Conference tallis::celt

1275.0. "Gerry Adams interview by BBC, pulled from usenet" by KOALA::HOLOHAN () Mon Nov 01 1993 11:46

                  Gerry Adams interview on BBC
                      Monday, Oct. 25, 1993

                              *****

Q: Gerry Adams, can you give me your reaction to yesterday's bomb
attack and the killings on the Shankill Road?

A: I was shattered when I heard the news yesterday and my heart
goes out to them, to the families of those who have been killed,
of all the people who have killed. My attitude is simply that no
matter what the intention was, it was a great tragedy, a
devastating human tragedy.

Q: Do you condemn it?

A: I am very measured in how i deal with these issues as you may
know. I don't think that what happened, no matter about the
intentions, can be excused. I think that those who are in
positions of leadership in the IRA, no matter what pressures may
be on them from the loyalist killing campaigns, that they have to
be aware that how they respond to those pressures could end up as
it did yesterday.

Q: Are you saying it was wrong?

A: Of course it was wrong.

Q: Is that as far as you go in condemnation?

A: I have said that I want to be measured in how i deal with this
issue, this tragedy. We have to proceed on the basis, in a very
difficult situation, of trying to bring about peace. That is my
concern, to try and bring about despite all the difficulties, to
try and bring about peace out of this terrible situation.

Q: You're saying yesterday shouldn't have happened?

A: Of course.

Q: What do you say to the relatives of the victims?

A: My heart goes out to the relatives of anyone who has been
killed in this conflict, and especially yesterday to everyone who
has been killed. To the people of  the Shankill, to those who
have lost loved ones and to the families of every single person
who was killed and injured. They have my  complete and absolute
sympathy.

     I just want to take this opportunity to address one aspect
of that and that is that those who are in positions of leadership
in the IRA, no matter what pressures they are under to respond to
the loyalist killing campaign, they have to be mindful that
whatever they do has the potential to end up as it did yesterday.
A disaster for everyone involved, not least the IRA itself.

Q:  There should be no tit-for tat?

A: Absolutely not. And I  think there's a need for restraint,
there's a need for calm, there's a need for people top start
trying to find ways to talk ourselves out of this  situation.
This isn't a time for talking up a situation; this is  a time for
talking ourselves out of a situation.

Q: Are you saying that it should be talking, it should not be
violence?

A: Absolutely. Sinn Fein's position has consistently been to try
and bring about an end to all violence.

Now I understand that cannot be done by any of the forces in a
unilateral way but I mean the challenge and the onus, especially
after what has happened yesterday, is upon everyone to try and
find a way of talking ourselves out of this situation.

Q: What has yesterday's bombing done to this peace process which
and John Hume want to see established?

A:Well, I think it has made a situation which is already
difficult, perhaps all the move difficult simply because those
who were opposed to the initiative that Mr. Hume and I have
taken, may well use whatever happened yesterday as an excuse to
attempt to sink out initiative.

I am speaking here particularly about the British government. The
British government has been opposed to this, as it appears to me,
from the start. They certainly, in terms of their public
statements have dismissed it or been insulting about it or
refused to come on board, so far.

Q: You see, people believe that you are in a position of
influence within the broad republican movement and that you could
use that influence to say to the IRA "stop this".

A: It's up to me, as best I can, to use whatever influence I have
for the objectives that I have set quite publicly. Though there
is inflated or an exaggerated sense of the influence that I have,
but that to one side, I think that one has to bear in mind that
what I have been trying to do for some time is to bring about a
situation where no one dies in this country and there is no
conflict in this country and that's going  to be difficult and
that's going to be problematic and that is, as we saw yesterday,
going to be shattered by such tragedies.

Q: You see, you're talking peace, you have a dialogue going with
John Hume, you have produced peace proposals. What could the IRA
be thinking of since they backed those proposals while continuing
their campaign?

