|
Northern Ireland Peace Initiative
Conference on Northern Ireland
New York, February 1, 1994
Conference Director: Dr. Carol Rittner
Contents
Welcome
by William J. Flynn
Welcome, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to New York, and welcome to the
Waldorf-Astoria. My name is Bill Flynn. I have the honor and privilege
of serving as the chairman of the National Committee on American Foreign
Policy. I am delighted that so many of you came to this very important
meeting. What triggered this meeting was the joint declaration entered
into by the Irish and the British governments. Some see this as a historic
breakthrough for peace in the north of Ireland. Most Americans, I think,
will favor that development if this statement proves to be correct. Some,
of course, will question it, and some will oppose it.
Several months ago I was invited to join a delegation to go to the north
of Ireland. Despite my belief that altogether too many delegations have
visited the north of Ireland to no avail, I went, and the trip turned
out to be a very important week in my life. We were received by no less
than twenty individuals or groups ranging from the president of Ireland
to the prime minister of Ireland to Sir Patrick Mayhew of the United Kingdom
to leaders of all political parties except one—the Reverend Paisley's
group. By the way, our delegation consisted of Bruce Morrison, a former
congressman from Connecticut, Neil O'Dowd, a businessman, Chuck Feeney,
and me. What we found was worse than what some of us, particularly me,
had expected. From the Falls Road to the Shankill Road and from one end
of Ireland to the other, we found deprivation, discouragement, fear, and
mistrust. We came away distressed but with the determination to act in
a positive way if we found some way to do so.
As the first American of Irish heritage to chair this distinguished
National Committee on American Foreign Policy, I can do no less than raise
the question of peace in the north of Ireland because this organization
has a long history of involving itself in matters of great concern to
American foreign policy from one end of the world to the other, and I
am very impressed by that, and I hope that those of you who take the trouble
to research this organization will be equally impressed. And so we put
the north of Ireland on our agenda, and when the joint declaration was
issued and was hailed by so many, including Cardinal Daly, the cardinal
archbishop and primate of all Ireland, who called it a model of balance
and fairness, we began the job of putting together a meeting to find out
what the people of Northern Ireland think because no matter what we Americans
think, we need to know what the people affected think, and so we decided
to ask them to speak through their elected leaders. To that end, we invited
the five political leaders of the north of Ireland to speak to us, emphasizing
the fact that the National Committee on American Foreign Policy has no
political agenda whatever. It is dedicated to educating itself and to
advising those who will listen.
Two leaders of political parties, Mr. James Molyneaux and the Reverend
Ian Paisley, would not come because one other political leader had agreed
to come. We are extremely disappointed even though we may have another
conference and invite only those two leaders to come and express their
points of view. Nevertheless, we believe that until all five political
leaders come together—indeed, all the people come together—there
will be no peace in Northern Ireland. And so we have embarked on an adventure
in peace with those leaders who grace us with their presence today. There
are three. We will start with Dr. John Alderdice, followed by Mr. John
Hume and Mr. Gerry Adams. Then there will be a press conference and a
reception.
Ladies and gentlemen, I am very proud to present to you Dr. George Schwab,
a Columbia University Ph. D., a professor at the City University of New
York, a noted author, and the very distinguished president of this fine
organization. Ladies and gentlemen, Dr. Schwab.
The National Committee and the
Conference on Northern Ireland
by Dr. George D. Schwab
Thank you, Mr. Flynn. The idea of a conference on the north of Ireland
is not new with the National Committee. The National Committee on American
Foreign Policy began to entertain such an idea way back in 1988, and toward
that end I invited Miss Edwina McMahon, who, I think is in this audience
today, to write about the conflict for the American Foreign Policy
Newsletter, which she did for the August 1988 issue. It caused a tremendous
stir here, in the north of Ireland, and also at Downing Street. Well,
it took us more than five years to finalize the plan, and, as our chairman
mentioned, it was the joint declaration that moved us to act rapidly,
and that is why we are here today.
Let me say a few words about the National Committee on American Foreign
Policy. As the president of the organization, I would like to note that
I cofounded it with the late Hans Morgenthau roughly twenty years ago.
It is an organization that is interested in educating the public on critical
foreign policy problems facing the United States. In addition, we articulate
what our national interests are and make them widely known mainly through
our publications. As is well known, the name Hans Morgenthau is synonymous
with political realism in international relations, and we in the National
Committee articulate the country's interests within this conceptual framework.
And it is our willingness to take a public stand independent of partisan,
ethnic, or regional interests that makes the National Committee, a voluntary
nonprofit and nonpartisan organization, different from other organizations.
The question of the north of Ireland is of great interest to the United
States not only because of the human factor involved in the tragedy and
the human rights factor that must be reflected in any settlement but because
it also touches on our security interests. Britain is, after all, a staunch
friend and ally of the United States. As such we are concerned about the
implications of the resources that Britain commits to the north of Ireland
year after year and the effects of paramilitary violence on Britain. For
how long can these conflicts remain manageable? For how long will Britain
be able to endure the conflict without compromising its commitments elsewhere?
I hope that some of these concerns will be addressed in the course of
the day.
It is my pleasure now to introduce to you the moderator of this historic
conference, Ambassador Angier Biddle Duke. Ambassador Duke, a former president
of the National Committee on American Foreign Policy, is now a member
of the Committee's Board of Trustees and the president of the Council
of Ambassadors. Ambassador Duke has compiled a long and distinguished
record of public service. He was ambassador to El Salvador, Denmark, Spain,
and Morocco and was the chief of protocol at the State Department and
the White House. For his exemplary service, the National Committee on
American Foreign Policy honored him in 1981 with the Hans J. Morgenthau
award, the most prestigious in foreign policy. Ambassador Duke.
The Ground Rules of the Conference
by Ambassador Angier Biddle Duke
Thank you very much, George Schwab. I salute you, our chairman, Bill
Flynn, and everyone else in this room. We have all come together in a
common purpose, and it is obvious to everyone in this room that we are
meeting today at a historic moment. I am conscious of this setting for
it was here just a few years ago that Margaret Thatcher received the Morgenthau
award from the National Committee on American Foreign Policy. It is not
much more than a month after the joint declaration for peace was issued
by the prime ministers of Ireland and Britain, and since that brief period
of time, Bill Flynn moved ahead to bring all the parties together to deliberate.
Chairman Flynn persisted and prevailed in his efforts to advance the peace
process here and now. Forty-four million Irish Americans must be profoundly
moved by this evidence of what he has accomplished so far. Because of
his initiative in organizing this forum, forty American senators and congressmen
prevailed on President Clinton to make it possible just this past weekend
for us to welcome here the representatives of all parties in Ireland,
and we salute President Clinton for his positive and decisive action that
reflects a transformation of American policy from aloofness, from detachment,
to engagement. Whatever else transpires, it certainly will warm the relationship
between the White House and the Irish-American community.
Let me emphasize our endorsement of the joint declaration. It does indeed
reflect the yearning for peace that is shared by all traditions in Ireland
and has created a historic opportunity to end the tragic crisis of bloodshed.
I hope that of this special conference it may one day be said, to paraphrase
Isaiah on people living in a land of deep shadow: May the light of this
conference today illuminate future talks and the future of the peace process.
