Conference tallis::celt

    
    Typical muddled twaddle. I wonder how many bomb attacks he has
    to endure in upperstate NY. As for their search for peace, that must
    be why they're trying to kill off policemen in Belfast right now. 
    

Yesterday's Sunday Times said that the RUC has evidence linking certain senior
members of Sinn Fein with terrorist activity. They have held back from laying
criminal charges until the IRA's reaction to the peace proposals becomes
clearer.

Dave

    People on a quest for peace do not blow up small children in shopping
    malls, nor, as they did last week, do they plant firebombs in busy
    London shops.
    
    Even Dick Spring is calling for SF to stop playing games and agree to
    the Peace Initiative.
    
    Laurie.

Isn't this topic title an Oxymoron ??


Mark R.

 re. .2

  Dave,
    Is this the same RUC, part of the British
  security forces, that Amnesty International has 
  documented as colluding with loyalist death squads.

    Anthing the British government says, along with
  it's "security forces" needs to be seen in the 
  context of coming from a liar.

 re. .3
   
    People on a quest for peace do not collude with
  loyalist death squads, so that nationalists men/
  women and children can be murdered.  Ergo, the
  British government has no intention of seeking a
  real peace.  When will the British government stop
  playing games?  When will they stop censoring legal
  political opposition?  When will they end jury-less
  trials?  When will they end tortured confessions?
 
 re. .4
    No Mark, I believe that Sinn Fein is truly 
  committed to a lasting peace (after all, it's their
  constituents who are suffering the most from the
  war with Britain).  It's the British government that
  has proven time and again, that they have no 
  intentions for anything short of holding on to their 
  colony forever.  Let's be honest here and examine the
  facts.  The facts are that the British government, 
  at the highest level, colludes  with and more than 
  likely supplies loyalist terror groups. 
  The British government censors legal political
  opposition.  The British government claim to be
  "peace-keepers" but in reality, British forces can
  murder and mame Irish nationalists with impunity.

  Would a government that was really intent on peace
  continue to do these things?  Would a government 
  that was really intent on peace set pre-conditions
  on folks coming to the peace table?  Would a government
  that was really intent on peace try to shove an
  ambiguous "peace proposal", that maintained a Unionist
  veto, down the throats of Irish nationalists? 
 

                          Mark

>  Would a government
>  that was really intent on peace try to shove an
>  ambiguous "peace proposal", that maintained a Unionist
>  veto, down the throats of Irish nationalists? 
 
Presumably this must apply to the Irish government as well. 

Dave

 re. .6

  Actually Dave, the Irish government has made an
  attempt to clarify the proposal.  Unfortunately,
  the Irish government says one thing, and the
  British government is saying another.

                 Mark

 > When will the British government stop
 > playing games? 
 
    No,It's Sinn Fein that are playing silly buggers,The best chance for
    peace for years and their still arguing over how something is worded
    
    
 >  No Mark, I believe that Sinn Fein is truly 
 > committed to a lasting peace.
    
    That's why they carry the coffins of IRA killers and let their offices
    be used as safe houses and torture houses for IRA members.
    
    > (after all, it's their
    > constituents who are suffering the most from the
    > war with Britain).  
    
     Don't be silly.It's not a war,If the British decided to fight it as a 
    war their life in NI would be even tougher for the people there.There
    would be Tanks and proper armored personnel carriers,Not land rovers.
    There would be  a curfew from 8pm till 6am.there would be double the
    amount of troops on the street.So the British Government are not
    fighting this as a war.....But they should be.


 > The British government claim to be
 > "peace-keepers" but in reality, British forces can
>  murder and mame Irish nationalists with impunity.

    They are peace keepers the Army were put on the street to protect the 
    nationalist community.SO if you had your way the nationalist community 
    would be put back at the mercy of the RUC.Ask the people who they feel
    safer protecting them.
    
    
    
    SCott

    >They are peace keepers the Army were put on the street to protect the 
    >nationalist community.
    
    And to avert a possible invasion from the South.

    
    Har har har - that's pretty funny. 

         <<< Note 1332.10 by NOVA::EASTLAND "I'm the NEA, NEH, NPR" >>>

    
    > Har har har - that's pretty funny. 
    
    Funny, but very true, Irish troops were on the border ready to invade
    in late 69 if memory serves me correctly.
    
    After all it would be bad publicity for the Empire to see the last
    bastion fall into the hands of a small nation like Ireland. 
    
    Ren�

 re. .8

  That right Scott?  So if it was really a war, you'd
 see soldiers patrolling the streets in armored vehicles.
 You'd see the security forces armed with machine guns.
 You'd see the Irish Republicans using mortars to 
 attack the occupying army.  You'd see Irish Republicans
 launching attacks against British economic interests.
 You'd see checkpoints, and watchtowers.  You'd see
 the British government colluding with loyalist death
 squads.  You'd see British soldiers murder legal
 political opposition.  You'd see British undercover
 units murdering opposition soldiers.  You see a 
 suspension of real civil liberties for the civilians
 whose land they were occupying.  
   But I guess in your mind, these things don't happen,
 so it's obviously just a country jaunt for the British
 troops in north east Ireland.

                          Mark

RE:                      <<< Note 1332.5 by KOALA::HOLOHAN >>>

� re. .3
�    
�     People on a quest for peace do not collude with
�   loyalist death squads, so that nationalists men/
�   women and children can be murdered.  Ergo, the
�   British government has no intention of seeking a
�   real peace.  When will the British government stop
�   playing games?  When will they stop censoring legal
�   political opposition?  When will they end jury-less
�   trials?  When will they end tortured confessions?
    
    Mark,
    
    What has this to do with Sinn Fein's "Quest for peace"? I made a
    factual statement which demonstrated beyond doubt that Sinn Fein has no
    desire for peace. You completely failed to address that, and as usual,
    poured forth the vitriolic party line, in a blatant and unsuccessful
    attempt to shift focus from the facts I presented. Pathetic.
    
    Laurie.

    Laurie
    
    You forget that the view of what goes on in NI is so much clearer from
    Planet Holohan than here on planet Earth.
    
    Regards
    
    Bruce

The question of who started what is not relevant when innocent, 
uninvolved people are being murdered.  The IRA cannot be 
considered freedom fighters when they are trying to subvert
the wishes of a million people through violence.  The discrimination
against northern nationalists stank and still does, but murder
stinks WAY more.  Sure people in D4 don't care about
northern nationalists, but the IRA doesn't care about anybody in 
the country, D4s, Unionists, Nationalists, anybody, when they
continue their viciously divise campaign which makes peaceful
unity absolutely unattainable.  I know some people don't have a
problem with violence, but I wish they'd realise that the IRA
have made a peaceful united Ireland impossible.  `BRITS OUT!!' is
way too simplistic, as it would result in the Yugoslaviaisation
of at least Ulster and to a lesser extent the other provinces.
That might suit someone like Gerald who doesn't live here
anymore, and who could take some detached, `history-teacher' type
interest in the situation, but not the rest of us who want to stay 
here because we like it as a place to live.  For me, the island is home,
not a convenient location for psychopaths to seek vague
political justification for sickening, revolting violence.  
I would say that the English are way closer to an understanding 
of the situation than Gerald is because they at least realise that 
violence isn't going to lead to any progress here, a stage that Gerald 
has not yet attained.  I hear on the radio that the Gerry Adams thinks that
the Heathrow bombings should encourage the British to talk to 
Sinn Fein.  This affective mentality! How can anybody take this
sort of political thinking seriously, except those who find
comfort in the undemanding philosophy of blind extremism.
Of all parties involved in the North, including the British
government and the Unionists, the IRA are doing the most
harm to the chances of an eventual United Ireland, IMHO. Peace
for all Ireland and Britain too, please, now!

    

    RE: .15  by NOVA::EASTLAND 
    
    >With author's permission from scc 
    
    What author would that be, Chris?  I read halfway through the thing
    thinking it was your words.  I did not think  it up to your usual
    standard.
    

    
    Not sure. Alan somebody. I could look if you're interested. I just
    thought it captured a mood quite well, and didn't post it for literary
    greatness.
    

    Not that interested in the specifics.  I just thought it should have
    been made clear that this was not from your own lips, so to speak.
    
    In fact, I would suggest that anyone posting stuff from the usenet
    group soc.culture.celtic, post the full header so we can all go out
    there and discuss it rather than cluttering up the CELTS file.  This
    goes particularly for our man Holohan who creates a new topic every
    time he wants to extract something and dump it on us.
    

    
    You're right I should have made it clearer. I didn't want to post the
    header or trailer as I didn't want to make the author subject to
    challenges he couldn't defend through not having access to this
    conference. 
    
    I'm glad you appear to agree it would be nicer if Holohan wouldn't
    start so many topics, when they're really all about the same thing and
    degenerate into the same namecalling.
    
    Perhaps the Moderator would think about limiting new topics on the
    troubles to major breaking events.
    

 re. .18

  Actually Dennis, I didn't pull the article from soc.culture.celtic.
  I had it mailed directly to me.  The articles are discussed not only
  in soc.culture.celtic but also on a couple of list-servers.  
  I couldn't tell you about the discussion in soc.culture.celtic as
  I've not been following that conference lately.

  I'd be happy to leave it up to the moderator to move any of my
  messages to other topics if he believes they fit better under 
  another.

  I wasn't aware that all of our readers had access to these other
  bulletin boards and list servers.  Are you suggesting that we move
  all celtic discussion on to them, and out of this Digital conference?
  Personally I like it better in here.  There is a large reader
  base within the company, and the corporation does not limit or
  censor access in here, as it does with the usenet bulletin boards.


 re. .19

  Could we put all of Eastlands notes in one topic so it would be
  easier to step over them :^)

    
    So why don't you start topics for the various newsfeeds and post them
    there? What reason can you have for starting every other bulletin as a
    new topic, other than for propaganda impact?  
    

 re. .21

 Because I felt that they were their own topics for discussion.  If
 you or anyone else has another note that you would like to see them
 under, you can ask either me, or the moderator to move it to that
 specific note, and I will be glad to shift it.

 There is no "propoganda impact", or propoganda goals.  If you feel
 that any evidence in an article is false or misleading, then speak
 up, this is America, not Britain.

                    Mark

 P.S.
  I still like the idea of an Eastland note :^)

    Naaah, Mark....
    
    Just keep on with your random generator of "Brits Out!", "
    British Army colludes at high level with (Unionist) terrorist killers",
    "The Potato Famine", "Violence is never justified but IRA violence is
    necessary", "Amnesty International slates great Britain"....
    
      ~ ~
     {0 0} 
       "
      -0-
       v  
    
    
    :-))
    
    John

 re. .23

  I've never said "Brits Out!".  I've never justified IRA violence.
  I can understand why other might want the British Out, and I can
  understand why the IRA are reacting violently.

                    Mark

    
    Oh rrright.. 

     understand why the IRA are reacting violently ....by killing people who
    are in the wrong place at the wrong time.
    
    
     SCott

    Not following s.c.c Mark? Why's that then? You were *sooo* active in
    there until you suddenly stopped. Digital doesn't censor or prohibit
    access here unlike the Usenet stuff... A clue perhaps. We haven't had
    our knuckles wrapped for spouting pro-IRA stuff in public, on the
    Usenet with the words .dec.com at the bottom have we? If so, about
    bloody time. This company has enough problems without that sort of
    publicity.
    
    So, you can understand why the IRA are reacting violently. I can't;
    please explain. Also, perhaps you could explain how much you'd
    understand if the US Arab population started blowing up Jewish-owned
    Bostonian shopping malls etc. in retaliation for the Hebron massacre
    (perpetrated by an American Jew). What's that? You wouldn't. No, I
    thought not.
    
    There, some more questions for you to ignore. However, a small word in
    your ear Mark. Everytime you ignore these questions, your credibility
    slips deeper and deeper into kiddy-land. As far as I'm concerned, it's
    already zero, but there are a lot of people reading this conference,
    trying to understand what's what in NI, and you Mark, are not doing
    your cause any favours at all.
    
    Laurie.

re. .27

  Let's forget about Britain and Ireland for a second and talk
  hypothetically.

  Suppose a Generic government occupied and sent its soldiers
  to hold onto some foreign land.  Now suppose in addition they
  enacted oppressive legislation, economic apartheid, jury-less trials,
  censorship of legal political parties, and a policy of collusion
  with the colonial death squads that they had planted in this 
  foreign land.  What's more, despite the democratic wishes of a 
  majority of this foreign land, they decided to permanently occupy
  1/4 of the land, and create an artificial majority of colonists
  in the occupied section.

  Now suppose a native resistance movement formed from all this 
  oppression and began to fight this Generic government.  Could
  you understand why this native resistance movement might use
  violent means to fight this generic government?


                          Mark

    RTw  03/15 1632  IRISH LEADER SAYS HEATHROW MORTARS A MISTAKE

    NEW YORK, March 15 (Reuter) - Irish Prime Minister Albert Reynolds said
    Tuesday that the mortar attacks on London's Heathrow Airport by the
    Irish Republican Army were a "grave miscalculation" that would not help
    the peace process.

    Talking to reporters after a New York speech, Reynolds said "the
    attacks on Heathrow Airport were a grave miscalculation in my view and
    certainly will not advance the peace process."

    The IRA has claimed responsibility for three mortar attacks on London's
    major airport in the past week.

    "It certainly was a strange logic if somebody is trying to present it
    as a contribution towards advancing the peace process," Reynolds said.
    "I certainly can't understand that logic and neither can the general
    public," he said.

    His remarks followed a speech to Irish-American business leaders in
    which he encouraged increased U.S. investment in Ireland.

    He said that U.S. companies currently employ 20 percent of Ireland's
    manufacturing work force and that the United States enjoys a healthy
    trade surplus with Ireland.

    REUTER

    RE: .28
    
    Mark,
    
    In your "hypothetical" example, is the "occupying force" a legitimate,
    internationally recognised goverment of many years standing, and is
    there a democratic process open to the "freedom fighters"? Have the
    brave "freedom fighters" been offered a chance to sit down and
    negotiate with the "occupying force" who have vowed to bow to the
    wishes of a democratically determined majority in the "occupied
    quarter", said seat earned simply by eschewing the practice of maiming,
    killing and bombing innocent civilians?
    
    Lastly, I cannot see any excuse whatsoever for bombing, killing and
    maiming innocent civilians, whatever the circumstances, however
    laudable the aims or noble the cause. Anyone who can find it in his/her
    heart to make such excuses is frighteningly sick.
    
    Laurie.
    
    Laurie.

That's very good. A simplified history of Ireland compressed to only 9 lines.
Just the job for understanding a complex situation.

For the mentally challenged.
 
Dave 

    
    re .28, now _that_ is one Holohan new topic I would like to see.
    He'll get creamed, but then do the usual refusal to answer questions
    when he starts losing. I know my history a lot better than you do
    Holohan, and I just challenge you to start that note, with the proviso
    that you agree up front to answer every question on the topic that's
    addressed to you.  But before you do, make sure you understand your
    facts. 
    

 re. .30

"is the "occupying force" a legitimate,
 internationally recognised goverment of many years standing"

 Yes. It is also a signatory to the International Human rights
 convention, which by default has made its violations of human
 rights, the concern of the international community.

"and is
 there a democratic process open to the "freedom fighters"

 Not really, a true democratic process does not entail censorship
 of legal political opposition, and state sponsored murders of
 that opposition.

"Have the
 brave "freedom fighters" been offered a chance to sit down and
 negotiate with the "occupying force""

 No.  They've been told basically that they, and they alone must
 submit to a cease-fire for three months.  The government forces
 meanwhile will continue to collude with the colonial death squads,
 fake evidence in jury-less trials, and allow it's forces to
 terrorize the native community.

 There are also a list of pre-conditions for sitting down at the
 negotiating table.  One is the acceptance of a colonist veto
 right over the whole Island.  There are also ambiquities in the
 pre-conditions that the government forces refuse to elaborate on.

 "said seat earned simply by eschewing the practice of maiming,
    killing and bombing innocent civilians?"

 No the seat is being denied to a legal political opposition party
 that was voted in by it's constituents.
 The fighting is being carried out by another organization, that 
 hasn't even been invited to the table under any conditions.

                  Mark

 

    re.28
    
    yes i understand it. They were called the Sioux, Cheyenne, Apache etc
    and they now live in reservations in a place called America. :>)
    
    That is who you are talking about isn't it?
    

    1332.23 (Heelan)....accusing Mark of espousing "Violence is never
    justified but IRA violence is necessary.
    
    1332.24 (Holohan)..."I have never justified IRA violence"
    
    1342.24 (Holohan)..."Noone is for violence.  That said it's easy to
    understand that there are times when it is wrong but necessary"
    
    Mmmmm.....
    
    :-)
    
    John

 re. 35
  Because I understand IRA violence, does not mean
 I justify it.
                Mark

    
    
    Oh, so you don't believe in 'shaking the tree' any more eh Holohan?
    That "How to use words like the Iraqi Ambassador" course must be very
    useful eh? 
    

    re .36
    
    Don't wriggle, Mark.....it'll drive the hook in further.
    
    John

	 DUBLIN (Reuter) - The IRA's political wing Sinn Fein said
Sunday that a three-day truce this week would open the way to
lasting peace if Britain responded positively.
	 Sinn Fein leaders indicated that the Irish Republican Army
cease-fire could become open-ended if Britain gives at least a
sign of goodwill before the truce expires at the end of Friday.
	 ``The importance of this suspension is in the potential it
provides,'' Sinn Fein deputy leader Martin McGuinness told a
small Dublin rally to remember the 1916 Easter uprising against
British rule. ``This decision is of the utmost importance.''
	 British Prime Minister John Major has called the cease-fire
an inadequate and cynical exercise which will bring the IRA,
which wants to reunite Ireland, no political advantage.
	 Sinn Fein hopes Major, who authorized secret contacts with
the IRA until last year while saying in public that it would
turn his stomach to talk to the guerrillas, might nevertheless
make discreet contact before a permanent cease-fire.
	 At a rally in the Northern Irish capital Belfast, Sinn Fein
chief Gerry Adams, a former member of the British parliament,
said Major's public scorn was less important.
	 ``We are not concerned to force a public climbdown by John
Major. We will be flexible,'' he said.
	 ``But we won't accept anything less after 25 years of hard,
relentless struggle than our supporters' right to be treated
like all other citizens. We ask for no more or no less.''
	 The Sinn Fein leaders demanded that Britain must recognise
them as a legitimate political force now and talk to them on
equal terms about last December's Anglo-Irish peace plan.
	 The plan offers Sinn Fein, who are currently ostracized, a
place at talks on the future of Northern Ireland, but not before
the IRA proves it has ended its violence for good.
	 Whether Britain will agree to talk to Sinn Fein, to provide
the ``clarifications'' of the peace plan which it demands, while
only a temporary truce is on the table, is anyone's guess.
	 Major knows such contacts would enrage politicians from
Northern Ireland's pro-British Protestant majority who are dead
set against any moves to unite Ireland or talk with Sinn Fein.
	 But he must also remember that the leaked revelation of last
year's secret talks, far from being met with cries of hypocrisy
from Britain's main parties, boosted his standing.
	 The ``clarification'' issue has stalled the peace process.
Britain and Ireland say the plan is clear, while Sinn Fein has
remained vague about what it really wants to know.
	 But in an apparent softening of its position, Sinn Fein said
it would not insist that the Protestant majority in the North be
stripped of their effective veto to any change in the province's
status before the IRA could stop fighting.
	 Hard-line republicans mistrustful of the Anglo-Irish offer
say the truce, the first since 1975 apart from annual Christmas
ceasefires, is a last chance for Britain to make a concession.
	 If London failed, it would be ``back to square one.''
	 ``There would have to be a spectacular (attack) to clearly
focus British public opinion on what their government had
missed,'' one hardline republican source said.
	 Major's office said in a statement Sunday night: ``The
leaders of Sinn Fein and the IRA know what is needed to bring
peace to Northern Ireland, and if they choose to they can
deliver it.
	 ``What is needed is not a three-day ceasefire, after which
the killing would begin again, but a permanent end to violence.
	 ``Sinn Fein should stop playing with people's emotions and
deliver the end to violence that the people of Northern Ireland
long for.''

--
--
*******************************************************************************

  Mark Holohan, DEC, USA        "Character is what you are in the dark" - 
  [email protected]                                      John Whorfin
  
  The opinions expressed are mine and not necessarily the opinions of 
  Digital Equipment Corporation.

*******************************************************************************

    

     All a ceasefire means is that some poor sod gets his head blown off
    at the end of it.

     And why should the BG jump to the tune of the minority in NI.


    
     SCott

 Scott,
   What's to lose?  The gain can be peace.
               Mark

    RE: .39  by KOALA::HOLOHAN 
    
    Could we make it a rule, please, to not post Usenet stuff without
    including the header information?
    
    That way, if any of us want to discuss the content of the posting we
    can feel free do so there.
    

  re. .42

  "DUBLIN (Reuter)"

  That means Reuter's news-service, as in source of the news.
  Original article pulled from clari.world.europe.western, a non-discussion
  news-feed.

               Mark

    RE: .43  by KOALA::HOLOHAN 
    
  >re. .42

  >"DUBLIN (Reuter)"

  >That means Reuter's news-service, as in source of the news.
  >Original article pulled from clari.world.europe.western, a non-discussion
  >news-feed.
    
    Maybe we shouldn't bother discussing them in here, either.
    

 re. .44
 Agreed, perhaps you shouldn't.
        

AP/RN March 30th

Sinn Fein welcomes IRA announcement
Adams calls for direct talks with British government

In a response to the IRA's announcement of a 72-hour suspension  on Wednesday
night, 30 March, Gerry Adams welcomed the move and called for a positive
response from the British government:

''Sinn Fein welcomes tonight's development. It represents an important
initiative and has created an opportunity to break the stalemate in the peace
process.

''This stalemate was created and is sustained by the British government's
repeated refusal to provide clarification to Sinn Fein about the Downing
Street Declaration and the processes envisaged in it. Such clarification has
been provided to all the other parties. It should now be provided to Sinn Fein
as a matter of urgency.

''Direct dialogue is the obvious and most effective method of doing this. I
call upon John Major to authorise direct and immediate talks between our party
and his government representatives so that the peace process can be moved
forward.

''Just as importantly, direct dialogue would also indicate a genuine interest
on the part of the British government, in developing a real peace process
through the essential recognition of Sinn Fein's rights as a political party,
the validity of our mandate and the democratic integrity of our electorate.
''Sinn Fein has no great concern to be engaged in bilateral discussions in
constitutional matters with the London government. I have publicly outlined my
position in this regard on a number of occasions. This is properly the
business of future talks involving the two governments and representatives of
all the Irish people including Sinn Fein.

''This however, is not the point of our reasonable calls for clarification.
Clarification clearly is not negotiation. ''Clarification is required so that
Sinn Fein and everyone else can properly and fully explore how the peace
process can be moved forward at this time and specifically, how the Downing
Street Declaration fits into this.

''I understand that Mr Major faces many difficulties. Tonight's announcement
clearly eases some of these. It should be built upon. The search for peace
requires imagination and determination.''

Earlier in the week, Gerry Adams responded to comments by British government
ministers.

''The British government has once again ruled out talks with Sinn Fein,'' he
said. ''Patrick Mayhew in a recent public statement has attacked me for
seeking to engage him and John Major in order to find a way out of the current
deadlock. Mr Mayhew has also described Articles Two and Three of the Irish
constitution as an anachronism. The tone of these statements, as with Douglas
Hurd's recent remarks, are disappointing.''

Adams continued: ''The refusal of the British government to communicate is at
the nub of this critical phase of the peace process. Perhaps John Major's
internal problems, particularly his dependence on the Tory right wing, may be
dictating the tenor of these statements. If so, it is very feeble grounds for
persisting with such obduracy given the importance of what is involved.''
----

    I still fail to see exactly where and why this "clarification" is
    required.
    
    Laurie.

 re. .47

  Because a peace process entails dialogue, between
  the parties seeking peace.  It's not going to really
  get very far without it, is it?
  What's to be lost by the British government explaining
  it's position?  Everything is to be gained.

                Mark

re: clarification


Apparently two hooded and armed members of the Tyrone Brigade IRA set their
agenda yesterday, when they interuppted a evening celebrating the Easter
Uprising in Belfast.

"Sinn Fein's appeals for direct talks with the Government in return for a 
 72 hour ceasefire commencing at midnight suffered a setback yesterday when
 IRA hard-liners warned thet Britain would ' be glad to get out of Ireland when
 our work is done '". ( reproduced without permission from the Guardian 5/4/94).



re: Mark Holohan

 I admire your commitment to something ( god knows what it is ), but I feel
 that your sentiments and the passion with which you display them, are 
 somewhat out of touch with what the average Irishman/woman feels. The 
 celebratory march down O'Connell Street ( led by Martin McGuinness ) was 
 attended by 2 million? No.  200,000? No. 20,000? No. I am afraid just
 200 people turned up. 


 Stuart 
  

                                 The Guardian
                                 April  4, 1994
              DIRECT CONTACTS MAY PROLONG IRA CEASEFIRE, ADAMS HINTS
                 by DAVID SHARROCK IN BELFAST AND PATRICK WINTOUR


    Gerry Adams appeared to concede ground yesterday on what might lead to an
extension of this week's 72-hour IRA ceasefire when he said Sinn Fein would be
flexible if John Major authorised direct contacts.

    The Sinn Fein leader said he was satisfied with the clarification of the
Downing Street declaration given by the Irish prime minister, Albert Reynolds,
in private correspondence. Asked if the same form of contact from London would
suffice, Mr Adams replied: "Let Mr Major contact us and we'd work all of that
out afterwards."

    He said: "I faxed Mr Major a letter in which I asked him to authorize a
representative of his government to contact our party. Let him do that and then

all of these things will become easier to resolve."

    However, Downing Street last night called on Mr Adams to stop playing with
people's emotions.

    "The leaders of Sinn Fein and the IRA know what is needed to bring peace
to Northern Ireland and if they choose to, they can deliver it," a statement
from Mr Major's office said. "What is required is not a three-day ceasefire
after which the killing would begin again, but a permanent end to violence.
Sinn Fein should stop playing with people's emotions and bring an end to the
violence that the people of Northern Ireland long for."

    Senior ministerial sources said private contacts between  Sinn Fein and the

 Northern Ireland  Office were highly unlikely at this stage.

    An opportunity will come on Wednesday, the first day of the ceasefire, when,

according to reports in Belfast, several civil servants will meet Sinn Fein
officials in West Belfast.


    "Civil servants will try to clear up any points that Sinn Fein need
clarified," a security source is quoted by a Northern Ireland newspaper.
Catholic priests in West Belfast were acting as intermediaries, it said.

    The Northern Ireland Office denied the report and Mr Adams said there had
been no contacts with the Government since the announcement of the IRA
ceasefire last week. But in his Easter message the Catholic Primate of All
Ireland, Dr Cahal Daly, said the British and Irish governments would have a
serious responsibility to respond positively if the IRA ceasefire was extended.

    The speculation about an extension of the ceasefire followed confirmation
that the army has stopped patrolling part of Derry.  It is understood that the
Royal Irish Regiment was relieved of its duty of patrolling the cityside of
Derry last Tuesday. The army said the move was for "operational requirements
only", but the Democratic Unionist Party believed the decision was politically
motivated.

    Mr Adams was speaking after addressing thousands of supporters at the
republican plot in Milltown cemetery, West Belfast, on the 78th anniversary of
the Easter Rising. Speaking at what he called a holy spot for republicans, he
said this generation would "drive the British out of our country".


    Mr Adams said Sinn Fein did not want to force a public climbdown by Mr
Major.  But he was convinced that Britain was planning to withdraw and that the

Prime Minister would concede official recognition of Sinn Fein with direct
talks.

    "Absolutely. He may not do it now, he has problems of his own and
republicans are prepared to acknowledge that, but I am sure that there's no
other way forward but for him to engage with us, or for his successor to engage

with us," said Mr Adams.

    Anxiety that Mr Major might be replaced was reflected in Dublin by Mr
Adams's associate Martin McGuinness, who said a challenge to the Prime Minister

would be unhelpful to the peace process.

    Mr Adams said clarification could be quite simple. "We could ask questions,

they would give us answers. Then Sinn Fein would be able to make a definitive
response to the Downing Street declaration and move out of this very critical
phase and into the next one."


    He said it was the first time in 20 years that the IRA had called such a
ceasefire. By so doing it had moved to break the impasse. "Even though people
say that 72 hours is very short, From an IRA position 72 hours is a very, very
long time."

    Earlier Cardinal Daly repeated his belief that the IRA was sincere about
peace. He pleaded with it to extend the ceasefire.  "If they do meaningfully
extend the ceasefire I believe that the British and Irish governments would have

a serious responsibility to make a constructive response to republicans,
particularly in relation to their repeated pleas that they be given
clarification and that they receive indications from the governments about
further developments following the permanent cessation of violence."

    Mr Adams's speech and others by leading Sinn Fein activists throughout
Ireland were dominated by one question: Is it unreasonable to seek to establish

Britain's long-term intention towards Ireland?

    Speakers also addressed the fears of Northern Ireland's Unionists, but Mr
McGuiness and Sinn Fein's chief strategist, Mitchel McLaughlin, both repeated
that the Unionist veto had to be removed.

    "It is a matter of plain common sense that the Unionist political veto over

political progress must be removed if we are ever to progress to agreement on
democratic structures in Ireland," Mr McLaughlin said.

    Earlier a hooded IRA member in paramilitary clothing read the IRA's Easter
statement announcing the ceasefire to 300 supporters at Crossmaglen, Co Armagh.

    I, for one, am very disappointed at the governments reaction to the
    ceasefire.  I think a lot of it has to do with internal Conservative
    Party politics.  This is nothing new of course.  You only need to look
    at the fiasco over the extension of the EEC and the new voting rights
    to see that the Conservative Party will always put their own welfare
    before that of the country.
    
    I still believe that talks should take place but Sinn Fein be told
    that as soon as the ceasefire ends, so too do the talks.  OF course,
    this doesn't take into account the reaction of the Loyalist
    Paramilitiaries.  I would imagine that were talks to take place, they
    would provoke the IRA into breaking the ceasefire.
    
    Mark R.
    
    PS.  I don't know why Sinn Fein want to talk to the Government anyway. 
    You can't trust the current bunch of chancers any further than you
    could throw them.  Remember the 'no tax rises' pledge at the last
    election ?  Well thanks to the tax changes implemented yesterday, I
    will be over �300 a year worse off.  
    
    Sorry for rat-holing, but I had to get that off my chest.
    

    RE -.1
    
    Mark,
    
    You voted for Unionism. You got the Government that the people of
    England chose. What are you whingeing about ?
    
    Ed.

>    You voted for Unionism. You got the Government that the people of
>    England chose. What are you whingeing about ?
    
I didn't choose them.  In fact I'd be glad to see the back of them.

Chris.

   <<< Note 1332.52 by IRNBRU::EDDIE "Eddie McInally, FIS, Ayr. 823-3537" >>>
                            -< Rat-hole alert !!!! >-
>    You voted for Unionism. You got the Government that the people of
>    England chose. What are you whingeing about ?
    
    
    Did someone say deja-vu ?  I did not vote vote for any party commited
    to Unionism Eddie.  As for whinging, that's the SNP's job isn't it ?
    
    Anyway, that's enough rat-holing.  We've done this before in
    ::SCOTLAND.
    
    Mark 

    Mark,
    
    As for deja-vu, I knew you were going to say that :-)
    
    The last time I read the manifesto of the party you voted for (I'll
    avoid naming it to spare any embarassment) Independence for Scotland
    was not mentioned. That party supports Devolution. NOT Independence.
    
    As for the echo - Silence does not echo.
    
    Ed.
    

ADDRESS BY SINN FEIN COUNCILLOR MITCHEL MC LAUGHLIN TO THE
CITY CLUB OF CLEVELAND ON APRIL 29th
My name is Mitchel Mc Laughlin.  I live in the British occupied six north
 eastern counties of Ireland.  I am a democratically elected official of
Derry City Council.  Ironically while you can hear my political views British
Government censorship denies that right to the voters who elected me.

Thirty years ago Prime minister Vorster of South Africa stated that he
would gladly trade all the coercive legislation at his governments
disposal for a single piece of the coercive legislation under which
British Governments rules the part of Ireland I live in.  But the times
they are changing.

Irish Republicans have been following the historic events in South Africa
this week with more than an academic interest.  The long struggle for freedom, j
   ustice
and democracy there have many echoes for us in Ireland.  This week,
for the first time, all the people of South Africa are voting to
determine the future of their country. It has been a painful and
difficult process but it has been achieved through an inclusive peace
process designed to tackle the causes of division and conflict.  Without
external interference the people of South Africa are patiently working through
a broadly agreed democratic framework and time frame which will lead to a
political settlement and to peace.

None of this was achieved by a unilateral ~cease-fire~ by one party or group,
or by imposing preconditions on anyone - it has been achieved because the
main parties there accepted that the basis of a settlement had to be founded
on democratic principles applied to all.

The conflict in Ireland, stemming from the same injustices of colonization,
discrimination and displacement is no different.

The solution here as in South Africa is that inclusive dialogue and negotiation
   are
essential to resolve our problems.  For Sinn Fein our political priority for
years now is to instigate and encourage the construction of a peace process
which will make steady progress to a settlement by addressing the core
political issues and the causes of conflict.

We are committed to the establishment of a real peace process.

THE BROAD PRINCIPLES
Just over 12 months ago the news of the discussions between SDLP Party leader
John Hume and Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams became public.

From their joint labours an agreement was reached on a set of proposals which
holds the potential to end the violence and bring peace.  The IRA has expressed
its positive endorsement of this position.

The proposals were based on a number of broad principles. Both governments were
fully informed of these matters.

The basic principles are;
*     That the Irish people as a whole have the right to national
self-determination.

*     That the exercise of self-determination ia a matter for agreement between
the people of Ireland.

*     That the consent and allegiance of unionists are essential ingredients if
   a lasting
peace is to be established.

*     That the unionists cannot have a veto over British policy.

*     That the British Government must join the persuaders.

*     That the London and Dublin governments have a major responsibility to
secure political progress.

A process to realise these principles was agreed, containing the political
dynamic which could create the conditions for a demilitarization of the
situation and a lasting peace.

