Last Wednesday I attended a screening of "Citizen Havel" (Obcan Havel), a kind of pen-picture of the 8 year latter Presidency of Václav Havel. The access granted to the film crew was amazing, and the backroom dealing and power relationships that were shown, didn't need translation as they were clear in body movements alone!

Playwrite & politician - Václav Havel

However, the humanity of Václav Havel was the element that made this film great. Private moments of doubt and delight were scattered through the film; poignant moments were shared, such as his arranging the flowers over the coffin of his first wife, his being remarried and his agonised decision about whether to run again for office. 

It was in the context of this decision that he quoted one of his own plays; "those who truly value democracy cannot understand it, leaving it to those who do not value democracy to define it" (quote may not be exact - from memory). Perhaps that's why politics has been so unresponsive to people's real earnest needs. Can we really say that we get a chance to elect people who truly value democracy and the will of the people rather than secretly resenting it? Where are the people that truly value democracy and why is our system driving them away?

This book singlehandedly changed me from a dyed-in-the-wool Clintonite to an Obamaniac...

Audacity of Hope - Barack Obama

In a political world where shafting, lying and manipulation are seen as skills, this was the first political biography I think I've ever read where I felt the author was absolutely honest; not only about his positive/good points but also about his weaknesses. I really learned so much from it, about how human weakness affects a candidate, about how the influence of money slowly seeps into the mind of a politician and how one's humanity must be brought to his job to counter this potentially negative influence. More than anything, he struck me as being the embodiment of a progressive (but not naive) politician and extraordinarily aware, both of himself and of others. His two-sentence description of George Bush ("I had found the President to be a likable man, shrewd and disciplined but with the same straightforward manner that had helped him win two elections; you could easily imagine him owning the local car dealership down the street, coaching Little League, and grilling in his backyard--the kind of guy who would make for good company so long as the conversation revolved around sports and the kids.") is I think it's a better pen-picture description of the man than anything I've ever come across.

Originally I was a strong Hillary supporter (I even bought the t-shirt!). I couldn't warm to Obama - I felt his comments about talking to the Iranian President were naive and also Hillary was so good to Ireland (she even visited Doolin - a woman of taste!)  but after reading this book I cannot but be certain that Obama would be a masterful and potentially transformatory President of the United States. I believe his election and subsequently his open style of government could awaken a sense of civic participation the world over in people and lead to many great achievements that have proved elusive for the last generation. The Bible says "Cometh the hour, cometh the man" - I'm sorry it can't be a woman, but for the here and now, Obama is the man. 

(There is an entertaining short extract here: http://jacquelinekam.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!713D0CCEAEBEE05!2108.entry) 

One of the politicians I have campaigned for, worked for and really admire as a politician is Senator Paschal Donohoe (Fine Gael) of Dublin Central (below). He diligently worked a 2 1/2 year Election campaign from the day he got elected to Dublin City Council and was barely beaten by a candidate that won a third of Paschal's first preferences - in the process beating candidates like (ex-MEP) Patricia McKenna and (current MEP) Mary-Lou McDonald. 

Senator Paschal Donohoe.

But what I admire most about him politically, was his idealism tinged with a business based practicality, combined with a constant desire to seek consensus and the best posssible solution in any conflict situation. I feel these are traits possessed by a new generation of young politician who are appearing in almost every Member State in the European Union. It is fascinating to examine the very similar characteristics and outlooks this generation of politician possess, suggesting that the influence of globalisation and cultural convergence may be finding its way into politics and Government of our countries. It is striking, for example that that an Italian is now the French First Lady, Stubb is married to a British citizen, as is Denmark’s opposition leader and that the British Foreign secretary has an American wife. Newsweek magazine examined this in its January 21st edition and it drew a number of similarities that it saw between the next generation of politicians. It stated that “They are more technocratic, more global in outlook, more comfortable with technology, more idealistic and yet less ideological and invested in old debates. They are also international in a way most of their parent’s generation was not.” Can this new generation of politicians transform the European Union in the next number of years?

Younger politicians (say those under 45 years old) have a different set of experiences than those who are currently in power. Most for example would not have been part of the social revolutions of the sixties and seventies that defined political divisions (divisively) for the past 30 years.

