Robert Fisk on Shannon Refuelling

by Jake Tue May 25, 2004 19:15

it was the American's sole decision to leave

however, if public pressure CAUSED them to leave Shannon then that is a different story.

Fisk is probably right that most of the troops don't care whether they use Shannon or Frankfurt.

But the troops aren't the ones making the decisions, and BUSH and co DO CARE about being able to land where they like.

It would be a public slap in the face if they had little choice but to stop abusing Shannon.

by Roger - panap Fri May 21, 2004 17:53 pana at eircom dot net 17 Castle Street, Dalkey 2351512

I never sought to imply anybody had attacked Fisk and I am glad Dominic is contacting him as there is little point in continuing this discussion without knowing his response.
If Pat said the war was over, then he is profoundly mistaken, as it is just starting. As well as being Chair of PANA, I am a member of the Labour Party and I am fairly certain that a very large number of the members of the Labour Party probably now including Pat would no longer argue that the war is over.
The central point of the war is that it changes peoples minds and creates new alliances. I would contend that the war will transform global politics, including political allegiences in Ireland, and the result of the election in Spain is just the start of that process.
PANA's attitude is very clear. We seek an Independent Irish foreign policy, not just for the existing 26 county state but for all of Ireland. The process of achieving that objective is through dialogue and discussion, through a process that is exclusively peacefull and democratic. It is only via that route can an Independent Irish Republic with its own foreign policy be achieved, and nobdy is saying the achievement of that objective is goig to be easy.

by Paddy X Thu May 20, 2004 03:59

Why do you think you can extricate Ireland from American influence when you have not succeeded in extricating Ireland-North and South-from British control?

by Deirdre Clancy Wed May 19, 2004 00:08

I agree with Dominic that it is definitely the right approach to discuss what Fisk said, although there is a danger that too much would be made of it. I think he is an excellent and incisive journalist for the most part, and this is one point on which he happens to lack insight. It's not going to change the face of the anti-war movement in Ireland or anything earth shattering like that.

With regard to Roger Cole's comment: "However there is little point in attacking Bob Fisk, what is needed is dialogue and discussion." I don't think anyone on this thread has attacked Fisk, and Dominic's original newswire item certainly didn't do so. Anyone who critiqued his commentary also mentioned their overall admiration for his work. Dialoging and discussing is exactly what we've been doing. I only mention this because I do feel that people who post newswire items and comments sometimes are misrepresented by other posters on Indymedia. It's a hobby horse of mine.

With regard to the Labour Party's view of Shannon, I would like to add that I had a conversation with Pat Rabbite last year, wherein he asserted that Iraq was now "irrelevant" because the "war was over". He also stated that the only reason he had spoken out against the use of Shannon was because of the violation of our neutrality. He stated all of this with a tone of huge impatience for the point of view of those of us picketing the Dail at that time. Is the Irish Labour Party going the route of the British New Labour? Certainly, I had to wonder that after my encounter with Rabbite, though I realise his view is not necessarily representative of everyone in the party. It's the view of the leader, though, which is significant.

by Dominic Carroll Tue May 18, 2004 20:59

For clarification, I happened to have taped Questions & Answers, so it was a simple matter to transcribe Robert Fisk’s comment. I felt it worth posting it here rather than succumb to a strong temptation to ignore it in the hope it would go away. As it happens, I think the ensuing discussion has been very useful in getting to the bottom of why Robert made this comment. Needless to say, Robert Fisk is a powerful element within the anti-war movement, and I have the greatest respect for the work he does and his willingness to speak as he sees it. It’s just a pity he sees the issue of Shannon in this way. Hopefully, he can be persuaded to see it differently. I’ve written to him today, and I encourage others to do likewise.

by pc Tue May 18, 2004 19:16

muist type out what he said

by Fintan Lane - Anti-War Ireland Tue May 18, 2004 18:57 info at antiwarireland dot org 087 1258325

Fisk's comments were disappointing, but, as has been said already, it is clear that his focus is on Ireland as part of the EU (and on the effect that pressure from the EU could put on the Bush administration). It's also probably a case of not seeing the trees for the wood. That said, his remarks were unhelpful and almost certainly will be quoted back at us.