May it encourage the participants who are meeting outside their homeland
in this neutral and friendly setting. We are determined to be nonjudgmental.
We are determined to be objective and firmly and amiably impartial. We
will give every man his due. We will give every man his say within the
essential structure of time limitations.
Now let me go over some of the ground rules for our meeting. Each participant
will be allocated thirty minutes for his presentation and equal time for
his dialogue with members of the audience. I will notify the speaker when
five minutes remain to close his remarks, and at the conclusion of that
time, I will reserve the right to cut off the microphone. Questions and
statements from the floor will be limited, and after a warning they too
will be subject to electronic termination. Let's all bear in mind that
we have not come together to engage in confrontational or competitive
debate. We have embarked on a process of healing. The aim of this conference
is to encourage constructive dialogue directed at ending the violence.
The conference is to be recorded, and we ask any of you speaking from
the floor to give us your name. You are part of history. The mikes are
connected with the press, and we want to know who you are and to pay attention
to what you have to say.
Dr. John T. Alderdice
Leader of the Alliance Party
Thank you very much, Ambassador, for your warm welcome. I also thank
Mr. Flynn and Professor Schwab and all those who have taken the trouble
to make this conference available to us.
Let me say a little bit about my personal position and the experience
that brings me here. Despite the increasing number of gray hairs in my
beard, I am a relatively young man who is married and has a family. I
grew up in Northern Ireland, coming to my teenage years in the later part
of the 1960s when the violence began to break out. I come from a Protestant
background and my concern at that stage was what it was about the people
in Northern Ireland and their situation that led us to be so destructive
of one another and our own interests. We live in a beautiful part of the
world. We have culture, artistic flair, and ability. We enjoy good relations
with people in many parts of the world, and virtually everyone who comes
to the island of Ireland remarks on the hospitality of the Irish people.
So it was a puzzle to me why we were so destructive of ourselves and our
beautiful country. When I set out to try to make my own small contribution,
it was with a conviction that we had to find a way of understanding our
difficulties and a way of accommodating them so that there could be peace
not only for us and our children to enjoy but also in order to play our
proper role in Europe, and perhaps even farther afield. It became clear
to me that to take a simple partisan approach and follow the line of so
many of my coreligionists into a Unionist party that had no place for
Catholics and that had a tradition that was often oppressive of those
with whom one disagreed was no future at all for me.
I wrote to all the constitutional political parties at the end of my
time at the university and asked them to send me details of their programs
so that I could see where my own convictions about accommodation, about
reconciliation, about tolerance and plurality would best fit in the political
spectrum. I found it within the Alliance party, a group of people who
came together in 1970 to form a political party of Protestants and Catholics
from unionist and nationalist backgrounds to work together for peace in
Northern Ireland. They were not very well regarded. Unionists saw them
as traitors; covert republicans. Many nationalists saw them simply as
unionists who were trying to put a good face on an oppressive history.
That is often the lot of those who try to stand in the middle. You get
run down by traffic from both sides of the road. But it still seemed to
me that by building relationships, establishing channels of communication,
and trying to clarify a political program informed by liberal, pluralist,
and democratic notions similar to those of other people throughout the
world, I, as a Protestant, could make a contribution by working with Catholics
and by enabling both sides to find a way of living together.
When I came to the leadership of the Alliance party in 1987, almost
all channels of communication between the political parties had broken
down. The Unionist parties would not speak to anyone else, including even
the British government. It was through the efforts of many people that
eventually, in 1991, the constitutional party leaders and representatives
of the two governments were able to agree on a statement that established
ground rules for political talks toward a resolution of the problems in
Northern Ireland, between north and south, and between Britain and Ireland.
Those talks began with a great deal of optimism, perhaps similar to the
level of optimism that there is at the moment about the future and the
possibilities for peace. I confess that despite being regarded as one
who should be speaking all the time of hope, I expressed a good deal of
caution at that stage not because I didn't want to see peace break out,
not because I didn't want to see accommodation, but because I understood
the depth of the division in the community and I felt that it was going
to take quite some time to overcome the hurdles of suspicion and distrust
and the desire that still remained on both sides to achieve a victory
over the other side. Indeed it turned out that way. When we moved into
talks in 1992, although we were able to understand something more of where
each of the parties stood, a great gulf remained between the parties.
One of the great concerns that any democrat must have is that when democratic
policies fail to deliver, there is a great temptation for young people,
and indeed some who have been around a little bit longer, to lose faith
in democratic politics entirely, to turn away from it, to see no hope
for it, and, in the case of some, to see violence as the only way of bringing
a resolution. There have been those on the nationalist side of the community
and those on the unionist side of the community who have felt for a long
time that politics is not the way forward, and there have been bombings
and killings and horrible sectarian murders on both sides. Tragically
they continue. When you look at the reasons for all of this, you will
find as many different notions and theories as there are people on the
island of Ireland, and if you go around to the pubs on a Saturday night,
you will find many "solutions," and the more people have had
to drink, the more certain they are about their "solutions."
But the truth is that the people in the northeast of the island have always
been a little bit different from the people in the rest of the island
not for racial reasons but because their relationship with the other island,
particularly with Scotland, has been a very close and long one. I was
telling some folks last night a story about a lady who was watching the
last of the British soldiers going onto the boats in Dublin in the early
1920s. She said, "Thank God to see them boys go and now we have peace
to fight among ourselves." The antipathy and the violence between
the people in the Northeast and the rest of the island have lasted for
a very long time indeed.
There are those who say we are different racially and ethnically; there
are those who see a deep division within Northern Ireland that can never
be healed. Yet it has always seemed to me that we in Northern Ireland
are more of a community than we are anything else. People in the north
of Ireland have stronger relationships with one another than they have
with the people of the south or with the people of England. Just look
at their names. It is fascinating to note the prominence of one of the
oldest family names. We've got Ken Maginnis in the Unionist party. (Sadly
he's not here with us.) We've got Martin McGuinness of Sinn Fein. We've
got Alban McGuinnes of the SDLP. We've got Danny McGuinness in the Alliance
party. Or look at the first names of party leaders: There are John and
Seamus who lead the Social Democratic and Labour party. In the Alliance
party, we're led by John and Seamus. In the Unionist party, we've got
Ian and James, and as you all know, Ian is the Scottish form of John,
and James is the English form of Seamus. Despite what we have in common,
a family feud is often the most bitter and long standing. It was said
by the chairman that my background is in psychiatry, and one of the things
that I have noted when families are in disarray is that often the condition
is an expression of a rift between the parents and that if the mother
and the father can't agree with each other, the children have difficulties
in their lives, in their self-esteem, and in their behavior. When I look
at Northern Ireland and I see a history between Britain and Ireland of
poor relationships, it seems to me that this is one area where we must
start.
So it was with great satisfaction that I saw Prime Minister John Major
of Britain and Prime Minister Albert Reynolds of Ireland begin to work
together to establish a set of principles, a set of ground rules, an understanding
of the situation in Northern Ireland that would form a solid base for
all of us to move forward. And when they published the joint declaration
in Downing Street not long ago and when I read it, I was deeply encouraged.
