Category Archives: Bites

The Destruction of Fallujah – A US Legacy

Bites, , , , , ,

Not yet mentioned in the Irish press.

Patrick Cockburn writing in CounterPunch:

Dramatic increases in infant mortality, cancer and leukaemia in the Iraqi city of Fallujah, which was bombarded by US Marines in 2004, exceed those reported by survivors of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, according to a new study.

Iraqi doctors in Fallujah have complained since 2005 of being overwhelmed by the number of babies with serious birth defects, ranging from a girl born with two heads to paralysis of the lower limbs. They said they were also seeing far more cancers than they did before the battle for Fallujah between US troops and insurgents.

Their claims have been supported by a survey showing a four-fold increase in all cancers and a 12-fold increase in childhood cancer in under-14s. Infant mortality in the city is more than four times higher than in neighboring Jordan and eight times higher than in Kuwait.

Dr Chris Busby, a visiting professor at the University of Ulster and one of the authors of the survey of 4,800 individuals in Fallujah, said it is difficult to pin down the exact cause of the cancers and birth defects. He added that “to produce an effect like this, some very major mutagenic exposure must have occurred in 2004 when the attacks happened”. [The Toxic Legacy From the Siege of Fallujah – Worse Than Hiroshima?, CounterPunch, 27/07/10]

Cockburn interviewed by Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez on Democracy Now!:

JUAN GONZALEZ: Patrick, I’d like to ask you about this whole other issue of the report on—by Chris Busby and some other epidemiologists about the situation in Fallujah and the enormous increases in leukemias and cancers in Fallujah after the US soldiers’ attack on that city. Could you talk about that?

PATRICK COCKBURN: Sure. I think what’s significant, very significant, about this study is that it confirms lots of anecdotal evidence that there had been a serious increase in cancer, in babies being born deformed, I mean, sometimes with—grotesquely so, babies—you know, a baby girl born with two heads, you know, people born without limbs, then a whole range of cancers increased enormously. That this was—when I was in Fallujah, doctors would talk about this, but, you know one couldn’t—one could write about this, but one couldn’t really prove it from anecdotal evidence. Now this is a study, a scientific study, based on interviews with 4,800 people, which gives—proves that this was in fact happening and is happening. And, of course, it took—you know, it has taken place so much later than the siege of Fallujah, when it was heavily bombarded in 2004 by the US military, because previously, you know, Fallujah is such a dangerous place to this day, difficult to carry out a survey, but it’s been finally done, and the results are pretty extraordinary.

AMY GOODMAN: What were the various weapons that were used in the bombing of Fallujah in 2004?

PATRICK COCKBURN: Well, primarily, it was sort of, you know, artillery and bombing. Initially it was denied that white phosphorus had been used, but later this was confirmed. I think one shouldn’t lose sight of the fact, in this case, that before one thinks about was depleted uranium used and other things, that just simply the use of high—large quantities of high explosives in a city filled with civilians and people packed into houses—often you find, you know, whole families living in one room—was, in itself, going to create, lead to very, very high civilian casualties. But that’s not what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about the increase in cancers and so forth, and the suspicion that maybe depleted uranium, maybe some other weapon, which we don’t know about—this is not my speculation, but of one of the professors who carried out the study—might have been employed in Fallujah, and that would be an explanation for results which parallel, in fact exceed, the illnesses subsequently suffered by survivors of Hiroshima. [Democracy Now!, 29/07/10]

And the report itself: ‘Cancer, Infant Mortality and Birth Sex-Ratio in Fallujah, Iraq 2005–2009’ [International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health]

via MLMB

Read this book II

Bites,

I’m only 16 pages in, but this book appears to be a ‘must read’. I’m probably the last one to come across it. My last recommendation (and only other one so far) can be found here.

Reuters – Bureau Chief, Iraq

Bites, , , , ,

There’s another article in today’s Irish Times about US plans to reduce troop numbers in Iraq. It makes the same ‘mistakes’ as previous reports mentioned here and here. But among the errors and distortions there is one howler that stands out…

Dear Michael,

Further to your report on the latest reduction in US troops numbers in Iraq [1], which I came across in the Irish Times [2], I wanted to point out the following. You write:

“up to 106,071 Iraqi civilians also died in fierce warfare unleashed between majority Shi’ites and minority Sunni Muslims who dominated the country under Saddam.”

