Social Items

TPQ
Showing posts with label Tommy McKearney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tommy McKearney. Show all posts
Tommy McKearney ☭ In one of the most disturbing recent Irish government announcements, Mícheál Martin has repeated his administration’s intention to press ahead with legislation to get rid of the triple-lock dealing with Irish military involvement abroad.


 Designed to protect this country’s neutrality, the triple-lock curtails the unrestricted deployment of Irish troops in foreign conflicts by making it obligatory to obtain approval of the Dáil, the cabinet and the UN Security Council. This constraint, in practice, prevents Dublin governments joining in NATO’s global never-ending series of wars. And while there is no popular clamour to change the long-standing policy of not engaging in hostilities overseas, the Irish ruling class clearly think different.

The real question is not whether Martin and his ilk wish to dispense with the measure but why? Ostensibly, the coalition has a problem with the fact that Russia and China are able to veto the Irish government’s so-called sovereign right to deploy troops wherever it wishes. No mention, though, of Britain’s veto on the movement of Irish troops across six of Ireland’s counties, but that’s another story. Where exactly, the current government wishes to send its soldiers has not been made clear.

Quite obviously the Triple Lock is not restricting the Republic’s ability to contribute to peacekeeping missions abroad. Indeed the Tánaiste (and Minister of Defence don’t forget) confirmed this as late as last October. In a written parliamentary response to a question from Willie O’Dea[1] he reported that as of 1st September 2023, Ireland is contributing 540 personnel to seven different missions throughout the world.

Oddly too, in light of his alleged objection to the UN Security Council veto on his government’s military deployments, in the very same answer Martin added “…Our commitment and support for the primary role of the United Nations, in the maintenance of international peace and security, is expressed in Ireland’s long-standing tradition of participating in UN peacekeeping operations…”

Paradoxically, the Irish ruling class has little real interest in the actual pursuit of combat missions abroad. Pragmatists among them recognise the risks involved in such a strategy. In the first instance there is a matter of making a meaningful impact. Doing so on scale would inevitably bring retaliation – economic at least – and in a nuclear age, the distinct possibility of utter devastation.

Moreover, realists in that camp also recognise the fallacy that joining a military alliance offers the state meaningful, supposedly urgently needed additional defensive capacity. Not only would participation in such, actually increase the Republic’s vulnerability by making it a target but in reality, does Russia or China have the slightest interest in invading Ireland?

Yet in spite of such well-founded and concrete concerns, there exists a grim determination among the upper echelon to end the triple-lock and, with it, neutrality. Their reasoning is straightforward and cynical. They are determined at all costs to be part of the world order as defined by the United States. Often referred to as “Atlanticism”, this effectively entails unqualified support for Washington’s imperialist foreign policy and its means of enforcing its design. Hence the drive to be seen to play a part in America’s war industry.

However, it is the US-led promotion of untrammelled, free-market capitalism that ultimately motivates the Irish ruling class’s desire to be immersed in what is often referred to as the Washington Consensus[2]. To maintain its standing within this neoliberal compact, our comprador bourgeoise hope to ingratiate themselves via any and every concession necessary, up to and including a Redmond-like surrender to imperialist militarism.

The rationale for such a callous, cynical, and downright dangerous manoeuvre is to preserve the current economic system and with it, their class privileges. Ireland is at present suffering a dire housing crisis, a health service crisis, a cost-of-living crisis and ever-increasing inequality. In short, all the ingredients that could lead to massive social upheaval, possibly even revolution. To safeguard its interests, the ruling class intend to embed itself within an imperial security net.

Appropriate perhaps to quote a long-departed anti-imperialist. “They think that they have pacified Ireland. They think that they have purchased half of us and intimidated the other half.”

So as the old saying goes, “Time will tell and we’ll see, we’ll see.”

[1] Defence Forces Dáil Éireann Debate, 3 October 2023 

[2] Washington Consensus, Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Tommy McKearney is a left wing and trade union activist. 
Follow on Twitter @Tommymckearney

Triple-Lock – The Betrayal Of A Solemn Promise To The Irish People

Tommy McKearney ☭ It is hardly surprising that many progressive people have become increasingly uneasy about the Sinn Féin leadership’s relationship with the British establishment.  


Party vice president and Stormont First Minister, Michelle O’Neill, was recently pictured in a close embrace with British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, while only last May, along with her colleague Alex Maskey, she attended the coronation of Charles Windsor. Even more disconcerting is the party’s wholehearted endorsement of the PSNI in spite of, among other issues, that force’s well-documented foot-dragging in relation to releasing material connected to legacy inquests.

Nevertheless, and no matter how disturbing this cosying up to London may appear, it pales in comparison with the party’s obeisance to the United States’ government and administration. Nothing highlights this degree of subservience like their recent decision, indeed determination, to participate in the St Patrick’s Day festivities along with Joe Biden and his accomplices in the White House.

Although the Sinn Féin excursion to Washington has been analysed elsewhere, it is useful to remind ourselves of some key points. At a time when the death toll in Gaza was approaching 30,000 (including well over 10,000 children), the Biden-led US administration donated $14 billion to the Israeli war machine while vetoing United Nations resolutions demanding an immediate ceasefire. And these are only the latest actions in a long list of American collaboration with Netanyahu’s genocidal onslaught on the Palestinian people.

Difficult to believe then that Sinn Féin’s vice president, when questioned on a recent RTÉ programme about her intention to visit the White House, informed viewers that “the US has always been a strong partner for peace”. Elsewhere, party spokespersons have used the excuse that the upcoming visit has been endorsed by the Vichy-like Palestinian Authority’s ambassador to Ireland.

A crucial point that has to be reinforced in all of this is the fact that unlike Colum Eastwood, leader of the conservative SDLP, Mary Lou and her party have chosen to be entertained by the US administration. After all, it would have been quite easy to have met Sinn Féin’s transatlantic support base without smooching with the masters of imperialism on Capitol Hill.

It is this aspect of the visit – that is, the engagement with the American administration – which takes us to the crux of this matter. By rejecting and ignoring every call not to attend, by ignoring the possible fallout from alienating so many in Ireland, by risking lasting reputational damage through its craven commitment to the US state machine, Sinn Féin is making a statement. When boycotting the Biden “bash” may just have halted the party’s falling ratings, its leadership is, nevertheless, making clear that it wants a relationship with the White House above all other considerations. For Sinn Féin now, it’s all the way with the USA.

The implications of this move are stark. There is nothing cosmetic about it, because in a nutshell, Sinn Féin is accepting and endorsing the United States’ worldview. A capitalistic view of the world that sees global domination from Washington as the optimum, indeed the only acceptable system. Moreover, as so much of the world knows to its cost, in order to gain global hegemony, Uncle Sam intervenes politically and militarily across the five continents resulting in prolific bloodshed.

