Ahern is accused of being Bush’s puppet

by R. Isible Wed Dec 28, 2005 21:01

(c) Irish Independent, Brian Dowling, Lorna Reid Dec 28 2005
(reposting as log in required to access full-text)
The Irish Independent has a longish (for them) piece citing Noam Chomsky's criticism of Taoiseach Bertie Ahern for allowing US planes to use Shannon airport for refuelling. The piece is couched as an "angry denunciation" by the government of the criticism and repeats unquestioningly and without criticism the Taoiseach's assurances that the use of Shannon is completely legal. It does not contain any questioning of these assertions or provide corroboration of the point by independent legal scholars. It does not mention the repeated harrasment of peaceful activists (Ed Horgan, Tim Hourigan, etc) by the very police force that has ignored 3 requests to search aircraft to make sure that they are not violating Irish law. There is however a foolish quote from the irrelevant, pretentious "Bono" which provides absolutely no information about either Chomsky or Ireland's shameful subservience to the US aggressors.
Taoiseach 'shining the shoes' of US President, says leading academic

Brian Dowling

and Lorna Reid

THE Government reacted angrily last night after a leading US academic compared Taoiseach Bertie Ahern to a "shoe-shine boy" for President George Bush.

In a scathing attack on the Government's foreign policy, the influential anti-war academic Noam Chomsky accused Mr Ahern of "shining the shoes" of the US President by allowing US warplanes to use Shannon airport.

Speaking in advance of a lecture in Trinity College, Dublin next month, Professor Chomsky depicted the Government as little more than grovelling to US demands.

The 77-year-old - who is the eighth most quoted author in the world - asked whether Mr Ahern was following the will of the Irish people or following orders from Washington.

A long-time critic of US foreign policy, Professor Chomsky said the Taoiseach's actions in allowing Shannon to be used for the refuelling of US military aircraft could only be justified "if the goal of the Irish Government was to be the obedient servant of the global superpower". "This tells you that western politicians despise democracy and prefer to shine the shoes of the power," he said.

But a spokesman for the Government said the Taoiseach and Foreign Affairs Minister Dermot Ahern categorically rejected the allegations made by Professor Chomsky.

"They are satisfied that Ireland's position regarding the use of Shannon is fully compliant with domestic requirements and our international obligations.

"Arrangements for overflight and landing in Ireland of US military and civilian aircraft have been in place under successive governments for almost 50 years."

The spokesman said the Government's position had been approved by the Dail on March 20, 2003 and was wholly in accordance with US Security Council resolutions on the situation in Iraq, including that of November 8, 2005.

The broadside from Professor Chomsky came ahead of his visit to Ireland where he will deliver the Amnesty International annual lecture at Trinity College on January 18.

The controversial academic, who has been aligned to left wing politics for over 60 years, has been dubbed "the Elvis of Academia" by U2 lead singer Bono.

A spokesman for Labour Party leader Pat Rabbitte reiterated the party's opposition to the decision to allow US warplanes to refuel at Shannon.

"We have consistently opposed the use of Shannon for US military flights and its use for CIA flights too," the spokesman said.

The party's foreign affairs spokesman and veteran international campaigner, Michael D Higgins, said Professor Chomsky's remarks only served to prove that the Taoiseach had "danced around the media" on the whole issue of the use of Shannon.

"The Taoiseach has accepted the simple assurances from diplomats about rendition, but the argument is, if we have friendly relations with the US then what has America got to fear from inspections of their aircraft, if they are telling the truth," Mr Higgins said.

Last week the Irish Human Rights Commission said the Government must inspect US planes landing at Shannon to ensure terror suspects were not being transported to alleged torture camps elsewhere.

by choking on the meusli Thu Dec 29, 2005 14:07

This is what ye have to do, next month when Chomsky comes to dublin and speaks at UCD on
January 17th and 19th
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=73522
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=73523
and of course gives the anual Amnesty lecture in TCD on the 18th
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=73134
listen to him with as much respect as you can muster, and when he leaves the stage thereafter let a great shout be raised :- "Elvis has left the building!". Ask him to wave a big sandwich too.