It's a very sophisticated and thoughtful document. It seems to me that
it establishes a number of principles that we would do well to heed. The
first of those is that violence is not only no solution to a problem but
it also makes the problem worse. What we must do is find a way to persuade
the paramilitary representatives of both sides to stop the violence.
The second thing that is important to remember is that the people of
Northern Ireland must determine their own future. It is not for London
to decide what should happen in Northern Ireland. If the people of Northern
Ireland want to remain in the United Kingdom, they should have that right.
If they want to be part of a united Ireland, they should have that right.
Prime Minister Reynolds also made clear that from his point of view, the
people of Northern Ireland had to decide their future. He has made it
very clear that the people of the Irish Republic do not want to impose
anything on their brothers and sisters in Northern Ireland. They do not
want to see the people of Britain being used to persuade, cajole, or coerce
the Northern Irish to acquiesce to a future that they do not want to experience.
And the fact that the prime ministers of Britain and the Republic of
Ireland have announced their willingness to work together to facilitate
a discussion among the people of Northern Ireland about how they will
live together in harmony is very mature, very progressive, very encouraging,
and a profoundly significant development.
The third thing that I think very important is their indication that
though they want everyone to be involved, no one should have a veto. There's
been a lot of talk about developments in the Middle East and in South
Africa and how they bring a sense of hope to us in Ireland, and I think
that's true. But there are many differences. Nevertheless, there is one
analogy that I would like to draw to your attention. It is the courage
of Mr. Rabin and Mr. Arafat. They did not achieve agreement by insisting
that even the most extreme and the most violent should have to give their
consent to the agreement because that would not be living in the world
of real politics. Mr. Rabin had to turn his back on the Jewish fundamentalists
who have rallied against what he's done. Mr. Arafat had to accept the
resignations of some senior members of the PLO executive in order to enable
the majority of moderate people on both sides to reach across the divide
to one another and establish a bridgehead, a bulwark, a solid bloc of
cooperation across the traditional divide. I would like to believe that
it will be possible for all the parties that were invited to this conference
to cooperate and end violence and to find a political way forward together.
But I have to say to you that the message so far is that this may not
be an entirely realistic objective. There are three party leaders here,
Mr. Hume, Mr. Adams, and me. Together we represent less than half the
people in Northern Ireland. I would like to have seen the representatives
of the Ulster Unionist and the Democratic Unionist parties here, but they
are not here because of their political views and because of the views
of their own people.
And so when I come to the final question: What the United States and
people here (people who are concerned, as you are) can do to help the
people of Northern Ireland, I would say three things: First, remember
that the situation is complex. A colleague of mine was in Hong Kong two
or three years ago when the issue of the boat people was prominent. I
was on the telephone with him, and I said, "Well, Gordon, how is
it?" And he said, "It's just like Northern Ireland, John. It's
perfectly simple from 3,000 miles away." The truth about the conflict
in Northern Ireland is that it's complex and difficult. And many of the
significant people are not here to present their views to you. Unless
their views are appreciated and recognized, there will be no way forward.
The second thing that I would appeal to you is to give full support
to the initiative of Mr. Reynolds and of Mr. Major. In my view, they have
established a solid basis for political progress, irrespective of the
responses that individual parties may give to it. And I hope that you
will find a way of backing them completely in what they are doing.
The third thing is this: Please be concerned about all the people
of Northern Ireland. A couple of years ago, when I was trying to persuade
both the British and the Irish governments to change their views a little
and move forward together, I said to the British government, "Please
do not back the unionists. Please try to take into account the sensitivities
and the desires of all the people of Northern Ireland." And I said
to the Irish government, "Please do not back the nationalists. Please
take into consideration the sensitivities and the aspirations of all the
people of Northern Ireland." If the British government were to back
the unionists and the Irish government were to back the nationalists,
then they would deepen the partisan split in the community. I believe
the two governments are sincere in their resolve to work together.
Also, I believe that Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Major are becoming increasingly
sensitive to the needs of all the people of Northern Ireland, and I would
appeal to you too to take the same approach. You will not find it easy
because though there are some of us who are prepared to come and give
our views (the three parties that are represented here and we disagree
deeply about many things), others who represent even more people in Northern
Ireland are not prepared to come here. Yet if you ignore their views,
some of them will turn increasingly toward violence and not away from
it. Peace will not be achieved by accommodating the needs and desires
of one side of the community. It can result only from accommodating both
sides. That is the critical message that you must understand.
I said earlier that I come from a Protestant background. Worse, still,
I come from a Presbyterian background, and if that were not the final
nail in my coffin, I am inclined toward some of the Presbyterian predilections
but will not succumb to the temptation to keep you here listening to my
point one, two, three, finally, and at the end. In other words, I won't
give you cause to do what the members of my father's church at home did:
They hung a calendar over the clock because they thought it was more appropriate
to the length of his dissertations. Out of due deference to your forbearance
and out of a certain trepidation about what is meant by the chairman's
warning about electronic termination for anybody who goes on too long,
I will leave things at this point. I think it will be more useful for
us to engage in a dialogue consisting of your questions and my responses
rather than for you to listen to me speak any longer.
Thank you very much.
John Hume
Leader of the Social Democratic and Labour Party
Mr. Chairman, thank you for having me here today. I thank the Committee
for organizing this occasion. The event in itself underlines that at last
the problems of our part of the world are at the top of the international
agenda, just as it was clear that when the joint declaration was made
between Prime Minister John Major and Prime Minister Albert Reynolds,
our problems were at the top of their agenda as well. As I've often said,
if what is happening on our streets were happening on the streets of Britain,
the British parliament would be packed every day until the problem was
solved, but on a Friday, when Northern Ireland is discussed, one can take
a long weekend, and only a handful shows up.
In the past twenty years until December 1993, 3,106 people lost their
lives in Northern Ireland. That's the equivalent of half a million people
in the United States. That's the equivalent of 28,000 people in the greater
New York area. That's how serious our problem is. Of those who died, 1,765
were ordinary civilians who were going about their business when they
were killed; 293 were members of the political force; 201 were members
of the Ulster Defense Regiment; 442 were British soldiers (working-class
people); 252 members of the Provisional IRA lost their lives; 96 loyalist
paramilitaries lost their lives; 38 members of INLA, a small republican
movement, and 26 members of the official IRA lost their lives. That's
exactly the breakdown of those who died.
All of those people who lost their lives were human beings. All of their
families suffered the same sense of loss and grief. All are victims of
our history and our failure to solve our problems and that means that
the greatest and most important challenge that faces our people today
is to end this violence and to remove the gun and the bomb forever from
our island people.
It's not just those horrifying statistics that underline the challenges
that we face in the north of Ireland because in the city of Belfast, which
has the highest churchgoing population of any city in western Europe,
it has been necessary to build not one wall but thirteen walls to separate
and protect one section of a Christian people from another. those walls
are indictments of all of us because our attitudes have built all of them.
But by being indictments, they also pose challenges to all of us (and
I also speak to people in this room who have fixed notions about Ireland)
because if our attitudes have brought us where we are, then surely every
one of us has a duty to reexamine our attitudes in depth so that we can
bring those walls down and bring lasting peace and agreement to our people.
