|
 |
The Plough
(Web site http://www.theplough.netfirms.com/)
Vol. 4- No 26
Wednesday December 5th 2007
E-mail newsletter of the Irish Republican Socialist Party
1) Editorial: So What’s The Alternative?
2) Government Pay Hikes an Insult to the Workers!
3) Book Review
4) Without comment.
5) What’s On?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editorial: So What’s The Alternative?
In many of our activities as a Party we in the IRSP are often asked,
occasionally in a hostile manner, but more often in a resigned but
curious way,
“So What’s your Alternative to the Good Friday Agreement?”
Often as not the question is posed by supporters of the Provisionals
or by ex members of that movement who simply walked away in disgust
at the direction their movement had taken. It is a genuine question.
It is one that requires a serious answer. And it is not a question
to be answered in pubs and social clubs as former ex-combatants
reminisce over a few pints and ask where did it all go wrong? That’s
when the mixing can be begin and as the drink flows in so does the
wit flow out.
Those who now are in the ascendancy – those who now walk the
corridors of power when once they walked the streets in protest, can
feel secure in the knowledge that there is no serious opposition to
their hegemony.
The Administration At Stormont (TASS) has no serious parliamentary
opposition. The pathetic little Alliance party is desperately trying
to get the Ulster Unionist Party to give up the fruits of office and
join them in opposition. But any opposition based on the Alliance or
unionist perspectives would be a false opposition because they all
fundamentally accept the prevailing economic policies pushed by the
World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the USA Government.
Of course there will be minor differences within TASS. The two main
nationalist Parties PSF and SDLP will place more emphasis on “social
justice” and “equality” while the unionist parties will emphasise
issues s such as “law and order” and “economic stability” and
“prudence.” When elections loom both sides will then revert to
banging the big drum of nationalism of unionism to stroke up the
sectarian flames and bring out their voters.
It is also most unlikely that a coherent electoral opposition could
be established before the next elections to create a new TAAS. Any
such opposition would have to be built on clear opposition to the
economic and social policies of the current TASS. It would have to
be socialist, have some prospects of success to generate support and
have no illusions that there really is a parliamentary road to
socialism. No organisation now existing would seem to have these
credentials. Nor would there necessarily be agreement that such
credentials would be essential. In other words all those on the left
would soon find reasons to fall out with each other and denounce the
SWP/SP/CPI/ etc as traitors to the class struggle.
So in the sense of parliamentary opposition it is true there is no
alternative to the GFA.
But generally the question is not posed in terms of economic or
social alternatives but in republican terms and is posed in such
terms that really only two alternatives are allowed for – the
continuation of armed struggle or settling for TASS.
Armed struggle in Ireland has a romantic tinge about it,
particularly when posed in terms of heroic sacrifice or in terms of
the heroism of the Easter Week uprising. Indeed it has almost
achieved such status that to question its efficacy is akin to
blasphemy. During the period of the seventies and eighties few dared
to raise their voices within republican circles about armed
struggle. To do so would be to invite all sorts of insults such as
“sticky” or “peace lover” Ironic is it not that some of those most
passionate about denouncing “Stickies” are the very ones who stole
the “Stickie’s” clothes and now implement their policies!!!
So armed struggle was the tactic used to achieve the goal. Oh yes
the goal! What exactly was that the armed struggle was for? Simple!
The Socialist Republic! What does that mean? Don’t worry we will
sort that out when we achieve it !! At least that was what the
volunteers were told.
Yes indeed. There was in reality a lot of sloganising, a lot of
passion, a lot of violence but little long term thought. Those who
began to question, who raised awkward questions either about the
armed strategy or the direction their leadership was going were
sidelined, dismissed or killed in action. Consequently when the
strategy of the long war began to look more and more threadbare and
experienced volunteers became disillusioned there was little
appetite for resistance to the new direction. Action had been all
theory nothing. So when the action stopped Republicans were left
bemused
On the issue of the validity of armed struggle in the present day
there is much argument but little clarity. Let us state clearly that
as long as there is a British claim to sovereignty over any part of
the island of Ireland there will always be republicans who regard it
as perfectly legitimate to use force to resist that claim. That is a
given.
