Conference tallis::celt

  It's no wonder that Sinn Fein would like to start
  negotiations for peace immediately (something the
  British oppose).
 
  The British keep saying different things, and 
  placing different interpretations on their take it or
  leave it, Joint Declaration.  Without direct 
  negotiations, how could one begin to figure what 
  the British government really wants, or really means.

  This is probably just further evidence that the
  British government does not really want peace, but
  instead hope to score some points in a propoganda
  war.

                       Mark

    I have to agree with you.  When the NI conflict has gone
    on for hundreds of years, a "take-it-or-leave-it" declaration
    is very unlikely to be adopted (by either side).
    
    It's all a game of political posturing, seeing which
    group can gain the most out out of the publicity.

    

     There is no argument that the situation in NI is one big political
    game.But like it or not the Irish and British governments have put the
    ball in the IRA's court.Why don't they take this opportunity to call
    their bluff and stop the terror campaign for the 3 months,3 months is 
    not a long time,they've tried using terror and it doesn't(and never
    will) work.So try this road and see where it goes.

     Stop the arguing over how something is worded and try to put a stop to
    the killing.
    
    
     SCott
     

    I agree with you - I believe the IRA should call a cease-fire.
    
    However, a take-it-or-leave approach gives me the impression that the
    British government is not serious about negociating a secure peace.
    
    And don't tell me about terror - the British military has been terrorizing
    Irish people for hundreds of years.  And it sadly continues today.
    
    /George

re. .3

  Excuse me Scott, but wasn't it the Adams-Hume peace
  initiative (with 80 percent support by the people of
  Ireland), that put the ball in the British governments
  court? Why didn't the British government take the
  opportunity to call their "bluff" and accept the
  proposal?  Or is it only take it or leave proposals
  put forth by London and Dublin that merit consideration?

  Why does the British government continue to let it's
  soldiers murder with impunity?  Isn't this just 
  further proof that they are not serious about peace?

  Let's be realistic here.  The British don't want peace,
  that's why their proposals for inviting anyone to the
  peace table always have preconditions.  Why were there
  no pre-conditions on the British justice system, or
  on the violence purportrated by British soldiers?
  Where were the pre-conditions that said the British
  will stop allowing their soldiers to murder and get
  away with it, for the next three months?

  I don't think I've ever heard anything so stupid in
  my whole life as talks about talks about talks.  Why
  not just sit down at the peace table immediately and
  begin negotiations.  I'll tell you why once again,
  because the British do not want peace, all they want
  is to destroy the nationalist community in occupied
  north eastern Ireland.

                     Mark

    re .5
    
    Mark, you keep going on about pre-conditions and talks about talks.
    What pre-conditions exactly?
    
    It's obvious from the IRA's actions since Christmas that they will not
    give up the violence that has been asked for.
    
    While i agree that the Irish have been violated by British government
    policy for years, they are on record as saying that military operations
    would be scaled down in Nationalist areas if the IRA stops it's violent
    campaign and indeed the Nationalists have also said that they do not
    want an immediate withdrawal of troops.
    
    So what is the beef? There are no pre-conditions!
    
    Happy New Year
    
    Bill

 Here's the pre-conditions, take em or leave em.

 1. The IRA must announce a cease-fire of three months.
    Not the British army, because as we all know, they
    are above reproach.  By the way, in the mean time
    we are still allowed to provide loyalist terrorist
    with our hit-lists.

 2. Well, what we really mean is that the IRA must
    turn over all their weapons, no that's not what
    we mean, yes it is, no it isn't, or was it. 
    Who can say for sure, as there are no direct
    negotiations, just press releases, and threats
    that you better take it or else.

 3. You must agree that the status of Ulster, or is it
    northern Ireland, or is it only the six counties
    occupied by British troops, yes that's it.  Well
    anyways the status won't change until a majority 
    of these six counties decide it should.  Now of
    course that's not a voting  majority, or is it,
    or is it an electorate majority.  Well who knows,
    it's not up for discussion, take it or leave it.

