Unfair on Mary Robinson?
YOU HAVE published an article in Socialism Today No.63
(March 2002) about the World Social Forum. In it, you include former Irish
president Mary Robinson as being in a group of "capitalist politicians who
have implemented neo-liberal policies".
I call on you to withdraw this offensive label. As a member
of the upper house of the Irish parliament, Robinson was not a proponent of
anything ‘neo-liberal’ and spoke mainly on social and human rights issues.
As president of Ireland, she had no possible role in any economic policy
whatsoever and to say so demonstrates crass ignorance. And her work at the UN
was, in the main, directed against the ‘neo-liberal’ policies of major
states such as the US, which actively sought her removal. Unfortunately, they
have succeeded.
I look forward to your clarification.
Daithí Mac Síthigh
Dublin
Tony Saunois replies:
THANK YOU for your comments regarding the article on the
World Social Forum written by me for issue No.63 of Socialism Today. I accept
that Mary Robinson has raised many important issues relating to women, human
rights and other questions that have not been in accordance with some aspects of
neo-liberal policies that have been applied throughout the 1990s. She was also
not the choice of the ‘establishment’ and other representatives of
capitalism when she was elected to the Irish presidency in December 1990.
However, I cannot agree that the ‘offensive label’ you
refer to be withdrawn in relation to Mary Robinson. The article stated that also
present at the Porte Alegre forum were some capitalist politicians and their
representatives who have been party to the implementation of the neo-liberal
policies of the 1990s, including French ‘Socialist Party’ cabinet ministers,
Mário Soares, the former Portuguese ‘socialist’ president, as well as Mary
Robinson. During her presidency a series of governments in Ireland – Fíanna
Fáil, Fíanna Fáil/Labour Party, and Fine Gael/Labour Party/Democratic Left
– carried out important aspects of neo-liberal policies, such as the
privatisation of Aer Lingus. Unfortunately, Mary Robinson did not speak out
against such measures and did not oppose capitalism or support the alternative
of socialism. In fact during her election campaign, when asked if she was a
socialist she declined to comment.
I am aware that as Irish president she was not responsible
for the economic policy of the government. However, surely you are not arguing
that this is justification to remain silent about such important issues which
have had such a detrimental effect on the lives of working people? Silence on
such matters, especially when in such a prominent position, in my opinion can
only make one party to such policies being implemented. As such, I feel fully
justified in defending the argument in my article.
|