This figure corresponds to that provided by Iraq Body Count [3], who count those civilian deaths reported in the media. Yet IBC freely admit their figures “can only be a sample of true deaths unless one assumes that every civilian death has been reported. It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media. That is the sad nature of war.” [4]

Further, the deaths recorded by IBC “includes deaths caused by US-led coalition forces and paramilitary or criminal attacks by others.” [5]

Kind regards,

David [Email, 19/8/10]

Reuters Bureau Chief, Iraq, Michael Christie responded as follows:

“thanks for outpointing” [Email, 19/8/10]

1. http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE67H62C20100819
2. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0819/breaking2.html
3. http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
4. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6045112.stm
5. http://www.iraqbodycount.org/about/

Response to “War – Defense – Security – ?”

Bites, , ,

Response to War – Defense – Security – ?:

“Thank you very much for your email.
 
I thought I was entering a note of caution when I made clear that the shift from the combat fighting role was largely a linguistic one – noting Obama’s acknowledgment that there would still be “American sacrifice”. And of course the reduction from 140,000 or so in early 2009 has been a longer term process.
 
Indeed, the August 2010 date was always something of a midway point between the dates the Bush administration agreed with the Iraqis, for withdrawing US troops from Iraqi cities in summer of 2009 and supposedly pulling out altogether at the end of 2011.
 
So I take your wider point that there was a certain amount of spin in the speech – which is why I described it as an attempt to boost his standing as a war president and contrasted his claims with the casualty figures, in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

All best and thanks again” [Email, 4 August, 2010]

My bad. Sometimes you just need a bigger magnifying glass to find the criticial analysis.

Words are Weapons – An Interview with Amy Goodman

Bites, , ,

via The Punishment of Sloth

War – Defense – Security – ?

Bites, , , ,

Yesterday’s Irish Times featured two reports on Iraq. The first of which declared: “US combat troops to leave Iraq by end of month“. The second claimed that “Violence [in Iraq] has fallen sharply in the last three years.”

The second report states that “nearly 400 civilians were killed in bombings and other attacks in July.” Iraqi government officials however put the figure at 535, with a further 1,000 injured, in what they describe as “the deadliest month in Iraq since May 2008.”

Yet the Irish Times goes on to say “violence has fallen sharply in the last three years.” What this doesn’t tell you is that a) civilian deaths are roughly back to where they were in the two years following the invasion and b) any which way you look at it, 400 deaths or 535 deaths, even using conservative estimates this is the most deadly month in Iraq of 2010.

But, Irish Times, let’s stick to the good news.

The first report looks like the kind you or I might write, if we chose to limit our research to whatever we can find in US government press releases. While they’d be basically accurate, albeit within the strict limits we’d set out, inevitably, what we would have left out would have been of far more interest.

For example, we wouldn’t have discussed whether the reduction in troops signifies any change in terms of policy, we wouldn’t have asked whether the situation that necessitated the troops presence yesterday no longer applies today (which relates neatly back to the second report) and most importantly we wouldn’t have asked the leaders of the country being (partially un)occupied what they thought of the whole charade.

In late 2008 Obama pledged that he “would remove combat troops from Iraq in 16 months.” It’s now about 16 months on, so that explains why we have an Irish Times report declaring the “US would meet its deadline of ending combat operations in Iraq at the end of this month.” However, as you’d imagine that’s not the whole story, a few paragraphs later we are told: “US forces in Iraq are scheduled to be cut to just 50,000.” So actually what the writer is trying to tell us, in a roundabout way, is that troop numbers are to be reduced from “a peak of more than 140,000” to about a third that number.

That’s not really the whole story either though, the peak in troop numbers over the last few years was more like 170,000, but that’s back in October 2007. Troops numbers prior to this news were neither 140,000 nor 170,000, they were more like 98,000. So the troop numbers are only planned to be halved.

But again, that’s not even half the story. Actually, its almost exactly half the story.

As of May 2010 there were approximately 250,000 contractors (or mercenaries to you and me) working in Afghanistan, Iraq and the U.S. Central Command, with almost 100,000 of them active in Iraq (and at least 11,000 of these armed). Which is exactly the same as the number of US troops deployed there.

So, in total the US has approximately 200,000 military or contracted military personnel in Iraq at present. With Obama’s ‘withdrawal’ the US has reduced numbers by about one quarter. Which hardly warrants a headline like “US combat troops to leave Iraq by end of month”.

This headline is essentially justified by Obama’s rhetorical trick of calling this particular quarter of the US occupying force “combat troops” and the work they were undertaking the “combat mission”.

