sinn fein refuse to criticise the re-election of george bush

by Julia Sat Nov 06, 2004 00:04 Clonakilty

Is that really Sinn Fein's official position, or something that Bairbre De Brun said in a doorstep interview? There is a difference, and journalists do not always take the trouble to point that out.
I expect that the party will not leave this non-sequitur out there for too long. It is out of sync with their usual media statements which suggest more joined-up thinking.

by Cabhog Sat Nov 06, 2004 00:13

Shock!

Bush was democratically elected. The protests against a democratic election stink of the same hypocrisy of the right in Venezula.

by Not Surprised Sat Nov 06, 2004 00:42

De Brun was the Sinn Fein representative at an anti-war press conference. Follow the link - it was reported in the Irish Times

by Scáth Shéamais Sat Nov 06, 2004 00:50

"Sinn Fein is critical of US foreign policy but not of Bush.

WHO THE HELL DO THEY THINK IS RESPONSIBLE FOR US FOREIGN POLICY????????????"


Of course. After all, before Bush there was absolutely no problem with US foreign policy, was there?!

For Christ's sake, Dubya is indeed a war criminal and terrorist who shoukd be tried for his crimes, but he's just one man - the evil of U.S. imperialism is more systemic than that. It might just have a little something to do with big business interests or, just maybe, capitalism.

by chomsky Sat Nov 06, 2004 11:26

SF has never condemned the election of anyone!! - DUP, Tories, UDA, PD. Only fucking children get off on that sort of crap. The point about elections to get elected oneself not to criticise the outcomes. The irony of this will of course be lost on the Irish "comrades" of the people who got 0.001% of the US vote!!

by Michelle Clarke - Social Justice and Ethics - Please Sat Nov 06, 2004 19:57

Let's move Forward.

There have been considerable efforts by the US to facilitate the Peace Process - names that immediately come to mind are Senator George Mitchell, former President of the US Bill Clinton, Senator Edward Kennedy........the Peace Process is moving forward and let's go global in the peace effort.........Criticism is too easy. Action is more difficult.


Try this quotation:
President of Chile Eduardon Frei, 1964
'If we always look outside for our blame, that is in itself a form of dependence we must look to our own blame to find our personality'.

My personal experience is that while going through harrowing times (subjective); everyone was only too willing to blame, criticise etc. The secret is recognising this and taking as equitable and compassionate a route as possible.


Michelle Clarke

by Michelle Clarke - Social Justice Sat Nov 06, 2004 20:05

Armistice Day – ‘Let us reclaim the Significance’

‘When on the 11th hour on the 11th day of the 11th Month the Guns stood quiet at the end of World War 1 (Poppies)

Extract: Voices in the Wilderness email notification.


Now that the U.S. election is over, violence in Iraq has increased and is continuing to spiral chaotically. Fallujah and other areas of Iraq are faced with brutal and escalating military operations. Fallujah has been the target of numerous recent air strikes, and has been sealed for the eminent U.S. military strike, a strike that many have been warning of for sometime.
Armistice Day is less than a week away. Let us reclaim the original significance of Armistice Day, when on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month the guns stood quiet at the end of World War I.

Themes which near-future action could be built upon might include:

· reclaiming the original significance of Armistice Day:
· end the US war in Iraq and bring the troops home:
· full funding for health care for veterans, including those injured by the use of depleted uranium;
· full participation by the US in the rebuilding of Iraq as the rebuilding is directed by the people of Iraq with payments for the damage done by 14 years of economic and military warfare against the people of Iraq;
· end "stop loss" orders that keep soldiers beyond the end of their enlistment agreement: and
· amnesty for war resisters.

Arundhati Roy gave a speech on the evening of the U.S. elections in Australia to tell us,

"There can be no real PEACE without JUSTICE. And without resistance there will be no justice. Today, it is not merely JUSTICE itself, but the IDEA of JUSTICE that is under attack."
http://vitw.org/archives/612

This resistance is happening. Below are a few summaries of those stories with links to the full article/update on our new web site. First, Ceylon Mooney of VitW and the Wheels of Justice Tour has a request.




Dear friends and affiliates in peace, justice, nonviolence and anti-war work,

A project of Voices in the Wilderness and Al-Awda, the Wheels of Justice Tour (http://justicewheels.org), is coming to the south early 2005. we wish to bring our nonviolent witness to war and occupation in Iraq and Palestine to your neck of the woods. We wish to spend January and February in South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida.