It is suggested in this same article that younger leaders have moved beyond these damaging divisions to come to a consensus that thought “there is widespread support for a state-provided social safety net…there is a realisation that current benefits and tax systems that support them have become overly burdensome and must be reformed”.  With 46 year old Barak Obama having a great chance to be America’s next President and 42 year old Dmitry Medvedev taking over this year as President of Russia (and Paschal with hard work I'm sure will make it into the Dáíl (Parliament) next election) – perhaps it’s time for a younger and perhaps truly revolutionary set of younger politicians to take charge. 

 (A modified version of this Article may be published in the European Stagiaire's Journal - Backstage in May 2008)

This video broke my heart. It’s the tortured innocence that young gay people experience every day that makes me be more out about me being gay than I feel comfortable with at times, so that maybe I can change things slightly for these children growing up. Yesterday when in Amsterdam I saw a young gay couple (late school-going age) who were out to dinner. Though I felt delight at seeing this for the first time ever (I think!), what I mostly felt was a terrible pain that I couldn’t have had those experiences growing up. Hopefully in the next generation, when kids get to adolescence they will be told that it’s ok to like anyone you want (even if they don’t like you back, sometimes) and nobody will be killed for asking someone to be their valentine.

Ireland and the League of Nations, 1919-1946: International Relations, Diplomacy and Politcs - Michael Kennedy.

 
The legacy of the League of Nations on the development of Ireland's Foreign Policy is an area that is fascinating for me due to it's continuing impace on Ireland Foreign Policy outlook today. In this book I gained a great insight into what we balance an active internationalism that sees us currently having troops in Kosovo and Chad with a neutrality that isolates us in the world. 

 
Coming out of a distracting Civil War, Ireland initially gave little attention to the League, however when Desmond Fitzgerald became Minister for External Affairs, Ireland entered the League (with the assent of Great Britain) and began defining her Foreign policy as one of internationalism, standing by the idealistic aims of the League Convention and pusing forward the rights of small nations against the Great Powers. It led the break away from the dependence that the then Dominions had on Great Britain in the League, that was typified by the election of Canada to the League Council in 1927 and Ireland in 1930. Irish diplomats (including Sean Lester, the last Secretary-General of the League of Nations from 1940-1946) played a very active role in solving many disputes in the 1920s and early 1930s. 

 
As an interesting aside, one of the positions of the Irish delegations was maintaining the ability of under-developed States to develop some industries with protectionist tariffs, against the prevailing Free-trade agenda of the day, a policy that would be very helpful to follow today in underdeveloped countries in Africa. The inability of the League to solve the Italian-Abyssinian issue, however lead to the erosion of confidence in the League and the author traces a growing isolationism and retreat to neutrality by the Irish delegations, lead by DeVelera. 

 
It began to become clear that Ireland would not be involved in the coming war. However the Author posits the interesting question of whether Ireland would have been involved if WWII had been a League-led war instead of a war lead by the then "Great Powers" of Great Britain, France and latterly Russia and the U.S. I feel its apparent devotion to the aims of the League would have meant that it would. However, in the end, Ireland retreated to isolationism and it was 1955 before it came onto the International stage again when it joined the U.N. It is sad to read the last 1/3 of the book as it traces the decline of the League and Ireland’s retreat into isolationism. It is interesting to see how WWII, a war I always saw as moral, was really a kind of grubby Great Powers war, leading up to which smaller powers were justifiably worried that their sovereignty being trampled upon. Our geography and neutrality meant that we were not invaded; however you had to feel sorry for active League members such as Czechlosovakia who hadn’t the option that Ireland had. I was reading it at the same time as I attended a Forum on Europe discussion lead by former President of Latvia Dr. Vaira Vike-Freiberga where a similar point was made that Latvia had tried neutrality but that it had led to two successive foreign occupations of her country, by German and Soviet forces. She defended Latvia’s NATO against some of the more isolationist voices in the Forum stating that NATO membership and its common defense provision was a no-brainer in these circumstances. Eventually the podcast of the debate will be at this link – if you get a chance to listen, go to the last 20 minutes which is a fascinating insight into how Latvians see the world and a strong rebuff to some of Ireland’s more idealistic isolationists. 
 

The legacy of the balance that Ireland struck in the League between internationalism and isolationism is, I believe still defining our Foreign Policy today. Reading this book and listening to Dr. Vike-Freiberga has given me the insight me that we have been lucky in having the ability to pursue this balance.

