It seems John Gormley’s call for China to talk to the Dalai Lama didn’t go down well… he got up and walked out… There’s concern here now that this might obscure the policy detail of John Gormley’s speech…,
Are you confused about ‘dissident’ Irish Republicanism? Anxious about its existence and its seemingly increasingly deadly capabilities? Martyn Frampton’s new book, Legion of the Rearguard: Dissident Irish Republicanism (Irish Academic Press, 2011) serves both as a primer on active dissident groups and a timely analysis of their historic significance and contemporary capabilities. This book clears [...] read our review »
Ireland is in the middle of a boom – a running boom. Chances are, even if you have never run a step yourself (apart from some painful P.E. classes many moons ago), someone you know has taken up running over the last little while. Road races in Northern Ireland and in the Republic have seen [...] read our review »
Horny nun,
The dalai Lama is also an obstacle to progress
Hardly. The Tibetan Government in Exile operates democratically, much like that of any EU state in fact.
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/chinese-are-burnt-by-an-incendiary-torch-relay-1346140.html
Here is a good article from today’s Sindo showing how the Irish and others flip flop when faced with the Sino Nazis. Just as Gemrany won most medals in 1936, so also will today’s Nazis win most medals in the new Berlin. Let’s hope they end up the way the Nazis did, cowering in their bunkers as nuclear warheads rain down on them.
I’ve changed my mind (particularly after reading Mick Hall and Crat’s comments); this wasn’t a silly stunt. This was a very clever stunt if you’re leader of the Green Party and a TD in Dublin South East, a place where the very streets run thick with wealthy bourgeois lawyers and academics who despite being extremely wealthy members of one of the richest (and most carbon producing) societies on the planet, think that they’re blood brothers with every Ecuadorian native peasant farmer because of Ireland’s history with the Brits. As a political gesture it’s strategically stupid, diplomatically offensive but probably tactically smart.
The Tibetans are not the only minority in China that feel this ‘pressure’.
Indeed, if were Beijing I worry a wee bit more about what the jetsam and flotsam of the Islamic world might do over Xinjiang than I would about what Martin Sheen was doing over Tibet.
Westerners hope that China through economic growth will eventually become a democracy and thus more tolerant of their ethnic minorities. This would not be in line with the past 2,500 years of Chinese history.
I beg to differ. British and French decolonisation in Africa has hardly in line with their history, either. So was Spain’s transformation into a dynamic, secular, democratic society. Or indeed Ireland’s. There’s a danger that you say that somehow the Chinese are different, possessed of some amoral slitty-eyed inscrutability and therefore incapable of transforming their society into something better. That brings you into unpleasant territory morally and counterproductive territory politically.
the notion that the Dali Lama ruled Tibet as some sort of peace-loving hippy, instead of at the head of a ruthless oppressive class that stymied development
You are being a bit harsh given that the Chinese took over Tibet when the Dalai Lama was a teenager. Nonetheless, it is worth bearing in mind that the Himalayas contains some of the most oppressive and backwards social systems in the world. Nepal is only just in the process of abandoning feudalism after a bloody civil war; Bhutan is still a full-on feudal state. It does not excuse the Chinese police shooting unarmed demonstrators, though.
the ideological concerns of rooting out corruption and bad planning within our jurisdiction
Louth Young Green – by going into coailition with FF? ROFLMAO!!!!!
And Sino Fascist/Horny Nun/Dalai Lama – if you’re going to post sub-Stormfront nonsense on here, at least do it under a consistent user name rather than creating so many sock puppets.
DL
cowering in their bunkers as nuclear warheads rain down on them
I guess you weren’t paying attention when China test exploded their nuclear weapons or when they used a mighty rocket to send a man into space.
Sammy,
That area does have a lot of opprsesive systems. Although thankfully Nepal is now in the process of being liberated and transformed. Led by Communists in fact.
These Chinese are a dodgey bunch. Just the type to fool all the EU nancy boys…..
Tsk, tsk.
Garibadly: Right on. And Irish sex tourists are liberating them form their old fashioned morals too. Thank “God” for the strong euro which allows us get into their panties/undies.
I figure the Chinese way of recycling prisoners would be a good idea. I saw a documentary recently showing just how much a cadavar is worth.
Once we exterminate Christianity, then we can emulate the Chinese and the more entrepreneurial Americans. The world would be a better place if we took the kidneys of our prisoners for more worthy people. Where Mengele set the trend, the Americans and Chinese follow. The Irish have a lot of catching up to do.
