As this exciting election campaign continues to enthral, one thing is becoming increasingly clear. It’s not just the American youth, liberals, and adoring European masses who are obsessed with Barack Obama and stricken with a severe case of Obamania; Republicans are too. It’s old news that Obama has drawn in large swathes of Republicans who are disillusioned with their political establishment. The group ‘Republicans for Obama’ has long been established. However, the virus of Obama celebrity has moved from early onset to second phase symptoms. The first signs may have been that Obama blurred the lines of ‘red’ and ‘blue’ states putting Colorado, Virginia, North Carolina, and Montana, among others, into play, and snatching states like Iowa. The progression was clear as high profile Republicans such as Richard Nixon’s daughter and a former Ronald Reagan speechwriter opted to support Obama. Now it’s getting harder to monitor as those who intend to vote against Obama simply cannot take their eyes off of him, do not seem comfortable when his name is not on their lips, and go red faced whenever he flatters to appear- be it blushing or with anger. Leading the infected Republicans as they fixate over the Democratic candidate’s every word, breath, and movement, is their own presidential hopeful, John McCain.
The most casual glance at some of the punditry that is sympathetic to the McCain campaign will reveal at least two characteristics. Firstly, it is far more focused on Obama than McCain. Secondly, that focus is irritatingly repetitive. It would appear that some pro-McCain commentators are programmed like robots and receive a CD once a month which they download. Once the information has been successfully stored the pundit must then repeat every kilobyte of data assimilated, and do so every time a camera is within a 100 metre radius. Unfortunately, the net result of this is that viewers are not being given reasons why they should vote for McCain, rather their ears bleed as they listen to selected media personalities tell their audience why they should dislike Obama, usually through attacks, very often of a personal nature, through any given tiresome iterance. One should not expect to hear valid reasons why not to support Obama, rather the mere fact that he was a ‘community organiser’ will be disparaged (Sean Hannity), or his popularity in Europe will be demeaned (every Republican commentator), or his catalogue of ‘flip-flops’ will be re-iterated incessantly(every Republican commentator)- as if being open to changing facts or listening and then evaluating is such a bad thing, and is if McCain hasn’t changed his mind considerably in the past six months. Denunciations of Obama are very often crassly hypocritical. It would not be unusual to hear him pilloried for changing his mind, and castigated for not being open to the facts on the ground in Iraq in the same sentence. In one insightful edition of Hannity and Colmes, Sean Hannity repeated this script and then agreed as Dick Morris accused Obama of talking out of both sides of his mouth.
Republican websites are bearing the brunt of Obamania most visibly. A brief visit to http://www.gop.com/ and one will realise that it looks more a like a photo spread on Barack Obama then the senior Republican website ostensibly supporting John McCain. The talented GOP strategists took their Obama image database one step further and created http://www.meetbarackobama.com/ . Herein is the real Obama, or so it is claimed, but really it’s just plenty more photos of the Illinois senator for the self-flagellating fan, who loves him so much he hates him, to get his fix of visual penance. Genius never rests, and so Barackbook was created. Crass plagiarism of Facebook aside, there is nothing inventive here, nor is it going to capture the youth that Republicans have lost. It’s simply more of the same allegations, and of course, plenty of pictures.
And so, with everyone stricken down by Obamania, was John McCain really immune? It would seem that his bodily defences surrendered in July resulting in a spate of negative Obama-focused campaign ads. Four stand out in particular. Two were tailored for Obama’s overseas tour and contain a series of fairly scurrilous allegations on Iraq, Afghanistan, and Obama’s commitment to injured service personnel that have been routinely discredited. Naturally, Obama’s image accounts for over 50% of the footage in these ads. Then there is another in which Obama is ludicrously blamed for high gas prices in the US. Apparently, the junior senator, who, as it is charged, has no experience and has never made a real decision, actually is responsible for the entire condition of American energy and the burden on the consumer. Of course, the best until last. The McCain campaign unleashed this gem yesterday. Entitled ‘celeb’, Obama is displayed in a collection of footage that highlights his popularity, and is then compared to crestfallen celebrities Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. The subliminal message was clearly designed for a chimpanzee: ‘Obama is popular, tens of thousands turn out to hear him speak, that makes him a celebrity, oh wait Britney and Paris are also celebrities, would you like one of them to be president?’ ‘Hell, no!’ One’s inner voice replies. The subliminal narrator continues, ‘well, Obama is just like them, because they’re all celebrities, that means voting for Obama would be like voting for a spoilt, drugged-up socialite.’ Shortly after the images of Hilton and Spears appear ‘is he ready to lead?’ emblazons the screen. Just in case the message evades anybody.