We are looking for individuals and organizations to host and organize events in these states. There are a number of ways to put us to work…..

Ireland provides the history, the people, the acumen, the experience and particularly in the light of the Peace Process to make an impact towards global peace and justice. Let us think of inclusivity and the words of John Hume ‘Diversity in Unity……’


Armistice Day: The poppy; its poignancy always makes me think of those who fought and lost life for Peace and Justice.

Michelle Clarke

by barry Sun Nov 07, 2004 06:19

I dont see at this stage how anyone would realistically expect the sf leadership to take an anti-bush stance.

Adams pointedly refused to attend the anti-war demonstration in Shannon despite its use by the US being a major violation of Irish sovereignty and neutrality. Donald Rumsfelds' eve of invasion address to whooping marines was done in an aircraft hangar in Shannon, meaning Iraq was effectively invaded from this country. Sinn Feins' leaders stayed silent about this illegal use of Irish soil for criminal purposes.

When the war criminals Bush and Blair decided to have their "post-war" congratulatory summit to carve Iraqi resources up between them in Hillsboro Co Down (Irish soil again), this calculated insult to our nations' sovereignty drew not a word of protest from the shinners either. Instead they contemptuously dismissed the protests outside and lined up dutifully for a photo-call and a handshake with the idiot Bush and the man who illegally occupies part of our own nation, Tony Blair.

That Ireland is basically the Guantanamo Bay of Europe, a strange little corner of the world, with no real sovereignty and where superpowers and criminal imperialists come and go as they please counts for nothing with Gerry A and the sf politburo. Not if $1000 a plate bashes in New York are on the line. I mean, what would corporate America say if "the leadership" bit the hand that feeds them ?

At least the SF leadership are being consistent. During president Clintons last visit, while Israeli snipers were slaughtering Palestinian kids live on TV with US weapons and support, Gerry and Martins' response was to jump up and down like grinning idiots doing Mexican waves while the world, including the palestinans, watched their antics on tv. Shamefully not even a whiff of protest there either.

That was around the same time that the Turkish Hungerstrikers, a number of whom had been brutally murdered while in jail, approached Gerry and co. for help in publicising their horrific plight. The SF reponse was that they dont comment on the internal affairs of other countries !! (which by the way is absolute horse-shit, )

It was the public support given by the 32 csm in Belfast along with the IRSP (who have done trojan work helping these people), as well as non -aligned former POWs and hunger-strikers such as Brendan "darkie" Hughes which caused SF to take a reddener and do a u-turn (true to form).

The claim made by "chomsky" that Sinn Fein have never criticised the result of elections is untrue. I remember them going ballistic when Joe Hendron won West-Belfast a number of years back. They even used a pensioner to take a legal action to challenge the result (nothing to do with them of course). Their main source of annoyance was that protestants had voted for Hendron to keep Gerry out , which was obviously highly undemocratic. That Joe Hendron could be the anti-christ personified, while George Bush recieves the charity of silence says it all about this miserable bunch of traitors and collaborators.

Although many SF grassroots members hold radical personal opinions, their leadership is about as radical and revolutionary as Daniel O'Donnel on Prozac.
Their prime concern is the accumulation of personal power and wealth, and in pursuit of this they have shamefully acquiesced in the occupation of their own national territory and aligned themselves with the negative influences of capitalist corporate America, the prime-instigators of the illegal occupation of Iraq and one of the major souces of SF political funding. That is why they have remained silent about Bush's return to power.

Amazingly today the right wing leader of the Britsh conservatives, Michael Howard, complains of being on a US government black-list for condemning Bush and Blairs' illegal war of occupation, while Gerry, Babs and Martin are in the US good-books and reaping lucrative financial rewards for toeing the imperialist line. Are Bobby Sands and Frank Ryan (not to mention Ernesto Guevara Lynch) proud of this miserable bunch of opportunists? Their own ma's would be ashamed of them. Shame on them all.

by Nordie Sun Nov 07, 2004 06:53

At the end of the day Sinn Fein are elected to look after the interests of the Irish republicans who voted for them to do all they can to help bring about a lasting peace in Ireland. Do you think the Palestinians would refuse to meet Bush if it was in the Palestinians interests? Wave your banners and shout all you want, but no one in power is listening.

by barry Sun Nov 07, 2004 08:11

Nordie I was impressed by your contributions to a number of other debates so I hope we can keep this difference of opinion civil, ok boss?