When not projecting its influence by direct military action, the US deploys debilitating economic sanctions, exemplified by the 60-year long blockade of Cuba. In fact, it is this attempt to starve the Cuban revolution that exposes the utter fallacy of the Sinn Féin claim to be able to speak truth to power. With access to every US president since Bill Clinton, they have failed to persuade Washington to lift the blockade. Perhaps the issue wasn’t raised which in itself begs the question, if not why not?

In reality, the Sinn Féin trip to join Genocide Joe for a St Patrick’s Day knees-up in the White House confirms a view expressed in an article in last month’s Socialist Voice. Sinn Féin has regrettably accepted the bourgeois consensus that takes its lead from US imperialism.

Tommy McKearney is a left wing and trade union activist. 
Follow on Twitter @Tommymckearney

St Patrick’s Day Subservience

Tommy McKearney ☭ Mythology refers to Helen’s “beautiful face that launched a thousand ships”. 


This, according to legend, was the cause of the Trojan war. Whether true or not, what we can say in the modern era is that the face of major war is now the ugly face of capitalism at its highest stage: imperialism. There is a massive media industry employed by the controllers of capital, working day and night, to define the narrative differently. Nevertheless, it still remains as the German military theorist Carl von Clausewitz wrote in the 19th century that, “War is regarded as nothing but the continuation of state policy with other means.”


In the case of the Western powers led by the US, state policy remains as Lenin noted in his seminal work: the creation and maintenance of a world order that facilitates the export of finance capital in order to exploit labour and natural resources across the rest of the globe. To do so entails ensuring compliance with this system by all those countries not part of the privileged sphere. Being forced to accept this situation, the people of less well-off countries suffer serious social and economic disadvantage. Failure to comply with the diktats of imperialism, however, results in heavy-handed economic and/or military sanction.

At this point it is worthwhile reflecting on James Connolly’s assessment that governments in capitalist society are but committees of the rich to manage the affairs of the capitalist class. Capitalist governments led by the USA, therefore, see as a major priority the need to enforce the West’s global military domination as a necessary step towards preventing or challenging their ability to exploit what they like to call the Third World.

With this insight in mind, the rationale underpinning the current campaign by the US and EU to curtail the ever increasing economic and thence political influence of China becomes clearer. A campaign that is now being augmented by a brazen military threat as the US surrounds the PCR with a ring of military bases. Not that the imperialists confine their “projection of power” to the East. A NATO proxy war in Ukraine and now backing a genocidal campaign against Palestinians are but the latest conflict zones in an ongoing series of hostilities across every continent.

It hardly needs saying that Washington and its allies do not state publicly the underlying rationale behind their foreign policy and most certainly never explain the real reason for their never-ending series of wars. Were they to do so, it would most surely lead to problems with their own electorates. Evidence of this fact can be seen in the huge demonstrations in the US and UK demanding a ceasefire in Gaza, in spite of unqualified support by Biden and Sunak for the murderous Israeli assault.

The role of the West’s mainstream media in promoting acceptance and tolerance for their government’s military operations is of such significance that these agencies have to be seen as an integral part of the imperialist war machine. Media coverage is at best tendentious when not downright partisan.

Nor is the Irish state broadcasting company, RTÉ, free from being complicit in this strategy. The station rarely fails to refer to the “’Hamas-run’ health agency in Gaza” or neglects to mention the 7th October casualties when reporting the infinitely greater number of Palestinian dead. How monotonous too have become the repeated phrases, “Iranian-supported Hezbollah”, “Iranian-backed Houthi”… Yet when did we last hear of the US-supported, -equipped, -financed and -protected state of Israel?

The danger inherent in such slanted reporting is obvious. In the absence of a rounded and complete picture being provided to the public, warmongering governments are subject to few if any restraints. On one hand it misleads many in the West to accept their states’ spurious narrative “justifying” the aggression. Perhaps still more dangerous is that this misinformation leads to a sense of semi-complacency in that all too many underestimate the real risk of a global conflagration placing the very existence of the human species in doubt.

In this context it is useful to consider what is referred to as the Thucydides Trap. Based on observations made by an ancient Greek historian, the theory indicates that when a superpower’s position of supremacy is threatened by an emerging power, there is a significant likelihood of war between the two. The theory has received renewed interest in academic and military circles over the past decade in light of the above-mentioned growth of China’s influence on the world stage.

And while the concept has its critics and sceptics, it does nevertheless merit a serious hearing within wider society. After all, what is the purpose behind the US military encirclement of China and in time, will this situation become ever more fragile and fractious? Not only is it increasingly likely that the Chinese economy will outperform all others but there is also a definitive shift in global relations and alliances.

Exemplifying this transfer of allegiance is the growing influence of the BRICS group of countries, a fact reinforced recently by the South African government lodging a case with the International Court of Justice against US protectorate, Israel. Taken together, these two events alone can pose a challenge for contemporary capitalism with its dependency on financialisation, as G7 countries have shifted away from industrial capitalism.

Against this rather depressing backdrop it is important to review the prospect for peace. There is, after all, significant and energetic peace movements in many countries constantly making solid and unanswerable arguments against the horrors of war. Moreover, hundreds of thousands have taken to the streets across the imperialist West demanding a ceasefire in Gaza.

The question is, though, whether such expressions of moral outrage will be sufficient to prevent an all-consuming conflict? Historical precedent offers little comfort. Most likely it will require direct involvement by the working class through grassroots organisations such as trade unions taking industrial action to prevent the movement of troops and munitions.

In Ireland, a good start would be firstly to fight to retain the Triple Lock on neutrality and second, to ensure the closure of the NATO military bases in Shannon and Aldergrove.

Tommy McKearney is a left wing and trade union activist. 
Follow on Twitter @Tommymckearney

The Imperialist March To War

Tommy McKearney ☭ After almost two years without a devolved administration, the northern state appears politically deadlocked.


The latest round of talks in Hillsborough castle between the British government’s Chris Heaton-Harris and the five largest parties in Stormont have concluded without a definite restoration of the institutions. This in spite of the fact that four of the five parties involved were willing to accept the Treasury’s offer/bribe of £3.3 billion. An offer contingent, though, on the restoration of the Assembly and ominously described as final by the Secretary of State.

On the surface, the stumbling block appears to be the DUP’s refusal to budge on the issue of the Windsor framework. In reality, the problem goes deeper than one party’s obstinacy. At its heart lies the contradiction inherent within Northern Irish unionism. For that constituency the issue is how to make Northern Ireland function successfully without making any concession to those seeking an alternative constitutional arrangement.

Nobody epitomises this dilemma better than DUP leader Jeffrey Donaldson. During his address to the party’s recent annual convention he made clear the problems created by a non-functioning Assembly. He stated that such a situation risked having Northern Ireland deemed a failed and ungovernable state and urged party members to; ‘… to face up to new realities and adapting to new circumstances…’.

