Could the Past be Prologue? Nixon, Bush and the Azores
www.counterpunch.org
March 17, 2003
By WAYNE MADSEN
The last time an American President flew to the Azores for a summit was 1971 when Richard Nixon met French President Georges Pompidou for a discussion of international monetary problems. The two leaders also met with Portuguese Prime Minister Marcello Caetano. In 1971, Pompidou, who had succeeded the independent and nationalistic Charles de Gaulle, began to mend fences with the United States. Nixon became a master of international diplomacy, charting out policies that would open the door to China and begin a process of détente with the Soviet Union. It was an era of Cold War statesmanship and a widespread big power desire to settle conflicts at peace tables and not on battlefields.
Fast forward to today. President Bush, who has severely damaged, perhaps irreparably, over 60 years of American diplomatic statecraft, has gone to the Azores for a summit with his "coalition of the willing," which now consists of a politically-damaged and Donald Rumsfeld-savaged Tony Blair, Spain's increasingly unpopular Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar (who First Bro Jeb Bush thinks is President of a Spanish Republic), and Portugal's Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso, who assured the world that there would be no war declaration against Iraq at the summit.
The Azores Summit is one of the most pathetic attempts throughout recent world history to convince international public opinion that some sort of grand coalition exists with a consensus that it is necessary to invade and occupy another country. The summit on the volcanic protrusions in the mid-Atlantic is nothing more than a Madison Avenue-style advertising campaign. Look at the ingredients on the product label known as the "summit" and one will find that it consists of bogus intelligence reports linking Iraq to uranium from Niger (Israel's Likud regime, to no one's surprise, looks like the source of these fabrications), plagiarized academic dissertations, a phony road map to peace in the Middle East, and a 1998 letter to President Clinton from a cabal of neo-conservative GOP courtesans that demanded an immediate attack on Iraq. For those who are not up on the French language during a time when French Fries are Freedom Fries, "courtesan" is defined by Webster's Dictionary as "a prostitute with a courtly, wealthy, or upper-class clientele." An apt description for the likes of Elliot Abrams, John Bolton, Paula Dobriansky, Zalmay Khalilzad, Peter Rodman, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Robert Zoellick and others who signed the 1998 letter and who now call the shots on the war on Iraq.
The Bush administration may think it enjoys widespread domestic support. But they same cannot be said for Bush's beleaguered British and Spanish colleagues. Blair now faces a growing revolt from his own party that has spread from the House of Commons in London to the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh and the Welsh Assembly in Cardiff. Labor Party officials are having trouble staving off anti-war resolutions in all three parliaments. An anti-war resolution in the Scottish Parliament failed by only a few votes and only after the Tories came to the assistance of the Labor majority. It was a replay of what occurred earlier in the House of Commons. Ten British Asian Labor members of Parliament said they will quit if Britain attacks Iraq without Security Council resolution. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw is facing a revolt from anti-war Labor Party members in his own Blackburn constituency.
Aznar, a former tax collector, faces an electorate that is overwhelmingly against a war with Iraq (75 per cent by some polls). He faces municipal elections in May in which his conservative coalition (which draws its inspiration from Francisco Franco's old Fascist movement) faces a trouncing by opposition parties.
Further alienating these leaders from their public is the fact they chose to fly to the Azores for a war summit only hours after hundreds of thousands of demonstrators marched in Washington, London, Madrid, and Lisbon. Of course, Bush always leaves town during anti-war protests. He thinks they are merely focus groups. But for Blair, Aznar, and Barroso such arrogance in the face of overwhelming public opinion will spell political disaster. There is already talk that Blair and Aznar might be offered high-paying jobs on the international advisory board of The Carlyle Group in return for their political prostitution. They could then join former President Bush and former Prime Minister John Major among the world's elite multimillionaires who work behind the scenes to identify and wreak financial and political havoc with retaliatory targets of opportunity like Iran, North Korea, Libya, Venezuela, Brazil, Mexico, Cuba, France, Germany, Turkey, Sweden, Austria, Switzerland, Canada, Chile, Vatican City, Norway, Ireland, Guinea, Cameroon, Angola, and Belgium. All these countries have been subjected to varying degrees of vitriol by President Bush and his cowboy courtesans.