However, the bottom line remains that Fianna Fail and the PDs have integrated Shannon airport into the US war machine, and that is not acceptable, not least because the majority of Irish people opposed the war on Iraq. Moreover, in terms of the wider impact if refuelling was denied to the US, I think it is fair to say that such a move would be extremely encouraging for anti-war movements in other countries within the US sphere of influence. The disengagement of ANY country from the US war machine will have a knock-on effect.

by corley Tue May 18, 2004 18:01

Sorry if I made you laugh . I wasn't trying to personalise things .Really. Just trying to dissuade you from the notion that anyone would find you idiotic or amusing .

by David Tue May 18, 2004 17:52

it's on-line herehttp://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0517/qanda.html

by eoin Tue May 18, 2004 17:21

Why protest against cuban involvement in angola,
their were helping the mlpa which had widespread public support. as opposed to the unita which was an agent of south africa and later south africa and usa.
During their involvement they helped with infrastructure and education.
In the democratic elections the mlpa won a sizeable marority.
all this points to cuban soldiers helping angolans to fight off an aggressive racist neighbour.

by Roger Cole - PANA Tue May 18, 2004 17:07 pana at eircom dot net 17 Castle Street, Dalkey 01-2351512

The decision of the FF/PD government to collaborate with the illegal invasion, conquest and occupation of Iraq was a major turning point in Irish history. For the first time in the history of the state the government openly and actively supported an imperial war of conquest so that the US and its allies could appoint a puppet government through which they would control the oil.
The policy of Irish neutrality has been terminated and the ptocess of the intergration of Ireland into the EU/US military industrial complex is nearly complete. All the elite now need is victory on the referendum on the proposed EU Constitution which will legally destroy Irish Independence, Irish democracy and Irish neutrality.
The reason why Fisk makes little of the use of Shannon is because he believes in Ireland/Europe, not an Independent Irish Republic with its own foreign policy. That is the belief that Ireland should be intergrated into the EU so that it could become an alternative power to the US. There is nothing new in this concept, as many people in the Irish Labour Party that oppose the US war on Iraq share Robert Fisk's views. There is a need for real debate and discussion on the nature of the future of the European Union and its role in regard to US Imperialism, and its own potential to become an Imperial state. As far as PANA is concerned since 20 states in Europe already have troops in Iraq, others such as Germany has also allowed their airports to be used by the US the imperial capacity of the EU is self evident. There is no such thing as a "good Empire". However there is little point in attacking Bob Fisk, what is needed is dialogue and discussion.

by pc Tue May 18, 2004 16:01

what dominic said he said seemed to be something that rf could probalby have said ....

its not on th rte site afaik

by Deirdre Clancy Tue May 18, 2004 15:55

First of all, I am not "aghast" at anything Fisk thought about me or any of my anti-war friends - most of whom aren't conventionally religious, by the way. I have never met Fisk or encountered him; and am confident enough in my views to be able to back them up myself. I am simply of the opinion that Fisk lacks a true understanding of why Irish people in general who are anti-war, and specifically the people in the audience who mentioned it, were angry about Shannon. I thought his demeanor was of someone who lacked insight into the issue, and that the way he put things was acutally ill thought through and off the cuff. I actually saw the programme.

Secondly, I have no respect for people who post up personalised opinons about me or any of my friends without identifying themselves. You clearly don't know us that well if you're not willing to be honest about who you are.

by corley Tue May 18, 2004 15:36

I didn't see the program myself but Fisk seems to have touched a raw nerve .Dierdre Clancy is aghast that he might see people like herself as "slightly amusingly idiotic " . I don't think people see them like that. I've met Deirdre and some of her religious friends - I found them naive maybe but not in anyway idiotic or amusing.

by No-one in particular Tue May 18, 2004 15:35

He didn't question the campaign he questioned the military benefit to the US of the Shannon stopover.

Don't be so egocentric.

The campaign is good and well organised, keep it up and know your allies.

by pc Tue May 18, 2004 15:22

RF regrets that he cannot accept e-mails but letters may be sent c/o Foreign Desk, 191 Marsh Wall, London E14 9RS would like to see some clarifications on thsi point

the site http://www.robert-fisk.com/
has this address [email protected]

sent a email to that must get out pen and paper

by PosterWatch Tue May 18, 2004 15:19

First, I have the height of respect for the Ploughshares Group and the Catholic Workers - its the political hangers on that can turn some people off. I agree that the Americans only intervene when it suits their greater interests.