Lending weight to his analysis was support from former party leader Peter Robinson. A close acolyte of party founder, Ian Paisley, Robinson was never a weak-kneed liberal, as evidenced by his storming of Clontibret, Co Monaghan. Prior to the recent talks, he publicly advocated accepting what was on offer, return to Stormont and thereafter negotiate further change.

Notwithstanding this powerful intervention, plus silence from his party executive, Donaldson felt unable to abandon the rejectionist line. A stance he maintained after the roundtable talks that included the significant financial inducement mentioned above.

Meanwhile, rejecting the Treasury offer is causing the DUP ongoing local difficulties. There has been persistent complaints from many quarters about failings in the local health service centred on lengthy waiting lists, a problem not helped by the absence of a Stormont based health minister. More recently three large public sector unions have been forced to take strike action in order to secure restoration of pay, lost to inflation.

The fact that both these issues were addressed through the Treasury offer of additional funding, subject to Stormont reconvening, discomforted the DUP and its leader. Several striking trade unionists were unambiguous when interviewed on TV. They blamed the politicians for preventing a pay raise that was clearly available. Under pressure, Donaldson sought a meeting with senior trade unionists and in an effort to curtail popular discontent desperately called upon Heaton-Harris to increase public sector pay.

So why did the DUP leader not simply ‘go with the flow’, bow to reality, accept the payoff and lead his party back into Stormont? The answer is twofold. In the first instance, there was the opposition from powerful Unionist figures and institutions. Second is the aforementioned contradiction within unionist policy making.

Leading the fundamentalist challenge was the TUV’s bitter but articulate front-man Jim Allister. Deploying the old Paisleyite stratagem of labelling Unionist opponents as unreliable Lundys, Allister sarcastically described the talks as beginning ‘to smell a lot like sell out’ and followed up by postering this message across the six counties. Immediately after the talks ended, the TUV leader came out demanding total revocation of the Windsor Framework.

While Jim Allister may still be deemed more of an irritant than a major electoral threat to the DUP, opposition to compromise emanating from another quarter has to be taken much more seriously by Donaldson and his advisers. One day before the Hillsborough talks ended, the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland (the Orange Order’s governing body) issued a communique to all its lodges[1]. The message emphasised that it supported continuing the Stormont boycott until UK and EU ‘fully address matters of trade within the UK and the imposition of EU laws in Northern Ireland’. Equally ominous, the circular continued; ‘…Grand Lodge is committed to examine how best our structures will be used to encourage voter registration and turnout ahead of a general election.’

When taken in conjunction with the knowledge that some senior members of the DUP share this absolutist position, the future for the Stormont Assembly is at best uncertain. Should Donaldson agree to return while the framework remains in place (in reality it’s going to stay), he will face strenuous and probably irresistible opposition. Should he continue to stay out, the outcome for hardline Unionism may be worse still.

Out of office, absolutist unionism will find it has diminishing influence with and loss of purchase over the levers of power. Much if not all, will then depend on how other key players analyse and respond to the situation in both the short and long term.

What if Britain’s ruling class decides its self interest is better served by maintaining a healthy working relationship with the financially powerful EU rather than by placating the eccentric demands of what is fast becoming a minority in the north of Ireland.

What if the British are serious about negotiations being finished and opt to move forward on demands being made by, among others, the Alliance Party and Tánaiste Micheál Martin, that no single party have the ability to bring down the Assembly and Executive. A proposal that could lead to replacing D’Hondt selection with that of a qualified majority mechanism wherein hardline unionism could well find itself powerless and in opposition.

What also if the Dublin government’s referral of Britain’s Legacy Act to the European Court of Human Rights is a subtle stratagem designed to pressurise the UK government into taking steps to break the northern impasse. While a settlement along the lines mooted above might allow the six county state a temporary stay of abolition, it would be at best short-term and all the while damaging for unionism.

The largest unionist party is therefore faced with a difficult choice. It must either re-enter Stormont while the framework remains intact and endure the likelihood of a hard-line rebellion inflicting damage not only on party but on the political entity it purports to uphold. The alternative is to abstain and risk having a non-unionist executive imposed by a Tory government.

Almost 60 years have passed since the then Prime Minister of the six counties, Terence O’Neill, warned that Ulster stood at the crossroads. Something similar may well be said of Ulster unionism today but with one significant difference: now it has fewer options, if any.

[1] Framework still has to be changed. Order. Newsletter 20/12/23

Tommy McKearney is a left wing and trade union activist. 
Follow on Twitter @Tommymckearney

Stormont Deadlock

Tommy McKearney ☭ In a recent interview with the Irish Times, arch-revisionist historian Roy Foster opined that Irish reunification is nearer than he would have thought a couple of decades ago. 


A week earlier the Irish News published results of an opinion poll indicating a majority of Alliance Party voters believed that, in the absence of a Stormont Assembly, a united Ireland was a preferred option to direct rule. Admittedly, neither fact is a game changer, yet they do underline the immediacy of Irish reunification as an issue.


A re-united Ireland; why do we need it? Is its achievement now a realistic possibility? If the answer to either or both questions is yes, how might we go about ensuring the realisation of this goal?

To begin, let’s explore the value of and indeed need for ending partition. On an everyday yet important level, a single island wide political structure would undoubtedly offer benefits arising from consolidated, unified infrastructures and services. Duplication in health and education provision could be eliminated, for example, while transport facilities would benefit from having a single administration.

Yet reunification would involve much more than consolidation. At its most basic, breaking the political connection with Britain would correct a long violation of democracy and thus reinforce the primacy of a peoples’ will. Such a development would, in turn, offer an opportunity to reassert the country’s independence and sovereignty. Because, notwithstanding assertions that such is already a fact, reality is at odds wıth this claim.

In the first instance we need hardly comment on the absence of independence and sovereignty in the Six Counties. Pro-Consul Heaton-Harris’ refusal last month to endorse the levelling-up payment is proof enough if any were needed. That’s even before mentioning the presence of British Army bases and MI5 offices in the Six Counties.

While south of the border, external influence is such that the old notion of limited home rule is more applicable than independent self-government. Having surrendered ultimate control of its currency, fiscal policy, labour legislation and foreign policy to the European Union, you might think that the Irish ruling class had not much more left to give away. Yet with Micheál Martin, the new John Redmond, planning to end the Triple-Lock, this after his predecessors donated Shannon airport to the US military, now not even the pretense of neutrality remains.

The consequences resulting from conceding control are plain to be seen in both jurisdictions. An island-wide housing crisis, failing health services with adequate access available only to the wealthy, insufficient care for the elderly and offensive, debilitating inequality across the board. All happening as imperialistic neoliberal economic policy is slavishly implemented.

Breaking the political connection with Britain and ending partition will not of itself remedy social and economic deprivation. While reunification is a necessary, indeed vital, precondition for comprehensively addressing the needs of all members of society, a more extensive programme is required and must be implemented. As James Connolly stated forcefully, “unless you set about the organization of the Socialist Republic your efforts will be in vain.”