 4. By accepting the declaration you must also accept
    the authenticity of the statelet.  Take it or leave
    it.

 5. The British government will not negotiate with 
    Sinn Fein or the Irish Republican Army until these
    conditions are accepted, or will we. No I really 
    mean it now, we have never talked with "terrorists",
    ok, I was lying again.  We will talk with them
    until we decide on a take it or leave declaration,
    at which point we won't talk with them for three
    months after they grovel up to the declaration,
    except of course to issue threats.  We will indirectly
    talk with them if it's to threaten.

  Yes, that's it. Take or leave it.  Oh, and by the
  way, your peace initiative (Adams-Hume), can go
  piss off, we're in charge now.

                    HMG 

    
    Re: .4
    
    Any party to possible negotiations which adopts a "take it or
    leave it attitude" is not committed to negotiating anything.
    
    Steve
    

    
    Ireland is governed by a coalition (headed by Albert Reynolds) of which
    does not include Sinn Fein or the IRA. Britain is governed by the
    the Tory Party led by John Major. If there is a territorial dispute 
    between the 2 countries then surely the two governing bodies should
    be the ones to sort it out and not anybody else. If THEY and only
    THEY wish to allow any other interested parties into the discussions
    THEY should have the right to stipulate the conditions.
    
    As Scott said the conditions aren't asking much, only to end any
    violent IRA activity for 3 months. 
    
    I think the IRA have been privilaged by being given the chance to
    enter the negociations in this way and are only being greedy by
    asking for more (ie the release of nationalist prisoners) at this
    stage. Lets face it violence/terrorism is not a right so why don't
    they give it up and allow this opportunity for peace to grow into
    a reality.
    
    Gordon.
     
    

    
    Re: .9
    
    > ... If THEY and only THEY wish to allow any other interested
    > parties into the discussions THEY should have the right to
    > stipulate the conditions.
    
    Well what are they, discussions or negotiations?  If they are
    discussions between two parties who choose to invite a third then
    they have every right to establish conditions for the third party's
    participation, but if they are negotiations to which they are inviting
    the third party then conditions don't work.  Establishing conditions
    in a negotiation is sort of like saying, "I'll agree to negotiate with
    you but only if I get what I want."  So, one might question whether
    their intent is to assert their right to establish conditions or whether
    it is to get results.
    
    Steve
    
    

 re. .9

   Maybe the people doing the fighting should be the
   ones doing the negotiations.
   There should also not be pre-conditions on 
   negotiations.

                       Mark

    >be the ones to sort it out and not anybody else. If THEY and only
    >THEY wish to allow any other interested parties into the discussions
    >THEY should have the right to stipulate the conditions.
    
    That's the problem in the first place.  Other powers (London, and
    Dublin to some extent) sticking their noses in and ruling without
    representation.
    
    Sinn Fein has every *right* to be involved in negociations.  And so do
    the Unionist parties.  They live there.  Not the British power brokers
    from Downing Street.
    
    What was really sad with the British declaration was that they
    did not declare their intention of withdrawing their military from
    Northern Ireland.  That is a major obstacle to peace in NI.
    
    /George

    > There should also not be pre-conditions on 
   >>negotiations.

     Of course there should,How can you talk peace with someone when they 
     continue to kill.


    SCott

 re. .13

  There wouldn't be much point in talking peace if
  there wasn't a war going on would there?

  You make peace with your bitterest of enemies, not
  your friends.

  The British Army continues to kill with impunity
  (Caraher murder, and subsequent British court decision
  absolving the criminals).  Should the IRA or Sinn Fein
  say they are not going to talk until the British Army
  stops murdering?

  Pre-conditions are only put in place by the British,
  so that peace will not be achieved.

                 Mark

>  There wouldn't be much point in talking peace if
>  there wasn't a war going on would there?

     Your just trying to wind me up,No one can be
    that naive. 

  >The British Army continues to kill with impunity
  >(Caraher murder, and subsequent British court decision
  >absolving the criminals).  Should the IRA or Sinn Fein
  >say they are not going to talk until the British Army
  >stops murdering?
 
