John O'Shea spokesman for neo-liberals?

lostexpectation

What is with this guy, its all he ever talks about, ok so he trying to change the conversation saying its not just about aid but about erradicating the culture of corruption that prevents various 3rd world countries from helping themselves out ( oh there that neveredending debt too)

but after reading another letter in Northside People he constantly ruins it by says things like 'Paul Wolfowitz says', and the World Bank reports points and I agree when Geroge Bush when he says?

wtf

would he not like some more reputable and genuine sources then those guys who are only bothered by corruption when it doesn't work in their favour??

What with this guy Trociaire are always more critical of these guys which beings it a bit more credibilty?

mike65

I don't understand the point you are making. Is it that John O'Shea must be wrong if he cites the World bank or Bush? Would he meet your approval if he quoted Chirac or Mugabe?

Mike.

lostexpectation

mike65 wrote:

I don't understand the point you are making. Is it that John O'Shea must be wrong if he cites the World bank or Bush? Would he meet your approval if he quoted Chirac or Mugabe?

Mike.

no of course not them either, strange choices for examples don't quote the any corrupt leaders, qoute the people your trying to help. He never does.

sceptre

Just because one don't like Wolfowitz doesn't mean he's always wrong. I may reckon he's wrong more often than he could or should be (and as it happens I do) but I wouldn't have a problem quoting the guy myself if I thought he had a point.

Funnily enough he's usually criticised for being a neoconservative rather than a neoliberal. While for various reasons being both isn't impossible (though it's probably a bit confusing to insult someone by calling them "a neoconservative neoliberal gob****e" even if you're a neocon who just took over at the usually neoliberal World Bank), I guess it depends where you're sitting at the table when deciding whether the guy is on your left or right.

As for the rights and wrongs of quoting Wolfowitz, if O'Shea wants to add weight to his comments, there are few weightier than the World Bank president if he's quoting him when he says something with which O'Shea agrees. Sure, he could quote the people he's trying to help but if they had any weight they could throw into the argument, they wouldn't need John O'Shea to speak for their benefit in the first place. Ditto Bush, though personally I wouldn't quote him unless I was willing people to fall off their chairs with laughter but that's probably just me and everyone else with a sense of humour.

GOAT_Ali

John O'Shea does a hell of a lot of talking up on that 'soap box' of his. Damn ego tripper couldn't give a toss about poverty and hunger, just trying to make a name for himself. What has he ever done on this Island?

civdef

That's a remarkable insight.

IronMan

GOAT_Ali wrote:

John O'Shea does a hell of a lot of talking up on that 'soap box' of his. Damn ego tripper couldn't give a toss about poverty and hunger, just trying to make a name for himself. What has he ever done on this Island?

John O'Shea is the representative for one of the best run charities in the world. Goal has admin costs of less than 5%, and run a remarkably tight ship.
http://www.goal.ie/about/ethos.shtml

He argues that we can throw as much money as we want at countries in Africa, but if the governments of these countries remain as corrupt as ever, then the situation will never change, money will be used to buy guns and build personal fortunes rather than help the people rise out of the hole they find themselves in. This may require tough actions, difficult decisions and changes of regime. He quotes from many sources, religious, political, economic. He makes points that people from a certain ideological viewpoint find hard to digest.
Holding charity events and buying newspapers is not going to change the underlying malaise within certain African countries. It requires a scrapping of trade sanctions, and radical changes in governance in these countries. A two pronged approach.

These views appear to be repulsive to the type of people who believe a peace march has the power to change the world, and that all conflicts can be solved by diplomacy and a fecking telethon.

lostexpectation

IronMan wrote:

John O'Shea is the representative for one of the best run charities in the world. Goal has admin costs of less than 5%, and run a remarkably tight ship.
http://www.goal.ie/about/ethos.shtml

He argues that we can throw as much money as we want at countries in Africa, but if the governments of these countries remain as corrupt as ever, then the situation will never change, money will be used to buy guns and build personal fortunes rather than help the people rise out of the hole they find themselves in. This may require tough actions, difficult decisions and changes of regime. He quotes from many sources, religious, political, economic. He makes points that people from a certain ideological viewpoint find hard to digest.
Holding charity events and buying newspapers is not going to change the underlying malaise within certain African countries. It requires a scrapping of trade sanctions, and radical changes in governance in these countries. A two pronged approach.

These views appear to be repulsive to the type of people who believe a peace march has the power to change the world, and that all conflicts can be solved by diplomacy and a fecking telethon.