And, regarding Tibet, remember what Nixon said about The Backyard, aka Latin America, No one give a f–k about the place.
Certainly, Ireland’s Nazis don’t. I checked out stormfront. They don’t seem to have a policy on Tibet. I put it down to myopia. I am unsure what to put the support here for Chinese fascism down to.
Nice shot at Martin Sheen too. Jealousy gets you nowhere. Not that anyone would or should be jealous of a practicing Catholic. I think you meant someone else dude. But i agree. No one should have opinions that diagree with yours or the animals who run China.
I never mentioned Martin Sheen. And perhaps you might want to look at what is happening in Nepal, where a democratically elected constitutional convention is about to have Communists as its biggest group. Communists who freed the country from royal tyranny, and are being recognised for that by voters from throughout the country.
On cadavers. You left out the Kosovo Liberation Army, which was exposed only yesterday as trading in Serb body parts by a UN investigator.
“Clearly the Greens, who invited the Ambassador, and their leader who subsequently, and publicly, attempted to embarrass him.”
Is it not the case that all the diplomatic corps are automatically invited to ard feiseanna?
And I thought they told the Chinese Ambassador what they were going to say beforehand anyway so he knew what was coming?
As Gormley has found out, you can never find a decent Chinese on a Saturday night.
In Ireland, the correct thing to do is to invite all ambassadors to the leader’s speech at conventions. The Chinese and Japanese ambassadors were present (and perhaps others). As they do at other conventions, they and their officials don’t applaud or give standing ovations, so as to appear neutral.
Thus, the notion that the Greens invited the Chinese ambassador as part of a not-so-clever trap to “insult him” is rubbish. It’d be a sorry state of affairs if the acceptance of an invitation (offered out of compliance with protocol) meant that a party leader couldn’t speak on the biggest foreign policy story of the day.
Also, I dislike the notion that this was somehow an “insult”. All that was said was that talks should be opened with the Dalai Lama. It’s hardly in “your ma” territory.
Anyway, the statement was cleared by DFA in advance, and the Chinese ambassador had been notified of the comments prior to the speech. It wasn’t a “trap”, or “student politics” – it was a political party leader commenting on a matter of foreign policy principle.
But Mick Hall, the fact the feudalism may have been practiced in Tibet does not give China the right to invade that country. And it is also the case that while China has always claimed to rule Tibet, in practice until the collapse of Imperial rule in 1912, it was largely left to run its own affairs. The Communists invaded in 1949 and were unprovoked. The colonisation of Tibet is in stark contrast to the tolerance with which that region was treated by the otherwise oppressive Imperial regime. Tibet deserves to be freed of the Butchers of Beijing. As for that matter do the Uighurs of Xinjiang.
I am not surprised that T.Ruth is critical of what the Green minister did. I wonder is there a certain affinity between some Unionists and the Chinese in terms of opposing separatism and could that be why T.Ruth and his/her like hold these views?
” The Tibetans have priests and mountains . The Tibetans are being ‘minoritised’ in their own country due to Chinese economic expansion . The Tibetans are not the only minority in China that feel this ‘pressure’. China is not a democracy”
Its classic Stalinist policy…. deport all the original ethnic folk from an area & then flood it with outside settlers. the reasons are obvious.
garabaldi : while i agree with you on alot of points why this support for a horrendous totalitarian regime ?
Boycott all Chinese goods !!! live the life minimalistically… I have & now have found i can exist with just one spoon. My wife & kids are less than impressed. Her inside threw a hissy fit when i threw her “Sims” disc in the bin & as 4 the kids, iam the AntiChrist.
“But Mick Hall, the fact the feudalism may have been practiced in Tibet does not give China the right to invade that country.”
Brian,
I never said it did, as I said on my blog, it is for the Tibetan people to decide what relationship they have with China, and it is certainly not for the Chinese to make them become citizens of the Chinese Republic against their will. I’m one of those old fashioned lefties who believe “all peoples have the right to freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” Indeed it is how I first washed up on Irelands political shore.
All the best.
it’s such a laugh that everyone is talking about how “rude” it was for Gormley to criticise Chinese actions in Tibet… I would consider China’s actions to be so far and beyond “rude”.. but here we are talking about how impolite it was to mention the human rights abuses of a brutal nation..
If it had come to light in the media that the Chinese ambassador had been at the Greens’ convention and Gormley hadn’t said anything, then the same people would be talking about how “spineless” he was, how he’s “sold out” and all the usual tosh.
