other press
user preferences
|
Recent articles by Chekov
Sarkozy visit opposed - Demonstration / picket Jul 15 08 Women, young people, manual workers voted No - Lisbon survey Jul 10 08 N O Campaign organises National Meeting Jul 10 08 Libertas: US Military Contractors Against Lisbon! national |
eu |
feature
 Friday April 25, 2008 00:07 by Chekov - Workers Solidarity Movement (personal capacity)
 McEvaddy joins Ganley's "Libertas" Astroturf Campaign. A closer look at Declan Ganley's "Libertas" campaign - the figures behind it and their motivations. 
Ganley and McEvaddy Pose for the Cameras
On Sunday April 20th, Libertas announced that Ulick McEvaddy was "joining the No To Lisbon Campaign" and publicised the event with a photo-opportunity of the two 'entrepreneurs' in front of the Libertas Campaign bus [1]. McEvaddy is the first member of the Irish business and political elite to join the Libertas campaign since it emerged under the stewardship of Declan Ganley. What's particularly interesting about this is that McEvaddy is the CEO of Omega Air, a US defence contractor (they supply cargo planes and inflight refuelling services to the US military). Declan Ganley, president of Libertas, also happens to be president of Rivada Networks, a US defence contractor (they supply emergency communications networks to the US intelligence community). Now, what's so peculiar about all of this is that there just aren't a large number of Irish people who happen to own companies whose major business is providing extremely sensitive services to the US military and intelligence community. If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say that the total population of this demographic in Ireland is 2 - although it's hard to tell since much of this sort of stuff is classified or covert. Maybe, by the end of the Lisbon campaign a whole tribe of Irish US defence contractors will emerge from the woodwork, but I doubt it. But, anyway, back to the point, why does it matter what these guys do? Shouldn't they have a right to a say on Lisbon like everybody else? Certainly they should, but since they have stepped into the light and are taking an active role in public politics and trying to influence public decisions, it is a good idea to inform ourselves about them, to understand something about the nature of what McEvaddy and Ganley's companies do and the implications for where their loyalties are likely to lie. This article takes a look at McEvaddy, Ganley and Libertas and highlights a few facts which may give a clue as to their motives in entering the political arena. McEvaddy & Omega Air
Ulick McEvaddy
Ulick McEvaddy is what you might call a shady character: a rich and influential businessman with "a surprisingly low profile". McEvaddy was an Irish military intelligence officer during his ten years in the army. You can see this fact alluded to openly in a profile published in the US Airforce's Integrator Magazine [2]. In the Irish media this part of his past is normally airbrushed out of his potted biographies, but back in 1999, a profile in the Irish Independent [3] revealed that he learned to speak fluent Russian whilst working the "Russian desk" and commented that his "experience in military intelligence must have been a great door-opener when he dealt with the US and the armed forces of other countries." So, McEvaddy has a background in covert intelligence - and this background has no doubt served him well since transferring his operations to the US. His current company, Omega Air, depends almost entirely upon the business of the US military. As McEvaddy said in his Integrator interview, one big problem he faced in doing business with US military commanders was their natural question: "how do we know we can rely on you in war?" McEvaddy's response left one in no doubt that he feels he has more than proved himself on this score. 
Omega Air
According to the Integrator, "industry insiders say [McEvaddy's] company has even approached U.S. intelligence agencies about tanking services for detainee transfers, to reduce dependence on foreign air fields." In other words, offering to provide inflight refuelling services to rendition flights so that they wouldn't have to stop over at foreign airports such as Shannon on their way to "interrogate" suspects. A very accommodating offer indeed. McEvaddy was also the figure who got himself appointed to the board of Knock airport with a view to opening it up to US military flights [4]. Although he failed in this venture [5], his willingness to personally champion unpopular measures such as this must no doubt have endeared him to his customers in the US military. In March 2007, his company was awarded a $24 million indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract to provide inflight refuelling to the US Navy [6], a contract that was renewed in March 2008, with a futher $30 million added [7]. Apart from these titbits of information, it is fairly hard to find out much information about McEvaddy. He is said to be a supporter of Fine Gael and a personal friend of Mary Harney and Charlie McCreevey. The only time in the past that he really fell under the media spotlight was back in 1999 when he was caught up in a small scandal due to the fact that he had loaned his South of France villa to Mary Harney, free of charge.[8] His business interests are all in private equity companies - meaning that it is impossible to know how much money he has, or even who really owns his companies. Declan Ganley and Rivada
Declan Ganley
Amazingly, Declan Ganley actually manages to out-shady McEvaddy, no mean feat. The potted narrative that one can find about him from the Internet has him showing up in the following 'business situations'