But it is President Bush who may face the ultimate shock from his own ignorance and arrogance. The GOP and their cohorts in the media constantly portray anti-war demonstrators as a bunch of leftwing Marxists and radicals. At the March 15 protest in Washington there were some important firsts. At least one off-duty Washington policeman joined in the march with a sign saying "This DC Cop Against War on Iraq." Veterans sporting their Veterans of Foreign Wars hats were seen for the first time. And sporting business suits, a group of lawyers held up a banner in front of the Justice Department emblazoned with "Attorneys Against the War." Washington Police Chief Charles Ramsey responded to one protestor's call to arrest the criminal in the White House with both a chuckle and a reply that "it's not my jurisdiction."
This reporter does not want to falsely raise expectations that these terrible times are improving but it is clear that something is changing -- and it is changing for the better. Seventy former members of Congress signed a letter opposing the war (including four Republicans). One can only hope that the sitting members of Congress would worry more about opposing the war and representing their constituents than in stripping the word "French" off of fried potatoes and toast.
The City Council of New York has joined those in America's largest cities in passing anti-war resolutions. The New York city councilman whose district includes "Ground Zero" voted for the resolution. County councils and state legislatures are passing similar resolutions.
So while the U.S. Congress takes inane anti-French action, more thoughtful politicians at the grass roots level are taking up the anti-war cause. The vacuum of oversight and pettiness in the halls of Congress is as damnable as the arrogance and bravado in the White House. The anti-French tack of the GOP will cost them dearly. French-Americans are proud of their culture and history. They will make their voices heard in upcoming elections in Louisiana and upper New England (French-American strongholds) and the Republican Party will suffer for their childish and xenophobic tactics. Former Governor of Vermont (French for "Green Mountain") Howard Dean will have a persuasive campaign issue in the upcoming months.
Bush and his miniscule "coalition of the willing" may soon be relegated to the scrap heap of history. And if the past is prologue, it is noteworthy to point out what happened to the three leaders who attended the last allied summit in the Azores in 1971. Pompidou died of cancer in 1974. That same year, Nixon resigned from office hours before he was to be impeached by the House of Representatives and Caetano was ousted in a pro-democracy military coup.
Wayne Madsen is a Washington, DC-based investigative journalist and columnist. He wrote the introduction to Forbidden Truth.
Madsen can be reached at: WMadsen777@aol.com
Whose interests at heart? The invasion and occupation of Iraq cannot give my people their freedom. That's why MPs should vote against war
www.guardian.co.uk
Comment
Sami Ramadani
Tuesday March 18, 2003
The Guardian
A couple of weeks ago I went with my partner and our little boy to see our Labour MP, Bridget Prentice, in the House of Commons. We waited for two-and-a-half hours but she neither showed up nor sent a note. I wrote her a brief letter but she hasn't acknowledged it yet.
We are British citizens of Iraqi origin. My wife, who is Kurdish from Sulaimaniyah, fled Iraqi Kurdistan in the mid-1980s, risking her life in the process. I am also an exile and cannot go back to Iraq because of my resistance to Saddam's tyranny. Our son is four, and was born here.
As a family, we wanted to tell our MP how we feel now, with war against Iraq imminent. So far, she has supported the government; we went to see her in the hope that, even at this late hour, she will change her mind and vote against war.
My wife sees Iraqi victims of torture every day where she works, at the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture; we wanted to tell Bridget Prentice that Iraq is in desperate need of regime change and the establishment of a democratic order. The Iraqi people need it much more than Bush and Blair could ever understand. But democracy for Iraq will not be achieved by bombing and invading the country. It cannot be trusted to George Bush. The US will not accept a democratic verdict which is not to its liking in a strategically important country, possessing the world's second largest oil reserves. They strangled just such a verdict in Congo in the 1960s and in Chile in the 1970s, and they are working hard to reverse it in Venezuela today.