But where were all these Anti War groups in the '80s when the Russian government were behaving in a similar manner to the Americans? Was there protests against the Cuban governrment for its involvement in Angola? Od course it was and is right to protest against American foreign policy, however the protests seemed to be one sided.

I appreciate that you were involved in the Tibeten protests - however you have to agree that the level of general effort and interest in much less.

Your comments that China is no longer communist from an economic point of view is correct - Vietnam is ironically gone the same way. However the one party, no dissent, totalitarian treatment of individuals remains. Surely that is as much protesting against as the fact that the free market operates.

by Deirdre Clancy - pitstop plougshares Tue May 18, 2004 14:38

I'd like to address the following point made by another contributor:

"Dont be fooling yourself. If Russia was still communist and was still in Afghanistan, the Americans would still be the focus of protests. Look at the way the Chinese illegal occupation of Tibet is generally ignored - there were very few protests last week at their prime ministers visit. No threatened boycotts, airport pickets, marches. The difference is that the Chinese are communist which suits many elements of the anti war movement. Either that or the life of a Tibeten is wort less than that of a Muslim."

With regard to the comments above, I'm a part of the anti-war movement and I have been involved in opposing the occupation of Tibet. I have spoken out about it also; most recently around this time last year, in an article in the Belfast Telegraph. Human rights abuses by China in Tibet and domestically have always been an issue for me and for many of the anti-war activists that I know and have known. There are many activists who are very much focused on this.

The US used the invasion of Kuwait as an excuse to go to war in '91, but many invasions have occurred that successive US administrations have more or less ignored, including the ones you mention and including those of East Timor, West Papua - you name it. They have also ignored many human rights abuses by dictatorships other than the Iraqi one, and the fact that 99% of weapons of mass destruction that exist in the Middle East are those possessed by one of their greatest allies. Anti-war activists are not anti-American, at least not the ones that I know. Culturally many of my greatest influences come from America, but I am against many aspects of US foreign policy, which are the most dangerous in terms of global stability because of the enormous economic sway that the US possesses. All US policies, political and economic, have a knock-on effect for the rest of the world, as long as the US remains a superpower. So your "reds under the bed" arguments and attempts to stereotype anti-war activists don't stand up at all.

Added to this, China is no longer economically communist, so if it were the case that anti-war activists had a secret communist agenda, as you seem to think, the last thing they would be doing is supporting China just when it's regarded by the Western stock market analysts as a very promising emerging market that is worthy of heavy investment. China is on the verge of becoming as capitalist as the rest of the world - nobody on the extreme left would have a vested interest in defending it on the grounds that it was particularly socialist or communist. Your argument simply has no grounding in reality.

by John Tue May 18, 2004 13:45

Some wonderful news for all supporters of capitalism and America. Its clear that Sinn Fein are in the process of abandoning their anti-capitalism and anti-Americanism. They may deny it, but its happening. Its a slow slow process and only 25% completed, but it will come. I'm fascinated to know whether the Left in Ireland will include the Sinn Fein vote as part of the overall left-wing vote on June 11. If they do, they are bonkers and unable to read the signals. Sinn Fein are really FF for slow learners. They are at the stage FF were at under De Valera in the 1950s, still making occasional anti-capitalist and anti-American noises, but approaching the point of becoming a fully-fledged pro-capitalist pro-American party. After Gerry Adams retires, they just need some 30-something yuppy type with no terrorist background as a new leader, in order to make the final transition to respectability. I predict that in 10 years they will be to the right of FF and FG. By the way, that is intended as a compliment. And, the reason for being so optimistic? I've just received a copy of the Sinn Fein election literature for N. Ireland. Its very professional
indeed. If they distribute it down south, they could well increase their vote in places like Foxrock and Leopardstown. It has dropped all mention of socialism and anti-Americanism. Not a word about James Connolly or Che Guevara. The term 'working-class' doesn't appear once. Nothing about Shannon. No pictures of Gerry Adams shaking hands with Fidel Castro. All that rubbish has been binned. In its place, in an inside page is a photograph of Martin McGuinness and Barbara DeBruin. I've never seen two such bourgeois-looking politicians in my life. Barbara looks gorgeous in a very expensive dress, and Martin looks resplendent in a dinner jacket and bow-tie. They look for all the world like film stars on their way into the Oscar ceremony. And who are they pictured with in this photo? Why, none other than two members of the New York Fire Department, immaculate in their uniforms. I'll bet any money they will be voting for Bush in November, the firemen I mean, not Martin and Barbara, as they don't have votes in America. Now, if that photo isn't intended to send out signals, I don't know what is. The more I look at that photo, and how resplendent and elegant Martin looks, the more I think he should forget about politics and take up a movie career. He could easily be the next James Bond. Now that Pierce Brosnan is quitting the role, its important to keep the role of Her Majesty's Top Secret Service Agent with an Irish actor, and Martin would be ideal. He certainly has the looks and the dress sense, if this photo is anything to go by. Imagine a movie in which James Bond liberates Cuba from the Castro tyranny, and the part of James Bond is played by an ex-Marxist revolutionary guerilla leader, who may well have actually met Castro once upon a time. I think such a movie would go down a bomb in America, if you'll pardon the expression when talking about someone like Martin. Its certainly worth a thought.