by rob Thu Dec 29, 2005 16:35

Yes it was a terrible article, there was no mention of what a fraud chomsky is. Also nothing about his denial of the horrors of pol pot. Bono is pretty much an indentikit example of people who swallow the mans rantings

by analyst Thu Dec 29, 2005 16:37

why do you call Chomsky a fraud? You may disagree with his analysis of Cambodia, but to call him a fraud seems over the top. A fraud is a conscious liar, someone who pretends to be one thing (eg an ally of the working class), while actually bein gsomething else (eg a paid agent of the state). Chomsky is a well known activist who has produced much material of great value. It seems to me that you should express your disagreements with his views without libelling his personality - ie play the ball, not the man.

by Coilín Thu Dec 29, 2005 21:02

Thanks for your comment, Rob.

Can you tell me where you have seen or heard Chomsky deny the horrors of Pol Pot? Can you give me a book title, or an URL, by any chance?

My experience of Chomsky is that he usually refers to reliable sources, as every good academic and reporter should. So I'd sincerely like to know if you can document factual errors in his writings.

Best,
Coilín.

by Coilín Thu Dec 29, 2005 21:30 086-060 3818

Yesterday, I sent a message to Chomsky in which I quoted the full front-page story from the Irish Independent, plus almost all of the other two articles inside the same paper and all of the editorial, and today I received the following reply:

Noam Chomsky wrote:
> Haven't the slightest idea where those quotes come from. I
> was asked a few
> days ago by an Irish Times reporter whether I had any
> comment on the use of
> Shannon airport. My answer, in full, was:
> On the question, I'm sure you can anticipate. "Rendition"
> is a shameful
> and cowardly crime. Any association with it is deplorable.
>
> Can't find any record of my having said anything about Ahern
> (or even
> knowing who he is). Do you have any idea what the source
> is?
-SNIP-

I telephoned the Irish Independent this afternoon and a lady on the news desk told me that the story came from the Press Association wire service. According to Chomsky, a journalist on The Irish Times has told him the same thing.

This afternoon, between 3 and 4 pm, I repeatedly phoned the Press Association (on 01-605 6330) and got a message that the person on extension ___ was not available and that I could either leave a message or press 0 for assistance. When I pressed 0, I found myself speaking to somebody at the Sunday Business Post who could not explain why that might happen. So I phoned again and left a message requesting somebody to phone back. But no reply so far.

In another e-mail message to me, Chomsky says:
> I presume there is a source. I agree that journalists
> rarely simply invent
> something. I simply can't find any record of it in any
> interview, or even
> in e-mail. And not knowing what the source is, I can't
> comment on its
> accuracy or what it was about.
-SNIP-
> Before sending this I found a letter from the Irish Times
> reporter. I
> don't like to forward private correspondence, but what he
> said is that the
> stories are based on the Press Association wire service.
> I've never heard
> of that, and wrote to ask him what it is, and whether they
> cited a source.
-SNIP-


So I look forward to finding out whether Chomsky actually said what he is said to have said.

If anybody from the Press Association reads this, or if anybody else has any information, please phone me at the number provided above!

Best,
Coilín.

by Coilín Mon Jan 02, 2006 17:01

Update:

1. The Press Association has not yet gotten back to me to answer questions about the source of the alleged quotes about Bertie shining Dubya's shoes and about the EU.

2. Chomsky has now informed me that the source seems to be a journalist who interviewed him last May! So it was inappropriate to indicate that the quotes had been made in association with the forthcoming trip to Dublin ("Speaking ahead of a visit to Ireland next month ...").

3. In the Irish Times today, Deaglán de Bréadún clarifies:
****
Even in advance of his visit, Chomsky has been taken to task in the Irish media for something that, as he points out, he never actually said.
Reported as calling Bertie Ahern a 'shoeshine boy' for President Bush, he was condemned for using "typical Chomsky insulting language towards the Taoiseach".
This arose out of a report by the Press Association, a leading news agency, which he also disputes, where the actual quote attributed to him is as follows: "Western politicians despise democracy and prefer to shine the shoes of the power(i.e. the US)".
****

Note that Chomsky makes no specific reference to the Taoiseach! He only barely knows Bertie's name!

