I’m with you on this one but I think it’s worth noting that Steve said, or at least I interpret him to say – “He [John O'Shea] is the one who brought them [the military] into the situation as reported [correction included - re: my quoting O'Shea from The Marian Finucane Show] not me”.

Steve was talking about O’Shea, not Power, whom you have quoted…

He only makes an incidental reference as to what to do if a standing army existed instead of demanding on as you suggest he does. His words above do not support your claims, maybe there are others that do but those ones do not. But I guess that doesn’t matter to you as you’re looking at this through some ideological dislike of GOAL rather than being focused on the results or practical goals.

John O’Shea goes even further than that. He envisions a situation where Western governments would go into Africa and act as a huge international humanitarian agency, with an army to force policies. “What should happen, if governments had enough vision or determination, they should go in as a government and implement themselves but keep the chequebook. Go in as a huge aid agency – in other words as a huge multinational. So for example, the US goes into a country, Uganda, tomorrow. It builds 20,000 clinics, 50,000 schools, and hands them over to the government and warns that government that if it does not run them properly, it will turn everything against them that they have; the World Bank, the IMF (International Monetary Fund), the UN and if we had a standing army, we turn that against them. That’s the only way to deal with these people,” says John O’Shea. Back to colonisation, then? “I don’t consider that colonisation… What the colonialists did was disgraceful in many, many ways. But do we have to worry about the sins of our forefathers? The governments that go in will need to act as a responsible humanitarian agency. If they go in to act in a corrupt way themselves then I would rather that they do not go in.”

john oshea is always calling for nato invasions of africa

It depends on how you wish to interpret it.

@P O’Neill

With respect, I don’t think it’d be necessary to say that so explicitly – in fact it’d be completely unfair on the girl to do so. The article mentions that she only moved to Paris because her father was appointed to the position. It’s already clear that her father is a Government appointee.

Also the article was about the fact she got into Harvard, nothing to do with her fathers job. Harvard is a fairly prestigious school, that’s why it was worth an article.

You seem to infer that the Cmdnt’s family are somehow ripping off the taxpayer by “living it up” in Paris and that the two grousp, the family and Sharon Commins are not getting the same respect nationally. I disagree. It’s a completely different situation and the family are perfectly entitled to get their child the best education available to them. Sharon Commins worked in the Dublin and European offices of GOAL for several years and chose to go Darfur recently, which I admire. However, I admire the service the Cmdnt gave to the country just as much – I’m sure he’s been to some messy locations saving lives too on his way to the rank he now occupies also.

Your question “when do we get glowing profiles of aid workers in The Times” would only be worth asking if we were getting glowing profiles of Irish Commandants working on the Chad-Sudan mission in Paris, which we’re not.