Now what's interesting about these positions is that none of them were in what one might call 'normal market economies'. In fact, it would be fair to refer to them all as being environments where 'gangster capitalism' reigned. One does not prosper in such situations by having smart business plans and efficient production processes. One prospers by having access to decision makers and having friends in high places within the intelligence and security communities. The fact that "most Russian banks [had] their own private armies" in the 1990s and business takeovers tended to be of the armed variety underlines the point rather well [14]. This brings us on to Ganley's latest venture, Rivada Networks. If his previous career led one to the suspicion that he must be awfully well connected with the intelligence community, Rivada proves it in spectacular fashion. Rivada Networks provides 'first responder' communications networks to the intelligence community and emergencey services. According to their website blurb, their clients include "USNORTHCOM, the National Guard Bureau, DHS, FEMA, multiple states, and various state and local agencies". Basically, their products promise to allow the various intelligence and emergency services to talk to one another in situations where much of the normal communications infrastructure may have been destroyed or damaged. This falls broadly under the remit of the Department of Homeland Security. It is an extremely sensitive area for a number of reasons. Firstly, it involves carrying confidential data between the various bodies that make up the US Intelligence Community. US intelligence bodies tend to be extraordinarily paranoid about the security of their electronic communications - achieving SIGINT dominance (signals intelligence, i.e. electronic snooping and counter-snooping) is the cornerstone of US intelligence strategy. The US intelligence agencies often refuse to share access to their data even with each other, never mind entrusting it to third parties. If they allow Ganley to carry their inter-agency communications, they must trust him an awful lot. Rivada's Key PersonnelThe reason for this trust is more obvious if one looks at the listing of "key personnel" on the Rivada website. A couple of the figures listed are the ordinary sorts that you expect to find on the average board of a technology company - a banker, a lawyer and a technologist, but the rest of the figures mentioned are significant figures within the US intelligence and military communities. The following section provides a few snippets - all taken verbatim from Rivada's webiste - highlighting some of the experience of Rivada's key personnel. This list highlights only those parts of their resumes which have significant strategic, military or intelligence components and leaves out the normal business stuff. Lt. General Dennis M. McCarthy (Rivada Director) 
Lt. Gen. Dennis M. McCarthy
John J. Kelly, Jr. (Director) 
John Kelly
William J Atkins (Chief Financial Officer)
Rear Admiral Robert F. Duncan (Vice President, Business Development and Government Services) 
Rear Admiral Robert Duncan
Admiral James M. Loy (Director) 
Admiral James Loy
Don N. De Marino (Director) 
Don De Marino
John Kneuer (Vice President, Strategic Planning and External Affairs) 
John Kneuer
James Tackett (Vice president for Homeland Security)
Summary of Rivada PersonnelIt should be noted that the above listed affiliations may have a few omissions. Members of those specific agencies that make up the US Intelligence Community [16] do not normally advertise their roles. However, there are a number of common euphemisms which are often used to describe such roles. For example, a job description of "Communications-Computer Officer providing services to the U.S. Northern Command" probably signals that the individual was an officer in the Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Agency [17]. Still, even without specific information on the intelligence community experience of Rivada's Key personnel, it is obvious that they must have a wealth of knowledge from across a broad range of Intelligence Agencies. Even from a brief reading of their public biographies, one can be certain that Rivada's key personnel have intimate, top-level knowledge of a wide range of intelligence agencies, from the Coast Guard Intelligence Agency [18] to the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency [19], by way of the Marine Corps Intelligence Activity [20] and the Office of Intelligence and Analysis [21] of the United States Department of Homeland Security [22]. Indeed, the fact that their "key personnel" have high level experience across such a broad range of intelligence agencies is probably critical to the company's commercial success, given the sensitivity of the task. Nor are these people doddery old generals getting a few quid on top of their pensions for sitting on a board. They were all, until joining Rivada, in extremely senior security and intelligence positions - the number 2 official in the department of Homeland Security and the number 2 officer in the Marine Corps both joined Rivada directly from their state security jobs. These are extremely influential people within the US security and intelligence services. The reason for such a military-intelligence top-heavy personnel list is not hard to discover. The US intelligence services need to know that they can have absolute trust in those who handle their communications. By appointing key personnel from within a broad range of the US intelligence agencies, Rivada is in a position to reassure the paranoid within the intelligence community. There's just one problem - the president, a man called Declan Ganley. If you read Ganley's accounts of his business history - how he made it - one thing jumps out at you. In none of his business ventures does he mention any dealings with the US military or intelligence community. He's an entrepreneur who claims to have amassed great wealth through his keen business sense and none of the areas in which he claims to have made money had anything obviously connected with the military. This begs a few questions:
Finally, it is once again worth noting that, like McEvaddy, all of Ganley's business dealings have been carried out through 'private equity' companies. Thus there is no way of knowing how much money he has, nor who actually owns the companies he leads. The Libertas CampaignNow all of the above would be merely curious if it were not for the peculiar nature of the Libertas Campaign. It has all the appearances of what has come to be known as an astroturf campaign [23] - a manufactured grassroots movement, created for PR and marketing purposes. Libertas appeared on the Irish political scene out of the blue in 2007. It did not have public meetings, membership drives, policy debates or any of the other stuff that real political movements do when they are in formation. It appeared fully-formed, complete with a fully-developed policy and communications strategy. It has concentrated heavily on attracting media attention through a barrage of sensationalist press releases and PR stunts and photo-opportunities. It has generally failed to participate in public debates, on one occasion even claiming that it was unwilling to share a stage with Sinn Fein [24]. 