In Iraq, the US record speaks for itself: it backed Saddam's party, the Ba'ath, to capture power in 1963, murdering thousands of socialists, communists and democrats of all shades; it backed the Ba'ath party in 1968 when Saddam was installed as vice-president; it helped him and the Shah of Iran in 1975 to crush the Kurdish nationalist movement; it increased its support for Saddam in 1979, the year he elevated himself to president, helping him launch his war of aggression against Iran in 1980; it backed him throughout the horrific eight years of war (1980 to 1988), in which a million Iranians and Iraqis were slaughtered, in the full knowledge that he was using chemical weapons and gassing Kurds and Marsh Arabs; it encouraged him in 1990 to invade Kuwait when the Arabic-speaking US ambassador in Baghdad, April Glaspie, told him on July 25 1990 that the US had "no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts" when she knew that Saddam's forces were only one week away from invading; it backed him in 1991 when Bush suddenly stopped the war, exactly 24 hours after the start of the great March uprising that engulfed the south and Iraqi Kurdistan (US aircraft were flying over the scenes of mass killing as Iraqi helicopter gunships were aiding Saddam's forces crush the uprising); and it backed him as the "lesser evil" from March 1991 to September 11 2001 under the umbrella of murderous sanctions and the policy of "containment".
Then, having caused the death of about half a million Iraqis, mostly children, through sanctions, Bush and Blair declare that containment and sanctions are not working after all. Blair must reconcile his strongly and suddenly found conviction that war is better than containment with the fact that the US hawks, now prominent in the Bush administration, have been advocating a war on Iraq for the past 12 years - not to liberate the Iraqi people, or to protect the world from weapons of mass destruction, but to impose US hegemony on a strategically important country. September 11 gave them their opportunity. Blair's "sincerity", and his sympathy for the Iraqi people are, alas, nothing but grist to Rumsfeld's mills of war.
Indeed, one of the strongest arguments against war, that should prompt all its supporters to re-examine their consciences, is the fact that if Saddam does still possess weapons of mass destruction then it is probable that this amoral tyrant will use them if his removal from power becomes imminent.
Our MPs must raise these questions in the Commons and oppose the US war plans, even at this late hour. The US desperately needs Britain as a political and moral prop, a fig leaf for claiming the existence of an international alliance for war. It is our MPs' duty to expose this and side with the Iraqi people's own struggle to remove Saddam's regime and establish democracy in Iraq. In this, they will also be acting in the British people's best interests.
If allowed to run its course, the Blix programme of inspections would have emboldened the Iraqi people to challenge Saddam's regime in the knowledge that Saddam would not be using chemical weapons to crush future uprisings. This would have been particularly likely if the inspections and monitoring regime had been combined with strict military and diplomatic sanctions, while lifting the economic sanctions, which have not only caused so much death and pain for the people but also strengthened Saddam's hand against them. If all this had been coupled with an international campaign to aid the Iraqi people to remove Saddam and establish democracy, we are confident that they would have succeeded; their past heroic struggles were always hampered by US, wider western and Soviet backing for Saddam's regime.
The acceleration of war plans coincided with Blix's announcement of active Iraqi cooperation and his demands for a few months to complete his work. The US administration was clearly panicked by the prospect of a peaceful disarmament of Saddam. They are fearful of the prospect of seeing the Iraqi people taking on the tyrant and his dictatorial state.
Much is made of Tony Blair's courage. We are told that he is being brave in his deafness to majority opinion in Britain and the world. The truth is that he is mesmerised by US power, convinced he will be on the side of the victors and bask in the glory of their might once they raise the US flag in Baghdad, that beloved city of my childhood. But Blair's glory, even if it comes to pass, will be short-lived.