Fair play to Gormley and the Greens for coming out and saying it. You wouldn’t find the leader of other party in Ireland with the balls to say it.
*Although thankfully Nepal is now in the process of being liberated and transformed. Led by Communists in fact.*
Ah, Communist ‘liberation’, truly a joy to behold, just ask the Poles, and the Czechs, and the Estonians, and the Ukrainians, and the Lithuanians.
Communist style democracy; one man one vote.
One time.
But in this case, Harry, it is the Nepalese people who are being asked and their response to the advances made by their Communist Party against their dictatorship is a resounding “YES!”.
The Dali Lama’s claims to represent Tibet are completely spurious. He has not now nor has he ever held any mandate whatsoever from the Tibetan people. He represents only a discredited exploitative class of feudal priests and his concerns for his people after China entered Tibet were so strong that he upped and left them to it while he and his cohorts languished in comfort and safety and feted by those who harboured ill will against China.
Ah yes Rory, communists giving the people a choice, how refreshing, I wonder how long that will last.
Hey I’m just an old cynic, I’m sure this time it will be different, I’m sure the Nepalese communists will make a huge success of things and create a shining workers’ paradise with all the grim delights that term usually entails.
We’ve only had almost a century of communists trying to make their dreary system work. Maybe it will work this time, and if it all goes pear shaped as it usually does, well, what’s a few thousand Nepalese corpses when added to the one hundred million victims of communist failure, eh?
The “People’s Flag” is deepest red, for a very good reason.
Fair play to John Gormley. It was very brave of him to say that.
As Pidge said above other ambassadors were present and the Chinese Ambassador was notified of what was going to be said so it was not a childish ambush as some people posting here have niavely stated.
Also i agree with Junkheads post above. If John Gormley had not mentioned Tibet and then it became known that a Chinese Ambassador was present the Greens would have been met with the usual crap along the lines of “you have sold out” etc etc.
Again i say fair play to John Gormley and his Green Party Colleagues.
Inviting someone to your conference and insulting them is still childish. As for Harry’s remarks, we’ll wait and see what develops in Nepal. The violence of a revolution depends on the nature of the resistance offered by those opposed to change. If their oppoenents refuse to recognise or seek to undermine their mandate (and there are several bigger powers liable to interfere) then things could become unpredictable. But hopefully not.
Garibaldy,
“Inviting someone to your conference and insulting them is still childish.”
As far as I know it was protocol to invite ambassadors and also, as far as I know, the Chinese Ambassador knew the contents of the speech beforehand.
Where is the childishness in following diplomatic protocol and informing the ambassador of the contents of the speech so he can make a mature decision whether to attend or not?
And Garibaldy, could you point out the insult in the speech?
The insult lies in inviting someone to attend, then telling them how to run things in their territory. I’d have thought that was obvious. There are also ways and means of protesting about the behaviour of a government, and this was ignored. And I wonder if the Chinese ambassador was told the exact wording of the speech. That is unclear. I suspect had he been told exactly what the wording was, he may have refused to attend. But we don’t know.
Garibaldy,
“The insult lies in inviting someone to attend, then telling them how to run things in their territory. I’d have thought that was obvious.”
Not at all obvious I am afraid. If protocol demands you invite the Chinese Ambassador and you then give him a copy of the speech so he can see whether he wants to be in the room for it, where is the insult?
If protocol was not followed and he was the only ambassador not given an invite would that not have been an insult too?
I don’t understand what you think the Greens should have done on this.
Or is no one allowed discuss any issue involving foreign countries at ard feiseanna anymore?
George,
I’ve said before (more than once I think) that this could have been discussed without the ambassador in the room, at a different time. Then they could have said whatever they liked, and no-one would have cared in the slightest. I’ve also said (more than once for definite) that there is protocol for making protests to a foreign government. I’m not really going to continue repeating myself.
Garibaldy,
“I’ve said before (more than once I think) that this could have been discussed without the ambassador in the room, at a different time.”
Equally, the Chinese Ambassador could have decided not to be in the room at the time this was brought up.
It wasn’t the Chinese Ambassador’s conference, it was the Greens’.
You appear to be saying that the Greens should have had a sort of “Ambassador watch” system going where the Ard Fheis programme would have things like “Tibet debate 15:00 (subject to Ambassador’s presence)”.
This is ridiculous.
The Ambassador was informed that this issue would be brought up in Gormley’s speech and he decided to remain.
It was protocol to invite him, it is not protocol to refuse to discuss certain issues simply because he decided to attend at the time when the issue was brought up.
