Henry Grattan. “His life bids Irish Protestants not to entertain harsh prejudices against their Catholic fellow-countrymen, to look on all with a loving heart, to be tolerant of their infirmities caused by their unhappy history, and, like Grattan, earnestly to sympathize with all that is brave and generous in their character. It reminds the Irish Catholic that the brightest age of Ireland was when Grattan, a steady Protestant, raised it to proud eminence; that in the hour of his triumph he did not forget the state of the Catholics, but labored through his virtuous life that all Catholics should enjoy unshackled liberty of conscience. He bids Irishmen of every creed to ponder upon the spirit and principles which governed the patriot's career in public and private,"-says Daniel Owen Madden.
Constitution. The Patriots
The Protestants, especially Grattan himself, knew that in Ireland liberty was controlled not by themselves but by ‘The Castle’ (the Government). Every good constitution has some safeguards. Firstly, no government can remove judges from office. Secondly, there must be an Act which protects a man from being imprisoned for a long time without trial (in England it was called an Act of Habeas Corpus). Irish constitution had none of the safeguards listed above. Grattan and his followers, known as The Patriots, fought for these safeguards successfully. Grattan wanted Ireland to be as free as England but still united to her.
First steps to Catholic emancipation
In 1779, with a sympathetic Whig Government at Westminster, Grattan secured removal of many of the dreadful custom duties. In 1793 he pressed the Roman Catholic franchise*5, though they were still denied full political freedom, for they could only vote, not sit in the Parliament. In the latter years of the century the worst of the Penal laws*6 were abolished or fallen into disuse. By 1782 the priest had no longer to register. It was now easier for Roman Catholics to own land and they had been admitted to university degrees. These measures had the support of George III, Pitt (prime minister), and the majority of Protestants in the Irish Parliament. Grattan believed that men of property were the best guardians of the law, so the electors and the elected had to have a property worth 40 shillings. This disqualified many more Catholics than Protestants.
Finally the Irish Parliament itself won the independence – it was the greatest victory of the Patriots. In 1782 they managed to persuade the Westminster to repeal Poynings’ Law*7 and the Declaratory Act*8 except as final royal veto. For 18 years Ireland had a free parliament.
The corrupt government body
The grant of independence did not suffice to check the corruption of Parliament. It was still formed of a purely Protestant oligarchy, whose boroughs were regarded as private property, generally of considerable money value, and who sold their interest, when it suited their convenience, to the Government. There was no real or open election; seats were purchased from their owners for large sums of money. In 1790, eight years after the grant of independence, Grattan, speaking in the Commons, had still to confess that "above two-thirds of the returns to the House are private property; of those returns, many actually are sold to the minister. The country is placed in a sort of interval between the cessation of a system of oppression and the formation of a system of corruption."
The Lord Lieutenant lived in at Dublin Castle for like half the year. During his absence in England, government was in the hands of his council (the executive) with its chief secretary, justices and other officials, all nominated by the British Cabinet. The method of controlling both the executive and parliament was through agents known as undertakers. They did it by filling them with a body of followers, called the junta. The undertakers’ duties included buying votes for junta.
The Volunteers
Meanwhile, England was too busy with France and America and her troupes were in such demand that there was no one to defend Ireland from possible French or pirates invaders. So Britain called on Ireland to form Volunteer companies. In the end there was no invasion, so the Volunteers used their energy to make political demands. They declared that Ireland would never be safe until she could make her own laws. Grattan met Volunteers at Dungannon and helped them to draft resolutions demanding an independent parliament; the demand was carried.
Views on parliamentary reform
Parliament was badly in need of reform. The executive was still appointed by the British Council, not by the Irish Parliament. Roman Catholics couldn’t sit in it. It only represented men of property. It had a share of ‘rotten boroughs’*9 and ‘pocket boroughs’*10. And of course the corruption.
Finally the parliament owed much of its independence to the Volunteers and it’s not wise for a parliament to depend on an army, even an unpaid one. Plus the Patriots had no common program and not much sense of party loyalty: Grattan had many rivals like Henry Flood, who saw the reform as giving the franchise to tenants. Grattan’s idea of reform was to keep the parliament to the owners of property but to end corruption.
Footnotes(*)
*1. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 or the Bloodless Revolution, was the overthrow of James II of England in 1688 by a union of Parliamentarians and William III of Orange. Never again would the monarch hold absolute power; the Bill of Rights became one of the most important documents for Britain. The deposition of the Roman Catholic James II ended any chance of Catholicism becoming re-established in England. It also led to toleration for nonconformist Protestants
*2. A series of concessions made by the British government which excluded the legislative independence of the Irish Parliament
*3. Church’s tenth
*4. Not so much of a good start…
*5. Right to vote
*6. The Penal laws in Ireland refers to a series of laws imposed under British rule that sought to discriminate against Roman Catholics and Protestant non-Conformists (those not conforming to the Anglican Church in Ireland in favour of the established Church of Ireland which recognized the English monarchy as its spiritual head.
*7. Poynings Law of 1494 made the Irish parliament subservient to the English one.
*8. The Declaratory Act asserted Britain's exclusive right to legislate for and tax its unrepresented colonies.
*9. Small places with few voters
*10.Places controlled by the landlord
Well, how was it? Seriously, i'm not jeering at you...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
