Tuesday, March 5, 2024

“Death or Liberty” – Australia’s Battle of Vinegar Hill at 220

220 years ago, on March 5, 1804, several hundred armed rebels – mostly escaped Irish political prisoners, veterans of Vinegar Hill and the United Irishmen rebellion of 1798 – clashed with British armed forces near Castle Hill in western Sydney. They lost, but while their rebellion was short-lived, it was far from the impromptu uprising many suggest. Rather, it was just the latest, and largest, manifestation of an ongoing Irish republican struggle in the fledgling colony. 

 

In terms of scale, the ‘battle’ of Castle Hill was truthfully little more than a skirmish in the bush in western Sydney. Only a handful of rebels were killed, the rest fled, and their leaders were easily captured by crown forces under a false flag of truce. The rebel forces were poorly organised and divided, while – due to betrayal – hundreds more who would otherwise have joined them did not. Even so, the rebellion shook the colony to its core  a reaction that can only be understood in the context of the years immediately preceding it, both in Sydney, and in Ireland.

 

A vulnerable penal colony

 

By 1800, Sydney Town was a young settlement of barely 12 years, with only 2500 European inhabitants – 43 percent of them convicts. Further inland, Toongabbie and Parramatta had a combined population of under 1500, and perhaps another 1100 – mostly free settlers – could be found in the Hawkesbury. The colony was dotted with several small garrisons, but the military presence was confined largely to Sydney Town.

 

The economic viability of the settlement was also still uncertain, particularly after huge floods in 1799. This instability was to continue for several years, with ships sent to seek emergency food supplies from India as late as 1813. While hindsight can give rise to a misleading sense of inevitability, this vulnerability would have been palpable at the time, not least to hundreds of Irish political prisoners – convinced republicans and veterans of a large-scale armed rebellion against the British only months before.

 

The first ships carrying around 400 of these Irish political prisoners arrived at the start of 1800, sent as exiles-without-trial to the New South Wales colony in the aftermath of the failed United Irishmen rebellion of 1798. While some were senior members of the United Irishmen, arrested before the rebellion had begun, others had seen action in Waterford, Wexford, the Midlands, and the north. It would soon become apparent that the long journey to Australia had failed to break their spirits.

 

Sedition and conspiracy

 

As early as February 1800, records tell of a seditious meeting among the Irish being broken up in Sydney, while another plot was reported in May. In September, another conspiracy among the Irish prisoners was uncovered, with plans to take the Sydney barracks and overthrow the Governor, and for the rebels to then live on the settlers’ farms until they heard back from a message they would send to France. More disturbances were reported in October, with suspected ringleaders shipped off to Norfolk Island to defuse their plotting – unsuccessfully. In December, a rebellion on Norfolk Island was apparently averted only by the pre-emptive execution of two of its leaders.

 

Such accounts make the colony seem a hotbed of rebel activity, but it is difficult to know how much was true, and how much was British paranoia. One witness testified to the notorious “Flogging Reverend”, Samuel Marsden, in 1800 that she became convinced the Irish were planning “something that was improper” after seeing them “talking very earnestly in Irish”. A sectarian bigot, Marsden was already predisposed to distrust the Irish, describing them as "the most wild, ignorant and savage race that were ever favoured with the light of civilisation", while considering Irish convicts even worse, “depraved beyond all conception”.

 

Bigotry and sectarianism

 

Yet while the evidence of conspiracy and unrest may have been often flimsy, the British fear and distrust of the Irish was real enough, reflecting both ingrained ethnic prejudices and genuine political insecurities in aftermath of the events of 1798. Governor John Hunter – replaced by Governor Philip Gidley King in late 1800 – repeatedly complained to London that the Irish prisoners were “turbulent” and “diabolical” and called for the number of Irish transportees to be drastically reduced in the interest of colonial security. 

 

Another consequence of the 1800 Irish scare was the establishment, on September 7, of an official civilian paramilitary movement: the Loyal Associations of Sydney and Parramatta, each with a captain, three sergeants, two drummers and three corporals, 36 privates in the Sydney group, and 29 in Parramatta. These loyalist paramilitaries were suspended by Governor King in August 1801, but recalled on December 9, 1803, when news arrived that France and England were at war. They marked the beginning of a conservative, protestant, “law and order” tradition that was to continue well into the twentieth century, built on profound distrust of, and discrimination against, the Irish Catholic community in Australia.