Objectively speaking the prospect for positive, progressive change is good. There is a growing realisation that the status quo, north and south, is unsustainable. Sinn Féin, currently committed to Irish unity, is apparently well placed to play a leading role in political administrations in Belfast and Dublin.

However, it is important to ensure against that party’s penchant for backsliding. It is evident nevertheless, from its recent u-turn in relation to the Israeli ambassador that the organisation is responsive to grassroots and popular pressure. It’s important therefore not to let them deviate.

The task of building for a workers republic cannot, however, be postponed until after reunification. Both objectives have to be seen as one agenda to be pursued together and that is a challenge facing the serious left. So no let up on demanding reunification but equally an insistence on thorough-going measures to enable economic socialisation and real and meaningful neutrality. Otherwise we risk, at best, turning two failed states into one single, failed entity.

Nevertheless, the prospects for progressive change are encouraging, so in the words of Bobby Seale, let’s seize the time.

Tommy McKearney is a left wing and trade union activist. 
Follow on Twitter @Tommymckearney 

Sovereignty And Reunification

Tommy McKearney ☭ Jeffrey Donaldson’s speech to the DUP annual conference last month generated more interest than is normally the case for this event. 


The mainstream media concentrated not only on his support for a devolved administration but also his tacit acceptance of a Sinn Féin First Minister. Nevertheless, when viewed in its entirety his speech revealed much more than that.

His address illustrated the extent of the dilemma facing unionism, and how difficult it will be for its supporters to find an answer to their satisfaction. In reality, the North’s political process has not just stalled: it is fundamentally flawed.


Reading Donaldson’s speech leaves little doubt that he recognises the enormity of the challenge faced by unionism, although it is still not prepared to envisage an end to the union. In his effort to maintain Northern Ireland as a viable political entity, Donaldson is faced with the nigh-impossible task of appeasing the irreconcilables among his supporters while promoting a pragmatic agenda.

Aware that the present deadlock is detrimental to the unionist cause, he states bluntly that his supporters must not allow republicans to promote a claim that “Northern Ireland is a failed and ungovernable political entity . . .” The question is, though, how he proposes to fix this situation.

Several important points emerged throughout his analysis. To avoid the aforementioned failed and ungovernable entity, he was adamant that it is essential to restore the devolved administration at Stormont. Moreover, he was quite explicit in his rejection of direct rule from London, going so far as to say that “Westminster has imposed laws upon us that are not in tune with the needs or wishes of the people of Northern Ireland . . .”

Significantly, Donaldson emphasised throughout his address the need for achieving widespread support, saying that it is important to set about “restoring cross-community consensus that is essential for the political institutions to be re-established . . .”

So far so good and, up to a point, all very plausible. Nevertheless there still remains the major obstacle that is the Protocol and the Windsor Framework. And this really is a sticking-point, as Donaldson had to admit that, in spite of his best efforts to force the issue, the British government’s proffered resolution fails to meet the seven crucial points identified by his leadership colleagues and, more ominously, the party grass roots.

It is at this point that the matter becomes increasingly problematic for the DUP. As outlined above, it is clear that Donaldson and his closest advisers are convinced of the need, if not the imperative, to restore devolved institutions. They are aware too that the current British government is unlikely to make further major adjustments to its agreement with the European Union vis-à-vis the Protocol. Nor is it likely that a future Starmer-led government would be prepared to sour relations with Brussels in order merely to please the extremes of Northern Irish unionism.

The prolonged existence of an intractable impasse would, they realise, ensure the type of “failed and ungovernable entity” that would give rise to an irresistible demand for a border poll. Realists within the DUP leadership know that the result of such a referendum is no longer a foregone conclusion. Changing demographics, fractures within wider unionism, malfunctioning health and social services and an economy falling far behind that of the Republic are all factors arguing against the maintenance of the union.

Hence Donaldson’s plaintive call to all members of the party to be prepared “to face up to new realities and adapting to new circumstances,”all the while insisting that this has to be done in order to protect Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom. Elsewhere he says, significantly, that the DUP will have to determine whether there is a sustainable basis for moving forward.

It would be a mistake to doubt his sincerity or his commitment to maintaining the union, or his conviction that retaining the connection is possible. It seems, therefore, that he is preparing to modify certain DUP positions although without specifically saying as much. Whether he can manage this manoeuvre without risking a mutiny is far from certain.

To effect his plan he has made a pitch to London for assistance. Contained within an unusually long leader’s address were several suggestions in what are a set of proposals appealing in effect to the British government. This he has done with a view to winning a Westminster package offering sufficient political space to facilitate the breaking of the present impasse and allow a return to Stormont.

Among the points are a request that the British government establish an East–West council of the United Kingdom, a body that pointedly excludes the Republic. The thinking behind this initiative is surely to provide a comfort blanket for those spooked by the presence of minor customs checks at Larne and the absence of these at Newry.

Then there is the emphasis on a need for a financial sweetener—specifically, £1 billion for the health service and the funds for providing thirty hours’ free child care per week (as already exists in England), as well as a five-year plan to enhance the economy in general.

From all this it is now almost certain that speculation about the DUP’s return to Stormont is most probably based on fact. What is not at all certain is how this will go down with hard-line unionists. After all, it’s not all about customs checks in the Irish Sea: there will be, for many, the difficult-to-accept spectacle of Michelle O’Neill of Sinn Féin stepping into the role of Northern Ireland’s First Minister.

Then there is the disturbing prospect of Michael O’Neill (no relation) eventually leading his players out onto the exchequer-funded turf of Roger Casement Park in republican West Belfast.

With Jim Allister and his TUV only too willing to rubbish any compromise, the Donaldson gambit is not guaranteed to succeed. There may also be more than a few disenchanted members of his own party willing to pull the rug from under their leader’s feet. It would be ironic indeed to see Donaldson suffer the same fate that he helped inflict on David Trimble twenty-five years ago.

Nevertheless, and no matter what the immediate outcome, a partitioned northern entity will remain an unstable political anomaly.

Tommy McKearney is a left wing and trade union activist. 
Follow on Twitter @Tommymckearney 

The North’s Political Process Is Fundamentally Flawed

Tommy McKearney ☭ It has often been said that the nature of a country is reflected in the state of its prisons. We should add to that by including the nature of policing in any society.


Think, for example, of the Six Counties before the Good Friday Agreement and its police, the RUC, a force that epitomised the essence of the political entity it served: heavily armed, aggressive, and determined above all else to maintain unionist ascendancy, rather than a commitment to civil justice, an organisation well suited to the Northern Ireland state that had created it.

The successor to the RUC offers a similar insight into the condition of the North’s body politic, although from a somewhat different angle. The PSNI’s current casebook is reading more like a recurring soap opera than a coherent account of law and order in the field. And yet it would be unwise not to put this latest episode in the context of an armed organisation answerable to a failing political entity.