However the question republican socialists would pose is it a viable
tactic to use at this moment in time? Does it have any possibility
of success? Are the balance of forces both nationally and
internationally favourable to the pursuit of armed struggle. Are the
forces of resistance well armed, trained, freed from informers and
agents and capable of sustaining a campaign that would win popular
support from the people of Ireland and be capable in the long run of
forcing the British and Unionists to the negotiating table to hammer
out a deal for better than the current deal encapsulated by the GFA
and the St. Andrews agreement? The answer is obviously no.
Some may think that the unification of the various republican forces
such as the INLA and the varying IRA’S could create a strong armed
group capable of taking on the Imperialists. Not so. The political
differences and analysis are so wide that it could not happen.
Currently it is nearly impossible to get agreement on mounting
pickets. No chance of agreement of running a war.
Also it needs to be stated clearly that the Republican Socialist
analysis is such that it precludes a unification with others forces
with very different approaches and policies. Our analysis is simply
put. The class and national question are so intertwined that to
pursue one without the other is to invite almost certain defeat.
Following the defeat of the republican armed struggle and the
temporary stabilisation of the six county state with its shaky TASS
and coalition of four neo-liberal parties republicans must take a
different direction. And clearly that direction is back to the class
–the working class- for the James Connolly approach is as relevant
now, if not more relevant than, when he was alive.
For at least the past 12 years we have been saying that the
liberation of the working class is the task of the working class
itself- that there can be no liberation without socialism. We have
consistently argued against an elitist approach to the revolutionary
struggle firmly basing our positions not only on Connolly and the
great Marxist writers but also on our founder Seamus Costello and of
course our fallen comrade Ta Power.
But of course if you read the writings of some of the “real” or
“continuity” Marxists you would never know this. Take this piece of
writing
“We have just come through a quite savage conflict. It seems to us
that at a very minimum a new movement would have to offer some
critique of the militarist strategy that led to defeat and also to
have some orientation to the working class and at least initial
expressions of class hostility to the Irish capitalist class and its
role in advancing the imperialist offensive.”-
“A major problem over the past decade has been the reluctance of
even quite sharp critics of the republican leadership to leave the
republican family. “
Socialist Democracy 2nd April 2007 (http://www.socialistdemocracy.org/Correspondence/CorrespondRepublicanOpposition.html)
The IRSP have offered a critique of the militarist strategy. We have
clearly articulated our class position in our newspapers, our public
meetings in this e-mail newsletter and in public conferences. A
cursory search of our web site will confirm that.
And as regards the so-called reluctance to “leave the republican
family” we have also a very clear position on that. We deny there is
any such thing as a republican family. Nor is there any such thing
now as the “republican movement” What we say is there are differing
republican traditions. We are the republican socialist tradition and
we recognise there are other traditions such as the provisional
republican movement and so on .We make no claim to be the republican
movement. Such claims bear no relation to the class forces in Irish
society or take account of the reality of capitalism or imperialism.
In the above-mentioned correspondence it is unclear if Socialist
Democracy favour a break with Republicanism or see a new form of
resistance arising from a break with provisionalism. There is
however no room for ambiguity in the Socialist Workers Party’s guru
Eamon McCann. Writing recently in the “radical Marxist
revolutionary” newspaper, The Belfast Telegraph McCann in a critique
of Gerry Adams speech at Edentubber gave his clear position
“Within the parameters of republican thinking, they have a point.
And there's the problem. Republicanism.
The problem is
republicanism.” (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/opinion/article3164196.ece)
Sadly for Eamon and the Socialist Workers Party and all the other
“real” socialists and Marxists, Irish republicanism for all its
faults, (and we in the IRSP have been critical of those faults) is a
revolutionary tendency that cannot be ignored or dismissed. We
believe that it can form the core of any new revolutionary upsurge
of the working class in Ireland against both imperialism and
capitalism. Building such a movement is the real alternative to the
Good Friday agreement. Join us in building that alternative.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GOVERNMENT PAY HIKES AN INSULT TO THE REST OF US:
By now most people on this island will be aware of the twenty-six
county governments recent pay hike. Many, including branches of the
media, are asking the question whether An Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern,
should reject the pay rise of 18% or, in the case of Mr. Ahern
€38,000, while they are telling the rest of us to tighten our belts?
