Conference tallis::celt

>The "armed struggle" is to Sinn Fein what Marxist-Leninism was to the
>Soviet Communist Party, and Apartheid to the South African National
>Party. It needs to have the courage and imagination to cast off an
>outdated and limiting ideology before it can move forward. It will
>certainly have to do so before we see peace or unity in Ireland.
    
    Toby, can't agree with you more.  And likewise Britain must also
    have the courage to start removing every one of her 18,000 soldiers
    from the territory of Northern Ireland.  And remove every border
    checkpoint, every observation tower, every barbed wire fence,
    every electronic surveillance device, every interrogation center,
    every concrete obstruction in border roads, etc...
    
    The peace effort must come from both sides.  Only then will there
    be peace.
    
    And in those 10 minutes of working for peace I would write to
    Sinn Fein requesting that they denounce violence and the IRA
    and then write to the British government at 10 Downing Street
    and express your displeasure with the presence of 18,000 British
    soldiers in Ireland.
    
    Regards,
    /George

    
    What would happen in your veiw if the armed forces pulled out of
    Ireland.
    
    
    Neil
    

    
    Re: .1
    
    Unpalatable as the fact is, the argument that there is a sort of
    "moral equality" between the IRA and the security forces just does 
    not stand up. Let me point out that the only group in NI at the 
    moment unilaterally committed to violence is the IRA. When the
    UFF shot 5 Catholics on the Ormeau Road, they used only one word
    to explain: "Teebane". The men who the SAS shot at Clonoe are quite
    possibly the same men who planted the Teebane bomb.
    
    Let me further point out that the security forces of the Republic of
    Ireland co-operate fully with the British security forces in 
    combatting the IRA. At a meeting yesterday, John Major and Albert
    Reynolds committed to continue to increase that co-operation. As the 
    government of the Republic represents the majority of Nationalists on 
    this island (the very people the IRA claim to be fighting for) I would 
    say that the surest path to peace is to get a strong message through 
    to the IRA that they represent nobody but themselves, and that there
    claim to some sort of mandate is fictitious. The fact is: the majority
    of nationalists recognise the security forces, while deploring any
    illegality those forces might resort to.
    
    However, I would encourage you to continue to strive for peace by 
    whatever means you see fit, as long as it does not include material 
    support for an immoral "armed struggle".
    
    Re: .2
    
    What would happen if the Brits withdrew? That's quite a question!
    My own feeling is that the answer is contained in what has happened
    to countries with divided societies like Yugoslavia, Cyprus, Lebanon,
    Sri Lanka ... the list goes on. No mainstream Irish nationalist
    party is really looking for this because we all fear a result with
    worse consequences North and South. Which is why you get a load
    of fudge like "declarations of intent to withdraw ..." etc. etc.
    Read between the lines and you find that the IRA is feared a lot
    more that the British Government.
    
    Toby

    
    re .2
    
     Well, I figure there'd be a few REAL TENSE months immediately following
    the withdrawal of British troops.  At least the IRA will have essentially 
    ceased operation, their objective realized.  The Loyalist paras would be 
    hard-pressed to find cause for continued violence...to what end?  The
    British would be gone and they would have but their own unfounded fears
    to which to react.  In the absence of IRA violence, are the Loyalist
    paras expected to continue a war of attrition against suspected enemies?
    Perhaps, but for the life of me, I cannot see why.  I would expect life
    for the Protestant community to go on much as before.
    
     If I'm being hopelessly naive, please enlighten me.  Please present
    other scenarios as you see them.  And when doing so, provide the
    motivations for different reactions by either side, because I, for one,
    cannot see it, though I've run it through my mind time and time again.
    
    Thanks
    

Toby,                 

Britain holds *no* toehold in the area of morality in Northern
Ireland.  The IRA have Teebane, Enniskillen, etc., but the
British have Aidan MacAnespie, Fergal Carragher, and many others.

The conflict will not diminish simply because the British send
more soldiers into Northern Ireland.  That will only cause more
violence.

The real answer is for Britain to become an honest broker for
peace in Northern Ireland.  For exmple, how many British soldiers
are serving time in jail for murders committed in Northern Ireland?
The only one I believe is that Nelson guy they just sentenced a
short while ago.  *All* the others are either out on probation or
weren't even charged with any crime.

Do you expect that the conflict will miraculously end because people
simply denounce Sinn Fein?  The only way to end it is to negotiate with
all parties involved, end the violence, and remove the British
military from Ireland once and for all.

I think it's time to take off the blinders and see the reality ->
with the emergence of the EC, Ireland is now a part of Europe,
not part of Britain.