The Hume/Adams proposals were supported by nationalists all over Ireland and
beyond.  For northern nationalists in particular the hope that they held was a
break in what had seemed to be a political stalemate that would not be broken.
Up until now this time has seemed that the political landscape in relation
to the conflict was frozen over.

Since then revelation has followed revelation and looking back now it is
possible to get some sense of the substantial progress that has been made
and the great potential which this represents.  The question of the North
and the vital necessary fora peace process has been top of the political
and media agenda in Ireland and Britain for the last six months.

We must not let it be sidelined and silenced again.  There is real
frustration and fear among northern nationalists that the momentum for peace
has been slowed down.

What has emerged since the Hume/Adams agreement would have seemed incredible
only a year ago.

That there would be a consensus between nationalists in the six counties,
supported by the Dublin government.

*   That the IRA would be move to say that this could be a basis for peace.
*   That the IRA would temporarily suspend operations to encourage the
development of the peace process.
*   That there would be protracted dialogue between Sinn Fein and the British
government.
*   That both governments and the international community would be focused
on this conflict in a way never witnessed before.

THE IRISH PEACE INITIATIVE.

The impact of all this was considerable.  For the first time ever an agreed
initiative by northern nationalists became the catalyst for change and
political movement.  The peace process emerged from this.

Both governments were sharply focussed on the conflict.

The Irish Peace Initiative forced the British government in particular to
face up the its responsibilities.

At one level this saw London negotiate the Downing Street Declaration, a
document which suggests shifts in British government thinking but which is
so ambiguously drafted as to leave it open to widely differing interpretations.

NEGATIVE SIGNALS

At a second level however, after the Irish peace initiative emerged, the
British government adopted a hard uncompromising attitude towards Republicans
and northern nationalists.  Mr Major tried to cover-up the extent of his
knowledge of Gerry Adams' discussions with John Hume; both Major and Mayhew
sought to cover-up the dialogue with Sinn Fein and abused a trusted line of
contact which had been in place for over two decades; Gerrry Adams was
excluded under coercive legislation from entering Britain; intense lobbying
sought to deny him a visa to the US; and the activities of British Forces and
their allies in the Loyalist death squads significantly increased.  Northern
Nationalists are at the receiving end of official and unofficial collusion.
Sinn Fein remains a censored party.

THE DOWNING STREET DECLARATION

The Downing Street Declaration marks a stage in the peace process.  Sinn Fein
and the nationalist community are examining the Declaration in the context of
the overall search for a real and lasting peace.  Sinn Fein is particularly
looking at the Declaration in the light of our peace objectives which are;

   *   To eradicate the causes of violence in Ireland.
   *   To bring about the exercise of the right to national self-determination
by the Irish people as a whole.
   *   To establish a peace process to bring this about.

This commitment underscores our reasonable call for the British government to
provide clarification to us on the Declaration.

In the pursuit of peace Sinn Fein is prepared to take risks.  Others must do
likewise.  But we are not prepared to take a leap in the dark.  Can anyone be
reasonably expected to do that?

Clarification has been provided to all other parties on request.  Sinn fein
and our electorate have the right to equality of treatment

So, we have questions to ask of London and we require direct dialogue, not
protracted deliberations or negotiations so that answers can be provided to us.
    The
areas which require clarification are;
   *   matters of text in what is an ambiguous declaration.
   *   differences in interpretation of and commentary on the declaration.
   *   the steps envisaged to advance the peace process.

If as we are being told Britain has no longer any selfish interest in Ireland, a
   nd the only
problem today is the legacy of the past - the divisions among the people in
Ireland - then it is obvious that this division can only be healed by
agreement.

In these circumstances, is it not reasonable for democrats to seek from the
British government,(given not only its responsibility for that legacy and its
authority in the present situation) that it should endeavor to heal that
division and to promote agreement among our people?

Is it unreasonable to ask the British Government what process, time-frame and
frame-work it proposes for reaching such agreement?  Is it unreasonable to
seek to establish Britain's long term intention towards Ireland? Our request
for clarification is to allow us to properly explore what contribution the
declaration can make to the overall peace process.

Furthermore, direct dialogue would indicate a genuine interest on the part of
the British government, in developing a real peace process through the
recognition of Sinn Fein's rights as a political party, the validity of our
mandate and the democratic integrity of our electorate.  But instead what we
are being afforded by the British Government at present is censorship,
exclusion orders and collusion between British forces and their allies in the
loyalist murder gangs in concerted assassination campaign against Sinn Fein
members and supporters.

MOVING INTO CRISIS

Regrettably at this crucial point in the peace process we are in a stalemate
on the clarification issue.  It is a stalemate caused by the British
Government's inflexible and inexcusably trenchant position.  Consequently,
a process in which we have all invested much time and effort and considerable
hope of moving into a crisis.  An Taoiseach Albert Reynolds acknowledged
this in part of his speech earlier this week.

Last month the British government arrogantly dismissed Sinn Fein's effort to
utilize the recent temporary IRA suspension of activities to break the
political stalemate which exists over the clarification issue.  This
uncompromising stand is in stark contrast to Britain's support for dialogue
as a means of resolving conflict in other situations.

It appears to indicate a British government stubbornly refusing to break from
the failed policies of the past.

This is clearly not good enough.  If the tragedy of Ireland's long conflict,
is to end, there must be a willingness on Britain's part to be clear about
its intentions and to adopt pragmatic political strategies which can develop
in the long term.

It has been variously reported and speculated that Mr Major's refusal to
break the obstruction around the clarification issue is linked to his concern
about his conservative right wing and his dependency upon the Unionists votes
in the British Parliament for survival.

If this is true and if he lacks the political nerve to deal with this how
can he hope to tackle the infinitely more serious decisions which lie ahead
in any peace process.  Are our hopes for peace to be blocked by the
Conservative party's right wing and the unionists?.

Is the chance for an end to this long conflict to be sacrificed in the
interest of internal party politics in Britain.

Mr Major is not alone in having difficulties.  We all have them.  But they
have to be overcome.

Since the beginning of this year there have been almost daily attacks by
loyalist death squads on the nationalist community.  Only luck has thwarted
the intention to cause dozens of deaths.  British collusion with the murder
gangs is irrefutable.  A British Army soldier has been charged with passing
information to loyalists this week.  This is but the tip of the collusion
iceberg.  The IRA has also been responsible for a number of deaths.  All acts
of violence by all parties to the conflict point up the need to continue and
redouble our efforts in a peace process.

A willingness to overcome these problems is a measure of commitment to
finding a solution.  It is what makes the difference between a peace process
which works and one which grinds to a halt.

REPUBLICAN FLEXIBILITY

Sinn Fein has sought throughout all our discussions to adopt a flexible
approach.

For its part the IRA has indicated its commitment to the search for peace.
 Last May it agreed to a two week suspension of activity to facilitate
negotiations between Sinn Fein and the British government.  The British
government closed the door on that opportunity.

In October the IRA publicly endorsed the agreement which Mr Hume and Gerry
Adams had produced and on a number of occasions since then it has expresses
its commitment to the development of a peace process.

A further measure of its sincerity was the three day suspension undertaken by
the IRA several weeks ago.  This exceptional unilateral and unconditional
initiative which created an unparalleled opportunity.  The British government
closed the door on this initiative also.

THE UNIONISTS

The Unionist leadership fears change, however limited  They feel more secure
with the failed policies of the past than with the prospect of building a
better, a different future.

Yet, the partition of Ireland has not only failed nationalist; it has also
failed unionists.  It has encouraged in them a paranoid distrust of all
nationalists.  And despite deals between some unionists and the British
government, most unionists do not trust the British.

Consequently unionists face a future of unremitting uncertainty dependent
upon the which of whichever British government is in power; fearful of the
encroaching tide of history which year by year undermines the artificial
majority created in 1921.

The tragedy of partition is that it prevented the nationalist and unionist
people from creating one healthy and diverse political unit on this island.

There is much talk, about healing the division between the people of the north.
 The British have spent millions of pounds in propaganda in America to try
to portray what is happening in the north of Ireland as irrational sectarian
 strife.  But the division of our people was institutionalized by partition.
Partition not only insured division, the nature of the six county state
demanded division for its survival.  This is the injustice that Britain
visited on us all, nationalist and unionist.  We are all victims in Ireland.
Partition locks unionists into a mindset, a time warp, of bigotry and
distrust of their fellow Irish people, of the north and of the south.

HEAL THE WOUND

The social, economic, political and cultural health of the nation suffered
by the division.  It is time to heal the wound.

Sinn Fein wants to unite the people of Ireland.  We do not seek to coerce any
section of our people.  The consent and agreement of all of the people are
essential in the construction of a stable and permanent settlement.

The recent proposal by Mr Reynolds, in which he offered the nationalists and
unionists of the north 30% of government places is just one example of the
generosity of spirit which permeates Irish nationalism.

While the negative response by unionist politicians to Mr Reynolds and the
IRA suspension may satisfy the more reactionary elements within unionism it
is ignoring the widespread desire for peace as well as the fact that political
conditions have changed irreversibly in the last 12 months.

The unionist people deserve more than their leaders.  There has to be a look
to the future on their part.  How will that happen?  What must changed to
persuade the unionist leadership to move forward to embrace an inclusive
settlement?

THE UNIONIST VETO

Sinn Fein is firmly convinced that as long as unionists are assured of a veto
over change then there is neither reason nor incentive for them to move
beyond the laager wall.

Sinn Fein have said that we need and want the consent, agreement and
involvement of unionists in deciding the future of this country.  But to
deliberately confuse the issue of consent with the upholding of a veto over
any change at all is to perpetuate division and conflict.

The partition of Ireland was brought about by a British Act of Parliament for
which not a single Irish vote was cast.

Northern nationalists have in a vicious and violent statelet for 70 odd years.
 We were forced, at the point of a gun, into an arbitrarily created unionist
state.  We were given no choice, were not asked for our consent.  We had no
veto, no domestic or international protector of our rights.  We were
victimised and discriminated against, oppressed and imprisoned, denied our
aspirations and our political validity.  We were treated as second-class
citizens, dehumanised and driven from our official history.  Yet we are still
here, still determined, and still willing to be generous.

Last week speaking to Leinster House An Taoiseach Albert Reynolds emphasised
his recognition of the very deep and yawning gap between the British
government and Sinn Fein and this is a situation which is going to have to
be bridged at some time.

I welcome his remarks.  Mr. Reynolds is right.  There is a 'yawning gap' and
it must be bridged.  Unfortunately the British government's current policy is
effectively thwarting efforts to remove the obstacles which are blocking
progress.

Consequently the peace initiative in which all of us have invested
considerable time and effort and much hope is in danger of going into
crises.  We must all redouble our efforts to prevent this from happening.

                       REMOVING THE IMPEDIMENTS

The peace process has as its objectives the securing of a democratically
based agreement and democratic structures of government, all of which must be
built on the freely given consent of the Irish people.

At this stage in the process we need to encourage everyone to focus their
attention on the pressing need to remove the impediments to the promotion
and achievement of these objectives and on the measures and processes
required to bring them about.

                          THE ROLE OF THE USA

The Clinton Administration, despite sustained British pressure, has displayed
a welcome willingness to take a fresh look at the conflict.

The recent brief trip by Party leader Gerry Adams to New York convinced all
of us that there is a tremendous well of goodwill here in the U.S.

The United States can play a significant role in creating the political
conditions for peace.  Indeed, it might well be useful if the US
 administration were to address the current impasse in the process, and
seek to persuade the British government to adopt the same principles of
conflict resolution which both governments support elsewhere.

                        OVERCOMING DIFFERENCES

In this conflict, as in South Africa, all of the participants have differing
views and perceptions of each others role and intentions.  The gap which
separate Republicans from the British government is wide and deep, but is
 one which must and can be bridged.

Republicans have consistently indicated our willingness to develop a
political process which will take account of the many differences which e
exist.  It must be a process which respects those differences while seeking
to find common ground on which to build for peace.

We need to know and understand each others views and be clear on our
respective long term intentions.

The British government regrettably appears unwilling to look beyond its
narrow political agenda and grasp the opportunity for peace which still exists.

But what is there alternative?  The exclusion of Sinn Fein?  Continued
coercion?  More collusion?  More violence?  The failed policies of partition
and division?  All of these have been tried and all have only served to
perpetuate the conflict.

In embarking upon our peace strategy more than eight years ago, we in Sinn
Fein set ourselves an ambitious objective; to resolve a conflict rooted in
centuries of division and mistrust.  None of us believed that it would be
easy but all of us knew that it was a task which had to be undertaken.

Republicans have consistently indicated over recent years but in particular
in the last year our determination to do what we can to achieve peace.  Our
sincerity is unquestionable.

There now exists for the first time in 25 years a real opportunity to advance
beyond the failure and violence of the past.  It requires imagination, hard
work, realism and a deep seated desire to make it happen.

Peace does not come in one great and all encompassing move.  It requires a
process, it requires the building of trust, it requires imagination and
courage.  It requires that gestures of good will be responded to and built
upon.

Regrettably the peace process is stalled. It has been stalled for too long.
There is now a real possibility that we may move into a crisis and the
opportunity which exists will be lost.  We must all redouble our efforts to
prevent this from happening.

That is what Sinn Fein is endeavouring to do.  Dublin must do likewise.  The
British government cannot be allowed to squander the opportunity for peace.

    re .56
    
    McLaughlin's speech is a good example of clarity of expression and the
    positioning of Sinn Fein.   Given Adams' apparent distancing himself
    from some of the IRA activities recently, I'm a little surprised that
    McLaughlin speaks publicly on the IRA's behalf.
    
    Re his comments about the sincerity of Adams in seeking
    "Clarification", is his case not a little weakened by Dick Spring's
    categorising the action as being delaying ?
    
    Whther or not you agree with his points, the speech reads very well.
    
    John
    

    RTw  05/02 1714  SINN FEIN'S ADAMS ACCUSED OF PLAYING WORD GAMES

    DUBLIN, May 2 (Reuter) - Irish Foreign Minister Dick Spring accused the
    leader of the IRA's political wing on Monday of playing cynical word
    games while Northern Ireland slipped back into a brutal cycle of
    tit-for-tat killings.

    Spring used a May Day speech in Dublin to express Ireland's frustration
    at the worst period of bloodshed in the province since an Anglo-Irish
    peace plan was launched five months ago.

    He said many people would have been hurt and disappointed "at the end
    of a particularly vicious and murderous week in Northern Ireland to
    hear the president of Sinn Fein continuing to play rhetorical games
    over the issue of clarification."

    The Anglo-Irish plan offered official recognition for Sinn Fein as a
    party of opposition to British rule in Northern Ireland if its allies
    in the Irish Republican Army laid down their arms.

    But Sinn Fein has insisted it cannot pursue the offer without British
    clarification of the terms, a demand dismissed by critics as a mere
    stalling tactic.

    Spring chided Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams for reasserting the need for
    clarification in the face of a tide of violence by IRA guerrillas and
    their Protestant extremist foes that has killed 10 people in as many
    days.

    "At the end of that, it is intolerable to have to listen to people like
    Mr Adams preaching about justice and fairness especially when he still
    cannot find it in his heart to condemn that sickening and depraved
    activity," Spring said.

    He challenged Adams to unblock the peace process by stating exactly
    what parts of the so-called Downing Street Declaration his organisation
    needed to have explained.

    "If those "issues of clarification' are leading to murder and death,
    they should be got out of the way as quickly as possible," said Spring,
    who also holds the post of deputy prime minister.

    "But they cannot be if the...IRA  continues to refuse to spell them
    out. For as long as they continue to indulge in vague generalities and
    obfuscation it is they, and nobody else, who are preventing
    clarification."

    REUTER

 re. .57

 I don't think Mr. Adams case is weakened at all.
 Until the British government actually sits down
 and explains the ambiguities, it is they who are
 damaging the chance for peace.

 re. .58
 Actually I find the British government's "commitment
 to finding a peaceful solution" to be cynical, while
 they continue the cycle of colluding with the loyalist
 death squads.
 If the British believe that Sinn Fein's request for
 clarification is cynical, then why not call their
 bluff, and start answering the questions.
 Perhaps even more importantly, in light of the recent
 evidence of collusion between the British forces and
 the loyalist death squads, why can't the British
 government step in a put an end to this for a 3 month
 cleansing period on their side?

                  Mark

    Mark, in .59 you said;
    
    �Until the British government actually sits down
    �and explains the ambiguities
    
    Personally I see nothing ambigous about being asked to renounce all
    hostilities before being invited to a peace table and being recognised
    as an official party. Please can you find a text that outlines what
    Sinn Fein believe to be ambigous.
    
    Thanks,
    Simon

RE:                     <<< Note 1332.59 by KOALA::HOLOHAN >>>

� If the British believe that Sinn Fein's request for
� clarification is cynical, then why not call their
� bluff, and start answering the questions.
    
    Mr. Holohan, you amaze me. The whole point, as amply and lucidly
    articulated by Dick Spring, is this:
    
    THERE ARE NO BLOODY QUESTIONS TO ANSWER.
    
    Do you understand yet?
    
    Laurie.

    Simon,
    
    Not to be engaged in another rathole but I think Sinn Fein wants
    Britain to basically clarify how they plan to end partition of
    Ireland.  While talking about the fact that they have no economic
    or political interest in NI, they have not taken the final step
    and addressed ending partition.  
    
    /George

George,

I believe that the British position is that reunification would go ahead when
and if the majority of people in the North wanted it, assuming that the majority
in the South also wanted it.  That of course may not be to the liking of Sinn
Fein, as it would mean either waiting for a Nationalist majority in the North,
or persuading the Ulster Unionists that reunification is a good thing.

The current IRA campaign is not exactly winning the hearts and minds of the
Unionists.

Dave

    Wouldn't the unification of NI into Eire be discussed at the peace
    table after the IRA have renounced hostilities?
    
    Simon

    Dave, I basically agree with you.  I was just trying to point
    out what I understood of Sinn Fein's clarification requests.
    
    However, I do believe that there is a greater issue of ending
    the partition of Ireland, which may be of more relative importance
    than simply a Unionist veto.  I guess what I'm trying to say is that
    the Unionists are but one element in a complicated conflict in Ireland.
    And I think that no one group (Nationalist/Unionist/Dublin/London)
    should have veto power over any peace process evolving there.  Like
    anything in life, there must be a balance and a recognition of power
    sharing.
    
    
    
    

    
    'The British Govt' are not colluding. You're dissembling again aren't you?. 
    They found evidence of collusion at some levels, isn't that what they
    said? Does not mean it is sanctioned policy of the Brit govt to collude
    with the UFF etc, whether clandestine policy or overt. It means there
    possibly are renegades that AI thinks are passing intelligence. As you 
    can't produce the report, we don't know what it says precisely and we sure
    as hell aren't about to trust your mean-spirited distortions. I doubt
    AI has any means to find out whether the collusion they allege exists
    has any institutional origins or whether it is simply a few radical
    operatives.  
    
    By the way, did you see the recent AI report that said the US was
    hypocritical on human rights, condemning other nations while guilty of
    many trangressions itself?
    
    

    All the Nationalist in NI have to do is to have patience and wait. The
    allegation is that  they are gradually producing more children than the
    Unionists and that they will have a majority by the early part of the
    next century. However I have no sources to confirm that allegation.
    
    The irony is, if the allegation is true, that a substantial number of
    those children are being raised on UK taxpayers' money, owing to the
    high level of unemployment in NI.
    
    John
    

    >The irony is, if the allegation is true, that a substantial number of
    >those children are being raised on UK taxpayers' money, owing to the
    >high level of unemployment in NI.
    
    All the more reason to settle the conflict now.  One could argue that
    the Unionists are in a better position of power today compared to 20
    years from now, and hence are in a better bargaining position for
    ensuring their share of political power and for amending some of the
    archaic laws of the Republic.
    
    Not only is the birth rate higher for Catholics, but I sense that
    organized religion is stronger on the Catholic side, and the majority
    of mixed marriages (that I know in Ireland) end up raising their 
    children as Catholics. Although emigration is probably higher for
    Catholics in NI.            

If present trends continue, the Catholics would become the majority some
time towards the end of the first quarter of the next century. It is by no
means certain that present trends will continue. Emigration, traditionally
high amongst Catholics, has been less in recent years because of the recession
in England and may start to increase. Not all Catholics might vote for a united
Ireland. Some might feel they are economically better off as part of the UK.

On the subject of mixed marriages, I believe that the Catholic Church only
gives its approval if the couple agree to bring up any children as Catholics.

Dave

                                   *************


                                 The Guardian
                                  May  16, 1994
                      GOVERNMENT SET TO REPLY TO SINN FEIN
                    by Stephen Bates, And Joe Joyce In Dublin


    The Government is expected to respond this week to Sinn Fein's list of
issues it would like clarified about the Anglo-Irish declaration, the Northern
Ireland Office said last night.

    It will probably be in the form of a point by point commentary and will not

be in any way a negotiation, official sources said.

    In the United States, where he was receiving an honorary degree at a
university in Indiana, the Irish prime minister, Albert Reynolds, said  Sinn
Fein's  requests were answerable and he hoped an early British response would
get both governments off the hook of clarification.

     Sinn Fein  has demanded to know the time frame for an all-Ireland
agreement, the constitutional options involved, Britain's long-term political
objectives, the extent of the Unionist veto, the structures and processes
arising out of the declaration, how demilitarisation will be achieved, and
whether acceptance of the declaration is a precondition for talks.

    Mr Reynolds told an Irish radio interviewer: "The questions by and large are

answerable, and I hope that the British government will see them in that light,

and will give the most positive response they can. There is a price to be paid
for peace and I think all parties to the conflict in  Northern Ireland  should
see it that way and make their contribution towards removing all the blocks."

    But Mr Reynolds made clear that there should be no negotiation with  Sinn
 Fein  until after the IRA renounces violence. He said: "The British government

have said they are not getting into negotiations and I would not ask them to do

so. We will leave it to them to respond in their own time. Hopefully, that will

be sooner rather than later."


    Mr Reynolds indicated that the 16 questions submitted to London via Dublin
were different to points of clarification outlined by the  Sinn Fein  president,

Gerry Adams, at the weekend. But he refused to outline the differences.

    Ken Maginnis, Ulster Unionist MP for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, accused
 Sinn Fein  of attempting to draw the Government into negotiations over the
Downing Street peace declaration. He said he believed  Sinn Fein  was looking
for more than just written explanations. "This is what we always suspected.
Their idea of clarification is in fact negotiation."

    His colleague, John Taylor, MP for Strangford, accused the Government of
"playing the tune" of the IRA. He said  Northern Ireland  had "lost all
confidence" in the  Northern Ireland  Secretary.

    Mr Taylor said on BBC radio: "He has been sent written questions from the
IRA via Sinn Fein, via the Dublin government, and then posted into London, and
he is going to answer those written questions and publish the answers."

    Michael Mates, a former  Northern Ireland  minister, said it was possible
for Sinn Fein to be given further explanation. But when it asked about
subsequent steps envisaged in the peace process, he said: "My answer would be
that the subsequent steps are what the talks will all be about, to which you
are very welcome to attend if you stop the killing."

    An IRA attack on a checkpoint has led to the death of the first soldier in
 Northern Ireland  this year, writes Alan Murray.  Lance Corporal David Wilson,

a 27-year-old single man serving with the Royal Logistics Corps, was killed
instantly in the attack on a permanent vehicle checkpoint in Keady in South
Armagh late on Saturday night.

                                The Irish Times
                                   May  14, 1994
              UK to publish response to SF questions on declaration
                           Document delivered to London
                             by IRISH TIMES REPORTERS


The British government has made a public commitment to publish its response
to Sinn Fein's list of questions, seeking clarification of the Downing Street
Declaration, "within a matter of days" after Irish officials personally
presented the document to their counterparts in the Northern Ireland Office in
London yesterday.


  The president of Sinn Fein, Mr Gerry Adams, last night confirmed that the
document transmitted to the British government came directly from him as an
attempt to break the logjam over clarification.

   Meanwhile, the Taoiseach, Mr Reynolds, said that he hoped that the British
government would deal with the questions on clarification of the declaration
signed five months ago tomorrow "as quickly as possible" in order to permit the

peace process to get mowing again.

  "It is important that the impasse over clarification should not be allowed to
wreck the peace process", he stated in Chicago, adding that, if clarification
was taken off the agenda, the Forum for Peace and reconciliation could be
established and exploratory talks with Sinn Fein could be begun, which would
proceed on to the wider talks process.

   The Tanaiste, Mr Spring, said in Cork that, while the Government was prepared

to forward the Sinn Fein list of items to be clarified to London, the response
to the list was a matter for the British government. This does not mean that we

are negotiating or in any way amending the Joint Declaration" he stated.

   The British government last night confirmed that it had received a document
setting out Sinn Fein's requests for "clarification of the declaration and
said that would publish this together with its response within a matter of days.


  A statement from the Northern Ireland Office said: "This morning a number
of questions purporting to be from Sinn Fein were passed to her Majesty's
Government by the Irish Government. It is clearly in the public interest for
people to know what these questions are. We shall make them public with our
comments within a matter of days, once we have had an opportunity to give them
proper consideration.

   The Sinn Fein president, Mr Adams, repeated that the delays caused by the
British refusal to clarify" the Downing Street Declaration was "intolerable" and

said that Sinn Fein had made a number of attempts to overcomes the impasse.

   He said in a statement: "In that context, I have forwarded to An Taoiseach,
Albert Reynolds for transmission to the government, a document detailing the
clarification of the Downing Street Declaration whic Sinn Fein requires from
London."

  Mr Adams revealed SDLP leader, Mr John Hume had been fully informed
of the initiative and had received a copy of the Sinn Fein document.




   Sinn Fein sources indicated night that recent dialogue between the party
leadership, the Taoiseach, Mr Reynolds, and the SDLP leader, Mr Hume had played

a role in the formulation of this "significant new initiative."

   While direct contact and dialogue with the British government had been Sinn
Fein's  preferred option, it had never been a precondition to progress, the
sources said. It is expected - and apparently accepted by Sinn Fein - that any
substantive British response is likely to be made to Mr Reynolds in the first
instance.



                                 ****************

                                The Irish Times
                                   May  14, 1994
              Initiative suggests Adam's desire to overcome impasse
Sinn Fein's decision to forgo direct talks with the British on "clarification"
indicates it has modified its position, writes Dick Grogan, Northern Editor


    With credibility and image at stake on both sides, while lesser mortals
forfeited their lives, both the Sinn Fein president, Mr Gerry Adams, and the
Northern Secretary, Sir Patrick Mayhew, remained studiously coy over recent
months on precisely how, when and where they might begin to deal.


   Put in a nutshell, Mr Adams would not say precisely what he wanted clarified

unless Sir Patrick Mayhew agreed to deal directly with Sinn Fein thus formally
acknowledging its constitutional status. And Sir Patrick would not (publicly)
contemplate talking to Sinn Fein unless the IRA called off its violence for
good.

   This was one reality. The other reality is that each side has been almost
desperately sending signals to, and seeking signals from, the other in any
number of ways through public speeches, temporary ceasefires, little carrots and

larger sticks.

   As Mr Adams appears to have become the first one to try to bridge the gap
between the two realities, he may seem to gain credit for flexibility. But it
must also be asked why the questions now said to have been posed could not have

been formulated and supplied several months ago certainly saving time and
possibly saving lives.

   The Sinn Fein initiative at this time plainly reflects Mr Adams's
frequently stated anxiety to break the stalemate. Viewed from one perspective,
it reflects a weakening in his resolve, for up to now he has insistently placed

the onus and responsibility on the British Prime Minister, Mr John Major to give

way.

   But it can also be seen as a courageous step, in that he has proved, willing

to climb down from his publicly stated position in order to faciliate progress.

Any further judgment must await publication of the questions themselves, when
there can be an assessment of how incisive and reasonable they are.

   Mr Adams has publicly confirmed in recent months that he has engaged in an
exchange of letters with the Taoiseach, Mr Reynolds, on the Downing Street
Declaration and has expressed himself happy with Mr Reynolds's "clarification".

But he has continued to demand direct talks for Sinn Fein with the British
government, or with an intermediary who could be guaranteed to be a direct
representative of that government.

   He has now patently modified that position, a concession which is a
noteworthy advance in itself.

   The huge barrier of distrust between the British government and Sinn Fein,
dating from the contentious and bitter breakdown of secret talks last year, had

begun to seem unbridgeable.

   The gulf continued into recent months.  Mr Adams is known to have written on,

two occasions to the British Prime Minister communications which Sinn Fein
regarded as providing an opportunity to re-establish dialogue in some form. On
each occasion the replies received, according to sources, were "fairly brusque"

consisting mainly of re-quotations of passages from the Downing Street
Declaration

   The Sinn Fein leader now seems to have demonstrated the authenticity of his
desire to remove the distraction and artificial obstacle represented by the
"clarification" issue, and move on to more productive matters. Sinn Fein
sources said last night that the British replies would directly inform the
party's definitive decision on whether to accept and endorse the declaration.

   The derivation and status of the reported list of questions is of great
interest. Have they been formulated in consultation with Mr Reynolds, based on
his correspondence with Mr Adams? Or are they an autonomous list of questions
which the Sinn Fein leader drafted without any input or advice from the
Taoiseach?

   Indications from republican sources last night tended to confirm that the
correspondence between Mr Adams and Mr Reynolds did indeed inform and influence

the nature of the document which has now been forwarded to London. Moreover, it

is understood that the SDLP leader, Mr John Hume, also played a role which may
not only have shaped the Sinn Fein approach, but also inspired the decision to
make it.


   A diplomatic quandary remains for the British side in deciding on its
response. In answering the questions, Mr Major will be faced with accusations
that he is dealing directly with  Sinn Fein  before the IRA has met his stated
condition for such dealing. However, the involvement of Dublin should ease the
dilemma, in that the response can be to the Taoiseach initially.

   Most reasonable people will see the diplomatic niceties as relatively
unimportant if, in fact, the process enables the long standing impasse to be
bridged and the political situation advanced.

   Previously published speeches and statements by  Sinn Fein  leaders permit
some speculation on the nature of the questions. Mr Adams has defined the areas

in which the declaration requires clarification, from his point of view.

   These are: matters of text; differences in interpretation and commentary on
the declaration; and the steps envisaged to advance the peace process.

   If the list is comprehensive and Mr Adams has not kept some supplementaries
up his sleeve, the questions will address the thorny issue (for  Sinn Fein)  of

the unionist "veto" that is, the issue of unionist consent being essential
before any constitutional change.

   They will attempt to elucidate British long term intentions towards the North

crucially, whether Britain retains any long term political interest in
maintaining the Union.

   They will press the British side as to what practical role it is willing to
play in attempting to heal the divisions and promote agreement between the two
traditions (given that Sir Patrick has already rejected  Sinn Fein's  preferred

option that Britain should act as "persuader" of the unionists).

   They will ask for specific out lines of what process, time frame and
framework Britain proposes for reaching such agreement between the traditions.

   They will ask whether Britain is amenable to devising and implementing a step

by step demilitarisation of the situation concurrent with an IRA down scaling of

its campaign, and how such a process might be monitored. The British demand for

an absolute and instant dumping of arms in other words, a discrete and instant
cessation of all IRA activity, defensive as well as offensive was probably
always an impractical concept and seen as such by both sides.

   The questions will almost certainly also probe British attitudes towards an
eventual revision of the Government of Ireland Act perhaps in step with
constitutional reform to remove Articles 2 and 3.


   They may inquire about British readiness to draft and implement a bill of
rights, to redeploy security resources into a protective role for the
nationalist community, and to reinforce and redirect funding, in the post
settlement phase, into the most disadvantaged areas.

   Crucially, they will seek some commitment to a timetable for involvement of
Sinn Fein, as a legitimate political party, in talks on a future structure for
government of the North.

   Do these questions, therefore, represent the beginnings of negotiation? It is

hard to see them in any other light, and therein lies the great dilemma for the

British government in providing answers.

   If answers are provided, they will be directed to Mr Reynolds in the first
place, and he holds an increasingly strategic role in the delicate process of
establishing confidence between the two sides. It remains to be seen how the
other vital task will be addressed the problem of representing and protecting
unionist interests in the course of this volatile, and so far totally embryonic

process.

   >>> 17 dead this year, and the British government finally decides to >-
    
    But the BG didn't kill a single one.
    
    
    SCott
    
    
    BTW Are you sure it's only 17?
    
    

   Since Amnesty International believes that the
   British forces actively collude with the loyalist
   death squads, I'd say the British security forces
   are just as guilty as if they pulled the trigger
   themselves.

                    Mark

    

     Amnesty Int can believe all they want....they have no proof.And I'm
    not talking about put on paper what they think and calling it
    "Documented proof" that just won't wash.
    
    
     
     SCott

RE:             <<< Note 1332.73 by PAKORA::SNEIL "FOLLOW WE WILL" >>>

�   >>> 17 dead this year, and the British government finally decides to >-
�    
�    But the BG didn't kill a single one.
    
    Not only that, but according to Dick Spring this morning on BBC Radio
    4, both the Irish and British governments have collaborated "fully" on
    answering the questions. It is wrong, but typical of Holohan, to blame
    the British Government for what he clearly sees as a deliberate delay.
    in fact, the two governments are at one on this.
    
    Laurie.

                                 The Irish Times
                                   May  20, 1994
                   British government's response to  Sinn Fein
    The following is the full text of the British government's response to
Sinn Fein.

   Five months have passed since the British and Irish Governments published
their Joint Declaration.

   The Joint Declaration was framed as a balanced set of principles, fairly
addressing he concerns and aspirations of both traditions in  Northern Ireland.

It demonstrated that, in their approach to  Northern Ireland's  future, the
governments of the United Kingdom and of the Republic of Ireland stand on.


   The declaration underlined the principle the future of  Northern Ireland
must be founded on consent. If offered the people of Ireland, North and South
respectively, the basis to agree that their differences could be negotiated and

resolved exclusively by peaceful political means.

   The declaration looked to the full participation in politics of
"democratically mandated parties which established a commitment to exclusively
peaceful methods and which have shown that they abide by the democratic. To join

the political dialogue with the two Governments were not required to accept the

Joint declaration. They were required only to declare and demonstrate a
permanent end to violence and to abide by the democratic process.