Firstly, throughout history Sinn Fein and Irish republicans have always sought support from similarly oppressed peoples throughout the world. This was particularly true during the 81 hungerstrikes. Turkish radical students were beaten off the streets in Istanbul for voicing support for Bobby Sands and his comrades. For Turkish revolutionaries to be rebuffed in this way in their hour of need was absolutely disgraceful in my opinion, especially as republicans were commemorating the 20th anniversary of the hungerstrikes at the time.

Secondly it would be safe to assume that the vast majority of Sinn Fein voters are opposed to George Bush and the use of our nation as both an air-craft carrier and illegal detention centre for political detainees en route to Camp X-Ray.

Far from representing these concerns the SF leadership have looked after their own financial concerns, remained silent at these insults to the very notion of Irish nationhood and political independence and aligned themselves to what I have already described as highly negative corporate interests. Therefore it is corporate American dollars, and not the concerns or interests of Irish voters which determine Sinn Feins actions in this and other concerns.

As regards bringing lasting peace to Ireland, the only way that will ever be brought about is by a recognition by Britain of full Irish sovereignty (as expressed in our Declaration of Independence) and a declaration of intent to withdraw their occupation forces and administration from Irish soil and cease their illegal interference in the affairs of the Irish nation once and for all. Sinn Fein have opted instead to accept Britsh rule in Ireland and collaborate fully with it. Furthermore George Bush, like Clinton before him has not and never will put the slightest bit of pressure on Britain to withdraw from Irish soil. How therefore can the Irish freedom struggle be advanced by meeting him, especially in the current context ?

As regards the Palestinians, a huge swathe of Palestinians would absolutely refuse to countenance meeting Bush ( not without wearing a bomb belt) just as they denounced Arafat for agreeing to Clintons terms of surrender. They correctly identified the peace process Arafat embarked upon as being disastrous for the notion of palestinian state-hood. Recent events in Palestine have proved this view correct. In Palestine, as in Ireland there can be NO peace while your nation is occupied and divided, only periodic lulls in the killing.

As for waving banners and shouting about things, I did it as a youngster during the Hungerstrikes and for years for Sinn Fein. Youre right, most times the powers that be didnt listen. Thats why we always believed theres only one language the bastards ever understood. From the looks of things in Iraq, Palestine, Turkey and Ireland theres only one language imperialists and occupiers will ever understand.

by barry Sun Nov 07, 2004 08:46

I'd just like to point out that my critcisms are mainly aimed at the sinn fein leadership and not the average sinn fein grassroots, a number of whom are personal freinds of mine, such is the power of tolerance and forgiveness.

by Nordie Sun Nov 07, 2004 08:54

Are you sure about Sinn Fein not supporting the Turkish hunger-strikers as I seem to remember a lot of articles about them in An Phoblacht at that time and a lot of support for them.

To say Sinn Fein met Bush because they didn't want to lose their fancy dinners is just ignoring the fact that Mr.Bush, cunt and all as he is, is the head of the most powerful nation in the world and his support for the peace process that Sinn Fein is wed to couldn't do any harm. The Sinn Fein position on the Iraq war is well documented and they constantly oppose Bush and the war in their paper. They are not neutral but their first duty is to their voters.


Look mate, I want a United Ireland as much as anyone but the Brits just pulling out now would cause civil war. That has to be accepted. As long as there is full civil rights in the north then I think the best way is by force of argument. The Brits aren’t just gonna pull out. The Provo's tried for 30 years to force them out and it didn't work so it's not gonna work in the future. Violence is a failure and will remain so as this situation isn’t as simple as Iraq and so forth. Violence is only gonna make a UI even further away because it will turn any liberal Protestants (and they are emerging) away from a UI and Sinn Fein have accepted that violence wasn't working. In a war of ideas it’s people who get killed.

I’m pretty sure if Bush would meet with the Palestinian factions they would meet with him if they thought it could further their cause. And even if they wouldn't it doesn't matter as Sinn fein are Sinn fein and are elected for Irish issues. FFS they've met with loyalists and the Brits! Their postion has always been that they'll meet with anyone. Sinn Fein signed the GFA and all their voters support it and so I’m sure if Sinn Fein thought meeting was Bush could further their cause then they were right in doing so.

by barry Sun Nov 07, 2004 10:26

Nordie, I didnt say Sinn Fein (the party as a whole) didnt support the Turks. What I said was the leadership told the turks relatives to basically get lost. Other republican groups and ex-prisoners took up their case and publicised it. A lot of ordinary shinners then became aware of the situation and voiced their support also (fair play to them), forcing their leadership into doing a u-turn. Thats what I mean about the leadership keeping themselves right despite their grass-roots concerns.