· Sami Ramadani is an Iraqi political exile and a senior lecturer in sociology at London Metropolitan University.
Celebrating Venezuela's General Daniel Florence O’Leary
www.vheadline.com
Posted: Sunday, March 16, 2003
By: Peter O Leary
General O'Leary's great-great-grandson Peter O’Leary writes: In this year of 2003 we celebrate the 202nd. anniversary of the birth of Daniel Florence O’Leary born Cork City, Ireland, February 1801 ... he is not much remembered today in the City of his birth ... nor is there much written on his life.
But Daniel Florence O’Leary was a true 'Corkonian' and one of whom we in Ireland and Venezuela can be proud. His ancestry can be traced back to Uibh Laoghaire in West Cork where his great-great-great grandfather was Tadgh O’Leary, born c.1635 to a family which was a minor branch of the chieftains of Uibh Laoghaire. Tadgh married Ellen O’Leary c.1640 who was herself from another similar chieftain branch through her father, Tadgh Fineen O’Leary of Coornahahilly according to the Civil Survey. Tadgh and Ellen had the tenancy of a farm in Monavadra.
Tadgh O’Leary and Ellen had only one son, Finin, born in Monavadra c.1667, and this Finin had a son also called Tadgh. This second Tadgh, born c.1700 moved from Monavadra to Dunmanway in about 1725 when he married Mary McCarthy, a direct descendent of the first Earl Clancarty (McCarthy Muskerry) ... known as Tadgh-na-Post, which is a bit obscure, but may mean that he moved to take up a job, when deprived of the tenancy of his farm in Monavadra. The job was probably as a middleman for his new brother-in-law, Florence McCarthy of Coom. The family lived in a farm in the townland of Acres which lies about 2 miles West of Dunmanway.
- Tadgh and Mary McCarthy had at least six children, including a son, Florence O’Leary who was born in Acres c.1730. Another well known brother of Florence was Fr. Arthur O’Leary, later a Capuchin Friar much beloved in Cork City.
Daniel Florence’s grandfather, Florence O’Leary who was born in Acres, Dunmanway moved into Cork City later in life to start a business as a grocer and butter merchant. He married a Catherine Delaney and they had two sons, Daniel and Jeremiah.
Jeremiah O’Leary who was born at 89/90 Barrack Street in Cork in 1757 was the father of our Daniel Florence ... he continued the butter business in partnership with his brother Daniel.
Jeremiah married Catherine O’Leary (not related) from a family in business in Cork in the tailoring and licensed victualing trades ... they had 10 children, many of whom died young and without issue.
With their strong connections with Inchigeelagh, the choice of the butter business made a lot of sense. Jeremiah and Daniel were able to provide a market for the product of their friends and relations who were farmers in the Parish of Uibh Laoghaire, their home place.
The butter trade and the Napoleonic wars.
The butter trade was very different before the days of the Creamery. Farmers or Dairymen churned their own milk into butter on the farm, which then had to be conveyed to a market in a large town. The butter merchant provided horses or mules, 'firkins' to carry the butter, saddles and packs, and often even loaned the capital. There was a regular run from Inchigeelagh to Cork City where the butter was purchased by the merchant. These butter merchants were more correctly called butter buyers, and were agents between the butter producer and the exporters.
Jeremiah became a member of the Committee of Merchants, who controlled the trade and set up the butter exchange in Shandon in 1786. This was a big step forward in the development of the industry. Victualing in general ... and butter in particular ... were very important to the prosperity of Cork City towards the end of the 18th. Century.
Initially, the main market was for the West Indian trade, since they required a higher salt content, which was in any case necessary for this long time cycle, to keep the butter from going rancid ... butter was shipped to various countries in the West Indies from the port of Cork.
During the Wars between France and England, in the period 1790-1815, there was a much more lucrative market in victualing the Naval ships which used Cork Harbor as their main base to patrol the Atlantic and the coast of France. This made the butter merchants of Cork rich, but, sadly, it all came to an end in 1815, after Waterloo and the end of the Wars ... Jeremiah and Daniel’s business collapsed, as did many others.