On Monday 19th November the Irish Independent, under the headline
’UNION BOSSES STAY SILENT ON AHERN’S MASSIVE PAY RISE’ could inform
us of the silence on this issue by ten of the states leading union
leaders. These union bosses, David Begg ICTU, Jack O’Connor SIPTU,
Peter McLoone IMPACT, John Douglas MANDATE, John Bolger T&G UNITE
(formerly ATGWU), John Carr INTO, Blair Horan Civil and Public
Sector Union, Steve Fitzpatrick Communication Workers Union, Larry
Broderick Irish Bank Officials Association and Padraig Walshe Irish
Farmers Association were asked two simple questions by the
newspaper. Question 1 Do you believe the Taoiseach and his cabinet
should reject their personal pay awards outlined in the report by
the Review Body on Higher Remuneration in the public sector?
Question 2 Do you believe all of the pay increases for top public
service posts outlined in the report should be rejected at this
time, yes or no?
Of the ten union leaders asked these two questions only John Bolger
answered yes while the other nine ’refused to answer’.
These pay rises to most other workers are higher than the annual
salary which they receive in the form of a monetary wage a point not
missed by the Irish Labour Party front bench who, for political gain
purposes only, in the form of Ciaran Lynch said “for most people
€38,000 is not a pay increase, it’s a salary”. This is perfectly
true but the question which must be asked of the Labour Party, now
part and parcel of the bourgeois political set up, if they were in
governmental power and an outside review body awarded them the same
pay rise would they accept or reject?
It must be remembered that the Labour Party, like their British
counterparts are not the same as that formed by James Connolly and
James Kier Hardy respectively which, particularly in the case of the
former, were revolutionary at their outset. My own opinion is that
if the Irish Labour Party were in control of the affairs of
capitalism and a pay award of this magnitude was to be recommended
they would accept, probably sitting the fact that it was recommended
by an outside body, much the same as Mr Ahern has done.
It should be pointed out to be objective that Minister for the
Environment, John Gormley and Eamon Ryan of the Green Party are to
hand back their cash award either to the party or groups who promote
the fight against climate change or perhaps split the cash between
both. Whatever these two ministers will not be accepting the pay
hike.
On now to the silence of the lambs within the trade union
leadership! On the surface the union bosses should almost certainly
have come out in total condemnation of these pay rises. However on
closer examination it may not be as clear cut as it first appears.
For example next year these same union leaders will be entering
negotiations on pay under towards 2016, an initiative involving
government, trade unions and employers used to tell workers they
must tighten their belts, this government pay hike could, used
correctly, be a good negotiating tool. If, and it is a big if, these
union bosses enter negotiations with a demand for a 28% pay rise, as
their top line which should always be kept secret, with a bottom
line of 18%, the same as the government, with the exception of two,
have accepted then it may well be a good move to stay quiet for the
moment. However if these same champions of class warfare and workers
struggle (sic) stay silent and settle for anything less than 18% for
example 3% or 4%, which I am fearful to say is the likely outcome,
then the silence of the lambs will mean exactly that and could only
be described as yet another betrayal by the union leadership in
order to secure their own co-existence.
The union leadership should have battle plans drawn up for, what
should be, the coming showdown which should include calling out
their members on indefinite strike action in the event of the
rejection by the government and employers of their 18% pay demand.
After all if we are talking about a benchmark well surely this has
now being set at 18%. We must await with interest the outcome of
this potentially volatile situation. The union bosses should be
delighted that they have this precedent in their negotiating armoury
the reality is, sadly, somewhat different.
Kevin Morley IRSP, Dublin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Book Review
What is to be done today?
Lenin Reloaded: Toward a Politics of Truth, edited by Sebastian
Budgen,
Stathis Kouvelakis, and Slavoj Žižek, Duke University Press, Durham,
2007. 337 pp
While in recent years Marx has become quite fashionable again and
revolutionary figures like Che Guevara remain popular, Lenin is
still popularly seen as a blood-thirsty dictator, the precursor of
Stalin, and most philosophers disparage his writings as crude and
vulgar. All the contributors to Lenin Reloaded maintain that he is
of continued intellectual significance, certainly enough to deserve
renewed attention. Furthermore, all agree that it was Lenin who made
Marx’s thought explicitly political; who extended it beyond the
confines of Europe; and who in many respects actually put it into
practice. However, they are divided as to just what is to be done
with Lenin now.
The essays originated in a conference on Lenin held in Essen,
Germany in February 2001. The contributors include many of today’s
leading lights, from Žižek, Badiou and Balibar, to Eagleton, Jameson
and Negri. All address the relevance of Lenin for the 21st century
rather than, say, his historical significance for Bolshevism. Some
are very broad in scope, such as Eagleton’s on the relevance of
Lenin for our postmodern age, while others, like Lecercle’s highly
original attempt to work out how Lenin’s concepts, strategies and
tactics contribute to a philosophy of language, have a narrower
scope. Some, like Negri’s essay, unsurprisingly has very un-Leninist
conclusions.