   Since its adoption, the Joint Declaration has attracted very wide support
throughout Ireland and far beyond.

   More than ever, the people of Northern resolve Ireland want to live in peace

and to their problems democratically and by negotiation.

   Yet paramilitary and sectarian violence continues. They see no justification

for this.




   The Declaration shows that there is none.

   It is against this background that we are today publishing the questions from

 Sinn Fein,  passed to us by the Irish Government, within this statement.

   We have always sought to ensure that our position on the Joint Declaration is

clearly understood by all. As both governments have repeatedly emphasised, the
terms of the declaration are not open to negotiation. Nor will we enter into
questions about future arrangements in Ireland which can properly be decided
only through negotiations involving democratic parties dedicated exclusively to

peaceful political means. Both governments are anxious to see such negotiate ion
   s
take place on a comprehensive basis, as set out in the declaration.

   Our comments on this document are as follows.

   Commentary

   As will readily be seen, the questions which have been passed to us range
much more widely than seeking elucidation of the text of the Joint Declaration,

though some can be dealt with by reference to it.  The questions can be
considered under these headings:



   (i) Questions involving an explanation of the text of the Joint Declaration.


   (ii) Questions which appear to seek to reopen the negotiations which led to
the Joint Declaration.

   (iii) Questions concerning the British government's policy in respect of
 Northern Ireland  which, far from arising from any uncertainty about the text
of the Joint Declaration, are answered by reference to it.

   (iv) Questions not arising directly from the text of the Joint Declaration
but concerning procedures consequent on a cessation of violence, including
questions about the agenda for subsequent substantive political dialogue.

   (v) Questions not arising from any obscurity in the text of the Joint
Declaration but raising substantive questions of wider government policy, or
questions which would arise in a process of substantive political dialogue
following a cessation of violence.

   (vi) Questions repeating earlier questions or essentially covering the same
ground.



   These headings are dealt with in turn. There were 20 questions in the (Sinn
Fein)  paper passed (to us) by the Irish Government, and the question numbers
which follow are those from that paper.

   1-Questions involving an explanation of the text of the Joint Declaration.

   Question 4

   The British Government says, in the Downing Street Declaration, "that they
will uphold the democratic wishes of a greater number of the people of
Northern Ireland". What is the British government's precise definition of "a
greater number of the people of Northern Ireland" and how would this be
measured in practical terms?

   Comment

   The wish of a greater number of the people of  Northern Ireland  would be
determined by a numerical majority of those validly voting in a poll fairly and

explicitly organised for this purpose. Provision for such a poll is made in
Section 1 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973.


   II -Questions which appear to seek to reopen the negotiations which led to
the Joint Declaration.

   Question 2

   Given that the document put to you in June 1993 was welcomed by the  IRA
leadership which commented on October 3, 1993, that it could, form the basis for

peace could you clarify the differences, if any, between this document and the
Downing Street Declaration?

   Comment

   This question, referring to a document put to us by the Irish Government,
does not arise from any uncertainty about the text of the Joint Declaration,
which, was, the product of detailed and extensive discussions between the two
governments. These discussions were largely directed towards ensuring that the
declaration was clear and unambiguous in its treatment of the key principles to

which both governments are committed including consent agreement, and parity of

esteem and equity of treatment for both parts of the community in Northern
Ireland.  Therefore the only text that bears our name and on which we can
comment is that which was issued on 15 December 1993, by the Prime Minister and

the Taoiseach.


   III - Questions concerning the British Government's policy in respect of
North era Ireland which, far from arising from any uncertainty about the text of

the Joint Declaration, are answered by reference to it.

   Question 1

   The long term political objectives of the two governments are of crucial
importance if we are to move out of the conflict situation caused by the present

failed political structures. The Taoiseach has clearly stated the long term
objectives of the Irish Government in the search for a lasting settlement. It is

essential that the British government displays the same honesty and frankness in

outlining its long term attitude towards the Irish people. What are the British

government's long term interests and objectives in relation to Ireland?

   Comment

   Paragraph 4 of the Joint Declaration already fully spells out the British
government's objectives and interests in relation to Ireland - in terms which
speak for themselves. In it states that the British government's primary
interest is to see peace, stability and reconciliation established by agreement

among all the people who inhabit the island, and they will work together with
the Irish Government to achieve such an agreement, which will embrace the
totality of relationships

   Question 3

   The British and Irish governments have said that the political structures
cannot be predetermined, now or in the future. How do you reconcile this with
your adherence to the partition of Ireland and the maintenance of the union?

   Comment

   Paragraph 4 of the Joint Declaration makes it clear that the British
government "will uphold the democratic wish of a greater number of the people of

 Northern Ireland  on the issue of whether they prefer to support the Union or a

sovereign united Ireland". Further, the government reaffirm as a binding
obligation that they will introduce the necessary legislation to give effect to

any measure of agreement on future relationships in Ireland which the people
living there, North and South, may themselves freely determine without external

impediment. These statements confirm that in political dialogue no outcome is
either predetermined or ruled out.

   In relation to partition, both governments are guided by the reality of the
present situation and the principle of consent. This is reflected in Article 1
of the Anglo Irish Agreement, and in paragraph 7 of the declaration:

   "Both governments accept that Irish unity would be achieved only by those who

favour this outcome persuading those who do not, peacefully and without coercion

or violence, and that, if in the future a majority of the people of  Northern
 Ireland  are so persuaded, both governments will support and give legislative
effect to their wish."

   Question.7

   Given the British government's statement in the Downing Street Declaration
that it is for the Irish people to exercise our right to self determination,
what is the basis for the British government's qualification of this right in
Paragraph 4 of the Downing Street Declaration?

   Comment

   The British governments position on self determination in paragraph 4 of the

joint Declaration that it is to be exercised on the basis of consent, freely and

concurrently given, North and South... is entirely consistent with that of the
Irish Government set out in Paragraph 5 of the Joint Declaration in which the
Taoiseach accepts, on behalf of the Irish Government, that the democratic
right of self determination by the people of Ireland as a whole must be achieved

and exercised with and subject to the agreement and consent of a majority of the

people of Northern Ireland and must, consistent with justice and equity,
respect the democratic dignity and civil rights and religious liberties of both

communities

   IV - Questions not arising directly from the text of the Joint declaration,
but concerning procedures consequent on a cessation of violence, including
questions about the agenda for subsequent substantive political dialogue.

   Question 8

   In the Downing Street Declaration the British government gives a commitment
to allow the Irish people to freely determine our future without external
impediment or interference, to encourage,facilitate and enable agreement on this

basis, and to introduce the necessary legislation to give effect to this
agreement. Does this mean that the Government of Ireland Act, Section 75 of
which states "the supreme authority of the parliament of the United Kingdom
shall remain unaffected, and, undiminished over all persons, and that in
(Northern) Ireland and every part thereof would be needed as part of an
overall agreement?


   Comment

   The content of an overall agreement will depend on the outcome of
negotiations within the talks process. The British government have confirmed
that they will introduce the necessary legislation to give effect to any measure

of agreement on future relationships which the people, of Ireland may freely
determine on the basis set out in paragraph 4 of the Joint Declaration. The
implications for the Government of Ireland Act would depend on the nature and
content of any such agreement.

   Question 11

   Given the commitment by the two governments that everything will be on the
table for negotiation:

   (a) Will the union between Ireland and Britain be on the agenda for
negotiation?

   (b) Will the Government of Ireland Act be on the agenda for
negotiation?

Comment



   The 26 March, 1991, statement outlining the basis for the three stranded
talks said at "in order to ensure a full airing of the issues, it will be open
to each of the parties to raise any aspect of these relationships, including
constitutional issues, or any other matter which it considers relevant". No
political objective could properly be excluded from discussion in the talks
process.

   Question 13

   Does the British government accept that while the consent of a majority of
the people of the six county state to constitutional change, as referred to in
the Downing Street Declaration, that may be desirable, it is not a legal
requirement in international law?

   Boa governments make clear in the Joint Declaration that any change in the
constitutional status of  Northern Ireland  would be subject to the consent of a

majority of its people as set out in the Anglo Irish Agreement, itself an
international instrument registered at the United Nations.

   Question 14



   Given the commitment in the Downing Street Declaration to work towards a
balanced constitutional accommodation, does the British government accept that
the present structures and arrangements do not represent a balanced
constitutional accommodation.

   Question -15

   Given the commitment in the Downing Street Declaration to work towards a
balanced constitutional accommodation, what constitutional options does the
British government see as being consistent with this objective?
    Comment

   In paragraph 1 of the Joint Declaration, both governments recognise an
"absence of a lasting and satisfactory settlement of relationships between the
peoples of both islands..." Constitutional issues are among those eligible to be

addressed in the talks process.

   Question 17

   The Taoiseach has said that political parties need not accept every phrase or

word in the Downing Street Declaration. In fact, the DUP have rejected the
declaration in total and the UUP have said that it has run its course.



   (a)Does the rejection of the declaration by a political party exclude that
party from involvement in talks on the development of new political
arrangements.

   (b) Do parties which are opposed to aspects of the Downing Street Declaration

have the right to dissent from it and yet be engaged in talks on the development

of new political arrangements?

   Comment

   The declaration is an agreed position between the two governments.  It does
not depend for its validity on the attitude of other parties, who are free to
determine their own views on it, and to represent those views in future
negotiations.

   Acceptance of the Joint Declaration is not a precondition for entering the
talks process. What is required is a permanent end to the use of' or support
for, paramilitary violence. The two governments say in the Joint Declaration
that .... .  in these circumstances, democratically mandated parties which
establish a commitment to exclusively peaceful methods band which have shown
that they abide by the democratic process are free to participate fully in
democratic politics and to join in dialogue in due course between the
governments and the political parties on the way a head".

   Question 18

    Sinn Fein,  as a matter of policy, advocates inclusive dialogue without
preconditions. We do not accept the imposition of preconditions on our party or

on any other party. However, in the interests of clarity we wish to explore the

British government position on these matters as outlined in the Downing Street
Declaration.

   (a) The British Government has called upon Sin a Fein to renounce violence.
What does this involve?

   (b) Patrick Mayhew is reported as saying that a permanent cessation of
violence "is the way in which full recognition can be accorded to the mandate
which  Sinn Fein  candidates are accorded at the polls" (Irish Times, Thursday,

14/4/94): How does the British government reconcile its refusal to recognise our

democratic mandate with its stated commitment to democratic principles?

   (c)The British Prime Minister has referred to a period of decontamination for

 Sinn Fein.  What does this mean?


   (d)What would be the purpose of the exploratory dialogue between  Sinn Fein

and the British Government?

   (e)How long would this exploratory dialogue last?

   Within this process, when would negotiations about the future constitutional

and political shape of Ireland take place?

   Comment

   The position of both governments is set out clearly in Paragraph 10 of the
Joint Declaration. There has to be a permanent end to the use of' or support
for, paramilitary violence. In these circumstances "democratically mandated
parties which establish a commitment to exclusively peaceful methods and which
have shown that they abide by the democratic process are free to participate
fully in democratic politics and to join in dialogue in due course between the
governments and the political parties on the way ahead."

   For Sinn Fein and the IRA this would involve a public and permanent
renunciation of violence as a means of achieving political ends, and commitment

to peaceful and democratic means alone.



   Within three months, as has already been publicly made clear, the British
government would in these circumstances begin exploratory dialogue with Sinn
Fein. The purposes of such dialogue would be to explore the basis upon which
Sinn Fein  would come to admitted to an inclusive political talks process to
which the British government is committed but out anticipating the negotiations

within that process;

   (ii) to exchange views on how Sinn Fein would be able over a period to play
the same part as the current constitutional parties in the public life of
Northern Ireland.

   iii) to examine the practical consequences of the ending of violence.

   The reason for the time lapse between a permanent cessation of violence and
exploratory dialogue is to enable the commitment to exclusively peaceful and
democratic methods to be frilly demonstrated.

   The British government accept the validity of all electoral mandates,
including that of Sinn Fein and, being committed to the democratic process,
endorses the freedom of voters to choose their elected representatives. There is

no inconsistency between this and requiring that all who join in political
dialogue should demonstrate a commitment to exclusively peaceful methods and
to the democratic process. Democracy and violence cannot be reconciled.

   Question 20

   The Downing Street Declaration is described as "the starting point of a peace

process designed to culminate in a political settlement".  What are the
subsequent steps which the British government envisages, as part of a process
of dialogue, reconciliation and, demilitarization leading to peace and a
political settlement?

   Comment

   Paragraphs I 9 and II of the Joint Declaration and associated statements
(see comment on Question 18 above) spell out what will happen when there is a
permanent cessation of violence. The exploratory dialogue leading to Sinn Fein
s involvement in the political talks process would then begin. A lasting and
general peace would render, military operations in support of the police no
longer necessary.

   If the Joint Declaration is "the starting point of a peace process the next
step is for the violence to end for good.



   V- Questions not arising from any obscurity in the text of the Joint
Declaration, but raising substantive questions of wider government policy, or
questions which would arise in a process of substantive political dialogue
following a cessation of violence.

   Question 5

   The British government has said that it has no selfish strategic or economic

interest in accord with democratic principles for the British government to base

its Irish policy on the objective of ending the union?

   Comment

   The Joint Declaration makes it clear that the British government is committed

to upholding the principle of consent.

   Question 6

   The British government has said that its primary interest is to see agreement

reached between all the Irish people.

   (i) Given the continued intransigent attitude of the unionist leaderships,
how, in real terms, is such an agreement to be reached, particularly if the
unionist leadership refuses engage in the search for agreement?

   (b) What does the British government consider to be a "reasonable time scale"

for agreement to be reached?

   c) What is the framework which the British government intends to create for
the achievement of agreement. Does the British government accept that, given the

weight of nationalist opinion throughout Ireland in opposition to partition,
that substantial movement on constitutional issues by the British government and

the unionist parties will be required if democratic agreement is to be reached?


   e) How is agreement to be measured in practical terms and at what stage does

the withholding or absence of agreement on the part of one section of the Irish

people become a veto over change?

   Comment

   In Paragraph 4 of the Joint Declaration, the British government commits
itself to "working together with the Irish Government to achieve peace,
stability and reconciliation established by agreement among all the people who
inhabit the island and to encourage, facilitate and enable the achievement of
such agreement..." No organisation has a veto over that process, whether by
withdrawing from it or by refusing to renounce violence. The two governments
will continue to seek agreement between themselves and the main constitutional
parties in  Northern Ireland  on the basis of the agreed statement of 26 March
1991 focusing on the three main relationships: which are those within Northern
Ireland,  among the people of the island of Ireland, and between the two
governments. A keynote of the Joint Declaration is that any new arrangements
must be founded on consent.

   It would be wrong to attempt to anticipate the outcome of the discussions or

to set an artificial time limit on the achievement of agreement on issues of
fundamental importance to the people of these islands. Other issues raised in
this question are properly the concern of participants in the process of
political dialogue.

   Question 16

   The Taoiseach has said that unionists possess a veto only in regard to
whether to belong to a sovereign United Ireland or the UK, that they do not
possess a veto over the policy of the two governments or over interim which may

be adopted. Is this also the position for the British government?


   Comment

   No group organisation has a veto over the policy of a democratically elected

government. The policy of both governments, set out in the Joint Declaration,
is, however, founded firmly on the principles of democracy, agreement and
consent.

   Question 19

   (a)Given the declared opposition of both governments to coercion, how will
the coercion of Northern nationalists into the six county state be addressed in

real terms?

   (b) How will the denial of nationalist rights be redressed in real terms?

   (c) When will repressive legislation be ended?

   Comment

   This quest ion is based on assumptions which have no foundation in reality.
The government's approach is reflected by paragraph 4 of the Joint Declaration
which includes the statement that:


   The role of the British government will be to encourage, facilitate and
enable the achievement of. . . agreement over a period through a process of
dialogue and co operation based on full respect for the rights and identities of

both traditions in Ireland."

   It is the clearly declared aim of both governments that ALL new arrangements

agreed in the course of political dialogue should be based on consent. An end to

violence would open the way for a comprehensive reassessment of existing
provisions against terrorism, many of which would become irrelevant and obsolete

in a climate of peace.

   VI - Questions repeating earlier questions or essentially covering the same
ground.

   Question 9

   How does the British government reconcile its stated objective of maintaining

union with its declared lack of strategic or economic interest in Ireland?

   Question 10



   Given the British government's declared lack of "selfish, strategic or
economic interest in Northern Ireland", what is the British government's
political interest in "Northern Ireland" ?

   Comment

   These points are covered in comment on questions 1 and 8.

   Question 12

   Given, the statement by the British government in the Downing Street
Declaration that "it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by
agreement between the two parts respectively, to exercise their right of self
determination on the basis of consent": Is the continued operation of the
Government of, Ireland Act subject to agreement on this basis?

   (b) In the continued existence of the union subject to agreement on this
basis?

   Comment




   There is nothing to add to the comments given above. Paragraph 4 of the Joint

Declaration, could not spell out more clearly the position in relation to the
Union.

   The Question for Sinn Fein

     Sinn Fein have asked their questions. But the most fundamental question,
being asked by the people of these islands is for them to answer. Democracy and

violence cannot be reconciled. Sinn Fein must choose. They know what they have
to do if they are effectively to fulfil their democratic mandate.

   The democratic path leads to a meaningful role in the political process: a
process in which, as has been explained all issues are open for discussion and
negotiation. The alternative is isolation standing on the outside while those
committed to democracy shape the agreement, structures and institutions that
will determine the relationships between the peoples of these islands.

    Sinn Fein claim a commitment to the principle of self determination. That
means abiding by the will of the people. The vast majority of people in Ireland,

North and South, and of both traditions, demand an end to violence now. Their
wishes could not be clearer, There is no conceivable justification for
continuing to rob people of their lives, least of all a call for a textual
explanation of the Joint Declaration.

    Sinn Fein ask what comes next. Certainly no further playing for time. If
the Joint Declaration is "the starting point of a peace process", the next step

is for violence to end for good.

    
    So what's their excuse going to be now? 
    

>Question 19

>   (a)Given the declared opposition of both governments to coercion, how will
>the coercion of Northern nationalists into the six county state be addressed in
>
>real terms?

>   (b) How will the denial of nationalist rights be redressed in real terms?
>
>   (c) When will repressive legislation be ended?

>   Comment

>   This quest ion is based on assumptions which have no foundation in reality.


   This is rich.   The British government dismisses
   one of the most important questions by denying the
   facts in the question.  It seems the British 
   have a different view from the rest of the world
   community.

   You see, in the British mind there is no repressive
   legislation, and there is no denial of nationalist
   rights.  The British have no intention of dealing
   fairly, and still need to be shown the way.


                     Mark

>   It seems the British 
>   have a different view from the rest of the world community.

Am I right in thinking that the Irish government is in agreement with the
British response?

Dave

    Both Dick Spring and Albert Reynolds have given public and unequivocal
    support for both the original Declaration and the subsequent answers.
    Mr. Reynolds made it clear that they had been neither consulted nor a
    party to the "clarifications", but that they did support them.
    
    Laurie.

  re. .81

   If the Irish government aggrees with the British
   response to question 19, then they are no more 
   than the mouthpiece of the British government.

                  Mark

    
    Well at least they can reason somewhat, mouthpieces or not. You're
    becoming extinct, Mr. Holohan..
    

    Sinn Fein have replied to the clarifications given by teh Government.
    
    They have said that they now understand it all and no more questions
    will be asked or clarifications requested. They will respond in a few
    days time.
    
    
    Simon
    

    
    
    Response is after June European elections....
    
    

    RE: .82
    
    Get a life.
    
    Laurie.

    
    I heard MP Michael Mates on BBC world service. He said Sinn Fein is
    posturing as they always do prior to elections. He asked why else would
    they only last week publish what clarification they sought, asking
    cynically for 'clarification' for months. Mates said they're the
    ones doing the killing and they can stop it any time they choose.
    

 re. .87

   Seems that Amnesty International, and Helsinki
  Watch human rights groups, disagree with British
  MP Michael Mates on whose doing the killing.
   Let's see, do we believe British MP Michael Mates,
  or internationally renowned human rights organizations.
  My vote is with the independent human rights orgs.

                      Mark

    
    Your illogic is frightening. The IRA are admitting responsibility for
    the people they kill. I think we can take it they're not lying.
    Therefore it is a proven fact. 
    
    On the other hand, the alleged deaths via collusion are so far unproven
    charges.
    
    Are you saying you don't believe the IRA?
    

 
 re. .89
    Sinn Fein is not the IRA, and most importantly, the
  IRA are not the only ones doing the killing.  The IRA
  could lay down their arms in a unilateral surrender,
  and the British death squads aided by the British 
  security forces would continue to murder.  Why would
  they stop, their stated goal is to terrorize the
  Nationalist community.

                   Mark

    
    They're not being asked to lay down their arms. They're being asked to
    publicly renounce violence and stand by it. Clearly if the UDA/UVF etc
    target suspected IRA members, the ceasefire wouldn't last too long.
    On the other hand if the random sectarian violence against civilians or
    suspected sympathizers (read tradesmen) continued, it would be a police 
    matter as it rightly should be. 
    

    I have come to the conclusion that poor old Mark has been totally brain
    washed, I think we should be sorry for him.
    
    I started to take what A.I. say with a pinch of salt when I found out
    that it was (co-)founded by an EX-IRA member.
    
    Simon

    I came to both those conclusions many moons ago.
    
    Laurie.

    why you folks continue to (attempt to) argue with him never ceases to
    amaze me. As long as he believes he has an audience we'll continue to
    get our daily litanies on NI . Just hit NEXT/UNSEEN !!

    
    We mostly do hit next unseen, but now and again like to worry the old
    bone. 

        You will all be pleased to know that the little girl who was 
        blown up by the IRA was released from hospital last week. 
        
        This little girl (2 or 3 years old?) was in the car with her 
        father when an attached IRA car-bomb exploded. I believe her 
        father was killed.
        
        The little girl spent quite some time in intensive care and 
        wasn't expected to recover consciousness, by a miracle she did. 
        Among her injuries were a fractured skill, and two fractured 
        legs. The doctors expected brain damage, luckily there was none.
        
        
        
        
        
        Her fathers involvement with 'the troubles'...
        

        
        
        He was a cleaner at an RUC police station.

             ***********************************

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
 June 2, 1994


   SINN FEIN PRESIDENT GERRY ADAMS REPEATS HIS PARTY'S POSITION

Summary: Sinn Fein president Gerry Adams has restated his opposition to the
 unionist veto and any internal solution in Northern Ireland but outlined
 medium term goals which he said could maintain the momentum for peace.

They include:

 The speedy release of paramilitary prisoners pending an eventual
   amnesty;
 -  The scrapping of censorship and emergency powers laws;
 -  Proper funding and esteem for the Irish language;
 -  An end to alleged links between British intelligence and loyalist
   killers:

Mr, Adams told election workers in Belfast that they were "achievable
 goals" which could increase the pace of peace.

His comments came days after Cardinal Cahal Daly said both communities
 would have to accept a modest interim settlement which would be enough to
 end violence and allow the north's long-term future to be determined by
 dialogue.

Mr. Adams repeated Sinn Fein's position that a decision on the Downing
 Street Declaration would only come after the June 9 poll for the European
 Parliament.

While he did not mention an IRA cease-fire, he said Sinn Fein would use its
 political influence to secure a package which might be enough to stop the
 paramilitary campaign.

"The reality is of course that we are not the IRA and it will take its own
 counsel on these matters."

"However, it must be remembered that Sinn Fein has helped formulate
 proposals which have been enough to move the IRA to say publicly that their
 acceptance by the British government could provide the basis for peace," he
 said.

"But if there was to be peace and progress there would have to be an end
 to all vetoes, and both governments had a positive role to play in creating
 new arrangements which facilitated that," he said,

"In particular the British government must recognize that it cannot on the
 one hand assert its 'neutrality' and say it is for no particular
 predetermined outcome, while at the same time saying it will 'stand by the
 Union'."

In that context, he said the British should legislate away the provisions
 in the Government of Ireland Act which enshrined the unionist veto.

He said Sinn Fein was sensitive to unionist concerns over their future in
 an agreed Ireland which was 'fraught with many uncertainties".

Republicans wanted to take account of those fears, aware that a solution
 was only viable if it enjoyed the allegiance of the "different traditions
 on this island", he said.

Concluding, Mr. Adams said peace was dependent on fundamental changes to
 the status quo and inclusive dialogue leading to an inclusive political
 process, without preconditions, which could achieve a settlement within a
 set time frame.

His comments came hours after DUP ( Democratic Unionist Party) MP Peter
 Robinson warned that unionist people felt so alienated, marginalized and
 estranged by discussions over their head about their future that support
 for the use of violence was increasing.


Irish American Information Service

Offices:

Dublin:       4 Dame Court
              Dublin 2 Ireland
              Tel. 011-353-1-774072
              Fax: 011-353-1-6793198

Washington:   National Press Building
              529 14th St., NW Suite 837
              Washington, DC 20045 USA
              Tel. 202-662-8830
              Fax: 202-662-8831

Michigan:     35941 Six Mile Rd.
              Livonia, MI 48152 USA
              Tel. 313-464-4119
              Fax: 313-464-4240

    re .97 Gerry Adams..."an end to ALLEGED links"
    
    
    Seems that Adams is not as sure about collusion as Marc is !
    
    John
    

    
    We just remember that Mark's sources are unimpeachable. I for one am
    grateful that Mark knows the truth. I think he must have found an
    oracle in Nashua that speaks to him alone. 
    

    Sort of "voices" you mean Chris?
    
    Laurie.

    
    Aye, St Mark of Nashua.

 re. past few

 I'll make an assumption that working here, you are all
 probably well educated.  Based on that assumption, I
 ask that you send for and read the Amnesty International
 Human Rights report on Northern Ireland.  It plays as
 a fair third party, criticizing both the British forces
 and the Irish Republican Army.  It also points out
 case after case of collusion between the loyalist
 death squads and the British forces.

 After reading that report, I suggest also sending for
 the Helsinki Watch Human rights reports.

                        Mark

    re .102
    
    Apparently Marc, you need to send them to Gerry Adams !
    
    :-))
    
    John
    

    
 
>  I ask that you send for and read the Amnesty International
>  Human Rights report on Northern Ireland.  It plays as
>  a fair third party, criticizing both the British forces
>  and the Irish Republican Army.


   Marc.

   How about printing some of the Criticisms that Amnesty International 
   have against the IRA .... Im sure we would all like to see what they
   have to say about them.

   Stav.
    
           
         

                 Nationalist Nightmare Must End
                         by Gerry Adams
                      from The Irish Voice
                        July 20-26, 1994


                            *********


     The Sinn Fein national delegate conference will meet next
Sunday on July 24. The conference, which will review the progress
to date of the peace process and consider how it can be moved
forward, will also argue the party's response to the Downing
Street Declaration in this context.

     The conference is coming at a crucial state and at a very
delicate phase of the peace process. This is a useful  time,
therefore, for this column to review the situation, and for the
benefit of 'Irish Voice' readers, to consider also the U.S. angle
to all this.

     Peace in Ireland is an American issue--especially an Irish
American issue. There is no doubt that one of the successes of
the Irish lobby in the U.S. has been the manner in which this has
featured on the White House agenda. Peace in Ireland is clearly
an issue for President Clinton and it has the potential to become
one of his major foreign policy concerns. He has recently
returned from a highly successful and historic visit to a re-
united Germany. In the Europe visited by Mr. Clinton, borders and
border controls are disappearing.

     In contrast, Britain's artificial border in Ireland is being
increasingly militarized and British installations are being
built higher and stronger. The border which cuts across several
hundred miles of Irish countryside divides the Irish nation,
separates local communities and families, and is a block on the
political and economic development of this island.

     The current international climate is conducive to the
resolution of conflicts. This must be harnessed in support of the
efforts for peace in Ireland. This is particularly important in
the U.S., and especially in the months ahead.

                               **

     In our first joint statement in April of 1993, John Hume and
I acknowledged that the "most pressing issue facing the people of
Ireland and Britain today is the question of lasting peace and
how in can best be achieved."

     We are not the first to identify this as the priority. The
absolute failure of past policies and political structures,
imposed by successive British governments, has contributed to a
bitter conflict which has endured in one form or another for
centuries.

     Nationalists, coerced into the northern state without  our
consent, have been forced to endure decades on injustice and
discrimination and the Nationalists nightmare continues today to
inflict considerable pain.

     Out of this experience, Irish Republicans and northern
Nationalists are convinced that there can be no more internal
settlements. This has been acknowledged even by the British
government. It is clear that the Nationalist nightmare must end.
The division of Irish people by an imposed border must also be
brought to an end. How can this be achieved? How can we mend the
fractured and hostile relationships between Irish  people and
between Ireland and Britain?

     There are the core issues which must be tackled, difficult
though they are if progress and peace is to be achieved. There
must be political change, fundamental change. The status quo,
which has heaped indignities on Nationalists, has to go. A
solution can only be found in a functioning inclusive democracy
agreed and established by all of the people of this island.

     The creation of a new agreement which can resolve this
conflict is only achievable and viable if it can earn and enjoy
the allegiance of the different traditions on this island. This
is the real challenge facing us all.

     Sinn Fein shares the concern of other Nationalists about
Unionist sensitivities. We know  that the future from a Unionist
perspective is fraught with uncertainties. We understand and seek
to take account of those fears. At the same time, the coercion of
Irish Nationalists cannot continue.

     Progress demands that there can be no veto providing the
British or Unionists with an advantage behind which stagnation
and the conditions of conflict can continue to exist. And both
governments must play an active and positive role in shaping the
new arrangements which can facilitate this.

     In particular, the British government must recognize that it
cannot on the one hand assert its neutrality and say it is for no
particular pre-determined outcome, while at the same time say it
will stand by the union.

     In this context and as part of future negotiations, the
British government should re-examine the Government of Ireland
Act and all its provisions. It should facilitate and enhance the
search for equality and peace be agreeing, as part of the peace
process, to legislate away those provisions in the Government of
Ireland Act which prevent political and constitutional change.

                               **

     As we face into our conference, it is important to restate
Sinn Fein's position. In our effort to positively move the peace
process forward, Sinn Fein is prepared to put into play what we
have to offer. This includes our substantial electoral and
democratic mandate, our total commitment to establishing peace,
and whatever political influence we have to secure a political
package so that the IRA can make judgments in relations to the
future of its armed campaign.

     The reality, of course, is that we are not the IRA and it
will take its own counsel on these issues. However, it must be
remembered that Sinn Fein has helped formulate proposals which
have been enough to move the IRA to say publicly that their
acceptance by the British government could provide the basis for
peace.

     We must build on the positive achievements of the last 18
months. There is clear need to press ahead. In addition, and
while doing this--and there is clearly a U.S. dimension to this
also--we must look at more specific short-term and intermediate
term objectives to develop the potential which the process has
already provided for addressing issues of immediate concern.

     It means ensuing that there is parity of esteem and equality
of treatment for all Irish people. In the short to medium
term, we need to redress the grievances which are symptoms of the
conflict here. For Sinn Fein this means strengthening the
Nationalist agenda. How do we do this? In a number of ways:

* We must ensure by our efforts that there is no return to
Unionist domination over local Nationalist communities in the six
counties. What is abundantly clear, and Unionist politicians must
tell themselves and their supporters is that there is no going
back to the days of Stormont. There can never again be an
internal settlement.

* Sinn Fein activists must be able to represent and speak for our
communities in conditions of peace, uninterfered with by the
British military of the RUC, free of personal harassment and
from the threat of death squads. The censorship laws which are an
affront to democracy and a denial of human rights must be
scrapped.

* It is time that a real effort was made to end job
discrimination and economic inequities against Catholics. British
policy has made no significant dent in this fundamental problem.

* The underlying sectarian bias against Nationalist areas in the
allocation of economic investment must be brought to an end.

* The rights of Gaelgeoiri (Irish speakers) must be fully
recognized and an equality of status for the Irish language,
including funding for schools, must be secured.

* The speedy release of all long-term prisoners, pending a full
amnesty for all political prisoners, must become a mater of
urgent concern.

* The repressive legislation which saw over 100 coercion acts in
the 19th century, the Special Powers Act for most of the 20th
century and currently, the PTA, EPA and Public Order, must come
to an end.

* The links between British intelligence and the Loyalist death
squads must be severed. Collusion at all its levels must end.


                               ***

     These objective are all winnable. But it will mean a hard
and difficult struggle, requiring cooperation Republicans and
Nationalists. It will require the support of  the Dublin
government and our allies internationally. Support, particularly
in the U.S., for justice and democratic rights campaigns inn
Ireland have been instrumental in moving these campaigns towards
their goals.

     The obvious and best example of this in the MacBride
Principles campaign. That campaign put the issue of
discrimination back on the political agenda here and forces the
British government to admit that there is discrimination. The
example set by the exemplary work done in the U.S. on this issue
can be repeated on all these other issues.

     These are achievable goals which can provide a focus for
friends of Ireland in the U.S. This will make a real contribution
to the peace process and help to increase the momentum for change
and move the search for peace substantially forward.

     In pursuit of a settlement and a lasting peace there are a
number of elements which I believe are essential for success.

     Firstly, the policies and structures of the past have
failed. There can be no peace based on these failures. The status
quo must be fundamentally changed.

     Secondly, there must be a commitment to a process of
inclusive dialogue which embraces all of the parties to the
conflict and excludes no one.

     Thirdly, we need an inclusive political process without pre-
conditions which contains the dynamic towards a peace settlement
set within a timeframe.

     The road to peace, with justice and dignity, is a difficult
one to travel. There are, and there will be, roadblocks along the
way. I do not know how well this is understood in the U.S. It
must be difficult, especially given the manner in which British
propaganda functions.

     One thing, however, remains clear for those who wish to see
it. Republicans are committed to the goal of a lasting peace in
our country, and the Sinn Fein conference will mark another
important milestone on the pathway to peace.

     There will still  be some distance to travel after this
conference, but positive action in the U.S., as in the past, by
Irish America will help shorten the road.