by PosterWatch Tue May 18, 2004 13:42

Dont be fooling yourself. If Russia was still communist and was still in Afghanistan, the Americans would still be the focus of protests. Look at the way the Chinese illegal occupation of Tibet is generally ignored - there were very few protests last week at their prime ministers visit. No threatened boycotts, airport pickets, marches. The difference is that the Chinese are communist which suits many elements of the anti war movement. Either that or the life of a Tibeten is wort less than that of a Muslim.

And I am anti the illegal war in Iraq.

by Deirdre Clancy Tue May 18, 2004 13:34

I know Fisk's analysis was based on the "bigger picture", but his demeanor on Qs&As suggested that he utterly misunderstood the reasons for the anger about Shannon among Irish people. Shannon is a natural focus in terms of highlighting our own government's complicity in the wider atrocities. It is precisely because we want to make a statement about the bigger picture that protests occur at Shannon, which are both symbolic protests against the war/occupation and literal ones against our own complicity. I don't think anyone seriously thinks Shannon should be the only focus of protest or the only thing we should be talking about. It is just the natural setting for Irish anti-war activists.

Does Fisk seriously think we all believe that shutting down Shannon to troops will in itself stop wars/occupations? Does he seriously think we all perceive Iraqis to be thinking about Shannon every day, when many of them are fighting for their very lives? His demeanor suggested he thought those in the audience complaining about Shannon were slightly amusingly idiotic and did believe these things. I admire Fisk a lot as a journalist, but I found that attitude unhelpful. It demonstrated his own lack of engagement with Irish sentiment and awareness of it, rather than anything insightful about why the Irish anti-war movement (in lowercase) thinks the way it does about Shannon.

by XZBarcalow Tue May 18, 2004 13:30

That was 20 years ago, you muppet. many people in the anti-war movement were still in prams for fuck sake. Dont be so stupid. So why weren't you protesting against Napoleon's attack on Russia? Or the massacre at Wounded Knee? What a double standard etc etc...

by PosterWatch Tue May 18, 2004 13:09

Was there a picket in Shannon when the Russians were using it to fly military equipment to Cuba. THe Russians were in Afghanistan at the time (another invasion of a Muslim state).

The level of double standards is amazing and seems to be more politically led than any humanitariam concerns.