There's a major challenge to the unionist mindset and to the nationalist
mindset, and if you study conflict in the world, as I have done, to look
for ways and means of resolving it, you will find that there are similar
mindsets everywhere there is conflict. Take the unionist mindset in the
north of Ireland. The honorable objective of the unionists, primarily
the Protestant population, is to protect their heritage and their difference,
and their heritage and their difference go back a long way. It is a proud
heritage that has given twelve presidents to this country. I have no objection
to that objective of protecting their heritage because difference is the
essence of humanity. No two human beings in the entire human race are
the same. Diversity is the essence of humanity, and therefore the preservation
of diversity is part of the enrichment of humanity. My quarrel is not
with their objective but with their methods, and their methods reflect
a mindset that is prevalent in different parts of the world where there
is conflict. It's an Africaaner style of mindset that asserts that the
only way to protect ourselves is to hold all power in our own hands and
exclude everyone else. That's why we've had so much discrimination in
the north of Ireland during the past seventy years. That attitude reveals
a deep lack of self-confidence in their own identity because if they had
confidence in their identity, in who and what they are, it wouldn't matter
whom they lived beside, and if some people adopt a policy of excluding
other people because of differences with them, that will lead to conflict.
So the challenge to the unionists is to recognize the strength of their
heritage, to stand on their own two feet, and to negotiate an agreement
with the people with whom they share a piece of Earth—an agreement
that respects diversity and then allows us to work together to build our
land.
Then there is the nationalist mindset in the north of Ireland as well.
They need to examine themselves too. In many ways that mindset is expressed
quite simplistically, and I find it, to be honest with you, among some
Irish Americans: "This is our land and since you are a minority,
you unionists have no right to stop us from uniting with the rest of Ireland."
That's what I call a territorial mindset, and you usually get that too
where there is conflict. People (not territory) have rights. Without people
that little island would be only a jungle. Without people Earth would
be only a jungle. It's the people of Ireland (not the territory) that
are divided. Partition didn't cause the Irish problem; partition institutionalized
the Irish problem. The differences between our people go back well beyond
partition. If Wolfe Tone wanted to unite Catholic and Protestant dissenters
in 1798, they must have been divided. What partition did unfortunately
was to institutionalize that division and make it deeper and worse, and
indeed the physical expression of nationalism in the form of violence
also deepens that division. If you analyze the problem, as I have, as
a division among our people, then physical force deepens that division,
intensifies the bitterness, and makes the problem worse, and you get tit-for-tat
killings, which are happening tragically all the time. As Martin Luther
King, Jr., so powerfully put it, the doctrine of an eye for an eye leaves
everybody blind.
It's easy to dismiss attitudes and to criticize attitudes as I've just
been doing. The challenge is what do we do about the future. As you know,
we have a great respect for our past in Ireland, and it's very easy to
be elected in Northern Ireland by talking about the past and pointing
at the other side and blaming them. Negative politics is easy. But we
should recognize that our respect for the past has created the present,
which isn't very pleasant, and is paralyzing our attitudes to the future.
What about the future? I have to admit that I have been very encouraged
and inspired by my experience in Europe, and as a historian, I have learned
a lot from what has happened in the European Community where the greatest
lesson in conflict resolution in the history of the world can be learned.
Cast your mind back fifty years when thirty-five million people lay dead
across the continent of Europe as a result of the second war fought in
thirty years. Suppose that someone had stood up then and said, "Don't
worry; in fifty years we will have a unified Europe; Germans will still
be Germans, and French will still be French." That person would have
been taken off to see Dr. John Alderdice or one of his colleagues. But
it happened. Today I sit in the European Parliament, three miles from
the German border. How did the leaders of Western Europe do it? Very simple,
but all simple things also contain profoundities. They recognized that
difference is not a threat, that difference, which reflects an accident
of birth, should never be the source of hatred or conflict. The answer
to how to build institutions in Europe was to respect differences. Doing
so allowed them to work together on economics, which is what all politics
should be about: having bread on your table and a roof over your head.
What they did was break down the barriers of distrust that divided them
for centuries. Out of that evolved the new Europe, which is now united
on the basis of respect for diversity. Indeed, if you think about the
origins of your own country, it was created by people driven out of Europe
by intolerance, quite a lot of them Presbyterians from the north of Ireland,
I have often said that America should not present itself to the world
as an economic force or military force. Instead, it should present itself
as a moral force. Those people drew up a constitution and when you read
it, you will find a message there that is the essence of conflict resolution.
If you pull a cent out of your pocket, you will read a message of deepest
wisdom on your cheapest coin. E Pluribus Unum, "from many
we are one." The essence of unity is the acceptance of diversity.
Unity is not about one section defeating another. Unity is about agreement
and about respecting the differences that go to the heart of any people,
and when you apply that insight to Ireland, the same lesson can be learned.
Ireland's problems were European in origin. It was Ireland's links with
Spain in the seventeenth century that brought England into Ireland. It
was Ireland's links with France in the revolutionary period that led to
the active union because Ireland was a back door to England's European
enemies, and so England had a definite economic and strategic interest
in being in Ireland. Since that changed, it changed the nature of the
Irish problem, which was a conflict of sovereignty between Britain and
Ireland. That is not so today, for Britain and Ireland share sovereignty
in the new Europe with France, Italy, Germany, Spain, and other countries.
The decisions taken about the land in which we live in Ireland, where
agriculture is the largest industry north and south, are not taken in
Dublin, Belfast, or London. They are taken in Brussels. That has changed
the whole nature of sovereignty, but the legacy of division remains.
That problem cannot be solved by any form of force or coercion. It can
be solved only by agreement, and it was that kind of public debate that
was going on in the north of Ireland between us and Sinn Fein that eventually
led to our private dialogue. In that private dialogue we discussed a number
of factors, including how we could bring a cessation of violence and promote
peace. I was not surprised that our talks provoked quite a lot of flak
and criticism, but I stated the view that if 20,000 troops in our streets
and 12,000 armed police—in the strictest security force lodged in
Europe—could not bring peace or stop violence and if Mr. Adams and
I could save lives by entering into direct dialogue, then it was our duty
to do so.
In that dialogue, I put the points that I have just been putting to
you. My questions to Mr. Adams revolved around the core question: "Could
you state what are the reasons that the republican movement give for the
use of physical force today?" He replied, "The British are here
defending their economic and strategic interests by force, and they're
preventing the Irish people from exercising their right to self-determination."
My response was that that used to be true, but it is no longer true. To
prove it is the challenge. The only people who can prove it, of course,
are members of the British government, which brings us to a discussion
of the joint declaration issued by the British and Irish governments.
That joint declaration, in my view, is one of the most comprehensive
statements in seventy years on British-Irish relations because it makes
clear for the first time that the two governments are committed to overcoming
the legacy of violence and healing division on the island of Ireland.
The British government has stated very clearly that it has no selfish
economic or strategic interest in Northern Ireland and that its primary
interest isn't to preserve the status quo or to impose a solution but
to see peace, stability, and reconciliation established by agreement among
all the people who inhabit the island, and so the British made clear that
they have no selfish interests any more.