Let’s briefly recap.

In April this year PSNI documents that included a rough itinerary of President Joe Biden’s visit to Belfast were found lying in a street in the city. At the time a police spokesperson said an investigation into the breach was under way. Just so, you might say. Nevertheless, a mere two months after that a laptop and documents containing sensitive information about two hundred PSNI personnel were stolen from a parked car belonging to a senior member of the force.

Then, of course, came the spectacular accidental disclosure of ten thousand police names in early August. This gaff was followed by the news that yet another senior officer had blundered by setting a laptop and files on the rooftop of his car before driving off, scattering computer and documents across the M2 motorway.

Nevertheless, and in spite of this series of unsettling setbacks, the surefooted and steady chief constable, Simon Byrne, knew exactly what to do. Unselfishly cutting short his family holiday, he flew back to Belfast and immediately took advice from his PR consultants. Using the old stage magician’s stratagem of diverting attention from the core matter, Simon quickly gave a press conference and altered the focus. Rather than offering a credible explanation for the utter incompetence of his organisation, he solemnly informed his listeners that the leaked information was in the hands of those awful “dissidents.”

Fortunately for the chief constable, he was not left to shoulder all the responsibility alone. The cross-community, all-party body charged with supervising the activities of the PSNI and its management, the Policing Board, met and reaffirmed its confidence in the chief constable and his senior staff.

Worryingly, though, this farce is far from comical. The PSNI is a several thousand-strong armed body with a sometimes questionable record. While not nearly as toxic as its predecessor, there remain concerns relating to its impartiality as well as its competence.

Over a five-year period, 2016–2020, close to twice as many Catholics as Protestants were arrested and charged—and that was according to the PSNI’s own statistics.¹ As a spokesperson for the human rights group Committee on the Administration of Justice said at the time, the figures showed a stark disparity on the basis of community background.

Then there was the ominous disparity between the treatment of different protesting groups. In June 2020 seventy fines were handed out to Black Lives Matter demonstrators for allegedly breaching covid-19 containment regulations.² Six days later a Save Our Monuments protest in Belfast organised by British army veterans and loyalists passed off without the police issuing any fines.

It would be wrong, however, to view the practice of policing in the Six Counties as an aberration of itself, because this latest policing mess is not something out of keeping with how the administration of the Six Counties is functioning, or malfunctioning, to be more exact.

For starters, the devolved administration at Stormont is once again in lock-down, this time as a result of the DUP’s objections to the well-forecast and detailed implementation of Brexit. This was—difficult though it may now be to believe—a deal the party greatly favoured. Not only did it financially assist the leave campaign but thereafter it supported the Tory government’s “Get Brexit done.” Yet, as a recent article in the Financial Times put it, “the UK’s Brexiters pursued a form of Brexit and made promises that could only result in weakening Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom.”³

Let that sink in. The DUP, the largest unionist party in the North and supposedly a staunch advocate of the sovereignty of the British Parliament over Northern Ireland’s affairs, now stubbornly refusing to accept the House of Commons’ overwhelming vote in favour of the Windsor framework; a unionist party dedicated to maintaining the constitutional position of the Six Counties within the United Kingdom while in effect undermining this very objective.

The latest episode in the DUP’s continuing drama has echoes of the one affecting the PSNI. Recently the communiqué of the party leader, Jeffrey Donaldson, to his members was leaked to the media. Though probably leaked deliberately, it showed an organisation in deep disarray and one without a clear, agreed strategy on how to break out of its self-inflicted cul-de-sac.

All very amusing for those of us who don’t vote DUP, but only up to a point. The North now appears to many on the outside to be settled and peaceful almost to the point of being boring. Appearances, however, can be deceptive, and especially so in a contested space such as the Six Counties.

Rapidly changing demographics—as evidenced by the latest census, a Sinn Féin first minister elect, a British public and its government indifferent to Northern Irish affairs—are unsettling factors for a significant section of unionism, a section of the community agitated by such mundane happenings as bilingual road signage or GAA matches being broadcast on the BBC.

Consider, then, how much more disturbing for these people it would be if the first minister and her party’s reasonable request for a border poll were to be granted. Consider, then, the prospect of the armed PSNI under the command of its current management and supervised by the Northern Ireland Policing Board dealing with a situation such as that.

1/ Maybe now you can see why policing is still no laughing matter in the North. Rory Winters, “Almost twice the number of Catholics than Protestants arrested by PSNI,” Irish Times, 10 December 2021.
2 Julian O’Neill, “PSNI chief ‘sorry’ over policing at Black Lives Matter protests,” BBC News, 22 December 2020.
3/ Stephen Bush, “British neglect risks Northern Ireland’s future,” Financial Times, 16 August 2023.


Tommy McKearney is a left wing and trade union activist. 
Follow on Twitter @Tommymckearney 

Policing No Laughing Matter In The North

Tommy McKearney ☭ It is expected that by the time we go to press the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill will have been passed into law.


The new legislation will establish what is described as an Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, under the leadership of the former lord chief justice for Northern Ireland, Sir Declan Morgan KC.¹ This body will have the power to grant immunity from prosecution for a Troubles-related death and prevent investigations into related incidents. The legislation will also end all new inquests or inquiries into deaths arising from the conflict, and prevent the bringing of new civil claims related to events of the period.

According to Britain’s governing Tory party, this act of Parliament is designed to provide greater information, accountability and acknowledgement to victims and families. As with many claims made by British governments, this one needs to be treated with an enormous degree of scepticism. And not just because it has been condemned by every political party in the North, as well as the Dublin government, but because it attempts to steer the focus away from where it should be.

Knowing full well that offering immunity from prosecution would not only cause a storm of public anger but would also focus attention on individuals rather than the state, this was a subtle piece of dissembling. It repeated the long-promoted and misleading narrative that the “Irish Troubles” were caused by disaffected, unbalanced, almost congenitally violent persons resorting to terrorism in what amounted to something akin to an aggravated crime wave.

The convenient corollary to this was the story routinely spun of a generous and patient British state, along with its northern Irish allies, struggling heroically to maintain law and order and keep the peace. Incidentally, this is an interpretation quietly supported by the southern Irish establishment, and is in part the reason for Dublin objecting to the new law.

In keeping with this “official” British narrative was a cleverly promoted line that this legacy legislation was actually designed to protect old solders. It was necessary, the law’s authors claimed, to prevent what they described as vexatious claims and accusations against military veterans. This pitch was particularly popular with Britain’s right-wing media and Tory MPs and their voters. Not surprisingly, the measure gained the approval of the Northern Ireland Veterans’ Association. All very helpful too, don’t forget, for this chaotic and embattled Tory government.