As for repeating yourself, I am challenging what you said simply because it is, in my view, inadequate and ill thought out.
Firstly, you said it was an insult to invite him and then to insult him. But diplomatic protocol meant that the Greens had to invite him.
Secondly, the Greens informed him of what was going to be said and the Ambassador decided to stay anyway to be “insulted”.
If anyone was “stupid”, it was the Chinese Ambassador.
If anyone was making a cheap political point, it was the Chinese Ambassador.
If anyone was insulting, it was the Chinese Ambassador to try and bully an Irish political party into silence by his presence.
He had two full days to attend but decided to be there when Gormley talked about Tibet.
I presume it’s usual for the ambassador to be there for the keynote address rather than spend two days listening to a party’s internal business. As I’ve also said, I doubt the Greens expected him to walk out, so I view this slightly differently to others. And accepting an invitation is trying to bully people into silence? You’re contradicting yourself there. Firstly you’re saying he knew what was going to be said, and chose to stay and hear it. Now you’re saying he tried to silence them by turning up. Perhaps I’m not the only one offering ill-thought out comments.
Garibaldy,
the Chinese Ambassador was under no obligation to attend and if he really wanted to meet the Greens had ample opportunity to do so over the two days.
Why should the Greens organise their conference around him?
You explain to me why he went to a conference where he knew beforehand that he was going to storm out if it wasn’t to send a message that speaking out against China could and would have consequences.
It is an attempt to stymie free speech. The same stuff went on when the Chinese PM visited the UK a few years back and protestors were hidden from view to protect Chinese sensibilities.
So people have the right to protest, except for the Chinese ambassador? Should we expect the Chinese not to react against criticism of them? Surely it is their right to decide how they react to criticism?
On the Chinese PM in Britain, let’s not forget the Guards moved the homeless out of Mother Theresa’s line of sight when she visited Ireland.
The Dali Lama’s claims to represent Tibet are completely spurious.
So are anyone else’s, including the Chinese government, as Tibet has never had a free press, freedom of association or free elections.
Fair play to John Gormley. It was very brave of him to say that.
Why? Was someone going to throw him in leg irons for saying it or something?
When China first invaded Tibet in the 1950s, the only country in the UN which opposed this was the Republic of Ireland.
The rest didn’t really know much about Tibet at the time (most didn’t vote on the matter at all afaik) – or didn’t care.
Garibaldy & Rory: It’s debatable that Tibet was ruled by “a parasitic class of priests [living] off the hard work of the people“ but even if that were the case then Tibet was still entitled to its own self-determination, just like Ireland was. Remember all the things the Brits said about the Irish to justify its invasion(s) and plunder.
Again,
I have not justified what is going on in Tibet. I have said that there is a lot of ignorance about the reality of life in Tibet under the previous regime.
Garibaldy,
“So people have the right to protest, except for the Chinese ambassador?”
He has the right to protest but to play the insulted dignitory when he knew what was coming and to call it “unacceptable” is stretching things.
I have a bigger issue with you saying “This is a disgraceful way for a government party to behave”.
I also have an issue with you saying “A government party criticising the internal government of another country outside the formal diplomatic channels when you have invited them to attend your conference is disgraceful” – especially when it was diplomatic protocol that saw him invited and especially since he was aware of the contents of the speech.
He didn’t have to attend and went out of his way to be offended.
“Should we expect the Chinese not to react against criticism of them? Surely it is their right to decide how they react to criticism?”
But you find the way Gormley criticised China as “disgraceful” but see nothing wrong with the Chinese going out of their way to be offended.
On the Chinese PM in Britain, let’s not forget the Guards moved the homeless out of Mother Theresa’s line of sight when she visited Ireland.
I didn’t know we could get even get a spot of whataboutery in here.
Now could you answer the questions I put to you:
If protocol demands you invite the Chinese Ambassador and you then give him a copy of the speech so he can see whether he wants to be in the room for it, where is the insult?
If protocol was not followed and he was the only ambassador not given an invite would that not have been an insult too?
Why should the Greens organise their conference around him?
George,
I’ve been over most of that at least once. For him to be the only ambassador not to have been invited would have been an insult. I wasn’t indluging in whataboutery – you were by introducing British behaviour into this debate about a government party in the free state.
As for the organisation of the Greens’ conference, perhaps they would have been better served more honestly looking at why they got such a rotten deal when going into government.
“Fair play to John Gormley. It was very brave of him to say that.”
