Newsmedianews | Northern Ireland - a perspective by Sean Mc Aughey

by Sean Mc Aughey
Sean Mc Aughey is a former University of Ulster Student's union President and has worked in public relations.
He is now a freelance journalist and a regular contributor to the Blanket, which describes itself as “a journal of protest and dissent”.
His material is published unedited on this page.
Contact Sean Mc Aughey Archived items

— a perspective –

Page Index
Leading Human Rights Solicitor "Shut Down” by Law Society

What’s this?
Direct news input story index

At Least 32% of U.S. Mass Shooters Trained to Shoot by U.S. Military
10 May 2023; posted by the editor - General, Features, International, United States

By David Swanson
It’s been two years since I wrote on this topic. At that time, at least 36% of U.S. mass shooters had been trained by the U.S. military. Since then, a grand total of nobody at all has written on the topic.

Read more...

Tags: mass shootings, David Swanson, United States

0 Comments

Direct news input items

Myth of the "English Speaking Peoples" a.k.a the UK-USA "Special Relationship"       printable version

05 Nov 2014: posted by the editor - Features, International

By Nu'man Abd al-Wahid
Whether one is critical of the alliance between the United Kingdom and the United States or in favour of the so-called "Special Relationship" it is perceived to be an amicable, natural and trans-historical partnership between two nations who share the same language and whose global interests are more or less the same. Over the last fifteen years these two nations assumed the lead in their continuing support of the colonialist state of Israel and waging war on Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and calling for more military intervention in Syria and Iran. So it is no surprise that many find it hard to accept that this alliance is a recent advent rooted in geo-political exigencies of the historical moment at hand. British imperialism was animus, if not outright antithetical, in the first 150 years of the Republic.

Writing, if not gloating, in the midst of the American civil war in the nineteenth century, the future British Prime Minister Lord Salisbury (a.k.a. Robert Cecil) heralded not only the end of the United States of America but democracy itself or as he referred to it the "evil of universal suffrage."(1) American democracy and the vaunted republic he gleefully boasted were not only a failed experiment and a busted flush but the "most ignominious failure the world had ever seen." It had become, in our esteemed Lord's eyes, what today would be referred to derogatively and pejoratively, as a 'failed state'.

The main reason for this inevitable failure according to Cecil was that the United States had rejected and overthrown its natural leaders, i.e. the British establishment. As such they are now richly "reaping a harvest that was sown as far back as the time of Jefferson." The Americans had substituted genuine leadership for a dreamer's theory (the works of Thomas Jefferson) and more so, in the present climate, Abraham Lincoln was an "ass", an incompetent and "the most conspicuous cause of the present calamities."(2)

Another British Minister, William Gladstone too had little time for Lincoln and came out in support of the Southern Confederacy. The Gladstone family had become wealthy largely owing to the family's slave camps in Jamaica and William's maiden speech in parliament was a defence of the family business which arose from the slave trading port of Liverpool. Although William Gladstone represented constituents in the family's native parliamentary seat of Midlothian, Scotland, his father had represented Liverpool in Parliament.(3)

At the time of the civil war Liverpool's economy as well as that of the wider North-west region of England was mostly reliant on cotton imported from the American south and then distributed to the cotton mills of Lancashire and Cheshire. Lincoln's Union army's blockade of Southern ports caused a massive disruption to this trade.

The blockade also affected the South's ship manufacturing facilities. As such they turned to Great Britain for ship and gunboat manufacturing. Two ships stand out. The first was the 'Alabama' which once operational sunk 65 union ships. The other Confederate ship was a trade ship re-fitted as a gunboat, 'Shenandoah' which once sent out to battle "captured nearly 40 prizes" i.e. that is hijacked and looted 40 union and other ships. Needless to say the crew on both ships were mostly manned by British personnel.(4)Claims were made that these ships were "decoying their victims with the British flag."(5)

In parliament 74 members were in favour of the confederacy, while only 17 were pro North, pro Lincoln.(6)The British political establishment were clearly waiting for the right time to intervene on behalf of the south yet at the same time they were loathe to spread the Empire's resources "too thinly across the globe."(7)

In September 1862, the Empire felt the time had come to recognise the Confederacy. The two factors which determined this judgement were the Confederacy's defeat of the Northern army of the Potomac in Manassas and its subsequent invasion of Maryland. After the two armies fought to standstill in Maryland, the Confederacy troops retreated back to their stronghold, Virginia. On the back of this battle, Lincoln issued the 'Emancipation Proclamation' which the British Prime Minister, Lord Palmerston condemned as illegal, hypocritical and against the American constitution.(8) The British establishment were joined by many British workers who too greeted the Proclamation with cynical disdain and support for the South.(9)The Guardian newspaper claimed that the "people are not so easily deluded" by the Proclamation and continued to support the South and to refer to Lincoln as a despot.(10)

However, all was not lost for the Empire, and Palmerstone earmarked May or June 1863 as the best time to recognise the pro-slavery South. But in the 1860s armour plated vessels began to be introduced to navy fleets. The French had introduced theirs in 1859, while the British introduced the HMS Warrior in 1860. The Confederacy's Virginia was introduced in 1862, the Union unleashed the USS Monitor very shortly after.