 

Echoes of Emmet’s rebellion 

 

Further ships soon arrived from Ireland – the Anne, which reached Sydney in 1801 after surviving a mutiny by the prisoners onboard, and the Atlas I, Atlas II, and Hercules in 1802. Each carried more veterans of 1798, along with the latest updates of the state of unrest in the Irish countryside. Perhaps in response to news that the rebellion had finally been defeated, reported Irish agitation in the colony lessened, so much so that the British allowed the colony’s first Catholic priest to (briefly) perform his ministry. As late as March 1, 1804, Governor King wrote to London that the Irish in Sydney were now behaving themselves.

 

The spark for a new rebellion was already being kindled, however, after the whaling ship the Ferret arrived in Sydney in January 1804, bringing newspapers dating from August 1803. These bore tidings of Robert Emmet’s new United Irish rising near Dublin – but not of its demise, which followed closely in the weeks that followed. Not to be dampened by news of later events, word of Emmet’s uprising spread through the colony like wildfire, and six weeks later – whether by coincidence or not, on Emmet’s birthday – that spark became a flame.

 

“Liberty or Death…”

 

Literally, as it turns out. Instructions spread on March 4 that the rebellion would begin at nightfall, and the official signal was when one of the leaders, John Cavenah, set fire to his hut at Castle Hill Government Farm at 8 o’clock. That night, some 200-300, mostly Irish, prisoners escaped from the prison farm, led by Philip Cunningham – a key architect of the rebellion. A Kerry-man, Cunningham was a veteran of the 1798 United Irishmen rebellion and of its aftermath, where he had been captured and tried in Clonmel while rebuilding the United Irishmen in Tipperary. He had also been involved in the mutiny on board the Anne during its journey to Australia.

 

The signal fire was not seen by his comrades at Green Hills (today's Windsor) on the Hawkesbury River, but Cunningham proceeded with his plan regardless, taking weapons, ammunition, and food from the Castle Hill Government Farm, and recruiting local supporters. The rebels - their numbers soon swelling to over 685 - adopted the slogan “Death or Liberty” as their rallying call, planning to join hundreds more from the Hawkesbury area, to rally at Constitution Hill, and to march on Parramatta and then Sydney’s Port Jackson itself. There they would establish Irish rule and send those who wished it back to Ireland to reignite the 1803 rebellion.

 

Damned Betrayal

 

After looting the government farm, the rebel group divided into smaller parties, going from farm to farm on their way towards Constitution Hill, collecting further supplies and recruits. Their actions were informed by intelligence gathered the previous year, when 12 escaped prisoners sought out friends and sympathisers in the surrounding districts. Even so, many lost their way during the night and failed to reach the rendezvous point – including a group of 70 under the command of Samuel Humes. These losses were worsened when plans to join with hundreds of prisoners in the Hawkesbury region went awry after John Griffen, the courier taking their mobilisation orders, betrayed the uprising and surrendered to authorities that night.

 

Another small group of rebels attempted to enter Parramatta to set a building alight as a signal for local rebels and those in Sydney to join the rebellion, but two defectors again ruined the plan. Captain Edward Abbott commenced defensive measures in Parramatta and sent a message to Governor King in Sydney. King, alerted to the rebellion late during the evening of March 4, declared martial law, although when news of the uprising reached the small colony, a great panic set in, with some officials  including Samuel Marsden  fleeing the area by boat. Major George Johnston of the New South Wales Corps (himself later to play a key role in the Rum Rebellion coup d’état of 1808) quickly gathered a force of British troops and a large civilian militia – including the Sydney Loyal Association – to pursue the rebels.

 

New Ireland

 

With the element of surprise lost and plans to mobilise rebels in the Hawkesbury, Parramatta and Sydney having failed, the uprising was confined to the area west of Parramatta. Cunningham, lacking any sign that Parramatta had been taken, and without the expected reinforcements, was forced to withdraw the rebel group to Toongabbie to re-assess strategy, gather new forces, and perhaps find his lost comrades. In the process, he also collected a significant number of arms, by this point possessing of perhaps a third of the colony’s entire armaments, but the rebel forces continued to dwindle in number. Those that remained are reported to have proclaimed the area around Constitution Hill "New Ireland”.