Leaving aside one’s outrage that Republicans have stabbed in the back, Britney Spears, the only celebrity to support Bush in 2004, this trend reveals a lot about the state of the ‘Grand Old Party’. They apparently concede that the best way to get a voters attention is to flash images of Obama on the screen. The fact that they are using the strategy of ‘Obama versus Obama’ shows that they are bankrupt of means to bring their ideas to the public, if they even have those ideas. They have unashamedly resorted to the politics of fear. The fact that the Republican Party, which has sat outside the White House for only twelve of the last forty years, is in this condition is quite pathetic. Moreover, John McCain, the self-styled political maverick, who always denounced negative campaigning and fear politics, is now using it as his only trump card. It would seem the buzzwords of ‘experience’ and ‘country first’ did not do enough in the polls and so that message has to be accompanied by Obama in all manner of poses. It may yet work for them, though it would appear unlikely. McCain is not too far behind Obama on national polls of ‘registered voters’, though he is further behind on polls of ‘likely voters’. However, it is in the electoral college that the real bloodbath may await. So long the saving grace for Republicans, it allowed Reagan and Nixon to win 49 states in Caesar-like conquests, and it practically gave Bush the election in 2000. Now state by state polls suggest Obama will clear the hurdle of 300 electoral college votes. Republicans are up against a political force as vibrant and virile as JFK or Reagan, if not better. It is they who are suffering from the politics of fear.
In another McCain ad, the US mainstream media is shown in a succession of clips doting over and practically professing their love to Barack Obama. It must have caused some embarrassment as Chris Matthews calls him ‘a gift from the world to us’, Lee Cowen says that ‘it’s not cool if you haven’t seen Barack Obama in person’, and Jack Cafferty compares him to the Rolling Stones. Worse yet, one pundit claims he felt a thrill running up his leg when hearing him speak. Well, the media may have thrills running up their legs, but Republicans have something running down theirs. It’s urine.
Thursday, 31 July 2008
Wednesday, 23 July 2008
Obamania on Tour
The political phenomenon that is Barack Obama, last weekend, took to the skies as he undertook his first foreign trip as the presumptive Democratic nominee. Beginning in Kabul, Obama travelled on to Iraq and Jordan, and will continue to Israel, before heading to the European capitals of Berlin, Paris, and London. Middle Easterners and Europeans will get belated stimulation from what Mark Steyn terms ‘political Viagra.’ The tour itself has received intense American media coverage, which has also proved controversial as the three network news anchors elected to accompany the Democratic Candidate, leading Fox News to cry foul on John McCain’s behalf. In any case, however the venture is viewed in the US, Obama is certain to receive a reception that the current president could scarcely dream of, at least in Europe.
At face value, Obama’s reasons for undertaking the venture would seem obvious enough, however, underneath the surface many onlookers have speculated as to his real motivations. Conservatives have decried what they argue was Obama’s decision to give a policy brief before departing, thus lending weight to the belief that this trip is little more than a photo opportunity. Very few would claim that this trip will not, in part, be a giant photo shoot, and the power of images is hardly lost on the Obama campaign, however, such an argument is more an attempt to slight Obama than anything else, and blacken what could otherwise prove a very positive venture for the presidential hopeful, at home as Americans see Obama as a statesman, and abroad, as he acknowledges America’s allies.
The world is already awash with Obamania. From Europeans wearing Obama t-shirts to Malaysians sporting ‘Obama for President’ bumper stickers, the Illinois Senator boasts rare global popularity. If Europeans or Asians could elect the US President, Obama would win in a landslide, and every poll on the subject ratifies this view. They are not without their racism, of course, and when Europeans used to ask the seemingly definitive question of whether or not Americans would vote for a black man, with the obvious answer being ‘no, of course not’, Americans were doing precisely the opposite and voting for a black man. Moreover, there is no society in Europe or Asia with the level of multi-ethnic empowerment that the US has, as the recent election campaign has affirmed, so it is neither superior character on behalf of Germans or Britons, or because their interests would be served by an Obama presidency, that causes people to turnout and support him in such force . On the contrary, should Obama see this through, and remain faithful to many of his campaign pledges, there could well be a significant retreat of American business, which would be troublesome for the EU, a serious hurdle for Southeast and East Asia, and a crippling blow to Canada. The massive support for the Democratic candidate outside of the US is more the culmination of serious dissatisfaction with the incumbent, a genuine sense of having been wooed by Obama’s staggering charm, and a serious attraction to the originality his speech, story, and character brings. Whether Europeans or Asians would actually elect Obama to high office in their own countries, as some American commentators sought to ask, reversing the famous question, is irrelevant- and in many cases the answer would be an emphatic no. Obama is not running for the phantom EU Presidency or the mythical ASEAN Secretariat, he is, of course, seeking to be elected President of the United States, and should he court success, it would herald a wave of goodwill across the world.