A: I don't want under any circumstances to be justifying what
happened yesterday. And I said many times that those in positions
of leadership within the IRA need to be mindful of how they deal
with the loyalist killing campaign.

But one has to look at the public responses, and there is public
outrage, which I accept. I accept it especially from the families
of those who have been killed or injured but I do not so easily
accept the sanctimonious statements from political leaders,
including the likes of John Major and others. Because the reality
is that there have been Catholics killed on an on-going basis and
in a very intense way for the last number of years and all of
those who are being and been so outspoken about yesterday's
incident were silent have been silent about those killings.

My position on loyalist actions and actions which many times are
supporters or arranged by their cohorts in the British forces, is
quite clear and a matter of public record.

The tragedy of yesterday could quite cynically be used by a
Mayhew or a Major to divert or cul-de-sac or stop the initiative
which Mr. Hume and I are engaged in and I think that would be the
most awful of all tragedies.

Q: Even now though, are you as confident as John Hume appears to
be that you and he have designed broad principles which could
establish a process which could lead to peace?

A: Yes, I think that what we have said in regard to all of that
still stand. One must remember of course that we have also said
that it's not just up to John Hume and I. It needs both
governments to come on board and it needs all of the other
parties, and so far at this stage our proposals are for the
consideration of both governments. Up until now the British
government has not only refused to come on board but have in fact
appeared to be dismissive of our initiative.

A: Have you accepted though that Unionist agreement would be
needed if the position of Northern ireland, as presently
constituted, were to change?

A: What I accept is whatever solution, whatever the settlement,
it must be a negotiated settlement. What we end up with must be
able to accommodate the diversity of all our people and must have
their allegiance and their agreement. That's what I accept.
Whatever may be, that's not for me to pre-empt, but whatever that
be it must have that ability to do those things.

Q: If you accept that what you need is agreement, then violence
has no part to play in it, therefore you should call on the IRA
to stop.

A: I have already called upon all the forces involved to stop.
Sinn Fein policy has been for a demilitarization.

I think there is always a temptation, if I may say so, to go for
a quick-fix question and answer.Patently the IRA is not going to
stop anymore than the British  are going to stop, any more than
the loyalists are going to stop, unless there's some process that
let's everyone into a demilitarized situation.

That's the challenge facing us. I could make them take pressure
off me by making all sorts of high-sounding calls to the IRA and
to everyone else.

I'm not concerned with my own position in this. I am concerned
with bringing about a peace process which ends all of the
conflict in the situation. The IRA aren't the only forces
involved, you have to create conditions where all of the forces
involved can take a step back and a step forward towards a
peaceful settlement of this position.

Q: Are you saying now that they should all stop?

A: I've already said we need a demilitarization of the situation,
I've called for restraint. I've called for people to find ways to
talk ourselves out of this position.

I know that that will not happen by dint of mere rhetoric, and
rhetoric is no substitute for the hard work that is required
because what do we require here? We require an end to all
violence, an absolute end, a lasting peace.

Now I can go out as I say and make all sorts of rhetorical calls
on people to stop. You know as well as I do that people will not
pay any attention to that because people who are engaged in armed
campaigns do so because of the political conditions, so we need a
process which brings us out of this  complex situation into a
demilitarized one.

Q: Just before I ask you about that process, could I put this to
you. John Hume says for example that if the IRA was to lay down
its arms, everybody else would follow.

A: That's a question you're going to have to put in the one case
to the IRA and secondly to the loyalists and the British forces.
That isn't my understanding of it. That's a different
proposition. What is required is a demilitarization of  the
situation and an end of all the armed campaigns.

Q: What kind of a response do you want from the governments to
the proposals you and John Hume put to them?

A: Well, I want a positive response. How that is composed, the
nitty gritty of it, is of course a matter for both governments to
work out. Let me say that on reading one of this mornings
newspapers that an exclusion order has been served upon me before
yesterday's bombing on the Shankill Road and that exclusion order
was top prevent me from going to London to speak about this peace
initiative.