Best,
Coilín.

by Coilín Tue Jan 03, 2006 20:48

On review of the article published by the Press Association, I note that the wording is more than just "inappropriate", it is factually incorrect. This is how the article opens:
****
Taoiseach Bertie Ahern is shining the shoes of US president George Bush by allowing Shannon Airport to be used by American war planes, it was claimed today.
Speaking ahead of a visit to Ireland next month, controversial academic Noam Chomsky also accused the Irish Government of being the US's obedient servant.
****
In the context of the first sentence, "today" means the date of publication of the article, i.e. 27 December.

When the first sentence of an article contains a plain fabrication of factual detail, it is hard to put much faith in the rest.

I await news of the tape and/or transcript of the interview of last May from which the journalist alleges the quotes are taken.

Incidents like this remind me of an article in Village Magazine dated 27 May, where Conor Brady pointed out the dangers of new media for which there are “no mechanisms for the validation of content, for the screening out of material that is inaccurate, dangerous or likely to spread hatred, panic or fear.”

But time and again, I see the _old_ media failing to validate their content, the old media publishing material that is inaccurate, the old media spreading hatred, panic and fear.

Meanwhile, the new media are at the cutting edge, publishing stories that the old media cannot cope with, and providing the means for all comers to publish their comments and criticisms, without delay, on the same page as the original article.

Is the future Indo, or indy?

No contest!

by Eoin Dubsky Tue Jan 03, 2006 22:31

I've heard something like that before. There is a particular RTE journalist in the mid-west region of Ireland who uses language in the same way to discredit peace campaigners and play down the role of Shannon as a US military airbase.

The AP just fired an American journalist who was exposed on Pacifica Radio yesterday as being on the US State Dpt. payroll.

by Coilín ÓhAiseadha Fri Jan 06, 2006 14:18

Thanks, Eoin.

I imagine the media all over the world have been infiltrated by people on the payrolls of various departments of the US federal government. This would help to explain the spread of misinformation about Iraq up through the '90s and beyond, and the failure to cover well-documented stories that raise grave concerns about the sorry state of American democracy, such as the Bush team's cheating in the elections of November 2004.

HOWEVER ....

in the case at hand, I think the journalist responsible and/or one of the editors at the Press Association of Ireland may have been motivated by the opportunity to make a quick buck by sellng a sensational story that is not supported by the alleged source.

Chomsky has named Senan Hogan as the journalist who wrote the story that was circulated by the Press Association. I wonder how much the Indo paid the Press Association for the story, and how much the PA paid Hogan?

Since this story contains a factual error regarding the date of the supposed quote from Chomsky, and in any case over-interprets the quote to refer specifically to Comrade Bertie, I must regard any future quotes from Senan Hogan and/or the Press Association with a certain distrust.

(Such an outrageous slander to suggest that poor Bertie, good socialist that he is, would shine Mr Bush's shoes!)

Still no news of a transcript or recording of Hogan's interview with Chomsky last May. If Hogan had the documentation, I should have thought he would have taken the time to send a copy to Chomsky by now. But not a sausage.

À plus,
Coilín.

by Miriam Cotton Fri Jan 06, 2006 17:38

This whole episode sounds like a deliberate spoiler in advance of Chomsky's visit for the purpose of getting up a spurious controversy - presumably to drown out the cogent criticisms that Chomsky is bound to make of the Irish government's support for the war . Also, its not unlike something Chomsky has already seen off in the British press. Media Lens successfully nailed The Guardian after it published an interview with Chomsky by an amazingly stupid and unpleasant woman who had substantially and deliberately misrepresented Chomsky in what she wrote. The allegation that Chomsky has defended or denied the violence of the Pol Pot regime is also completely false. What Chomsky has, rightly, defended is the right of people to question the accuracy of reporting of the events - a very different point. He has repeatedly had to cope with the stupidity of much left wing press in this regard - which often seems incapable of understanding anything other than off-the-shelf, pret-a-porter, left-wing opinions. Becuase of his honesty about this situation, Nomsky is now under attack from two usually opposing factions: the right wing war mongers and corporate press AND the self-annointed 'liberal' journos who believe their credentials are beyond question - no matter how complacent /misguided they may actually be. Chomsky's intellectual rigour is badly needed where these issues are concerned so lets hope the real debate is not derailed by this nonsense in the Independent.

by Coilín Tue Jan 10, 2006 22:29

Senan Hogan has been so kind as to telephone me today. I was afraid he'd be a bit peeved about me raising doubts about the strict veracity of the article that appeared in the Indo, but he was actually deferential and helpful. He says the Indo edited his article to produce the provocative, Bertie-the-shoeshine-boy/puppet angle we saw on the front page.