     The British Army do not murder anyone.The case you 
    refer to was not murder,The soldier in question
    Believe the occupants of the car had tried to run
    down another Soldier and acted accordingly  
  

    >Pre-conditions are only put in place by the British,
    >so that peace will not be achieved.

     The Government have shown that they are willing to have a
    go at peace.All that is stopping that at the moment is
    the IRA continuing to kill.
    
     In my view the Government have bent to much for the IRA.
    The Scottish National Party have wanted to talk about 
    independence for Scotland and have got no where thru
    peaceful means,yet the IRA get Talks thru Violence ???
    
    
      SCott

re.                      <<< Note 1307.15 by KURMA::SNEIL >>>
    
>     The British Army do not murder anyone.The case you 
>    refer to was not murder,The soldier in question
>    Believe the occupants of the car had tried to run
>    down another Soldier and acted accordingly  
  
    
    to use your own words:
    
     "Your just trying to wind me up,No one can be
    that naive."

    
    Tony.

    
    A couple of points here,
    re.12
    George,
    The withdrawal of British troops is not a possibilty in the short term,
    a fact which the Nationalists have acknowledged; they have said that
    they might require protection from a loyalist backlash; source, Sunday
    Times.
    Also, all that has really been declared is that talks can take place
    once the violence stops for 3 months. Now, if Sinn Fein as part of
    these negotations demands military withdrawal, then that's o.k. If they
    demand an all Ireland vote on Unification, fine no problem. That's what
    negotiating is all about. BTW, if they try and fail and the violence
    resumes then at least they had a go.
    
    re.14
    Anyone who drives through an armed road block might expect to get shot
    at in Ireland! Six nationalist witnesses say they were not asked to
    stop, surprise surprise. Any witness who had said anything else would
    have been dealt with by an IRA kangaroo court no doubt! Juryless!!
    
    
    Bill

 re. .15 & .17

 Mr. Caraher was murdered by British soldiers.  The
 British soldiers were "found innocent" by a British
 judge, because British soldiers can murder Nationalist
 with impunity.

 Thank God an independent inquiry was held by 
 international representatives, or folks might actually
 believe the lies that you and the British government
 have spewed.  At least now, the world knows that not
 only was Mr. Caraher murdered, and an attempt made
 to murder his brother, but that there is no such
 thing as justice in a British court of law, at least
 not for the Irish.

 BTW, I have the full text of the Indepenent inquiry,
 and have read it.  It is obvious that the British
 soldiers murdered Mr. Caraher. 

                        Mark

    Yes Bill, I agree.  A *declaration* of withdrawal is needed however -
    an admission by Britain to remove their soldiers from Irish soil at
    some time in the future.  Not today, not tomorrow, but some time in
    the future.  I am less concerned about an all-Ireland vote and more
    concerned about the demilitarization of Ireland.  To assuage the
    unionist name police, call this process the pacification of Ireland!
    
    There's nothing of strategic value to Britain in Ireland anymore
    that I can think of (with maybe the exception of Doolin ;v).  If there
    is please enlighten me.  Until Britain declares their intent to remove
    the troops (in conjunction with negociated power sharing and an IRA
    cease-fire) I really can't see peace evolving fully.
    
    /George

    Re Last.
    
    Mark
    
    Please explain exactly where you were standing at the roadblock,  to
    gain such an explicit view of this "murder".
    
    Perhaps you could borrow a book from the Public Library that the
    Freedom Fighters accidently fire-bombed.
    
    Regards
    
    Bruce
    
    
    PS.  The first IRA bomb went off less than six hours after their
    Christmas Cease fire ended.  This demonstrated their willingness to
    show the world how serious they are about peace.

    
    George,
    I think we both agree. I don't like the military in Ireland any more
    than you do, but i'd be worried about civil war breaking out if there
    was no armed force.
    
    Bill

 re. .20

  Bruce,
    My explicit view on the murder of Fergal Caraher
  doesn't come from a British judge, but instead from
  the text of the Independent inquiry that was held
  on the shooting of the two brothers.  It contains
  the testimony of the eye-witnesses, and the conclusions
  of each member of the board of Inquiry.