Dodgy Posters
Belatedly, Libertas has decided to talk to the people and is currently engaged in a National Tour [25]. It will hold 15 meetings in 5 days in 12 towns. However, rather than being public debates, these meetings are fully organised by Libertas with no opposition voices present. They are also organised at most peculiar times. Their meetings in Castlebar, Roscommon, Athlone and Drogheda all take place at 7.30 am. Their other scheduled meetings start at 1.15pm (Navan, Mullingar, Longford, Sligo) and 6.30pm on weekdays (Castleblaney, Letterkenny, Dundalk, Tallaght). If you were trying to get as small a crowd as possible, yet be able to claim that you had held public meetings, you would be hard-pressed to find better time-slots. Or maybe I'm wrong, maybe the good citizens of Roscommon were queuing down the road to hear about the Lisbon treaty on Tuesday morning at 7.30 am. 
More Dodgy Posters
Another peculiar factor about the Lisbon Campaign is the relatively poor calibre of their material and personnel. Apart from Ganley and McEvaddy, the only people who seem to be involved with Libertas are a number of paid staffers who are employed to run the campaign. Most of these are themselves ex-members of the Freedom Institute, which was a right wing think tank set up by a number of neo-con sympathising students. The ex-freedom institutors on the Libertas staff include David Cochrane, who owns politics.ie and John McGuirk, a famously poor communicator, who has apparently been employed for his PR skills. Ganley and McEvaddy are themselves far from convincing media performers. Being business people, they are used to interviews that are sycophantic in the extreme and they seem completely incapable of appearing convincing when challenged. Their few personal appearances on serious current affairs shows, with experienced opponents or hosts have been very unconvincing to put it mildly. By basing their staff on such an inexperienced group with no history of success in electoral campaigns, Libertas have got far less for their buck than one might expect. Their posters are amateurish, their slogans are inelegant and the general tone of their propaganda is far below what one would expect of a campaign backed by such resources. One might hazard a guess that they have been unable to attract major players with mainstream experience due to the fact that they are seen as politically poisonous and have had to make do with the help of a group of young-turks who are none too discerning about who they are working for. It is known that they have approached several more prominent political figures but have thus far failed to entice any of them aboard the good ship Libertas. In particular, their attempt to attract Michael McDowell ended in publicly humiliating failure [26].
The Libertas MessageOn close examination of the propaganda that Libertas has produced about the EU, it is impossible to avoid the impression that they don't really believe the stuff that they are saying. 
Anti-Militarist Military Contractors
Probably the best example was their poster attacking Fine Gael's Lucinda Creighton for her support of an EU army [27]. This poster attempted to play on Irish fears about EU militarisation and the desire to retain Irish military neutrality. The idea that either Ganley or McEvaddy are anti-militarists is simply laughable, given the fact that their companies exist as devoted suppliers of the US military and intelligence services. Another good example of the huge gap between what Libertas says and what Ganley and McEvaddy do relates to democracy and accountability. Both of them have focused on the so-called democratic deficit in the EU and the lack of accountability and transparency of its workings [28,29]. Now Libertas, unlike normal political groups, appears to have no members beyond the president Ganley, meaning that all policy is decided without any of the democratic and accountable elements that exist in ordinary political groups. It was formed, without any public participation, discussion or open meetings but with a policy that was already fully formed. Furthermore, Libertas has promised to spend 1.5 million [30] and it is obviously very well resourced as it has bought up billboards and advertising space across the country. Yet, nobody has any idea where the money is coming from and Libertas aren't saying. Campaign funding rules forbid any one individual donor from giving more than a few thousand euros. Thus, we can not find even have the merest hint of internal democracy or transparency within Libertas and if you look at Ganley's and McEvaddy's companies, you find even less traces of democracy or accountability - they are purely private affairs, completely opaque to the public, without the merest whiff of democracy or accountability about them. Thus, it is simply impossible to take their new-found passion for transparency, democracy and accountability at face value. One major argument that Libertas has raised throughout the campaign is the idea that Lisbon is bad for business [31], anti-competitive and likely to destroy Irish foreign direct investment by over-regulation and the harmonisation of EU tax rates [32]. The specific claims are based on what are quite frankly total nonsense about the details of the treaty, and the general argument is hugely undermined when one considers that both IBEC and the American Chamber of Commerce in Ireland (which represents US multinationals here) are both unreservedly supportive of Lisbon [33,34] and directly contradict many of Libetas' claims [35]. Another bit of disingenuous campaigning by Libertas has been their 'all things to all people' scaremongering. In the midlands, they have pushed the idea that the Lisbon treaty might bring in abortion [36] (which is demonstrably false, by the way), elsewhere they have presented themselves as libertarian [37]. So, clearly, any examination of the positions of Libertas and Ganley and McEvaddy would lead us to conclude that there is very little chance that their arguments are honest. It seems very unlikely that they actually believe the things that they are advocating. So, what is their motive then? The Motives of Ganley and McEvaddy?The question remains, why on earth have two determinedly non-public business figures such as Ganley and McEvaddy stepped into the political spotlight now? Firstly, from the above, it is clear that they do not hold the positions that Libertas has raised against Lisbon. They simply aren't pacifist, pro-lifer, fundamentalist democrats. It is also clear, from their willingness to use scaremongering about abortion and tax harmonisation, that they are trying to maximise the No vote and don't really care on what basis people reject the treaty. The use of arguments that are directly contradictory to one another is convincing evidence of this. So, why are they trying to defeat Lisbon? Given their intimate relationship with the US intelligence and military community, it is reasonable to ask whether this might provide any clues to their underlying motives. And it