 

Meanwhile, Major Johnston’s much smaller crown forces endured a forced march through the night, coming to within only a few kilometres of the remaining rebels, now reduced to approximately 233, on the morning of March 5. Outnumbered and tired, Johnston decided to employ delaying tactics, riding on ahead of his men along with a trooper, Thomas Anlezark, and the colony’s sole Catholic priest, Father Dixon  himself an Irishman exiled to Australia following 1798  to demand the rebels surrender, and to otherwise parley with them while his troops advanced to a more favourable position. 

 

“… and a ship to take us home!”

 

Sending first the trooper Anlezark, and then Father Dixon, to demand (unsuccessfully) that the rebels down arms and accept an amnesty, Major Johnston himself finally rode up to meet them. Cunningham’s response, however, remained emphatic: “Death or liberty”. It is sometimes claimed that he also said, “and a ship to take us home”, although that addition is first recorded some while later. During this exchange, the government troops and the loyalist militia finally appeared, lining up behind Major Johnston. Seizing his opportunity, Johnston – still under a flag of truce – took Cunningham and another rebel leader captive at gunpoint. 

 

Quickly retreating with the captured Cunningham, Johnston ordered crown forces to fire on the rebels. After fifteen minutes of gunfire, followed by a charge, between 15 and 20 rebels were killed, the others scattering into the bush in disarray. An unknown number – certainly more than a dozen – were killed in the pursuits that followed into the night and the following days. Governor King then announced leniency for those who surrendered before March 10, leading many of those who got lost on the night of March 4 to give themselves up, while the large group commanded by Samuel Humes was captured by the Parramatta Loyal Association militia at Castle Hill.

 

 Aftermath

 

The extent of British alarm over the Castle Hill rebellion can be measured by the scale of repression that followed. While some have estimated that 39 rebels died in, or as a result of, the Castle Hill uprising, the precise numbers will never be known. Around 230 people were arrested in the days following the rebellion, of whom nine were executed. Eight of these received a court-martial, while a wounded Cunningham was hanged without trial on the steps of the Government Store at Windsor, which he had claimed he would burn down. Interestingly, of those executed, four were Protestant, and two were English. 

 

Two prisoners – including Humes – were hung from the gibbet, while two others, Bryan McCormack and John Burke, were reprieved and detained. Seven were whipped with between 200 or 500 lashes and sent to the Coal River chain gang at Newcastle, and a further 23 others were sent to the Newcastle coal mines. Another 34 prisoners were placed in irons until they could be "disposed of”, but their fate remains unclear. Of the approximately 150 rebels that remained, many were sent to Norfolk Island on good behaviour bonds, but the majority were pardoned and allowed to return to their previous lives, it being adjudged that they had been coerced into rebellion.

 

The International Society of United Irishmen?

 

Martial law ended on 10 March 1804, but the Irish insurgency in Sydney – both real and imagined – continued. Two Frenchmen who had come to the colony to cultivate vines were expelled on suspicion. More realistic plots continued to develop, with authorities on the constant alert over the following three years. For his part, Governor King was convinced that the true leaders of the 1804 rebellion had remained out of sight, and were continuing to plot the colony’s demise. As a result, he sent numerous suspects to Norfolk Island as a preventative measure. 

 

Whether King was correct will likely never be known  the identity of the rebellion's co-conspirators in Parramatta, Sydney and the Hawkesbury are lost to history. It is true, however, that the rising was neither as spontaneous nor isolated as most Australian historiography would have us believe. Indeed, there are unverified claims that at least two Irish prisoners who arrived in February 1800 on board the Friendship were corresponding with the United Irish leadership around Emmet to establish a secret branch of an “International Society of United Irishmen” in Sydney to act there under direction from Ireland. 