One will get a snapshot of that when Obama touches down in Berlin, Paris, and London. There will be adoring masses teeming with adulation, a fact that will be caught on tape and relayed to the US. Naturally, Obama’s campaign will use this to exemplify the differences between him and Bush, and therefore extrapolate that to McCain, while the Republican argument holds that this will be a negative in Middle America. Karl Rove said that such footage would not fly in Pittsburgh, and many others have inserted a whole host of cities, from Toledo to Oklahoma, and Raleigh to Boise. These observers have failed to elucidate how exactly popularity in Europe would automatically translate into negative publicity in America outside Manhattan and San Francisco. Underlying, it would seem, there is a belief in some systemic zero-sum between Europe and Middle America. They could potentially argue about differing beliefs and so forth but few have attempted to take it to this level. Former Clinton consultant and resident sensationalist, Dick Morris, did, however, offer up one of the most ridiculous assessments on the subject when he argued that the Europeans are socialists and Obama is a socialist, and therefore Europeans salivate at the prospect of Obama implementing the Eurocratic-socialist agenda in America. This displays brutal ignorance. Firstly, Obama is no socialist. Secondly, the governments of both France and Germany are centre-right. Gordon Brown is indeed Labour but his and Tony Blair’s governments have been the least labour of all of Britain’s supposed left-wing regimes. Moreover, Brown stands to suffer an absolute electoral massacre at the hands of David Cameron, leader of the Conservatives, no less. Additionally, the largest bloc in the European parliament is centre-right, as is that parliament’s president. Social democracy has indeed damaged Europe, and Europeans do not appear to be on the right path to fixing it, but there is no appetite for renewed socialism in Europe. And genuine euro-socialists will not support any American president; the US is force for ill in their eyes, and that is almost a shibboleth for the Euro-left.
In reality there is no neat equation summing up the effects of popularity in Europe on the American public. Yet previous American presidents who have enjoyed esteem in the old world include JFK, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton. All three maintained popularity at home in spite of the dreaded support from the latté drinkers across the Atlantic, and none of them carried around the thoughts of Chairman Mao for that matter. It is incredibly unlikely that Middle America will turn against Obama because he is popular in Berlin and London as Karl Rove wishes. However, Obama is not immune to making the odd elitist gaffe. Recently, Obama expressed embarrassment at how mono-linguistic Americans go to Europe armed only with ‘merci beaucoup’. This is ludicrous on many levels, not least because many of the Americans who actually go to Europe are suffering from Euro-philia, and are somewhat proficient in French, German or Spanish. Moreover, Obama can take it from a European who frequently visits the US, though they can speak many languages, the rudest people in America are European tourists.
Barack Obama should avoid statements like this in the future or Karl Rove’s prophecy may yet see the light of day. Popularity in Europe by itself is, if anything, a massive plus. Popularity in Europe, however, coupled with disparaging remarks towards Americans might send a different message. Democrats should be thankful at least that their candidate chose to make this comment in the US and not in Paris, whereby fallout would have been much greater.
The United States, it is often charged, is a young country, but it is a mature one, with a mature electorate, a fact that is often lost on critics and supporters alike. This year, Americans will have to reconcile with a new dimension. For decades, a certain degree of anti-Americanism in Europe was assumed, but so was a level of support from governments in Western Europe. Now, after the Bush tenure, American prestige is in a considerable trough across the Atlantic, and Obama could help lift it. In a normal year, John McCain would actually prove quite popular in Europe, but after the last eight years, it’s now Obamania, plain and simple. Americans will have to come to terms with what that means, and while they should elect their president for their reasons, and their reasons alone, it should also be considered that to make progress globally it would surely be beneficial to have a man in the Oval Office with some degree of global esteem.
An Obama victory will not defeat terrorism, nor make the world any safer for the US, counter the rise of China and India, or heal the transatlantic divide. But it would improve that split. Most importantly, Obama has pinned much of his future strategy to the successful conclusion of the war in ‘precarious’ Afghanistan. Well, it goes without saying that this is in America’s interests, and it has also widely been acknowledged that many of the US’s NATO allies- save Britain and Canada- need to considerably build on their paltry contributions in the fledgling Central Asian state. What an Obama presidency could do is serve as a better sounding board to convince these allies to up their game. It is by no means certain that they would, nor is it definitive that Obama’s popularity would see itself through a period of telling European leaders, and their populations, what to do. However, he would have a far better chance of it that John McCain. It may be somewhat superficial in the short-term, but an Obama administration, by virtue of being lead by Barack Obama would greatly enhance American soft power. That reality should not be lost on the American public in November.
At face value, Obama’s reasons for undertaking the venture would seem obvious enough, however, underneath the surface many onlookers have speculated as to his real motivations. Conservatives have decried what they argue was Obama’s decision to give a policy brief before departing, thus lending weight to the belief that this trip is little more than a photo opportunity. Very few would claim that this trip will not, in part, be a giant photo shoot, and the power of images is hardly lost on the Obama campaign, however, such an argument is more an attempt to slight Obama than anything else, and blacken what could otherwise prove a very positive venture for the presidential hopeful, at home as Americans see Obama as a statesman, and abroad, as he acknowledges America’s allies.