In reality though, where rhetorical gadgets like the one above are dismissed, the US is not withdrawing from Iraq, it is simply switching from what is referred to as a “military” force to a “security” force. According to Jeremy Scahill, writing in The Nation, “The [US] State Department is asking Congress to approve funds to more than double the number of private security contractors in Iraq,” apparently submitting a request to the Wartime Contracting Commission for up to 7,000 further hired guns. Which may just signal another rebranding, from the Department of War, to the Department of Defense, to the Department of Security.

[Update: A response to this post from the writer of the second report can be found here]

The Irish Times Censors Comments

Bites

For the third time the Irish Times has censored a comment of mine – this one posted last Saturday beneath an article by John Waters about the children’s rights referendum.   I don’t usually find myself in broad agreement with what JW has to say but this was different.  Waters made a good fist of exposing what he calls the pious humbug of the referendum – and of how when it seemed that the referendum might unintentionally do what it says on the tin – i.e. confer some actual rights on vulnerable immigrant children – Fianna Fail had immediately begun to talk about needing to ‘tweak’ the wording of the wretched thing so as to appease some of the more rabid anti-immigrant racists who have begun to bellow about the referendum.

Unfortunately, despite this being the third time The Irish Times has censored a comment of mine, I haven’t  yet learned to keep a copy of what I submit to them.  But it said, roughly, that Waters is right; that the referendum is about a transfer of parental authority/responsibility for protecting their children to the state and other agencies; that it does not confer a single, legally enforceable right on any child and that no undertakings of any sort have been given to provide extra funding and supports for the dire state of child protection services which would have to be a cornerstone of any meaningful rights-based legislation.  Even if it was a good idea, which it is not, what use is more power for social workers in a situation where they are already on their knees from overwork and are unable to protect children already known to be at risk?  Are we going to seriously hamper the existing constitutional protection that children have in favour of a system which sees so many children inexplicably and unaccountably dead and/or missing?  Madness.   Also, and most worryingly, the ammendment wording does not include a whisper of an increase in a legally enforceable duty of care or accountability of the state and its agencies for failures. 

The comment also included a link to a letter that was published in The Irish Examiner (might this be the problem?), which asks for Irish people to be vigilant about politicians playing politics with children’s rights.  When I spotted that comments submitted after mine had been allowed, I posted a reminder/request to the moderators yesterday to find out what had happened to my post – to no avail.  Today I see that they have, in their wisdom, decided to close the thread completely to any further comment.  Is the Children’s Rights Referendum unworthy of public discussion?  There are only 6 comments on the thread.  Why do other pieces carry umpteen pages of comments and remain open for weeks after they are published?

Latest MediaShot: ‘Officials say’, ‘officials say’, ‘according to an official’

Bites, , , ,

This latest MediaShot is an extended response to this criticism of our previous MediaShot ‘The false reality of news journalism’ – Reporting Palestine and the Mavi Marmara.

‘Officials say’, ‘officials say’, ‘according to an official’

Bites

Our last MediaShot ‘The false reality of news journalism’ – Reporting Palestine and the Mavi Marmara analysed reporting of the Israeli attack on the international aid flotilla destined for Gaza. The analysis focused on the broadsheet newspapers, the Irish Times, Irish Independent and Irish Examiner, where we found a clear bias in favour of Israeli government sources.

Along with distributing MediaShots to subscribers we often send them to journalists and editors who we think might wish to comment on the criticisms made. Sometimes we hear back.

The following response was received from a senior journalist at the Irish Times:

David:

I did not manage to get beyond the second paragraph of this because of your self-serving selective quote from the report to which you refer. You say below: “An Israeli naval patrol killed at least four Palestinians…on their way to carry out a terror attack.”

But the Reuter report, as published on our breaking news service, said: “An Israeli naval patrol spotted a boat with four men in diving suits on their way to carry out a terror attack and fired at them,” an Israeli army spokesman said, adding that the patrol had confirmed hitting its targets (emphasis added).

We therefore anchored the claim of motivation firmly where it belongs – with an Israeli army spokesman. It is the duty of the media to report assertions of both sides, as we did in this case.

If you are going to throw stones, you’d need to do rather better than this.

[Name withheld] [Email, 5 July, 2010]

This is a sentiment the Editor of the paper would no doubt fully endorse. In the paper’s ‘Message from the Editor‘ Geraldine Kennedy states:

“We never go to publication without seeking both sides of the story. And if, in spite of our best efforts, we cannot get one side’s version, we make it clear in our report that we have made every reasonable effort to secure that information.”