proves to be a fairly fruitful avenue of enquiry. In order to properly understand the context, we must briefly touch upon the major strategic divide amongst the world's business and political elite on matters European. To put it simply, there are two visions of European integration amongst the Western elite. One of them sees the EU as a common market, lacking any real political component beyond whatever is needed to keep the wheels of competition well-oiled and lacking any capacity for autonomous strategic action. The other vision is of a European super-state, with sovereignty over the member states and the ability to take collective and coherent military and strategic actions on the global stage. The first vision is that of the US military and intelligence community and of NATO. An EU with autonomous strategic capacity would essentially undermine NATO and the US's permanent leadership position on all things security related. Within Europe, there are factions in most countries who are sympathetic to this position - the Euro-skeptic Tories in the UK being a good example. There are also a number of powerful US-based business people who are ardent supporters of the NATO security system (often known as Atlantacists), Rupert Murdoch being the best known. The second vision is that of the mainstream of European mainland business and political interests. For most of them it's a no-brainer. The French and German car-manufacturers look across the Atlantic and see how helpful a powerful strategic state can be in delivering stuff like cheap consumer petrol which serves in practice as a huge subsidy to their competitors in US industry. European politicians, for their part, would like to be taken seriously in international affairs and are probably pretty browned off with the US ignoring them and publicly humiliating them, as was the case recently when the EU wasn't even consulted with before Kosovo - which is part of Europe after all - declared its independence under US patronage. So, anyway, having briefly explained the major divide in global elite opinion on the general vision of EU integration, we can see whether it holds true in this particular case - a treaty that undeniably advances the process of EU political integration. As it happens It does. Amongst all the unanimity of support from the world's business communities and amongst mainstream European politicians, we can find some consistent sour notes from the US Intelligence Community [38] and politicians representing NATO [39]. Indeed, globally, it is striking that those representing US security thinking are the only elite voices against Lisbon. One final bit of background is worth considering. In recent years there has been a large expansion in the use of foreign-owned contract companies by the US military. This has caused something of a backlash amongst 'patriotic' US politicians (and the US industries that fund them). For example, in 2006, there was a storm of criticism at the prospect of Dubai Ports World taking over the running of New York Container Port [40], criticism which caused the sale to be blocked due to the security implications. Currently, US lawmakers are considering new, stricter legislation on regulations governing foreign-owned companies access to confidential data [41]. This has inevitably created significant pressure on foreign owned military contractors to demonstrate their loyalty. Ganley Spills the BeansSo, at this stage we've established a few things. The figures behind Libertas are extremely closely connected to the US military and Intelligence community; their arguments appear to be clearly disingenuous; the US military and intelligence community are indeed opposed to the treaty. The facts are, by themselves, strong circumstantial evidence in favour of the idea that Ganley and McEvaddy's connections to the US military provide the underlying motives for opposing Lisbon. But can we do any better? Can we turn up any positive evidence to support our tentative conclusion? As it happens, we can. In December 2003, Ganley published an article about the forthcoming EU constitution (which eventually morphed into the Lisbon treaty) in a publication of the US Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI). The FPRI is an influential US foreign policy think-tank, which publishes "scholarship" designed to promote "the development of policies that advance U.S. national interests" [42]. Ganley's article was thin on details and heavy on cliche-ridden rhetoric. The one practical problem that he identified with the direction of the EU was the lack of a popularly elected president. One of the few specific problems that this might cause was the following: "Of course, the (non-popularly elected) president and his or her foreign minister would be unlikely to display what Chirac earlier this year identified as the "bad behavior" and signs of being "badly brought up" of the annoying, democratically elected leaders of Central and Eastern European states." [43] When this was written, back in 2003, US politicians were busy deriding 'old Europe' for its failure to get on board their Iraq adventure. The US was much more successful in winning over the leaders of "new Europe" - predominantly the newly acceded Eastern block countries - to support their invasion despite the fact that their populations were vehemently opposed to it. The reference to this being 'democratic' is Orwellian in the extreme. The political powers in the core EU states were simply strong enough to resist the US demands that they should ignore the will of their people and join the invasion, while those in the Eastern states simply didn't have the diplomatic, strategic, institutional or political strength to ignore the pressure from the global superpower. Ganley's underlying message is clear - the more tightly integrated the EU is politically, the harder it will be for the US to influence it. The non-popularly elected president will be able to resist the 'bad-behaviour' of supporting US imperial adventures. Thus Lisbon does not "advance US national interests". This conclusion is further strenghtened by a reading of the various declassified documents and briefings that the US Intelligence Community have issued. For example, in January 2008, the well known defense analysts, Jane's, published an article describing how "EU treaty worries US intel services". An extract from that article, below, shows them making a very similar point to Ganley - namely that the US finds it much easier to deal with individual countries (bi-lateral links) than it does from the EU state machinery. This is a natural consequence of the reduced imbalance in forces between the EU and the US compared to that between the US and any individual EU member state. "US intelligence community officials, US law enforcement agencies and the Department of Homeland Security routinely praise their European counterparts for using various bilateral mechanisms to pursue joint initiatives encompassing non-proliferation, immigration and other counterterrorism-related issues.