Watching the battle from the sidelines, it dawned on the Empire that the Union ship was more technologically advanced than their 'Warrior' and many more were under construction in Northern ports. The British carried out tests to see if the Empire's navy could withstand the new Union firepower. They couldn't and it was reasoned that if the Empire now intervened on behalf of the South, it would be only a matter of time before the North sent its ships across the Atlantic and rendered Her Majesty's "wooden fleet in great peril."(11)The Empire did not intervene in the American civil war because the establishment theorised that the Union could defend itself.

In 1863 the good people of Manchester burned an effigy of Lincoln on Guy Fawkes night. When the war was over the highly esteemed good people of Manchester built a statue in his honour(12) or as one historian wrote, a dead Lincoln "was no danger; nothing could be lost and peace of mind could then be gained by lauding his neglected virtues."(13)The Empire also paid compensation to the United States for lost ships at the hands of the British.

It was not then until the late Victorian period that the United States and United Kingdom once again came close to crossing swords. A dispute arose between the British Empire's colony, British Guiana and the independent state of Venezuela. The latter since more or less its creation earlier in the nineteenth century had made persistent claims to territory in British Guiana. The Empire on the other had the power to contemptuously brush these claims aside.

The Empire's delineation of the boundary between Venezuela and Guiana was based on the results of a survey conducted by Great Britain's Prime Minister, Lord Palmerstone envoy, Robert Schomburgk in 1835. This boundary came to be known as the Schomburgk Line. Venezuela had claimed that this boundary line was wrong and furthermore once Gold mines were discovered the Empire extended its reach and claimed more of Venezuelan territory.

After many years of appealing to the Empire to no avail the Venezuelans were left no choice but to enlist the support of the United States. Richard Olney, a Secretary of State under President Grover Cleveland's administration, sent a strongly worded note to the Empire on the 20th July 1895.   Olney in the note, invoked the Monroe Doctrine, which meant no European nation (and that includes the British) had a right to newly intervene or impose itself in the Western hemisphere. For the then British Prime Minister, Lord Salisbury (a.k.a Robert Cecil), like many of the elite of his generation, the United States "counted for little in international affairs."(14) As such, he did not immediately respond and did not warrant Olney's note a response until 26th November 1895. Salisbury rejected American claims to arbitration and furthermore argued that the Monroe Doctrine does not apply to the dispute between the Empire and Venezuela. For Salisbury the Monroe Doctrine had no universal legislative authority.

Upon this response, President Cleveland successfully asked the United States Congress to authorise a boundary commission whose findings would be enforced "by every means."(15) With the Empire entangled in disputes elsewhere as well as keeping a keen eye on the rise of new powers in Europe i.e. Germany and the Far East i.e. Japan, it could not stretch itself into potentially another conflict. Furthermore, Great Britain's land grab for goldmines in Southern Africa known as the 'Jameson Raid' had failed. Knowing that war with the United States at this moment could strengthen its immediate adversaries in Europe, the Empire eventually acquiesced to American requests. Initially the Empire wanted to limit the geographical territory to be placed under arbitration. The Americans refused and the Empire capitulated and accepted unlimited arbitration.

The United States' threat of war combined with the potential of imperialist overreach brought the Empire to the negotiating table over the boundary dispute. How ironic that Robert Cecil more or less thirty years after mocking and denigrating the United States during its civil war became the first British Prime Minister to capitulate and appease the Republic.

In 1898, the military confrontation between the United States and the Spanish Empire arose. Although a myth has been circulated that the British were 'tacitly' on the side of the Americans nothing could be further from the truth.(16)Five days before the American Congress insisted that Spain get out of Cuba, the British ambassador in Washington congregated other European ambassadors and was partly responsible for drafting a proposal critical of the United States position "which was referred to their governments for approval."(17)After Spain made concessions to the United States with regard to Cuba, the British ambassador and his European counterparts met once again to avert war. This time they recommended that their respective governments make representation to the United States' embassies in six European capitals.(18)Britain did not do anything to assist its European partner largely because its focus was defending its imperial interests in Asia and Africa, rather than defending Imperial Spain. This was not pro-Americanism, simply national and imperial self-interest.(19)

In October 1899, as the British century was coming to an end, the second Boer War ignited between the Empire and the two South African European colonies of the Orange Free State and Transvaal. The Empire captured the Transvaal capital in June 1900. Between September and October 1900 a general election was called which returned Lord Salisbury to power. However, in South Africa, guerrilla warfare took hold of the country. The Empire's forces under the leadership of Lord Roberts and Lord Kitchener finally crushed the resistance with a scorched earth policy, holding women and children in concentration camps and covering the country with barbed wire and blockhouses.(20) The Boers finally surrendered in May 1902.