What about the question of the right to self-determination of the Irish
people? In our first statement, Mr. Adams and I agreed that the Irish
people have the right to determine their future. We also declared that
we recognized that not all Irish people accept the same definition of
self-determination. In other words, they are divided about how that right
is to be exercised and therefore we were going to concentrate on that
question. Now that the British government has finally said it will encourage,
facilitate, and enable agreement to take place among the divided people
of Ireland and will commit its resources to promoting agreement and legislate
for whatever form that agreement takes—whether it's a united Ireland
or anything else—it's a major challenge to all of us.
It's a challenge to the unionists who keep on running to Britain, looking
for a guarantee that they will stay where they are, but they obviously
do not trust the British government's guarantee because they need it repeated
every month. The challenge of this declaration is a challenge to the unionist
people to stand on their own feet because the only guarantee rests on
their numbers and their geography. We cannot solve the problem without
them, and despite the fact that their negativism of the last seventy years
has in many ways dried up the creativity of their heritage, we need their
heritage, which will constitute an economic contribution to the future
of our island. Our guarantee to them is our affirmation that we are not
interested in victories or defeat because victories and defeats in divided
societies don't solve problems. What we want the unionist people to do
is to stand on their own feet and then sit down with the rest of the people
of the island and reach an agreement.
There's a similar challenge to the nationalist tradition and to those
who believe in physical force. We have been told by both the British and
the Irish governments that they are committed to promoting agreement.
Based on those assurances, can we now all come to the table, sit down
together—both sectors of our divided people—armed only with
our convictions and our powers of persuasion and begin the task of breaking
down the barriers of distrust that divide us? The Irish government has
made an excellent proposal to ensure that discussions can continue. The
Irish government put forward a proposal to form a permanent forum that
will contain all parties. Probably the unionists won't come, but for the
first time in seventy years, the parties (north and south) that want to
break down the barriers of division in Ireland would be meeting and working
steadily and permanently to break down the barriers of distrust that divide
our people, and if the violence stopped, the Irish border would be gone
completely. The only signs of a border left in a unified Europe today
are British military checkpoints on the Irish border. What are they there
for? To deal with people who want to get rid of the border. It's a bit
ironic. With violence stopped, the British checkpoints gone, and the army
off the streets, there would be freedom of movement of people, goods,
and services throughout Ireland. A business group has said that if that
happens, 75,000 jobs would be created because it would be the first time
that there would be internal free trade in Ireland in seventy years.
There is a real challenge to all of us. If we want to solve the problems
rather than run around, waving our flags and draping them around us, we
must dismiss the message on which most of us were reared, for we can't
save our souls with bunting, as one of the Northern Irish Protestant poets
once wrote. Once, when I was ten years old and my father was unemployed
and I was the eldest of seven children and there was a nationalist meeting
at the top of the street and they were telling us to unite Ireland and
waving the flag and whipping up emotions, my father told me, "Don't
get involved in that stuff, son." I said, "Why not, dad,"
and he said, "because you can't eat a flag." There's a message
of wisdom there. All politics is about people and about people's basic
rights and, in particular, about their right to life. The taking of life
should never be a means of creating human rights and now, for the first
time, that both governments are committed to promoting agreement, we should
take up that challenge and come to the table armed only with our convictions
and reach agreement, and once our quarrel is over and we start working
together to build our nation, then, as we spill our sweat and not our
blood, we will erode the prejudices of the past. The healing process will
begin, and as we break down the barriers over a period of time, down the
road in perhaps a generation will emerge a new Ireland whose unity will
be based on a respect for diversity. That's the strategy that I will continue
to propose. As we approach a new century and if we achieve agreement,
I believe that as the largest group of wandering people in the world,
which we are, we will have moved beyond the time when celebrating our
Irishness is confined to St. Patrick's Day. We could then ask you who
are part of our wandering people to harness your energies and your talents
to help us with the task of building the new Ireland because if the forty-four
million of you who said you were Irish in the last census spent only $5.00
a week on Ireland, our Irish economy would go through the roof. I have
counted it up: It would be ten billion dollars a year. What I believe,
and this gathering is evidence of it, is that at last this problem is
at the top of the international agenda. Let's make sure that the twenty-first
century will be the first century in our island history in which we will
not use guns or bombs, and that the hallmark of our patriotism will have
changed from dying for Ireland to living for Ireland. Thank you.
Gerry Adams
President, Sinn Fein
I would like to begin today by thanking the National Committee on American
Foreign Policy for giving me this opportunity to address you on the peace
initiative —on the current opportunities for peace that exist—and
I wish also to acknowledge publicly and thank all those who helped to
secure a visa for me to attend this conference and the many Irish Americans
and supporters of free speech who have tirelessly campaigned against visa
denial. I wish to extend greetings also to the many people here in the
United States who have worked consistently for the cause of freedom and
justice and peace in Ireland.
During the recent past there has been important movement toward a lasting
peace through negotiation and dialogue in some of the world's most difficult
trouble spots. The progress toward democracy and an end to apartheid in
South Africa was followed by the beginnings of negotiations between the
PLO and the Israeli government after decades of hostility and war. The
lessons are clear: Conflict resolution requires dialogue and negotiation.
The conflict in Ireland is no different, and over the past months and
years, important steps have been taken in this direction. On behalf of
Sinn Fein, let me reiterate once again that our party has always expressed
our willingness to engage in discussions without preconditions. Our political
priority is to advance the peace process based on inclusive negotiations.
The development of open debate and dialogue can only assist such a process.
No situation is improved by ignorance or misinformation.
This forum, by encouraging such necessary dialogue and the free exchange
of information, can assist the developing peace process in Ireland. I
am very pleased therefore to address you. I am sorry that only one unionist
party is represented here today. Mr. Paisley and Mr. Molyneaux should
be here to assist and contribute to these proceedings, and so too should
the British government.
We live in momentous times marked by peace efforts in the Middle East
and South Africa and in Ireland. My role is to try to fill a gap of twenty
years of disinformation about republican intentions, to tell you of our
part in shaping the peace process, and to ask you, other representatives
of public opinion in the United States, and the U.S. government to help
achieve this objective.
Today we in Ireland are very aware that 44.3 million Americans claim
roots in Ireland, and worldwide it is estimated that there are seventy
million Irish, an incredible figure if one considers that in Ireland today
we have only five million people.
Here in the United States, millions of Irish, fleeing repression, fleeing
famine, found a welcome refuge, and no other group with the exception
of African Americans came to these shores with fewer prospects; and no
group rose to prominence so quickly. In the lifetime of Paul O'Dwyer,
a very long lifetime, the Irish have gone from "No Irish Need Apply"
signs to the White House, from owning bars to running boardrooms. John
F. Kennedy, the grandson of famine era immigrants, rose to the highest
Political Position in this nation. President Clinton too can claim Irish
roots on his mother's side.
Among Irish Americans, and this has been obvious for so long, there is
a continuing sadness at the ongoing tragedy in the north of Ireland. The
memory of Abraham Lincoln and his extraordinary struggle to save his nation
from partition has an eerie echo in Ireland where we have lived under
the failed Partition of our own country since 1921. Wolfe Tone, the first
political thinker to dream of an Irish republic, was heavily influenced
by the reality that beyond his shores lay a great sprawling nation called
America, conceived in liberty and dedicated to equality.