In contrast, Washington-based policy makers regularly criticise EU-wide bodies for proving at best ineffectual - and at worst downright disruptive - in their efforts in the 'global war on terrorism'. Common criticisms include an inability to determine an appropriate point of contact for US officials in Brussels - a perception that many Europeans are misguidedly seeking a negotiated solution to the 'war on terrorism' and excessive preoccupation on the part of EU lawmakers with protecting the privacy of EU nationals suspected of engaging in terrorist-related activities.
US intelligence and security officials have been able to circumvent EU institutions in many cases so far by relying extensively on formal and informal arrangements with the individual member governments. In addition, Washington has felt confident that its European allies would use their powers to veto unwelcome EU-wide proposals in areas related to security and defence. If adopted, the Lisbon treaty could threaten many of these arrangements. " Now, we come to the crunch. Towards the end of his FPRI article, Ganley pitches the following idea: "The convention can only be countered with a true and fair vision for a United Europe. Europeans who until now have kept their views to themselves should mobilize to stop this tide. They must overcome groupings and parties based on legacy national organizations to form a new organization and articulate a clear and achievable vision for Europe’s future. Rather than try to define itself in contradistinction to the United States, this new Europe must be an equal partner and influence for the worldwide extension of justice and liberty. Such a political party— I will for the sake of discussion call it “Libertas” - will need to challenge the engrained composition of the convention in local and regional elections, as well as running candidates at member-state and EU levels. The old structures need shaking up." There we have it. Ganley first pitched the idea of Libertas in the context of a journal devoted to research that "advances US National Interests" and with an audience that consists mainly of US strategic decision makers. The obvious inference is that Libertas was conceived of as an instrument to advance US National interests - otherwise the choice of publication venue makes no sense whatsoever. ConclusionThis article has examined the reality behing the Libertas campaign, the connections of its two high-profile backers, the implausibility of its message, the peculiar nature of its campaign and some of the underlying strategic differences at play. The conclusion is that the evidence suggests that Libertas is most likely to serve primarily as a vehicle for advancing US strategic interests. However, it is important to remember that while this is the most likely and most plausible conclusion about the underlying forces at play, it is impossible to ever be certain about any individual's motivation. It is possible that both Ganley and McEvaddy are both entirely genuine in their stated reasons for opposing Lisbon - although that would mean that they are also seriously stupid and completely incapable of understanding many of the elementary facts about the treaty. There's also the possibility that some other underlying motive is at play, but the evidence seems to points towards the Pentagon. All of the material in this article is in the public domain. Ironically, the source of some of the information contained herein is David Cochrane's politics.ie site where more speculative and less well substantiated versions of this argument have been published over the last few weeks: see here: http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?f=172&t=34169 (hat-tip to ibis) It is interesting that despite all of this material being in the public domain, it has been Internet posters who have raised it, while the media has essentially provided Libertas with mountains of coverage, without bothering to even check as to whether it's a real campaign at all. That's because the Irish media does little other than recycle press releases, and is utterly cowardly when dealing with stuff that might annoy powerful people. Finally, for those who might suspect that this is a hatchet job aimed at discrediting the No Campaign. I am actually a No campaigner myself. See here: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/86857 Ordered References
|
make this your indymedia front page
printable version
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (59 of 59)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59I don't think this article is helped by having a photoshopped picture on the heading. It depends on being taken at face value, since it's unlikely that very many readers will check all the links.
There is a good argument that NO doctored pictures should be used on a news site, but maybe they have their place. I strongly suggest that putting a doctored picture at the head of what is a very considered piece, does it no favours.
I usually consider 90% of articles in indymedia to be rubbish, but this a great article, the best one I've read so far on this site. The bit about Ulick McEvaddy, is very concerning. Today at a Libertas public meeting, the subject came up, if I had read this before, i would have brought it up.
"John McGuirk, a famously poor communicator, who has apparently been employed for his PR skills."
Thats hilarious. I would consider posting up e-mails I've got from JMcG, but I would probably get in trouble over them.
You have left the Media with little choice but to follow up on this
Jaysus.... I must admit I was competely ignorant of the background to Declan Ganley's Libertas group.
I was aware that all those ex College graduates that formed Freedom Institute were involved, but never made the link with the US Military contractors.
They seem to have a real vanguardist approach (like Opus Dei) in their organisational techniques: look at the amount of coverage that brain dead moron Richard Waghorne gets. He seems to maneouver himself into all forms of commentary on public affairs. Its depressing.
Anyway, cheers for the article...... hopefully the mainstream press will run with the story also, and depict these scumbags for what they are: lying, deceiving gangster capitalists.
Well let's hope this article and the claims made in it are not taken up by the mass media, since to do so will only harm the NO to Lisbon side. While many of us would have no time for the boys in Libertas, we'd probably have little in common with some others on the NO side too. The campaign against the treaty s a broad church.