In the late Victorian era the Empire's intellectuals were also wrestling with their consciousnesses the ever increasing competitiveness of the global order. The main protagonists which fuelled this apprehensive state of geo-political consciousness were the rise of Germany, United States of America and Russia. The economies of Germany and the United States were seen as threats because they were more than just challenging British industrial supremacy. In 1870 the United Kingdom had more than the upper hand when it came to 'world manufacturing production' with 31.8% against 23.3% for the United States and 13.% for Germany. By the end of 1885, it was 26.6%, 28.6% and 13.9% respectively and at the start of the new century (1900) the United States had clearly surpassed the UK, 30.1% to 19.5% respectively with Germany on the heels of the latter with 16.6%.(21) The trajectory was brutally clear: Great Britain was in relative economic decline.(22)While Tsarist Russia on the other hand was seen not so much as a direct economic threat to the Empire but as a nation with impossible intentions towards 'British India'. The Indian uprising of 1857 and its subsequent repression disinvested the Empire of any notion that its rule there was attuned to the willing consent, as hitherto believed, of the indigenous population.(23) The British pillage and impoverishment of India also had reached its zenith in the late Victorian era. The main periods of this impoverishment were the famines of 1876-79, 1889-91 and 1896-1902. In the midst of these famines British imperialism exported foodstuffs from India to the United Kingdom - "Londoners were in effect" argued the historian, Mike Davis, "eating India's bread."(24)Russia, it was feared, may tap into Indian resentment towards the Empire, agitate the masses and with their help dislodge British imperialism from its prized possession.

The challenges posed by this triad of Germany, United States and Tsarist Russia "led to a reappraisal of Britain's global role and spurred the development of a mosaic of schemes for colonial unity."(25) Initially intellectuals perceived and wished to bring forth a "Greater Britain" as a "bulwark" against the new rising powers. This construct would be a new federal state consisting of the United Kingdom and its white settler colonies in North America (i.e. Canada), Oceania (Australia and New Zealand) and the colonies in Southern Africa. Together they would be united in a federal parliament and hold its own in an ever more economically and militarily competitive world.

However, even this theoretic project failed to alleviate the gloom of what they perceived to be the coming dark clouds of Time. The formulae of Time for Empire they rightly reasoned determined that they rise and fall and the "ancients seemed to teach little" with regard to imperial preservation. Yet these intellectuals knew the "empire had to escape the clutches of time..." or more accurately imperial time, circular time which has been the destiny of all previous empires. (26) Although British intellectuals identified their Empire with ancient Rome they didn't want it to end in ruin like Rome.(27) As with Rome in its pomp, the British Empire for the moment was militarily incomparable and as such had no need of allies.

This incomparability allowed the Empire to have an 'isolationist' foreign policy. This isolationism is not to be mistaken with the legend of American isolationism which is rooted in their 'founding fathers' theoretic instruction not to become entangled in foreign affairs. British isolationism (or 'splendid isolation' as historians grandiosely refer to it) in the latter part of the Victorian era is not rooted in any principled or idealistic notion of abstaining from foreign adventurism but in the fact that the Empire during peace time had no need of allies. No other nation, Power or imperialist pretender could directly threaten the essence of the British Empire. Britannia was a modern Rome. It ruled the waves. However, from studying other previous Empires, they knew this superiority wasn't to be indefinite. The writing was not so much on the wall, but in the history books. Relative economic decline further fuelled this foreboding. As the historian Niall Ferguson wrote in his bestseller, "Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World", the British, "knew too much ancient history to be complacent about their hegemonic power...there were many who looked forward uneasily to the decline and fall of their own empire, like all the empires before it."(28)

At this point, a point determined by the 'uneasiness' of economics, the rise of imperial competitors and the trajectory of imperial history, the Empire reappraised its geopolitical relationships with other nations. And it was within this context that previous attitudes towards the United States of America were abandoned. Up until well into the second half of the nineteenth century the USA "was regarded with a mixture of unease and disdain."(29) The reason for this is because the United States had more democratic rights for its (white) citizens and it defined itself as apart from the British Empire and the rest of Europe. The military and political concept and alliance we today understand as an American led "West" did not gain traction until after World War Two when a face-off with the Soviet Union "East" became more pronounced.

Furthermore, as the past gave no reassurances that a "Greater Britain" would be enough for the continuation of the Empire, some intellectuals,

"sought authority in the image of America. This move was the result of the perceived consequences of understanding empires as transient, temporary, and above all, self-dissolving. In order to defend a permanent global Anglo-Saxon polity, they tried to escape this trajectory, to anchor their vision in secure temporal foundations. Greater Britain was to be located in a progressive narrative, open to the future not condemned by the past."(30)

British intellectuals were determined to wrench their Empire from history's inevitable damnation and avoid the flames that await all imperial hubris. In the interests of self-preservation, comparisons with past empires were cast aside in exchange for "secure temporal foundations". Specifically they re-orientated "their gaze toward America, shifting the source of inspiration from the past to the present – all in the name of the future. America was to be a substitute...an apposite political structure,..an imaginative means to escape the dangers heralded by the past."(31) Indeed, the United States was no longer to be regarded as "a potential or actual competitor but rather as a partner in the quest for global progress."(32)

A common linguistic expression was appropriated to encapsulate this potential rapprochement and future entente. The term "English Speaking Peoples" may today seem innocuous but it's contemporary usage is firmly rooted in the limitations of the notion of "Greater Britain" to fend off imperial decline and the wish to incorporate its former colony (and the new rising world power) the United States, into its world view. The essayist Christopher Hitchens was mistaken when he claimed the expression "English-speaking" is merely a "synonym for 'English by blood'"(33)At the very least, the expression was conceived, according to a British historian, "as a common endeavour in which the historic breach between the United States and the British Empire was to be healed."(34)

In 1900, the Prime Minister, Lord Salisbury relinquished the foreign ministry portfolio he had attached to his premiership and appointed the Marquess of Lansdowne as the Empire's new Foreign Secretary. Quickly, Lansdowne initiated what came to be referred to as a "new course" in foreign policy which can be seen as encapsulating the zeitgeist of apprehensive imperial thinking of the preceding years. Europe had formed into military alliances and blocs which the Empire could no longer ignore. On the one hand, there was the France-Russia alliance which was cemented in a treaty in 1892, on the other was the Triple alliance of Germany, Italy and Austria-Hungary.