The loss of his father, Jeremiah’s source of income, made young Daniel think carefully about his own future. He had an inclination to become a soldier. The large number of ex-Army people thrown out of work, encouraged the growth of mercenary armies, which were needed to assist the South American countries, struggling for their independence. Unlike the British Army, there was no bar to a Catholic Irishman becoming an officer in these mercenary armies.
Jeremiah O’Leary, and his family.
Jeremiah married Catherine O’Leary in 1789. They lived at no.89/90 Barrack Street, in Cork City, and the business was conducted from there ... it would appear that they also had the leasing of a row of cottages running down towards the Dean’s wall, from which they drew some income. The cottages have since been demolished, but the lane is still called Leary’s Place.
- As they became more prosperous the family moved to better housing in Mary Street and later, Queen Street followed by Cook Street, all in Cork City.
Jeremiah and Catherine had 10 children of which Daniel Florence was their eighth. Many of these children were sickly, and few survived beyond the age of 30. Cork City was obviously an unsanitary and unhealthy place to live in those days. Even Daniel was only to live to 53, and only one sister, Catherine survived to the old age of 60.
Second son Arthur became a Doctor in practice in Killarney. Fourth son Jerome at the age of 21 was on the point of joining Daniel soldiering in South America, but died suddenly in 1826 before he could sail. Catherine, the third daughter, earned her living as a milliner ... we know nothing about the other six children except that they did not have long lives.
Daniel was obviously well educated ... he learned new languages quickly, was well read, wrote well, had a keen interest in history and the sciences; and he was a good horseman. The last may have been learned in the business, but the others indicated some good schooling. Dr. Vila suggests that he attended Harrington’s Academy in Templerobin. Another possibility was Brunswick Academy at which his uncle Fr. Arthur had previously taught. Even more possible is one of the private schools which existed in Cook Street and in Queens Street at that time, since these were close by. Sadly, we have found no evidence to confirm where he had obtained such a good start in life.
The Wars of Independence in South America.
Spain was an early entrant to the colonial movement, and had acquired most of South America ... apart from Brazil, which was in the hands of the Portuguese. These vast territories were divided for administrative purposes into Provinces, and were ruled by people of Spanish descent (rather like the Anglo-Irish) who, over the years, had become independent-minded and resentful of the attempts of Spanish monarchs and politicians to dictate to them from Madrid.
A number of attempted risings against mainland Spain had been undertaken since 1800 but had ended in failure due to the strength of the Spanish armies in that region. The most recent had been that of General Simon Bolivar ... a second generation Venezuelan, born in a family closely related to Spanish aristocracy. Bolivar was eventually to become 'The Liberator' of the five countries in the northern part of South America, and the hero and most beloved citizen of those countries. They were Venezuela, Colombia, Peru, Ecuador and Bolivia ... still often known as the Bolivarian nations.
Expelled from Venezuela in 1813, after yet another failed attempt, Bolivar had returned with a small force in 1816 for a further try. Meanwhile, in Europe, Venezuelan agents were recruiting a British mercenary force to aid Bolivar. In 1817, Daniel applied for, and was accepted, as an ensign in the 1st. Division of the Red Hussars of Venezuela ... a cavalry regiment which formed part of the British Legion. He sailed from Portsmouth on the corvette 'Prince' in December 1817 with 20 officers and 57 non-commissioned officers which was intended to join up with 600 troopers ... all under the command of the English Colonel Henry Wilson. The ship also carried a substantial amount of equipment and ammunition.
It took them until February 1818 before they disembarked in St. Georges (Granada) and there then waited a further two months before reaching the rebel camp, up the Orinoco River at Angostura (now called Ciudad Bolivar). Daniel had taken a few books in Spanish and a Spanish dictionary, and occupied his time by learning the language, in which eventually he was to become completely fluent.
Angostura was the first town 250 miles up the Orinoco River ... a mile wide at this point.