                         **************

posted in....
                            IRL-NEWS
                  an interactive news listserv

  to subscribe to IRL-NEWS, send this message via the internet:
             subscribe IRL-NEWS first name last name

                            send to:
                   [email protected]

Received via fax from the Irish American Information Service

For Immediate Release
 July 29, 1994

              IRISH GOVERNMENT HINTS AT CEASEFIRE

DUBLIN - The opinion poll in the Sunday independent last week which showed
 more than 60% of the people in the south of Ireland oppose the maintenance
of the unionist veto over constitutional change in Northern Ireland has been
 quietly ignored by media commentators in the aftermath of the Sinn Fein
 conference on the Joint Peace Declaration. Yet the thrust of the criticism
 of Sinn Fein during the week has been its refusal to accept the veto in
their assessment or the declaration and the failure of the IRA to announce a
 ceasefire.

While the Sinn Fein leadership has accepted that it may have mishandled the
 extensive media presence, which was excluded from the bulk of the conference
 proceedings, it is not in its power to speak for the IRA, which is expected
 to make some form of statement of its short term intentions in the coming
 weeks. Even before the statement had emerged, government sources have
 privately, and perhaps unhelpfully, predicted an IRA temporary ceasefire to
 begin at the end of August. This will coincide with the resumption of
 efforts by both governments to seek a constitutional arrangement acceptable
 to both which can then be put to the political parties in Northern Ireland
as part of the all-party talks process.

The likelihood of reaching agreement on such contentious issues as Articles
 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution which the British secretary of state for
 Northern Ireland, Patrick Mayhew, recently said should be deleted and the
 Government of Ireland Act, which Irish prime minister Albert Reynolds wants
 altered, remains distant at present. However the suspension of the IRA
 campaign may give the Irish government the additional room for manoeuver it
 requires and the possibility of securing greater concessions from a British
 government that appears to have adopted a more explicit pro-unionist
position in recent weeks.

Meanwhile there have been calls for an inquiry into the placing of secret
 cameras near the home of woman murdered by the UVF (Ulster Volunteer Force)
 in May. Rose Ann Mallon was shot in county Tyrone by the UVF who claimed
 they were attempting to kill the woman's nephew, a former republican
 prisoner.  Earlier this week a local man found the secretly buried cameras
 and surveillance equipment on a hill overlooking the Mallon home giving rise
 to suspicions that the British army may have filmed the attack and could
 identify the culprits.

Irish American Information Service

Offices:

Dublin:       4 Dame Court
              Dublin 2 Ireland
              Tel. 011-353-1-774072
              Fax: 011-353-1-6793198

Washington:   National Press Building
              529 14th St., NW Suite 837
              Washington, DC 20045 USA
              Tel. 202-662-8830
              Fax: 202-662-8831

Michigan:     35941 Six Mile Rd.
              Livonia, MI 48152 USA
              Tel. 313-464-4119
              Fax: 313-464-4240

                                  The Guardian
                                August  22, 1994

                          BRITAIN FACES U.S. RIFT ON IRA
                           by David Sharrock In Belfast

    Anglo-Irish relations will be placed under a severe strain over whether to
allow Sinn Fein to join talks on the future of Northern Ireland if the IRA
announces a widely trailed, open-ended, ceasefire in the next week.

    With renewed pressure from the United States to resolve the impasse over
last December's Anglo-Irish peace initiative, and with the conditions for an
IRA ceasefire apparently in place, Downing Street yesterday repeated its
demand for a permanent end to violence.


    The Irish premier, Albert Reynolds, also issued a statement endorsing that
precondition to Sinn Fein's participation in constitutional talks in a move
which appeared to confirm reported differences in his coalition government.

    The indications are that the IRA's army council has decided to call an open

-ended ceasefire, which falls short of London and Dublin's demand for a
permanent cessation. It is expected to maximise the political impact of a halt
to its campaign during a visit by prominent Irish-Americans later this week.

    The group, led by former congressman Bruce Morrison, a confidant of
President Clinton, has kept the White House informed of its recent secret
attempts to persuade the IRA to end its campaign permanently. When the group
visited Belfast last September the IRA held, but never acknowledged, a
seven-day ceasefire.

    Niall O'Dowd, a member of the influential group, yesterday fuelled
speculation that a tactical ceasefire is about to test Anglo-Irish and American

relations to the limit. Mr O'Dowd, publisher of the New York newspaper the
Irish Voice, said on RTE radio: "Any ceasefire will have to be met with a
gesture of generosity and also a long-term view of the situation on the part
of the two governments" - an apparent reference to Sinn Fein's demand for
Britain to state its long-term intentions in Ireland.


    He added that his group would be prepared to use its influence to secure
another US visa for Gerry Adams, the Sinn Fein president.

    The Northern Ireland minister Michael Ancram yesterday ruled out any
softening of the Government's position. He said on BBC Radio Ulster: "We are
not prepared to enter into any form of dialogue, including exploratory dialogue,

with those who support violence until there has been a permanent renunciation
and cessation of violence on a credible basis."

    Mr Reynolds returns from holiday on Wednesday but reports of a split in the

coalition government over how to handle the IRA's imminent initiative prompted
him to issue a statement last night. It followed remarks by the deputy prime
minister, Dick Spring, that his Labour Party would leave the coalition rather
than talk with Sinn Fein before a permanent end to the IRA campaign.

    Mr Reynolds said: "I have never suggested that a temporary ceasefire of
three or six months would provide a seat at the conference table for Sinn Fein."

In April Mr Reynolds had said that "a decent ceasefire that can lead on to a
permanent ceasefire" would permit Sinn Fein to enter talks.

    The differences between Mr Spring and Mr Reynolds have been mirrored by the

apparent divisions between the leader of the Social Democratic and Labour
Party, John Hume, and his deputy Seamus Mallon.  Last week Mr Mallon called for

Sinn Fein's permanent exclusion from talks unless it renounces violence. Mr
Hume, in contrast, described as "interesting" comments by the former Sinn Fein
publicity director Danny Morrison that republicans were attempting to develop
an "unarmed strategy".

   The expected IRA ceasefire is the culmination of consultation by republican
leaders with the rank and file since the Downing Street declaration last
December.

    Republicans believe the ceasefire will ultimately press the Government into

bridging the gaps between the Downing Street declaration and the Hume-Adams
proposals, which were accepted by the IRA as the basis for peace. These are
believed to require the Government to act as persuaders and to end the
"Unionist veto" on steps towards a united Ireland.

    The violence in Northern Ireland continued over the weekend with a mortar
bomb attack on a security base in Ulster last night. The device, fired from a
van at a joint army/police base at Roslea, Co Fermanagh, failed to explode and
no one was hurt.

    The attack followed an explosion in Maghera, Co Londonderry, and a bomb
attack on a bar in the predominantly Catholic Markets district of Belfast
yesterday. No one was hurt in either incident.


                              ***********************

                                 The Guardian
                                August  22, 1994

       UNOFFICIAL AMERICAN PEACE MISSION FUELS HOPES OF CEASEFIRE IN ULSTER

                              by Jonathan Freedland


   They told their wives they were off to play golf, but they were players in a
game of diplomacy, with peace as the goal.

    The four Americans whose unofficial peace mission to Northern Ireland has
fuelled speculation about an imminent ceasefire, kept their work a secret for
nearly three years.

    They told colleagues and friends that their frequent trips across the
Atlantic were for business meetings, to see old contacts, or to enjoy Ulster's
fine 18-hole courses.

    In fact, the four - Bruce Morrison, a former congressman, Niall O'Dowd,
publisher of New York's Irish Voice newspaper, and industrialists William Flynn

and Charles Feeney - met Gerry Adams, president of Sinn Fein, Sir Patrick
Mayhew, the  Northern Ireland  Secretary, and Unionist leaders James Molyneaux
and Ian Paisley.

    They also encountered people they "assumed" were representatives of the IRA

and the outlawed Ulster Volunteer Force.

    "We had to be quite secretive," said Mr O'Dowd, who launched the effort. "I

doubt if anybody was really aware of what we were doing."

    The four Irish-Americans said they were able to operate without media
attention partly because of the American press's lack of interest in Northern
Ireland, and because British journalists who knew of the Belfast visits did
not take them seriously. "There is a kind of dismissal of Americans in this
process as naive romantics, dreaming of 1916," Mr Morrison said yesterday.

   "The seriousness of the people involved might have been lost on those
covering it."

    The project had no official backing and was entirely funded out of the
delegates' own pockets. Nevertheless it appears to have had the tacit blessing
of the White House.

   Mr Morrison, a former classmate of President Clinton at Yale Law School, has
long had the ear of the President. He is shortly expected to take a top housing

post in the Clinton administration.

    Mr O'Dowd and his team first met Mr Clinton in 1991, and found him
sympathetic and acutely aware of the electoral clout of Irish-American voters.

    "This is a guy who understands the problem better than any contemporary US
politician," Mr O'Dowd said.

    The team found other allies. The backing of Edward Kennedy in the Senate,
and his sister, Jean Kennedy Smith, US ambassador to Dublin, proved crucial,
said the delegation. The Kennedys leaned on President Clinton to grant Gerry
Adams a US entry visa this year - a crucial victory for the Irish-American team

in its battle to persuade Sinn Fein that the diplomatic track would yield
rewards.

    The four insist they do not conform to the usual stereotype of
pro-Republican Americans. They hosted a dinner three months ago in New York for

Ian Paisley and Peter Robinson of the Democratic Unionist Party.

    They lobbied hard for a recent meeting between James Molyneaux and Vice
-President Al Gore - the highest-level encounter of its kind. "Our efforts are
not anti-British," Mr Morrison said.

    The largest carrot the Irish-Americans are offering to Ulster is financial.

William Flynn is chairman of insurance giants Mutual of America, while Charles
Feeney heads the multinational General Atlantic company.

    Mr Flynn has formed an informal coalition of nearly 30 Irish-American
business leaders committed to investing in a post-peace  Northern Ireland.

    The motivation of the Irish-American group seems to lie partly in sentiment

for the old country and partly in a sense of sheer fatigue after 25 years of
violence.



    "There is a tremendous sense of something having to be done," Mr O'Dowd
said.

    "We think there's a tremendous need for help from the outside."

    Re.107   Could you tell us what the full text of your title in .107 is?
    
    Mark

 Basically what I said, was that the original
 message from the British was that a 3 month 
 cease-fire would suffice.  Now they've changed
 their mind, and expect "permanent cessation of
 violence" (ie. a surrender), before Sinn Fein
 can come to the table.

 It's just another British game.  I think the IRA
 would be stupid to call a one sided cease fire.
 The truth is that the British really have no 
 intention of negotiating a settlement (if they
 ever really did, there would be negotiations without
 pre-conditions).

                    Mark

    
     >>Basically what I said, was that the original
     >>message from the British was that a 3 month
     >>cease-fire would suffice.  Now they've changed
     >>their mind, and expect "permanent cessation of
     >>violence" (ie. a surrender), before Sinn Fein
     >>can come to the table.
     
    Once a gain your over-simplification of the problem has led you to an
    incorrect conclusion. There is a third party here (the Unionist
    population of NI ) who cannot be ignored and must be catered for. The
    situation in NI is not simply a war between the UK and the IRA, which
    once it's over everybody can go home, but a very complex situation, the
    solution to which will only be brought about by compromise and not
    bloody-mindedness. The Nationalist population  has a lot to gain from
    an IRA cease-fire, not the least being a moral superiority over loyalist
    paramilitaries, who in the longer run (IMHO) will be be a tougher and
    less predictable beast to tame.
    
    Joe.

    re: 109
    
    You're  mis-interpreting what was said (surprise ..surprise)
    The British never suggested that a three month cease fire would
    suffice, nor did Albert and the boys in Dublin. A permanent cease fire
    has always been the pre-requisite to Sinn Fein getting a seat at the
    table . What was said was that "IF the IRA called a permanent cease
    fire and IF after a period of time , such as three months , it looked
    like the cease fire was holding , THEN Sinn Fein would get to the
    table.
    
    So , as a reply to this why don't you correct me and provide the
    articles where it says , in unambiguous language , that if the IRA
    called a three month temporary cease fire then Sinn Fein would be
    invited to the negotiations . 
    
    F.

    re: 109 ..again ....
    
    You say that you think the IRA would be stupid to call a one sided
    cease fire .
    
    The alternative is that they continue to murder and maim and cripple
    and mutilate more innocent people which leaves sorrow and hurt and
    disgust and hatred and a desire for revenge which leads to .........
    
    So, am I to understand that you support a continuation of the situation
    in NI as it is today .
    
    Easy to see you don't live there . It must be great to sit 3,500 miles
    away and be able to tell people in another country how to fight their
    wars , how to be brave , to hold out , to keep up the struggle , that
    truth and justice will win out and they will eventually be free ...
    then you go home at night to your cosy house in your cosy
    neighbourhood, have a sound nights sleep in your cosy bed then come to
    work again the next day and get on your soapbox again .
    
    I maintain that you and people of your ilk are part of the problem and
    until you realise and accept that then you will never be part  of the
    solution . 
    
    F.

    
    A slight misunderstanding I think with regards to .107 and .108.  
    
    Could you just post the exact text of your title.  All I can see is
    
     -< Articles from the Guardian.  Interesting how now that the Ra are >-
                                            
    
    

  Sinn Fein is not the IRA. Sinn Fein is a party whose
  representatives are democratically elected by their
  constituents.

 re. .111

  The British have said so many different things 
  regarding their Downing Street declaration, who
  the hell knows what they really mean.  It changes
  week to week.

  Let's get one thing straight, Sinn Fein is not the
  IRA.  Sinn Fein represents a significant portion of
  northern Nationalist.  As such it should immediately
  be recognized at the negotiating table (without any
  pre-conditions).

  Now, the IRA on the other hand, would be stupid to
  have a one sided cease fire, while the British forces
  continue to collude with loyalist death squads,
  imprison the innocent, hold jury-less trials and
  censor political opposition.

  Is it any wonder this thing has gone on for 25 years,
  with the continued games being played by the British.

                        Mark

    Sinn Fein is the political wing of the IRA. The two are linked "at the
    highest levels". Sinn Fein are the only political party in NI which has
    not denounced the "armed struggle". Until they do, they should be left
    outside the talks.
    
    Joe.

  >  Sinn Fein represents a significant portion of
  >  northern Nationalist.
    
    What percentage of the vote have they got recently?

 re. .115

 Sure, and the British government is the political
 wing of the British occupation forces in north east
 Ireland.  The two are linked at the "highest levels".
 One tells the other what to do, whom to kill, whom
 to collude with, and whose human rights should be
 violated.

 Sinn Fein on the other hand does not have control
 over the Irish Republican Army.

 When will the British government denounce collusion,
 censorship and their littany of human rights violations,
 so that they can be allowed to sit at the peace table?
 Oh, they don't have to, do they, cause they think it's
 their show. (once again, it's no wonder the British
 have dragged this thing out for 25 years).
 Unlike you, I think that Sinn Fein should make the
 magnaminous step (as they have), and agree to talk 
 to the British criminals above. At least for the sake
 of peace.

 re. .116
  30% of the Nationalists vote.



 

    >highest levels". Sinn Fein are the only political party in NI which has
    >not denounced the "armed struggle". Until they do, they should be left
    >outside the talks.
    
    Joe be serious, has Britain renounced their armed struggle yet? They
    are the ones with 30,000 soldiers in NI, far more than the IRA's few
    hundred. When will Britain announce a phased withdrawal of their
    military from NI and help to coerce the peoples of NI to negotiate a
    settlement amongst themselves? And I'm not talking changing nationalities
    here, just demilitarizing the place.
    
    Why continue the status quo if it's not working? You talk about the
    IRA's armed struggle (who I am NO advocate of), yet the British are
    enlarging the military bases at Crossmaglen. It's a two-way street in NI.
    
    In my opinion, even a temporary 3 month cease-fire by the IRA won't be
    successful unless it is met by a concerted effort by the British to
    reduce their level of military operations in NI, including plans for
    an eventual withdrawal of their military.
    
    /George

    >>Joe be serious, has Britain renounced their armed struggle yet? They
    >>are the ones with 30,000 soldiers in NI, far more than the IRA's few
    >>hundred
    
    George, get real. The British Soldiers in NI are not fighting a war
    (I'm sure Mr Holohan will have some predictable replies to this),
    although on occasion there actions have been close to it (e.g. Bloody
    Sunday). However, on the whole, it is the IRA who are the aggressors
    against the British Army. Even if the the Britsh Army did pull out of
    NI, what then. A free-for-all between the IRA and the UFF/UVF? I'm
    afraid the last twenty five years should have warned us all against 
    utopian solutions to a complex problem.
    
    I ask again, what have the IRA got to lose by calling a unilateral
    cease-fire. It's not like they are an army protecting Catholics. They
    are an insurrectionist group capable only of hit and run gun attacks
    and soft-target bombings. At this stage the aims of the Nationalist
    community and Ireland as a whole would be better served by them doing 
    whatever is necessary to get to the talks table.
    
    Joe.                                  

    I basically agree with you.  However, as much as I think the IRA
    should call a cease-fire, I can't understand why the British don't
    announce a phased withdrawal from NI.  I mean, what in God's name
    are they protecting up there?  Why should there be 30,000 fully
    armed soldiers running around in NI?  The British have the power
    to enforce a peaceful negotiated settlement with power sharing
    for all groups.
    
    Sometimes, complex situations can be solved by simple measures,
    like reducing the tension and building social ties.  This isn't
    done by enlarging military bases, flying in more helicopters,
    cutting off more roads & borders, & dividing the communities.
    
    The British could force power sharing to occur by dangling their
    huge subsidies over the NI residents heads.  Instead of that, all
    we see is vote getting slogans, vague political statements,
    mysterious meetings, that translates into not giving in an inch
    until the very day the numerical majority in NI decide otherwise.
    So twenty-five years later we'll have 3000 more deaths, and maybe
    some different flag flying over Stormont.  Big deal...
    
    I think a lot of people wouldn't care less about the flag if the
    British military & the IRA & the Unionist paras would take an
    extended holiday... 

re. .119
>George, get real. The British Soldiers in NI are not fighting a war

 Nope, over 3400 dead, tens of thousands wounded.  I'd
 say it's just your average friendly British football
 match, right Mr. Smyth.

>However, on the whole, it is the IRA who are the aggressors
>against the British Army.

 Of course, those 30,000 Irish Republican Army soldiers
 billeted in England are really sticking it to the
 English population.

>Even if the the Britsh Army did pull out of
>NI, what then. A free-for-all between the IRA and the UFF/UVF? 

 You're still operating under the false assumption 
 fed by the British propoganda machine.  That the
 British are there as "peace-keepers".  Did you read
 the Amnesty International reports on British collusion
 with loyalist death squads?  I guess not, cause if
 you had, you would see that the British are the 
 problem.

>I ask again, what have the IRA got to lose by calling a unilateral
>cease-fire.

 Three months of time for the British to continue
 with their collusion, human rights violations, 
 censorship of political opposition, and their
 imprisonment of the innocent.

 Not to mention that the last time the IRA called a
 unilateral cease-fire, the British used it to
 try and crush the IRA.

 Make no mistake, the British don't want peace. People
 who want peace don't set pre-conditions on the
 opposition.  Did Nelson Mandela and the ANC have to
 "renounce violence" and cleanse themselves in a
 unilateral cease fire for 3 months before the 
 apartheid regime would talk peace with them?

                           Mark

    >>> Nope, over 3400 dead, tens of thousands wounded. 
    
    Would you like to give a breakdown on what percentage have been killed
    by the IRA, what percentage by loyalist terrorists and what percentage
    by the British army. By any count the IRA and Loyalist terrorists are
    orders of magnitude more deadly than the BA.
    
 >>Make no mistake, the British don't want peace. People
 >>who want peace don't set pre-conditions on the
 >>opposition
    And I suppose Sinn Fein haven't set any pre-conditions. Oh well, I do
    hope the weather is nice in Cloud-Cuckoo-Land, Mark.
    
.>>  Did Nelson Mandela and the ANC have to
 >>"renounce violence" and cleanse themselves in a
>> unilateral cease fire for 3 months before the 
>> apartheid regime would talk peace with them?
    
    But Nelson Mandela did renounce the violence before he came to the
    conference table. Also he had 80% of the population behind him, not
    12.5% as Sinn Fein have in NI.
    
>>I'd say it's just your average friendly British football match, right 
>>    Mr. Smyth.                           
    
    Sorry, I've never been to a British Football match, you have me there.
    
    
    While you can convince me that the problem is between Unionists and
    Nationalists, you cannot convince me that the Britishg Army is the sole
    problem in NI, as you would like to believe.
    
    Joe

    RE <<< Note 1332.120 by TALLIS::DARCY "Alpha Migration Tools" >>>
    
    
>           -< Remember John Lennon's song? >-
    
    Which one?
    
    "Give Peace a chance" or "Sunday Bloody Sunday".
    

To answer my own question:
    Sinn Fein voting figures:	< 10% in the North
    				<  2% in the South
    Source: Austin Currie in an interview today.
    
    Not exactly an overwhelming mandate.
    
    Dave

 re. .124

  Considering the censorship and demonization that
  the British government put Sinn Fein through, I'd
  say representing 30% of the Nationalists is pretty
  good.

                         Mark

    re.125
    Considering the censorship and demonization that
    the British government put Sinn Fein through, I'd
    
    
    When since were Sinn Fein censored in NI then Mark?
    I think I'd be pretty upset as an Irishman living in NI, by your
    suggestion that I did not have a free choice about who to vote for. Or
    do you really believe that people living there and who live with the
    day to day politics don't know what their politicians are up to?
    
    Seems to me this another classical "Americans know best".
    Unlike in your country Mark, it's not the person with the most money
    that gets into high government and while you may not like it, the count
    at the polls is what matters the most.

    And what would you say about the < 2% figure?
    
    Dave

 re. .126

 I do know that censorship is wrong, especially when
 it's applied to the political opposition (ie. British 
 censorship of Sinn Fein and human rights activists).

 I guess these ideas of freedom, are just too foreign
 to the likes of the British.  No wonder we chucked
 you bums out over 200 years ago.  Good riddens!

 re. .127
 Ireland had one of the worst political censorship
 laws until last year.

                       Mark
 

 > Ireland had one of the worst political censorship
 > laws until last year.
    
    So are you saying the low level of support was due to political
    censorship?  In which case their share of the vote should now be 
    leaping up?
    
    Of course it also possible, just possible, that 98% of the population
    does not vote for Sinn Fein because it does not agree with its policies.
    But accepting that would upset your world view too much.
    
    Dave

    
    I didn't hear you bleeting when I was censored from this conference
    Mark, for allegedly calling you something you didn't like!! Or does
    that not matter? Is censorship only relevant when its something or
    somebody you support? Seems like it to me!
    
    BTW bum or not I won't be trying to censor you.
    
    Anyway, why don't you tell us all how Sinn Fein are censored in
    Ireland; and I do mean all of Ireland.

 re. .130

  If you were censored from the conference, I can
  only assume it was because you broke conference
  and/or digital policy.  You probably got what you
  deserved.

  Up until January of this year section 31 of the
  Broadcasting act, was used to censor Sinn Fein in
  Ireland.  The damage of this censorship will take
  years to undo.
  The British government still continues to censor
  Sinn Fein, and human rights activists who dare to
  speak out against the British war in north east
  Ireland.  The British censorship laws are of course
  applied to north east Ireland.  The most extreme
  being the collusion with loyalist death squads in
  the assasination of Sinn Fein members.  The less
  obscure being the "branding as terrorists", by
  dubbing out the voices of human rights activists,
  and members of Sinn Fein.

                         Mark

    Well Mark, the main argument used by people who wanted to get rid of
    section 31 of the Broadcasting Act was that Sinn Fein would be forced
    to face up to the public and give their opinion on IRA atrocities such
    as Warrington, Enniskillen etc. 
    
    In the news segments I have seen from RTE Sinn Fein have made
    themselves look foolish. Particularly after their wonderful meeting in
    Donegal to discuss the Downing Street Declaration. Gerry Adams looked
    all at sea as to why Sinn Fein could say so little after so much
    posturing beforehand.
    
    Also Section 31 only applied to the braodcast media, not the print
    media. So don't be blowing your trumpet too hard on the "take years to
    recover from" bull.
    
    Sinn Fein will remain a marginal party as long as they follow extremist
    policies.
    
    Joe.

    Joe, one would hope that Section 31 was removed so that Sinn Fein
    and other groups could express their views without state sponsored
    censorship.  Whether in print or visual media, the mere act of
    censorship connotes negative images.  It's amazing - Russia is free
    of communism, yet Ireland did and Britain still does practice political
    censorship.  Orwell would be proud.
    
    Don't get me wrong, the events at Warrington/Enniskillen were indeed
    tragic, and damaged the public's view of the IRA.  But censorship only
    deceives people, destroys trust, and generally is a bad idea.
    
    If you see Sinn Fein as extremist, what you think of state bodies
    that censor their citizens?  That seems more extreme to me.  Why?
    Because it is done under the veil of legitimacy.
    
    Rgds,
    /George

   re.131

  <<If you were censored from the conference, I can only assume it was 
    because you broke conference and/or digital policy.  
                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    But Mark, surely you do this every day by spending umpteen working
    hours writing pure drivel in this conference. I only added this
    conference to my list at the beginning of the year, but I swear, if
    I read another one of your notes that includes the line "Collusion with
    Loyalist death squads", I will promptly do a DEL ENTRY CELT.
    You must have used this line over 200 times man....Get a life !!!!
    
    John (Who isn't quite 3500 miles & a huge ocean away from the troubles)
    
    
     

 re. .134

"But Mark, surely you do this every day by spending umpteen working
 hours writing pure drivel in this conference."

 Try next unseen if you find the truth too upsetting.


 You're wrong John, it's the British who keep playing
 the same record.  All I'm doing is reporting on 
 their tune.

                  Mark

    George,
    
    Once again you have the wrong end of the stick. I did not argue that
    Section 31 was right or wrong, but I was pointing out some of the views
    held by those opposing Section 31, in particular, members of the
    National Union of Journalists. On many occasions I have seen NUJ
    members argue that Sinn Fein were in fact gaining from Section 31 and
    not being weakened by it. They gained from it in two separate ways.
    First of all they did'nt have to face the nation after IRA atrocities
    and secondly they could cry foul to Irish-Americana for infringement of
    their rights. It seems these assertions are being borne out.
    
    Joe. 

    Joe, I agree with you there. In fact I think it was a double edge
    sword. To Unionists, Section 31 (and its British counterpart)
    reinforces the negative image of Adams and Sinn Fein, by demonizing
    them. To Republicans Section 31 made Adams and Sinn Fein heralded,
    an organization the government *had* to censor.
    
    I think it is far healthier to have an open and free media.  Let the
    assertions and facts fly out. Maybe I'm an optimist, but I really
    believe in the power of citizens to decide on their own.
    
    From Americana ;v)
    /G
      

    re .131
    
    wrong again Mark, I was censored for calling you names and you know it.
    But lets not worry about that it's trivial. I just want everybody to
    know that censorship does exist in the great U.S. of A. even though you
    deny it. But then denial appears to be something that you are good at.
    
    This weeks Sunday Times contained an article about the Edinburgh
    Festival which is underway at the minute. The festival is an enormous
    affair which has Edinburgh bulging at the seams every year and every
    corner of music and the Arts is covered.
    An ex inmate of one of Irelands prisons (17 years) was giving a lecture
    on broadcasting and was questioned by a host of TV producers and
    directors. His subject.... Censorship! HE.. blew up the Europa Hotel in
    Belfast in the seventies. He was a member of the IRA. He is now a Sinn
    Fein councillor.
    If it matters I'll post his name later when I remember to write it
    down.

                                The Irish Times
                                 August  27, 1994

                         Adams want US to act as guarantor
                                  By DICK GROGAN

    A US delegation led by a former Congressman, Mr Bruce Morrison, and the
Sinn Fein leader, Mr Gerry Adams, clearly indicated a desire that the US
administration should act as a guarantor for a negotiated settlement in the
North, following three hours of talks in Belfast yesterday.

   Neither Mr Adams nor the US group would be drawn into comment on the
continuing speculation about an impending IRA ceasefire, but they separately
insisted that yesterday's meeting had been very constructive and in Mr
Adams words, "an important and significant step."

   The Sinn Fein leader told reporters outside Connolly House in west Belfast
after the meeting: "There is an evolving peace process here. We have identified
the international dimension in the resolution of this conflict.  The US in
particular, and Irish Americans especially hayv been elements for change, for
good and for moving the whole situation forward towards a democratic
settlement."

   Mr Morrison said: "We hope that the input that we have given will move (the)

process forward. We believe that it will, and we are very encouraged by what we

heard here today that the process is moving in a very constructive

   He added: "People become impatient at times with the progress of change, but

real change takes time to build the foundations to give it its reality, and we
were very encouraged in that regard by what we heard here today."

   Neither man would give any details of their discussions, or of any tangible
proposals, offers or suggestions exchanged. In various radio and television
interviews, however, Mr Adams was asked if he would see President Clinton as a
guarantor.

   He said: "If you have a situation where the two Governments cannot move,
surely someone from outside that frame can be signalling the need for the
situation to advance. That is what happened in the Palestinian Israeli
situation, and in the South African situation.

   "We would not expect anyone to be acting as guarantors for republicans, but
we would be expecting people to act as guarantors for a broad, conclusive
settlement of this conflict."

   He did not think there was anyone who could predict how the situation would
evolve exactly, but it was an evolving situation. "I think if the British
government does not seize this opportunity, or if the US are not persuaded
to be part of it, then we could have the worst of all possible situations," he
said. He urged that the British Prime Minister, Mr Major, should "seize this
opportunity with both hands."

   The unionists had to come into the situation. They could not make peace
without the unionists. He accepted that they had fears about the future, and
this was understandable. They (Sinn Fein) had to seek to minimise or remove
those fears.

   Unionists needed their leadership to produce a De Klerk, who would "lead all

of us into a better future.

   Asked about reports in The Irish Times about British Irish agreement on
possible constitutional change, Mr Adams said that constitutional change needed

to be meaningful and fundamental "not just semantics or a rearrangement of
words."

  He added: "We need to have British jurisdiction in our country ended, and an
Irish jurisdiction, of whatever shape or form, replacing it. We want to see the

end of the Government of Ireland Act.

   He accepted that a stoppage by all the armed groups of their actions was an
essential ingredient of a negotiated peace settlement, but he refused to engage

in speculation on an IRA ceasefire because the issue was "so sensitive".

   Today the visiting group will meet the Alliance Party leader, Dr Alderdice,
the SDLP MP for West Belfast, Dr Joe Hendron, and a number of victims of
terrorism who will be presented to them by the organisation, Families Against
Intimidation and Terror.

     Sinn Fein's Adams begins U.S. tour

RTw  9/24/94 5:46 PM

 Eds: Updates with Adams arrival, new quotes throughout)
     BOSTON, Sept 24 (Reuter) - Gerry Adams, the leader of the
 IRA's political wing, began a U.S. tour Saturday with a
 challenge to Britain's prime minister to leave a historic mark
 on the peace process now underway in Northern Ireland.
     "I appeal to John Major to use this oppportunity to make his
 mark in history as the one British Prime Minister who would
 work for peace in Northern Ireland," Adams said after flying
 into Boston, the most Irish of American cities.
     The president of the Sinn Fein political party urged Major to
 stamp the peace process "as the only British prime minister
 who brought peace and freedom and justice to all the people
 of Northern Ireland."
     Adams will make a two-week U.S. tour in the wake of the
 ceasefire declared by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) in its
 guerrilla war against British rule of Northern Ireland.
     He will visit nine U.S. cities, primarily seeking to raise
 support among Irish-Americans.
     The Irish Times newspaper has said Adams will also go to
 Washington and may meet National Security Adviser Anthony
 Lake.
     About 100 cheering Sinn Fein supporters greeted Adams at
 the Boston airport.
     He was met by Senator Edward Kennedy, a prominent
 Irish-American long actively interested in Irish affairs.
     Kennedy said of the cease-fire: "Those of us in the United
 States Senate take the cessation as something ongoing and
 continuous...and most importantly, it is the president of the
 United States' position."
     Britain has been insisting that the IRA declare their
 ceasefire to be permanent before it will admit Sinn Fein to
 discussions on the future of the province, where Protestants
 who support the link with britain are in a majority.
     The trip is Adams' second to the United States this year
 and the first since the IRA called the ceasefire on August 31.
     Adams said that, according to British newspapers on
 Saturday, the British government is no longer pressing to
 describe the IRA ceasefire as "permanent."
     He said President Clinton, Irish Prime Minister Albert
 Reynolds and now British Prime Major had all accepted the
 view that the IRA's efforts toward peace are ongoing.
     "I think we should not engage in semantics. The IRA peace
 has lasted," he said. "The IRA statement speaks for itself. I
 think we need to stop looking backward and looking forward to
 opportunities for peace."
     Adams' trip follows a visit by the Ulster Unionist Party
 (UUP), Northern Ireland's largest pro-British party, who have
 just visited Washington.
     "The Unionists have as much right to be on the island as
 the nationalists," he said. "They are our people."
     Adams said the reunification of Ireland is inevitable, but the
 future of the country is for the Irish, not the British, and they
 must be flexible at the bargaining table.
     His trip is partly to appeal for investment in Ireland, he said.
 The Irish helped develop North America, and can claim
 kinship with 13 American presidents, and now it is time for the
 United States to return the favour by aiding the Irish peace
 process, he said.
     His last visit to the United States was for two days last
 February after being kept out for 20 years. It was regarded as
 a propaganda coup because of media attention it attracted.
     Kennedy was instrumental in persuading President Clinton's
 administration to grant Adams a visa for that trip.
     Adams was to attend a private reception Saturday with
 local politicians and business leaders, Kennedy's staff said.
     Kennedy's nephew, Joseph Kennedy, the Massachusetts
 Congressman and son of former Attorney General Robert
 Kennedy, unveiled a plan of tax credits and a U.S. economic
 coordinator to develop an investment plan for Northern
 Ireland.
     Sinn Fein said Adams will also meet business and political
 leaders and address meetings of Irish-Americans during the
 coast-to-coast tour.
     He will visit Hartford, Connecticut; Detroit, Michigan;
 Cleveland, Ohio; New York; Philadelphia; Washington; San
 Francisco and Los Angeles.
     Protestant politicians feared Adams' trip would give
 Americans a distorted picture of the situation in Northern
 Ireland.
     "It is important from our Northern Irish point of view that the
 Americans see that there are two sides to the issue in Northern
 Ireland," the UUP's John Taylor told British Broadcasting
 Corporation (BBC) radio.
 ----------------------------------------
    MAKE YOUR MARK IN HISTORY, ADAMS CHALLENGES MAJOR

PA   9/24/94 6:04 PM

  Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams began his US tour today with a
 challenge to John Major to leave a historic mark on the peace
 process.
   "I appeal to John Major to use this oppportunity to make his
 mark in history as the one British Prime Minister who would
 work for peace in Northern Ireland," Mr Adams said after
 arriving in Boston, the most Irish of American cities.
   He urged Mr Major to stamp the peace process "as the only
 British prime minister who brought peace and freedom and
 justice to all the people of Northern Ireland."
 Mr Adams said he would be flexible about how to bring
 permanent peace to Northern Ireland.
   He added that he expected the same flexibility from the
 Government and loyalist parties.
   The reunification of Ireland was inevitable "but the future of
 the country is for the Irish, not the British, and they must be
 flexible at the bargaining table".
   Mr Adams said Sinn Fein would consider a coalition
 government with Britain.
   "But, as an Irish republican, I have to stress in the city which
 hosted the  Boston Tea Party, that the British Government have
 enough to do with governing Britain, that I believe that the
 people of Ireland ... have the intelligence and the wit and the
 right to govern ourselves."
   Mr Adams, joined at a news conference by Senator Edward
 Kennedy, was cheered by about 100 IRA and Sinn Fein
 supporters.
   Both Mr Adams and Mr Kennedy said John Major should not
 get bogged down in seeking a permanent ceasefire from the
 IRA but begin negotiations.
   "Those of us in the United States Senate take the cessation
 as something ongoing and continuous ... and most importantly,
 it is the President of the United States' position," the senator
 said.
   The interest was in the future.
   "The actions speak, the violence has halted. It's difficult for
 many of us to understand why people are carping on the past
 and not looking for opportunities to advance the cause of
 peace," said Mr Kennedy.
   On Friday, Mr Major said the Government might meet with
 Sinn Fein by Christmas. The Prime Minister has been holding
 out for more definite assurances that the ceasefire is
 permanent.
   Mr Adams commented: "I think we should not engage in
 semantics. The IRA peace has lasted. The IRA statement
 speaks for itself. I think we need to stop looking backward and
 looking forward to opportunities for peace."
   During his nine-city tour, Mr Adams is expected to ask the US
 to pressure Britain to meet with IRA supporters.
   The Clinton administration is weighing financial aid and other
 incentives to nurture peace prospects and improve the lot of
 Northern Ireland's people.
   But it was not yet clear what level of US officials would meet
 Mr Adams.