The idea that reporting assertions by various sides constitutes impartial journalism clearly discounts the attributing of authority to one source over another and the potential bias involved in creating a hierarchy of statements simply by virtue of where they are located in reports. But even if we accept this limited condition, the Irish Times entirely failed to live up to it. The Palestinian source was simply used to confirm the deaths, the only “side of the story” reported was the Israeli side.

Subsequently, we contacted the Reuters journalist to find out why there were no reactions from Palestinian officials or eye witnesses, why one side had been excluded from the narrative. He responded:

“Information from Gaza political, securiy [sic] and hospital officials was — indeed, is always — sought but it rarely sheds significant light on events in the field, or in this case, under water.

Officials with operational details prefer to keep out of the limelight and their spokesmen only divulge information that is often of no operational significance.

As I recall, there were multiple claims of responsibility by Palestinian militant groups at the time for the action but nothing was unequivocal and if I am not mistaken, there was also some backtracking by at least one of the claimants.” [Email, 11 July, 2010]

We responded the same day:

“I can understand that, especially in the wake of an incident like this, solid information is hard come by. But I was thinking more along the lines of reactions to the incident from Palestinian sources – perhaps with regards to the legality of Israel killing what may have been armed or apparently unarmed militants in Palestinian waters.

Israeli sources appear to dominate the report, with Hamas officials only confirming the deaths. With no definitive evidence of an immediate threat, I would have expected some sort of Hamas denunciation.” [Email, 11 July, 2010]

To which we received the following response:

“Please note that probably in the majority of cases, our first source for reporting on military action is the Palestinian side, with Israeli confirmation coming later.

The Israeli military spokesman’s office is often more cumbersome and holds back on responding to queries until it feels it has received accurate reports from the field. The Palestinian side, to whom our Gaza team has excellent access are often first off the mark to give details of a clash that has just ended or is still in progress.

We treat both sides with equal deference.

But, for example, if the Palestinian side say Israel launched an air strike we will wait for the Israeli side to tell us what happened becase they were the ones who deployed the military hardware. In the same way, we will only trust a Palestinian source that can confirm a body has been found, so if the army says they identified hitting somebody, it doesnt necessarily mean that person is dead. Indeed, the army is often careful and uses the term “identified hitting x” rather than giving x’s condition in cases where they do not have access to those targeted.” [Email, 26 July, 2010]

Whatever about Reuters policies for reporting the who and the where, this forumla does not explain the obvious bias contained in the report in terms of context. Israeli violence is explained as a reaction to a threat, as opposed an act of aggression: “militants in Gaza frequently try to attack Israeli border patrols and sporadically fire rockets and mortar bombs at Israel” and “[i]n February, Palestinian militant groups in Gaza sent explosive devices, thought to be primitive sea mines, out to sea intending to hit naval vessels. At least three devices washed up on Israeli beaches and were detonated by sappers.”

But going back to the response to our MediaShot. Selective quoting is a charge we take very seriously, it is after all something we would be quick to criticise if it were found in the Examiner, Independent or Times.

In this case “selective quoting” suggests not that the quote was attributed incorrectly or that the meaning of the quote had been skewed by the way in which it was presented, but that the selection of the quote misinterpreted the substance of the piece. We are accused of inventing bias where there is none.

We responded:

[Name withheld],

That’s exactly the point made. As Fisk says further on in the piece: ‘officials say’, ‘officials say’, ‘officials say’, ‘according to an official’.

With regards the opening reference, clearly we’re reading different reports. The report leads with a two paragraph justification from the Israeli military. It is followed by a statement from Hamas officials confirming the deaths. The report then mentions the flotilla attack, before adding a short tit for tat and then concluding with the journalists own commentary, corroborating the Israeli official’s ‘claim of motivation’:

“Palestinian militants in Gaza frequently try to attack Israeli border patrols and sporadically fire rockets and mortar bombs at Israel. In February, Palestinian militant groups in Gaza sent explosive devices, thought to be primitive sea mines, out to sea intending to hit naval vessels. At least three devices washed up on Israeli beaches and were detonated by sappers.”

I can’t imagine a situation where if Hamas’ military wing conducted assaults in Israeli territory killing a number of Israelis (military or otherwise) the Irish Times would publish reports leading with ‘claims of motivation’ from Hamas officials, followed by a short sentence from Israel confirming the deaths, followed again by a couple of paragraphs about, for instance, the number of attacks launched by Israel over the last couple of years or maybe reference to the number of Palestinians killed during ‘Operation Cast Lead’.