I don't disagree with his main points, (thats not my point, only to wonder what % of aid should remain gov to gov?) but its the way he goes about I've only ever seen him quote Rice or the World bank in the regular near form letters he now that he sends to newspapers these days ( he doesn't even have the charm or wit of Bono to help him out).

Oh heres evidence of him being critical of his saviours, finally http://www.goal.ie/newsroom/debt0406.shtml

Goal
The announcement earlier this week by World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz that he intends to place at the top of his priority list, the ending of government graft in the Third World, is a hugely significant development.
http://www.goal.ie/newsroom/jossbp0306.shtml

Trocaire

In 1999, the World Bank decided to involve civil society organisations in national consultations to review its policies in fighting poverty. But is this more than window dressing? Trócaire has been monitoring civil society involvement in the ‘Poverty Strategy Papers' process continues in more detail
http://www.trocaire.org/policyandadvocacy/prsp.htm

Zombrex

lostexpectation wrote:

would he not like some more reputable and genuine sources then those guys who are only bothered by corruption when it doesn't work in their favour??

Depends on who you are trying to convince, if its people who respect and agree with the World Bank then quoting World Bank reports back to them is going to carry more weight than an Amnesty International report or something of IndyMedia.

The whole "F**k the World Bank lets smash up some McDonalds" attitude, while containing a noble naievity, doesn't actually work very well in the long run. I'm not saying you have to agree with the World Bank, I certainly don't, only recongise that a lot of people do

lostexpectation

Wicknight wrote:

Depends on who you are trying to convince, if its people who respect and agree with the World Bank then quoting World Bank reports back to them is going to carry more weight than an Amnesty International report or something of IndyMedia.

The whole "F**k the World Bank lets smash up some McDonalds" attitude, while containing a noble naievity, doesn't actually work very well in the long run. I'm not saying you have to agree with the World Bank, I certainly don't, only recongise that a lot of people do

the depth criticism of the world bank goes way way,waywaywaywaywaywaywaywaywaywaywaywaywaywaywaywaywaywaywaywaywaywaywaywayway beyond 'lets smash mcdonads'? Theres plenty of room for him to reside somewhere between those points.

He should stop being a water carrier for the World Bank. Look Trocaire is a conservative NGO but has chosen to keep a vocal critical stance on these international institutions. Why can't GOAL do that.

mike65

John O'Shea has long been the Dirty Harry of NGOs. He speaks as he finds and has no truck with the scumbags who rule most of central Africa. Someone should express the views of the common man (read me!) - ie South Africas new politcal elite is as corrupt as the old one.

Mike.

(spelling edit)

lostexpectation

mike65 wrote:

John O'Shea has long been the Dirty Harry of NGOs. He speaks as he finds and has no truck with the scumbags who rule most of central Africa. Someone should express the views of the common man (read me!) - ie South Africas new politcal elite is as corrupt and the old one.

Mike.

But here is his inconsistency cos he ie echoing the World Bank who deal with these dictators based on how much the corruption suits them. , not the comman man, O'Shea would claim to be abhorred by that, if he quoted and gave voice to progressive NGOs on the ground, but saying the exactly same thing, in these various countries working for democracy and less corruption it would be more credible.

I agree it such a shame the Mandela's ANC sold out to the neoliberals and doesn't do enough to combat corruption.

mike65

Just to avoid any confusion how do you define neo-liberalism?

Here's the wiki take

Mike.

GOAT_Ali

Would O'Shea not be fuming that Governments are giving money to corrupt regimes because he would rather it be given to GOAL so they could do as the pleased with it?

Africa is a windfall for a lot of these charitries, an easy earner as it is constantly in drought. The bottom line is that these so called charities are businesses that make profit and pay people good money, so this genuine mercy claim is all a bit much. I'd doubt if half of them ever crossed the bloody road to help their own neighbour.

Again I ask what has O'Shea ever done for people in Ireland. I'd realy love to see the guy pleading with our government on behalf of our homeless kids, our deplorable Health system, absurd crime levels and rip off culture. He'd gain a hell of a lot more respect and credibility if he started his "mercy missions" at home!!!!

Then he could feck off and "save the world".....

lostexpectation

GOAT_Ali wrote:

Would O'Shea not be fuming that Governments are giving money to corrupt regimes because he would rather it be given to GOAL so they could do as the pleased with it?