In practical terms, however, the Independent Commission will have little impact among former members of republican or loyalist armed organisations. What benefit would accrue to those men or women for publicising their actions? If sufficient evidence to secure a conviction hasn’t been obtained in the quarter century since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, there is little prospect now of fresh information emerging to see charges being preferred.

There would be, moreover, a real concern among former members of these organisations that meeting the commission’s requirements for immunity might involve identifying fellow-participants, something that would risk incurring the wrath of former colleagues who still wish to remain anonymous.

What, therefore, is the rationale for a measure that has annoyed so many in Ireland, and even among those usually sympathetic to London’s decrees? By introducing this legislation the British government is determined to achieve two connected objectives. The immediate intention is to halt a series of legal investigations into the lethal actions of former members of the British army during the course of the conflict. The second, and most important, albeit related, aim, is to ensure that there is no detailed analysis and examination of the decades-long involvement of Britain’s clandestine secret services in Ireland.

Crucial from a British standpoint is the need to obscure how and from where these agencies derive their authorisation. Because if they are not officially and explicitly mandated by the Cabinet and, ultimately, Parliament they are in effect acting above and beyond the elected executive.

And therein lies a matter that has ramifications far beyond the dreary steeples of the Six Counties. If the actions of the Crown’s security services in the North of Ireland were to be exposed there would inevitably follow a series of penetrating questions relating to the very nature of governance in Britain.

Over the past decade or more there has emerged an increasing amount of evidence of the murky and often murderous activities of the British secret services in the Six Counties. With their manipulation of the paedophile network operating from Kincora Boys’ Home in Belfast,² colluding with the Glenanne gang, facilitating the import of loyalist arms from South Africa, and overseeing the actions of the IRA informer Freddie Scappaticci, the story is one of an incredibly powerful entity with a licence to operate beyond what is deemed to be the law.³

Were Troubles-related investigations to continue through inquests, civil cases, court hearings and other investigations there is no telling what might eventually emerge, if only by accident. Moreover, this would surely raise the question whether, if that intense level of covert manipulation can happen in Northern Ireland (constitutionally still an integral part of the United Kingdom), might the same not happen in Britain itself? There still remain, after all, a few journalists prepared to fearlessly tell the truth and who are unwilling to be intimidated.

The existence of a “deep state” in Britain is not mere idle or conspiratorial speculation. There is an inquiry going on at present into the role of undercover police infiltrating perfectly legal and relatively harmless protest groups. According to the Guardian, between 1968 and 2010 undercover police spied on more than a thousand (yes, one thousand) political groups in Britain.⁴ Left-wing and progressive organisations were, for the most part, the target of these covert operations.

Indeed, might one of these more recent covert operations have been conducted against a more significant target than petty protest groups? Might the objective have been to ensure that the occupant of number 10 Downing Street would continue to turn a blind eye towards the “deep state”?⁵ Having experienced the lengths to which that underground network was prepared to go in Ireland, it is not altogether outlandish speculation.

Whether true or not, one thing is clear. We don’t just need to get rid of the Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill: we need to break the connection with those shady elements promoting it and establish a genuinely independent Irish democracy.

Gov UK, “Secretary of State outlines next steps in NI Legacy Bill,” 18 July 2023
 
Chris Moore, “How MI5 protected child sex abusers in the notorious Kincora Boys’ Home,” Sunday World, 4 December 2022.

Jennifer O’Leary, “Army’s IRA spy Freddie Scappaticci admitted killing suspected informer,” BBC News, 30 May 2023.

Rob Evans, “‘Spy cops’ scandal: what is it and why was public inquiry set up?” Guardian, 29 June 2023.

Andrew Murray, “Is the ‘deep state’ trying to undermine Corbyn?” New Statesman, 19 September 2018.

Tommy McKearney is a left wing and trade union activist. 
Follow on Twitter @Tommymckearney 

Time To Break The Connection With Shady Elements

Tommy McKearney ✍ shares his thoughts on the work of a fellow blanketman. 


Former H-Block blanket-man, Malachy ‘Muffles’ Trainor, has recently published another book of his poetry. Under the title His collection of poetry, the Armagh City native has written 67 poems for this engaging work. 

The quiet and unassuming poet was incarcerated in Long Kesh for seven difficult years from 1976 until1983. During that time he endured the hardships experienced by protesting Republican prisoners and was witness to the harrowing and tragic events surrounding the hunger strikes. While never stridently so and indeed almost to the point of being obscure at times, his poetry resonates with a strong message from his life experience.

Although Malachy was released four decades ago, prison and related aspects occur in several poems throughout this book. Among many references to that time in his life, the most poignant is perhaps found in, ‘On Bread Vanished’:

Oh watch the speeds eye

That hunger dwelling lit

Yes a smile, a comrade dies

I saw the green trees oh

In all, Malachy refers specifically to prisons or prisoners in so many of his poems. Surprisingly though for someone who personally suffered the cruelties inflicted by a brutal jail regime, there is no evidence of anger much less hatred through his verses. There is instead a measure of sensitive reflection that is if anything, a more powerful commentary on that grim era.

It would, however, be a mistake to see the collection as focused on only one aspect of the poet’s life. In this fascinating publication, Malachy reflects across a number of topics ranging from global to local as he comments on nature itself and the nature of society.

In ‘Why so then’ we hear the voice of his native Country Armagh:

September blue so yes fuse

Blissful days enter the fray

Favour hard drenched afar

Ripe apples, leaves, a fall

Elsewhere there is an understated yet sharp awareness of another aspect of his home county:

Planted settlers and flags

Stumble fall here the call

And privilege big bang

Horse and saddle so ride

Conquered yes and long ago

To think you might be wrong

Overall this is a fine contribution to Irish literature complimented with an elegant and insightful introduction by Siobhan Hughes.

This is a collection that deserves a wide readership.

Malachy Trainor, 2023, His Collection Of Poetry. Self-Published.  ISBN-13: 979-8394828775

Tommy McKearney is a left wing and trade union activist. 
Follow on Twitter @Tommymckearney 

His Collection Of Poetry

Tommy McKearney ☭ Over the past few months the public, or at least a section of it, has been watching with interest the trials and tribulations of two high-profile political demagogues.


We refer, of course, to the arraignment of Donald Trump and the British House of Commons voting to censure Boris Johnson.


Yet in spite of what appeared to be damning indictments against both men, they have not been completely ostracised. Mainstream conservatives in both the United States and Britain have deliberately avoided outright condemnation of their actions. It is important to analyse the reason for this reluctance, as it casts a light on significant developments internationally.

The capitalist ruling class, led from the United States and embedded in Western Europe, has had more than two centuries to perfect techniques for retaining power. For the most part they prefer to create the appearance of governing by consensus. They do, after all, control the means of production, giving them enormous influence over employment, thereby facilitating the divide-and-rule strategy used to split working-class communities.