In the same way I couldn’t imagine a situation where if the Turkish military killed 9 Israelis the Irish Times would publish an opinion article by the Turkish ambassador 7 days before they published one from the Israeli ambassador.

Here’s another few examples. I’ve just plugged the words ‘palestinian’ ’attack’ ‘israel’ into the Irish Times archive:

5 Palestinian “militants” killed by Israeli troops. Only Israeli viewpoint sought.

5 Palestinian “militants” killed by Israeli troops. Confirmation of the deaths by both Israeli and Hamas officials. Context for the killing provided by Israeli official only: “Before the Israeli air strike took place, militants fired two rockets from coastal Gaza, both striking near the city of Ashkelon and causing no casualties, a military spokesman said.”

1 Palestinian “gunman” killed by Israeli troops. Israeli statement sought only. Context provided as follows: “Hamas has been urging smaller militant groups to refrain from launching attacks against Israel, which carried out a devastating military offensive in the Gaza Strip 17 months ago with the aim of halting cross-border rocket fire. Israeli air strikes targeted tunnels in the northern and southern Gaza Strip this morning after Palestinian militants fired two rockets that landed in fields inside Israel. The Israeli army says that some 350 rockets have been fired from the Gaza Strip since Israel ended its military offensive there in January 2009. More than 3,000 rockets and mortar rounds were fired at Israel from the Gaza Strip in 2008.”

1 Palestinian “militant” killed by Israeli troops. Israeli officials dominate report. Palestinian officials relegated to closing lines.

1 Palestinian “militant” killed by Israeli troops. Only Israeli viewpoint sought. Palestinian statement used to confirm deaths only.

1 Palestinian “militant” killed by Israeli troops. Only Israeli viewpoint sought. Palestinian statement used to confirm deaths only.

1 Palestinian “militant” killed by Israeli troops. Only Israeli viewpoint sought. Palestinian statement used to confirm deaths only.

2 Palestinian “militants” killed by Israeli troops. Only Israeli viewpoint sought. Palestinian statement used to confirm deaths only.

3 Palestinians killed by Israeli military. Israeli statement comes first, followed by Palestinian statement. The Palestinian statement is broken by commentary: “Palestinian medical workers said three workers in the tunnel, part of a system used mostly to smuggle goods and weapons into the Gaza Strip, were killed and six wounded when the tunnel collapsed in the attack.”

No one is throwing stones. The Times’ record speaks for itself.

Best wishes,

David [Email, 5 July, 2010]

A closer look at these reports serves to reinforce the argument made in our MediaShot, that “Palestinian attacks on Israeli targets are depicted as random acts of violence, with no mitigating or explanatory considerations whereas Israeli attacks are predominantly reported as responses to a Palestinian threat.”

This is best demonstrated by the last of the reports listed above:

“Israeli aircraft bombed a tunnel under the border between the Gaza Strip and Egypt on today, killing three Palestinians inside, medical workers said.

An Israeli military spokeswoman said aircraft attacked the tunnel after Gaza militants fired rockets into southern Israel yesterday, slightly wounding one soldier.

Palestinian medical workers said three workers in the tunnel, part of a system used mostly to smuggle goods and weapons into the Gaza Strip, were killed and six wounded when the tunnel collapsed in the attack.

Gaza’s smuggling tunnels, which still number in the hundreds despite air attacks and an Egyptian crackdown in which some have been blown up or flooded, are a frequent target of Israeli retaliation for attacks by Gaza’s armed Palestinian groups.

Smugglers send weapons and goods through tunnels to Gaza to circumvent an Israeli-led blockade.

The level of cross-border violence between Israel and the Islamist group Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip, had been relatively low in recent weeks.

In January, Israel ended a devastating three-week military offensive into the coastal territory aimed at ending Palestinian rocket fire into southern Israel.” [Israeli aircraft kill three Palestinians, August 25, 2009]

Here we have a report of the deaths of three Palestinians, killed by the Israeli military in Palestinian territory. They were working in one of the many tunnels constructed in order to “circumvent an Israeli-led blockade” and used to bring goods into Palestine. According to the report the tunnels are used for “smuggling“, the Palestinians are smugglers and the items being smuggled are “weapons“. They are therefore engaged in criminal, potentially violent activity, which by definition invites some sort of authoritative response.

There is no mention of the fact that, according to Amnesty International, “much of the available food [in Gaza] is provided by the UN and other aid agencies, or smuggled in through tunnels running under the Egypt-Gaza border.” Also unmentioned is the fact that the blockade or siege has been described by the United Nations as “collective punishment“, a “crime against humanity” and a “war crime.”