The world is already awash with Obamania. From Europeans wearing Obama t-shirts to Malaysians sporting ‘Obama for President’ bumper stickers, the Illinois Senator boasts rare global popularity. If Europeans or Asians could elect the US President, Obama would win in a landslide, and every poll on the subject ratifies this view. They are not without their racism, of course, and when Europeans used to ask the seemingly definitive question of whether or not Americans would vote for a black man, with the obvious answer being ‘no, of course not’, Americans were doing precisely the opposite and voting for a black man. Moreover, there is no society in Europe or Asia with the level of multi-ethnic empowerment that the US has, as the recent election campaign has affirmed, so it is neither superior character on behalf of Germans or Britons, or because their interests would be served by an Obama presidency, that causes people to turnout and support him in such force . On the contrary, should Obama see this through, and remain faithful to many of his campaign pledges, there could well be a significant retreat of American business, which would be troublesome for the EU, a serious hurdle for Southeast and East Asia, and a crippling blow to Canada. The massive support for the Democratic candidate outside of the US is more the culmination of serious dissatisfaction with the incumbent, a genuine sense of having been wooed by Obama’s staggering charm, and a serious attraction to the originality his speech, story, and character brings. Whether Europeans or Asians would actually elect Obama to high office in their own countries, as some American commentators sought to ask, reversing the famous question, is irrelevant- and in many cases the answer would be an emphatic no. Obama is not running for the phantom EU Presidency or the mythical ASEAN Secretariat, he is, of course, seeking to be elected President of the United States, and should he court success, it would herald a wave of goodwill across the world.
One will get a snapshot of that when Obama touches down in Berlin, Paris, and London. There will be adoring masses teeming with adulation, a fact that will be caught on tape and relayed to the US. Naturally, Obama’s campaign will use this to exemplify the differences between him and Bush, and therefore extrapolate that to McCain, while the Republican argument holds that this will be a negative in Middle America. Karl Rove said that such footage would not fly in Pittsburgh, and many others have inserted a whole host of cities, from Toledo to Oklahoma, and Raleigh to Boise. These observers have failed to elucidate how exactly popularity in Europe would automatically translate into negative publicity in America outside Manhattan and San Francisco. Underlying, it would seem, there is a belief in some systemic zero-sum between Europe and Middle America. They could potentially argue about differing beliefs and so forth but few have attempted to take it to this level. Former Clinton consultant and resident sensationalist, Dick Morris, did, however, offer up one of the most ridiculous assessments on the subject when he argued that the Europeans are socialists and Obama is a socialist, and therefore Europeans salivate at the prospect of Obama implementing the Eurocratic-socialist agenda in America. This displays brutal ignorance. Firstly, Obama is no socialist. Secondly, the governments of both France and Germany are centre-right. Gordon Brown is indeed Labour but his and Tony Blair’s governments have been the least labour of all of Britain’s supposed left-wing regimes. Moreover, Brown stands to suffer an absolute electoral massacre at the hands of David Cameron, leader of the Conservatives, no less. Additionally, the largest bloc in the European parliament is centre-right, as is that parliament’s president. Social democracy has indeed damaged Europe, and Europeans do not appear to be on the right path to fixing it, but there is no appetite for renewed socialism in Europe. And genuine euro-socialists will not support any American president; the US is force for ill in their eyes, and that is almost a shibboleth for the Euro-left.
In reality there is no neat equation summing up the effects of popularity in Europe on the American public. Yet previous American presidents who have enjoyed esteem in the old world include JFK, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton. All three maintained popularity at home in spite of the dreaded support from the latté drinkers across the Atlantic, and none of them carried around the thoughts of Chairman Mao for that matter. It is incredibly unlikely that Middle America will turn against Obama because he is popular in Berlin and London as Karl Rove wishes. However, Obama is not immune to making the odd elitist gaffe. Recently, Obama expressed embarrassment at how mono-linguistic Americans go to Europe armed only with ‘merci beaucoup’. This is ludicrous on many levels, not least because many of the Americans who actually go to Europe are suffering from Euro-philia, and are somewhat proficient in French, German or Spanish. Moreover, Obama can take it from a European who frequently visits the US, though they can speak many languages, the rudest people in America are European tourists.
Barack Obama should avoid statements like this in the future or Karl Rove’s prophecy may yet see the light of day. Popularity in Europe by itself is, if anything, a massive plus. Popularity in Europe, however, coupled with disparaging remarks towards Americans might send a different message. Democrats should be thankful at least that their candidate chose to make this comment in the US and not in Paris, whereby fallout would have been much greater.