Moreover, ownership of the mass media allows for the creation of a self-justifying narrative. Granting the people a vote every few years lends the appearance of legitimacy to all of this.

Yet since capitalism is crisis-prone, its masters always want to have options if and when the desired equilibrium is upended. At the extreme this means a resort to fascism. Before crossing that particular Rubicon, however, they prefer the option of employing demagoguery, now known as populism. The objective is to bamboozle a critical number among the disenchanted and disadvantaged into supporting right-wing governments, even more so to endorse reactionary policies at home and abroad.

Global capitalism is at present experiencing just such a crisis. Unwilling to prevent price-gouging profit-making by private enterprise, the United States, the European Union and Britain are all, to a greater or lesser extent, experiencing persistent inflation. As a consequence, working-class people everywhere experience hardship. On the one hand they suffer as a result of the ever-rising cost of living; workers further suffer, as economic recession is deliberately induced by central bankers employing the blunt expedient of raising interest rates.

In the process it becomes clear that the free-market system is again faced with major problems. Worse still from capitalism’s point of view is the presence of a viable alternative in the east, that is, the People’s Republic of China.

The influence of China on the global stage is growing almost daily, both in its diplomatic clout and its economic prowess. Reflect for a moment on some of its recent achievements. Most notable was sponsoring an accord between Iran and Saudi Arabia—two major Middle Eastern countries that the United States had managed to keep at odds for years, and now the Chinese-inspired détente has potentially altered the balance of power in the region.

There was also the visit in April of the president of Brazil, Lula da Silva, on a state visit for talks with Xi Jinping, after which Lula criticised the United States for prolonging the war in Ukraine.

Then last year, at a meeting between Chinese diplomats and senior government ministers from several African states, including South Africa, a motion was endorsed reaffirming the One China position in relation to Taiwan.

By any reading of world politics, it is easy to recognise the significance of all this. China has now become a leading influence in three of the world’s most important regions, and has done so without the use of military expansionism—a strategy that has avoided bloodshed, and therefore done without antagonising whole populations.

While undoubtedly of grave concern to imperialism’s strategists, it is perhaps the Chinese economic model that is causing them the greatest worry. In a little over two decades China has become an industrial powerhouse, producing 18 per cent of global GDP, compared with 12 per cent for the United States.¹ It’s not surprising, therefore, that this performance is sustained by one of the developed world’s best rates of return on investment.² Moreover, China is also one of the world’s chief creditors, providing capital for infrastructure and industrial projects to 148 countries. Equally significant is the fact, as recorded by the World Bank, that over the past four decades poverty has been eradicated in People’s China.³

Therefore, it is not just the growing diplomatic influence enjoyed by China that is alarming capitalist super-powers: a deeper concern is that the Communist Party of China has overseen the development of an economic template that is much more successful than that promoted by free-marketeers. For Western capitalism, this raises a disturbing scenario. They fear that, faced with periodic economic recessions, distressed working-class communities will demand the adoption of the Chinese economic model.

Confronted by the spectre of successful “socialism with Chinese characteristics for a new era,” the response of Western capitalism has been predictable. Widespread and unrelenting hostility towards China is now the order of the day as the groundwork is being prepared for a new Cold War. An era of McCarthy-like paranoia is being generated by insinuating the existence of an all-pervasive Chinese espionage capacity. Huawei, Tiktok and Wechat, for example, are deemed capable of monitoring the every movement and the correspondence of those using their technology.

Consequently, Washington, London and Brussels are co-ordinating efforts to contain China’s so-called ambition to expand its orbit. Whatever other differences exist between them, they are in agreement on this issue. Moreover, such is the degree of consensus over the entire gamut of capitalism’s apologists that erstwhile political opponents find common ground on this issue. Donald Trump’s hostility towards China is matched, if not outdone, by that of Joe Biden. By the same token, there is no criticism of China emanating from Boris Johnson that Rishi Sunak does not share.

Hence the constructive ambiguity employed by much of the establishment on both sides of the Atlantic in relation to the two loud-mouthed demagogues. They are viewed as an “ace in the hole” to be introduced if required to once again mislead sections of the working class.

There is a lesson in this for the left. The capitalist ruling class and its political front-persons are deeply conscious of the possibility, indeed probability, that we are experiencing a transformative period in world history. Whatever view we took in the past about the Chinese path to socialism, it is incumbent upon us now to give adequate consideration to developments in that amazing country where the East is still glowing red.

1 World Economics, “China’s share of global GDP.”
2 John Ross, “Why China’s socialist economy is more efficient than capitalism,” MR Online.
3 World Bank, “Lifting 800 million people out of poverty: New report looks at lessons from China’s experience.”

Tommy McKearney is a left wing and trade union activist. 
Follow on Twitter @Tommymckearney 

A Transformative Period In World History

Tommy McKearney ☭ Last month’s local government election results were even more significant than simply the storming performance by Sinn Féin. 

7-June-2023

The outcome has underlined an inexorable direction of travel that points to the decline not just of unionist political hegemony, but of the very union itself. Not only is unionism losing out in the crucial numbers game but is also witnessing the economic failing of the Six Counties.

The DUP vote actually held up, yet in spite of that Sinn Féin still won more seats. Even more ominous for avowed supporters of the English connection was the realisation that overall they are in a minority across local government in the North. Councillors elected who publicly favour ending partition have a small numerical advantage over those committed to its maintenance. When the constitutionally agnostic such as Alliance is also taken into consideration, those identifying purely as unionist are left in a minority of slightly over 40% across all eleven council districts.

Coming as this does on the heels of the disconcerting sight of Sinn Fein’s Michelle O’Neill claiming the First Minister’s title (if not office) coupled with the unnerving demographic shift recorded in the latest census toll, the evidence of fundamental change is clear to all but the most myopic.

That this fact is certainly recognised by hard-headed observers of northern life became apparent recently when BBC in Belfast recorded a series of podcasts in the run-up to the local government elections. One episode dealing with the challenges facing unionism in general was addressed by two well-known local political commentators, BBC reporter Gareth Gordon and Sam McBride, Northern Ireland editor of the Belfast Telegraph and Sunday Independent. Both participants are outstanding journalists but by no stretch of the imagination can they be described as carrying a banner for Irish republicanism.

Their assessment of the situation was stark: unionism is in decline and apparently incapable of reversing the trend. Coming as it did from two people with no obvious reason to undermine the North’s position within the UK, this is telling. Moreover, election day results bore out their analysis, lending weight to the view that the current status quo is not permanently sustainable.

Nor indeed is the latest political upset the only factor auguring against the long-term future of the partitioned statelet. Where once Belfast’s wealthy bourgeoisie enjoyed a place at the forefront of the British Empire’s manufacturing elite, that day has long gone. No longer is it possible to advocate the unionist case by pointing to the economic advantages of being embedded within the Empire’s captured territory. The Empire is no more, Britain’s economy is faltering and the North is the weakest and poorest region of the UK.