Sinn Fein, the party that I represent, is actively engaged in seeking
an end to the sanguinary conflict and to all armed action and to bringing
about a total demilitarization of the situation. Our peace strategy is
the central function of Sinn Fein as a political party. At a personal
level, it is my overriding priority to advance the search for peace to
the point where it is at the center of the political agenda in both Ireland
and Britain. U.S. help is vital to move it forward.
SINN FEIN'S PEACE STRATEGY
For Sinn Fein, the search for an effective peace process began more
than seven years ago, when it became clear to us that an effective political
initiative was necessary to break the military and political deadlock
and to move away from what was developing into a Permanent conflict. Successive
British initiatives—political, economic, and military—had failed
precisely because they were just that: British initiatives that ignored
the central causes of the conflict, partition and the denial by Britain
of the light of the Irish people to national self-determination.
It's ironic that while the British government was engaged in propaganda
against us and those that we represent, while it was censoring Sinn Fein
and preventing me from entering Britain (and, through pressure, until
now, from entering the United States), the British were simultaneously
engaged with Sinn Fein in prolonged contact and dialogue without preconditions.
And when John Hume did the right thing, he was crucified for speaking
to us, but those who were publicly condemning him were also engaged in
dialogue with us.
Sinn Fein entered into direct contact with the British government in
a genuine attempt to advance the search for peace. During the course of
almost three years of dialogue and contact, the British government proposed
that a British government delegation meet with a Sinn Fein delegation
for an intense round of negotiations. We were asked to seek a short suspension
of IRA operations to facilitate those discussions. Given the importance
of this, Sinn Fein sought and was given a commitment from the IRA leadership
of Oglaigh Na hEireann that it would suspend operations for two weeks
to enhance and facilitate discussions. This was conveyed to the British
government in May of last year. And if that is news to you, it is because
your news about Ireland comes through London.
Although we were informed that this positive response by republicans
to the British Proposal was the subject of a series of high-level meetings
by British ministers, including John Major and other officials, there
was no positive response by them. In fact, the British moved away from
their proposal and refused to follow through on it.
And this bad faith, and it can only be bad faith, and double dealing
and all that was involved have seriously and clearly presented difficulties
for us, for republicans, in assessing the British government's intention
in relation to the present opportunities for peace. The history of this
contact clearly underlines that republicans are serious, are prepared
to take risks, and are prepared to show flexibility in the search for
a lasting peace.
THE BRITISH PRESENCE
Let me give you a brief outline, as we see it, of the problem. First,
it has to be said, even though it is a truism, that Britain's role in
Ireland has never been benign. It has always acted as a dominating colonial
power. Britain's presence and influence have been destructive and have
prevented the Irish people from resolving our differences, and the whole
notion of Britain as a peacekeeping agent in Ireland flies in the face
of history and present reality. The divisions and conflict in Ireland
today and the divisions among our people in the past stem from the immediate
realities of the British presence. The "Northern Ireland" state
or statelet was created by Britain in 1921 when Britain partitioned our
country without the consent and against the wishes of the vast majority
of Irish people. No Irish person, unionist or nationalist, voted or was
given the opportunity to vote on the partition of our country. Since its
creation this "state" has been in a state of perpetual crisis,
existing only as a result of draconian legislation, repression, and injustice
and in a permanent "state of emergency."
Since 1969, when the reality of life for Irish nationalists living in
this sectarian state was exposed to international scrutiny, despite and
since the enactment of some modest reforms, the overall situation has
not improved for nationalists. This is despite sophisticated propaganda
from the British government that their contribution over the last twenty
years has been centered on reform and the improvement of the state. The
inequalities and the injustice on which the state was founded have not
been removed. It is worth noting that the British government has the worst
record on human rights of any signatory of the European Convention on
Human Rights. It has been brought before the European Court on thirty-one
occasions and has been found in violation of this convention twenty-one
times. I say that for the record. I say that just to set the historical
and current record before you. But now, however, because this has to do
with the past, the British government has the opportunity to play a positive
role in a definitive peace process.
NATIONAL SELF-DETERMINATION
I want to deal with the question of self-determination. Self-determination
is a nation's exercise of the political freedom to determine its own economic,
social, and cultural development without external influence and without
partial or total disruption of national unity or territorial integrity.
Ireland today does not have this freedom, nor does the pretext of partition
hold good against these criteria. In the words of Sean MacBride, winner
of the Nobel Peace Prize:
Ireland's right to sovereignty, independence and unity is inalienable
and defensible. It is for the Irish people as a whole to determine the
future status of Ireland. Neither Britain nor a small minority selected
by Britain has any right to partition the ancient island of Ireland,
nor to determine its future as a sovereign nation.
The right of the Irish people, as a whole, to self-determination is supported
by universally recognized principles of international law. Sinn Fein considers
the realization of the fight of our people, all the Irish people, to national
self-determination to be our primary political objective. We also consider
that the denial by the British government of our right to exercise this
right is a major or the major source of conflict in Ireland today.
The partition of Ireland, by the way, does not only affect the north
of Ireland. It affects all of Ireland, socially and economically and in
terms of our national morale and consciousness and retards our ability
as a nation to shape affairs and to resolve the causes of poverty, of
emigration, and unemployment as well as the more obvious causes of death
and destruction—the conflict in the north. And at the time when Ireland,
Irish music, Irish writing, and the competence of our people in the United
States are on the rise, it is deplorable that we are hemorrhaging in our
own country in a way that saps that morale.
THE UNIONIST VETO
The British government's public justification for its involvement in
Irish affairs is that the unionists have a veto, that is, that there can
be no movement without the consent of a majority of the British-created
statelet. This is a perversion of democratic principles. It is also a
subterfuge. The British claim to jurisdiction in Ireland is based on the
Government of Ireland Act, and as far as British constitutional law is
concerned, the sovereignty of parliament is absolute. The Government of
Ireland Act is an act of a British parliament. That parliament is constitutionally
empowered to end its jurisdiction in Ireland if it wishes without reference
to anyone else.
Today's unionists represent 20 percent of our people. They are a national
minority, a significant minority, but a minority nevertheless, and to
bestow the power of veto or national independence and sovereignty on a
national minority is in direct contravention of the principle of national
self-determination.
Accepting the veto means accepting that there can be no progress. It
means accepting the failed policy of partition and division, and although
the six-county state has existed for seventy years, it has not developed
a democratic integrity. It had no political, democratic, or economic validity
when it was created and has no such validity today. Seventy years of injustice
constitute an argument for an end to partition and not for its continuance.
Seventy years later, the six-county state remains politically and economically
unstable and unviable, and it isn't just we nationalists who are locked
into a state to which we owe no allegiance. Unionists also are tied to
a very negative laager view of themselves and of their future.
UNIONIST RIGHTS
Sina Fein acknowledges, recognizes, asserts, upholds, and defends the
rights of unionists. We say that those democratic rights would be greatly
strengthened in a new Ireland, an independent Ireland, and a harmonious
Ireland. Though it is important not to be patronizing, we accept that
northern unionists and northern Protestants have fears about their civil
and religious liberties, and we have consistently asserted that their
liberties must be guaranteed and upheld.