The United States, it is often charged, is a young country, but it is a mature one, with a mature electorate, a fact that is often lost on critics and supporters alike. This year, Americans will have to reconcile with a new dimension. For decades, a certain degree of anti-Americanism in Europe was assumed, but so was a level of support from governments in Western Europe. Now, after the Bush tenure, American prestige is in a considerable trough across the Atlantic, and Obama could help lift it. In a normal year, John McCain would actually prove quite popular in Europe, but after the last eight years, it’s now Obamania, plain and simple. Americans will have to come to terms with what that means, and while they should elect their president for their reasons, and their reasons alone, it should also be considered that to make progress globally it would surely be beneficial to have a man in the Oval Office with some degree of global esteem.
An Obama victory will not defeat terrorism, nor make the world any safer for the US, counter the rise of China and India, or heal the transatlantic divide. But it would improve that split. Most importantly, Obama has pinned much of his future strategy to the successful conclusion of the war in ‘precarious’ Afghanistan. Well, it goes without saying that this is in America’s interests, and it has also widely been acknowledged that many of the US’s NATO allies- save Britain and Canada- need to considerably build on their paltry contributions in the fledgling Central Asian state. What an Obama presidency could do is serve as a better sounding board to convince these allies to up their game. It is by no means certain that they would, nor is it definitive that Obama’s popularity would see itself through a period of telling European leaders, and their populations, what to do. However, he would have a far better chance of it that John McCain. It may be somewhat superficial in the short-term, but an Obama administration, by virtue of being lead by Barack Obama would greatly enhance American soft power. That reality should not be lost on the American public in November.
Tuesday, 1 July 2008
Collective security or Gaelic autarky?
The rejection of the Lisbon Treaty by the Irish electorate has made headline news all over the world. A casual glance at these articles and the comments placed underneath them is illuminating. British papers and their readers could scarcely conceal their joy; the Irish registered a blow at Brussels for them. Canadians, incredulous that such a minuscule number of people could possibly slow down a process that has yet to be rejected by any other of the EU's 491 million citizens. In the US, onlookers tended to see the no vote as something admirable, a reason to reclaim one's pride in his/her Irish heritage; independent Ireland once again toppled the big man so the common man can remain free.
It is hardly a shock that Americans should feel like this, not only are some 50 million of them of Irish stock, they are, like Irish people, imbued with the blood of rebels and patriots. They are, like us, a profoundly independent people. Herein the similarities end. Americans, have the world's most powerful government aggressively asserting their interests, we do not. Americans have a military that is unparalled in its might, we do not. The US has an economy which, even in turbulent times, is the most successful the world has ever known. No matter how one exaggerates the Celtic Tiger, we do not have this luxury.
I have always been proud of Ireland's independent spirit; yesterday I was not. Irish participation in the EU and the UN etc, has long been seen as a medium for us to consolidate our independence; to do something apart from Britain. On Thursday we jettisoned that trend, and Ireland has not been this close to Britain for quite some time. This is not a bad thing in itself, however, it is when it counters our national interest. Independence is a source of ambivalence in Irish people. Our national psyche is one of free will, yet domestically we are easily subdued. The Catholic church dominated Ireland for decades, while parliamentary elections are rarely much more than a formality for re-electing Fianna Fail. Last week, we childishly listened to the myths, lies, and scare-mongering of republicans, socialists, and hard-right Christians, unlikely bedfellows who share a pre-modern vision for Ireland. Irish people seemed impervious to the reality that when every EU treaty comes around these same characters have pedalled the same tiresome nonsense. Worse yet, they managed to convince enough people that a 'better deal' was somehow in the offing. Sadly, it is not. Other EU countries are hardly going to set an incentive for defection, or allow Ireland to act with impunity. Nor is re-negotiation in our best interest, for every gain there will certainly be losses.
However you look at it, Irish people said to no plans for tax harmonisation that do not exist, or rejected further institutionalising a 'democratic deficit' that is illusory. Maybe we stood up to the bigger players just for the sake of it. In any case, we were wrong. The vote was misplaced, and the debate focused on the wrong issues. Indeed, only the Wall Street Journal seemed to be on the mark, arguing that 'Ireland derailed EU plans aimed at making the bloc a more global player' (13/06/08). This is a succinct analysis. Even a passing glance at global politics will yield to the reality that power is shifting towards behemoth powers once again: Russia has re-emerged, China and India have long since arrived, Brazil, and possibly South Africa, are on their way. There is even some potential in South America and Southeast Asia- maybe even in the Middle East too. The Lisbon Treaty was designed to allow the EU survive on this reconfigured global stage. Many Europeans have realised that if we stand united, we are more than the sum of our parts, but divided we are a rag-tag collection of states, all of which will be eclipsed. Unfortunately, Irish people ignored this fundamental reality in international relations, and chose to dash any hopes of this country having a meaningful voice in world affairs. We are right to say no to 'militarism' in the EU, should it ever appear, but we need an apparatus to respond to militarism in Moscow and Beijing, in Khartoum and Naypyidaw.