President of Pakistan - Pervez Musharraf's acknowledged yesterday that he is now undertaking the role of Presidnet in a caretaker capacity and this is to be welcomed. Even though this is mainly just a technicality as he has replaced with loyalists the uncooperative Supreme Court who will ultimately make the decision on the legality of his recently received second mandate, the fact that he still recognises this and his government has siad here that he is now acting in a caretaker capacity as President gives some hope for the future of democracy and the rule of  law in Pakistan.

Musharraf is not one’s typical idea of a dictator. He seems to want the understanding and acceptance (and maybe the love) of the West for the course he feels he has been forced to take. He disarmingly appeared on Sky News a couple of days ago sating “The day when there is no turmoil in Pakistan, I will step down…I am not a dictator, I want a democracy”. Also with his recent autobiography - In the line of fire, he made numerous appearances on a number of American talk shows including the Tonight Show with Jon Stewart, seeming folksy and eager to please. Among the more interesting quotes from the autobiography are “a true leader will always be loved by his people; they will be prepared to follow him, not because of his rank or position but because of their rank and esteem for him”. He was also informed us that he had been told by a former top ranking Mr. Universe that “I had a most muscular physique” and also gave us the insight that “I prefer small dogs” (These quotes comes via a very insightful comment piece about the man by Steve Cole in the New Yorker magazine).

Yet the impression that's come across to me that perhaps he’s overcompensating for the fact that his mother didn’t hug him enough as a child is perhaps too facile. After all, the U.S. have given either $10 billion (Wall Street Journal on 9th November - Jay Solomon) or $11 billion depending on your source in aid since the events of 9/11, much of which has gone to the military probably for their continued support for the regime. Indeed so anxious was Musharraf to avoid the withdrawal of finding that he  “called the chairmen of the Senate and House foreign-relations committees to explain his actions” and also “dispatched a top legal adviser to Washington and New York to meet with media and think thanks, and stress the potential dangers of cutting support for his government”  (Wall Street Journal on 9th November - Jay Solomon).

Unfortunately, even though, as Seumas Milne states in the Guardian withdrawal of this aid would probably topple Musharraf and possibly restore democracy, the fact remains that he his now head of a volatile county and the last thing the U.S. desires is to introduce more instability. Questioning the he value of his continued rule is valid, however - Pakistan has gone from a putative bulkwark against jihadist terror as George W. had hoped, to a place where most of al-Qaida operatives are now trained in the largely uncontrolled mountain border area with Afghanistan.

Milne also notes that a human tragedy underlies all of this, including the fact that “a third of its 160 million people go hungry and 44% are living below the poverty line" and it is a place where "half the population is illiterate and barely one in two girls goes to school”. Very few people are gaining from this situation, perhaps the newly laundered whiter-than-white from her previous corruption links, Benazir Bhutto, perhas al-Quida but many millions in Pakistan again bear the brunt of political instability and mismanagement.

It’s going to be tougher to get this Treaty passed in a Referendum than the “Yes” campaign thought and tougher for the "No" to get a claer reason to vote no.

The Irish Times poll of 5th November showing 24% in favour of the Reform Treaty, as opposed to the 46% that backed the EU Constitution, in retrospect should be no surprise. It’s easier, when asked the question – are you in favour of the EU Constitution to say yes, than when asked in you’re in favour of an EU Reform Treaty – which sounds altogether more technical, abstract (all of which is most definitely true). It also appears to be a slight misnomer…people expect Treaties to be one-off occurrences – Amsterdam, Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement etc, the notion of a Treaty reforming what is already there seems a big paradoxical.

 The differences and divergences between Member States is supposed to be one of the driving forces of the EU. However the fact that the EU Constitution would probably have passed with a strong enough Yes campaign in Ireland (in my opinion), while the whole idea of an EU constitution would kill the document in the U.K. (so much so that Tony Blair was forced to concede to a referendum on the Constitution during the last election)  while the Netherlands voted against the text (I think France probably voted against it predominantly for domestic reasons) shows that the people of the E.U. have hugely divergent views of the European Union and what it should and has to do.