Africa is a windfall for a lot of these charitries, an easy earner as it is constantly in drought. The bottom line is that these so called charities are businesses that make profit and pay people good money, so this genuine mercy claim is all a bit much. I'd doubt if half of them ever crossed the bloody road to help their own neighbour.

Again I ask what has O'Shea ever done for people in Ireland. I'd realy love to see the guy pleading with our government on behalf of our homeless kids, our deplorable Health system, absurd crime levels and rip off culture. He'd gain a hell of a lot more respect and credibility if he started his "mercy missions" at home!!!!

Then he could feck off and "save the world".....

thats a good parody well done

GOAT_Ali

Well thanks, it is such a travesty!!!!

Sand

Just to avoid any confusion how do you define neo-liberalism?

Its neo-conservitism, obviously.

mike65

19th century version then.

Mike.

lostexpectation

ok ill admit it, im probably using misusing the word but although i checked yesterday and still don't see how I am, Im having difficulty figuring the difference between the too,( I was right in saying the World bank was neoliberal thought so I was I did use the right word!? ) I just thought neo-liberal was let the free market sort everyting out and I not very strict on social issues, neo-conservative was differed on the later, but the encyclopedia says that neocons are more interventionist?

but I didn't reply to mike cos I was talking about John O'Shea's form letters not neo-whateverism, I mean I wonder if he is just doing a Bono/Geldolf but lacking any charm. They are trying to address the men or power to bend their ear on poverty issues, but are actually being used by those people to excellerate the global poverty gap, and make it funky and acceptable. (It seems like he was behind that Bono trip to africa with the US cabinetmen) Or is going beyond that and is fully engaged in corporate rule of all issues.

Sceptre says he'd quote the guy if he thought he had the point, I'd go out of my way to find someone else, (who is more along my line of thought and those of the people your supposedly helping) but is making the same good point and quote him.

Sand

Maybe John O Shea isnt trying to influence you but it is trying to influence political will to demand anti-corruption measures to go hand in hand with aid. Hence he quotes the [World Bank/Political and Economic figures] rather than Rage Against the Machine. If you look at Bono - hes a great guy and all that, but hes not going to change policy with photo-ops and heartfelt speeches. O Shea is quoting the people that decision makers listen to - if they happen to be people you disagree with on Topic X, Y or Z that doesnt mean you cant agree with them on Topic A, B or C.

And shockingly enough, neo-conservitives believe that the west - or specifically the US seeing as the concept is mostly based in the US - has both an interest and an obligation to intervene in the world - i.e. spread rule of law, fair elections, individual rights by peaceful means if possible, by military means if necessary as they believe its A) The right thing to do, and lawful, democratic, liberal states will make better partners than dictatorships - given that al-Quedas support base is drawn from Middle East despair with dictatorships they may have a point that a freer middle east will mean less terrorists flying planes into US skyscrapers.

Essentially the concept has been demonised by left wing commentators as neo-imperialism despite being born from the U.S. left - Neo-Cons only became aligned with the U.S. right due to the Left not being receptive to intervention abroad - clashed with their idea of neo-imperialism. Neo-Conservitism is idealistic, realpolitick realists would argue that the west should support dictatorships. A realist wouldnt have intervened in Sierra Leone to stop machete weilding guerillas overunning the capital, an interventionist would. Blair did, despite being criticised for doing so.

Neo-Liberalism, or plain old liberalism is a different kettle of fish altogether - its more economic - free trade, free movement of people and captial, government limited to its specialist areas - law enforcement, social transfers, defence, etc etc. Its purely economic - nothing to do with neo-conservitism, though someone can certainly believe in aspects of both.

lostexpectation

thanks for the clarification, (can a mod change the title if your bothered ) so Bono and Geldolf are promoting neo-conservatism?

Sand wrote:

Maybe John O Shea isnt trying to influence you but it is trying to influence political will to demand anti-corruption measures to go hand in hand with aid. Hence he quotes the [World Bank/Political and Economic figures] rather than Rage Against the Machine. If you look at Bono - hes a great guy and all that, but hes not going to change policy with photo-ops and heartfelt speeches. O Shea is quoting the people that decision makers listen to - if they happen to be people you disagree with on Topic X, Y or Z that doesnt mean you cant agree with them on Topic A, B or C.

yeah I know but its just seems he going way overboard, more then he should in his position as head of GOAL.

Sand wrote:

Maybe John O Shea isnt trying to influence you but it is trying to influence political will to demand anti-corruption measures to go hand in hand with aid.

and who is it that will police these anti-corruption measures, the world bank? hmmm

Sand

thanks for the clarification, so Bono and Geldolf are promotoing neo-conservatism?