Daniel was not impressed with his new English colleagues ... at Granada there were mutinies, desertions and brutal treatment of captured Spanish prisoners. Only 40 of the original 77 on board actually reached Angostura, where Colonel Wilson was packed-off home due to his political intrigues. Daniel and his friend from Cork, Ambrose O’Daly, applied for a transfer to a native unit and Daniel was posted to General Anzoategui's Dragoon Guard, met General Soublette his future brother-in-law and was presented to General Bolivar.
The new phase of the War of Independence was about to begin, and Daniel was to be involved in all the campaigns which led to it’s final conclusion and the freedom from Spanish rule of all five countries. To put this in perspective, it must be remembered that General San Martin was conducting a similar movement in the more Southern States of Argentina, Chile, Uruguay and Paraguay. Brazil, which was part of the Portuguese Empire, was to remain under it’s Royalist Government for many more years.
Bolivar's campaigns from 1819-1826 are briefly summarized below:
-
The march from Angostura over the Andes in 1819, to attack the forces of the Governor of New Granada, was successfully achieved after the battles of Pantano de Vargas and Boyaca, when New Granada was freed from Spanish rule.
-
The campaign into Venezuela culminated in the 2nd. Battle of Carabobo in 1821 when the Spanish forces of that Province were defeated.
-
The campaign in Ecuador when the Spanish were defeated at the battle of Pichincha overlooking Quito in 1822.
-
The campaign to complete the liberation of Peru, started by San Martin. The final battle was at Ayacucho in 1824, when the Spanish forces were defeated, but Daniel did not take part in the battle, having been sent on a mission into Chile.
5.The creation of the new State of Bolivia, formerly Upper Peru, in 1825.
This was a war fought in most difficult conditions, which were especially tough on the European participants. The Royalist Spanish armies were based in the large towns and seldom risked traveling far from their secure base and creature comforts. The Rebel Army was constantly forced to live out in deserted areas facing privations and lack of supplies of all sorts.
When Bolivar decided to attack the Colombian Royal Army, they had first to scale the Andes mountains during the rainy season ... they had to wade waist-deep in water over the flooded plains of Casanare, and climb thirteen thousand feet over the bleak Paramo de Pisba ... their mules died or were eaten. When they descended the other side, they were much reduced by death, starvation, mosquitoes and fatigue ... they were in rags and barely able to walk.
- This ragged band of heroes then had to face the well-fed, well-equipped Army of the King of Spain. Only superb leadership, high morale and a good cause made them successful.
Daniel may have looked smart in his brand new red uniform of the Hussars when he arrived at Angostura, but his family would hardly have recognized him as he fought for his life at the Battle of Pantano de Vargas in July 1819. He received a severe saber wound in the head, the scar of which he still carried when he visited Cork in 1834. As a result of this wound, there was a false report of his death in the Cork papers.
Like many similar Wars of Independence, this was a young man’s War. Bolivar, the elder statesman, was 35 when Daniel met him in 1818 ... all the other Generals were younger men, and Daniel was only 28 when promoted to that rank. He was a Lieutenant at the age of 19 at Angostura in 1820, a Captain at 20. Promoted to Lieutenant-Colonel after Pichincha when he was 21, and to full Colonel at the age of 25 when he became first aide-de-camp to General Bolivar ... he finally became a General de Brigada in 1829.
The end of the War. Death of Bolivar.
The war ended in 1826, when the Spanish government finally admitted defeat and withdrew its armies from South America.
Bolivar continued his political career, and attempted to create one single United State from the five former Provinces ... this was unsuccessful due to jealousies and bickering amongst the politicians ... but he was now a sick and disillusioned man. He died in 1830 at Santa Marta.
Daniel had been sent on a mission to Cartagena and arrived back one day after his death. For some time, Daniel had been contemplating writing a history of the War, and had consulted Bolivar on this possibility. When Bolivar died, Daniel was able to collect much of the letters and other written material which he needed for his proposed work.