The Yes campaign will have to be even stronger in favour of this Treaty as teh argument - "vote for europe" is unlikely to succeed as well this time as  the argument was overused in Nice2. The No campaign will not be able to point to one article or another to justify their arguments as each it refers to myriad other articles and paragraphs, their agruments will doubtless be derided as baseless when their opposition entreat the public to look to "the treaties as a whole".

I haven’t been able find a copy of the Reform Treaty as between the legalese it appears no compounded version has been made up yet, but if you would like to torture yourself trying to understand it, below is a draft of it incorporating most of the text. It’s bitty and jumpy and impossible to understand as opposed to the EU constitution which was unified and therefore much simpler to understand.

I will return to the positives and drawbacks of the Treaty from my perspective (which has been sparked by reading a very good article in the 26th October to 8th November edition of “Business & Finance” magazine.

draft_reform_treaty_lisbon.pdf
File Size:	1517 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

---

Trying to divine what the government is thinking in relation to any policy position is difficult, however I have found it next to impossible regarding this proposed Civil partnerships legislation. Listening to the Green party Equality spokesperson Ciaran Cuffe on Morning Ireland on 1st November , he seemed to intone that there was one almighty fight between the Green Party and Brian Lenihan – Minister for Justice about the scope of the legislation, with the Green party seeming to have come out the losers of this fight. Among the comments made by Cuffe are that the government is “not in a position to deliver on full recognition” and it will be a “step in the right direction”, none of which fills me with eager anticipation for the legislation promised in March (Kieran Rose of the Gay, Lesbian Equality Network stated on the same programme that the measures will “falls far short of equality”). The one possible bright spot is that there is a period of over 5 months to organise an effective campaign to bring pressure to bear and deliver full and equal Civil Partnership.

Below is a letter I wrote to the Irish Times yesterday (1st November 2007) outlining one of my concerns about how this legislation may develop:

"Dear Madam, I very much welcome the commitment of the Government given in the Dáíl on 31st October 2007 by the Minister for Justice to "provide for the registration of civil partnerships of same sex couples".  This legislation has been promised many many times during the lifetime of this government and though it seems they are able to rush through Criminal Justice Bills in a matter of a month while for a period of over 6 years it seemed unable to find time for this Programme for Government promise, the commitment is welcome nonetheless.

However, I am still mystified at why the Government does not simply accept the Labour party proposal, supported by all parties except those in government, which seeks to implement the very successful Civil Partnerships approach from the U.K. The comments of the Minister for Justice worry me in that he states that the forthcoming legislation "will also provide protection for other relationships which lie outside marriage but which may be heterosexual or same sex." The only interpretation I can put on this is that the Minister is proposing to include relationships of people who are not currently excluded from marriage. If this is so, and the Minister wishes to implement tax-breaks for co-habitees in non-conjugal relationships such as brothers and sisters then he should do that, but separately from any Civil Partnership legislation. His priority should be equality before the law for gay people, who are the only sector of society denied the privilege of marriage. I do not wish to have my loving, sacred and permanent Civil Partnership be compared to that of a non-conjugal couple such as cohabiting family members who enter into the same Partnership for transient and selfish financial purposes. It is my belief that the Minister is proposing something quite similar to what the Catholic clergy proposed some years ago (*See below). Though it is admirable that he would attempt to integrate the views of all sections of society, when a core issue of equality for a large section of our society is at stake, it is imperative that it be addressed fully and without compromise.

I believe the Minister should concentrate on one core objective – equality for same-sex couples through the implementation of the what the Government's own Colley report called for and what the Programme for Government encourages, that is "Civil Partnerships at the earliest possible date in the lifetime of the Government", otherwise the inequality and exclusion of a large section of our society will continue.

Yours,David Garrahy"

My concerns were compounded by the comments of Dr. Manseragh, reported in the Irish Times on 1st November when it was reported "In the case of civil partnership, said Dr Mansergh, there should be no necessity for there to be a physical relationship"...I have a fear that a whitewash will be served up, comprising some sort of tax scheme for siblings, family members and other random people which will be backed by the Catholic church and will fall well short of equality. As I siad in a previous letter published in the Irish Times on 6th March 2007 - "The problems these two sets of people face are very different and the solutions should also be different." Of course, if the government successfully legislates in this area, any reform of that system would be 10 -15 years away, potentially leaving and unequal system in place for the near future. That settles it - I'm going to Canada!