 ---------------------------------
      Adams' Trip

APn  9/26/94 3:33 AM

    BOSTON (AP) -- Bolstered by a buoyant welcome from
 Irish-Americans on his first weekend in the United States, Sinn
 Fein leader Gerry Adams is keeping his message plain: The
 IRA wants peace; now Britain must decide.
   "All republicans want peace and all republicans want to
 encourage this process for peace, and it isn't in any danger or
 any risk from any republican element," Adams said Sunday.
   "The danger which faces the peace process comes from the
 British government and its failure to grasp this opportunity."
   Adams, president of the legal, political wing of the Irish
 Republican Army, is on a two-week U.S. tour. He was to visit
 Detroit today.
   When he visits Washington, Adams is likely to ask the United
 States to pressure Britain to meet with Sinn Fein, which wants
 to join in negotiations on the future of the British province. The
 Clinton administration is weighing financial aid and other
 incentives to nurture peace prospects and improve the lot of
 Northern Ireland's people.
   In January, the British government criticized the Clinton
 administration for granting Adams a special visa for a brief
 visit to New York. That visa, like his current one, required the
 United States to waive its ban on admitting those linked to
 terrorism.
   After meeting with local politicians in largely Irish-American
 South Boston, Adams told The Boston Herald that the IRA
 wants to make the cease-fire it declared Aug. 31 permanent.
   "I want to see the gun taken permanently out of Irish politics,"
 he said in today's paper. "I mean, that's our intention. Who's
 interested in temporary? We live there."
   Earlier Sunday, hundreds of people turned out for a rally in
 Glastonbury, Conn.
   "If you ask me why the British don't want Sinn Fein people to
 come and speak, it's because they fear your power. They're
 not afraid of me. They fear your power. They fear your
 influence," Adams told the crowd after an open-air Mass on a
 football field outside the Irish-American Home Society.
   Some listeners, including Billy Kelly, who said he was
 imprisoned for his IRA activities in the early 1970s, were
 moved to tears by the prospect of peace.
   "This is the greatest opportunity we'll ever have, and with the
 help of God, we'll see it through," the County Kerry native said.
   "It's very emotional. A lot of people have died," Kelly added,
 wiping his eyes with a handkerchief.
   Mingling with the crowd of about 600 people, Adams handed
 out hugs, handshakes, smiles and autographs and posed for
 family photographs.
   He planned to visit New York, San Francisco, Cleveland,
 Philadelphia and Los Angeles as well.

    
    ..All this is well and fine and Mr Adama/Hume/Reynolds/Mayhew/Major
    have ALL got to given credit for getting this moving....
    
    Its a good start but main problem now is to see how the unionists can
    be brought on board. How did the unionists visit to the USA go???
    
    If there is US money to be given to Northern
    ireland..(and god isn't it sad but if its not the EEC money we are
    after its USA cash!)...It will need to be adminstered carefully
    and across the board. This will need a re work on how government is
    administered locally. Eduaction projects are a good example...As long
    as we have the religious boyos with their steel fist on eduaction
    boards we will continue to have segregation...
    
    Mick
    

  The British government needs to stop giving the Unionist any
  false hopes that the status quo can continue.  The British
  government needs to stop supporting loyalist death squads,
  and begin to treat both communities fairly.  
  The Unionist need to start showing up and representing their
  constituents at all meetings to discuss the future of north
  east Ireland, and the future of the peace process.

  Unfortunately the British government is still unwilling to
  sit down with all parties involved and discuss the terms
  of peace.  Not much can happen until they do.

                       Mark

    re -1
    
    was that an attempt at an answer to .142 ????????????
    

>>                     <<< Note 1332.143 by KOALA::HOLOHAN >>>
>>  						  The British
>>  government needs to stop supporting loyalist death squads,
    			     ^^^^^^^^^^
    
    Is this different from collusion or are you finally admitting that your
    imagination used to get the better of you ?
    
    
    Mark
    
    

 re. .145

  Nope.  Until human rights organizations like Amnesty
  International, and Helsinki Watch tell me that this
  is no longer going on, I will continue to believe
  that the British forces are actively colluding with
  the loyalist death squads.  
                       Mark

aaargh

Received from the Irish American Information Service:

PRESS RELEASE                                SEPTEMBER 27, 1994

An estimated 1,400 cheering, stomping, clapping fans greeted Gerry
 Adams last night at the historic Gaelic League Hall in Detroit,
 Michigan.  As he made his entry to chants of Ge-ry, Ge-ry, and a
 standing ovation that lasted several minutes, Mr. Adams reached the
 stage to be greeted by State Senator John Kelly who presented him
 with an address of welcome from the Michigan State Legislature.
 Kelly was an early sponsor of the victorious MacBride Principles
 Campaign in Michigan.

Earlier in the day, Mr. Adams was greeted with a citation from
 Detroit City Council, presented by Councilwoman Sheila Cockrell.

Perhaps the most significant event of his visit was meeting the
 legendary Mrs. Rosa Parks whose refusal to give up her seat in a
 bus to a white man in the '60s sparked the civil rights movement in
 America. With a warm hug Mr. Adams presented her with a sparkling
 Waterford glass bowl amid the cheers of approving well wishers at
 a press conference at Detroit City Council Building. He identified
 himself with Mrs. Parks and said he was inspired as a teenager by
 the civil rights movement in the U.S. when their theme song "We
 shall overcome" was adopted in the struggle for justice in Ireland.

In his address at the evening rally, Mr. Adams challenged the
 British to stop stalling, to move the peace process forward and to
 stop creating confrontations by reclosing border roads that have
 been reopened by local people so seriously inconvenienced by their
 closure.  He drew analogies between situations in the Middle East,
 in South Africa and in Germany saying, "If peace can be brought to
 those places, why not Ireland?"  He went on, "We have to use our
 undoubted influence and send a very clear message to Britain: Its
 time for peace. Its time for them to go."

He next took written questions and handled each one with humor or
 sincerity as required and dealt with each one with the expertise of
 a seasoned statesman.  Then he went outside to work the waiting
 hundreds in the rain who longed to get a glimpse of their hero.

Considering that over a score of media units covered the event it
 must be conceded that his visit was an unqualified success.  The
 size of the crowd matched that of the night of the death of Bobby
 Sands on May 5, 1981. The mood then was sadness and anger. The mood
 now is hope and perhaps with Gerry's help Bobby did not die in
 vain.


    Dan O' Kennedy, International Co-ordinator, I.A.I.S.

                      ***********************

Irish American Information Service

Offices:

Dublin:       4 Dame Court
              Dublin 2 Ireland
              Tel. 011-353-1-774072
              Fax: 011-353-1-6793198

Washington:   National Press Building
              529 14th St., NW Suite 837
              Washington, DC 20045 USA
              Tel. 202-662-8830
              Fax: 202-662-8831

Michigan:     35941 Six Mile Rd.
              Livonia, MI 48152 USA
              Tel. 313-464-4119
              Fax: 313-464-4240

  


"I want to see a permanent peace," he told ABC TV's Good Morning America.
"I've spent my life struggling, with others, to get the conditions for a
permanent peace. I'm not interested in any temporary suspension."

 
  Of course in British government circles, "permanent peace" will
  be a dirty word.

                  Mark
  
 

    The amazing thing here is that, due to British and American
    restrictions on Sinn Fein broadcasting, travel, and visas, etc.
    they have unknowingly turned Mr. Adams into a celebrity on
    par with Nelson Mandela. He has been in the news every day
    for the past 2 weeks. Yes, one could somewhat argue that
    politicians here are using him to their advantage, but I
    think it goes beyond that.  The exposure is more than I
    had expected.  Again I'm not making any judgement on the
    content, just the delivery.
    
    /g

    Just heard on the BBC world service 8:00 am 29-9-94, that Adams and
    Mates had several goes at each other during a televised debate last
    night. Don't know what channel it was on, but if anyone saw it, it
    would be interesting to know what happened.
    
    If your reading Holohan, I don't want a rant about support of the death
    squads by the brits. 

                   <<< Note 1332.151 by HLDE01::STRETCH_M >>>
                              -< Adams vs Mates >-

>    If your reading Holohan, I don't want a rant about support of the death
   

    Sorry, but I was under the impression that Mr Holohan wouldn't waste
    his time reading anything thing in here, when a good balanced argument
    can easily be found in An Phlobacht.


    Stuart

I understand the Mates-Adams debate was a BBC production, is that correct?
I don't believe it was ever carried in America?
Can anyone confirm that?

Thanks
Mark

    I also heard that it was a BBC production. They disagreed over the 
    referendum. Mr. Mates said that the referendum should be for Northern
    Ireland; Mr. Adams said that the Republic should be involved as well,
    although I haven't heard whether Albert Reynolds intends to hold a
    referendum.
    They probably disagreed over a few other issues, but that's the only
    one I've heard about.

 re. Last few

 Mates who?  Is that the guy who resigned in disgrace
 over some scandal?

               Mark

    Adams? Is that the guy whose entourage includes several people with
    convictions for terrorism? And whose brother has just been slung out of
    Canada?
    
    Dave

    
    Missed that debate on BBC but heard its not a love match between them..
    At least its good to see they are having some sort of dialogue...
    
    Re amnesty etc..very good organsiations but think their reports are
    NOT in touch with the present situation on the ground....AND they
    are the first to admit it.
    
    Its is generally accepted that their was "collusion" between security 
    forces and loyalists...Not proven mind you but in northern Ireland you 
    never had folk waiting for proof before they took up a gun..I have had 
    experience with Amnesty during the hunger strikes when they were very 
    silent until they had their reports ready...Wrongly I attributed this 
    to a multitude of theories...but its a mis-understanding of what
    amnesty are about if one expects them to dictate direction on immediate
    political inititives.  
                                  
    What I feel is dangerously inaccurate and  unhelpful is for
    focus on collusion to be aimed at the British Government themselves.
    There are still problems with acceptance of the local security forces
    (RUC and ex-UDR) in many nationalist areas of the North...There is also
    a belief that Loyalists are getting information from such forces. This
    is not beyond the realm of any imagination....it "MAY" even have
    stemed from PAST Bristish Government involvement...(it should be noted
    that members of the Gardai in the south have also been charged with
    collusion with republican paramilitary groups)
    
    Changes in structure of such security forces which hopefully will 
    eradicate such elements and distrust are part of the discussions which
    the Irish AND British government are bringing to the table as part of
    the peace inititive. Give it a chance
    
    mick
    
    
    
    
    
     
    
    However 
     
    
    
    

  Mick,
   You're right. It's possible that in the past
  month the British have changed and stopped their
  collusion.  The last Amnesty report I read (Feb. 94),
  had the British security forces collusion with
  loyalist death squads as an ongoing situation.

  If it really has stopped, I would have expected
  the British government to have announced an end
  to the collusion, or at least a complete cessation
  of the collusion.

                   Mark

    re -1 
    
    ya never give up, do ya 

>                     <<< Note 1332.155 by KOALA::HOLOHAN >>>
>
>
> re. Last few
>
> Mates who?  Is that the guy who resigned in disgrace
> over some scandal?
    
    
    Ho Ho.  That narrowas it down a bit then doesn't it ?

    Eejit.

> Mates who?  Is that the guy who resigned in disgrace
> over some scandal?
    
    I wouldn't repeat Gerry Adams parrot-fashion if I were you - it makes
    you look as though you haven't an original thought in your head.
    Especially as you obviously have no idea as to what Mr. Adams was
    referring.                                  

    John Hume has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. 
    
    Thought you might like to know, if you didn't already.

 re. .162

  Sean MacBride - Nobel peace prize 1975
  Gerry Adams - Nobel peace prize 1995

    
    re.163  I'm quite speechless.  
    
    

  NOW START TALKS WITH SINN FEIN, HUME TELLS MAJOR

PA   9/29/94 4:26 PM

  By Peter Beal, PA News
   SDLP leader John Hume tonight urged the Government to
 speed up the peace process in Northern Ireland.
   He said that given the "total cessation of violence" by the
 IRA, the Prime Minister should now start a dialogue with Sinn
 Fein to bring about a lasting agreement.
   "I understand people's caution but given what is happening
 and given the mood of the people on the ground, and given the
 international response, it is quite clear peace is there and
 therefore the dialogue should begin," he said.
   Mr Hume was speaking to reporters in Manchester after
 addressing a conference on the future of cities.
   He said the province had now enjoyed the longest period in
 25 years without any IRA activity of any description.
   "I believe we now have a total cessation of violence," he
 said. "The Irish Prime Minister believes it and Mr (Gerry)
 Adams has said our interpretation is totally correct.
   "Given the overall atmosphere in Ireland do you think
 anybody could dare go back to violence, given the massive
 clear support and the political strength that now exists to solve
 the political problems?"
   He said he had been encouraged by the unanimity in Europe
 over a solution to the problems of Northern Ireland.
   While a dialogue started, work should also begin on solving
 the economic problems.
   "The sooner we start doing that the better and I would like
 the Government to start entering into a dialogue as soon as
 possible," he said.
   Mr Hume said he felt "honoured and suprised" by his
 nomination today by socialist Euro MPs for the Nobel Peace
 prize.
   "Obviously I was very moved and very pleased but the only
 real prize I want to see, given the experience of the last 25
 years and the number of people who have been killed, is
 lasting peace for my people on the ground," he said.

     Gerry Adams begins New York visit

UPn  9/28/94 3:58 PM

By TRACY CONNOR
   NEW YORK, Sept. 28 (UPI) -- Sinn Fein President Gerry
 Adams touched down in New York City Wednesday for a
 three-day stay in the Big Apple, part of his 10-city, two-week
 tour of the United States to build support for his cause.
   The leader of the political wing of the Irish Republican Army
 has a non-stop schedule for his visit, and is slated to meet with
 many of the city's elite. His first stop was a powwow with City
 Comptroller Alan Hevesi and dozens of investment bankers.
   At a brief news conference after the session, Adams said he
 wanted to assure the New Yorkers who control billions of
 dollars in assets that Sinn Fein is dedicated to peace in
 Northern Ireland, and to cement a relationship with Hevesi,
 who controls a $51 million public pension fund.
   "This office is of particular importance to the people back
 home in Ireland. It was this office that brought up issue of the
 need to end job discrimination," Adams said, referring to the
 MacBride Principles, which bar the city from investing in
 companies that cannot show they do not discriminate between
 Catholics and Protestants in hiring.
   "Catholics in the British-occupied part of Ireland are still
 three times more likely to be unemployed," he said.
   "And it is the unswerving commitment of people here to the
 need to apply U.S. principles to this issue, that investment
 should be based upon MacBride Principles, (that) has not only
 sent very encouraging signals back home but has actually
 helped create the conditions (for ending employment
 discrimination)."
   Hevesi used the occasion to promote his Irish Peace Bonds
 initiative, which would pump dollars into Northern Ireland "if an
 irrevocable peace is established." But Adams said that day
 could be far off.
   "We don't have peace. We still have in the streets and in the
 hills of the occupied area upwards of 30,000 heavily armed
 British troops. We still have Loyalist death squads engaging in
 a killing campaign," he said.
   "Two Catholics have been killed by the Loyalists, and the
 Loyalists are being armed to a very large extent by British
 military intelligence. There have been bomb attacks on Sinn
 Fein offices and on a train in Dublin. And there is a need for
 other forces as well as the IRA to call a complete cessation (to
 violence).
   "And I have pleaded with (British Prime Minister) John Major
 to do just that. I don't believe the peace process is under any
 danger or risk from any element within the broad Republican
 faction."
   After the meeting with Hevesi, Adams headed to City Hall for
 a ceremony and discussion with Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. He
 was also scheduled to visit Ellis Island, meet with the editorial
 board of Time magazine, attend a reception given by a
 prominent law firm and meet with an Irish-American group.
   Thursday's schedule included a sit-down with labor leaders
 and a meeting with the editorial board of the New York Times,
 plus a foreign policy association lunch, and an Irish-American
 rally.
   On Friday, he will meet with Jewish leaders and then return to
 Boston. His last two stops are Philadelphia and Washington,
 D.C.

Received via fax from the Irish American Information Service:

   FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
   September 26 1994

   McGUINNESS CLAIMS TRUCE MEETS BRITISH TERMS FOR TALKS

   DUBLIN - The IRA ceasefire meets with the pre-conditions for talking set
   out by Sir Patrick Mayhew two years ago, according to leading republican
   Martin McGuinness.

   In his groundbreaking Coleraine speech in December 1992, the Northern
   Ireland secretary promised that the British government would talk with
   Sinn Fein as soon as there was a "genuine and sustained" IRA ceasefire.

   And speaking in Derry yesterday, Mr. McGuinness declared that most people
   now accepted that the truce was genuine and that it was obviously being
   sustained.

   "Virtually everyone is convinced and satisfied that republicans are
   committed to the peace process," the Sinn Fein ard comhairle (executive
   council) member said.

   "Patrick Mayhew said there would be dialogue, given 'genuine and
   sustained' cessation of hostilities. I checked his speech myself."

   "The complete ceasefire has been in operation for almost a month now, and
   it is clearly genuine. So there is no reason why we can't have talks now -

   even before the three-month deadline."

   "I fully agree with comments made by John Hume earlier this weekend that
   the process has to be moved forward immediately. The next crucial step is
   dialogue."

   Mr. McGuinness, who is understood to be applying for a visa to visit the
   United States, said it was important that the British government begin
   talking with loyalist paramilitaries.

   "There is no reason why they should not talk to them - given that they
   have previously talked to republicans," he said.

   McGuinness and hundreds of republican protesters reopened dozens of
   unapproved roads in Derry, Tyrone and Fermanagh in a huge 'border
   busting'exercise yesterday,

   Outside Derry, Sinn Fein members redirected traffic away from a permanent
   British army checkpoint on the Buncrana Road to the Coshquin Road, which
   demonstrators had unblocked.

   Hundreds of cars used the route before police removed look-alike
   diversion signposts.

   McGuinness - who helped lay a new crossings at Groarty Road said the
   removal of the barriers was as significant to Irish people as the
   removal of the Berlin Wall was to the Germans.

   "It's psychologically a very important step for our community to become
   directly involved in the peace process," he said.

   "And it is symbolic that the Irish people should dismantle the barriers
   themselves - just as the Germans took down the Berlin Wall."

   "The British government's 'drip-drip' approach to road openings is
   tokenistic."

   "The three roads that they reopened in the Derry area actually all lie
   on the other side of the permanent checkpoint on the Culmore Road - so
   the openings are of absolutely no value to people from the city."

   One of the biggest road opening operations took place at Drumfurrer on
   the Tyrone/Monaghan frontier where a crowd of 250 using three earth-
   moving machines remade a section of road extending several hundred yards
   across the border.

   Irish American Information Service

  Offices:

  Dublin:       4 Dame Court
                Dublin 2 Ireland
                Tel. 011-353-1-774072
                Fax: 011-353-1-6793198

  Washington:   National Press Building
                529 14th St., NW Suite 837
                Washington, DC 20045 USA
                Tel. 202-662-8830
                Fax: 202-662-8831

  Michigan:     35941 Six Mile Rd.
                Livonia, MI 48152 USA
                Tel. 313-464-4119
                Fax: 313-464-4240

    re .163
    
    Another example of the difficulty you appear to have in distinguishing
    fact from fantasy.

 re. .168
  Was that just a general statement stemming from
  ignorance, or did you have a particular comment
  on the article.
                   Mark

    
    OK then..

    	Hypothetically...I want to win the Nobel peace prize, 

    How do I go about it...???

    1) I join a terrorist movement intent on destruction and murder.

    2) I work my way in to the position of political leader of the
       terrorists and gain the support of a minority, within a minority
       within another minority.

     Several years of double speak/hypocrisy later

    3) I announce that the terrorists that I speak for will begin
       a ceasefire.

    4) 4 weeks later someone puts me up for the peace prize.

    I must be a racing certainty...eh ??

    Well realistically, Begin and Sadat did it succesfully back
    in the 70's and they each completed the 4 items on your
    checklist within the allotted time.
    
    Adams and Major can do it now too.  Except that Major
    might be out of power before the official peace happens.
    His minority seems to be smaller than Adams, relatively
    speaking.  Personally, I'd rather have the Adams and Maggie
    combo do Stockholm. It would make the dinner all the more
    interesting.
    
    Would you serve corned beef and cabbage or crumpets and Earl Grey?
    
    :v}
    g

    re .169
    
    No, it was, as stated, a comment on your note .163. 

    
    weren't Begin and Sadat heads of state and not representatives of 
    minorities who thought they knew best ??

  Who else watched Larry King Live last night.
  Miss Lowrey's overview at the beginning was awfully
  slanted towards the British viewpoint.

  Mr. Adams repeatedly tried to talk, and offer the
  hand of friendship to Maginnis.  All Maginnis did
  was throw false accusations.  Not once did he attempt
  to explain, or move forward the peace process.
  He seemed to have a long memory for Irish Republican
  Army actions, and a short memory for British forces
  actions.  He even went on to justify some of those
  British attrocities as necessary.

  It's obvious that the Unionist are going to be
  brought to the peace table kicking and screaming.

                    Mark

    Perhaps Mr Maginnis is a little embittered by 25 years of suffering and
    3000+ deaths, the majority at the hands of the IRA.
    
    dave 

  Mr. Adams and his constituents have plenty
  of reason to feel even more embittered, and yet
  Mr. Adams is willing to put that behind him, and
  extend the hand of friendship to Mr. Maginnis.
  Mr. Adams came here for american support of the
  peace process.  Mr. Maginnis came here for the
  sole purpose of trying to counter Mr. Adams.
  Doesn't sound to me like the British want to see
  the peace process move forward.

                        Mark

    >Perhaps Mr Maginnis is a little embittered by 25 years of suffering and
    >3000+ deaths, the majority at the hands of the IRA.
    
    Please forgive me, but there are two sides to every story Dave.  25 years
    pales in comparison to hundreds of years of subjugation by the British.
    I don't want to trivialize the atrocities of the IRA, but there have been
    just as many atrocities (if not more) committed at the hands of the British
    Army and the majority-only police forces in Northern Ireland.
    
    Both sides have plenty of blood on their hands.  Let's move forward and build
    on this peace for future generations.  Yesterdays are just that - yesterdays.
    Let's have a little optimism here...
    
    /george

  > Mr. Adams and his constituents have plenty
  > of reason to feel even more embittered
    
 That's your opinion.
    
    Dave

                               The New York Times

                           October  4, 1994, Tuesday
                                Ireland's Moment

                                 By Gerry Adams;
                        Gerry Adams is president of Sinn Fein.


   It happened in the Middle East and South Africa, and now it is happening in

Ireland. The momentous events of the past five weeks, starting with the Irish

Republican Army's cease-fire on Aug. 31, make it clear that people in power

finally understand that the ability to live together -- and to work out a

political framework that accommodates different perspectives -- is the greatest

gift they can pass on to future generations.




   Until now the greatest sticking point has been the British Government, with

its insistence on playing word games with the I.R.A.: whether a "complete

cessation" meant a permanent cease-fire, and so on. But now even that
Government seems to be inching toward positive involvement in the peace process.

As I left Ireland 10 days ago, there were indications that Prime Minister John
Major was preparing to abandon this game of Scrabble. And rightly so: the
I.R.A. wording is acceptable to the Irish Government, the European Union,
Vice President Al Gore, the Irish Nationalist leader John Hume and, indeed,
some leading Unionists in Northern Ireland.




    The I.R.A. cessation has held for a full month with not a single exception,

while the British Government has not declared a cessation of its military

operations, permanent or otherwise. Thirty thousand heavily armed British
combat troops and state police officers continue to patrol the streets and
occupy the countryside.




   The I.R.A. has refused to be provoked even by the continued depredations of

Loyalist death squads. Just the weekend before last, gunmen from the Ulster

Defense Association fired 11 shots at a Catholic bar in West Belfast. But for

the security doors, which prevented entrance by the gunmen, there would
probably have been a massacre.




   To avoid future such incidents, it is essential that all the main players

seize the moment presented by the I.R.A. initiative. If all agree that an

unprecedented opportunity for peace now exists, why delay the all-party talks
so necessary to a lasting settlement? Mr. Major has never rejected the widely
held assumption that he intends to engage in talks with Sinn Fein before
Christmas; why not now?




   Bear in mind that for three years, up to last winter, the British Government

and Sinn Fein held secret discussions when no peace settlement was on the

horizon and when the I.R.A. had not declared a cease-fire. So why does Mr.
Major refuse to engage with us now? He needs to set aside whatever party
concerns he has and grasp this moment with both hands.




   In short, my primary message here in the United States -- one I would
deliver in London if I were allowed to travel there -- is that discussions
threaten no one. Peace talks should begin now.




   Of course, the British Government may simply be playing for time. But such

maneuvering should not be allowed to damage the peace process itself. Nor
should the British seek, or be allowed, to dictate the approach of the U.S.

Administration or anyone else. If they had been allowed to do so up till now,

there would be no peace process, no I.R.A. cessation and no prospect of a

lasting settlement.



   Yesterday Vice President Gore and Anthony Lake, President Clinton's
national security adviser, told me that the Administration had lifted the
25-year ban on contacts with Sinn Fein. That move was of a piece with the
Administration's courageous effort to move the peace process to its present
decisive stage. By granting me a visa to come to the U.S. last February, Mr.
Clinton helped create the conditions for the cease-fire. Outside the official
realm, the Irish-American peace delegation that traveled to Belfast last
month worked tirelessly behind the scenes for the past two years.




   Sinn Fein does not seek special treatment. We seek only a level playing

pitch: the same rights for our party and for our electorate as are enjoyed by

other Irish political parties. We want to put forward our analysis and our
views in an open and democratic manner and on the same basis as every other
party. That is the purpose of the inclusive peace talks we seek: negotiations
in which no one has a veto, in which there are no conditions and no attempt to
determine the outcome in advance, and in which everyone has a voice --
including, of course, the Unionists.




   Mr. Hume, of Ireland's Social Democratic and Labor Party, and I have agreed

that the Irish people as a whole have the right to national

self-determination. We also acknowledge that everyone does not agree on how

self-determination should be exercised -- whether, for example, the results of

referendums held in Ireland, north and south, should be counted together or

separately. That is one of the major challenges facing us -- to find agreement

between Nationalists and Unionists. It is why the Unionists must be a part of

the peace process. Their involvement and their agreement is essential to any

negotiated peace settlement.







Irish Republicans and Nationalists have suffered as a result of the British

presence in our country. But I acknowledge also the hurt that Republicans have

inflicted as part of the struggle for freedom. We have no monopoly on suffering.

But we know that we have to reach out. And I have absolute confidence in the

Unionists to reach out and return our embrace.



   The Unionists have as much right to the land of Ireland as we have. I
appeal to my Protestant brothers and sisters to join us in the search for a
settlement acceptable to all the Irish people -- for a constitution that, like
America's, includes checks and balances and a bill of rights with full
protection for Ireland's minorities.




   To those who would argue that such an outcome is impossible, that our

differences are too great, I would point to the great strides for peace and

democracy throughout the world in the last 12 months. In the United States
last year, Nelson Mandela said, "History has placed a challenge at our
doors and commands that acting together for the common good, we must make
an outstanding success of the historic processes of transforming South Africa
into a democratic, prosperous and peaceful country." The observation
applies equally to our situation in Ireland. With help from everyone involved
-- not least the United States -- we too can transform our country.

    re .177
    
    If you are looking over the course of history, you have a valid point.
    If you are looking over the last 25 years, the last figures I saw
    showed that the IRA killed more people than everyone else put together.
    The number of deaths attributable to the security forces is much lower.
    
    I'm not trying to deny that both sides have suffered, just pointing out
    that there are reasons why Maginnis may not regard Adams like a long
    lost friend.                                                        
    
    Dave    
    

 re. .180

  The Irish Republican Army have announced a cease-fire.

  British forces collude with Loyalist paramilitaries
  (Don't believe me, read Amnesty International, 
   and Helsinki watch human rights reports).

  The British forces have not announced a permanent
  or even a temporary end to their collusion with
  loyalist death squads.

  The British always complain that the Irish, or
  Irish Americans, go to far back in history when
  citing their grievances.  So let's play by British
  rules, and only cite deaths since 1990.  Since 1990
  most of the deaths have been caused by Loyalist
  paramilitaries and the British forces.

  How about another idea. Let's forget about the past
  and immediately move forward to the peace table.
  Where everyone can work towards peace?  Let's see
  an immediate end to the collusion between the
  British security forces and the loyalist death
  squads, since a one sided cease fire can't last
  forever under these conditions.

                         Mark

>>> I'm not trying to deny that both sides have suffered, just pointing out
>>> that there are reasons why Maginnis may not regard Adams like a long
>>> lost friend.                                                        
    
>>> Dave    
   
The paramilitaries have tried to murder Mr. Maginnis on several occasions. This
might be one of those reasons.

Let's hope that reasoned debate takes the place of the bomb and the bullet on
both sides of the divide in Northern Ireland. I feel that the Unionists will
come to the negotiating table of their own accord but I wouldn't hold my breath
waiting....
    
    
    Ray....

    Yes Ray, and Adams has also been bombed and shot at on numerous
    occasions... That's why he always wears a bullet-proof vest.
    
    The Unionists will eventually come to the table. It's in
    their interest to negociate in earnest now, while the numbers
    are in their favor.
    
    By the way, where'd they resurrect Mates from? 
    
    /g

    >The Unionists will eventually come to the table. It's in
    >their interest to negociate in earnest now, while the numbers
    
    Why should they negociate, they're happy with the status quo now that
    the IRA have called a cease-fire. They've got the power and the
    majority, if they negociate they have to give something away.
    
    Tony
    

    re 176. I saw bits of the larry king show on BBC news.
    Maginnis was obstructive and extremely stupid. I hope Adams and Sinn
    Fein persevere despite this pig headedness.
    
    But, I don't agree that Maginnis' standpoint is equal to
    the standpoint of the British people. The British gov. appear not to
    want peace, and the NI loyalists are even worse.  But I wish, Holohan, that
    you would stop saying British and therefore making out we're all in
    favour of constant war in Ireland.
    rgds
    Mark

re: .184

>> Why should they negociate, they're happy with the status quo now ...

Well they haven't always been. The "United Ireland Movement" had Protestant
separatist origins. The term "Volunteer", now usually synonymous with the IRA.
derives from the "Volunteer Movement" which was a Protestant Separatist 
organization. The concept of an Irish Republic was Protestant. In those
days Protestants watched the Anglicans become a 'Church of England' and
wanted no part of the disenfranchizement it implied for them.

This extreme Protestant rejection of the Anglicans reached such 
proportions in America they levelled their charge of 'Popery' against the
English. In modern America there is no state religion, in fact the separation
of church and state is in the constitution. This didn't come about by
accident, it is a Protestant response to the establishment of a church of
England. The Scots-Irish Presbyterians, that were flooding into America
in those revolutionary days, were very much a part of this.

Of course this doesn't mean that they ever got on with the Catholics. It
was always the lesser of two evils.


Mark

(currently reading 'The Language of Liberty' which describes all this.)
  

 re. .185

 You're right Stretch, I shouldn't categorize all
 British people by the politicians that they've
 put in charge.  Unfortunately many of the British
 noters in here have towed the British government
 line.  Thank you for speaking up.

 The truth is that much of the support for a United
 Ireland, and for removal of British troops, comes
 from folks with English accents.  The folks at the
 airport in Boston, holding the Sinn Fein banner were
 from England.  Many of the marchers in the Nationalist
 parades in Derry and Belfast are from England.  The
 Troops Out Movement is a good example.