Russia was continued to be perceived as a menace and potential threat to Great Britain's hold on India. It was feared that Russia may take advantage of the Empire's travails in its cumbersome crushing of the Boers and agitate in India. It didn't but the United States seemed to notice the Empire's position. The Empire, in the late 1890's, had many disputes between the United States and Canada over trade rights in fishing and fur seal fishing. But the two major disputes were the border between Alaska and Canada and the proposed Isthmian Canal connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.

American citizens had settled in parts of Alaska which Canada had made claims to especially after gold mines had been discovered in specific regions. The United States also wanted to revisit the 1850 Clayton-Bulwer Treaty that was signed with Great Britain in the event of a canal being built across the Isthmian linking the two great oceans. The Treaty guaranteed inter alia the canal's military neutrality. Initially Lord Salisbury wanted to link the two issues and only concede to the Americans on total claims to the Canal in exchange for American concessions on the Alaska-Canada border.(35) The Americans refused and insisted on addressing both issues on their individual merits.

Furthermore, with the rise of new imperial powers; European military alliances on its doorstep and most importantly the Empire's forces bogged down in South Africa the British had no choice but to cave in and appease the Americans. "The war stretched British resources to their limit at a time when public feeling on the Continent was pressing the great Powers to intervene in the struggle to save the Boers"(36) wrote the historian J. Grenville and a new treaty, known as the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, was eventually signed in November 1901. This agreement guaranteed the United States ownership and military supremacy in the future development of the canal across the Isthmian. The agreement surrendered military supremacy to the United States in the Western hemisphere not out of choice, ideology or kinship but out of imperial necessity.(37)

Nevertheless the Empire continued to fantasise about invading the United States. A pre-emptive war plan to invade the United States on three fronts: a land invasion from Montreal coupled with landings on New York and Boston was drawn up. The invasion was to be supported by a prospective Native American uprising who will no doubt come running to the assistance of the British!(38) Unfortunately the Empire was never in a military position to materialise this adventure.

The capitulation to the United States was one of the first agreements made by Lansdowne that allowed him to consolidate the Empire's resources to where its main interests lay, namely in Africa and Asia. Up until 1901 British naval policy was, in theory, based on parity with the two next major naval powers.(39)This policy was no longer sustainable. The rise of new powers and alliances being formed amongst its imperial competitors rendered it redundant and the Empire sought to establish its own alliances. British eyes were on the France-Russian Alliance which had held since 1894. It was feared their combined strength posed not only a threat to the Empire's global possessions but also to the home waters. Therefore, the British fleet needed first and foremost to account for the metropolis and in such a case this "made it impossible to maintain British supremacy in the Caribbean and Pacific as well."(40)

Within three months of signing away military supremacy to the United States in the Western hemisphere, Great Britain entered an agreement with Japan in the Far East. In this agreement the Empire pledged to support Japan in any war with an adversary if a third party became involved. In practise this meant that if Japan and Russia military decided to war and France came to the assistance of Russia, the British Empire would be obliged join on the side of Japan. Japan saw this agreement as green light to expand while the British saw this as a way of checking Tsarist Russia expansionism in Asia and obviously and specifically India.

Amidst the war between Russia and Japan in 1904-1905, the Empire signed the 'Entente Cordial' with the French. Both nations were apprehensive about the rise of Germany and entered this alliance as a bulwark against any German expansionism. The Empire made another alliance with Trasist Russia later in the decade.

The alliances made and initiated by Lansdowne in his term as foreign secretary held for another ten years and were carried into the Great War or World War One intact. That is the tripartite of the British Empire, France and the Tsar's Russia were pitted against a German led alliance which included the Ottoman Empire in an imperialist carnage to carve up mankind for their own benefit.

Although the British had the support of its Empire spanning a quarter of the world, even this was not enough to defeat Germany. A media campaign to entice its former colony, United States of America, to assist it in the war began in harness.

The British were in a good position to entice the Americans to win the war for them for four main reasons. Firstly because Americans saw Europe "through a distinctly British perspective. Few American newspapers at that time maintained European staffs of their own; while those that which did found few trained American trained foreign correspondents to man them."(41) Secondly, the British cut off the communication channels between Germany and America therefore all news to the United States was further filtered through the British censor.(42) Thirdly, the British in their propaganda in the United States made out that the interests of the British Empire were also American interests. Some newspapers thought that the Empire was fighting America's battle and the future of democracy was at stake although Britain's ally was the autocratic Russia of the Tsar and the Britisher had never instituted democracy amongst the indigenous populations of Africa and Asia it lorded over. The propaganda worked to the extent that "the British captured the American flag and waved it in front of themselves."(43) Fourthly and most importantly the British economically tied good proportions of the American economy and business into the war with purchases of arms ware and loans and therefore "made American business dependent upon a British victory."(44) The Empire was eventually "saved from collapse" in the Great War by the United States's entry in April 1917.(45)

The British imperialist establishment felt no shame or disgrace in endearing itself to a nation it once tried to strangle and crash on more than one occasion. The Empire had attempted to crush the American revolution, it then invaded the United States in 1814 and burned the capital, Washington to the ground and during the civil war the British did all they could do to see a partition of the United States by supporting the Confederacy in all but name. In all three cases the British Empire failed in their objective of destroying the United States. With its imminent economic and military decline foreseen, the British establishment in the late Victorian era shamelessly began to promote potential refuge and security under an American wing. During World War One, the Empire with most of the world's resources and people at hand, had no choice but to rope in the United States into its war with Germany.