And he has been so very kind as to give permission to reproduce the transcript of his interview with Chomsky from last May. I think it's a good interview, very sharp.

Here are a couple of excerpts to establish exactly what Chomsky said, and then it's up to each to make his/her own judgement of how that was subsequently interpreted.

****

NC: ... I cannot think of any other example in recent history - you see if you can - of utter contempt for democracy expressed so clearly and accepted. That tells you a lot.

SH: Does that just tell you that nobody [Western governments] wants to say 'no' to Bush?

NC: No, it tells you that they despise democracy and prefer to shine the shoes of the power. I mean of course you expect [US Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld to say this ['New Europe is the hope for democracy in the future']. What does he care about democracy?

SH: And there was a public vilification of France and other countries for not towing the line.

NC: Yes, because they didn't shine George Bush's shoes. Therefore we had to have freedom fries instead of French fries in the Senate lunch room. But what is crucial about this in my opinion is not the fact that governments hate democracy - of course they do - but rather that the general intellectual atmosphere is such that this dramatic expression of hatred of democracy passes without even being noticed.

SH: And do you think that the Irish Prime Minister - you've been to Ireland a few times - the Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern, his party has dominated governments since the 1920s and has always been the largest party, do you think that he was - in your phrase - 'shining Mr Bush's shoes' by allowing war planes to refuel [at Shannon].

NC: "Is he following the will of the Irish people? Or is he following orders from Washington?

SH: Well it definitely isn't the public will if you look at public [opinion] polls.

NC: Well then that is the answer to your question. That is the answer to your question.

...

SH: Do you plan to come to Ireland soon at all?
NC: I might be there next January, I hope.
SH: Oh really, to Trinity College again?
NC: I'll probably come to Dublin. I hope I'll get beyond but I'm not sure.

****

I'll post the full transcript in a separate post.

Best,
Coilín.

by Coilín Tue Jan 10, 2006 22:36

Interview by Senan Hogan with Dr Noam Chomsky by telephone, May 31, 2005;

Senan Hogan: Dr Chomsky, do you think the United Nations remains relevant in the world today and how do you view Kofi Annan's proposed reforms?

Noam Chomsky: All talk about reform of the UN, though useful and significant, is a footnote.

Take the United State's militarisation of space for instance. Sooner or later there will be conflicts over this. Russia has already said that if the Bush administration proceeds with its plans for weaponisation of space, they have said: 'well we will use force to respond.' Now China is saying the same things. And Russia has enormously increased its offensive military capacity in direct response to the huge Bush militarisation programme. China is beginning to do the same. That has a ripple effect, and we could be onto Pakistan and so on. These are ways of consciously driving the world to disaster.

The UN is overwhelmingly opposed. In the votes on the Outer Space Treaty, it is unanimous except for the US and Israel.

The most important component of disarmament, called FISBAN, official materials cut-off treaty, it ends the creation of missile materials that can disperse and go to anyone, including terrorists. There was a vote on the UN and there was 147 to 1. The usual one. There were two abstentions - Israel and Britain. And if you look at the British delegate, it is quite interesting. He said 'we're in favour of the Treaty but the trouble with this version, the reason we have to abstain is that it is too divisive. It divides the world 147 to 1 and therefore we cannot support it.' Well, okay, that shows you how ranking of the survival of the species among other priorities in the US and Britain, and therefore the UN can't do anything. What can it do when the 'one' happens to be the reigning superpower. And it's that on issue after issue.