 

Loyalist paranoia about Irish republicanism was further fed by the arrival in February 1806 of another group of Irish political rebels on board the Tellicherry. They included the last hard core of United Irishmen, and were led by none other than Michael Dwyer, the “Wicklow Chief”, who had only surrendered in December 1803 on condition of voluntary exile to the United States of America. Perfidious Albion, of course, had other ideas, sending Dwyer, Hugh Byrne, Martin Burke, Arthur Devlin, John Mernagh, and a dozen of their comrades to Botany Bay. Perhaps regrettably, the loyalist fears of renewed rebellion were misplaced.


Australia's Vinegar Hills

 

Known as Australia’s “Battle of Vinegar Hill” due to its links with the Irish events of 1798, and that famous battle in particular, the 1804 Castle Hill rebellion is now commemorated at the Vinegar Hill Memorial, Castlebrook Memorial Gardens, in Rouse Hill. A monument was unveiled by former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam in 1988, carrying the names of several contemporary politicians and councillors, but with none of the rebels. This rather blinkered oversight was remedied on the bicentenary of the rebellion in 2004 with a new plaque. 

 

The Castle Hill rebellion was also the opening sally in a longer struggle for democracy in Australia in which Irish republicans have played a key part. The anti-authoritarian streak, and the lived experience of many Irish in Australia, found its expression in the widespread popular support for the Kelly Gang in northeast Victoria, in the better expressions of Australia's trade union movement, in the struggle against conscription during World War One, and in the fight for Aboriginal rights. In 1920, 100,000 people marched in Melbourne's annual Saint Patrick's Day Parade to demonstrate their support for Irish independence.

 

Perhaps the most iconic such expression, however, took place fifty years after Castle Hill at the Eureka Stockade rebellion on the Ballarat goldfields in Victoria. It, too, was defeated in blood, but the popular support it enjoyed saw one of its key demands realised: a Legislative Assembly in the Victorian colony. The Eureka rebels – migrants from every corner of the earth were inspired by the same ideals of liberty, justice, and freedom as the heroes of '98 and '04. Led by Peter Lawlor, the brother of Young Irelander James Fintan Lawlor, they raised a standard of liberty while using the password "Vinegar Hill".

Friday, January 26, 2024

Northern Lights? Nordic lessons for the just transition

For many, Scandinavia is synonymous with social democracy, high union density, public ownership, and progressive governments inclined to climate action and sustainable policies. A recent study tour to Norway and Denmark, hosted by Rosa Luxemburg Foundation’s New York and Brussels offices, found that both countries still struggle with entrenched interests – local and international – holding back a genuine “just transition”.

The five-day study tour in October brought ten experts – legislators, researchers, and activists – from North America and Europe to Norway and Denmark. It was the aim of the tour to explore the renewable energy landscape in Scandinavia, and to exchange experiences from both sides of the Atlantic around building a “just transition”: a greening of the economy in a fair and inclusive manner that creates decent work opportunities and leaves no one behind.

Taking as its starting point the role and strategies of left parties, trade unions and climate justice groups in the Nordic region, the visit also looked at the larger challenges, including the regional and global dynamics surrounding a green transition. The results were challenging, and sometimes inspiring, but contradictory.

Leading on renewables?

Denmark and Norway are rightly seen as world leaders on renewable energy, but this status is riddled with incongruities. While Norway’s hydro sector supplies over 99 percent of the country’s electricity needs and is more than 90 percent state-owned, wind power faces significant public opposition. Unlike hydro, onshore wind generation in Norway is 75 percent privately owned, largely exported for profit, and pays lower taxes than other energy sectors. Offshore wind production – which faces less criticism – mostly serves to electrify Norwegian oil and gas platforms.

Opposition to onshore wind has even emerged within Norway’s environmental movement and indigenous Sámi population, most notably around the Fosen wind farm in central Norway. In October 2021, Norway’s Supreme Court ruled the wind farm had been built in clear violation of the Sámi people’s human rights, but the government has failed to take any action. Both environmental groups and the Sámi people continue to protest against the wind farm, and the case has only helped deepen public opposition to wind energy in the country.