It is childish to assume that a 'no' vote will have no negative consequences for this country and will be returned with a 'better deal'. This is not a zero-sum game. If the Lisbon Treaty is ratified in the remainder of the EU, and I expect it will be, save in perhaps Britain, dignity demands the Irish people decide on whether our future lies with the bloc or on our own. By then, Europe will have spoken, it will be ready to respond to the challenges of globalisation, climate change, terrorism, macro-economic imbalances, and power distortions. If we do not wish to do this, then we should try once again to be a small nation in a world a big powers. I do not think we could survive, but that is the choice an independent nation should make. Independence comes with maturity and means taking responsibility for one's actions. Independence, moreover, should not be used to cloak the reality that it is unbecoming of a friendly and honest people to hold our allies, who have given us so much over the last 35 years, back from meeting, head on, the challenges of this new century.
Yours etc,
Gary Quinn
It is hardly a shock that Americans should feel like this, not only are some 50 million of them of Irish stock, they are, like Irish people, imbued with the blood of rebels and patriots. They are, like us, a profoundly independent people. Herein the similarities end. Americans, have the world's most powerful government aggressively asserting their interests, we do not. Americans have a military that is unparalled in its might, we do not. The US has an economy which, even in turbulent times, is the most successful the world has ever known. No matter how one exaggerates the Celtic Tiger, we do not have this luxury.
I have always been proud of Ireland's independent spirit; yesterday I was not. Irish participation in the EU and the UN etc, has long been seen as a medium for us to consolidate our independence; to do something apart from Britain. On Thursday we jettisoned that trend, and Ireland has not been this close to Britain for quite some time. This is not a bad thing in itself, however, it is when it counters our national interest. Independence is a source of ambivalence in Irish people. Our national psyche is one of free will, yet domestically we are easily subdued. The Catholic church dominated Ireland for decades, while parliamentary elections are rarely much more than a formality for re-electing Fianna Fail. Last week, we childishly listened to the myths, lies, and scare-mongering of republicans, socialists, and hard-right Christians, unlikely bedfellows who share a pre-modern vision for Ireland. Irish people seemed impervious to the reality that when every EU treaty comes around these same characters have pedalled the same tiresome nonsense. Worse yet, they managed to convince enough people that a 'better deal' was somehow in the offing. Sadly, it is not. Other EU countries are hardly going to set an incentive for defection, or allow Ireland to act with impunity. Nor is re-negotiation in our best interest, for every gain there will certainly be losses.
However you look at it, Irish people said to no plans for tax harmonisation that do not exist, or rejected further institutionalising a 'democratic deficit' that is illusory. Maybe we stood up to the bigger players just for the sake of it. In any case, we were wrong. The vote was misplaced, and the debate focused on the wrong issues. Indeed, only the Wall Street Journal seemed to be on the mark, arguing that 'Ireland derailed EU plans aimed at making the bloc a more global player' (13/06/08). This is a succinct analysis. Even a passing glance at global politics will yield to the reality that power is shifting towards behemoth powers once again: Russia has re-emerged, China and India have long since arrived, Brazil, and possibly South Africa, are on their way. There is even some potential in South America and Southeast Asia- maybe even in the Middle East too. The Lisbon Treaty was designed to allow the EU survive on this reconfigured global stage. Many Europeans have realised that if we stand united, we are more than the sum of our parts, but divided we are a rag-tag collection of states, all of which will be eclipsed. Unfortunately, Irish people ignored this fundamental reality in international relations, and chose to dash any hopes of this country having a meaningful voice in world affairs. We are right to say no to 'militarism' in the EU, should it ever appear, but we need an apparatus to respond to militarism in Moscow and Beijing, in Khartoum and Naypyidaw.
It is childish to assume that a 'no' vote will have no negative consequences for this country and will be returned with a 'better deal'. This is not a zero-sum game. If the Lisbon Treaty is ratified in the remainder of the EU, and I expect it will be, save in perhaps Britain, dignity demands the Irish people decide on whether our future lies with the bloc or on our own. By then, Europe will have spoken, it will be ready to respond to the challenges of globalisation, climate change, terrorism, macro-economic imbalances, and power distortions. If we do not wish to do this, then we should try once again to be a small nation in a world a big powers. I do not think we could survive, but that is the choice an independent nation should make. Independence comes with maturity and means taking responsibility for one's actions. Independence, moreover, should not be used to cloak the reality that it is unbecoming of a friendly and honest people to hold our allies, who have given us so much over the last 35 years, back from meeting, head on, the challenges of this new century.