If Ireland and Britain could remove their military curtain from
Northern Ireland, it would free up massive amounts of money.  That
money would be better used to lower the tax rates and provide
economic assistance to compete against the Germans and the Dutch,
who, by the way, are buying up of all Ireland as we speak.

I think I'm starting to ramble here  ;v)

Oiche mhaith,
/George

    
    Re: .4
    
    I'm afraid you are being a bit naive. You seem to ignore the turmoil
    of the fears and hatreds that have been happening in the North.
    You are dealing with a polarised community of Catholic and Protestant
    and years will pass before each can sit down with respect for the 
    tradition of the other, and agree common structures. At the moment I see 
    no alternative to having the BG as a central authority preventing complete
    fission in warring factions.
    
    Re: .5
    
    George, it's not just me saying what I am saying. I am repeating
    what has been said by people like Father Denis Faul and John Hume.
    These men are far closer to what has been going on in the North
    than me or you. I would suggest that the Fr Faul's work for human
    rights is second to none. Are you saying he is just a Sinn Fein-
    basher? 
    
    The British role in Ireland is a fact recognised in international
    law. The U.K. has a commitment to stay in the North until the majority
    there decides otherwise. The Irish government has accepted this
    by international treaty, and put its constitutional claim to
    the North on the table for negotiation. The security forces of
    both governments co-operate as fully as possible to combat 
    terrorism. The Irish government uses its authority to try to
    curb the excesses of the British security forces, which are apt to 
    cross the line of illegality as often occurs in counter-terrorism
    operations. These efforts have met with some success, as charges
    have been brought in the Carraher case, and the occurrances of
    suspected illegal killing by the security forces has reduced
    significantly, while mass-killing by the IRA of people considered 
    innocent of any crime has increased (e.g human bombs, Teebane,
    Thomas Oliver).
    
    The deep and profound wish of the majority of Irish men and women
    expressed through the ballot box, through the churches, through
    the media, and through the peace movement is for THE KILLING TO
    STOP. The category of people who are most frequently killed in
    Northern Ireland is that of "innocent bystander". 
    
    Do you believe it is morally correct of the IRA to ignore the
    wishes of the people it claims to be fighting for?
    
    In view of the fact that the people at the highest risk in the IRA
    campaign are innocent bystanders (such as the people who suffer the UDA
    reprisals) do you still believe it morally correct of the terrorists 
    to continue their activiies?
    
    What would be lost if the IRA "dumped arms", reserving the right
    to take them up again at tha later stage? 
    
    What can conceivably be achieved by violence at this stage that
    could not be achieved by peaceful democratic agitation?
    
    As I said above, I think there is room for a broad peace movement
    encompassing both communities calling for the paramilitaries to 
    get off the backs of the people, and opposing any illegal application
    of violence.
    
    Toby

    Toby, you might be able to answer a question that has been puzzling me.
    
    When Albert Reynolds toddles over to have his chat with the majorette
    the other day, he spoke of Articles 2&3 being 'on the table' in future
    discussions.  He also spoke wanting to see to the 1922 Government of 
    Ireland Act on the table alongside.
    
    This, I confess, puzzled me because I had always thought the Government of
    Ireland Act to have been long overtaken by events and to have been
    superseded, to all intents and purposes, when the Anglo-Irish Agreement
    was ratified by the British Parliament.
    
    Could you possibly enlighten me as to what in particular  he was talking 
    about?
    
    Cheers,
    
    Joe

    
    
    
    There are not one, but TWO, Government of Ireland acts.
    
    The first (which could also be called the Fourth and Last Home Rule
    Bill) was passed in 1920 and partitioned Ireland into two states, with 
    a parliament for each. The act governing the status of the South
    was superseded by the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921. The Northern
    Parliament was prorogued in 1972, but this act is still the "basic
    law" of Northern Ireland.
    
    The second (that of 1948) was a reaction to the declaration of a
    republic by "Eire" (as it was then), and contains the guarantee
    that there will be no change in the status of Northern Ireland
    unless by majority consent of its citizens. This gives the
    Unionists a veto over a change in constitutional status.
    This has been copper-fastened in the Anglo_Irish treaty so 
    cannot be bargained against Articles 2 & 3, since the principle
    has been effectively conceded by the Republic.
    
    Reynolds is proposing a neat trick, to ignore the 1948 act
    and put the basic act which set up Northern Ireland on to 
    the table as a "quid pro quo" for his putting articles 2 &
    3 (which have a claim to the North in them) up for negotiation.
    He seems to have a pooling of sovereignty over NI in mind, and if
    he brought it off, would leaving him walking on water (or
    on a pool of sovereignty). 
    
    Naturally, there are Unionist rumblings offstage. It's too
    early to say, particularly with a British election coming
    up soon, what it might lead to.
    
    Toby