We seek to be part of building a society that can reflect and uphold
the diversity of all our people. Our vision is for a free Ireland, a peaceful
Ireland, an Ireland based on the unity of Catholic, Protestant, and dissenter,
with all citizens guaranteeing the civil and religion liberties of all
other citizens. And we hold to the Proclamation of 1916, which stated:
The Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights
and equal opportunities to all its citizens, and declares its resolve
to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and of all
its parts, cherishing all of the children of the nation equally, and
oblivious of the differences, carefully fostered by an alien government,
which has divided a minority from the majority in the past
So we seek a new Ireland and a new constitution with a charter of rights
that would include written guarantees for all of those currently constituted
as loyalists. Also, as people who have been excluded, as people who have
been marginalized, as people who have been demonized, we seek to include,
not to exclude, them. The Ireland that we want to see would not be worthy
of our people unless it involved all of our people—Catholic, Protestant,
and dissenter—unless all of us could give our allegiance to that
new Ireland.
Now the unionists have found the British government out on this, especially
since the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement in 1985, that when the
British government has seen fit, it has chosen to ignore the wishes of
the unionist population. The concept of consent is one that the British
apply selectively and rarely and only when it coincides with the British
government's own political interests. They say they have no selfish economic
or strategic interest in being in Ireland. They have not said that they
have no political interest in being in Ireland. They haven't said that
yet.
THE "CONSENT" ARGUMENT
The argument from Britain that the consent of the unionist population
is a precondition for any political movement is entirely bogus and without
a democratic basis. The late Catholic Primate of All-Ireland, Cardinal
O'Fiaich, speaking in 1985, four days after the Anglo-Irish Agreement
was signed, commented that
The present policy of the British government—that there will be
no change in the status of Northern Ireland while the majority want
British rule to remain—is no policy at all. It means you do nothing
and means that the loyalists in the north are given no encouragement
to make a move of any kind.
And, of course, the theory of consent has never been extended to nationalists.
We who live in the north are ignored. No one seeks to think why we have
been forcibly coerced to live in a state in which we see no future for
us or for our children. Where is the principle of democratic consent for
northern nationalists?
BRITISH RESPONSIBILITY
The exercise of the right to Irish national self-determination requires
a change in British policy and the removal of the veto. And within the
context of such a policy change Sinn Fein believes that agreement between
the people of the nationalist and unionist traditions can become, for
the first time, an achievable objective. We believe that the consent of
all the relevant parties can be obtained if the London and Dublin governments
demonstrate the political will to achieve it. And we believe that both
governments should accept Irish national self-determination as a policy
objective and agree on a time frame and process of consultation to bring
this about.
THE IRISH PEACE INITIATIVE
We have attempted to create a political debate around the core issues
and in doing so to develop a peace process that would address the central
causes of conflict in Ireland. To take you briefly through the history
of this, our discussion document "A Scenario for Peace" in 1987
marked the public launch of this peace strategy, which resulted from an
intensive analysis and review of the conflict and overall political situation
in Ireland. It is clear from the analysis that the resolution of the conflict
is dependent on the removal of the fundamental causes of that conflict
and that peace can result only from a negotiated settlement that deals
politically and effectively with the key issues. As long ago as 1988,
in "Pathway to Peace" and in private dialogue, I dealt with
those elements.
And while the British temporized and the talks were going nowhere, republicans
argued that the British approach was fundamentally flawed and that the
resolution of the national question and securing the rights of the Irish
people to national self-determination were the most urgent issues facing
all of us. We stated unequivocally that lasting peace could be achieved
only by the creation of a national democracy, a functioning democracy,
an inclusive democracy that would accommodate the diversity of the Irish
people.
The document "Towards a Lasting Peace" was adopted at our
1992 Ard Fheis and defined the development of Sinn Fein's policy and the
means by which the conflict could be resolved. We acknowledged and acknowledge
today that the "heartfelt aspiration of most people in Ireland is
for Peace. ...A peace process if it is to be both meaningful and enduring
must address the root causes of conflict." And as we increasingly
addressed this area of political activity, this peace strategy became
our central function as a political party.
My talks with John Hume, the SDLP leader, proved to be another and,
as it transpired, constituted the most significant element in this initiative.
In our joint statement of 10 April 1993, we outlined our attitudes on
the key issue and on all the other related issues, and I read this to
you today.
We accept that the Irish people as a whole have a right to national
self-determination. This is a view shared by a majority of the people
of this island though not by all its people.
The exercise of self-determination is a matter for agreement between
the people of Ireland. It is the search for that agreement and the means
of achieving it on which we will be concentrating.
We are mindful that not all of the people of Ireland share that view
or agree on how to give meaningful expression to it. Indeed we do not
disguise the different views held by our own parties.
As leaders of our respective parties, we have told ourselves that
we see the task of reaching agreement on a peaceful and democratic accord
for all on this island as our primary challenge.
We both recognize that such a new agreement is only achievable and
viable if it can earn and enjoy the allegiance of the different traditions
on this island by accommodating diversity and providing for national
reconciliation.
In September 1993 we actually reached agreement on a set of proposals
that, we believe, could form the basis of a viable peace process if they
were adopted by the London and Dublin governments. Both governments were
fully informed of these matters at every stage of their development.
The proposals that we agreed to were based on a number of basic principles:
- that the Irish people as a whole have the right to national self-determination;
- that an internal settlement is not a solution;
- that the unionists cannot have a veto over British policy;
- that the consent and allegiance of unionists, expressed through an
accommodation with the rest of the Irish people, are essential ingredients
of a lasting peace;
- that the British government must join the persuaders;
- that the London and Dublin governments have the major responsibility
to secure political progress;
- It was agreed that a process to realize these principles would contain
the political dynamic that could create the conditions for a lasting
peace and a total demilitarization of the situation.
THE DOWNING STREET DECLARATION
The Downing Street declaration is a response to all of that. Consequently,
republicans have a duty to make fundamental reassessments in the wake
of this declaration. Does this declaration represent a first step by the
British government in the direction of a lasting peace in Ireland? Or
is it merely a political response by that government, under pressure from
the Irish peace initiative, aimed at avoiding a political confrontation
with Dublin and at fragmenting nationalist consensus on the island of
Ireland and bringing political pressure to bear on Sinn Fein in order
to damage us? Which is it?
And even if it is neither of these and even if our assessment is that
it does not represent a first step, Irish Republicans should not allow
that judgment to influence unduly our considerations about taking risks.
It is easier to make war than to make peace. Making peace is riskier,
but the prize is worthier and the goal for us to pursue.
The consideration, and I speak here as an unapologetic Irish Republican,
of any option must be in the context of our broad peace objectives and
the strategy that I have outlined for their achievement. These are
- to eradicate the causes of conflict in Ireland;
- to bring about the exercise of the right of national self-determination
of the Irish people as a whole;
- to establish a peace process to achieve those objectives.
The issue of self-determination is obviously central to the resolution
of the conflict. The issue has been identified and is firmly on the political
agenda. A framework has also been identified and has been accepted by
the vast majority of people in Britain and in Ireland.