It's not necessary to agree with everyone about everything.
This seems to be a lesson that the left in Ireland is slow to learn, with attacks on our allies seemingly easier than landing blows on the opposition. So what if they are gangsters?- Better that they are inside the tent pissing out, as some politico used to say, than outside the tent pissing in.
The important thing is to secure a No vote.
"Anyway, cheers for the article...... hopefully the mainstream press will run with the story also, and depict these scumbags for what they are: lying, deceiving gangster capitalists."
Perhaps it should wait until after the referendum!
absolute depressing reading can we have something to cheer us up
A tremendously well-researched and convincing article.
However, "Basset" has a point - I'd phrase it a bit differently, though. If "Ganley's underlying message is clear - the more tightly integrated the EU is politically, the harder it will be for the US to influence it." then many people who see US influence as something baleful might be tempted to vote Yes.
My own belief is, on the contrary, that the Lisbon Treaty fits into the trend whereby there is more and more consensus between the EU and US, together forming that amorphous ideological entity known as "The West" and crusading against Muslims, terrorists, socialists, etc.
This article demonstrates that opponents of Lisbon had better have their arguments ready when its supporters say "but Lisbon will liberate the EU from US influence, not the opposite..."
Since 1996 the Peace & Neutrality Alliance has campaigned for the right of the Irish people to have their own Independent Foreign Policy pursued through a reformed United Nations and to advocate that Ireland remains neutral. We did so because we were convinced that it was the intention of the Irish political to integrate Ireland into the US/EU/NATO military axis to ensure Ireland's full and active participation in the resource wars of the 21st century, wars which would only end with the inevitable defeat of the US/EU/NATO axis. The Renamed EU Constitution(the Lisbon Treaty) is only the next step in that process. PANA's focus therefore is in seeking a NO vote to the Treaty and to ignore groups like Libertas that are only a minor distration to the anti-Imperialist struggle in which PANA has played a role in the last decade or so. The fact that RTE and the rest of the corporate media have made Libertas and Ganley the "leaders" of the NO campaign is quite deliberate as they do not want to allow the militarisation of the EU and Ireland's integration into the EU/US/NATO structures to be issues in the campaign. They have all but ignored PANA and CAECU and nobody should be surprised. Our main enemy is not Ganley. It is the born again Remondite Imperialists which includes virtually all the corporate media and mainstream parties that advocate a yes vote. The problem for these Irish Imperialists is that there is a very powerful and deeply rooted ani-Imperialist tradition in Ireland from the time Tone wrote, 'The Spanish War' in 1790 when he first advocated Irish Independence and Irish Neutrality. PANA and the other groups that belong to that tradition defeated them in the Nice 1 referendum and we should be confident that if we remain focused we can do so again in a few weeks time.
To take up some of the points raised above, while Chekov has done admirable work on Ganley and his cohorts, I now think it would be better if he was to spend some time analysing the anti-social and anti-democratic impact of the treaty and organising against it with his comrades. There are those of us who think that his and WSM's (if that's what it is) position in attacking Libertas is possibly only a cover: it makes him/them look very oh-so very radical while concealing their abstentionism on the Lisbon issue. And in the process, provide ammunition (sic) for detractors to attack and attempt to divide the NO side.
We should focus on the fact that Pat the Cope Gallagher turned the first sod for a private hospital this morning in Donegal. Lisbon facilitates competition between state and private-for- profit service providers - to the benefit of the latter. Art 16 gives the EU greater powers to influence the 'economic and financial conditions' under which states with budget deficits should run their public services; and 188c removes the veto on trade in health, education and social services - making it easier for neoliberal governments (like ours) to support deregulation (during the trade negotiations) to permit transnationals access to the health market at an EU-wide level (which is what happens in a GATS agreement) and so entrench their policies into international agreements; and likewise to undermine the ability of states that have not as yet gone as far as ours to resist deregulation.
Combined with the rulings of the ECJ (based on existing treaties, esp Art 49) that distinguish between policy formulation ('the principles and objectives') - which remain the prerogative of member states - and 'the arrangements for implementation of the principles and objectives', to which the ECJ says the internal market rules apply in any instances where remuneration is involved (which includes instances where a state funds a service on behalf of a citizen), a pincer movement is being put in place to establish competition between state and private providers as the norm. Thus a creeping privatisation is set in motion, with all of the associated anti-social outcomes. Lisbon is a part of this.
A section of the libertarian movement thinks that this deregulation, combined with militarisation and loss of democracy, is all happening anyway, so the treaty / referendum doesn't really matter. I sincerely believe they're missing the point. If they're prepared to take some comradely advice, they should get on with focussing on FF-PD-Green- Labour deception / collusion in relation to the treaty and work with the rest of us in the CAEUC for a truly popular NO vote.
You can contact the Campaign and its 15 affiliated organisations in
www.caeuc.org.
Our next organising meeting will take place in Dublin's Teachers Club on Wednesday May 7th 20.00 houirs
Excellent article Chekov. Best I've seen on Indymedia in a long, long time.
By Lucinda Creighton:
http://www.finegael.ie/news/index.cfm/type/details/nkey...y/653
Check the final link in the article michael.