Now  if that is  true, and I certainly haven't received an
exclusion order yet, but if it is true, that is exactly the sort
of response we don't want. A British government moving to prevent
the likes of me from articulating a peace process directly to the
British people and alerting them to the potential possibility
there is for moving forward. But what we want in the meantime is
a positive response that they're going to come on board and be
part of trying to build a peace process.

Q: How flexible would you be in the way you approach that?

A: I can be as flexible as the repose permits me. I am quite
prepared, as I've said before, to go to the IRA with a mind to
making proposals about how they conduct their campaign.

I obviously want that to be a worthwhile prospect. I don't want
to be going back and forth and making meaningless statements or
gestures or requests. I want to be in a position to make a
definitive proposal to the IRA which will allow us to move
forward. That's the type of response I'm looking for.

And let me say so if I may, I would be quite satisfied that
despite all that Mayhew is saying and all that Major is saying
that they know--more or less--and I would be very disappointed if
they didn't know--precisely what was required here. And I agree
totally with Mr. Hume when he stood up in the British House of
Commons the other day and called upon the British Government to
hurry up and give a detailed response.

Q: What I mean is how flexible would you be in how the process,
if they accept it, would be constructed?

A: I'm quite prepared to be as flexible as I can. I want to 
bring all of these republican activists and the broad republican
base and the broad nationalist base with me and moving us all
forward in a way which improves the situation as opposed to
disimproving it.

Q: Are you saying to me that if the governments accept the
proposals which you and John Hume have put to them that you could
find yourself in a position where you could advise the IRA or
suggest to them even that their campaign could end?

A: Without telling you the detail of what has been agreed, I can
tell you that if the British government responded to those
positively that I would be quite pleased to go to  the IRA and
make that proposition.

Q: And advise them to stop?

A: Absolutely.

Q: Would they accept that?

A: I think that is when one would get a real understanding of
what my influence was. And it wouldn't be so much my influence
which could carry the day in that regard, it is that republicans
have been advised by me of every step of this process with Mr.
Hume and I would not have agreed with Mr. Hume what I have
agreed, we would not have made that report to Dublin. If I wasn't
satisfied the IRA would not accept the outcome.

Q: You believe, therefore, if the circumstances were right, and
the British government accepted these proposals, you could
deliver the IRA?

A: Absolutely. I think that the process that John Hume and I have
worked upon, of which Dublin is fully informed on, that if the
British government take on board what is being put to them, that
it is my belief the IRA would positively respond. I think the
British government have been playing with the issue.

Q: Is it possible, Gerry Adams, what could happen is that there
would be a split in the IRA?

A: No  not at all. Absolutely not. I will be part of no split in
republican ranks. I have worked out with Mr. Hume an agreement
and I have to stress that Dublin is fully informed of this, which
I am satisfied would have the support of the IRA. And I have said
repeatedly that I will not mislead people about the IRA and
neither will I mislead the IRA.

Q: If the British government accept those proposal you would go
to the IRA and advise them of this?

A: Absolutely.

Q: Do you think the British government will accept these
proposals?

A: On the evidence to date, I have to say and I hope I'm wrong,
that I'm very concerned about the British government's commitment
to building peace in this country.

Q: Are you optimistic or pessimistic then?

A: I am hopeful that reason will prevail I am concerned that for
example sometimes one is to some degree a victim of history, that
we have a John major who has done a deal with the OUP, who
appears to be trying to reach a similar understanding with the
DUP, and who in my view, is generally or specifically aware of
what we're talking about. He, Major, can still stonewall all of
this in the face of everybody believing they know what's
happening.

And I just think it would be an awful tragedy if what has the
greatest potential to move forward, fails because of party
political or leadership difficulties for the British Tory
government. Let me say, having said all of that, John Hume and I
have agreed a number of propositions and I remain committed to
them no matter what the response of Dublin or London to them we
still need peace and I remain absolutely committed to continuing
this process however long it takes.