Read the full report at Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung - Brussels Office or Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung - New York Office

Wednesday, September 6, 2023

Das Thema „Sicherheit“ und die Linke

Erfahrungen und Strategien linker Parteien in den nordischen Ländern und Deutschland

Im Juni 2023 veranstaltete das Brüsseler Büro der Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung (RLS) einen Workshop in Malmö, Schweden, um den Austausch von Erfahrungen und Strategien zwischen verschiedenen linken Parteien zu fördern, die sich insbesondere nach dem russischen Einmarsch in die Ukraine mit dem Thema Sicherheitspolitik beschäftigen.

Am Workshop nahmen 20 Parteiaktivist:innen und Entscheidungsträger:innen der politischen Linken aus Dänemark, Finnland, Norwegen, Schweden und Deutschland teil.[1] Darunter waren sowohl Abgeordnete der nationalen Parlamente, Fraktionssprecher:innen in den Bereichen Sicherheit und Verteidigung als auch Mitglieder der Parteispitzen von Enhedslisten (Dänemark), Vasemmistoliitto (Finnland), Rødt (Norwegen), Socialistisk Venstreparti (Norwegen), Vänsterpartiet (Schweden), und DIE LINKE (Deutschland).

Der Workshop bot neben der Möglichkeit, sich über Analysen und Strategien auszutauschen, sich untereinander zu vernetzen und voneinander zu lernen, wichtige Einblicke in die Erfahrungen und Debatten linker Parteien in den nordischen Ländern und in Deutschland. Der Fokus lag auf zentralen Fragen und Herausforderungen für die Linke im Bereich der Sicherheitspolitik, einschließlich der heiklen Frage linker Strategien und Taktiken gegenüber militärischen und sicherheitspolitischen Bündnissen wie der NATO.

Der Workshop war Teil einer laufenden Veranstaltungsreihe der RLS Brüssel mit Schwerpunkt auf den nordischen Ländern.

Den vollständigen Bericht finden Sie auf der Website der Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung – Büro Brüssel.

Thursday, August 17, 2023

“Security and the Left” - Impact Workshop

On 8-9 June 2023 the Brussels Office of the Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung (RLS) hosted a workshop in Malmö to facilitate the exchange of experiences and strategies between several left-wing parties grappling with the issue of security policy, particularly in the aftermath of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The event was held face-to-face and invitation-only to guarantee an atmosphere of trust and confidentiality to participants.

The workshop brought together 20 party activists and decision-makers from the political left in Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway and Germany.[1] Participation included current MPs, and members of party leaderships, from Enhedslisten (Denmark), Vänsterpartiet (Sweden), Vasemmistoliitto (Finland), Socialistisk Venstreparti (Norway), Rødt (Norway), and DIE LINKE (Germany).

Participants had the opportunity to exchange views on analysis and strategy, to connect and to learn from each other – gaining useful insights into the experiences of, and debates within, left parties in the Nordic countries and Germany. Through a dynamic mix of inputs and interactive discussions, the workshop concentrated on key questions and challenges for the left in the area of security policy, including the thorny question of left strategies and tactics towards military and security alliances such as NATO.

The workshop was part of an ongoing series of events with a focus on the Nordic countries organised by RLS Brussels.

Read the full report at Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung - Brussels Office.  

Wednesday, December 21, 2022

Impact workshop: “The Left in Power”, Copenhagen 9-10 June

In June 2022, the Brussels Office of Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung hosted a workshop in Copenhagen to better understand and compare the central issues, experiences and strategies of left-wing parties’ participation in, or support of, governments in the region. The event was face-to-face and by-invitation only to guarantee an atmosphere of trust and confidentiality to participants.

The workshop brought together 30 party activists and decision-makers from among the political left in Sweden, Denmark and Germany.[1] Participation included current MPs, members of the party leadership, and activists with experience at the regional and local level from Enhedslisten (Denmark) and Vänsterpartiet (Sweden), as well as DIE LINKE officials and elected representatives from several German states and state parliaments (Thuringia, Brandenburg, Berlin, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Bremen and Hamburg).

Participants had the opportunity to exchange viewpoints on analysis and strategy, learn from each other and connect, gaining useful insights into the experiences and debates of left parties in the Nordic countries and Germany. A dynamic mix of inputs, interactive methods, small group discussions and strategy development, concentrated on a number of key questions, including the case for the “left in power”, strategies and tactics for making this a reality, and the question of placing limits or “red lines” on government participation.