                   Mark

> put in charge.  Unfortunately many of the British
> noters in here have towed the British government
> line.  Thank you for speaking up.

who?  I certainly don't support much of what the British Government
does, either at home or abroad.  I certainly don't like being grouped
with them because I "might have voted for them".  That seems to go
for a significant number of the British noters in here, unless I'm
mistaken.

Chris.

    >Why should they negociate, they're happy with the status quo now that
    >the IRA have called a cease-fire. They've got the power and the
    >majority, if they negociate they have to give something away.
    
    Well the Unionists can keep their majority and sit fat and happy for
    another 10-15 years, until time comes when they risk losing everything
    due to a nationalist majority.  Something like 2/3 of all people under
    16 years old in NI are "Catholics".
    
    I would think it would be in their long-term interest to hammer out
    some sort of a fair power-sharing agreement now.  True, the Unionists
    have everything to lose and the Nationalists everything to gain.  But
    that's a given.  The question up for grabs is how much and when.
    
    When entering negociations, it's always better to bargain from a
    position of strength.  And they have it now, but they'll have less
    of it later.
    
    If they refuse to negociate, the British may just give more leeway to
    Sinn Fein, due to pressure from Europe, the US, and a desire to rid
    themselves of the problems of NI.  You can already see it happening.
    
    Their statement of having no strategic or economic interest in NI
    several months ago was their first thinly-veiled declaration of
    withdrawal in my own opinion.  And mind you I respect that British
    statement and also understand the problems they will face in the
    coming years with Unionists concerns.
    
    /g

    re .188, No you're not mistaken. 
    

                   ****************************

           ADDRESS BY SINN FEIN PRESIDENT GERRY ADAMS TO
    FORUM FOR PEACE AND RECONCILIATION, DUBLIN OCTOBER 28, 1994

(What follows is a Sinn Fein press release. It is presented by the
 Irish American Information Service as a matter of information to its
 readership.)

While the causes of conflict remain in our country it would be
 foolhardy for any of us to claim that there is peace in Ireland, but
 great work has been done and there is great and justifiable
 expectations for the future.

Seamus Heaney has described this new promising situation as:

               "a space in which hope can grow"

It is our responsibility to widen that space, to deepen it and to
 nurture that hope.

To make peace a reality is the challenge facing us all. It is also
 Sinn Fein's main function as a political party. I thank Mr. Reynolds
 for the invitation for us to attend these proceedings. I am pleased
 that Sinn Fein is here today to engage in this Forum and I extend
 good wishes to all the other parties here and also to all our
 activists and supporters, to the political prisoners and to all
 who have struggled for Irish freedom and an end to conflict in our
 country.

This chance to build a permanent peace began in the north and
 evolved into the Irish Peace Process. Despite the negativity of the
 British government and the unionists and others, the commitment of
 nationalists in the Six Counties, coupled with the positive
 engagement of the Irish government, as well as Irish America,
 has ensured that the peace process remained on track.

However, it was the historic announcement by the IRA on 31 August
 which made the potential for a real and lasting peace more
 realizable than at any time since partition. This placed the onus
 firmly on the British government and the loyalists. I welcome the
 loyalist response and I regret the slowness of the British Prime
 minister, John Major, to engage fully in the peace process.

It is now our collective responsibility to bring this process to a
 democratic settlement and to transform our partitioned and divided
 nation and people into a united. democratic. prosperous and peaceful
 Ireland.

I look forward to constructive and informative debate and discussion
 in this forum. This will not be limited to political parties. It
 will include other submissions from social, cultural and community
 organizations and from individuals. Such inclusiveness should be
 encouraged. The future of Ireland is too serious to be left solely
 to politicians.

Sinn Fein is an Irish Republican Party. We believe that British rule
 in Ireland should end. Our primary objective is the creation of a
 national democracy on this island with a new national constitution
 with safeguards for all our people.

But how do we achieve this? By dialogue. By agreement. By addressing
 the need for fundamental constitutional and political change. By
 seeking to overcome all our fears and suspicions and misconceptions.
 By making change our friend rather than our enemy.

It is a matter of regret and a measure of the work which lies ahead
 that an important section of our people is not represented here
 today. The two major unionist parties are absent from this chamber
 not because they are disenfranchised or precluded by undemocratic
 preconditions, as is the experience of nationalists under British
 rule, but rather because the unionists feel that this forum does not
 serve their present political interest.

The unionists have as much right to the island of Ireland as we
 have.  I appeal to them to join us in the search for a settlement
 acceptable to all the Irish people, a settlement which will leave
 conflict behind us.

In this context I welcome the participation of the Alliance Party
 representing one strand of unionist opinion.

This Forum also gives, for the first time, a voice to a large
 section of nationalist opinion.

If the sense of abandonment and disempowerment which nationalists in
 the occupied area have experienced for 75 years is to be overcome
 this Forum must listen carefully to their voices and address the
 injustices and inequalities which have fuelled conflict for decades.
 This Forum must make it clear that these injustices are no longer
 tolerable and that those responsible can no longer act with
 impunity.

British policy in Ireland has clearly failed.  Partition has failed.
 The decades of unionist rule in the north were exclusive and
 partisan.  Those days are gone forever. This is no going back to the
 failed policies and structures of the past, to the domination of a
 one-party state and the inertia of the British government
 underpinning an unacceptable status quo. There can be no return to
 the abuses and bitterness which marked the Stormont period.

In all of this we must face up to the need for London to join fully
 in the peace process. We all have a duty to face up to our own
 responsibilities.  Irish nationalists and republicans have suffered
 greatly in our struggle for justice, but no one has a monopoly on
 suffering. Others have suffered also and I acknowledge the hurt that
 republicans have inflicted. I salute the courage and generosity of
 Senator Gordon Wilson, and of all bereaved families.  We must build
 a peaceful future together, through dialogue, through engagement and
 through accommodation, through a healing process - a process of
 national reconciliation.  We do not seek to forget or ignore the
 hurt but we need to learn the lessons of the past, not to
 recriminate, for as William Butler Yeats said:

        "we need not feel the bitterness of the past to discover
             its meaning for the present and future."

 The role of the British government must be to facilitate the
 achieving of consent and of agreement. It should exercise its
 authority and influence to fulfill its commitments by ensuring that
 discussions are held between all of the parties, sitting as equals,
 with no one having special privileges and no group holding a power
 of veto.

 We all need to go forward, without undue delay, to substantive
 talks lead by both governments and involving all the parties.

The British government should seek to persuade the unionists that
 their future and best interest are served in the building of a new
 society with the rest of the Irish people. We need a total
 transformation of Irish society.

In this Forum, as in our discussions with the British government,
 Sinn Fein will articulate the need for the British jurisdiction in
 Ireland to end and be replaced with a functioning Irish democracy.
 Central to this is the right of the people of this island, without
 external influence or impediment, to exercise our right to national
 self-determination. How we do that will be a matter for discussion
 and agreement.

Most certainly we must have the right to shape our own future
 according to our needs and wishes.

Irish freedom, democracy and peace is in the interests of people in
 both states on this island. This is not a northern issue only.
 Partition affects us all of us. The people of Ireland, from every
 corner of this island, have expressed the yearning for democracy and
 peace.

They are watching this Forum with heightened expectation and are
 demanding that we rise above narrow sectional political interests.
 They have a justifiable expectation that this Forum will set our
 country and our people on the road to justice, equality and
 democracy.

We must set our sights firmly on achieving these goals. There is a
 compelling urgency about this task and nothing could be more
 irresponsible than if we were to waste this opportunity of to permit
 the British government to squander it.

Failure is inconceivable. There is no room for intransigence or
 self-interest.  We must build a new beginning. We need to be
 persistent and pragmatic.

Despite the divisions of the past and the difficulties which lie
 ahead we look forward with confidence and optimism. In 1980, the
 leader of the Republican prisoners in the H-Blocks of Long Kesh,
 Bobby Sands wrote:

         "Our victory will be the laughter and joy of people,
                 our revenge the liberation of all."

Bobby Sands expresses through his poetry his vision of the future,
 the vision which sustained his own humanity, dignity and generosity
 through the horrors, the bitterness and the inhumanity of the H-
 Blocks.

His vision in the face of such adversity should be an inspiration to
 us all. We must have a vision of the new Ireland which we seek to
 build  -an Ireland free from divisions and bitterness: free of
 outside interference and conflict; an Ireland in which equality and
 prosperity become a reality; which encourages the talents and
 creativity of our people; in which discrimination, on the basis of
 religion. or of gender. or of sexuality, or of disability, or of
 language, becomes unacceptable.  An Ireland which permits its
 children to live here in peace and prosperity rather than condemn
 them to prison cells, early graves or to involuntary exile across
 the world. Every Irish man and Irish woman must own a share of this
 peace and the political and economic benefits which will inevitably
 flow from it.

Let our common commitment to the future peace and harmony of our
 people and our country inspire us to build a new and agreed Ireland
 of which we can all be truly proud.

Irish American Information Service

Offices:

Dublin:       4 Dame Court
              Dublin 2 Ireland
              Tel. 011-353-1-774072
              Fax: 011-353-1-6793198

Washington:   National Press Building
              529 14th St., NW Suite 837
              Washington, DC 20045 USA
              Tel. 202-662-8830
              Fax: 202-662-8831

Michigan:     35941 Six Mile Rd.
              Livonia, MI 48152 USA
              Tel. 313-464-4119
              Fax: 313-464-4240

>                     <<< Note 1332.191 by KOALA::HOLOHAN >>>
>                -< ADDRESS BY SINN FEIN PRESIDENT GERRY ADAMS >-
>
> However, it was the historic announcement by the IRA on 31 August
> which made the potential for a real and lasting peace more
    
    Why didn't they make the "historic announcement" years ago ?  Then we
    would have been in a position to "widen the gap" years ago.
    
    I really don't think the IRA should be taking all the credit.
    
    
    Mark
    
    

 re. .192

  Seems like a question that should have been posed by
  the British representative at this historic peace forum.
  Except of course, for the fact that Britain (you know, the
  nation so interested in peace), decided not to send a
  representative. 

  
  Perhaps the IRA should not be given all the credit.  On the
  other hand, I don't remember the British forces being the
  first to offer a complete cessation of violence.

                      Mark

>                     <<< Note 1332.193 by KOALA::HOLOHAN >>>
>      -< Question that should have been posed by British government rep. >-
    
>  Seems like a question that should have been posed by
>  the British representative at this historic peace forum.
>  Except of course, for the fact that Britain (you know, the
>  nation so interested in peace), decided not to send a
>  representative. 
    
    Ask a British rep why the IRA didn't ceasefire years ago ?  What a load
    of Kak.  Try thinking before you write next time.

    
    It is a pity there is no observer/representative from the British
    government..though its must be admitted that it the long run their
    presence would/could only serve to isolate Unionist opinion at the
    present stage...anyway Major and Reynolds seem to be working well
    together so its not like they are out of touch with whats happening.
    
    The danger is that this forum will come up with  a "white paper" which
    is not worth the paper its written on..The PDU..political wing of the
    UDA/UVF etc have offered/agreed to talk to Sinn Fein/IRA...A directive
    statement from such a meeting would be interesting to say the least.
    
    Whats sad at the moment is the polititions/media/expert folk who feel
    that they must harp on and on about who did what and WHY the war went
    on for 25 years..and WHY didn't it end sooner. One would think that
    some of them WISHED it still continued so they can hear their own voice
    abit more!..(sections of the southern Irish Media the prime sinners here!)
    Such talk is a distraction....Also this talk about consitutional
    positions and articles X and Y is old hat..they are meaningless no
    matter what way they get translated...
                                    
    Local government administration, Policing/Law, Employment, Eduaction  
    are the real matters which need to be discussed...
    
    yeah and all this USA tax=payers money thats comming over-) -) -)...
    Who gets to administer that??..Is it the friends of Ireland fund???
    
    
     

    Mike,
    
    Are you volunteedring to manage the money. If so let set up a
    subsecton of HCL with an office just off the North Circular Road. I
    think thats a suitable location.
    
    I think we can find enough trustees locally to make sure its well spent
    
    MBr

    
    ...and no better place to start -) -)...I've no doubt those trustees would
    manage to disperse the cash pretty fast! -) -).
    
    I understand the 'Friends of Ireland" fund has not been getting the
    best of press lately..Seemingly the cash (ie your USA tax cash)...is
    going to some fairly "strange" ventures...like building model railways
    and making Golf videos...and trimming butterflys wings. (that is taking
    the extreme cases..of course there have been worthwhile ventures....I 
    suppose..can't think of any at THIS moment....
    
    Forum had its second meeting yesterday. nothing much came out of
    it..They are getting to know each other.....(-
    
    
    
    
     
    
    

    Yeah there was an article yesterday in the Boston Globe
    about Neal - the representative from Springfield Mass involved
    with the fund and the alleged improprieties.
    
    It didn't look all that bad. And with any large funding project
    (around $200 million) there is bound to be a few groups that have
    questionable aims. The butterfly thing did seem weird.
    
    But what's wrong with GOLF videos my Tipp man???????  :v) :v) :v)
    (some of us need all the help we can get, right Dermot?)
    
    /G
                                       

    
    Maybe they should make some Hurling Videos also. Some people need all
    the help they can get.
    
    MBr

    Martin
    
    After Sunday's display I think that project is headed for Kilkenny. 
    Sad about Tipp really...;-)
    
    George, my golf's improved since we had our outing; however I'm not ready
    to be used as a reference by the IFI just yet!  My coach told me to
    give golf a rest for two weeks and then to give it up altogether
              
    Dermot

                            THE WHITE HOUSE

                     Office of the Press Secretary

________________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                                  November 30, 1994

                    STATEMENT BY THE PRESS SECRETARY


     National Security Adviser Anthony Lake has invited Sinn Fein leader
Gerry Adams to meet with him in the White House the week of December 5.
Mr. Adams will be granted a waiver to travel to the United States on a
multiple entry visa valid for ninety days.  Mr. Lake looks forward to
hearing Mr. Adams' views on the current situation in Northern Ireland
and to discussing ways in which the peace process can be further
advanced and economic prosperity can be promoted.

     Mr. Lake's invitation to Mr. Adams is in the context of the
Administration's support for efforts to consolidate the peace process in
Northern Ireland and to encourage political reconciliation and economic
regeneration in the region.  Since the ban on contacts with Sinn Fein
was lifted two months ago, Mr.  Adams has discussed the developing
situation with White House and State Department officials, including the
U.S. Ambassadors to Ireland and the United Kingdom.

     Over the past year, Mr. Lake has met with a number of other
political leaders from Northern Ireland.  As in those previous meetings,
Mr. Lake will underscore the Administration's support for the joint
efforts of the Irish and British governments to reach a political
settlement in Northern Ireland, and the Administration's commitment to
support the development of a peaceful political process in Northern
Ireland through which the legitimate aspirations of both communities can
be addressed in a just and democratic manner.

Mark,
     I enter this reply not to question your entry but to let you see how 
the same facts can be put to appear negative when in fact the actual 
official press is positive. 

Please note this is not a British rag that I am quoting here.

As a regular Irish Times reader, this is how your last reply was reported on 
    Wednesday 30-Nov-1994 in Dublin.

Still trying to be objective,

Rgds

SLB (see profile)

 	CLINTON blocks Adams from raising US funds

From Conor O'Clery,
in Washington

President Clinton has personally decided to ban the president of Sinn Fein, 
Mr. Gerry Adams, from raising funds during a planned visit to the United 
States next week,according to a high level US administration source.
However he has granted Mr. Adams a multiple-entry visa for three months and 
invited him to the White House to meet his National Security Adviser, Mr 
Anthony Lake.

( the report goes on to tell of the British ban on Sinn Fein to meet the US 
  investment conference, as reported by you in another note

it then continues...........

President Clinton made the decision to prohibit fund-raising on Monday 
evening, mainly to keep a private commitment to Britain that he would not 
allow Mr Adams to raise money in the US at the present time, the source 
said.

The view in the White House was that, while he was being denied a major 
request, Mr Adams was still being granted two of the three things - a 
mutiple-entry visa and a Meeting at the White House - he had asked for when 
he visited Washington last October.

Mr Adams had hoped to raise several hundred thousand dollars at functions 
at functions in several cities, but may now only visit New York and 
Washington.

Strong internal opposition to fund-raising came from the State Department, 
anxious not to offend Britain at a time when the US is trying to undo major 
damage to NATO caused by disagreements over Bosnia.

The Justice Department and the FBI were also opposed to fundraising by Mr 
Adams.

(The report then went on again to condemn the bann of Sinn Fein to the 
economic talks fininshing with......

Republican Congressman Peter King, of New York, described the decision, ( 
the British bann of Sinn Fein to the US economic developement meeting), as a 
body blow to the peace process.

 

    It's encouraging that Gerry Adams has free access to the American
    people now. I don't understand the fund raising ban though. There
    is no ban on Ian Paisley or other Loyalists coming to New Hampshire
    for fund raising. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
    
    I will say that even despite the fund raising ban, at least Clinton
    has shown some spine in allowing Adams in, and not buckling to the
    British lobby.
    
    The only way to peace is through full negociations. And you can't
    negociate with someone you can't meet. Let *all* parties into the
    negociations and hammer out some peace agreement. It's the only way.
                                                                        

 re. 202

  Gareth,
    Interesting.  What I posted wasn't from AP/RN or any other
  Republican source.  In the interest of being balanced I
  posted the exact press release from the White House.

    What you've pointed out then, is the fact that the Irish Times
  reporter Conor O'Clery, and the Irish Times editor, decided
  to spin the report into a negative slant.  It looks like readers
  of Conor O'Clery may be getting his personal view and not
  an objective one.

    Why did the Irish Times reporter obviously slant an offical
  Press Release this way?  I guess there are those in Dublin
  who don't like democracy or peace.  Maybe Conor O'Clery was
  with the crowed spitting on the mothers from the north.

                        Mark

    George,
           I don't see how he can ban anyone giving money to who ever they
    want and if Mr Adams is granted a visa how can he restrict his
    movements within the US. As I said to Mark this is how the story was
    told in the Irish Times.
    
    Neither do I see how he could have banned Mr Adams from entering the Us
    when ( as you pointed out) he let a Loyallist delegation in some weeks
    ago.
    
    Is there some significance in New Hampshire being in North East USA? 8*)
    
    Does New Hampshire have pockets of Ulster Loyalist descendants?
    
    SLB.

    
    Mark re. .204
    
    I had noticed that you used the official press release - much shorter
    8*) 
    
    I'm afraid the 'spitting on the mothers of the north' is over my head, 
    explain sometime !
    
    Anyway its well past going home time and I'm off to  the South of
    France for a week ( lifes a bitch - I believe someone from Mailworks 
    Engineering will be there ! ) , so must go 
    
    Gareth

    Yes, that's a good question Gareth. I guess if Adams does any
    fund raising dinners and such, he gets his visa revoked? I don't
    know how that would work. But I guess that's the premise. But
    you're right - it doesn't prevent Joe Schmoe from sending in
    a check to the American Sinn Fein office.
    
    For whatever reason, loyalists seem to flock to New Hampshire
    for lectures, talks, or fund-raising events. I don't know if this
    is due to the ever on-going conflict between NH & Mass (which has
    a high majority of Irish), or because of the NH yankee background
    (NH is the "whitest" state in the union by a huge factor). But there
    are many Irish in NH too. Who knows.
    
    NH's license plate reads "Live free or die". It's kind of sums it
    up. :v) There is no sales tax or income tax in NH. They subsidize
    the state from high property taxes and from highway tolls aimed at
    Mass residents. Geez, I only wish keVin were here to respond.  
    
    Actually, the loyalists group came to Mass a few weeks back and
    were surprised to find out at a $100 a plate dinner party that the
    Irish Americans in Mass were keenly interested in helping out *both*
    sides of the conflict in NI, through trade, investment and goodwill
    programs. The way it should be.
    
    Rgds,
    /g

    
    George 
    
    Before I go.....
    
    I have read about the 'Smokey and the Bandit' exploits of the Mass. Liquor
    Cops (?) in the New Hampshire notesfiles. Sounds like a good game !
      
    As there is no law against free enterprise in the US,I also wonder if you,
    Mark and myself got together if we could raise some money for a deserving
    cause ( the GMG Slush Fund perhaps) 8*)
    
    Are there Orange Lodges in NH then or how are these venues organised?
    
    I've never thought of Orange Lodges being in the States though I know that 
    the Orange Order was very influencial in some local governments  in 
    Canada until recently.
    
    Comparing 'Secret Societies' in the US & Ireland must be a good topic
    for a seperate note !
    
    Anyway I'm really off this time
    
    Rgds
    
    Gareth
       

Hi,

>>    Does New Hampshire have pockets of Ulster Loyalist descendants?

The very term "Loyalist" presents difficulties in this context. "Loyalism" is
a very recent concept relative to the Irish migrations to America. I think
it really only goes back to about 1880 when the mass Irish migrations 
were over.

If you use the term "Scots-Irish" then there are masses of people that
can trace their ancestry thru that lineage. However most are in "the South".
The show 'Grace under fire' that is running on the BBC of late revolves
around a modern Scots-Irish lady. You have to watch it once, just to hear
how the accent has evolved over the years...

There are pockets of Scots-Irish up in Nova-Scotia and Newfoundland and
I think quite a few of these came down to New Hampshire. NH has towns
called Derry and Londonderry (I believe they are separate towns rather
than two names for the same place). I would imagine that there must
have a been a pocket of "Ulster Loyalist descendants", does anyone
know the history of the Derry's ?

There are probably more Scots-Irish Americans than there are people who call
themselves "Irish Americans" (I've only used that term as a classification, 
nobody actually calls themselves Scots-Irish American). So it should come
as no surprise that "Ulster Loyalists" find a welcome.

Of course they may have quite a job on their hands trying to explain
"Loyalism"

Mark

    OOPPs I have just deleted my reply
    
    re. .209
    
    Mark,
         I have a photograph which I took many years ago of a road sign for
    Derry & Londonderry pointing in two different directions. I suppose it
    had religious undertones at one time ( let's hope they were quicker
    than us in clearing up their differences.. 8*)  )
    
    
    We don't hear much of the 'Scottish Lobby' in the states yet in some
    notefiles which I 'earywig' in , Scottish Culture appears to be very
    strong.
    
    The only 'secret societ' notesfile which I know of (MASONIC) appears to
    be totally Scottish in origin.
    
    I am sure that the Orange Order, AOH, KoC also have their members in
    the US but by their nature they tend not be able to express their views
    in this type of media. 
    
    Is their any mention of these societies in your research?
    
    
    Rgds
    
    Gareth 

From the Irish People:


Small American Group for Controversial Belfast Conference

        A much smaller delegation of Americans than the 50 anticipated
earlier, are now expected to attend the investment conference in Belfast this
weekend.  Instead of ten to fifteen members of Congress, only one or two will
accompany Commerce Secretary Ron Brown.  The cancellations are resulting from
controversy over the limited participation allowed Sinn Fein by the British
government, as well as scheduling conflicts.

Travel
        The American party including politicians, business executives and
Administration officials, now expected to number about 30, will travel to
Belfast for a December 13-14th conference organized by British Prime Minister
John Major.  The conference will center on economic investment.  The American
party is also expected to visit Derry, Dundalk and Dublin.
        Sinn Fein was originally excluded from any participation in the
conference.  This would have excluded any representation for the North's most
economically disadvantaged areas.  The resulting reaction forced the British
to allow a limited participation.  Six Sinn Fein Councillors who are members
of economic-development committees in Belfast and Derry will now be permitted
entry as representatives of those committees.  However this would continue the
exclusion from the opening session and from all but a workshop on December
14th.

Boycott
        Sinn Fein was engaged in top-level negotiations to gain equal access
to the forum in order to attract investment to areas which had suffered
religious discrimination and economic neglect.  Sinn Fein was considering a
possible boycott of the forum if it were not accorded equal treatment.  The
issue was raised by Gerry Adams in his White House meeting with National
Security Council advisor Anthony Lake and with Commerce Secretary Ron Brown.

US scales back North conference delegation
        President Clinton asked the Democratic and Republican leaders in the
Senate and House to nominate representatives to the conference.  Senators
Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania were named by
Senate leaders George Mitchell and Bob Dole, and Congressman Joe Kennedy of
Massachusetts was selected by the House Democratic leader, Richard Gephardt.
House Republican, Newt Gingrich, has yet to nominate a delegate.
        A representative of Senator Dodd said,  "I don't know whether he is
going or not" because of a meeting of the Senate steering committee of which
he is a member.  Senator Specter's office said that Ireland did not appear on
his schedule for next week for similar reasons.  Congressman Joe Kennedy's
office said "it is unclear if he can attend because of important caucus
meeting of House Democrats."
        Congressman Peter King of New York said that the Belfast conference
clashes with a strategic "retreat", or meeting, for House Republicans, and it
was highly unlikely any member would want to be absent.
        Mr. Brown will be accompanied by about 10 representatives of corporate
America, including Mr. Bill Flynn of Mutual in New York, a prominent figure in
the peace process.
        Several Irish-American executives are known to have backed out of the
trip because of the controversy over the non-participation of senior Sinn Fein
members in the conference.  The executives preferred to wait for President
Clinton's major investment conference on Ireland in Philadelphia next April.
 "


One has to wonder why the British play these games, when they say they
are serious about peace.

                                  Mark

RE: .210

>    We don't hear much of the 'Scottish Lobby' in the states yet in some
>    notefiles which I 'earywig' in , Scottish Culture appears to be very
>    strong.

'Scots-Irish' really covers the Scots that settled in Ulster for a while
and those that migrated from the Scots borders. So Scots culture is also
very strong in America. Their activities tend to just celebrate Scotish
culture rather than participate in any sort of Scotish independence 
movement. Also when the Scots/Scots-Irish emigrated to America they generally
went to escape from poverty or to improve their lot in life (so they don't
really have an axe to grind). They thought
it was a personal decision. Contrast this with the Irish American community who
seem to regard themselves almost as exiles. 


>    I am sure that the Orange Order, AOH, KoC also have their members in
>    the US but by their nature they tend not be able to express their views
>    in this type of media.

The AOH (Ancient Order of Hibernians?) is very big in America. I visited the
one in Laurence, Mass., once. However these `secret societies' tend to be a lot
less secretive in America, functioning more like clubs. The AOH in Laurence
used to advertise as if it were just a generic Irish bar!

Mark
 

 
  

                MANY CHALLENGES IN STORE FOR 1995
                         By Gerry Adams
                      President of Sinn Fin
              (from The Irish Voice. Jan. 11, 1995)


posted in:
IRL-NEWS
send message: subscribe irl-news your name
send to: [email protected]

                          ____________


     This year will be a decisive on in Anglo-Irish
relationships. The peace process which came to public prominence
in 1993 and which moved the entire situation forward in 1994 must
move even further in 1995. As we face into the new year, that
much at least is obvious if we are to secure a peace settlement.

     1994 was an amazing year. Great work was done. But yet we
have not yet got peace. Justice remains absent from any of the
institutions in the occupied area, British troops continue their
military activities, the prisons remain full and the real peace
talks have yet to begin. So there is a lot of work to be done.

     Looking back on 1994, one gets some sense of the type of
year it was be reflecting briefly on the week before Christmas.
In that one week there were four meetings. There were between
Sinn Fein and the British government representatives at Stormont;
between Sinn Fein and Fianna Fail--now the main party of
opposition in Dublin; between a delegation of Sinn Fein and the
SDLP and between myself and the new Taoiseach (Prime Minister),
John Bruton.

     These meetings are a sign of how the parameters have been
publicly shifted in the recent past. Most skeptics would have
scoffed at the notion of such get-togethers. Now they are taken
for granted. This is important. We all have come a long way and
there is great hope and expectation.

     But how far the situation can be moved along in this new
year depends on whether the British government is willing to
tackle the core issues which cause conflict in Ireland. AS the
time of writing there is widespread concern throughout
nationalist Ireland about the seriousness of John Major and his
commitment to the peace process. Given the history of British
strategy in Ireland there is always cause for republicans to be
apprehensive about the British government's attitude, but the
present concern is much wider than the republican constituency.
It affects all  of the nationalist Ireland and other who may not
be nationalist but who are concerned to see a peaceful and
functioning democracy on this island.

     Their concern comes from the British government's refusal so
far, and despite all of the great advances of last year, to pro-
actively move the situation forward. The British immobility is
reflected in its attitude to prisoners. This Christmas, for
example, fewer prisoners received parole. It is reflected also in
the refusal of the British to recognize the rights of Sinn Fein
voters. A good instance of this was the British government's
stance on the economic conference hosted in Belfast by John Major
last December. Sinn Fein was excluded from this conference. This
stance is grounded in the old agenda of ostracizing and
marginalizing Sinn Fein and our voters.

     The new agenda demands that everyone is dealt with on an
equal footing. It is thus important to note that the British were
forced to move partially from the old agenda and towards a new
one by the sense of outrage, especially in the U.S., about their
attitude. Thus the talks with us were moved forward to an earlier
date than london had intended. But their position on the
conference was fudged.

     The British government's first position was that Sinn Fein
would be excluded completely from the conference. It was moved to
shift this slightly so that six of our councillors would have
been permitted entry for 2 1/2 of a two day conference. But that
London moved at all is important and that U.S. opinion and
particularly Irish/American opinion helped to move them is of
signal importance for the time ahead. This conference could have
played a positive role in confidence building and in
consolidating the peace process. Instead, the British government
sought to use it as an instrument of discrimination against Sinn
Fein and those who vote our party.

     We do not need preferential treatment. We simply want
equality of treatment. Sinn Fein will not permit our voters to be
treated at second class citizens. The British government must
recognize our democratic mandate. This is one of the key points
which has been out by the Sinn Fein delegation, led by Martin
McGuinness at the meetings with the British at Stormont.

     The people we are meeting at Stormont are not policy makers
and this phase of our discussions with them is from our point
dealing with logistics of moving to all-party talks and of us
receiving assurances that the British government recognizes the
rights of our voters. We presented the British government with a
document which outlines the basis for our entry into dialogue.

     I have to say that the British do not at this time recognize
our mandate. From the report I received of the Stormont meetings
and there is another set for Monday, January 16, it appears that
they may wish may wish to barter over this.

     We will not be bartering with them. Each and every voter
must have the right to equality of treatment. This is the
democratic  norm. The British government must move to embrace it.
This is a matter which can and should be speedily resolved. There
are other matters which include the presence and behavior of
British troops, the release of political prisoners and other
related issues, and continued cultural discrimination. Our
representatives raised all these matters. They also argued for
the opening of cross-border roads and for compensation for all
who had been adversely affected. They also pushed forthe reversal
of the decision to refuse funding to Meanscoil Feirste, an Irish
language high school in West Belfast.

     These bi-lateral talks-about-talks are, of course important,
but they cannot find a solution. This is not their purpose. That
is  the business of all-party talks led by both governments. Our
attitude to this phase of talks is straight-forward. We consider
them to  be another phase of the evolving peace process. I
welcome the opportunity they provide to Sinn Fein to give our
detailed analysis of the current situation and of the steps which
the British government should take in order to consolidate the
progress made so far in the search for a lasting peace. As I
point out above, there is considerable consensus that London
needs to play a more pro-active role in this. We wish to
encourager them to do just this. Many people are looking to the
British government's intentions.

     At the time of writing, there is a concerted effort by John
Major and his colleagues to make the issue of arms an obstacle to
moving the peace process forward. The British government's states
position on this is not shared by their military advisors, so
obviously this is a political and not a security matter. There is
much apprehension that London's intentions are to stall on this
issue in a contrived way as they did following the Downing Street
Declaration.

     Sinn Fein's position is a transparent one. We want to see
the removal of all guns from Irish politics. Our commitments to
this and our partial success in this is a matter of public
record. It should not be a precondition imposed by the British to
show up or to stop the peace process.

     In my view, the issues of decommissioning of weapons is a
question of practicalities for armed groups. Sinn Fein is not an
armed group and our desire and our work for completed
demilitarization remains a central function of our peace
strategy. The British and others must match this if we are to
collectively influence the armed groups. Throughout this peace
process, Irish republicans have developed a very flexible and
imaginative strategy. There would not  be a peace process without
Sinn Fein's pro-active involvement in all the initiatives which
have brought the situation to this point.

     In 1995, it is our intention to continue to focus on all
these issues. The question of weapons and the removal of all guns
from Irish politics must be accomplished if we are to secure a
peace settlement. So in the year ahead--even at this early stage-
-it is obvious that we will be facing as many challenges as last
year.

     It is important to note the breadth of discussions in which
Sinn Fein is currently engaged. These include a series of bi-
laterals with other political parties here in Ireland, an on-
going engagement with the White House, protracted engagement with
Dublin and the recommendation of talks with the British. There is
much room for optimism, therefore, and everyone meeds to be aware
of the strength of the democratic argument and those committed to
the peace process need to be confident in our own ability.

     It is in the interest of all progressive forces in Ireland
and abroad that the peace process culminates in a peace
settlement and that 1995 moves us closer to that achievable goal.
Irish America will once again be called upon to play  a leading
role in this process. The British must not be allowed to dictate
the pace or the agenda. The year must unfold against a background
in the U.S. of visible mobilizations for an end to British rule
in Ireland, a total demilitarization and the release of all
political prisoners.

      Sinn Fein head lashes out at British prime minister

RTw  3/13/95 2:34 AM


(Updates with Adams comment in Albany responding to Major's Arafat remarks)
     By Jeanne King

     NEW YORK, March 12 (Reuter) -  Gerry Adams, president of the Sinn
Fein, the political arm of the Irish  Republican Army, lashed back on
Sunday at British Prime Minister John Major for linking his group with
terrorism, saying it was time to stop making excuses.

     "Mr Major should follow the example of President Clinton and the
Dublin government and accept Sinn  Fein's democratic mandate. It is six
months since the IRA cessation (of hostilities). The British government
should stop making excuses and start making peace," Adams said on Sunday
through his spokesman in New  York.

     Major, while speaking to reporters at the start of a three-day visit
to the Middle East was asked why he  objected to Clinton meeting Adams when
the British prime minister himself planned to talk on Tuesday to  PLO
leader and former guerrilla Yasser Arafat.

     "Terrorism has now been renounced by Chairman Arafat. I have not seen
it comprehensively denounced  by Mr Adams," Major said.