“Why? Was someone going to throw him in leg irons for saying it or something?” – Sammy Morse
No, but members of competing political parties they might make cheap and tacky criticisms about him on message boards, seeing the issue of Tebetan human rights and China’s abuse of them and China’s tactic of censoring criticism of its abuses as being secondary to the juicy point-scoring opportunity.
Not that such is the case here, of course.
Garibaldy,
FYIW, I was pointing to where this type of Chinese “protest” at “unacceptable” behaviour leads. It is to prevent public criticism of China. I was not having a go at the British government’s behaviour.
Also, you still haven’t answered the basic question:
If protocol demands you invite the Chinese Ambassador and you then give him a copy of the speech so he can see whether he wants to be in the room for it, where is the insult?
The Chinese government is always offended by the mere mention of the Dalai Lama, or Tibetan self-governance, and objects even if a country allows the Dalai Lama to visit. There will be no discussion. The decision has been made. You mind your own business. You accept what we decide.*
Being offended on this matter is official Chinese government policy.
I think Gormley would have expected the response and, given the current circumstances, the Chinese ambassador would have expected the matter to be raised. In short, diplomacy, Chinese-style, has been effected.
*See also the mainland Chinese diplomatic approach to Taiwan.
Dave,
Imagine a government minister being criticised. And no Greens ever criticise anybody esle.
George,
I’ve pointed out where I consider the insult to be. Several times. I have no problem with the Greens or the Dublin government protesting to the Chinese. I would however like to see it done properly, as opposed to being done in a needlessly offensive manner.
*The violence of a revolution depends on the nature of the resistance offered by those opposed to change.*
Oh I get it, so when communists seek to impose their will on others by force then people should simply accept it, and if they resist then they are to blame for the resulting violence.
Let me restructure the above sentence;
“The violence of a rape depends on the nature of the resistance offered by a woman opposed to being violated”.
See, it’s that simple.
Harry,
That’s a ridiculous thing to say, and frankly beneath you. Let’s take the French Revolution – practically death free until the counter-revolutionaries began to plot against the revolution, and tried to get an invasion from other monarchies. Or let’s take the 1989 events – no resistance, so no violence, apart of course from some executions by the new regime in Romania. Or let’s take Chile – an elected government pursuing a revolutionary programme – gets stomped on by the military, when it should have stomped on them first. Or Venezuela – revolutionary change in progress, but via elected means. The only hint of violence from Chavez et al being during the US-backed coup attempt. And in Nepal. A legitimate struggle against tyranny, now replaced by peaceful political activity – in fact I read this very day the leader of the Maoists expressing his commitment to peaceful and multi-party democracy. They could have taken power violently had they wished. And haven’t.
So in short, Harry, perhaps you might relate your comments on Nepal to the facts.
Sammy Morse: what does “ROFLMAO” mean?
You can certainly pick one or two instances where revolutions are justified and the only opposition to them is from illegitimate forces of reaction but to apply that across the aboard about all revolutions (which you did) is patent nonsense. Very often resistance to revolution is perfectly justifiable.
To cite your own examples, the French Revolution was opposed by very many people for perfectly legitimate reasons, opponents of the Revolution were not all languid aristos you know, no more than opponents of the Russian Revolution were all Czarist thugs nor indeed opponents of our own nasty little revolution in norn iron were all Orange bigots. You seem to be blinded by the notion that opposition to red revolution cannot be expressed by anyone other than reactionary throwbacks frequently it comes from moderate democrats.
The Catholics of the Vendee did not fancy being ruled by authoritarian, atheistic demagogues because they saw the sheer evil of such rule, the dreadful slaughter imposed upon them rather proved they were justified in their opposition.
It is a convenient tool of revolutionaries to always paint their opponents as reactionary backwoodsmen, this is codswallop and well you know it. It might surprise you but it is perfectly reasonable to object to Communism without being some sort of fascist.
As for the oft cited Chile, Allende did not have a democratic mandate to impose Marxism on the country. You may disapprove of Pinochet’s coup d’etat but it was no less legitimate than the overthrow of the Chilean constitution that Allende was attempting to carry out himself. Try reading a bit more on the topic Garibaldy, the Allende situation was a lot more complex than the simplistic good guy/bad guy nonsense that usually passes for discussion on the topic.
Don’t always swallow the Marxist propaganda hook, line and sinker.
As regards the Nepalese communists’ promise to create a multi-party democracy well if they do that then they will cease to be Marxists. As a long term advocate of multi-party democracy I’d be very happy with that but to put it simply you cannot have Marxism and multi-party democracy, they are mutually exclusive.