SH: Dr Chomsky, just to bring you to the war in Iraq there and the Coalition of the Willing and the New Europe and all these terms. Ireland facilitates the refuelling of US warplanes at Shannon Airport on the west of the country even though Ireland has been traditionally neutral going back to the Second World War and public support was hugely against the war in Iraq. Do you feel that the Irish Government has lost credibility?

NC: There was a very sharp criteria that distinguished Old Europe from New Europe. Old Europe - of the countries where the governments took the same positions as the large majority of the populations and New Europe of the countries where the governments overruled an even larger majority of the population and followed orders from Crawford, Texas. New Europe was called 'the hope for democracy in the future.'

I cannot think of any other example in recent history - you see if you can - of utter contempt for democracy expressed so clearly and accepted. That tells you a lot.

SH: Does that just tell you that nobody [Western governments] wants to say 'no' to Bush?

NC: No, it tells you that they despise democracy and prefer to shine the shoes of the power. I mean of course you expect [US Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld to say this ['New Europe is the hope for democracy in the future']. What does he care about democracy?

SH: And there was a public vilification of France and other countries for not towing the line.

NC: Yes, because they didn't shine George Bush's shoes. Therefore we had to have freedom fries instead of French fries in the Senate lunch room. But what is crucial about this in my opinion is not the fact that governments hate democracy - of course they do - but rather that the general intellectual atmosphere is such that this dramatic expression of hatred of democracy passes without even being noticed.

SH: And do you think that the Irish Prime Minister - you've been to Ireland a few times - the Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern, his party has dominated governments since the 1920s and has always been the largest party, do you think that he was - in your phrase - 'shining Mr Bush's shoes' by allowing war planes to refuel [at Shannon].

NC: "Is he following the will of the Irish people? Or is he following orders from Washington?

SH: Well it definitely isn't the public will if you look at public [opinion] polls.

NC: Well then that is the answer to your question. That is the answer to your question.

SH: But do you think that that is a position that can be justified, having had traditional neutrality in the country for decades and given public opposition to the war in Iraq?

NC: It can only be justified if the goal of the government is to be the obedient servant of the global superpower.

SH: But obviously Ireland has had long-standing traditional links with the US from emigration and ..."

"... Well it depends on which United States you are talking about. Are you talking about the United States government in Washington or are you talking about the United States population which has felt for over two years that the United Nations - not the United States should be taking the lead in Iraq - in the reconstruction, in the political transformation, even in security issues. Which United States are you talking about? There are two United States. One is the government and the interests it represents. The other is the overwhelming mass of population and they happen to disagree on a huge range of issues.

SH: What do you think of U2 front man Bono and a number of other megastars that are demanding that wealthy countries write off debts to Third World countries?

NC: Cancel debts? Well, before we even answer that question we have to ask if there even are Third World debts. The notion of debt is an ideological construction not an economic reality. So suppose for example that I lend you money and i know that you are a very risky loan because you are unlikely to pay it back. So I therefore demand very high interest rates which is what you do with a risky loan, and you keep paying me the interest year after year and finally you can't pay anymore. Who's problem is it by capitalist principles? Well by capitalist principles, it's my problem. I gave a risky loan got a lot of return from it and now you can't pay, okay, too bad for me. That's capitalist principles but that's not the way the international economy works. It hates capitalist principles as much as it hates democracy.


The way the international economy works is this: If a bank lends money to General Suharto in Indonesia - who was by far the most corrupt of all the murderous dictators the US and Britain supported - and finally gets to the point where he uses the money to enrich himself, his cronies, his business partners, his family and so on . It finally gets to the point where he can't pay back. Well is it the problem of the bank, which it would be by capitalist principles? No. It is the problem of the people of Indonesia who never borrowed the money in the first place, but they have to be subjected to harsh structural adjustment programmes so that the bank can be paid back.


Then we have an organisation called the IMF which its own executive director calls the Credit Communities Enforcer.

So in the case where I lend you money and you can't pay it back, your neighbour is supposed to pay and my neighbour is supposed to compensate me. That is the way the international economy works. The concept of debt under those conditions is a purely ideological construction.

Economics has nothing to say about it. If we were to apply simple conservative capitalist principles, its doubtful that there would be any debt.