Yes Sinn Fein then helped publicise the situation 6 or 7 monhs after they were asked.Sinn Fein sent delegates to Turkey were they were gladly recieved and looked after.
A turkish delegate was invited to speak from the platform at Casement park on the 20th anniversary of the Hungerstrikes and was in turn warmly recieved by ordinary grass roots supporters who were genuine in their concerns and support. What they didnt know was before he spoke the Sinn Fein leadership seized his speech and insisted upon editing a number of pieces of it. The poor man who'd drove the whole way from London was then forced to spend the night in his car despite being an invited guest speaker, which angered a great many people in Belfast at the time who gladly would have helped him had they been aware.
I can only assume that this was a calculated petty insult by the Belfast leadership in revenge for having been embarrased.( a number of friends of mine have encountered equal petty vindictiveness from the same individuals over the years so Im serious on this point)
My main criticism of the Sinn Fein leadership IS that they are welded to what you call "the peace-process", I call it the terms of surrender. The use of violence (although I believe it is sadly inevitable) is not the issue here. The Hillsboro agreement recognises the undemocratic and artificial unionist veto on unity and Britains right to occupy part of the Irish nation. That is completely unacceptable to any self respecting republican and a total betrayal of EVERYTHING generations fought and died for. Unfortunately most people that I know who voted yes didnt even read the GFA but just voted for it because the leadership told them theyd get a united Ireland (which was a downright lie just like no return to Stormont and no decommissioning ) The GFA is now a major OBSTACLE to Irish unity and that is why I believe it should be rejected in its totality, not because I want to see violence.

As regards liberal protestants emerging, a principled republican leadership held talks with protestant church leaders and even paramilitaries during the hieght of violence in the 70s so its nothing new. Unfortunately this Sinn Fein leadership undermined them as weak for doing so and threw out their generous Eire Nua proposals as "a sop to unionism" That they went into Stormont, wore poppies, decomissioned and are now on the verge of joining the new RUC shows what hypocrites they are. The threat of ethnic slaughter by the British to to prevent Irish unity is nothing new and merely a key plank in their war srategy for 200 years now. It will only happen if the Britsh arm and direct loyalist murder gangs. That they are more than capable of doing this is another reason why they should be got out of this country.

Unfortunately the Irish struggle isnt a "war of ideas" (if only it were)or for civil rights (basically equal British citizenship), but has always been a war of national liberation against an occupying force. We are entitled to our independence from Britain as of right, and this right is non-negotiable. George Bush supports the Brits to the hilt so there is absolutely nothing to be gained from meeting him, while people who have always supported us throughout the world are now disgusted. So I'm sorry Nordie I will have to seriously disagree with you on this point, please dont take it personally. Im sure theres plenty we do agree upon.

by Nordie Sun Nov 07, 2004 12:31

Well, you can call it surrender but surrender would mean that it is the end. What other alternative is there besides the GFA? I’m prepared to live with it if there is full civil rights and peace until such time as a UI comes naturally. I'm sure the Brit's would actually love to fuck off at last but they can't be seen to do that by the threat or use of violence. Things have changed and when the Brits say they have no selfish, strategic or economic interest in 'Northern Ireland' then, for once, I'll believe them. The Brits get nothing but heartache, earache and pocketache from their presence here. The only hope I can see for them going though is if there is a vote for freedom from Britain and the DUP are doing more for Irish unity than they realise as a lot of intelligent prods are starting to see how hopeless and stupid and ultimately unworkable this horrible wee state is. The wind is blowing our way, the KKKatholic Church down South doesn’t run the show anymore and so minds are changing.