In the words of Badiou, all contributors to this book ‘are taking up
Lenin’s work in order to reactivate the very question of theory
along political lines’. For the collection’s editors:
‘Lenin’ is not the nostalgic name for old dogmatic certainty; quite
the contrary, the Lenin that we want to retrieve is the
Lenin-in-becoming, the Lenin whose fundamental experience was that
of being thrown into a catastrophic new constellation in which old
reference points proved useless, and who was thus compelled to
reinvent Marxism. The idea is that it is not enough simply to return
to Lenin…for we must repeat or reload him: that is, we must retrieve
the same impulse in today’s constellation.
In other words, what the book urges is a reinvention of the
revolutionary project for the present in the same manner that Lenin
retooled Marx’s thought for specific historical conditions in 1914.
For Balibar, there is only one philosophical moment in Lenin and it
is precisely the First World War that determines it. Lenin’s turn to
questions of epistemology and dialectical method, as it is recorded
in his philosophical notebooks of 1914-1915, constitutes the first
decisive step of an entire strategy to overcome the crisis of
leadership of the working class that erupted with the beginnings of
the war and the collapse of the Second International. These led
Lenin to a profound rethinking of his earlier categories and to the
lucid intuition that the methodological Achilles heel of Second
International Marxism was its incomprehension of dialectics; hence
his famous remark that ‘none of the Marxists understood Marx’. In
letting the true content of Hegel’s logic emerge, Lenin was able to
restore the properly revolutionary impulse of Marxism itself, its
dialectical heart. For example, his notes on Hegel’s doctrine of
Being end with the well-known exclamations on the ‘leaps’ and their
necessity, thus distancing himself from the gradualism of Second
International Marxism. The clear and informative essays by Kevin B.
Anderson and Kouvelakis in particular demonstrate how Lenin’s
reading of Hegel opened the way to a new beginning, a genuine
re-foundation of Marxism itself.
For Lenin there was no revolutionary movement without revolutionary
theory. Callinicos emphasizes how, for Lenin, every significant turn
in events drove him to reconsider how best the situation was to be
understood from a theoretical perspective in order to intervene in
the conjuncture. Lenin’s famous dictum that ‘politics is the most
concentrated expression of economics’ is intended to highlight the
necessity of focusing on the ways in which social conflicts are
refracted in the political field in a specific and irreducible form,
governed by the logic of the struggle for state power. Lenin thought
of politics as a time full of struggle, a time of crises and
collapses. The specificity of the political is expressed in the
concept of the revolutionary crisis. Lukács was right to call ‘the
actuality of revolution’ the core of Lenin’s thought.
Daniel Bensaïd and Callinicos counter pose the Leninist concept of
crisis to Badiou’s concept of ‘event’ and the Left-Decisionism of
Žižek:
The dialectical relation between necessity and contingency,
structure and break, history and event, lays the basis for the
possibility of a politics organised in duration, whereas the
arbitrarily voluntarist gamble on the sudden explosion of an event
may allow us to resist the mood of the times, but it generally leads
to a stance of aesthetic resistance rather than militant commitment
to patiently modify the course of things.
Sylvain Lazarus, a co-thinker of Badiou, argues for ‘an
intellectuality of politics without party or revolution’; whereas
Bensaïd defends the necessity of political organization:
‘A politics without parties…ends up in most cases as a politics
without politics: either an aimless tailism towards the spontaneity
of social movements, or the worst form of elitist individualist
vanguardism, or finally a repression of the political in favour of
the aesthetic or the ethical’.
The Leninist mode of politics is often thought to be elitist and
authoritarian, but Lars T Lih’s contribution responds to those kind
of criticisms by arguing that Lenin’s ideas have often been
misunderstood as a result of confusions sometimes caused by
mistranslations. Eagleton gives the following example to illustrate
Lenin’s much maligned concept of the vanguard:
Those members of the Citizen Army and Irish Volunteers who fought
with James Connolly against the British imperial state in the Dublin
Post Office in 1916 constituted a vanguard. But this was not because
they were middle-class intellectuals – on the contrary, they were
mostly Dublin working men and women – or because they had some
innate faculty of superior insight into human affairs, or because
they were in serene possession of the scientific laws of history.