History repeated itself in World War Two. The British Empire found itself up against the Germans again and as Winston Churchill said during his short spell at the Admirality in 1940, it was one thing delighting and entertaining(46) the British populace with slaughtering less technologically developed Africans and Asians ("harmless objects") and another fighting Germans:

"Indeed one may look back with envy to the past, and to the Victorian Age when great controversies were fought about what now seem to us very minor matters. When great states fought little wars and when the pugnacious instincts of our people were satisfied with such comparatively harmless objects as Cetewayo, the Mahdi, President Kruger and the Mad Mullah – I mean the the Mad Mullah of Somaliland." (47)

The "Empire alone could not have won the Second World War"(48) wrote Ferguson and as late as 1927, Churchill had even contemplated the Empire waging war on the United States(49) but when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour in 1941, Britain's greatest ever hero literally danced and jigged. He knew the American entry into the war would guarantee his and British imperialist survival. The Empire was saved from behind an American command, like the vernacular, despicable playground bully who when a more revolting bully arrives on the scene scurries behind a stronger saviour. Thereafter, the United States declared war on Japan and only after Germany and Italy declared war on the United States in solidarity with their Japanese ally, did the Americans, several days later declare war on the fascists of Europe.

There is nothing naturally inevitable about the current alliance between the United Kingdom and the United States of America. It was disingenuous of Christopher Hitchens to argue that the origins of the current geo-political relationship between the United States and the British state is to be "sought in the grand triad of race, class, and empire – the trivium upon which the relationship rests",(50) when in fact it is to be actually, empirically and corroboratively found in British imperialism's global economic and military decline or as the Brooklyn hip-hop artist Nasir rapped "All the wrong doers have got it coming back to 'em, a thousand times over. Every dog has its day and everything flips around. Even the most greatest nation in the world has it coming back to 'em."

If India in 1857 had successfully emulated the United States and thrown off the shackles of British imperialism the British Empire's decline would have clearly happened much sooner as there would not have been a guaranteed market for its goods, foodstuffs to plunder for its own people or an Indian auxiliary army used to defend the empire and subjugate other nations. Although the Empire could throttle and crush the Indian nation and other parts of the world in the latter part of the nineteenth century and early twentieth century, it could not prevent the challenge and rise of the United States, Germany and other European powers. It is within this decline of imperial power coupled with the rise of other nations that today's alliance of the United Kingdom with the United States originates. The fanciful and appropriated expression "English-Speaking Peoples" is a linguistic masquerade of this imperial decline and an "implicit" acknowledgement that British imperialism and with it the British establishment would not survive without the power of the United States.(51)

Bio: Nu’man Abd al-Wahid is a Yemeni-English independent researcher specialising in the political relationship between the British state and the Arab World. His main focus is on how the United Kingdom has historically maintained its political interests in the Arab World. His essays have appeared in Alternet, al-Akhbar (Lebanon), Mondoweiss and Black Commentator. A full collection of essays can be accessed at www.yamyam-yemeni.net.

(1)Robert Cecil, "The Confederate Struggle and Recognition", Quarterly Review, 112 (1862), pg. Pg554

(2)Ibid., pg.535-570

(3)Mary Ellison, "Support for Secession: Lancashire and the American Civil War", University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1972, pg. 116 and pg.126-127

(4)ibid., pg. 30-31 and pg. 152 and Thomas E Sebrell "Lincoln's British Enemies" BBC History Magazine, March 2011, pg. 22-29.

(5)Ellison op. cit., pg.105

(6)Sebrell op. cit., pg.26-27

(7)Ibid., pg.27

(8)ibid., pg.28

(9)Ellison op. cit., pg. 59

(10)ibid. pg.84 and pg183

(11)Sebrill, op. cit., pg.29

(12)ibid., pg.29

(13)Ellison pg. 188

(14)J.A.S. Grenville, "Lord Salisbury and Foreign Policy: the Close of the Nineteenth Century", The Athlone Press, London, 1970, pg.55

(15)Howard Temperley, "Britain and America Since Independence", Palgrave, Basingstoke, 2002, pg.77-78

(16)Daniel Hannan, "How We Invented Freedomand Why It Matters",Head of Zeus, London, 2013, pg.352

(17)Grenville, op. cit., pg.207.

(18)ibid. pg. 209

(19)ibid pg. 202

(20)Niall Ferguson, "Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World", Penguin Books, London, 2004, pg.278-281

(21)Aaron Friedberg, "The Weary Titan:Britain and the Experience of Relative Decline, 1895-1905", Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 1988, pg.26.