The workshop was part of an ongoing series of events with a focus on the Nordic countries organised by RLS Brussels.

Read the full report at Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung - Brussels Office.

Monday, December 12, 2022

Denmark’s left in crisis?

Denmark’s radical left party, the Red Green Alliance, is in a spin. At the November 1 general election, it lost a quarter of its support, a third of its seats, and its influence with government. Alongside the immediate financial and political ramifications, the result has opened up both internal and public debate on what went wrong and why – exposing strategic disagreements over the party’s direction.

This was the Red Green Alliance’s (RGA) third electoral retreat in a row, following the 2019 national election and last year’s municipal vote. The party won just 5.1 percent of the vote, down from 6.9 percent in 2019 and its historic high-water mark of 7.8 percent in 2015. The result is worse if you consider the party was averaging 8.1 percent support when the election was called in October. Compared to expectations during the campaign, the election results came as something of a shock.

In the regions, the party’s vote continued to drop, with many voters turning to the Social Democrats or the Green Left party, and confining RGA support largely to the big urban centres. There too the party faced setbacks, with many supporters of radical change backing the new Independent Greens or the environmentalist Alternative instead.

The party’s Main Board soon announced an internal review and plans to address the sudden financial shortfall, but this review was pre-empted somewhat by an article in Politiken, Denmark’s main newspaper. In it, former party spokesperson and outgoing MP Pernille Skipper blamed the poor result on – among other things – outdated party structures, calling for an intensification of the “modernisation” process begun a decade and a half ago, and for greater political manoeuvrability for MPs.

Read the full article at Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung - Brussels Office.

Friday, October 28, 2022

Denmark to hold early elections as Social Democrats move right

On November 1, Denmark will vote, seven months ahead of schedule. Polls show left and right blocs almost neck-and-neck, and the risk of an outright win for the right-wing remains real. However, with Social Democratic Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen seeking to hold onto power through an unlikely coalition across the middle, a rightwards shift seems inevitable.

The early election was called when the Social Liberals, one of three smaller parties propping up the Social Democrat minority government, threatened a no-confidence motion after damaging criticisms in a report on the government’s handling of a Covid-19 mutation on Danish mink farms in 2020.

Frederiksen, widely applauded for her handling of the Covid pandemic, faced accusations of arrogance and abuse of power over the government’s cull of all 17 million of the country’s farmed mink. The official investigation revealed no legal basis for the cull, and while the Prime Minister avoided sanction, it has damaged her popularity.

Denmark is dominated by bloc politics and coalition governments, and both major political blocs – red (left) and blue (right) – currently sit even in the polls, with a slight advantage to the red bloc. With no obvious winner, two new parties – one nominally centrist, the other on the right – may decide the outcome.

Unusually, Frederiksen has called on centrist and centre-right parties to join her in a broad coalition across the political middle ground, to find "joint solutions to the country's major challenges”. While the Social Liberals, the Socialist People’s Party and the Moderates agree, the leaders of the two traditional opposition parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives, have rejected the idea.

The proposal is also opposed by parties on the far-right, and by the radical left Red-Green Alliance, another of the parties that has kept the government in power for the last three years. Indeed, Frederiksen’s proposed coalition is also deliberately designed to diminish left-wing influence on government, and to shift Danish politics further to the right.

Read the full article at Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung - Brussels Office.

Sunday, October 16, 2022

Historic Copenhagen budget leaves Social Democrats out in the cold

Duroyan Fertl interviews Line Barfod, a former Enhedslisten MP and the current Mayor for Technical and Environmental affairs on Copenhagen Council.

On September 9, the 2023 budget for the City of Copenhagen was agreed in historic circumstances. For the first time in a century, Denmark’s Social Democratic Party – which has long treated Copenhagen as its crown jewel – was outside the deal. Instead, radical left party Enhedslisten (the “Red-Green Alliance”) took the lead in budget negotiations, delivering robust funding for social welfare and the climate, with support from parties of the centre, right and even far-right.