Yours etc,
Gary Quinn
The Tyranny of the Weak
In his victory address, Declan Ganley boldly asserted that the no vote registered by the Irish electorate on the Lisbon Treaty was sending a message to Brussels, not just from Ireland, but from 'tens of millions of EU citizens'. This notion, that Ireland somehow has a mandate to speak for other European countries, is unique and unwarranted. Mr Ganley claims that 'Euro elites' do not reperesent the people of Europe, but wherein does he derive the power to speak on their behalf? It is the province of citizens of a particular state and their governments to decide on how they wish to register their voice in European elections. It is arrogant of the Irish people to assume we can impose a solution on them, and claim to do so on their behalf. In fact, almost every non-Irish European I know is now quite worried about the future of the EU.
The no campaign's skewed and worrisome vision of democracy is not only typified by this, but by the fact that they feel a country of 4 million people holding back twenty-six countries of 491 million people is somehow democratic. This is not democracy, it is the 'tryanny of the weak', whereby small states can force their will on others because those bigger states adhere to punctilious ideas of consensus.
Mr Ganley further claimed that the Taoiseach now had 'a mandate to go back to Brussels and renegotiate a better deal for Ireland.' This is the most curious of all those pearls bandied about by the no groups. Notwithstanding the fact that Lisbon was a good deal for Ireland and Europe, that even further institutionalised the system whereby small states like Ireland and Malta (402,000 people) had pound for pound better representation than Germany (82 million) or Poland (38 million), it is difficult to deduce what that mandate is considering those who voted no were not asked to append a sentence outlining their reasoning. I can assure Mr Ganley, as a student of diplomacy and negotiation, that the real world does not conduct itself in this way. Re-negotiation will involve Ireland having to produce a national position, which will be the product of tireless negotiation between all the departments of government. This will then have to receive democratic legitimisation. Every other European country, with their own preferences, will go through this process, before the 27 nations meet with 27 different ideas. Added to that will be the EU itself, a functioning organism with its own ideas. Reconciliation of these divergent positions will be inherently tedious, if not impossible, and if Ireland thinks it can get a 'better deal' why shouldn't every other state? Moreover, Irish repudiation of the treaty has exposed the danger of giving states power beyond what they deserve, and I wouldn't be surprised if the larger actors resist this trend in the future: why should Germany's fate hang in the balance because of Ireland? One should not be taken aback if the movement towards a 'core Europe' slowly materialises- at Ireland's expense. Of course, we would decry their selfishness, yet our own selfishness is somehow commendable.
When the US constitution was created it required ratification by only nine of the thirteen states, and the Lisbon Treaty for all the tiresome talk of a 'superstate' is hardly anything as momentous as that great document. If the EU really was democratic, it would operate under the force of popular will, not minority dictate. By that logic EU reform should proceed apace. If Ireland is unhappy with CAP or structural development funds, with the Euro or the right to work anywhere in Europe, with cross-border crime fighting initiatives, or with the certainty that our European neighbours will come to our defence if need be, and if Ireland does not wish to have a meaningful voice in world affairs, then why not sever the rest of our ties with Europe? Otherwise, let's take the responsibility befitting a mature state with the second highest per capita GDP in the EU and start contributing to Europe. That means stop detracting from it.
Yours etc,
Gary Quinn,
The no campaign's skewed and worrisome vision of democracy is not only typified by this, but by the fact that they feel a country of 4 million people holding back twenty-six countries of 491 million people is somehow democratic. This is not democracy, it is the 'tryanny of the weak', whereby small states can force their will on others because those bigger states adhere to punctilious ideas of consensus.
Mr Ganley further claimed that the Taoiseach now had 'a mandate to go back to Brussels and renegotiate a better deal for Ireland.' This is the most curious of all those pearls bandied about by the no groups. Notwithstanding the fact that Lisbon was a good deal for Ireland and Europe, that even further institutionalised the system whereby small states like Ireland and Malta (402,000 people) had pound for pound better representation than Germany (82 million) or Poland (38 million), it is difficult to deduce what that mandate is considering those who voted no were not asked to append a sentence outlining their reasoning. I can assure Mr Ganley, as a student of diplomacy and negotiation, that the real world does not conduct itself in this way. Re-negotiation will involve Ireland having to produce a national position, which will be the product of tireless negotiation between all the departments of government. This will then have to receive democratic legitimisation. Every other European country, with their own preferences, will go through this process, before the 27 nations meet with 27 different ideas. Added to that will be the EU itself, a functioning organism with its own ideas. Reconciliation of these divergent positions will be inherently tedious, if not impossible, and if Ireland thinks it can get a 'better deal' why shouldn't every other state? Moreover, Irish repudiation of the treaty has exposed the danger of giving states power beyond what they deserve, and I wouldn't be surprised if the larger actors resist this trend in the future: why should Germany's fate hang in the balance because of Ireland? One should not be taken aback if the movement towards a 'core Europe' slowly materialises- at Ireland's expense. Of course, we would decry their selfishness, yet our own selfishness is somehow commendable.