Violence is a failure. It's a hard lesson to learn but every Irish war against the Brits has been a failure. It's just not going to happen any more as far as I can see and hope. It's only inevitable if people want it to be. Bombs on the street, tearing women apart are not going to bring about a British declaration of withdrawal and Irish unity, it’s just going to make the north an even blacker hole.

by barry Sun Nov 07, 2004 16:43

Nordie mate, there is ALWAYS an alternative. The powerful only tell us here is no alternative to prevent us from questioning the status quo and thinking for ourselves.The alternative to accepting British rule in Ireland is NOT to accept it. The alternative to administering British rule in Ireland is simply NOT to do it. It is collaboration with an occupying power, pure and simple and only prolongs the brits stinking hateful presence in our lovely wee nation.The GFA's inevitable outcome will be nationalists in the PSNI shooting republican opponents of British rule down in the streets and carting them off to jail (as well as being shot down themselves). Once they put on the brits uniform there "will be no alternative" and it will be an outright disater within republican communities.

A united Ireland will not "come naturally". The sectarian unionist veto on unity is enshrined within the GFA making a UI impossible within that famework, which is why republicans MUST reject it.
Thankfully more and more do as time goes on and the cracks in Sinn Fein leadership strategy become wider. Im not criticising you for being happy to accept basic civil rights in return for accepting British rule, but the republican position has never been about that.

The British governments presence here is the root of the conflict. Their presnce here is totally illegal under international law. The Irish people formally declared their independence from Britain at the ballot box in 1918 making a UI ours by right, not some far flung aspiration. By accepting the GFA all we do is hand the job of removing British rule onto our children and make their task even harder. Acceptance of the GFA by nationalists has now led the Brit supremo Paul Murphy to state that "30 years of conflict here was not a struggle for Irish independence, but a prolonged sectarian riot". Therefore as far as the Brits are concerned there was never any desire for a UI, therefore they are going absolutely nowhere.(the bastards)

The British excuse of not really wanting to be here is a total lie they have been spinning to Irish people for generations. They are currently spinning the same lie in Iraq. Dont forget that while Peter Brooke was telling us in 89 about how they had no selfish interests in Ireland his government were arming the scum of the loyalist earth to the teeth and sending them into our communities to slaughter the innocent proving his words to be yet more brit bullshit.

I agree with you Nordie that it would be better to have no violence. I would be very interested in deed to hear non-violent alternatives to the GFA. What about something along the lines of the "velvet-revolutions" we saw in Eastern Europe along with the assistance of the UN for example ? All our people and our leaders have to do stand up and tell the Brits to get the fuck out once and for all. Remember the British presence here is illegal and a UI is ours by right. If we fail to show an imaginative response to the GFA and British rule only then does a return to armed conflict become inevitable. Think about it, ok ?

by liberal prod! Sun Nov 07, 2004 17:14

It is unlikely that S.F would criticise the re election of Bush since a lot of their support in the U.S consists of ultra cons who back Bush. It is also worth noting that a number of R.C bishops in the U.S called for a bush vote, most notably in Ohio on the basis that he is pro life!(fuc**d up or what?)

Seems a Republican is a Republican is a Republican.....Quite sad really.

by barry Sun Nov 07, 2004 17:35

Indeed it is. And its going to get even sadder unfortunately. The fact that Gerry's biggest backer in the US is Peter king, a right-wing conservative head-banger means its unlikely to change in the forseeable future. (not all republicans are the same by the way. Those of us with a bit of self respect are banned completely from the US, which means we must be right)

by liberal prod Mon Nov 08, 2004 20:10

must be turning in his grave. What started out as a liberal prod agenda way back then has become a neo con R.C joke. Republicanism is a long way from what either bush or adams follow, it is an abuse of language.

Vive le Republique!

by barry Tue Nov 09, 2004 05:12

Mo chara, you are 100% right. Its not just an abuse of language, its an abuse of basic human dignity and intelligence.To be a "moderate" today you have to back an agreement which legalises institutionalised sectarianism. (thats when youre not fawning over British and American war criminals)

When you really sit down and think what "real" republicans went through and how they were persecuted it would make you sick. How does "unite catholic, protestant and dissenter under the common name of Irishman " in order to "break the connection with England, the never ending source of all our evils" get twisted into "lets administer British rule from Stormont in order to get equal British citizenship for Catholics (and sure someday we'll outbreed those prod bastards) while at the same time we'll keep well in with the bishops here and in the US, cos thats what respectable people do. Sure wasnt Bush elected?"
Robert Emmet, Jemmy Hope, Henry Joy, Thomas Russel,Thomas Davis, where are you now that we need you ?(not in Connoly House, thats for f####ng sure!!!)