It is my sense that if the British government, as I have said,
responded positively, that I can bring the IRA along with me.
That's my sense of where I'm at. If the British government don't
respond positively, it is still my firm commitment to attempt to
move this forward no matter what happens in the meantime.

I think that people who were killed on the Shankill Road,
including the young IRA Volunteer, deserve nothing less than
that-a commitment to try and build peace out of all the war and
all the tragedy as a result of the conflict.

Q: Are we approaching a point where this situation can be
transformed? Where violence ends?

A: It is my view that we have the possibility of doing that.
That's what's happening internationally, that's what the vast
majority of people want. So we have the possibility of doing
that. I have the political will to do it, Mr. Hume I think has
shown great courage with his commitment to this process. It needs
other people to come on board.

The Dublin government has given strong indications that it wants
to make this part of their process, so if the political will
exists, then the possibility can become a probability and the
potential can be realized.

Q: There's one major problem in all this and that is how you can
bring the Unionists along with you who will see in any joint
proposal made by you and John Hume purely and simply a threat to
their position?

A: Let's deal with that. The way we have worked this is hopefully
in a way which allows both governments to become involved and
then all of us try to bring the Unionists on board. And I think
that many of the fears that the Unionists have are genuine and
even if they're imaginary, that doesn't matter. I think we have
to take that on board. And we're not talking about something
that's going to happen overnight necessarily.

We're talking about something that's going to take, given the
intensity of polarization here, it's going to take some time to
get a healing process and a process of national reconciliation.
But I have enough confidence, I  happen to believe that in many
ways the Unionist leaderships are out of step with the Unionist
grassroots. They mightn't like the model which I have, but they
do want peace and I think if we start talking about peace then
we'll be able to find out exactly how far we're apart and exactly
what divides us.

Q: And would you look at their model?

A: Absolutely. We;re not talking about a monologue, we're talking
about a dialogue. We're talking here about people actually
starting to look at ways of making peace. You see what people
have been doing so far is looking at ways of making war, at
looking as ways of preserving or protecting or perpetuating their
own position. But I think once we get down to the process of
talking about how to make peace than all of us open ourselves up
to be influenced by people who we might normally see as out
opponents. And I have to say this, it would be easy to make peace
with our friends, that's an easy thing. It's making friends with
our enemies that's the challenge.


 

 

   
 

    
    I thought Sinn Fein were censored from the BBC. Yes, I'm being
    sarcastic, as the BBC employs an actor to read his words, which makes
    the censorship rather less than effective, doesn't it. As for Adams'
    heartfelt grief about anything, that's the same kind of hypocrisy he
    uses when expressing sympathy for the loss of life after one of his
    IRA's bomb attacks. The Dublin govt wants no part of this guy either,
    which probably accounts for the timing of the announcement of their
    proposal (the one that calls for the Loyalists to have to accede to
    unity rather than be bombed into it, which it's quite apparent is not
    going to work).
    

To be fair to Mr.Adams, I don't think he had any alternative but to attend 
Thomas Begley's funeral.  

I also think that the British press's coverage of the Shankhill bombing has 
been nothing other than diabolical.  Thomas Begley was a very easy target 
to demonise and the British press have gone to extremes to do this.  What 
they fail to mention until the last few lines is that the boy was, how 
should one put it, "not quite the full shilling".  To my mind, the press 
should have concentrated on the cold-hearted scum who sent him to an almost 
certain death.  Begley was used because he was expendable.  The other boy, 
still in intensive care, was only 18.  I would not be surprised if this was 
his first "active mission" as well.  Again, the IRA have shown that they 
could not care less about human suffering - whether Catholic, Protestant or 
whatever.  