When the US constitution was created it required ratification by only nine of the thirteen states, and the Lisbon Treaty for all the tiresome talk of a 'superstate' is hardly anything as momentous as that great document. If the EU really was democratic, it would operate under the force of popular will, not minority dictate. By that logic EU reform should proceed apace. If Ireland is unhappy with CAP or structural development funds, with the Euro or the right to work anywhere in Europe, with cross-border crime fighting initiatives, or with the certainty that our European neighbours will come to our defence if need be, and if Ireland does not wish to have a meaningful voice in world affairs, then why not sever the rest of our ties with Europe? Otherwise, let's take the responsibility befitting a mature state with the second highest per capita GDP in the EU and start contributing to Europe. That means stop detracting from it.
Yours etc,
Gary Quinn,
Nelson Mandela's Legacy
Two decades ago, I was born in Johannesburg in a time that proved itself to be exciting as people in fetters freed themselves across the planet.
South Africa was particularly special. The crimes against the South African people in the preceding years were notorious, yet the world watched as the country transformed peacefully, and inclusively. Reconciliation supplanted retaliation, and a new country came to being under the best possible auspices.
It is many years since I left South Africa, however, I maintain close links and a sense of affinity with the land of my birth. I eagerly watch developments with pride; there is no place for which I could possibly have better wishes and higher hopes.
It is with regret that I have come to acknowledge that those hopes have proved ephemeral. In the 1990s South Africa had moral authority and under Nelson Mandela it was converted to good use. Mandela was a statesmen envied by citizens all over the world- a man who had overcome unspeakable hardships and used that experience to promote the interests of humanity.
Unfortunately, those days have long since passed. South Africa’s policy to the world has morphed into a realist’s version of ‘Africa First’. Any despot or tyrant is deserving of South African support in the face of Western opposition. The plight of African people seems irrelevant to the ANC now that they have a firm hold on power. Nowhere is this truer than in Zimbabwe, where the South African government’s shameless role as Robert Mugabe’s public relations officer has irrevocably damaged efforts to ease the suffering of the misfortunate people in that country.
South Africa also had the opportunity to convert its moral authority in results when it took a seat on the UN Security Council. Instead it preferred to play the role of a proxy for Russia and China- countries whose policies directly aggravate conflict in Africa- defending some perverse conception of ‘national sovereignty.’ South Africa could have played a role in forcing the Burmese Junta to admit more aid and relief workers, but what do the ANC care about Burma now that they have their own country to run. ANC leaders courted intervention for decades but have since retreated behind a wall of developing world despotism. This is crass hypocrisy.
What a shame that the Mandela legacy has been poisoned by this. And what a terrible pity that now when South Africa makes headline news it is not about South African leaders showing forsaken peoples how to overcome the legacies of brutality and repression. Rather it is when Mbeki lends Mugabe a hand, showing him solidarity in his drive to rule indefinitely.
Yours,
Gary Quinn
South Africa was particularly special. The crimes against the South African people in the preceding years were notorious, yet the world watched as the country transformed peacefully, and inclusively. Reconciliation supplanted retaliation, and a new country came to being under the best possible auspices.
It is many years since I left South Africa, however, I maintain close links and a sense of affinity with the land of my birth. I eagerly watch developments with pride; there is no place for which I could possibly have better wishes and higher hopes.
It is with regret that I have come to acknowledge that those hopes have proved ephemeral. In the 1990s South Africa had moral authority and under Nelson Mandela it was converted to good use. Mandela was a statesmen envied by citizens all over the world- a man who had overcome unspeakable hardships and used that experience to promote the interests of humanity.
Unfortunately, those days have long since passed. South Africa’s policy to the world has morphed into a realist’s version of ‘Africa First’. Any despot or tyrant is deserving of South African support in the face of Western opposition. The plight of African people seems irrelevant to the ANC now that they have a firm hold on power. Nowhere is this truer than in Zimbabwe, where the South African government’s shameless role as Robert Mugabe’s public relations officer has irrevocably damaged efforts to ease the suffering of the misfortunate people in that country.
South Africa also had the opportunity to convert its moral authority in results when it took a seat on the UN Security Council. Instead it preferred to play the role of a proxy for Russia and China- countries whose policies directly aggravate conflict in Africa- defending some perverse conception of ‘national sovereignty.’ South Africa could have played a role in forcing the Burmese Junta to admit more aid and relief workers, but what do the ANC care about Burma now that they have their own country to run. ANC leaders courted intervention for decades but have since retreated behind a wall of developing world despotism. This is crass hypocrisy.
What a shame that the Mandela legacy has been poisoned by this. And what a terrible pity that now when South Africa makes headline news it is not about South African leaders showing forsaken peoples how to overcome the legacies of brutality and repression. Rather it is when Mbeki lends Mugabe a hand, showing him solidarity in his drive to rule indefinitely.
Yours,
Gary Quinn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