In November 2021 municipal elections, Enhedslisten eclipsed the Social Democrats in Copenhagen for the first time, taking a quarter of the vote. In the negotiations that followed, however, the Social Democrats held on to the coveted position of Lord Mayor thanks to support from the right-wing parties. Enhedslisten took responsibility for the Technical and Environmental, and Social Affairs, portfolios instead.

But in negotiations for the first budget since that vote, the Social Democrats, along with the Socialist People’s Party (or “Green Left”, as it now wants to be known internationally), found themselves outside the room, as their budget proposal failed to win support. Instead, Enhedslisten brokered a budget agreement that secured significant climate and welfare spending while bridging the political divide.

Rather controversially, Enhedslisten’s budget agreement was built on the support, not only of the political centre, but of parties of the right and even the extreme right, with the Danish People’s Party and even more radical Nye Borgelige (the “New Right”) both participating in negotiations and signing up to the agreement.

Being cut out of the budget is yet another massive defeat for Lord Mayor Sophie Hæstorp Andersen and the Social Democrats in Copenhagen, but what does the deal mean for Enhedslisten, and for the broader political situation in Denmark, where early elections will be held on 1 November?

The new 2023 budget agreement is a pretty big departure from the norm, and has left quite a few people scratching their heads. Why did Enhedslisten make a deal with parties of the centre and right, rather than with what many would consider your more natural allies on the left wing, the Social Democrats or Socialist People’s Party?

This is the first time ever in Copenhagen that the Lord Mayor, a social democrat, is not part of the budget, but we had thought the whole way through negotiations that we would make a budget with the Social Democrats. However, after four days of negotiations they still hadn’t delivered anything on climate, and only very little on welfare – both issues that we had said from the start were our key areas. This was particularly the case on the matter of the climate crisis – we simply couldn’t agree the budget unless we had agreement on something that really made a difference for the climate.

Read the full article at Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung - Brussels Office.

Tuesday, August 2, 2022

„Wir müssen mit Dänemark zusammenarbeiten, aber gleichberechtigter“

Duroyan Fertl interviewt Aaja Chemnitz Larsen, Mitglied des dänischen Parlaments für Inuit Ataqatigiit

In Kalaallit Nunaat (Grönland) errang die linke Partei Inuit Ataqatigiit („Volksgemeinschaft“) bei den Wahlen im vergangenen Jahr einen Erdrutschsieg und gewann 37 Prozent der Stimmen und 12 der 31 Sitze im Inatsisartut (Parlament Grönlands). 

 Das vergangene Jahr erwies sich jedoch als schwierig und führte zu einem Wechsel der Koalitionspartner. Unterdessen steht das Land vor zahlreichen Herausforderungen, da es einen Ausgleich zwischen wirtschaftlicher Entwicklung und sozialer Gerechtigkeit und Maßnahmen in den Bereichen Klimawandel und Umweltschutz herstellen muss und mit einer sich verändernden globalen Sicherheitslage konfrontiert ist, wobei Dänemark noch immer die Kontrolle über die auswärtigen Beziehungen und die Verteidigung hat.

Ihre Partei, die Inuit Ataqatigiit (IA), gewann im April letzten Jahres die vorgezogenen Wahlen in Grönland. Welche Erfahrungen hat die IA als linke Regierungspartei seither gemacht?

Der Schwerpunkt unserer nun bereits beinahe einjährigen Tätigkeit lag auf der Zusammenarbeit mit unseren Koalitionspartnern der Partei Naleraq, einer noch weiter links angesiedelten Partei als wir, die sich aber auch sehr stark auf die Unabhängigkeit Grönlands konzentrierte und dies viel früher tat als wir bei der IA.

Es ist normal, dass sich die grönländische Bevölkerung über die Unabhängigkeit Gedanken macht – wenn man sich die Geschichte anschaut, sieht man, dass wir schon 1953 unabhängig werden hätten können, als wir (zumindest auf dem Papier) mit Dänemark gleichberechtigt wurden.

Der Schwerpunkt lag sehr auf der Unabhängigkeit und darauf, wie wir in der Außenpolitik eine andere Rolle spielen können. Wir haben eine Redewendung: „Nichts über uns ohne uns“, was bedeutet, dass jede Diskussion über Grönland oder die Arktis im dänischen Parlament (das über unsere Außenpolitik verfügt) mit grönländischer Beteiligung geschehen sollte.