I have always been against giving increased powers to Europe but when you consider that we seem to have useless, greedy leader after useless, greedy leader one has to ask if you could possibly be any worse off if we were ruled from Brussels or Strasbourg. We have the Euro's trying to manipulate us on one side and the yanks trying the same on the other side, and I know which I prefer - the peacemakers!
"I now think it would be better if he was to spend some time analysing the anti-social and anti-democratic impact of the treaty and organising against it with his comrades. There are those of us who think that his and WSM's (if that's what it is) position in attacking Libertas is possibly only a cover: it makes him/them look very oh-so very radical while concealing their abstentionism on the Lisbon issue."
WSM are not abstaining on Lisbon, we are calling for a No Vote. Below is the link to the leaflet we're producing.
http://www.wsm.ie/attachments/apr2008/wsm_lisbon_leafle...t.pdf
http://www.wsm.ie/story/3825
Many congratulations on a tight and well-researched piece. Coming from a pro-Lisbon position I am struck by the historic consistency with which US defence and intelligence communities have consistently opposed moves towards EU political integration. They have traditionally characterised it as a) being without content/substance but are now increasingly moving to an analysis of b) that it is against US national interest and dangerous to the Atlantic Alliance.
Supporting academic analysis has come from The Heritage Foundation; " This draft constitution challenges U.S. strategic, diplomatic, judicial, and military interests. It enshrines modish and ephemeral values as supreme law for 25 separate nation-states with the intention of fully globalizing its lofty and elite-driven policies." http://www.heritage.org/Research/Europe/bg1991.cfm as well more establishment voices such as that of the Council on Foreign Relations' own 'Foreign Affairs' and Jeffrey Cimbalo's article on 'Saving NATO from Europe' which insists that "The proposed EU constitution makes clear that the new Europe seeks to balance rather than complement U.S. power-making .European political integration is the greatest challenge to U.S. influence in Europe since World War II." http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20041101faessay83610/jeff....html
If Lisbon = the Constitutional Treaty in all but name :-) then we can expect to see more such material in the short term and Libertas' efforts are simply those of a small local cohort prioritising Irish transAtlantic interests over Irish European links. This has, by the way, been a pretty consistant line coming from Prionias De Rossa as explanation for his support of the European project i.e. that a stronger Europe is needed to balance the US.
Again, from a pro-treaty perspective, is funny/scary to see the left/right extremes circle back on each other to the extent that their policy lines morph into consistancy - united in a determination that the European Union should not be an effective international actor albeit for rather different reasons.
If you want a real conspiracy theory try this: the Eu Parliament are the only "government" to publicly challenge the US on rendition:
http://www.avalon5.com/index.php/world-domination/europ...ghts/
If Lisbon is passed, Eu counter-terrorism will be subject to oversight by the Eu Parliament!
Ben Hayes of 'Statewatch' discusses the ongoing creation of an EU transnational state apparatus in areas such as security, Justice & Home Affairs, surveillance, and immigration 'control'. These new powers, often transferred to the EU level without public debate or democratic oversight, raise serious questions about the ongoing erosion of civil liberties across the EU.
Recorded in Liberty Hall, Dublin, January 23rd, 2008 -- as part of seminar series "Aspects of the EU" organised by The People's Movement / Gluaiseach an Phobail -- www.people.ie
See Ben Hayes homepage:
http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/research-u...
Below Links to more Videos
Eurostar's (anonymous) analysis of the imaginary scenario of how the development of EU political (and military) integration is (somehow and somewhat) opposed by the US defence and intelligence communities, constitutes another instance of the YES side attempting to impose an ideological so-called 'resistance' veneer on the dominant positions of the major political parties in the Dail. The very same political forces that have allowed Shannon to become a US base with the passage of over 1 million US soldiers, ammunitions and torture flights.
If one follows this analysis, FF, the few PDs with Harney at the helm, Fine Gael and the Green leadership are all (potentially if not real) anti_US imperialist activists attempting to consolidate a European integration that is tendentially if not in current practice against US interests!!
"This has, by the way, been a pretty consistant line coming from Prionias De Rossa " says our analyst, never mind the spelling mistakes.
This brings me back a few thirty years when Proinsias' then Party, the Workers Party, was part of the Coalition opposing Ireland's entry to the then EEC - following the Soviet Union's CP line that a strong EEC would be against the interests of 'socialism'. And the fiercest opponents of that line from the 'Left' were the Maoists following the PR of China's and Mao's line that a strong EEC (now EU) would be the greatest threat to US Imperialism!!
Both views, based on an utterly unrealistic set of facts and evaluations, and consistent with the interests of thoe forces promoting them, completely and utterly understate the effect of the EEC/EU/Lisbon debate on Irish sovereignty, the public health and education services, its effect on Trade with the underdeveloped countries and the highly negative consequence of Lisbon's militarisation aspect on our relations with the rest of the world.
Voting NO and re-aligning Irish foreign policy towards non-alignment and independence seem to be the only alterrnatives we have. This is a position far removed from Libertas, from our valiant anti-imperialists of the Dail including Proinsias, and from the views of 'independent' analysts like Eurostar.