Opposition to change comes with many faces. But it all tends to end up being led by the most reactionary elements. As for the peasants of the Vendee, funnily enough the first massacres there were by them of local republican officials. But it’s a perfect illustration of my point. Change is achieved peaceably, and with mass support. Recationary groups do not accept it, and begin agitating against it. War breaks out, and the revolution is forced to defend itself against an internal military challenge. Doesn’t leave people much choice for self-defence but the most extreme means.
Allende was elected and had popular support. He was introducing reforms. The way to combat him was through the ballot box. I’m amazed that you would regard a coup as as legimitate as political reforms introduced by a democratically-elected government. Then again the Soviets warned him to clear out the army and he didn’t. Again, that is a demonstration of the necessity sometimes to usual extreme measures against reactionary opponents. Who in that case had (and still have it seems) the support of reasonable moderates such as yourself.
What you seem to be saying is that people who object to revolutionaries on the basis that revolutionary governments invariably become brutally oppressive police states are to blame for revolutionary governments becoming brutally oppressive police states.
Like I said earlier with the rape allusion, you appear to blame the victim.
Let me give you an example. If all you ever learned about the situation in Northern Ireland was from the perspective of Sinn Fein, you could reasonably say that there was no alternative to violent revolution and thuggery because the actions of the state drove the revolutionaries to do what they did. However this would be to totally ignore the vast majority of people who sought a peaceful, moderate, democratic reformist agenda.
Likewise in France, in Russia in Iran in 1979 there was a huge desire for change and reform, perfectly legitimate, but this was hijacked by militant revolutionaries who set out to overthrow the government, not reform it and to sieze power for themselves and to destroy any hopes of peaceful democratic change.
You seem to retain a charmingly naive notion that revolutionaries are stout-hearted, fair minded, decent humanitarians who genuinely seek the betterment and welfare of the masses. The merest glance at our own squalid revolutionaries should surely have diabused you of any such romatic undergraduate notions.
As for Chile, I state it again quite unambiguously; Allende had no democratic mandate to attempt to overthrow the legitimate constitution of Chile and impose a Marxist regime, none whatsoever, his ‘reforms’ were not legitimate as was proven by the parliament and supreme court of Chile. The Chilean army’s duty was to defend the Chilean constitution, your approving ciatation of advice from the red fascists of the Soviet Union rather shows that they had a point.
I don’t support what Pinochet did, but he was no worse than Castro, murdered fewer political opponents and unlike Castro actually brought peace and prosperity to his nation and ultimately ceded power to a democratically elected government.
We wait the democratisation of Cuba without baited breath.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7339468.stm
Harry You are on form. How can the Red Chinese menace be stopped? They prey on our need for cheap shoddy goods.
Mr Gormley is just using Tibet as a Red Herring to deflect the dogs from today’s EPA Hearing for the Dublin Bay Incinerator.
www [dot] incinerator6 [dot] tk
http://galwaytent.blogspot.com/
Harry,
Revolutionary governments do not invariably become repressive police states. However, regimes that face civil war, foreign invasion, encirclement and nuclear annhilation do have a tendency to put security first. Whatever their political complexion.
On Chile. So Pincohet was defending the constitution? Not even you can believe that Harry. Not in the slightest. Unless the constitution called for mass executions, kidnappings of children and disappearances, torture, and one man rule with the army repressing dissent.
On the advice from the Soviets. They could see the way this was going, but Allende naively clung to constitutional politics at a time when it was clear that his opponents were plotting to annihilate him and his supporters. And by the way, around the time this was going on Amnesty was issuing a report stating that there was no evidence of torture being used in the socialist states of Europe. Unlike Chile and various other regimes backed by western democracies. Torture does now take place in Cuba – but at the US base there.
Oh, and on NI. The people you define as revolutionaries here have much more in common with Franco, Pinochet and other religious nationalist fascists than they do with the republicans of Spain, or indeed the revolutionary tradition of the United Irishmen and Connolly.
*So Pincohet was defending the constitution? Not even you can believe that Harry.*
I refer you to my comment “I don’t support what Pinochet did”
*Allende naively clung to constitutional politics*
Balderdash.
He was a Marxist, Marxists don’t do ‘constitutional politics’.
It’s late here, the missus is getting grumpy with me, I’ll be happy to expand on this theme in the morning.
Unfortunately for Allende he did do constitutional politics in a country where his opponents had no respcet for it. But as you say, to be continued.