Wir haben uns also sehr auf diese Themen konzentriert. Die Zusammenarbeit mit der Naleraq verlief nicht immer reibungslos. Es war irgendwie chaotisch und es gab einen ziemlich großen internen Fokus auf diese Zusammenarbeit.

Sie haben kürzlich die Koalitionspartner gewechselt, von der Naleraq zur sozialdemokratischen Partei Siumut. Gab es andere politische Gründe für einen Wechsel der Koalitionspartner oder war es vor allem die Frage der Unabhängigkeit?

Ich denke, es ging vor allem um die Haltung gegenüber Dänemark. Ich denke, dass sowohl die Siumut als auch die IA verstehen, dass wir mit Dänemark zusammenarbeiten müssen, aber wir müssen dies auf viel gleichberechtigtere Weise tun.

Wir müssen eine gute Zusammenarbeit sicherstellen und respektvoll miteinander sprechen. Dies ist für uns bei der Inuit Ataqatigiit sehr natürlich, aber nicht unbedingt für die Naleraq.

Aus diesem Grund sind die auswärtigen Angelegenheiten – insbesondere die Beziehungen zu Dänemark, aber auch zu den USA – etwas, das in den grönländischen Zeitungen viele Schlagzeilen gemacht hat.

Jetzt sind wir also zur Siumut als Koalitionspartner gewechselt. Hoffentlich können wir uns jetzt viel mehr auf die außenpolitischen Fragen konzentrieren, mit denen wir uns befassen müssen.

Lesen Sie den vollständigen Artikel auf der Website der Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung - Büro Brüssel.

Friday, July 22, 2022

“We need to collaborate with Denmark, but in a more equal way”

Duroyan Fertl interviews Aaja Chemnitz Larsen, Member of the Danish Parliament for Inuit Ataqatigiit.

 In Kalaallit Nunaat (Greenland), the radical left party, Inuit Ataqatigiit (‘Community of the People’) won a landslide election last year, taking 37 percent of the vote and 12 of the 31 seats in the Inatsisartut (Greenlandic parliament). The past year has proved difficult, however, leading to a change in coalition partners. Meanwhile the country faces multiple challenges, balancing economic development and social justice with action on climate change and environmental protection, and an evolving global security situation, where Denmark still controls all foreign affairs and defence powers. 

Your party, Inuit Ataqatigiit (IA), won Greenland’s snap elections in April last year. What have IA’s experiences as a left party in government been over this time?

The main focus for the nearly a year was on collaborating with our coalition partners Naleraq, which is a party even more left-wing than us but which also very much focused on achieving independence for Greenland and doing so much sooner than for us at IA.

Independence is, of course, something that is natural for the people of Greenland to think about - looking at history you can see that we could have been independent already in 1953 when we became an equal party (at least on paper) with Denmark.

The focus has been very much on independence, as well as on how we can play a different role in foreign affairs. We have a saying: “nothing about us without us”, meaning that every time something concerning Greenland or the Arctic is being discussed in the Danish parliament (which has authority over our foreign affairs) it should be with Greenlandic involvement.

So, we have been focusing very much on these issues. It hasn’t always been a smooth ride for us with Naleraq. It’s been kind of chaotic and there’s been quite an internal focus, I would say, on this collaboration.

You recently changed coalition partners, from Naleraq to the social democratic party, Siumut. Were there other policy reasons for changing coalition partners, or was it mainly the independence issue?

I think it was mostly about the attitude towards Denmark. I think both for Siumut and for IA we understand that we need to collaborate with Denmark, but we need to do it in a much more equal way.

We need to make sure that we have a good collaboration and talk respectfully to each other. This is something that is very natural for us in Inuit Ataqatigiit but not necessarily for Naleraq.

For this reason, foreign affairs - especially the relationship towards Denmark, but also towards the United States - is something that has been filling a lot of headlines in the Greenlandic newspapers.

So now we have changed to Siumut as a coalition partner. Hopefully now we’ll be able to focus much more on the external political issues that we need to deal with.

 Read the full article at Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung - Brussels Office.