Worse still from a unionist perspective is the depressing fact that productivity in the Republic is on average 40% greater than that of the North. A recent report by the ESRI to an Oireachtas committee recorded this fact, along with the finding that the Six Counties lag behind the South in important aspects such as a shorter average life expectancy, lower average household income and greater levels of poverty.

None of which diminishes in any way the obscenity of inequality in the Republic, nor should there be any tolerance of that fact. Nevertheless, productivity is a key measure of a society’s wealth-generating capacity and while not overlooking how income in the 26 Counties is so ill-distributed, this means the North has lost what it long said was practically its very raison d’être.

Stalled in the trough of economic decline and political stalemate, the prospects for unionism and the union have never been bleaker. Caught up also is the hapless DUP, the leading party of unionism. Unable to manoeuvre in any positive direction that might help “make Northern Ireland viable”, the venerable Sir Jeffrey Donaldson is leading Ireland’s unionism and the union to where it is best placed . . . in the dustbin of history.

Tommy McKearney is a left wing and trade union activist. 
Follow on Twitter @Tommymckearney 

On The Recent Council Elections In The North

Tommy McKearney ☭ We could waste a lot of time speculating on the real purpose behind the Biden visit. 


Nevertheless it is worth reflecting on the nature and impact of his trip to Ireland and especially how the Irish establishment reacted to it. Ostensibly the US president was coming here to celebrate the so-called achievements of the Good Friday Agreement. However and in spite of the fact that that particular accord related directly to conflict resolution in the six counties, Big Joe spent only a few hours in the North before rapidly heading south.

Admittedly the Stormont Assembly is not up and running. It is not obvious though, why that should have prevented him from spending equal time north and south. The narrative that the USA had played a huge role in what has been described by his friend Senator George Mitchell as a model with international significance should surely merit more than a whistle-stop tour.

Why not a quick visit-cum-photo opportunity to the Giant’s Causeway or a boat on Lough Erne or some other equally frivolous but good-natured gesture? A veteran politician must surely have recognised the value of that type of simple exercise. By raising the region’s profile and ingratiating himself with the northerners, his influence could have been so much more significant.

In contrast to his almost dismissive treatment of the North, Biden spent his time across the border in relaxed and convivial mode. Of course he delivered a formal address to the joint houses of the Oireachtas but apart from that, it was almost as if he was on holiday. Particularly so since he was accompanied by several members of his family. There was a pleasant journey to Carlingford to meet distant relatives followed by a dander through Dundalk. Later there was a moving pilgrimage to Knock and a poignant meeting with a priest who had anointed his late son. Then there was the “take me home to Mayo” outing in front of Ballina Cathedral. All so endearing to an uncritical media and public.

Adding to the overall merriment was a charming little gaffe when somehow he got confused between the New Zealand rugby team and the thankfully now disbanded RIC Special Reserve, a.k.a. the Black & Tans. An easy enough mistake to make for an 80-year-old Yank. Especially so for someone who clearly must, you might be led to believe, have some acquaintance with Irish history causing such a slip of the tongue. No wonder the British media was so scathing. Fortunately for him though, annoying the Brits still pleases a certain section of Irish society.

Once in the Republic, he received a royal welcome despite the protests of a gallant few. Lost among all the “Welcome home Joe” tomfoolery was the stark fact that here was the man who presides over the world’s largest imperialist power being treated as if he was a favourite uncle returning from a lengthy exile. Not that Biden completely neglected his duty to the empire he leads as he reminded audiences of the US contribution to war in Ukraine.

Nevertheless and notwithstanding criticism of US foreign policy made by a handful of left-wing TDs and a small number of protesters on the streets, President Biden returned to Washington having created an Irish government approved feel-good factor. Ireland can now bask in the knowledge that it has earned a pass grade from the White House.

The smug feeling of self satisfaction was captured nicely in an interview former Taoiseach Enda Kenny did with RTÉ. The presidential visit, he said, had solidified our relationship with the United States, helping maintain the favourable opinion multi-national corporations have of this country. A situation summed up, according to Enda, by president of the EU Commission Ursula von der Leyen. The lady recently commended Ireland as a shining example of how a small country can prosper within a larger union. Ursula didn’t mention, by the way, our housing and homeless crisis, wretched health service or gross inequality.

However, let’s face, this small island has a cosier relationship with the world’s largest power bloc than another small island, that one over in the Caribbean.The country that has caused its enormous neighbour such annoyance, it has been blockaded for the past 60 years.

Joe’s visit has assuaged, one would imagine, some nagging doubts the White House may have had about a similar threat emerging in Ireland. The Yanks have long admired Ireland’s legislative commitment to free-market neoliberalism. There was some concern, however, that the worsening of the aforementioned housing crisis, two-tier health service and systemic inequality all exacerbated by inflation, could undermine Irish people’s belief in the American way of doing business.

While the coalition parties greeted the visitor with slavish devotion, a question mark surrounded the attitude of the Republic’s largest opposition party. A series of opinion polls over the past year have consistently shown significant approval for the allegedly left-leaning Sinn Féin. Might that party, if in office, prove difficult for a US administration to deal with?

Well, there is no longer much room for worry. Mary Lou and Michelle seemingly have no intention of rocking the boat. When offered the option to follow a lead set by People Before Profit and boycott Biden’s Oireachtas address in protest at his foreign policy, Sinn Féin refused and sat obediently throughout his speech.

In light of the party’s abject refusal to censure the US administration, the Pentagon can rest easier. It seems clear that if in office, Sinn Féin will not deny US troops landing-rights at Shannon. By thus tolerating one flagrant violation of Irish neutrality they might well be persuaded to concede on other areas.

Away from the Dáil, the response to the presidential visit was equally uncritical. On the contrary, it was bordering on the cringeworthy. The Irish media reported Biden’s every move with RTÉ providing wall-to-wall coverage. Unsurprisingly as a result of such intense publicity, large and enthusiastic crowds gathered in Ballina to welcome Joe back home.

As mentioned at the outset, it is pointless attempting to guess the rationale underlying the Biden visit. What is obvious, however, is that it has been used by the Irish ruling class to polish its subservient relationship to US-led imperialism. This is dangerous because it facilitates bringing an end to what is left of our neutrality. If not so, then why did Tánaiste Mícheál Martin appoint Louise Richardson, Dame Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, to chair the government’s Consultative Forum on International Security Policy?

Consequently, there is cause for concern but no reason for despair. The Irish bourgeoisie is not as confident as it appears. There is a simmering discontent with conditions in this country that will not be satisfied with royal or presidential visits. It is, nevertheless, imperative that we continue to articulate the only viable alternative to capitalist and imperialistic barbarism: a socialist society.

Tommy McKearney is a left wing and trade union activist. 
Follow on Twitter @Tommymckearney 

On The Visit Of Joe Biden

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)