Trying to justify the Shankhill bombing by saying that they were "under 
pressure" because of all the loyalist killings.  That may be so, but what 
response did they expect from the UFF ?  Anyone with half a brain could 
have told the IRA thet the response was going to be an escalation of their 
activity.  So now there's 2 brothers, 2 council workers and 7 pubgoers and 
a couple of taxi drivers to add to those killed in the Shankhill bombing.

Mark

 re. .1
  The censorship is quite effective, as it is used to
  brand political opposition as "criminals".  If it 
  wasn't effective, the British would have stopped
  practicing censorship by now. It is also used to
  brand internationally renowned human rights activists
  as "terrorists supporters", when they dare speak 
  out against the British government.

 re. .2
  If the IRA attack on the UVF leaders had been 
  successful, there wouldn't have been a continuation
  of the murders and attacks against Irish civilians
  by the UVF.  Right now we'd be reading about how 
  the IRA had done some good in the void of police
  protection for the civilian community.

  You can't blame the UVF murder spree on the IRA, 
  when the UVF were murdering and attacking before
  the Shankill attack.  The British press might like
  to blame the IRA, but that doesn't guite hold water,
  when the UVF have been killing with impunity both
  before and after the Shankill attack.

    I was listening to the BBC yesterday when I heard part of the
    Adams interview.  It was interesting that the British chose
    someone with an Ulster accent to read Adams part.  I said to
    myself wouldn't it be funny if they chose a Jamaican or a
    North African to read his part.  The censorship of Adams and
    of Sinn Fein in general is one of the most ridiculous parts of
    British and Irish foreign policies.  Almost tragically comical.
    It reminds of the McCarthy era here in the US.
    
    I agree with Mark R. in that it would have been hypocritical
    for Adams *not* to attend the funeral.  The hypocritical part
    is their assumption that violence will in some way promote
    peace.
    
    The only message I read in these latest killing sprees is
    that the British military is losing its grip of control
    in NI.  Unfortunately, I fear it will only get worse in the
    coming years...
    
    /g

    
    re .3, implicitly condoning bomb attacks by the IRA on the 'loyalist'
    paramils perchance? So it would be fair turnaround if the British govt
    went after the IRA godfathers in the republic and blew them up, so
    they'd 'be no more IRA killings'. While the IRA might take some time to
    recover from that, I think the paramils might quite quickly come back
    from such a decapitation on their leadership. This Chicagho gang wars
    redux sceneario just leads to more violence, not less. We're always
    hearing about how the IRA are just 'a symptom of the underyling
    problem'. So perhaps are the UFF et al symptoms of the IRA's campaign
    to bomb them into union. As long as you regard this as a war of
    liberation by the IRA against the combined forces of the British army,
    the Ulster establishment and the Protestant paramils, you are not
    supporting a solution.
    

re .3
    
 Which organisation is it that has killed the most people? 
    
    The IRA.   
    

    re .6
    
    If you mean in one attack, its the British Army.
    

re.3:

>  when the UVF have been killing with impunity both
>  before and after the Shankill attack.

What are you trying to imply here? That the RUC ignores UVF attrocities?
If so, it's simply not true. The arrests and charges speak for themselves.
Also both politicians and the RUC chief have condemned all violence as
abhorrent.

Dave.

    Did I say 'in one attack'?  I am referring to all those killed
    since the present troubles began.  The IRA in its various flavours has
    killed more people than all other organisations combined. 

re .7

Which "attack" was this? 

How many paras were killed at Warrenpoint?



Gary.

    .10
    
        BLOODY SUNDAY

re .7 & .11

While I condemn the "Bloody Sunday" killings, I still think that the British 
Army lost more paras at Warrenpoint.

Please understand I am not looking for a body count comparison, it's just that 
I think you are wrong.

    ..not forgetting the 28 people killed in the Dublin bombings in the
    '70's.
    

I can't believe this! A bloody competition to see who killed most at one 
go? Who's killed the most todate? 

Dave :-(