But the attack on the tunnels is not just framed as a pre-emptive security operation, it is of course a response to Palestinian violence, coming only “after Gaza militants fired rockets into southern Israel.” The tunnels are a “frequent target of Israeli retaliation for attacks by Gaza’s armed Palestinian groups.”

And, lest we missed the message, the closing line states emphatically that Israel’s “devastating three-week military offensive” into Gaza, which claimed over 1,400 lives, was carried out on the grounds of self-defence, since it was “aimed at ending Palestinian rocket fire into southern Israel.”

Yet the Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, often referred to as the Goldstone report, states in its conclusions:

“The Gaza military operations were, according to the Israeli Government, thoroughly and extensively planned. While the Israeli Government has sought to portray its operations as essentially a response to rocket attacks in the exercise of its right to self-defence, the Mission considers the plan to have been directed, at least in part, at a different target: the people of Gaza as a whole.”

“In this respect, the operations were in furtherance of an overall policy aimed at punishing the Gaza population for its resilience and for its apparent support for Hamas, and possibly with the intent of forcing a change in such support.”

“When the Mission conducted its first visit to the Gaza Strip in early June 2009, almost five months had passed since the end of the Israeli military operations. The devastating effects of the operations on the population were, however, unequivocally manifest. In addition to the visible destruction of houses, factories, wells, schools, hospitals, police stations and other public buildings, the sight of families, including the elderly and children, still living amid the rubble of their former dwellings – no reconstruction possible due to the continuing blockade – was evidence of the protracted impact of the operations on the living conditions of the Gaza population. Reports of the trauma suffered during the attacks, the stress due to the uncertainty about the future, the hardship of life and the fear of further attacks, pointed to less tangible but not less real long-term effects.”

So instead of stating the findings of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission the Irish Times offers the Israeli Government narrative as fact.

And this in a report about the killing of three Palestinians attempting to bypass a crippling siege.

ESRI – Thought-provoking or depressing?

Bites, , ,

There’s another ESRI report out today. Below are two takes on it, one from a Nobel Prize winner in Economics and the other from the Editor of a newspaper that has an expensive sideline in property advertising and has championed fiscal consolidation since the ‘downturn’:

“In a thought-provoking excercise, published today, the ESRI sketches both a “high growth” rebound and a more plodding “low growth” pace of recovery.

Stronger international demand for Irish-made goods and services will act as an engine of growth, hauling the economy back to sustainable prosperity.

But the positive effect on the overall economic outlook of its upward revision for exports is more than offset by its more downbeat analysis of the costs of the banking crisis. These are far greater than it believed just 14 months ago.

[T]he ESRI concludes that even in its best- case scenario, the Government will need to introduce further budgetary consolidation measures, on top of those to which it has already committed, if it is to bring its budget deficit below 3 per cent of GDP by 2014, as it has targeted.

At a time when kites of many kinds are being launched in anticipation of the forthcoming budget, the ESRI flies its own. It suggests that there may be real benefits, in the short term and long, of a more front-loaded fiscal adjustment.

Specifically, the report’s lead author, Prof John FitzGerald, calls for the Government to consider a reduction in the deficit next year of €4 billion, rather than the planned €3 billion. This additional pain could yield gains in terms of lower debt servicing costs and higher investment. The Cabinet will begin its consideration of all these matters today.” [The Irish Times, July 21, 2010]

“There’s a new report out from Ireland’s Economic and Social Research Institute (pdf) calling for even more austerity, arguing that this will lead to faster economic growth. And the report looks authoritative: it’s full of charts and tables, and frequently refers to an underlying quantitative model.

What the careless reader might miss, however, is the fact that the policy conclusions are not, in fact, derived from the analysis — they come out of thin air. The authors simply assert that more austerity now would lead to a lower risk premium and hence higher growth, based on no evidence I can see. They don’t even offer any quantitative assessment of the extent to which more austerity while the economy is still depressed would reduce future debt burdens. In short, it’s a pure appeal to the confidence fairy.

One more thing: a key element in the ESRI analysis is the assumption that the financial crisis has permanently lowered Ireland’s growth track. That may be so — but if it is, a large part of the reason is the effect of a prolonged slump on investment and structural unemployment (the long-term unemployed tend to stay that way even after recovery). Now, some of us would argue that these effects suggest that government should do all they can to avoid prolonging the slump even further, that austerity may be self-defeating. But such concerns don’t even get mentioned.” [The New York Times, July 21, 2010]