In 1828, Daniel was married to Soledad Soublette who was sister to a colleague, General Carlos Soublette, later President of Venezuela. After the death of Bolivar, there was a strong anti-Bolivarian movement, which affected all the Liberator’s former friends and supporters. Daniel decided that he would move his family away from this unpleasant atmosphere, and sailed to Kingston (Jamaica) where he attempted to make a living from commerce. This was not successful, and, in 1833, he was advised by his brother-in-law, Soublette that it was now safe to return to Venezuela.
On the voyage back to Venezuela, Soledad gave birth to their second son, Charles, on the ship, the British packet “Ranger.” The family reached Caracas in June 1833, where they were to live for the next eight years.
Daniel’s life after the War.
Daniel was now looking for a way to make a living. He decided that his best chance was to become a diplomat in the service of the British. In those days, during the Union, Irishmen had British nationality, so there seemed to be a good opportunity here to use his language skills and his knowledge of the politics and culture of the South American nations.
Bolivar had recognized his diplomatic skills and in 1823 had sent Daniel on a co-ordination mission to Chile; in 1826 to Bogota and Caracas on a mission of conciliation; in 1828 to represent him at the great convention at Ocana, held to consider the reform of the Colombian constitution.
The Venezuelans had also recognized his diplomatic skills ... he was proposed as Envoy to Brazil in 1825, and as the first Ambassador of Colombia to the USA in 1830 ... but in neither case was the secondment concluded due to his other work.
Daniel and Soledad had nine children: the first four were born in the period 1829-33 before his first trip to Europe ... the remaining five were born between 1840-48 after his return. His only son to have descendants was Charles ... three of his daughters, Soledad, Ana and Carolina, produced large families and have numerous descendants in South America to this day.
In 1834 the Government of Venezuela sent a mission to Europe to seek recognition of their new status as a nation. General Montilla was appointed Chief Plenipotentiary and Daniel was given the job of Secretary and second in command. He was away in Europe from March 1834 until January 1840 ... the journey itself took 7-8 weeks by sailing ship. There were storms all the way from Jamaica to Falmouth, and the party arrived in London in May 1834.
The mission was partly successful in obtaining recognition by Britain ... but Spain would not agree without the payment of indemnities, which was impossible.
Montilla was eventually succeeded by Soublette as Chef de Mission ... Daniel spent some time in Paris between the two postings to London and Madrid. After this part of the job was over, he went to Italy in 1837, ostensibly on holiday and to learn Italian, but was appointed by Venezuela to initiate negotiations to seek a Concordat with the Holy See. This was also unsuccessful at that time, but the Concordat came a few years later. Finally, in 1839, he was delegated a member of the commission to divide the debt of Gran Colombia between Venezuela, New Granada and Ecuador.
Daniel also took the opportunity, while he was in London, to push his cause for a diplomatic post for himself in South America. His other work put him in contact with Lord Palmerston, Lord Clarendon, the Duke of Wellington and many others who could help his cause. He soon found that the main stumbling block was that he was a Catholic. It's interesting to note that, when he finally became a British diplomat, there was a clause inserted in his contract which permitted him to perform burial services, but forbade him to baptize children or perform marriages.
In August 1834, whilst he was on his European mission, Daniel returned to his native Cork after an absence of 17 years. Much had changed in his absence ... his father and mother were both dead, and the only one of his siblings still alive was his sister Catherine, who was living in Cook Street. Daniel took the opportunity to visit the grave of his parents.
When the news got about that he was on his way to Cork, he was invited to a special civic banquet to be chaired by Dr. Francis Lyons President of the Chamber of Commerce. The invitation was politely declined because Daniel had to travel on to Derrynane to visit Daniel O’Connell. The excuse was a genuine one, but it must also be borne in mind that Cork at that time was regarded in England as the “Rebel City” and Daniel did not want to compromise his delicate negotiations with Palmerston for a Foreign Office Post
Daniel’s career as a British diplomat.