(22)Clive Ponting, "Churchill", Sinclair-Stevenson, London, 1994, pg. 215

(23)Grenville, op. cit., pg25

(24)Mike Davis, "Late Victorian Holocausts, El Nino Famines and the Making of the Third World", (London: Verso, 2002), pg.26

(25)Duncan Bell, The Idea of Greater Britain: Empire and the Future of Wold Order, 1860-1900", Princeton University Press, Princeton, pg.36-37

(26)Ibid.,pg.225

(27)Ibid., pg.207, pg.213 pg. 221-222

(28)Ferguson, op. cit., pg.247-248

(29)Bell, op. cit., pg 232

(30)ibid. pg.229

(31)ibid., pg209

(32)ibid. pg. 257

(33)Christopher Hitchens, "Blood, Class and Nostalgia", Vintage, London, 1991, pg221

(34)Peter Clarke, "The English-Speaking Peoples before Churchill", Britain and the World, Edinburgh University Press, September 2011, pg.225

(35)Grenville, op. cit., pg.373

(36)ibid. pg.379

(37)ibid. pg379

(38)ibid. pg. 422

(39)ibid. pg. 403

(40)ibid. pg.403

(41)Walter Millis, Road to War America 1914-1917 Quoted in H.C. Peterson, "Propaganda For War: The Campaign Against American Neutrality, 1914-1917", University of Oklahoma Press, 1968, Port Washington, New York, pg.6

(42)Peterson, op. cit., pg. 14

(43)ibid. pg.35

(44)ibid. pg.266

(45)Ponting op. cit. pg.216

(46)Ferguson. op. cit., pg.255-262

(47)Martin Gilbert, "The Churchill Papers, Volume: At the Admiralty September 1939-May 1940" Heinemann: London, 1993, speech to lobby journalists 29.2.1940, pg 832

(48)Ferguson, op. cit., pg. 348

(49)Ponting op. cit., pg320

(50)Hitchens, op, cit.,pg.21

(51)Richard Toye, "Churchill's Empire: The World that Made Him and the World He Made", Pan Books, London, 2011, pg.136

Tags: UK, US, special relationship

Back to headlines
comments (0)
recommend

>Local comment

Name: Remember me

E-mail: (optional)

Captcha

Friday, January 14, 2005
Leading Human Rights Solicitor "Shut Down” by Law Society
Society claims ‘substantial history of complaints going back ... years’
Exclusive report by Sean Mc Aughey
Sources and friends close to lawyer Padraigin Drinan are saying the official reasons behind an enforced closure by the Law Society of the offices of Ireland’s foremost human rights defender and solicitor remains wide open for damaging speculation.

Former clients who contacted the Law Society say they were immediately re-directed to a voice mail inbox belonging to the Deputy Secretary; Suzanne Bryson who was unavailable.

On Wednesday a Law Society spokesman was asked if Ms Drinan’s certificate to practice been fully revoked. The spokesman described the measures against Ms Drinan as a “removal of her provision to practice.” and added that a full Law Society press statement on the matter would be available.

In a statement released on Friday, January 14, 2005, the Law Society said: “Ms Drinan has a substantial history of complaints going back a number of years. These have led to a series of decisions by the Law Society to bring proceedings against Ms Drinan before the Disciplinary Tribunal, established for this purpose by the Solicitors (NI) Order 1976, as amended. The Disciplinary Tribunal operates independently of the Law Society.”

However, no clarrification of the substance or nature of the ‘complaint’ was given. The statement continues: “Complaints against Ms Drinan came before the Disciplinary Tribunal in May 2004. On considering the evidence presented by the Law Society, the Tribunal found that the complaints had been duly substantiated. It may be helpful to explain that in addition to imposing certain fines and costs penalties, the Tribunal Order records as follows; ‘The Tribunal noted with regret the Respondent’s (Ms Drinan) previous history of proven complaints before the Tribunal which were all similar to the complaints today. They formed the view that the Respondent was not functioning at any acceptable level as a single practitioner and that in the interest of the public and the Respondent herself, they are ordering that she is restricted from practising on her own account or in partnership. She may accept employment from another solicitor provided they have at least seven years post qualification experience. The Tribunal also orders that she shall not work in any practice using her name on the title or as one of the principals.’ The Tribunal were prepared to defer the implemantation of the Order for a reasonable period to allow Ms Drinan to make alternative arrangements. This deferment initially applied until September 2004 with a subsequent deferral to a date than fixed by the Tribunal at 6 January 2005.

“As and from that date, Ms Drinan is not entitled as a matter of law to practise on her own account. If she continues to do so, she will not only be in breach of the Order of the Tribunal, but will also be committing a criminal offence. In these circumstances the Law Society is under an obligation to see that the terms of the Tribunal Order are complied with.

“Ms Drinan is not inhibited from practice as an employed solicitor.

“The inability of Ms Drinan to continue in practice on her own account is not an action taken by the Law Society but is a function of an Order made by the Disciplanary Tribunal. Ms Drinan has not to our knowedge at any time sought to contest or appeal the Orders made by the Disciplinary Tribunal.” The statement was signed by Don Anderson, for the Law Society.

An informed source close to Ms Drinan said it was believed that as a result of her civil rights involvement she was seen by the establishment as an embarrassing and troublesome ‘thorn in the side’ who had done nothing wrong other than to try to provide legal advice to those who could not otherwise afford it.