SH: This campaign by these campaigners, is it just a public relations exercise by themselves to boost their profiles?

NC: No I think they are very serious. Jubilee 2000 was very serious. I don't think that they cut deep enough. They are right are saying that debt ought to be relieved but I think they should go - they sometimes do in fact - go much deeper and point out that the whole debt is an ideological construction by the powerful.
In fact in some cases, there are very conservative ways to pay off debt.
Take for example Nicaragua which is one of the most highly indebted countries in the world. One of the ways for that to be overcome is for the US to follow the law. The US was ordered by the world court, backed by two Security Council resolutions which the US vetoed and Britain abstained and called on the US to terminate its terrorist war against Nicaragua which had escalated and to pay enormous reparations. Well that would more than overcome Nicaragua's debt. So there is a very conservative way to overcome Nicaragua's debt is for the world superpower to follow the law and follow the orders of the world court and the Security Council.

But since there are no conservatives - that is a term whose meaning is long since forgotten - nobody would even propose this conservative solution.

SH: Dr Chomsky, just a final question on the European Union. There is a proposed Constitution treaty being voted on in referendums in member states at the moment. France has just voted it down. The Dutch look like doing the same. Do you see a future for the European Union model?

NC: There is plenty of future for the European Union. In fact, it is already significant factor in world affairs. The question is what form the European Union will take. Will it take a form that is constructed for the benefit of its populations or is constructed for the benefit of concentrations of private power? Actually the discussion of the European Union has been very interesting. The debate is commonly over whether the European Union should adopt the Anglo-American model of free market capitalism. That is ludicrous.
Britain and the US aren't free market societies. The business community in Britain and the US wouldn't for a moment permit free market economies to operate internally. The entire US economy overwhelmingly depends upon a dynamic state sector which socialises cost and risk and later privatises profit. Everybody who uses computers and the Internet certainly ought to know it. The core of the modern economy - where did it come from? - it came from places like where I am sitting, and working under Pentagon contracts.
It went on for decades before it was ever handed over to corporations to be modified and marketed and that is the way the economy functions generally. Where is the free market economy? It's about as meaningful as New and Old Europe.

SH: Dr Chomsky, has your life ever been under threat because of your outspoken views on the US government and foreign policy?

NC: I get regular death threats but I don't take them seriously, and they're not on this. The death threats and the need for police protection comes from my writings and talks on the Middle East, almost entirely, and you know who it comes from.

SH: Do you plan to come to Ireland soon at all?
NC: I might be there next January, I hope.
SH: "Oh really, to Trinity College again?
NC: "I'll probably come to Dublin. I hope I'll get beyond but I'm not sure."

INTERVIEW ENDS

[Reproduced with the permission of both Senan Hogan and Noam Chomsky. Thanks two thousand!]

by John McD Wed Jan 11, 2006 12:23

Good on you for putting this out for everybody. Chomsky really is very sharp and 'on the ball.'

Interesting comments about the US and UK's support for corrupt warlord Gen Suharto. Why don't we read about this in the Irish Independent??

John

by microdot Wed Jan 11, 2006 12:30

fuck yeah man. fluffy.

by Justin Morahan - Peace People Wed Jan 11, 2006 14:18

You followed this through to the end to uncover the truth.
If Indymedia is the future, which I hope it is, you are an example of what is best in Indy reporting.

You eked out the truth patiently and unwaveringly, giving generous praise to Senan for contacting you and providing the transcript of the interview - for which he indeed deserved praise.

The whole thread up to now is a study in how things can go wrong in the mainstream media, on the part of some people purposefully, but innocently on the part of others.

Thanks to you, it is also an example of what reporting should be. How seldom, in the mainstream media, is there a proper apology made for a lurid, lying story, often involving defamation of character. When errors of fact, time or date are made, as happened in the above story, the errors are often compounded by silence, denial or further befuddling.

You have, by your energy and pertinacity, left a little gem here that can be happily uncovered by all who want to know the truth.

by anon Thu Jan 19, 2006 14:45

just to note crack reporter Eugene Moloney repeats the mistake, again putting words in Chomsky's mouth and getting the timing all wrong.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=676319