Daniel’s lobbying in London eventually achieved results. In January 1841, after his return from England, he was appointed acting British Consul in Caracas by Lord Aberdeen. Later in the same year, he was made Consul at Puerto Cabello, and finally in November 1843 he became British Charge d’affaires and Consul-general in Bogota. The family moved to Bogota, in Colombia, where they were very happy ... the weather suited them much better, being somewhat like that of Ireland only warmer.
In August 1851, Daniel’s health was not good, and he suffered an attack similar to ones he had had in Madrid and Rome ... he decided to take a further trip to Europe to consult medical specialists and to take the cure at one or two spas which were popular at that time. It took some time to get permission from the Foreign Office in London, but he eventually left for Europe in July 1852, leaving his vice-consul Edward Mark in charge of the office.
Accompanied by two of his elder daughters, Ana and Carolina, he set sail in an English vessel traveling. from Cartagena to Southampton via St. Thomas ... they arrived in Southampton in September. His eldest son, Simon, met him there and accompanied Daniel and the two girls to Paris where they were to further their education.
The girls were left in the pension of Mme. Claire and under the guardianship of an old friend, Juan de Francisco Martin. Daniel visited consultants in Paris, then went on to do the same thing in Rome. He returned to London in May 1853, seemingly feeling much better, and visiting the girls in Paris on the journey.
Then followed a visit to Malvern to take the hydrotherapy cure.
After this he visited Dublin for two days, then journeyed to Cork to present his collection of South American minerals, plants and birds to the Queen’s College (now UCC).
In September he sailed again from Southampton ... his journey took him briefly to New York, Philadelphia, Washington and Niagara Falls ... he also consulted a further doctor in Philadelphia. He arrived back with his family in Bogota in December 1853 but died suddenly and unexpectedly on the following February 24, 1854 ... his death attributed to an “apoplexy” which probably means a heart attack. He was given an imposing state funeral at the Cathedral in Bogota, and buried in the local cemetery there.
The Venezuelan Government later built a magnificent tomb for Simon Bolivar in the National Pantheon in Caracas modeled on the tomb of Napoleon, who he much admired. In 1882, by agreement between the two governments, Daniel’s remains were transferred to the National Pantheon where, with three other of his favorite Generals they now lie alongside their beloved Commander-in-Chief.
Daniel the Writer.
Next to his successful career as an Army General, Daniel Florence O'Leary is best remembered in South America as the author of the monumental historical work, “Memorias del General O’Leary" in 32 volumes. The first three volumes are the actual 'Memorias' ... a history of the War of Independence and of General Bolivar. The remaining 29 volumes contain letters to and from Bolivar and various other documents.
When Daniel died, all this was still in note form, completed in 1840, and much of it in English. His eldest son, Simon O’Leary brought it all together and translated the English into Spanish. It was finally printed in Caracas between 1879 and 1888, with an Appendix which did not appear until 1914.
In 1982, when the Government of Venezuela were preparing for the 200th anniversary of the birth of Bolivar the following year; the Army, for it’s contribution, had the whole work reprinted in an edition of 900. One of these 900 went to UCC where it can be consulted now in the Boole Library.
Daniel’s Descendants.
Daniel’s South American family consists of the descendants of his daughters, Soledad, Ana and Carolina ... none of these of course bear the name O’Leary. This family, however are very proud of their descent from the famous Corkman, and usually link the name O’Leary in with their own.
Daniel’s English family are all descended from his second son, Charles, born in 1833. He learnt English at home in Bogota and this was perfected by his time at school in England. He served in the British Consulate under his father in 1852 and then emigrated, finally, to Europe. He married Clementina de Santa Maria, a Colombian lady, in 1860 ... they had four sons: another Daniel Florence born 1861; Charles; Richard; and Francis. Charles Senior died in London in 1894. This Branch , descendants of the second Daniel Florence are still flourishing in England.
Peter O Leary
peteroleary@eircom.net