by John Tue May 18, 2004 12:33

Oh grow up! All the government is basically doing is allowing American troops to buy duty-free alcohol, cigarettes and perfume in Ireland. What's wrong with that? Ireland has for decades had lots of multi-million euro contracts for the export of food products to American troops stationed in Germany. Do you want the government to cancel those too? And Ireland exports about 20 billion euro worth of products to America annually. Perhaps you would like the recipients of these products in America to sign agreements that none will make their way to the military there. In which case, exports from Ireland to America next year will be precisely zero and 500,000 Irish people will be on the dole. Is that what you want? If Shannon gets bombed it will be your fault, as Al Quaeda had never heard of Ireland, let alone Shannon, until you lot set up camp there. Ireland will never turn seriously hostile to America, whatever the preference of most Irish for the Democratic Party over the Republican Party is. Economically, Ireland is allready virtually part of America. Ireland is fairly typical of a north-east American state, not too keen on Bush but definitely in favour of the American way of life and spirit of free enterprise. Economically, culturally, ethnically, geographically Ireland is the country in Europe that is closest to America, and that will never change. McDonalds has more outlets per capita in Ireland than in any other country in the world, apart from America and Canada. Sales of coca-cola per capita in Ireland are the highest in Europe. That must really make you anti-Americans feel quite gutted. If it wasn't for America the Irish economy would sink without trace, it would be reduced to the lowly status of a Cuba or North Korea. This year the number of American tourists in Ireland will be an all-time record, despite all your anti-American protests. But, more significantly, the number of Irish tourists visiting America is going thru the roof, up almost 50% on a year ago. Even the American soldier who captured Saddam Hussein turns out to be from Mayo. I'd advise the local town council where he came from to rename the town after him (the soldier I mean, not Saddam Hussein as you'd prefer).
That would bring a lot of American tourists to that part of Mayo in the years to come, and maybe even encourage a few American companies to set up shop there.

by Eoin Dubsky Tue May 18, 2004 12:16

Stopping the foreign fighters in Iraq *before* they got there was obviously more important than withdrawing support for them later. I made this point a few days ago in a post here about candidate MEPs from Fianna Fail who voted in January 2003 to continue foreign military overflights and refueling at Shannon (http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=65003). But I think it's still important that we stop the overflights and refueling now, for the reasons listed by Fintan, among others.

Irish foreign policy more generally though needs to be democratised. The Phoenix Magazine and the Irish Times reported from time to time over the past few years how terribly bellicose the Ireland has been at EU meetings to discuss "counter-terrorism" and American aggressions in Afghanistan and Iraq. They've basically been parroting the White House's line, and sometimes ended up to the right even of the Italians (*that's* rightwing!).

The Irish High Court last year made it perfectly clear that the government's foreign affairs is out of control, and that we can't even turn to the courts to try and bring it under control either:

In explaining part of his judgement (Horgan v Ireland, which went in the government's
favour), Judge Kearns explored the possibilities of what horrors may
occur if he had ruled in Ed's favour instead:
"(e) interpretation of the Constitutional principles as argued for by
the plaintiff would clearly permit a challenge to a war declared by the
Executive even with the approval of the Dáil under Article 28.3, on the
grounds that it was a war that did not comply with justice and morality,
or the principle of pacific settlement of disputes, under Articles 29.1
and 29.2.

I accept and hold with the submission of the defendants that the
provisions of Article 29.1 . 3 are to be seen therefore as statements of
principle or guidelines rather than binding rules on the Executive."
(http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=48788)

I think we need to rebuild grassroots resistance to the Shannon military stopovers. At the same time though, it'd be excellent to have activists in Europe who can help keep an eye on, and cause a ruckus for, the Berties, Biffos, Blairs, and Berlusconis of Europe. I think we've got to try and get some laws through that will bind the State to a lawful foreign policy. In New Zealand the conservatives are trying to undo the Nuclear Free Zone Act. Here in Ireland we don't even have one to start with.

by David Tue May 18, 2004 12:04

They have to go somewhere else.

If they are thrown out of that airport they'll have to go somewhere else.

Eventually they'll have nowhere to go and they could lose a lot of friends along the way

by Jim Tue May 18, 2004 11:26

I have always respected Robert Fisk and was quite disappointed with what he said last night on Questions & Answers. No doubt Bertie & Co. will try to use this against the opponents of US military refuelling at Shannon, but as they say, one swallow doesn't make a summer.

Whatever about the Iraqis, one group that may be interested in Shannon is Al Qaeda and they might decide to hit a softer target due to the security at Shannon, i.e. Dublin, Cork, Limerick, etc.

Fisk's analysis was based on the bigger picture rather than on what's going on at Shannon. If Shannon wasn't so important to Bush and Co we would not be facing the unprecedented security there next month. George and Bertie are telling the Irish people that Shannon is open for military business to the US and neutrality has been replaced with Irish complicity with the New World Order.

Another example of this was Defence Minister Michael Smith's chairing of EU meeting yesterday to set up an EU arms procurement agency and extend co-operation in EU arms development. Neutrality My Arse! (to borrow a phrase).