Essentially yes. Realists wouldnt see any pressing reason to treat aid as anything other than bribes to whatever regime was in power. Neo conservitism is just rebranded moral, idealist intervention for the U.S market - I wouldnt call Blair a neo-con, as I dont think the name has any real meaning outside the U.S. but its clear hes idealistic and willing to risk interventions. Think of this way, if you favoured sending troops into Rwanda, Srebinica or Darfur then you favour intervention.

and who is that will police these anti-corruption measures, the world bank? hmmm

Whoever is handing over the cash will no doubt be insistent that the other parties keep up their end of the deal - its their cash after all.

lostexpectation

Sand wrote:

Essentially yes. Realists wouldnt see any pressing reason to treat aid as anything other than bribes to whatever regime was in power. Neo conservitism is just rebranded moral, idealist intervention for the U.S market - I wouldnt call Blair a neo-con, as I dont think the name has any real meaning outside the U.S. but its clear hes idealistic and willing to risk interventions. Think of this way, if you favoured sending troops into Rwanda, Srebinica or Darfur then you favour intervention.



Whoever is handing over the cash will no doubt be insistent that the other parties keep up their end of the deal - its their cash after all.

this cash being aid and world bank loans with conditions for full privitisation and access for their companies to their natural resources attached, they are so bloody generous, hence the term neo-imperialism. Thanks John O'Shea man of the people.

Dirk Gently

Considering the interventionists are mainly the U.S. and the neo-conservatives in the bush admin are also neo-liberals the two terms go hand in hand. Neo liberalisation being an economic system promoting unregulated free markets and neo-conservatism being the system which makes this promotion possible. It is impossible to promote neo-conservatism with out promoting neo-liberalism because the conditions set down for aid is usually a free market economy and privatised industry. No promise to promote liberal economics means no aid, which means neo conservatives only act when the neo liberal agenda is pushed.

One cannot be advocated without the other in the context of today’s world powers and the countries and organisations who intervene.

Sand

this cash being aid and world bank loans with conditions for full privitisation and access for their companies to their natural resources attached, they are so bloody generous, hence the term neo-imperialism. Thanks John O'Shea man of the people.

Youre getting neo-liberalism and neo-conservitism confused again. Strict neo-liberals wouldnt really care if foreign governments were corrupt dictatorships so long long as they allowed free trade and respected contracts. Only interventionists (i.e. neo imperialists) would start meddling with the local regime and telling them what laws to pass and what standards in governance to hold to.

John O Shea is calling for conditions to be set on aid in terms of ringfencing it and preventing it being siphoned off by corrupt local regimes. I.E. intervention - whats wrong with that, given hundreds of billions in aid have been given to Africa with no impact. Its time to try something new. Its the kneejerk reaction (OMFG theyre telling Mugabe how to spend the aid they give him - NEO IMPERIALISTS!!!!) to changes to the failed policy of simply handing over money to el Presidente and expecting him to spend it for the good of his people instead of buying Swiss lakeside villas that does most harm to Africa.

As for neo-liberal conditions attached to aid - privitisation is good for everyone especially given that a lot of these local corrupt regimes A) Dont have money to provide a decent service, Theyre usually badly run with posts handed out in patronage and C) If it doesnt work out (or even if it does) the local government can just steal the privatised industry back.

Free trade is good for the developing world - people arent complaining about jobs going east for no reason. The real problem is trade barriers imposed by the developed world against the 3rd world. Irelands celtic tiger success is based on capital inflows from foreign investors - it can work for the developing world too. Protectionism and nationalism sure as hell hasnt worked. A realist at street level would be wholly opposed to change - if the 3rd world is opened to trade, investment and rule of law then its bad for him. Better to throw them some crumbs and keep them poor.

lostexpectation

Sand wrote:

Youre getting neo-liberalism and neo-conservitism confused again.

what clownbag said

John O Shea is calling for conditions to be set on aid in terms of ringfencing it and preventing it being siphoned off by corrupt local regimes.

John O'Shea is talking about corruption in general ( which inherently effects any aid given and is part of the problem of thirdworldyness) this is the reason he quotes the WB.

As for neo-liberal conditions attached to aid - privitisation is good

ah those Bolivians and their resource wars are awful silly then aren't they, they don't have clue what they are talking about just like me, John O'Shea should go give them a telling off.