IRSP spokesperson, Terry Harkin described Ms Drinan as “someone who was on par with James Connolly especially in terms of helping the poor and the voiceless all over Ireland” and he asked “where will the most vulnerable in our society get legal help now ”?

“Padraigin Drinan,” he continued, “is a once in a lifetime heroine who ought to be recognized and elevated for her tireless work and not punished, bullied and intimidated by some of her colleagues, who have left her open to a humiliating whisper campaign. ”

A Spokesperson for the Anti Racism Network described The Law Society’s actions as “questionable” and she asked where was the Law Society’s energy when legal immigrants were imprisoned with their children, being bombed from their home or loosing their legs due to frostbite. The immigrants she said are only a small example of the many communities throughout Ireland who are indebted to Padraigin Drinan. ”

Padraigin Drinan speaking from her Belfast office said: “At this stage it appears that I am accused of being a poor business manager but not guilty of any financial impropriety. I have been instructed also that I must amalgamate with other solicitors. ”

But she added: ”I am heartened by the hundreds of calls from well wishers and supporters from all over the world including a call from among others, Gareth Pierce.”
          background items

Thursday, 28 October 2004
Féile an Phobail, West Belfast
By Sean Mc Aughey
The West Belfast community was demonised for many years by both the establishment and the media and this reached fever pitch in March 1988 as a result of the tragic events which followed the SAS killings of three unarmed IRA volunteers in Gibraltar. In reaction to this unparalleled negative and damaging portrayal of the West Belfast community, local groups and their MP, Gerry Adams, decided to organise a festival. Its purpose was to celebrate the positive side of the community, its creativity, its energy, its passion for the arts, and for sport. And it aimed at providing events and entertainment at a price that the majority of the community could afford.

*1 The West Belfast Féile which is entering its 17th year is the largest community (people) powered festival in Europe. It is internationally regarded as a ten day long festival "on par" with the best community festivals in England and Ireland. The Féile includes, a colourful carnival parade, discussions, debates, concerts, exhibitions, children's events, i.e street parties, bouncy castles etc, sports, literary and drama events, Féile radio, widespread community events on a street to street, pub to pub basis and various political, cultural or historical tours and walks.

The Festival aims to provide events of interest for everyone at a price that the majority of the community could afford while simultaneously serving also to elevate a positive West Belfast self image contolled by its people despite the forces acting against the people and the official resources denied them. The Féile continues to grow into a major tourist attraction. The August Féile continues also to easily attract "top of the range" participation from local and International entertainers, artists and commentators. This year's Féile line up included, Arthur Scargill leader in 1984 of the National Union of Mineworkers presenting The 10th Annual Frank Cahill Memorial Lecture and The P.J. McGrory Memorial Lecture - Long Road to the Truth delivered by Mrs Geraldine Finucane who was shot and wounded at the time of her husband Pat's, assassination 15 years ago. Top British band Big Brovaz, Irish Traditionalist singer/songwriter, Donal Luney and Andy Irvine, Christy Moore and Declan Sinnott, novelist Roddy Doyle, comedian Rich Hall and Bob Marley`s band, the Wailers demonstrating that the Feile is going from strength to strength and most definitely growing in popularity not only among the audience but the artists, as well. The choice of August for the Féile by the West Belfast Community and many other Republican communities like Ardoyne and New Lodge is pertinent. Because, August 9th 1971, brought a re-introduction to nationalist areas of widespread house raids, arrests and imprisonment without trial or a release date. The yearly anniversary of Interment was previously marked in the community by a display of bonfires of defiance. But, the bonfires provided the RUC and British Army with the ideal opportunity for provaction and delivered in British terms "a fool proof" excuse for the entire "Mechanism of the State" to "justify" any injury or death perpetrated by State violence and especially the use of plastic bullets, when framed within the same context of a nationalist bonfire.

Teenager shot dead returning home from Internment night bonfire.
The DPP refused to initiate proceedings on the grounds that it was impossible to establish which RUC officer fired the fatal shot. The jury found that at the time of Seamus' killing that he was not engaged in any rioting and that there was no rioting at the time of his killing.

*2 "The fatal shot" that killed 15 year-old Seamus Duffy from the Oldpark area was fired from a passing RUC patrol on August 9th 1989. The plastic bullet crushed his heart and tore a four-inch laceration in his left lung.

*3 Seamus Duffy was returning home from an internment night bonfire and there was no rioting in the area. The initial RUC response indicates according to The Relatives for Justice group, the RUC believed Seamus Duffy did not die as a result of being hit by a plastic bullet and that they would appoint a 'top policeman' to investigate the exact circumstances of the death.

*4 Secretary of State, Peter Brooke said: 'There are no grounds for suggesting their use (Plastic Baton Rounds fired by RUC officers) last night was other than in accordance with the law'.

*5 Darkness
Over a very short period of time, bonfire culture in most Republican communities has been easily transformed to the community-orientated ethos that permeates participative festivals. Bonfires were already long since stigmatised as negative and destructive by the collective wisdom and experience of the community and most especially by those members of the community who vividly recall how life once was before the bright lights and colour of the Féile. A time, when, West Belfast was in darkness because the various combatants shut down the streetlights and fear was a way of life. The local dogs barking were for those of us making our way home hoping to avoid a beating from the British Army patrols, a most welcomed concert of sorts, alerting with pin point accuracy the exact location of the four, eight, 16 or 32 blackened faces of the British Army foot patrols in the area.