     "Chairman Arafat is now actively opposing terrorism. I'm afraid that
Sinn Fein is still directly associated  with a fully formed terrorist
organisation," he added.

     Adams commenting on the issue during an appearance before the Ancient
Order of Hibernians fraternal  group in Albany, the New York's State
capital, noted that the Israeli government and the PLO had made a  peace
treaty.

     "The British government have yet to grasp the nettle of making a peace
treaty. That's what the talks  need to be about. What I have is what Arafat
never had, is an electoral mandate which John Major doesn't  have in my
country and I think its a bit insensitive of Mr Major to make those
comparisons.

     "It's right for him to talk to Yasser Arafat and its right for him to
talk to Sinn Fein. If John Major says we'll  talk tomorrow, I will catch
the first plane back," Adams said.

     Adams is on a 10-day visit to the United States during which he will
meet President Bill Clinton on Friday,  St Patrick's Day, at the White
House.

     Major was furious last week when Clinton gave Adams a U.S. visa to
raise funds for Sinn Fein and  invited him to a White House St. Patrick's
Day party in exchange for a Sinn Fein commitment to discuss
decommissioning IRA arms.

     Adams' visit began on Saturday night.

     On Sunday afternoon, Adams attended a New York fund-raiser for Sinn
Finn in the borough of Queens  attracting about 1,000 Irish-Americans. He
reminded them that the "real" peace talks have yet to begin  between
Ireland and Britain.

     In Albany Adams was expected to raise more than $1,000 from more than
500 who attended including  some who made extra donations.

     Suffering from flu and fever Adams Albany appeared in Albany with a
heavy security guard of Albany and  New York State Police. Monday he is due
to meet New York Gov. George Pataki.

     The IRA called off hostilities last September after a 25-year war
against British rule in Northern Ireland.  Protestant gunmen, fighting to
preserve British rule, called a matching truce in October.

     At his Queens appearance in a catering hall, where supporters each
paid $20 to hear Adams, the crowd  cheered and applauded the Irish leader's
speech: "We still have over 30,000 heavily-armed British troops"  in
Northern Ireland ... We want those troops decommissioned, permanently."

     "We want every single prisoner, Loyalist and Republicans, here in the
USA and back home in Ireland  with their families where they belong and we
want discrimination and inequality permanently decommissioned  also," he
said.

     "We want all guns -- British, unionist, Loyalist, RUC, Republicans --
permanently taken out of Irish  politics," he said.

      "We are not asking the U.S. government to come and interfere in our
affairs, nor are we asking them to  interefere in their relationship with
Britian," Adams said.  "We are simply asking for a level playing pitch
(field)," he said.

      "What we're trying to do is make peace on the one hand with a foreign
government which is occupying  a part of our country and on the other hand
with a section of our own people whose leadership has sought  only to
oppress us and to discriminate against us for many years," Adams said.
  REUTER

    2 interesting thoughts - Mr. Arafat and the PLO have not decommissioned
    any arms to my knowledge. And comparing the two areas of hostilities
    - peace has held up a lot better in Northern Ireland than in the West
    Bank or Gaza strip, to the credit of the IRA and the Unionist
    paramilitaries. Mr. Major is treading water.
    

from The Irish People
March 25, 1995


1. Adams meets Clinton



ADAMS MEETS CLINTON

Last Thursday, President Bill Clinton met and shook hands with Sinn Fein
President Gerry Adams. The historic meeting in Washington effectively marked
official recognition of Sinn Fein's  electoral mandate and its entry onto
the world stage of democratic politics.  Onlookers burst into spontaneous
applause when the two shook hands.

Thirteen months ago, Mr. Adams was barred from even entering the United
States. This time, he met the President at a St. Patrick's Day Congressional
luncheon hosted by House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

Afterwards, Adams thanked the President for treating Sinn Fein in an
even-handed way. "This is not any kind of trade-off or deal. The President
saw the need to move the peace process on and inject a positive element
into it."

WHITE HOUSE RECEPTION

The next day, President Clinton got the opposing sides of the Irish question
into the same room at the White House for a St. Patrick's Day party, where
he urged them to make peace. Clinton, who has put US ties with Britain on
the line as he works for a settlement in northeast Ireland, was clearly
pleased to have Irish nationalist and loyalist leaders sitting together in
the East Room. The guests, most of them either Irish or Irish American, gave
Clinton a standing ovation.

"I urge all our guests from northeast Ireland, and all the parties concerned,
to put aside all extremism for the common good of peace," he told more than
300 guests at the party, officially given in honor of Irish prime minister
John Bruton.

The star attractions were Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams and Gary McMichael
of the Ulster Democratic Party, who were seated about 25 feet apart. Before
the festivities began, McMichael said that he had never been in the same room
with  Adams before.
Clinton, noting that it was a historic moment, said he had invited
representatives of all major parties from northeast Ireland and was delighted
with the results. "Those who take risks for peace are always welcome under
this roof," he declared.

He also paid credit to Bruton and to John Major. "The prime minister of
Ireland and the prime minister of Britain, at no inconsiderable risk to
themselves, have paved the way to a new era of peace. I urge all of you to
follow that path. The tough tasks of compromise still lie ahead. The hard,
unending work of democracy is never easy."

Clinton didn't mention that his relations with Major have become somewhat
strained because of his actions on Ireland. The President has overruled
strong British objections to his White House-party invitation  to Mr. Adams
and to his permission for Sinn Fein to raise funds in the United States. In
fact, last Friday Clinton was still waiting for Major to return a telephone
call placed a week ago, after announcement of the decision to give Mr. Adams
another US visa.


President Clinton received high praise from Bruton, who lauded "the role you
have played personally" in the peace process.

Clinton said that the best thing America had to offer Ireland was the American
example of a country that found strength in diversity. "As you work to forge
a new future, free of violence, free of intimidation, with the participation
of all the people of northeast Ireland, the United States will stand by you,"
he promised.

Both Adams and McMichael, seated at separate tables, applauded Clinton's
words.  Earlier, when tenor Frank Patterson sang "Danny Boy" and other Irish
songs, many in the crowd joined in, including Adams but not McMichael.

The party had drawn international attention because of the White House
invitation to Adams, who had long wanted to meet the President. Last Friday,
Adams shook Clinton's hand in the receiving line and gave the President a
copy of his writings, which Clinton promised to read.

         We're trying our best, but British won't budge
                         by Gerry Adams
                     president of Sinn Fein
             (from The Irish Voice. April 12, 1995)

     As we approach Eastertime there is still no sign of movement
by the British government to move the peace process into the new
and necessary phase of all party talks. Indeed, London is
actively preventing movement to inclusive negotiations and, and
at the time of writing, the British government is still refusing
to introduce ministers into the dialogue with Sinn Fein
representatives.

     The core of this problem is the British government's refusal
to recognize Sinn Fein's electoral mandate and the rights of the
republican electorate in the six counties. Media attention has
focused, to some extent, on the issue of "decommissioning" vs.
"demilitarization." This is a distraction. The real issue is
whether Sinn Fein has the right to represent the concerns of our
electorate or to proceed on the basis of our analysis and
mandate.

     There is no problem with Sinn Fein engaging in serious,
substantive and constructive discussion on all issues, including
the decommissioning of arms. As has been made clear in public
statements by myself and others, in privates discussion between
Martin McGuinness and the head of the British delegation, Quenton
Thomas, and in correspondence between us, Sinn Fein is ready to
discuss all issues with British ministers. It is the British
government which is holding up these discussions.

     'Irish Voice' readers may not be aware that the British
government's ban on ministerial contact with Sinn Fein is applied
at all  levels and on all issues. For example, in West Belfast
where there has been a considerable run down of  the Royal
Victoria Hospital, the Sinn Fein councillor cannot discuss this
matter with the British minister for health. This has been the
case for over a decade now. Whether it be an environmental issue,
a matter of education or a social and economic  matter, the
British refuse to recognize the rights of Sinn Fein and,  more
importantly, of those who vote for us. When one considers that
one in every three nationalists in the six counties vote for our
party and that we are a major force in local government, then one
gets some sense of the scale of this undemocratic ban.

     On the surface it appears that the British government's
position is untenable. Already minor Loyalist groups without an
electoral mandate are approaching their forth meeting with a
British minister. I welcome the Loyalist involvement in talks.
Sinn Fein has stressed, and we are the proof, that
marginalization does not work.

     So it is good that the Loyalists are talking. But the
British stance in relation to Sinn Fein is causing considerable
frustration and not just among Sinn Fein supporters. I have just
listened to SDLP leader John Hume on RTE, Ireland's national
broadcast network, pointing out the absurdity of London's
position. What lies behind the British position?

     It is worth pointing out that at other times in the peace
process they adopted a similar stance--for example, in the wake
of the Downing Street Declaration and after the IRA cease-fire of
August 31, 1994. Then when they decided to  change their position
it was as if the earlier difficulty never existed. Presumably the
same thing will happen again, but I could not even attempt to
guess when.

     We have tried to move the situation on. Martin McGuinness,
on our initiative and on our request, sought informal meetings
with British officials in order to expedite matters. On two
occasions, he and Siobhan O'Hanlon traveled to Stormont and made
a number of proposals. For instance, when the British appeared to
be bogged down over the agenda, Martin suggested that we proceed
without an agenda and that each side put forward whatever points
they wished and that every issue of importance to either side
should be discussed.

     It is worth pointing out when Sinn Fein entered into these
bi-lateral discussions, we did so with two main objectives. These
were to rationalize the relationship between our party and the
British administration, and to be assured that the British
recognize the rights of our voters. We also sought to expedite
matters towards all party talks and to learn how these talks
would be conducted.

     It was Easter 1993 that the news first broke of the talks
between myself and John Hume. It is unacceptable, two years
later, the British government have yet to engage with the
generosity, commonsense and courage that is required to advance
the peace process.

     All of this brings us back to Easter time. Throughout
Ireland and the U.S., Irish people and other freedom lovers will
be marking the 79th anniversary of the 1916 Rising. It will no
be marked in a fitting way by the Dublin government. This has
been the case for almost 20 years now. Before 1969, of course,
there were fitting tributes to the leaders and the men and women
activists of  that time. ANyone old enough will remember the
pageantry of 1966 and the dramatic and other presentations.

     The Rising of 1916 was a remarkable event. It shook the
British Empire and it marked the beginning of the end of that
imperial power. It also transformed Ireland. When one considers
that the Rising was conducted by only about 1,200 volunteers in
Dublin, which was the main center, and smaller groups throughout
the rest of the country, one gets the sense of the magnitude of
their endeavors.

     The British rushed 20,000 troops and artillery and gun
boasts into  the city. They quelled the uprising. It is  possible
that the Easter Rising may have joined the list of other failed
efforts by Irish insurgents. But the British executed the
leaders. Connolly was strapped to a wheelchair. Tom Clarke, old
and almost blind, was shot with the rest. Joseph Mary Plunkett
was married one hour before his execution. The brothers Pearse
and others faced the firing squad. Their deaths led to a
resurgence of irish nationalism, and the rest is history.

     The unfinished business of that history--the end game--is
being unraveled now almost 80 years later. Whatever the outcome-
-and there is every reason to believe that the vision of the men
and women of 1916 can be fulfilled--there is no excuse for  the
absence of a fitting commemoration and celebration of that
period.


                         _______________

posted in...
                            IRL-NEWS

                   to subscribe, send message:
                 <subscribe irl-news your name>

                        send message to:
                  <[email protected]>

from An Phoblacht/Republican News
April 14, 1995


                New network to support Sinn Fein
AP/RN talked to Tom Hartley, the head of Cairde Sinn Fein about
the role of this new support network and how people can play
their part in it.


What is Cairde Sinn Fein?

Cairde Sinn Fein was set up to bring together our broad network
of friends and supporters who want to play a more positive role
in our struggle for freedom and independence, particularly in the
crucial period we are now entering. With its regular newsletter
it is hoped that Cairde Sinn Fein will give those who subscribe
to it a sense of being part of that struggle, letting them know
that their contribution is both welcome and essential.

Why is Cairde Sinn Fein being set up now?

In the last seven months we have come a long distance on the road
to peace but we have some distance to go still. With old friends.
With new allies and with allies yet to be made. Now is the time
of opportunity - for freedom, for peace, for justice, for
equality and for democracy. This is the greatest opportunity that
we have had in over seventy years. We are firmly convinced that
the support of all of our friends, both in Ireland and throughout
the world, can help guarantee the realisation of the full
potential of that opportunity.

Who is it aimed at?

Cairde Sinn Fein is aimed at all those who have an interest in
and support the demand for self-determination for all the people
of Ireland.

What will people get for joining CSF?

As a member of Cairde Sinn Fein you will automatically become a
subscriber to our newsletter which will be regularly produced
throughout the year. The aim of this newsletter is to keep people
fully informed on all up-to-date political developments,
especially those developments which are often ignored by the
media, both in Ireland and abroad. However, your subscription
payment will not only help to finance the production and
circulation of this newsletter. It will also enable us to raise
funds to finance our peace strategy. At this time much finance is
needed to ensure that Sinn Fein can develop as a party with a
strong involvement in the peace process.

How can people join?

People can join Cairde Sinn Fein by sending a subscription of 10
or the international equivalent to me at Sinn Fein's Head Office
in Dublin.

What is your role in CSF?

I hope to be able to bring together and concentrate the goodwill
of Sinn Fein's many friends and supporters both in Ireland and
abroad. Hopefully this will enable people to positively assist in
the peace process.

Finally, what are your wishes for Cairde Sinn Fein for the coming
year?

It is my hope and belief that Cairde Sinn Fein can positively
harness the support of all those people who wish to assist in the
Irish peace process and that this time next year we will have
moved some distance down the road to a lasting peace and national
self-determination.
_____________________________

for information about Cairde Sinn Fein in North America, contact:

                        Cairde Sinn Fein
                     1350 Connecticut Ave NW
                      Washington DC  20009
                        tel- 202-331-7886

_____________________________

posted in...

                            IRL-NEWS

                   to subscribe, send request
                 <subscribe irl-news your name>

                        send request to:
                  <[email protected]>

from The Irish People
'the voice of Irish Republicanism in America"
May 15, 1995



               ADAMS SPEAKS AT THE UNITED NATIONS

Gerry Adams, speaking to the UN Correspondents Association, May
5, 1995.


     Today is one of those days which will certainly find its way
into the Irish history books.  A few hours ago, and for the first
time in 75 years, a Sinn Fein delegation formally and publicly
met with a British government minister.

     It is also the first time that a member of Sinn Fein has
spoken here in the United Nations in this historic building.
Since its foundation the United Nations has seen many changes,
not least of these has been the growth in member states as the
evil of colonialism has been rolled back across the world.

     I know from personal contact with people I have met from all
parts of the globe that the Irish struggle for freedom is
well-known and has been widely supported.

     Indeed, many who have read of Ireland's long struggle for
freedom have at various times adapted the tactics and strategies
used there in their own struggles.

     Our concern is the future.  We don't need to forget the
past, and it is worth recalling where we have come from so we can
plot carefully where we want to go.

     This century, but particularly since the formation of the
UN, scores of nations have succeeded in achieving national
self-determination.  Consequently, Ireland only partially
succeeded in removing Britain's colonial presence.  Britain forci
bly imposed partition 75 years ago.  The northern state which was
then created, and which was controlled by the unionists, was
built on inequality, discrimination and repression.  In almost
every respect it was an apartheid state in which Irish
nationalists endured great hardships.

     It existed, and has continued to exist since Britain took
direct control in 1972, solely on the basis of repressive
emergency laws.  In 1960, the then South African politician
Vorster expressed a desire to scrap all of the apartheid laws fo
r one clause in the British Special Powers Act.

     The northern state, occupied and militarized by the British,
is undemocratic and is a failed political and economic entity.
Out of that failure, and the violent rejection by the unionists
and the British 25 years ago of the need for fundamental civil
rights, grew a conflict which has taken many lives and has caused
great distress and economic damage.

     The Irish government came here to the United Nations in
1969, at the start of this current phase of conflict in Ireland,
in a sincere attempt to raise the problems in the
British-occupied part of Ireland.  The demand for civil rights
met with fierce resistance from the unionists and violence in the
form of traditional pogroms against nationalist areas.  Thousands
of families, like mine, were burned out of their homes and beaten
and killed by loyalist mobs led by the loyalist paramilitary
police force.  Then, the British government told the Security
Council and the General Assembly that our human rights were an
internal affair for the British government and that their troops
had the situation under control.

     In 1969, most of us had never heard of the Decolonization
Declaration.  But we knew it was a crime to partition a country
against the wishes of the majority of its people.  Hundreds of
thousands of us had, and still do experience brutal
discrimination.  What did we know then of the International
Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial
Discrimination of 1965? We knew only what it feels like to be
denied a job, a home and cultural and national equality.

     But in 1969 the British government prevailed at the United
Nations and the Irish people were sent away empty handed.
Perhaps because of that experience we were slower than the South
Africans and Namibians to look outside our own country for help
in the struggle for Irish self-determination.  There was another
reason too; at the behest of the British government, Sinn Fein
leaders were banned from coming here.

     Thanks to the principled stand and positive engagement of
President Clinton in the Irish peace process, I am now able to
enter the headquarters of the organization which is the last hope
and guarantee of the rights of the people of no property around
the world.

     Since 1969, the north of Ireland state which is quite small
-- the approximate size of Rhode Island, with a population of
only one and a half million -- has been heavily militarized.
In all, there are five armed groups, all of whom have used
violence.  These are: the British Army; the RUC, the
unionist-dominated paramilitary police; the loyalist death
squads; over 150,000 legally-held weapons in the possession of
the un ionists; and the IRA.

     British forces have killed almost 400 people -- mainly
civilians and many of them in highly-controversial circumstances.
Despite clear evidence of murder, torture and shoot-to-kill
policies, the state forces remain immune from legal prosec
ution for their actions.  These forces have accounted for a
higher proportion of deaths than any other armed group.  British
forces have killed more children than any other armed group.
The RUC and the British Army have been condemned by every major
human rights agency in the world.

     The United States government refused to sell guns to the RUC
because of its appalling record.

     The loyalists have killed almost 1,000 people -- more
civilians than any other group, including the IRA.  Almost 25% of
these have been murdered in the last six years since the loyalist
death squads were re-armed with weapons given to them
by the then-apartheid region in South Africa.  These weapons were
shipped to Ireland by British military intelligence agents.

     Currently, British troop levels are at their 1992 level,
making the north of Ireland one of the most heavily-militarized
areas in the world.

     And, of course, the British have their battery of repressive
laws: the PTA, the EPA and the Public Order Act.  These and
others provide state forces with effective immunity from
prosecution and widespread powers of arrest, torture and deten
tion, and shoot-to-kill.

     Despite the clear difficulties involved, some years ago Sinn
Fein began the process of developing a peace strategy.  It was
obvious that the IRA could not be defeated by the British but nor
could the IRA militarily defeat the British.  In Sinn Fein's
view, this was a political problem which has been militarized,
and it requires a political settlement.

     As we looked around the world, we identified with the
emerging struggles for self-determination in Africa, Latin
America and Asia.  We recognized the just demands of the ANC,
SWAPO and liberation movements around the world.

     Our peace strategy involved engaging with others, including
our political opponents, to identify those elements necessary to
create a peace process capable of removing the causes of conflict
and securing an agreed, negotiated settlement.

     Out of the our endeavors, and those of others including the
then-Irish Taoiseach Albert Reynolds, and SDLP leader John Hume,
grew the Irish peace initiative, and subsequently the Irish peace
process.

     Last August, the leadership of the IRA announced a complete
cessation of military operations in order, it said, to enhance
the potential for a democratic settlement.  Several weeks later,
that historic decision led the loyalist death squads to take a
similar decision.

     That was over eight months ago.  During that time, and
unlike other peace processes around the world, there has been an
almost complete absence of any political violence.

     Our priority now must be to move the peace process forward
-- to build on the gains which have been made and to move
speedily forward into all-party talks lead by both the Irish and
British governments.

     As some of you will be aware, Sinn Fein met a British
government minister this morning.  This was the first such
meeting in 75 years.

     In the substantive negotiations which must inevitably
follow, there are three areas which will need to be addressed:
constitutional and political change; democratic and national
rights; and demilitarization.

Constitutional and Political Change:

     Partition has failed.  Britain's presence in Ireland has
failed.  There is a need for fundamental constitutional and
political change if we are to bring this phase of the peace
process to a democratic conclusion.  Sinn Fein's objective is
to bring about an inclusive and negotiated end to British
jurisdiction in Ireland.  We seek to replace it with an agreed
Irish jurisdiction.  In our view this poses no threat to any
section of our people including the unionists.

     However, we  know that others hold a different view.
Therefore, agreement is required.  New relationships will have to
be forged between all the people of our country.  This will be
difficult.  It will take time.  It will require negotiation.  It
demands a process of inclusive negotiations without
pre-conditions and without any pre-determined outcome.
Negotiations need to take place in a climate where no se
ction of our people hold an undemocratic power of veto.

Democratic and National Rights:

     It could be argued that some of these issues need careful
management, that they are part of the give and take, the
evolution of a peace process.  The same cannot be said about the
need to restore democratic rights.  The peace process can be
 moved significantly forward by the immediate dismantling of
undemocratic measures which have contributed to the conflict.
     These are not present only in repressive legislation. They
are part of the system of apartheid -- of religious, poli
tical and economic discrimination upon which unionist and British
domination was  built.  They are part of cultural discrimination.

Demilitarization:

     The British have successfully militarized an
essentially-political problem.  The process of demilitarizing has
been too slow.  There needs to be an end to all forms of
repressive legislation; an end to house raids, arrests and
harassment.

     There needs to be a decommissioning of all the British crown
forces, including the disbandment of the RUC.

     In particular, there needs to be speedy movement on the
release of all political prisoners, whether in Ireland, Britain,
Europe or the USA.

     But what kind of peace do we want?  Certainly not Pax
Britanica.  Not one which is imposed at the point of a British
gun nor one which is dictated by one section of Irish people and
inflicted on another.  We seek a genuine peace that enable
s men and women and nations to grow and to hope and to build a
better life for their children.

     I have not come here to ask the UN for peace-keeping troops;
we can make our own peace in Ireland.  But we do need the UN to
hold the British government to its declared commitment to respect
the rights of the people of Ireland.  We do need the rest of the
world to insist that human rights are an international concern;
that the rights of Irish women, children and men should be fully
protected and enshrined in a new and agreed Ireland.

     In a speech in the United States two years ago, President
Nelson Mandela said something which I believe is equally
applicable to our situation in Ireland -- to the British
government and John Major, as well as Sinn Fein.  President
Mandela said: "History has placed a challenge at both our doors
and commands that, acting together for the common good, we must
make an outstanding success of the historic processes of
transforming South Africa into a democratic, prosperous and
peaceful country.

     We must succeed in all this, in the fundamental interest of
all who value freedom and human dignity.  The poor, the
dispossessed, the despised await our common victory with an
expectation we dare not disappoint."

     In Ireland we must do the same, and to achieve that we need
the help and assistance and encouragement of the international
community and the United Nations.

     In conclusion, I feel it is only appropriate to use this
occasion to mention the late Sean MacBride.  There have been many
great Irish men and women who have championed human rights and
self-determination but Sean MacBride stands head and s
houlders above the rest.  A former IRA leader who earned the
Nobel Peace Prize and served as UN Commissioner for Namibia, he
once said he longed for the day when the UN would finally lend
its aid to completing the process of decolonizing in
 his native land and he wrote:  "Ireland's right to sovereignty,
independence and unity are inalienable and indefeasible.  It is
for the Irish people as a whole to determine the future status of
Ireland."


     Today, in the spirit of the United Nations' "Friendly
Relations" Declaration of 1970, we have taken a bold and decisive
step towards a lasting peace and democratic equality in our
country.  I am convinced that if the political will exists t
hen we can finally move away from conflict through the
achievement of a democratic settlement.  The potentially-historic
opportunity which currently exists should not be lost.  The
British government must stop trying to reduce the momentum
of the peace process and engage fully and positively in it.


----------------

subscribe to:
                        The Irish People
                         363 Seventh Ave
                            Suite 405
                       New York, New York
                              10001
                        tel: 212-736-1916

price: $30

__________________


posted in...
                            IRL-NEWS

                   to subscribe, send message:
                 <subscribe irl-news your name>

                        send message to:
                  <[email protected]>

Subject: NIO Press Release 5/11/95

The sixth meeting between the Government and Sinn Fein was held
today. The Government side was led by the Minister of State, Michael
Ancram MP.

In opening the meeting, the Minister welcomed the resumption of
exploratory dialogue. He believed the Government now had the
assurances they had sought from Sinn Fein and he looked forward to
his participation facilitating and accelerating constructive
discussion of the key issues, including the decommissioning of arms.

There followed a serious and constructive discussion on the
decommissioning of arms. Sinn Fein reaffirmed their commitment to
exclusively peaceful and constitutional methods, and to bringing
about the removal of all weapons, including IRA weapons, from Irish
politics. The Minister explained why the Government attached such
importance to the issue. As the Downing Street Declaration made
clear it is 'democratically mandated parties which establish a
commitment to exclusively peaceful methods and which have shown
that they abide by the democratic process' which can be brought into
political dialogue. Accordingly the Government wanted to explore
how decommissioning could be achieved. There was a helpful initial
exploration of the issue and it was agreed to discuss the issue again
at a future meeting on the basis of a paper which the Government
tabled, covering such issues as methods of decommissioning,
verification, the possibility of independent supervision, practical
and legal considerations, and timing.

Both sides agreed that it was in the interests of everyone that all
illegal arms and explosives should be removed as soon as possible,
and that the establishment of an atmosphere of trust was crucial in
achieving that. Both sides agreed to use their influence to seek to
ensure an outcome on these lines.

The meeting discussed a number of other issues, including Sinn
Fein's view that they should be treated equally with other parties on
the basis of their electoral mandate. The Minister said that the
Government had made it plain that it accepted that Sinn had an
electoral mandate and that its voters had the same rights as people
supporting any other party. The Minister repeated that the
Government wanted to see Sinn Fein enter normal political life in
Northern Ireland. Following the progress that had enabled the entry
of Ministers into the dialogue, and on the basis that the dialogue
would continue, he indicated that the Government would be ready to
consider requests from Sinn Fein representatives to meet Ministers
and officials on their merits.

Sinn Fein also raised some issues under the heading of
'Demilitarising Society'.

The Minister also condemned so-called punishment beatings and
other intimidation and pressed for Sinn Fein's influence to be used to
bring these to a permanent end.

Michael Ancram offered dates for a further meeting next week,
which Sinn Fein agreed to consider.

from An Phoblacht/Republican News
news and views of the Irish Republican movement--Sinn Fein
June 15, 1995

                   Sinn Fein delegations visits South Africa



-----------------
Parallels drawn between South Africa and Ireland

Imagine a country where:

* Democratic principles of justice and equality are set aside;

* The state has a shoot-to-kill policy against its political opponents;

* The state arms death squads to kill political dissidents and spread terror;

* The state can arrest and intern without trial;

* Internal exile is used to control the movement of political opponents;

* Torture by state forces has been commonplace;

* A heavily-armed paramilitary police force backed by a standing army is
encamped on top of a civilian population;

* Special laws provide state forces with immeasurable power and protect
them from the legal consequences of their behaviour;

* There are special courts with no juries and where the rules of evidence
are weighed against the defence;

* Discrimination in employment, in language and culture is both structured
and deep-rooted;

* Every major Human Rights Agency - UN/Amnesty/Helsinki Watch have year
after year condemned its abuses;

* Political prisoners languish in prisons..

    ''Apartheid South Africa? No! What I have described is the British
occupied part of my country.'' These were the words of Gerry Adams at a
packed press conference on his arrival in South Africa on Wednesday.

    While recognising that there are differences between Ireland and South
Africa, Adams pointed to the similarities ''in colonial conquest;
dispossession of land; mass movements of people; genocide; division;
repression; discrimination and the denial of our most basic and fundamental
right to self-determination''.

    The degree of militarisation of the Six Counties is one of the issues
Sinn Fein is highlighting in South Africa. The British army presence of
16,000 operating troops would translate into 320,000 troops on the ground
in South Africa. The total crown forces presence including the paramilitary
RUC force, would amount to 640,000 troops and armed partisan police in
South Africa.

    Figures show that prior to the first democratic elections last year,
there was one police officer for every 300 people in the then apartheid
state. In the same period there was one RUC officer for every 110 people in
the Six Counties, but bearing in mind that British forces numbers are almost
exclusively focused on nationalist areas, even this figure doesn't give the
true ratio. The common experience of many Irish and ANC political prisoners
and the role of the prison struggle in both countries is another theme of
the South African trip. All the Sinn Fein delegation members have spent
time in jail as political prisoners.
-------------------

                   Leading negotiators will meet Sinn Fein

    THE VISIT to South Africa by Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams is nothing
short of historic. As well as meeting with President Nelson Mandela, Adams
will also be meeting several other leading ANC figures, including the Deputy
President of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki and the ANC Secretary General,
Cyril Ramaphosa. The Sinn Fein delegation accompanying Gerry Adams consists
of Publicity Director Rita O'Hare, press officer Richard McAuley and Ard
Chomhairle member Chrissie McAuley.

    Sinn Fein is ''going to look, to listen and to learn'' from South
Africa's ''remarkable experience of negotiating a peaceful transition from
apartheid to democracy'', Gerry Adams says. As guests of the ANC, the Sinn
Fein team will meet several other party leaders, including ANC National
Chairperson Jacob Zuma, during the eight-day visit.

    Gerry Adams will also be meeting senior representatives of the Pan
Africanist Congress (PAC) and the South African Communist Party (SACP) and
this Thursday he addresses a meeting of the South African Parliament's
Select Committee on Foreign Affairs.

    Foreign Affairs spokesperson Bairbre De Brun says the trip will
provide the Sinn Fein President with an opportunity to meet most of the
people responsible for negotiating the end of apartheid in South Africa.
A measure of this is the fact that on Monday next he meets with the ANC's
chief representative in the South African negotiations and the chief
negotiator for the White regime, Roelf Meyer. Meyer symbolises those
conservative White South Africans whose confidence in their own strength
and influence allowed them to eventually concede to democracy
there. During the Goldstone Commission of Inquiry into political violence
in 1992, Meyer was implicated in a cover-up of a South African Military
Intelligence dirty tricks operation targeting the ANC. Yet the ANC
negotiated with Meyer and people like him to dismantle the apartheid
state.

    Another intriguing meeting will be the brief one scheduled with
General Constand Viljoen of the Freedom Front Party. Viljoen is a retired
chief of the former South African Defence Forces and not someone Sinn
Fein would have a lot in common with. However, Viljoen has experienced
a conversion from would-be messiah of Afrikaner minority privilege
to parliamentary representative of a party with 2.2% support in the new
South Africa. Although his right-wing politics remain intact, he has gone
from storming a session of the multi-party negotiations in June 1993 to
supporting the campaign for truth and reconciliation in January of
this year.

    In addition to these meetings, Gerry Adams tours Soweto, Alexandra and
the East Rand on Sunday and addresses the South African Institute of
International Affairs on Tuesday night.

________________

posted in...

                            IRL-NEWS

                   to subscribe, send message:
                 <subscribe irl-news your name>

                        send message to:
                  <[email protected]>

  Warning:  This article should not be read by those who consider the Irish
            Times a propoganda machine, or those who consider the reading
            of an article that contains 50 lines, a daunting task.  





1995/08/04
ADAM'S WELCOMES CLINTON'S VIEW ON TALKS
By Jim Dunne

THE Sinn Fein president, Mr Gerry Adams, has welcomed the comments of
President Clinton on the peace process, published in yesterday's Irish
Times. He hoped that they would encourage the British Prime Minister,
Mr Major, to recognise his responsibilities at this ``decisive time''.

Mr Clinton said he would be pleased if all-party talks were under way
by the time of his visit to Ireland in December. Mr Adams suggested
that, if all-party talks are not under way by then, the peace process
would not be heading for a crisis, but would be in crisis.

Speaking at a function in Dublin to mark 25 years of the Sinn Fein
publication, An Phoblacht, Mr Adams said that he had written to the
British Home Secretary, Mr Michael Howard, about the conditions faced
by Irish prisoners in British jails. He said that Mr Howard's office
had been contacted again within the previous 24 hours, but had not
replied so far.

According to Mr Adams, many people were baffled that conditions for
Irish prisoners in British jails should have deteriorated since the
IRA ceasefire. He welcomed the remarks by the Tanaiste, Mr Spring,
that it was very worrying that many prisoners in British jails were
under a ``tougher regime'' than had prevailed prior to the IRA
ceasefire.

Recent meetings between the Northern Secretary, Sir Patrick Mayhew, Mr
Michael Ancram, the North's political development minister, and Sinn
Fein had left him in no doubt, Mr Adams said, that the British now had
no excuse - ``if they ever had one'' - for not moving to all-party
talks. Unless these talks began soon, the peace process would ``lurch
into crisis''.

He rejected criticisms made earlier by Mgr Denis Faul, of Dungannon,
that members of the republican movement were engaged in punishment
beatings on an almost daily basis. Mr Adams said: ``One should not
read too much into over-the-top remarks by some observers.''

Mr Micheal, Mac Donncha, the editor of An Phoblacht, said that
broadcasting censorship in its crudest form had been defeated, but
much self-censorship remained. ``The concentration of increasingly
powerful means of mass communication in even fewer hands is a growing
threat to democracy'', he said.

Meanwhile, the SDLP deputy leader, Mr Seamus Mallon, described the
British government's handling of the prisoners issue as ``vindictive
and totally counter-productive''. This was quite inexplicable, he
said, given that the British government had accepted, as had everyone
else, that the issue of prisoners was one which had to be dealt with.

``The whole stability of peace cannot be created by that type of
vindictive approach, but can only be sought and obtained by a spirit
of compassion and reconciliation'', Mr Mallon said.

The Irish Times


>  Warning:  This article should not be read by those who consider the Irish
>            Times a propoganda machine, or those who consider the reading
>            of an article that contains 50 lines, a daunting task.  

okay, I won't bother.  I wonder if you did.

Chris.