Dirk Gently

Just to add another interesting point about the U.S. neo cons:

When Bush ran for election the first time they promised to take a lesser role in international affairs and interventionism. One of his main points was that the U.S. should not be a world police man and vowed to concentrate primarily on internal American affairs. Apparently 9/11 changed all that and they adopted the interventionist world police man role with avengence.

This clown thinks it was all bull from the start though and they neo conned the American public as to their true intentions to intervene and manipulate regions into adopting neo liberal economics. (New American century and all that)

Sand

Considering the interventionists are mainly the U.S. and the neo-conservatives in the bush admin are also neo-liberals the two terms go hand in hand.

Okay, so only free trade supporters in the US would favour sending troops to stop massacres in Rwanda, or Darfur? Nobody else would care? Very cynical Clown, but I guess I cant contradict you given no one has moved to protect people in Darfur apart from an AU deployment which is undermanned and unable to secure the area.

John O'Shea is talking about corruption in general ( which inherently effects any aid given and is part of the problem of thirdworldyness) this is the reason he quotes the WB.

Yup, and this is a problem how? If he can quote the WB to support his arguments for attaching conditions to aid such as combatting corruption then surely its good that the WB is moving onside?

Well it was good for the Bolivians wasnt it? - sell companies to investors, wait a few years while the new buyers invest in the companies, then steal them back. Thats the problem with resource economies - you dont need rule of law to build a taxable functioning economy, you can pay for an army based on oil exports.

Apparently 9/11 changed all that and they adopted the interventionist world police man role with avengence.

Yeah, when events occur where everyone remembers where they were when they heard about it tend to impact best laid plans. If 9/11 hadnt happened Bush would probably be best remembered for winding up NATO, concentrating on latin american politics, and probably African aid plans.

Dirk Gently

Sand wrote:

. If 9/11 hadnt happened Bush would probably be best remembered for winding up NATO, concentrating on latin american politics, and probably African aid plans.

Of course he would:rolleyes:

I'm sure many in Latin American are breathing a sigh of relief that he is too busy making war elsewhere to intervene with as much enthusiasm as he would like in Latin American affairs, although he still does his best to enforce his neo-liberal agenda on the region despite having his military too stretched to put significant numbers of overt troops on the sovereign Latino ground. He seems to be limited to training right wing paramilitaries, giving tactical support and funding opposition groups within the countries who don’t support his agenda for the moment.

Helping his poor African brothers and sisters? No doubt he would jump on opportunities to privatise profitable industries into the hands of multi-nationals but I doubt he would be too worried about the plight of the masses. I don't reckon he would have put too much effort into public health care, affordable drug treatments, irrigation projects or changing of crop production to suit the food needs of the African people as opposed to growing products to sell to western markets. His priorities are less about improving the standards of living for Africans and more about improving private profit.

His primary role is to secure private control and would not support any aid packages which didn't give him a good return. It's not so much aid as a high interest loan benefiting the private sector. No doubt handing over wads of cash to tin pot dictators is not the answer, but private enterprise serves only the interest of the private owners and not the community at large.
Tin pot dictator - privately owned industry, either way it’s a bad deal for the people who the aid was supposedly intended.

I’m not sure what his intentions towards NATO would have been to be honest but I don’t think he would have let it die out of fear of a rival exclusively European military alliance been created between EU members. In fairness this alliance has happened to a degree but not with the enthusiasm there would have been if NATO ceased to exist I think.

I am a quite the cynical bistard aren’t I.

lostexpectation

what qualifies a sports journalist to be CEO of goal, how did he get the job? do his subordinates agree with him, do other NGOs agree with privitisations and interventionism?

I don't think sending in a western force to darfour is the right thing to do.

Sand

Of course he would

Getting well off the point at this stage...

what qualifies a sports journalist to be CEO of goal, how did he get the job? do his subordinates agree with him, do other NGOs agree with privitisations and interventionism?

I guess he volunteered and went to work? Maybe his subordinates are practical rather than politial - theyre interested in arguing for policies that will save lives, not simply demonising the WB. /me shrugs. As for other NGOs, ask them.

I don't think sending in a western force to darfour is the right thing to do.

Really? Theres 300,000 reasons why the 2,000 AU troops patrolling a region the size of France need reinforcement from the rich, humane and militarily powerful EU...

But I guess youre right. It could get messy. Things might go wrong. Better to wait. See what happens. Maybe someone else will fix it and take the heat if mistakes are made. We can make Hotel Rwanda 2 in a few years. Perhaps the Sudanese government will step in. Lets send them money and not check what they do with it.