“Riddles' Field" - Daddy Makes A Dream Comes True (Thanks to the Féile)
When I reflect on the quality of life my teenage children are currently enjoying and compare this to my teenage days, I owe a lot to the efforts of the many people behind the West Belfast Féile who are continually raising the esteem of our people and enhancing our quality of life. There is clearly a massive gulf between my teenage days and that of my teenage children today in terms of confidence, opportunities and simply attending a concert by their favourite "pop stars" in West Belfast. This in itself remains a source of immense joy and pride. Especially, when I think about what used to be -"Riddles' Field", (Beechmount Leisure Centre) and look at the here and now concert venue, where teenage dreams are fulfilled. My daughters were in seventh heaven a few years ago at the Féile in "Riddles' Field" during a Westlife concert and then the Atomic Kitten concert. My teenagers' expectations are obviously higher today and undoubtedly more realistically obtainable thanks to the Féile. My children's confidence is part of the vibrancy that makes West Belfast Féile buzz. This buzz has been harnessed, channelled and most importantly of all, encouraged by the various F éile projects and events.

A Teenage Nightmare I hold by comparison to my children, a teenage tale of woe. One of my favourite Rock n' Roll bands in 1975, Showaddywaddy had agreed to play in Belfast at the ABC. I was all set for my face to face with my teenage "Top of the Pops" idols and unfortunately this was as near as I got. Showaddywaddy pulled the plug on the Belfast tour when news surrounding the murder of the Miami Showband reached their agents. I was shattered. The people responsible for killing the Miami Showband musicians were pro-British and some were also members of a British Army Regiment. Showaddywaddy were a Sheffield Band.

On the 31st July 1975, a Loyalist gang murdered three members of the Miami Showband. Tony Geraghty (23), Fran O'Toole (29), Brian McCoy (33). Two of the UVF gang were also killed, Harris Boyle, described as a UVF Major from Portadown, and Wesley Somerville, described as a UVF Lieutenant from Caledon, Co Tyrone. Two men from the Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR) were jailed for 35 years in connection with the murders of members of the Miami Showband. The Miami Massacre, a part of our past, had also a lasting impact for many engaged in the Arts and for one Belfast man the Miami murders would bring about his film debut.

Angel - Galway Film Fleadh Michael Dwyer: The thing that triggered Angel was the murder of the Miami Showband musicians...
Neil Jordan: Kind of. I was playing in a band and we used to travel up and down to Belfast and Derry and places like that and we'd be driving back late at night. It was in the 1980's when all those sectarian killings were happening. It was very black; you always presumed it wouldn't happen to you - that you were safe - and when the Miami were shot it seemed quite shocking. They were innocent and I felt totally numb I suppose and that put images in my mind. I like to write things with people in mind and I had written Angel with Stephen Rea in mind

*6 How are ye Jeffrey? - West Belfast Féile Talks Back
During the Féile Talks Back debate, a former IRA POW, Seanna Walsh—who was sentenced to twenty-two years when he was caught making explosives and mortar bombs— courteously welcomed The DUP's Jeffery Donaldson to the Féile debate. Mr Walsh then asked: “Jeffrey, when you talk about the IRA's capacity to make war, I can go out of here tonight with a couple of hundred pounds in my pocket and purchase the equipment to make Baltic Exchange/Canary Wharf type bombs. How are you going to remove that capacity? "

*7 The DUP man addressed the question in repetitive mantra. Seanna Walsh also said: "The point I was making was that I can produce homemade explosives and mortars. You cannot decommission that knowledge. What is more important is our commitment to peace and to politics. But all of the initiatives taken by the IRA to date have had absolutely no effect on the unionist community. Trust is a two-way street. We suspect that at the root of it unionists cannot deal with equality and sharing power and that the idea of republicans being in government was a bridge too far for them. Everything else is an excuse not to go there. ”

*8 The IRA and its weapons is being used as an excuse
About 24 hours after the Festival debate, Mr Gerry Adams, The West Belfast MP and President of Sinn Fein told PA News:
“ While I would not like to minimise what may be genuine fears and concerns within unionism, I do think the issue of the IRA and its weapons is being used an excuse.” The Sinn Fein president commended Mr Donaldson on his appearance at the festival and paid tribute to his colleagues on the committee, which organised the event. Mr Adams also said he would like to take part in a similar event in a loyalist area.

*9 Community Empowerment
Mr Adams sums up the spirit of the Féile in a sentence by saying he = would like to take part in a similar event in a loyalist area. Community festivals bring as in this case politicians face to face with the voter in the voter's home territory. The Shankill Road and East Belfast "Think Tanks" did likewise to enpower the community and expose the politicians. The voice of the community can be best heard at festival time.

References and sources used in this article:
*1 http://www.feilebelfast.com/ourhistory/
*2 http://www.relativesforjustice.com/victims/seamus_duffy.htm
*3 http://www.relativesforjustice.com/victims/seamus_duffy.htm
*4 http://www.relativesforjustice.com/victims/seamus_duffy.htm
*5 http://www.relativesforjustice.com/victims/seamus_duffy.htm
*6 http://www.iol.ie/~galfilm/filmwest/fleadhjordan.htm
*7 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/3543518.stm
*8 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/3543518.stm
*9 http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3D3300413

by Sean Mc Aughey