Thanks for a fascinating article, though I've been told the Indo claim about McEvaddy working for army intelligence is fanciful to say the least. Anyway I doubt a career in the Irish army would be any more useful at ingratiating a potential defence contractor to the Pentagon than a hangar full of planes going cheap.
To be honest I think its a case of follow the money more than spooks - McEvaddy and Ganley were both adept at taking advantage of the Bush and Cheney obsession with outsourcing as much as they could of their invasions. If that requires them to do the neocons a favour on Lisbon, its probably a small and very remunerative investment. Of course, they may be big fish here but just wait till they get in the way of Haliburton.
The contributions of Michael Y are a bit strange. On behalf of the CAEUC (not in a personal capacity) he attacks the WSM far more viciously than he disagrees with Libertas. Because the WSM are campaigning for a No vote in a different way, he accuses them of not campaigning at all. Or is it maybe just because they have chosen not to affiliate with the particular campaign he happens to be a leader of? Far from splitting the No vote, left-wing No campaigners clearly differentiating ourselves from right-wing No campaigners strengthens us.
It seemed that the CAEUC was originally clear that theirs would be a left campaign. One of the things that defines a left campaign is that it attacks the right. Has the CAEUC now shifted its position? Do Michael Y's comments represent the CAUEC, as he claims? Do all those groups affiliated to the CAEUC agree with his call to leave Libertas alone and round on the WSM?
I've just read the article and frankly I'll be surprised if either of the two gentlemen in question don't sue.Any dog with a mallet up its arse could look up the personal history of either man and find nothing whatsoever linking them to what you assert.
Lucinda Creighton is nothing more than a joke and Fine Gael will do themselves no favours by allowing someone who shows such levels of incompetence a role in such an important campaign.
I'll be voting No to the Lisbon treaty and I won't be alone.When the government we (and by we i don't actually mean myself) as a nation elected treat us like idiots and refuse to supply us with facts regarding a treaty which WILL be our last chance to make our voice count on issues which will affect how we govern ourselves, we should send them a strong message.
Indymedia you say?....does the indy stand for independent ? and if so independent in favour of whom?.
But at the end of the day a 'No vote' is a 'No Vote', and it doesn't matter what group of the diverse 'No campaign' can claim credit for it. And it's votes that count..............
I reckon the Yes campaign was waiting until nearer the referendum to spread this info about Libertas members so as to try to destroy the entire No campaign. Chekhov has pre-empted that and it's a great kick-off for the WSM NO campaign. Hopefully there'll be plenty of media discussion on this which will be skillfully focused back onto the Treaty. I think it's vital to show that the No campaign is not Libertas but made up of various groups opposed to the Treaty on the grounds of Militarization, Democratic deficit and Privatization of Public services as well as Neo-liberalism and enforced trade liberalization for developing countries. This is currently difficult as the commercial media is focusing only on right wingers and will probably soon focus on paranoid right wing xenophobes. Community radio, tv and papers are the best bet as well as just talking to everybody about the Treaty. Getting ourselves heard should get a bit easier 4 weeks before the referendum when they have to give equal airtime to both sides and we'll all have to be good and ready. Looking forward to it. Nice one :)
First, and above all, my attitude to Chekov's article was clearly outlined in my very first sentence: "Chekov has done admirable work on Ganley and his cohorts" Some of my comrades may find this comment of mine "strange" but there it is in b&w.
Secondly, and clarifying the CAEUC position, of which I am just a member and NOT a leader [with 15 affiliated organisations any individual claiming to be a member must have their head examined] at previous meetings we decided to focus on building a broad progressive alliance so that the Renamed EU Constitution (the Lisbon Treaty) be opposed on that basis and t o i g n o r e g r o u p s like L i b e r t a s. That remains our agreed position to date.
And there is nothing in that position that states our agreement or diagreement with groups such as Libertas - it's a political stance of a broad front, made up of a number of party/organisation activists and a great number of independents
"One of the things that defines a left campaign is that it attacks the right" says Kimberley. This may be so and the CAEUC members/activists have consistently attacked the Right's positions in Forum meetings, piublic meetings, local discussions, campaign meetings. If by 'right' Kimberley refers to Libertas, please read again the sentence above.
Finally on the WSM - I am delighted to hear that our anarchist comrades have decided to be active on the NO side and perhaps my comment on 'abstentionism' was misplaced. It was good to see a copy of their forthcoming leaflet and I am sure it would strengthen our joint efforts to ensure a NO vote and defeat the FF/PD/Green/LP cabal. Nobody is "rounding on the WSM"....we all wish them good luck and the best success in their efforts. And I am sure we will meet them in the innumerable meetings that will be coming up between now and June 12th.
Theres 15 groups in CAEUC?
I count 13. Who are the other two?
http://www.caeuc.org/index.php?q=node/6
One of the better pieces on Indymedia.ie for a while. The statements of hypothesis, evidence, plausible speculation and then conclusion are very reasonable and left me a lot more informed than I was before I read this piece. Thanks.
As regards the arguments about the effect of this piece I think it's fairly obvious that the coarse outlines of the material would have been known to the Yes/IBEC/government side and would have been used to sm