                        Mark

    Mark I'd be interested in reading your independent inquiry. Have you
    posted it?
    
    /George

I don't think anybody on any side envisages an immediate troop withdrawal. You 
would get a civil conflict. All sides do accept this. Sinn fein has indicated
that it would take a number of years for this to happen. 

Britain HAS declared "no strategic interest" in Ireland. Fair enough. However
the declaration as it stands is just words and disappointingly vague.  
Sinn fein have asked for further Clarification and have been putting the paper 
,as it stands, to its people. The note that Mark entered on Bernadette 
Mcaliskeys response is the present view point of most Republicans which 
indicates that republican movement will not be accepting this declaration as 
it stands. 

What many republicans and nationalists are Really looking for is an end to 
Unionist dominance down to local government level and would like to see THIS
as part of the declaration. This is what Sinn fein are looking to sit down and 
talk about. for example...take a city council like Belfast which is under
a majority unionist control and Total unionist dominance...The mis-use of such
dominance is widely acknowledged. A discussion point around splitting such
councils in a number of parts would help alleviate such concerns.

What we will now probably see is the Hume-adams paper published. Should make 
interesting reading.

    rgs,
    
    Mick

 George,
   It's too big to post to the net. It's all the 
 testimony, and reports.  You and anyone else in
 here are welcome to borrow it.  Let me know if
 you're heading by Spit Brook.

                  Mark

    George
    
    Any article that does not support Marks stories becomes to big to post. 
    Anything that fits Marks version no matter how large gets posted.
    
    Mark refers to this phenomena as "Censorship" if he feels that it
    contradicts his views.
    
    You see George Mark thinks that only he knows what is really going on
    in a plave he went on holiday to once a few years ago.  99.9% of the
    western World sit back and laugh and his retoric.
    
    Regards
    
    Bruce.  Who thinks that driving through road blocks anywhere in the
    world could lead to problems unlike Mark.

The biggest problem now, in my opinion, is that the IRA are hopelessly 
split.  There are those who are interested in political solutions and those 
who don't want any solution at all as it would dry up their sources of 
income.  A few incidents clearly demonstrate this.

1) When the Hume-Adams initiative looked as though it was going somewhere, 
the IRA bombed the Shankhill Rd.  This totally destroyed any Unionist 
feeling in favour of the Hume-Adams agreement.  Adams himself said that it 
was wrong and "could not be justified".  It was in effect, the IRA 
destroying it's own initiative.  Why ?  The only answer I can think of is 
that elements within the IRA didn't like the agreement.

2) Gerry Adams said only last week that the Downing St Declaration had it's 
good points but "required some clarification".  Only 24 hours earlier, 
Martin McGuiness said that anything short of a total British withdrawal was 
unnaceptable. The two statements are partly contradictory.   Why ?  Draw 
your owm conclusions.


Mark


 

    LONDON, May 17 (Reuter) - Former U.S. president Jimmy Carter criticised the
British government on Tuesday for refusing to accept offers of outside mediation
to resolve the 25-year conflict in Northern Ireland.
     Carter said the conflict in the British-ruled province might benefit from
the same kind of approach used to make progress in the Middle East peace process
in which the Norwegian government and a non-governmental group acted as "honest
brokers."
     "Both elements in Ireland have asked for help from us (the United States)
and from others outside," the former Democratic president told BBC radio from
Oslo. "The British have...rejected such efforts."
     "The basic premise...is the hope that there would be a multiple approach to
resolving these very difficult and sustained military conflicts and for
governments to say "We can do it but private individuals or private
organisations cannot do it' is seriously wrong," Carter added.<<<<<

    I don't see why the British Government refuses outside help....
    
    
    
    
    The IRA have been receiving it for years.

re. .29

"I don't see why the British Government refuses outside help....
           
    The IRA have been receiving it for years. "


 That's right, the IRA have been receiving outside
 help for their recruitment drives.  That outside
 help being the British security forces.

                 Mark