Any agreement must respect the diversity of our traditions in Ireland
and earn the allegiance of all our people. Present policies, policies
from the past, and present political structures have prevented this from
happening.
The joint declaration is described by its authors as "the first
step." Sinn Fein is committed to a peace settlement, and I am eager
to be persuaded that the Downing Street Declaration can provide the basis
for peace. Even if this proves not to be the case, if there is a gap between
what is required and what is an offer, then we need to move to bridge
that gap.
CLARIFYING THE PROPOSED PEACE PROCESS
Sinn Fein and the wider nationalist community and the unionist community
are examining the Downing Street declaration, and nationalists are examining
it in the context of the overall search for a real and lasting peace.
Those are the criteria within which it will be judged: whether it seeks
to advance the peace process in a real way or is a cosmetic response by
the British to the Irish peace initiative.
There is therefore an understandable degree of suspicion given the history
that I have outlined of the last three years as well as skepticism among
Irish nationalists and particularly among republicans regarding the real
motives and intentions of the British government. If the British government
genuinely wishes to move forward and if any message goes out from here
today (and this message is going out from Belfast and from Dublin to the
British government), the first step must be for the British government
to accept its obligation to provide clarification for Sinn Fein on these
matters. It has already done so for all the other political parties. Its
refusal to provide clarification for Sinn Fein has to be a matter of deep
concern for everyone interested in peace.
In contrast, the attitude of the Dublin government has been much more
constructive. It is clear that for the first time since the treaty, a
Dublin government is making a serious attempt to address the issues of
peace and a political settlement in Ireland, and this is a development
that I welcome and on which we seek to build. The first, tentative step
in what may be difficult and at times frustrating task has been taken.
The Taoiseach, Albert Reynolds, has already taken steps to clarify his
positions in relation to all of these key issues. I am hopeful that this
will assist all of us in assessing the declaration and how it can contribute
to the overall peace process.
In this context, I wish to commend Albert Reynolds. He has taken a common-serise
attitude to the need to provide clarification. A letter from Mr. Reynolds
awaits me on my return to Ireland, and I hope that it contains, as I have
been told, Dublin's view of these core issues.
Our inability to come to a definitive attitude, however, is tied to
the British refusal to provide clarification. In other words, the sooner
they provide this, the sooner we can move forward. I hope that John Major
will follow the only logical reason for the British government to refuse
to provide clarification can be that they are working to achieve thier
own political agenda.
Since the signing of the declaration, contradictory commentaries about
its meaning and significance have been made by the British and the Irish
governments. In clarifying declaration for James Molyneaux, the Ulster
party leader who has in many ways congratulated us by his absence today,
John Major said that the declaration meant.
- no to the value of achieving a united Ireland;
- no to a unified Ireland; no to Britain joining the persuaders;
- no to any timetable for a united Ireland;
- no to joint authority;
- no to any change in the unionist veto;
- no to a Dublin say in the affairs of the North;
This view, as summarized in Mr. Major's interpretation, is at odds, with
the Irish government's understanding of the joint declaration.
There are three main areas that need to be clarified. They are aspects
of the declaration itself. The statements made by its authors, which contradict
each other. Then there is the whole issue of processes, measures, and
steps envisaged.
In its first paragraph the declaration is described by the governments
as the "first step." What then is the second step? Or the third
step? What processes are envisioned—what measures will be taken to
move the situation forward?
These are reasonable questions to be asked, especially to be asked,
by a party that has an electoral mandate. Clarifications have been given
to all other parties. Why not Sinn Fein? And, of course, what kind of
signal are the British seeking to send to us by their stalling and delaying
tactics? There is little evidence that they are willing to join the persuaders.
Are they? The Dublin government raises the issue, for example, of political
prisoners and says there should be an amnesty as part of a settlement.
Downing Street says no. Downing Street has also dismissed Albert Reynolds's
suggestion about demilitarizing the situation. So what we have at the
moment is a free-standing, significant but free-standing, joint statement.
Where will it lead? We have been told that the British government is going
to facilitate and engage. What program do they envisage to do this? No
matter the validity of anyone else's interpretation of the Downing Street
declaration, the British government's view of these matters is the crucial
one.
And despite all that, the potential for peace in Ireland has never been
more realizable. If the British believe that they have the basis for a
settlement, they must tell us what it is. I have already said that if
there is a gap between what has been offered and what is required to move
us out of conflict, then everyone involved has a responsibility to bridge
that gap. This will require courage, imagination, and flexibility. I have
stated my willingness to assist in this process by going the extra mile.
Presently Sinn Fein is conducting peace forums in Ireland that are open
to everyone. We are actively seeking to engage in an open and democratic
way with citizens who wish to engage us in a dialogue about how peace
can be established. It is our intention to publicize the oral and written
submissions received by us. We have no hidden agenda. We have only an
interest in peace. Peace needs people to build and sustain it, and our
consultative process is a modest way of securing the direct involvement
of citizens.
THE UNITED STATES DIMENSION
It is clear that international interest and concern can also play an
important and constructive part in the development of a viable peace
process. There has been a consistent need for the international community
to exercise its good will and influence to assist in the resolution of
conflict worldwide. This is generally recognized and on many occasions
has been acted on. It has not, however, been a factor in the Anglo-Irish
conflict. This situation needs to be rectified.
There is widespread interest and concern about Ireland within North American
public opinion. This stems, as I and other speakers have outlined, from
the historical links between the two countries and the large Irish-American
community in the United States. The potential has therefore always existed
for people here to play a part in the construction of an effective response
to human rights abuses, and this was done, particularly in relation to
the MacBride Campaign for Fair Employment. It is only proper that this
potential should be harnessed and utilized in the wider search for a lasting
settlement, and I would appeal to all those in civic, political, and industrial
leadership positions in the United States to engage their energies in
this direction. We have to find a solution ourselves, but we need assistance
to do that.
Progressive opinion here in North America can assist in the development
of a peace process. There is an urgent need to break the current deadlock
and to move the situation forward toward a negotiated settlement. The
U.S. government can play a significant and positive role in encouraging
this by helping to create a climate in which the situation can be moved.
It can do this by facilitating the free exchange of information, and in
this context I commend President Clinton for the waiver of visa denial
that has allowed me to address you directly and at length here today.
The U.S. government can further assist at a wider level by seeking to
encourage continuing dialogue.
Sinn Fein has played and has helped to play a significant role in moving
the situation from an apparently intractable conflict to one in which
there is now a focus on resolving the issues involved. I welcome the substantial
and significant support on all of these matters here and from you who
are making here today a concrete contribution to the search for peace.
Let me reaffirm to you my commitment to move this situation on. The opportunity
to seize the prize of peace for the Irish people and for the British people
is too important to be squandered. Sinn Fein will seek therefore to overcome
any obstacles and to be resourceful and imaginative about how we encourage
and develop the peace process. We will continue to press ahead with our
peace strategy and our search for a negotiated settlement and for a lasting
peace in our country. It is our firm intention to remove and to see the
removal of the gun from Irish politics, and we believe that this conference
today has made a unique and valuable contribution to this process.
|