They were a vanguard because of their relational situation –
because, like the revolutionary cultural avant-guardes in contrast
with modernist coteries, they saw themselves not as a timeless elite
but as the shock troops or front line of a mass movement. There can
be no vanguard in and for itself, as coteries are by definition in
and for themselves. And a vanguard would not be in business unless
it trusted profoundly in the capacities of ordinary people, as
elites by definition disdain them.
Badiou notes how today the political oeuvre of Lenin is entirely
dominated by the canonical opposition between democracy and
totalitarian dictatorship. In an excellent essay, Domenico Losurdo
undermines this opposition by examining the relation between Western
democracy and imperialism/colonialism. He contrasts the thought of
classical figures of the liberal tradition, such as Tocqueville or
John Stuart Mill, with the central role of the critique of
colonialism and imperialism in Lenin’s thought. Lenin represents a
break not only at the political level but also at the level of
epistemology. Democracy cannot be defined by abstracting the fate of
the excluded. Also, in periods of crisis, war and other ‘states of
exception’, democracy tends to be suspended, with power resting on
the unelected and repressive apparatus of the state. This why the
Leninist understanding of the state is not just of the specific
material condensation of the balance of forces between classes, but
one of an essentially coercive body.
This collection of essays is recommended, not just because of the
quality of the various contributions, but above all because Lenin’s
philosophical interventions have been largely neglected and ignored
since Althusser. The book has one negative aspect though, in that no
essay discusses Materialism and Empirio-Criticism (aside from
occasional negative remarks, such as Eagleton claiming that it is ‘a
work in which one can hear the occasional gurgling of a man well out
of his depths’). However, it remains interesting as a political mode
of intervention into epistemological questions of science (there, a
crisis of physics). Finally, none of the authors really address a
decisive political consideration: whether the ‘historical Lenin’,
still much demonised today, remains an obstacle to their attempt to
reload Lenin for the 21st century.
Originally published in RADICAL PHILOSOPHY
(www.radicalphilosophy.com <http://www.radicalphilosophy.com>
Liam O’Ruairc
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without comment.
Paisley and McGuinness in US to 'sell' the North
<http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/finance/2007/1204/1196713191962.html>
Belfast Briefing: "Hello corporate America - we're open for
business." That's the all-important message Ian Paisley and Martin
McGuinness are out to promote this week in the United States
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paisley and McGuinness merger gets welcome on Wall Street
The North's First Minister, the Rev Ian Paisley, and Deputy First
Minister, Martin McGuinness, have begun a week-long visit to the
United
States with a visit to the New York Stock Exchange, where they
received
a rapturous reception from Irish-American business leaders.In the
warped logic of a few SFers who delude themselves they are still
socialists, this is no doubt just a "new site of struggle".
A little learning is a dangerous thing. There is a layer of people
in
SF who, while in prison, learned the Laclau-Mouffe bastardisation of
Gramsci rather than Gramsci himself. (PF)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Almost 1.5 million people have salaries of less than the €38,000 pay
rise recently granted to Taoiseach Bertie Ahern.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Northern Ireland Water has spent more than £16 million on
consultants sinceApril, it has been revealed.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg today ruled that
allegations of security force collusion in the loyalist murders of
eight men in South Armagh in the 1970s had not properly been
investigated.
The case was taken to Europe by the families of the eight men
following what they considered to be a failure by the Government to
properly have investigated detailed allegations of collusion made by
a former member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in 1999.
The court ruled unanimously that in all the cases there had been a
violation of Article 2 [right to life] of the European Convention on
Human Rights due to the lack of independence of the RUC which
handled the initial stages of the investigation into the
allegations. “
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PSNI has told Northern Ireland's senior coroner that John
Stalker's report on "shoot to kill" incidents remains classified as
" top secret", 20 years after it was completed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pressure is building on Unilever at the OECD, whose Guidelines for
Multinational Enterprises require overseas subsidiaries of
transnational companies to conform to international standards of
trade union and human rights. Fourteen months after the IUF charged
Unilever with gross violations of the Guidelines through the
fraudulent sale and closure <http://www.iuf.org/den3745
<http://www.iuf.org/den3745> > of the company's Mumbai (Bombay)
factory in India, and a scant three weeks after the IUF charged the
company with vicious union-busting in the Indian state of Assam
<http://www.iuf.org/den4612 <http://www.iuf.org/den4612> > , brutal
human rights violations - this time in Pakistan - have again landed
Unilever in the dock at the OECD.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unions Mobilize Internationally Against Global Job Destruction at
Unilever
Unions around the world will be organizing a variety of actions on
December
4 to highlight their common demand for an end to Unilever's
systematic
destruction of jobs.