* Clarification on 12th November 2007 - When I mentioned the Catholic clergy position, this is based on comments from Archbishop Diarmuid Martin as reported by David Quinn then of the Irish Indepndent (he is now freelance having edited the Irish Catholic and setting up the Iona Institute earlier this year) - hear comments at  this link

A weak decentralised State and society coupled with a strong patriotism is the reason why the U.S. will not cede her place as the world's most powerful nation anytime soon.

 Citizens of the U.S. often call Europeans lazy...I saw this as an uneducated slur until I fully appreciated the U.S. social system and society which encourages diversity in society and freedom of the individual to reach their fullest potential, which I believe is achieved by not providing the support or fallback that many Europeans feel they have in their society or the State. This is something I've already covered below - in believing that the sense of independence and direction that individual U.S. citizens possess is a result of the great freedom they have to develop their own identity, given that freedom and liberty can as much be smothered by an overprotective State as by a tyrannical right-denying regime.

In the U.S. divengent and contradictory viewpoints and lifestyles exist side-by-side and in many ways in harmony. Communities and groups see that falling back on the State for support, either politically or socially is not an option..the State will not provide, it is up to the individual to make their way.  People don't rely on social validation on some abstract notion of Americanness, as Ambassador John Bruton said on a very interesting podcast about his time in the U.S., they are less  prone to Group-think. Instead they construct their own identity through reaching out to other people, communities or family to define them. This is so prevalent in so many ways from how individuals as Alumni give millions to fund their former Universities, to why the stronger lobby groups e.g. the NRA or the Human Rights Campaign have mass membership as an intrical part of their lobbying effort, to the continued strength of religious observance which defies the trend of gradual decline in religion in each and every developed country. When there is no strong State to fall back upon, it is no wonder they hold close what is dear.

That is paradoxically why I found the U.S. to be one of the friendlyist places I had been.  In creating your identity it is not as easy to rely on abstract notions such as nationality and the State to justify yourself. You must create your own multifaceted identity, based on job, sex, belief, personality etc. Not engaging with fellow citizens, relying on the State or nationality or an abstract notion of society to validate you is not an option, as I'm sure if you ask any homeless person in the U.S. - no man is an island, but it'd be much easier to be an island there. This was reflected somewhat for me by the face that very few people were listening to Ipods (which I believe sends out a signal, I do not want anyone to interrupt me)  in the street and in general more took the time to acknowledge you. They were also more flirty, which I think cannot be but a good thing!

The reason, I feel that this diversity brings about strength is that U.S. citizens can feel much more in charge of their destiny through their group or identity than they can with an abstract State, and will therefore work harder, be more creative and if necessary fight in order to retain or develop this identity. As Ambassador Bruton also said U.S. citizens are much more innovative and will not see some problems as simply intractible. Instead as he points out, they are much more dogged in reaching solutions to problems that Eurpeans might simply see as unresolvable. Is this why U.S. citizens view Europeans as lazy? Becuase for them having one's own identity, that seperates you from those around you is vital for strength of character as they feel they are achieving for a greater purpose or goal while for Europeans all too often we can mush up our identities and values to form a kind of consensus which nobody is happy with but each suffers as we feel we have no control.

But will this diversity of conflicting identities ultimately lead to conflict? Perhaps, and you could say that has happened already with the black community, which defines itself by a strong alternative culture and community.  However the reason I believe this will not happen is the strong patriotism of the U.S. citizen who opts into a system based on liberty that allows them to be different and follow their own path. In Europe some group buring a National flag would be seen as more of a party trick than heracy. However, in the U.S., the thought that one grouping might opt out of their carefully constructed compact triggers fears of the unleashing of the energy of that group against what is a fragile State. Perhaps that is why a Civil War was fought, while if a similar break happened in the European Union over a policy issue, the temptation would be to allow the schism.

Whatever, the future of the world, the U.S will lead - its strength is in constatly reaching for new paradigms, not giving up when confronted by obstacles and in citizens utilising the control they feel they have over their destiny. In sum the U.S. is strong not because it is united or divided, but beacuse it is united in its dividedness.

More photos uploaded - including some of me dancing - parental advisory.. http://www.flickr.com/photos/davygee/