http://www.iuf.org/den4697
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A new US intelligence report concludes that Iran's nuclear weapons
development programme has been halted since the autumn of 2003
because of international pressure — a stark contrast to the
conclusions US spy agencies drew just two years ago.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What’s on?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IRSP
This sun will be the 30th anniversary of the death of Vol. Colm Mc
Nutt. There will be a march starting at Creggan shops in Derry and
finishing in William st. Assemble at Creggan shops at 2pm.
There will be a do afterwards. Everyone is welcome.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOLIDARITY GIG FOR RAYTHEON 9 - NEXT FRIDAY
Anti-War Ireland had scheduled a Dublin solidarity gig to occur
while
the Ratheon 9 were on trial for their occupation of Derry's Raytheon
offices in 2006 - their action was in protest at the murderous
onslaught that summer by the Israeli military against the Lebanese
people. Raytheon is an arms manufacturer that supplies the US-backed
Israeli armed forces.
The nine Derry anti-war activists have since had their trial
postponed, till January 2008, but AWI intends to go ahead with the
fundraising solidarity gig.
The main act will be Dave Lippman, a well-known US anti-war,
anti-Bush
singer/songwriter and satirist. Dave is popping over from a tour of
Britain to show his solidarity. This should be an excellent gig and
very good fun!
For details, check out the following link:
http://indymedia.ie/article/85276&comment_limit=0&condense_comments=false#comment214044
Date & time: 8pm, Friday 7th December
Where: Seomra Spraoi, 4 Mary's Abbey (just off Capel Street by the
Luas line), Dublin 1.
Cost: 7 euros (waged) or 5 euros (unwaged/student/etc.)
Note: Get there on time because it could fill up quite quickly and
people may have to be turned away.
Organised by Anti-War Ireland - Proceeds to Raytheon 9
CAOIMHE BUTTERLY TO SPEAK ON SITUATION IN MIDDLE EAST
National Speaking Tour: The Crisis in Lebanon and the situation of
Palestinian
Refugees.
Guest Speaker: Caoimhe Butterly (Irish Human rights activist
currently based in
Lebanon)
Caoimhe Butterly has been working in the Middle East for several
years. She
will give an eyewitness account of life in Lebanon in the aftermath
of
Israel's war, the current plight of Palestinian refugees, and the
situation
in Nahr El-Bared refugee camp.
Lebanon is entering a period of political instability - a dangerous
vacuum
with no President and no political solution/compromise in sight. At
the same
time, Palestinians living in a variety of refugee camps in Lebanon
look
anxiously at Annapolis and Nablus and wonder about their short and
long term
future, while those living and exiled recently from Nahr El-Bared
return
cautiously to the mayhem left behind by the Lebanese Army and the
insurgents.
This event is part of a 13-part speaking tour of Ireland organised
by
Anti-War Ireland, the Irish Anti-War Movement, the IPSC, Galway
Alliance
Against the War, the Derry Anti-War Coalition and the Raytheon 9,
Amnesty International and
a number of individuals who are supporting the tour.
Speaking engagements:
SLIGO
Monday Dec 3rd: Sligo: 8.00 pm, Glasshouse Hotel, Hyde Bridge, Sligo
DUBLIN
Tuesday Dec 4th : Dublin : 7.30pm, Connolly Books, East Essex St.,
Temple Bar in Dublin
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE CORK
Wednesday Dec 5th
Lunch time : 1pm - 2pm : UCC, room G7 in the Kane building.
UNIVERSITY OF LIMERICK
Thursday Dec 6th : Limerick : UL [venue to be confirmed]
GALWAY
Friday Dec 7th : Galway [venue to be confirmed]
DERRY
Saturday Dec 8th : Derry [venue to be confirmed]
BELFAST
Tuesday Dec 11th : Belfast [venue to be confirmed]
DUBLIN
Wednesday Dec 12th : Dublin : Amnesty, Freedom Café, Fleet Street
Cafe 7pm
CORK CITY
Thursday Dec 13th : Cork [venue to be confirmed]
We will send out more information as it comes to hand.
http://www.antiwarireland.org/ |