  I'm pleased Clinton is keeping up his campaign promise, and is still engaged
  in the peace process.  It's almost been a year now, and we still don't have
  all-party talks.  I'd think it's becoming obvious that the British government
  has no intention of seeing the "peace process" move forward.  When things
  slip back to the status quo, the responsibility will lie firmly on the 
  shoulders of the British government.

  The treatment of prisoners is another clear message from the British.  The
  refusal of medical treatment for Irish prisoners, and the punishment beatings
  being given out by the prisoner staff are disgusting, but in character.

                      Mark
  
  

                                [Sinn Fein]

                          News Update from Ireland
                              October 4, 1995

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams insists, "Dialogue is at the Heart of
                                Peacemaking "

Speaking at a weekend rally in Scotland, Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams
called upon British Prime Minister John Major to "ignore the war mongers in
Britain who still seek the military option and assert his authority by
embracing the democratic imperative of the peace process." Adams further
warned, "there are clearly elements in Britain who appear intent on wrecking
the peace process. This is a concern now widely shared by many in Ireland.
Britain militarists are looking forward to a crack-down by their forces.
They obviously refuse to learn the lessons of history. Dialogue is at the
heart of peacemaking. All-party talks should be initiated as a matter of
urgency within an agreed timeframe. No issue should be made a precondition
for further movement. These peace talks need to address three broad areas;
political and constitutional Change; the democratization of the situation;
the demilitarization of the situation.

Twenty months ago on my first trip to the United States I accused the
British government of engaging in bad faith negotiations. The British stance
has hardened since then and the record of stalling which we have witnessed
since August 31 last year speaks for itself.

Our task now, as then, is to build a peace in which every Irish man and
woman shares in the political, economic and social benefits which will flow
from it. Nothing could be more irresponsible than if we were to waste this
opportunity available to us.

           Sinn Fein Meets United States Government Representative

As part of the advance team for President Clinton's trip to Ireland next
month Nancy Sodeberg of the United States National Security Council met with
Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams for an outline of the party's assessment of
the current situation. Mr. Adams said, "There is no evidence that the
British government is yet ready to positively engage in the search for a
formula to end the present protracted impasse in the peace process. I have
reiterated to Ms. Sodeberg our commitment to help John Major if and when he
wants to remove the British imposed pre-condition but Sinn Fein has no room
to maneuver if he maintains his inflexible stance."

"We have remained in regular contact with the White House, the Irish and the
British governments, Mr. Hume and others, all in an effort to remove the
obstacles to all-party talks. That is the focus of our endeavors at this
time."

       Sinn Fein National Chairperson Addresses British Pre-Conditions

In a keynote speech at the British Labour Party annual conference this week,
Sinn Fein national chair Mitchell McLaughlin outlined the present state of
political developments in the Irish Peace Process. McLaughlin stressed that,
"the present British government, by their demand of a surrender of IRA
weapons as a pre-condition to all-party talks, by their assertion that the
Unionist parties will have a veto over the commencement of such
negotiations, are, in effect encouraging rather than discouraging Unionist
intransigence. Such a veto will deny to the people of Ireland a democratic
right to collectively negotiate an agreed future. The balance must be tilted
towards the positive power of consent. If the Unionist leadership's
resistance to inclusive dialogue, which is consistent with their opposition
to change, is elevated to a veto, then negotiations will never happen
because one pre-condition will lead to another."

                 Unionist Leaders Meet Irish Prime Minister

Welcoming the first meeting in 30 years between Unionist leaders and the
Irish Prime Minister this week, Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams said, "I
think it is a good thing. The more they engage in dialogue the better it is
for all concerned. That's why when I was last in New York and Washington I
argued that the unionist leaders needed to be there also. There is no way
that any of us are going back to the old days and unionism cannot afford to
return to the old ways."

                   Sinn Fein Leader meets British Minister

Sinn Fein confirmed that another meeting took place last week place between
the party's chief negotiator, Martin McGuinness and British government
minister Michael Ancram. The meeting, which was at Sinn Fein's request, was
another attempt to overcome the present impasse in the peace process by
moving forward to all-party peace talks.

                    British Human Rights Abuses Continue

Sinn Fein spokesperson on prison issues, Pat McGeown this week described the
decision by British authorities to move cancer patient Patrick Kelly back to
the harsh regime practiced at Whitemoor prison in England as "callous in the
extreme." He continued, "It is beyond belief that the British have moved
Patrick Kelly out of medical supervision and into a Secure Unit. The
decision is particularly vindictive as he is suffering from cancer. Coming
on the heels of the British court decision on the 28th September that five
other Irish prisoners have been unlawfully refused a parole hearing after
serving over 20 years each, it is viewed as vengeance. It is yet another
snub to the peace process. Patrick Kelly and the others should be
transferred to a prison in Ireland. This decision is indicative of Britain's
negative approach to the building of trust and confidence in the peace
process.

                       Sinn Fein Addresses Peace Forum

Speaking at the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation in Dublin, Sinn Fein's
Dodie McGuinness from Derry set out principles necessary for a genuine
process of reconciliation and mutual trust in Ireland. McGuinness's speech
included the following statement, "Sinn Fein's guiding principle is that of
the founders of Irish Republicanism, to break down divisions by uniting in
what we hold in common and putting past dissensions behind us. It is this
pluralist philosophy with its welcome for, and accommodation of diversity,
that hold the key to resolving the conflict on this island. Sinn Fein's
willingness to engage in discussions with all parties - and without
pre-conditions - in Ireland and overseas, is testimony to our commitment to
engage constructively in talks. The IRA cessation - in its own words,
`recognizing the potential of the current situation and in order to enhance
the democratic process and underline our definitive commitment to its
success' was itself the strongest indication possible of republicans'
commitment to building trust."

>                  -< Dialogue is at the Heart of Peacemaking >-

why not give it a try in here, then?

Chris.

  re. .226

  Happily,
      What would you like to discuss?
               Mark

>      What would you like to discuss?

anything, as long as it doesn't involve any patronising comments.

Chris.

    Living in England I neither see nor hear any "war mongers". I wonder
    where Sinn Feinn find them to be? Nor anyone who wants to crack down
    etc.
    
    Having said that I will repeat what I have said elsewhere, the British
    Government should be holding all party talks, with disarmament as a
    very early agenda item.
    
    Sinn Fein are gaining the high political and moral ground which the
    Government had.
    
    Andrew



           Sinn Fein says trying to salvage N. Ireland peace

RTna 11/3/95 5:12 AM


Copyright 1995 Reuters Ltd.

    BELFAST, Northern Ireland (Reuter) - Sinn Fein, political arm of IRA
guerrillas, said Friday that it was  holding talks with Britain to try to
rescue a faltering Northern Ireland peace process from collapse.

     Martin McGuinness, Sinn Fein's senior strategist, said the only way to
save the peace process from  months of deadlock was for Britain to call
all-party talks and to end its insistence that the IRA first disarm.

     London demands the Irish Republican Army and its Protestant Loyalist
foes surrender their weapons to  win seats at all-party peace talks on a
Northern Ireland settlement.

     The peace process began 15 months ago when IRA guerrillas declared a
cease-fire to a 25-year war  against Britain, hoping to get Sinn Fein into
talks on ending British rule of the province.

     The IRA says Britain's "arms-for-talks" proviso is a ploy to lure them
into surrender, while Protestant  gunmen say their weapons are for defense
only.

     It was the second meeting between the two in a week after a four-hour
session Tuesday which  McGuinness said had failed to resolve "major
difficulties" over attempts to turn truces by the IRA and  pro-British
Protestant gunmen into lasting peace.

     Thursday night Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams said the peace process
reached a "defining moment"  and blamed Britain's insistence on disarming his
IRA guerrilla supporters.

     He declined to confirm speculation that Sinn Fein would break off talks
with Ancram Friday if London's  response to Sinn Fein's proposals was
negative.

     A Sinn Fein walkout from the Belfast talks would not surprise Irish
nationalists impatient at lack of  progress since the Irish Republican Army's
cease-fire.

     Such a collapse would probably wreck prospects for an Anglo-Irish summit
to unveil a fresh attempt to  convene all-party peace talks and would also
cast shadows over a visit this month by President Clinton.

     Clinton has recognized Sinn Fein, invited Adams to the White House and
given financial support to  rebuilding Northern Ireland after a 25-year
guerrilla war, but hopes for a lasting settlement have dwindled.

    Hmm...
    
    Two groups are involved in the talks, pray tell why only one of them is
    trying to salvage peace...
    
    //atp


           Peace process in very serious difficulty
                         By Gerry Adams

     WHEN Niall O'Dowd, editor of the Irish Voice newspaper in
New York, was on the Late Late Show recently, he said he was
concerned that there was too much complacency about the peace
process. His remarks were a timely reminder that the process has
yet to be consolidated. During the same programme I made similar
points. However, in so doing I was very mindful of the danger of
crying wolf or of all the time being full of doom and gloom or of
being repetitive to the point to tedium.

     There is the added difficulty that when someone like me, as
opposed to Niall O'Dowd, draws attention to the fragility of the
peace process, and of the need for vigilance this is interpreted
and misrepresented as a threat. So in seeking to consolidate the
peace process or to draw attention to difficulties within it I
have to be very careful in how I present my position.

     The seriousness of the present situation however demands
that I visit this issue once again. The peace process is in very
serious difficulty. At this time and as I have said before there
is not the dynamic in the Irish situation to move the process
forward. There is an inherent dynamic in the forthcoming visit by
President Clinton but I am not optimistic that even this will be
enough to provide the momentum which is necessary to get to
all-party talks.

     The problem is that the British government has been able to
stop any progress by its refusal to move to all-party talks
unless the IRA disarms. For the British their aim remains one of
seeking to defeat Irish republicanism and removing it as an
element in Irish politics. It is in this context that the British
demand needs to be judged. London is seeking a concession which
it knows will not be granted. The reason for stalling the peace
process around this demand is so that it will frustrate Irish
republicans, distract and immobilise Irish nationalists and
fracture the broad consensus which has been built around the
objective of an inclusive peace settlement.

     For the British the peace process so far has been a
continuation of war by other means. London really doesn't want to
move into all-party talks. All-party talks and the agreement
which they will forge means change. The unionists are resisting
change. They are refusing to move into all-party talks also.
Therefore, to bring the changes which are necessary means the
British government having to bring the unionists along this road.
Mr Major so far is not prepared to do this.

     What are the changes which he and the unionists are
resisting? They are fundamental constitutional and political
change. There is a need also for a democratisation of the
situation and there is a need for total demilitarisation, which
includes the permanent removal of all the guns from Irish
society.

     The British government stance is a tactic aimed at reducing
the momentum and dynamic for change and diminishing or diluting
the expectation of change. The British have been hugely
successful in reducing this, in slowing down the peace process.

     There have been a number of efforts made to break the
protracted impasse. All of these have failed. At this time it
appears that the current efforts which started the last time I
was in Washington, have failed also or are at the point of
failure. These efforts involved the White House, the Irish
government, John Hume and myself being in constant contact with
each other and with the British government.

     In the course of this various formulations were considered
by all sides and early last month John Hume and I worked out some
propositions which Mr Hume presented to John Major and which
Martin McGuinness and Gerry Kelly presented to British Minister
Michael Ancram on 20 October. Before presenting these to the
British, John Hume and I sought a joint meeting with the
Taoiseach John Bruton so that he would be the first to receive
our joint proposals. The aim of these proposals was to get
all-party talks started and to get the arms question settled to
everyone's satisfaction.

     Much to our surprise Mr Bruton refused our request for a
joint meeting. In its place he offered separate meetings. So John
Hume and I returned from Dublin without seeing him. That was on
13 October.

     John Bruton's refusal to meet with us jointly is a matter of
judgement for himself. When news of it broke here however it
caused understandable concern among nationalists and republicans.

     When he later explained that he was concerned not to
upset unionist sensitivities this cause even greater
disappointment and some anger. At a time when the British are
stalling the peace process many people in Ireland were looking to
Dublin to provide an alternative dynamic. So the difficulties
which are bogging down the peace process have been deepened
because of John Bruton's stance.

                        BRITISH RESPONSE

     What then of the proposals put by John Hume and myself? What
has the British response been to those? Today, Tuesday, 31
October, Martin McGuinness met British Minister Michael Ancram at
Stormont. Sinn Fein had been hopeful that this meeting would have
taken place last week but we failed in our efforts to get the
British to meet at that time. Our intention, and Martin
McGuinness wrote to Michael Ancram about this in advance of
today's meeting, was to have a substantive engagement the aim of
which would be to resolve the problems which are stalling and
subverting the peace process.

     The meeting lasted for approximately three hours. Following
it Martin McGuinness in a brief statement to the media said: ''On
20 October myself and Gerry Kelly provided Michael Ancram with
proposals, agreed by Gerry Adams and John Hume, which have the
objective of ending the current deadlock in the peace process by
moving us into all-party talks. The proposals sought also to get
the arms issue settled to everyone's satisfaction.

     ''We went into today's meeting seeking a substantive
engagement to work out a formula on these matters as the basis
for forward movement and in an effort to salvage the peace
process.

     ''We've had a detailed discussion. There are major
difficulties. We've arranged a further meeting for Friday.
Regrettably, the impasse in the peace process has not been
broken.

     It is clear therefore that the British strategy is to string
this phase of the peace process out in much the same way as they
have protracted the entire process since before 31 August 1994.
They are not interested in real negotiations at this time.



                               8 November 1995

             Sinn Fein releases details of Hume/Adams proposals

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness, the party's senior
negotiator with the British Government, today released details of the
proposals agreeed by Gerry Adams and John Hume as a formula to end the
deadlock in the peace process and advance it to the next stage.

Speaking at the Press Conference Party President Gerry Adams said:

``From last Easter we have warned, to the point of tedium, of the danger to
the proces inherent in the British government's bad faith engagement. It is
not necessary to rehearse all of the arguments around this issue here.
However, we have sought with great patience and diligence to find a formula
which would overcome the difficulties created by the British Government's
position; in particular, its refusal to set a date for all party peace talks
and its insistence on an actual surrender of IRA weapons.

``In attempting to meet the challenge which all of this poses we have tried
to follow the broad principles which underpinned the beginning of the peace
process, i.e. the centrality of dialogue and the need for agreement.

``We had expressed publicly a willingness to examine positively any proposal
which would move the situation forward. From our perspective any formula
which republicans could live with would require a date, as soon as possible,
for all party talks, the dropping of the precondition for Sinn Fein
participation, and a project on the arms issue which resolved the matter to
everyone's satisfaction. In this context we were prepared to look at a twin
track approach.''

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               Joint proposals

  1. The two governments have agreed to launch the preparatory phase for
     all-party talks in the peace process, which will not later than 30
     November, lead into substantive political negotiations, in round table
     format, to reach an agreed political settlement.

  2. The two governments have also agreed to ask George Mitchel to head up
     an international body, to ascertain and advise the two governments on
     the commitment to peaceful and democratic methods of all political
     parties which will be participating in the round-table negotiations,
     and consequently of their commitment to the removal of all weapons from
     Irish politics.

     The international body will also be asked to ascertain and advise on
     how the question of arms, now [thankfully] silenced, can be finally and
     satisfactorily settled.

     George Mitchel will be assisted by two other figures of international
     standing likely to inspire widespread confidence.

  3. Accordingly, the international body will have the remit of reporting,
     by [.......] (sic) on whether it has established that a clear
     commitment exists on the part of the respective political parties to an
     agreed political settlement, achieved through democratic negotiations,
     and to the satisfactory resolution of the question of arms.

  4. The international body will report to the two governments who will
     undertake to consider any recommendations it makes, and to give them
     due weight.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sinn Fein Ard Chomhairle member Martin McGuinness said:

``Last Friday, Michael Ancram rejected these proposals. He refused to set a
date now or at any time in the future for the commencement of all party
inclusive negotiations.

``The unionist veto permeates the British government position.

``We approached this entire matter with the aim of removing obstacles to
dialogue. Our aim, from the outset, has been to remove all the guns from
Irish politics. During our engagements Sinn Fein stated a willingness as
part of our proposal, to speak authoratively to the international body on
the issue of IRA weapons. We also stated our intention to submit our views
on all other weapons.

``However, the British government have tried to ensure that any
international body would take a purely sectional approach to the issue of
arms, underlining that their demand for a surrender of IRA weapons is purely
tactical and not a real barrier to forward movement.

``The British government has sought to misrepresent our position on an
international body.

``The international community now has a vital role to play in moving the
Britsh government into a positive engagement withth epeace process. We need
its help to salvage this process.''

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sinn Fein Press Center
51/55 Falls Road
Belfast
tel: 230 261 | fax: 231 723

Released in the US by:

Friends of Sinn Fein
1350 Connecticut Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20036
tel: (202) 331-7886 | fax (202) 331-8117

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Sinn Fein Home Page | Sinn Fein Documents | Current Issue of AP/RN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[email protected]

                                [Sinn Fein]

                          News Update from Ireland
                             November 15, 1995

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Sinn Fein Chief Negotiator Martin McGuinness Calls for "Lasting Settlement"

"Where do we go from here?"

That is the question Irish people are asking themselves as the British
blockade on peace talks continues to drag on. Calling on the Irish people to
"reclaim the peace process" Martin McGuinness added that it was essential
that people mobilize in support of the demand for inclusive talks between
all parties to the conflict in Ireland. Speaking prior to the arrival in
Derry of legendary Irish Republican, Joe Cahill, Mr. McGuinness said; "many
people are asking if we have a peace process. The British government has
refused, point blank, to engage in constructive dialogue. The British
government seems intent on passing up the best opportunity for peace in 75
years.

John Major insists on attempting to reduce the peace process to a single
item agenda - the surrender of the IRA. He will not succeed. He has rejected
the latest proposals as submitted by Gerry Adams and John Hume and has
placed the process in serious jeopardy through his government's
intransigence and arrogance.

We should send an explicit message that we will not allow the British
government to subvert this opportunity to reach a lasting settlement."

                  Irish Republican POW's Get 50 year Tariff

In another disturbing example of the British government's "Imaginative
Response" to the IRA cessation, three republican prisoners have been told
they will have to serve 50 years in prison. Pat Magee, Tommy Quigley and
Paul Kavanaugh were each sentenced to life imprisonment in England in the
early 1980's and are on temporary transfer in the Maghaberry Gaol. The three
men may be returned to a prison in England at any time without redress.

Two weeks ago the men were told that although the judiciary body recommended
that they serve 35 years in prison the British Home Secretary at the time,
Douglas Hurd decide their terms should be 50 years each. Current British
Home Secretary Michael Howard has accepted Hurd's recommendation of 50 years
and has sent the men written confirmation. Howard clearly intends to stand
by Hurd's sentence regardless of today's changed circumstances.

                        Adams Slams British Attitude

In a scathing attack on the British government Sinn Fein President, Gerry
Adams said Michael Howard's approach was yet another example of the British
government's "begrudging attitude" to the peace process.

"It is absolutely astounding that 15 months into the peace process political
prisoners are being informed that they can expect to serve at least 50 years
in jail. The British government is sending out clearer signals by the day.
They have no intention of meaningfully addressing any of the issues that
need to be tackled if the peace process is to be rescued.

Coming hard on the heels of the derisory tinkering with the remission system
which will bring benefits to only a few prisoners, this is further
magnification of the begrudging attitude which lies at the heart of the
British government's approach to the peace process."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   Archive of SF Updates | Latest Update

       Sinn Fein Home Page | AP/RN Home Page | Current Issue of AP/RN

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For those interested......
    
    Pat Magee was responsible for planting eighteen bombs in five cities in
    England. He is more famously known for blowing up the Brighton Grand
    Hotel, killing six people and injuring 32 (one other victim died a year
    later through related injuries).
    
    Paul Kavanaugh was responsible for IRA operations in Belgium and
    Holland in the mid 70's. He and Tom Quigley are also responsible for
    the bomb attack outside the chelsea barracks, injuring 40 soldiers and
    killing a woman and small child or Irish desent. A bomb disposal expert
    was also killed trying to defuse one of their bombs.
    
    Shaun.

  Shaun,
    I'm surprised they weren't let free and given a promotion.  Oh, yeah
  that's right, that only happens if you are a British soldier.

                            Mark

    Mark,
    
    Is there any atrocity committed in the name of the IRA to which you
    won't turn a blind eye?
    
    //alan

    Mark,
    
    Do you really think that trying to link the fact that the British
    Government has decided to keep three IRA terrorists, responsible for at
    least 10 deaths and injuring 72 people (some quite apallingly) to the
    temporary promotion of a PT instructer soldier, responsible for the
    death of a west belfast joyrider when the car in which she was
    passenger sped through an Army check-point in NI, will convince normal
    people in this conference that your views deserve any credit ???
    
    You use this conference to pollute it with fairly biased 'tabloid'
    propergander in a vain attempt to conscript people for your cause, yet
    you destroy any credibility you might have by entering comments such as
    the one in question. As I have said before....you really do give
    republicanism a very bad name.
    
    Shaun.

>    temporary promotion of a PT instructer soldier, responsible for the
>    death of a west belfast joyrider when the car in which she was
>    passenger sped through an Army check-point in NI, will convince normal
>    people in this conference that your views deserve any credit ??
    
    This guy is a convicted murderer, not just someone who happened to
    shoot a joyrider. Please don't trivialize the situation or try to
    justify the fact that he murdered an innocent civilian.
    
    Gerry

    "Innocent" - oh, you mean someone who was in a stolen car.
    
    Please try to be accurate.
    
    

    Gerry,
    
    I suggest you re-read my note.
    
    The person in question was convicted of murder...I don't think those
    following this topic need reminding of that. He was conviceted of
    murdering the passenger of a stolen car that tried to drive through an
    Army checkpoint. He is now a PT instructor soldier and he has been
    temporarily promoted........these are all facts so where was I
    trivializing??
    
    Shaun

    This is getting bloody ridiculous.
    
    John

>    I suggest you re-read my note.
 
    I did. I think you should also re-read it. It does not say the same as
    you said in this note.
    
       
>    The person in question was convicted of murder...I don't think those
>    following this topic need reminding of that. He was conviceted of
>    murdering the passenger of a stolen car that tried to drive through an
>    Army checkpoint. He is now a PT instructor soldier and he has been
>    temporarily promoted........these are all facts so where was I
>    trivializing??
 
    By saying that Clegg is 'responsible for the deathe of...' is
    trivializing the fact that he is a convicted murderer. You have
    rectified the situation in this note.
    
    Re .240
    
    Was this person that was murdered actually convicted of any crime? If
    not then she was innocent. Ever heard of 'Innocent until proven 
    guilty'?
    
    Gerry

It's pretty unlikely she was convicted of any crime. Frederick West wasn't
convicted of any crime, seeing as how he's dead.

Dave

    re .243
    
    Please tell me which of the facts in .240 you are disputing.
    
    //alan

>    Please tell me which of the facts in .240 you are disputing.
 
    I wasn't disputing any of the facts. I wsa merely pointing out the fact
    that the girl was an innocent civilian, which was my original
    statement. I felt that you were disputing this with your comment in
    .240.  Sorry if I misunderstood.
    
    Gerry   
    

    Exactly how "innocent" is a civilian who is riding in the back of a
    stolen car, which is attempting to go through an army roadblock
    without stopping. Don't get me wrong, I'm not attempting to condone or
    excuse Clegg's actions, but I am trying to put some balance into the
    emotive terms being used here. It just seems odd to me that someone
    would do such a thing and expect anything other than to be shot at.
    
    Laurie.

    It's been repeatedly stated by our British colleagues that 
    the car in question was going through an army roadblock at 
    the time. This may be what makes some British people feel 
    Clegg was hard done by. However, although it was widely reported 
    in the English newspapers and on English TV that this was what 
    happened, it was not so.
    
    The story about them breaking through a roadblock was
    an invention of the defendants, along with the injured
    leg to 'prove' that the car had hit one of the soldiers.
    
    They were both shown in three courts of law to be a
    fabrication. There had  been a roadblock earlier in
    the evening, but there was none at the time of the
    murder. The soldiers, realising they had committed
    a serious crime, then attempted to fabricate a story,
    and evidence to support it, which the English media
    have consistently reported as if it were what happened
    that night. No wonder so many English people think
    Clegg is innocent. It certainly shows the advantage
    of trying criminal cases before a court of law, rather
    than allowing the media to try them.
    
    

    re .248
    
    Are you saying that on the night of the incident a group of soldiers
    fired on a car which they just happened to take a dislike to?
    
    Andrew

Re .247
    
>    Exactly how "innocent" is a civilian who is riding in the back of a
>    stolen car, which is attempting to go through an army roadblock
>    without stopping. Don't get me wrong, I'm not attempting to condone or
>    excuse Clegg's actions, but I am trying to put some balance into the
>    emotive terms being used here. It just seems odd to me that someone
>    would do such a thing and expect anything other than to be shot at.


In the interest of balance:-

 1) There is some doubt as to whether the army roadblock was operational
    at the time of the incident. Witnesses talk of almost colliding with
    the soldiers as they walked along the road in the dark.

 2) The rules of engagement state that army personnel may shoot at a target
    if they suspect that their own lives or the lives of their comrades
    are in danger. It was established that most of the shots hit this car
    from behind. The fatal shot entered through the back of the car, 
    passing through the back seat and entering the back of the victim. A
    car which had passed the soldiers was not considered by any of the 
    courts to have been a threat to the soldiers.

 3) When they had realised the gravity of the situation the soldiers tried
    to cover up their actions. Clegg's colleague had his friends hit him in 
    the legs with rifle butts so that he could claim that the car had 
    actually hit him. He was jailed for perjury.

 4) The "remorse" of these guardians of the realm can be appreciated when
    you consider the frieze which they put up in their mess. This depicted
    a blue Vauxhall Astra with bullet holes painted on it and bodies 
    hanging out the windows and the words, "Designed by computer, Built by
    robots, Stopped by 'A' Coy" emblazoned across it.

    In answer to your question `Exactly how "innocent" is a civilian who 
    is riding in the back of a stolen car, which is attempting to go through
    an army roadblock without stopping', my answer is :- A lot more 
    innocent than the person who murdered her; a lot more innocent than the
    perjurer who tried to cover up for him; and a lot more innocent than
    the sick idiots who glorified this atrocity in the mess.

    I hope this adds some balance.
    

    Its difficult to get to the bottom of this. Its my belief that the
    patrol decided to stop the car and that the car, when indicated to
    stop, did not. From reports it apparently increased speed.
    
    Perhapps someone could enlighten me on the next pont but I thought that
    a patrol that decides to stop a car is effectively creating a tempoary
    road block. From what i've read, the patrol adopted a staggered
    formation on both sides of the road. The rules of engagement meant that
    the soldiers could only fire if they felt that they were at threat and
    it is supposedly under this presumption that they opened fire.
    
    Secondly, the rules of engagement also meant that the soldiers must stop
    fireing when the threat has passed. The fact that Private Clegg
    continued to fire after the car had passed him meant that he was
    exceeding the rules of engagement. I'm not excusing his actions  but I
    personaly wonder whether it is easy to stop fireing because the car has
    passed when fellow soldiers are still fireing ahead of the car...but
    hell, he's a soldier and his job is to act like one - which he didn't.
    
    After they realised that they had killed someone they then tried to
    fake an injured leg, with the use of a rifle butt, so that they could
    claim that they had indeed felt threatened by this car.
    
    Thirdly, British Law dictates that 'murder' is a pre-meditated act....I
    do not believe that Private Clegg intended to kill an innocent person
    and, had he been a civilian, normaly have been tried for 'Manslaughter'
    - a crime which carries a considerably less sevear sentence. However,
    the British Legal System cannot by rule try a soldier for manslaughter
    - thus he was tried for murder. I'm led to believe that this rule is now
    under review.
    
    Shaun.

    Note Clash.....i'd have to fully agree with Eddie....especialy on the
    point of the 'stopped by A'Coy' banner.
    
    Shaun.

    re .249
    
    The soldiers were out specifically looking for joyriders,
    according to the patrol leader. I'm unable to hazard a guess
    at their motives. I can only report the facts of the case.
                                                              

    The more I read about this business (there's a lot on the Web, some of
    it's not even by Republicans), the more it smells. There is
    considerable justification in the crying of foul from all sides. In
    fact, although the joy-riders must bear some responsibility for this,
    the soldiers' actions, particularly those attempting to distort the
    facts after the incident, have removed whatever credibility they may
    have had. The whole incident and aftermath were very poorly handled by
    the British Government. It was a propaganda gift to the IRA and Sinn
    Fein, and an insult to that poor girl's family.
    
    Laurie.

                                   [Image]

                              12 February 1996

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        THE END OF THE IRA CESSATION

                               by Gerry Adams

The collapse last Friday evening of the 18 months long IRA cessation was a
tragic development. It need not have happened. It was not inevitable. The
tragic reality is that the potential for a negotiated peace settlement
created 18 months ago was not grasped. It was the absence of negotiations
and the consequent failure to address and resolve the causes of conflict
which made the re-occurrence of conflict inevitable.

It was the absence of democratic negotiations, despite the commitments given
by the two governments prior to the IRA cessation, which led to the present
break-down.

The basis therefore for rebuilding the IRA cessation and the peace process
itself must be an adherence to this principle of inclusion and dialogue and
the honouring of the commitments which led in the first place to the IRA
decision eighteen months ago.

The IRA cessation was, itself, the culmination of a long process of dialogue
within Irish nationalist opinion aimed at identifying a method of resolving
the conflict and building a lasting political settlement.

Against this background of intense dialogue, the British and Irish
governments agreed the text of the Downing Street Declaration. Despite our
profound reservations about the overall content of this document and our
publicly stated disagreement with many elements of it, the declaration did
contain a clear commitment by the British and Irish governments to initiate
inclusive dialogue as the means to a new political settlement among the
Irish people and, furthermore, the British government also gave a commitment
that it would encourage, facilitate and enable this agreement. These
commitments, which marked an important shift in the British position, were
repeated frequently over the ensuing nine months.

With a clear commitment by all the major Irish nationalist parties to
pro-actively pursue a new, negotiated and democratic political arrangement,
and a public commitment by the British government to convene with the Irish
government the necessary peace talks to achieve this agreement, the Sinn
F�in leadership gave an assessment to the IRA leadership of the prospects
for a lasting political settlement. It was on the basis of clearly stated
commitments and agreements, that the IRA announced a complete cessation of
military operations on August 31st, 1994.

That was eighteen months ago. The commitments given then have not been
honoured. In eighteen months there has not been one word of negotiation. The
injustices and inequalities which led to conflict have not been addressed.
On the contrary, the British government blocked the commencement of round
table negotiations by erecting, unilaterally, new and previously unmentioned
preconditions to Sinn F�in's participation in all-party peace talks.

In the eighteen months of the IRA cessation, the British government stalled
the commencement of all-party peace talks time and time again. The
unilateral dumping of the Mitchell Report, and the introduction of the
unionist proposal for a Six County election, placed an unbearable strain on
the peace process. Sinn F�in warned repeatedly of the dangers. Our warnings
were treated as threats when they were intended to alert those responsible
that the peace process needed to be consolidated and built upon.

The stalling, the negativity, the introduction of new preconditions was
steadily undermining the position of those, myself included, who had argued
that a viable peaceful way forward could be constructed. Those who had moved
with scepticism, but with courage, to enhance the prospects for a negotiated
settlement were confronted with a political vacuum and a British government
which wedded itself, for narrow party political reasons to an intransigent
unionist leadership.

Sinn F�in pointed out, with a growing sense of desperation, that there could
be no negotiated peace without peace negotiations. That without peace talks
there was no peace process.

Sinn F�in and others repeatedly said that the peace process could not stand
still. If it was not moving forward it was always in grave danger of moving
back. Unfortunately, that has now happened.

We should now learn from the experience of other more successful peace
processes which also suffered set backs. In South Africa and the Middle East
if the political leaders had refused to talk because of the breakdowns of
their processes then they would not have achieved as much as they have. On
the contrary rather than stopping dialogue, leaders in these conflicts were
spurred into intensifying their efforts.

Their experience tells us that it is crucial that people sit down around the
table and treat each other as human beings. It is such international
experience which has offered much to our efforts in the past and which still
can help to provide guidance for the way forward.

Real political progress in the form of real political negotiations are
necessary.

The challenge for Mr. Major is will he even now honour his commitments and
show real leadership and join with the Irish government to lead everyone
into the all party talks and the substantive negotiations that are required
even at this late stage to restore the peace process.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sinn F�in Press Office, 44 Parnell Square, Dublin 1
Tel: +353-1-8726100 and +353-1-8726839   �   Fax +353-1-8733074

Released in the US by:

Friends of Sinn F�in, 1350 Connecticut Ave, NW, Washington DC 20036
Tel: +1-202-331-7886   �   Fax: +1-202-331-8117   �   E-mail:
[email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Sinn F�in Home Page   �   Sinn F�in Documents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Web publication by [email protected]
Web archival by [email protected]

    As usual, claptrap. That lot especially, the first paragraph,
    apportions no blame to the IRA, and is based entirely on the premise
    that murdering innocent civilians is a valid means of procuring ones
    aims. Neither of those things is correct. The IRA were not *forced* to
    kill those people, no matter what John Major did or didn't do; they had
    other options open to them. No, they chose the path of violence as the
    preferred path, showing them and their supporters for what they are.
    Cowardly, murdering scum.
    
    So, once more I invite you:
    
    Do you condemn the Docklands bombing, yes or no?
    Do you think the Docklands bombing was justified, yes or no?
    
    Laurie.

.256

You repeat, over and over, asking simple questions to complex situations.

What is the point? Is it a personal attack attempt?

How is it related to the issues? (What one individual's personal views are)

Disregard previous. 

I've decided that it's not important to know the answer.

I'd delete it but cannot. 

    Rod,
    
    The fact that Holohan refuses to answer two simple questions which any
    civilised human being would have no hesitation in answering "yes" and
    "no" respectively, speaks volumes. That, coupled with his admitted
    hatred of the British, and his continual posting of IRA propaganda in
    this conference, and underlined by his refusal or inability to even try
    to accept that there may be others with another view, and that those
    others need to be accomodated in any solution, makes me doubt his
    sincerity. In short, is he sincerely using this conference, as I and
    many others do, to come to an understanding of a complicated issue
    which affects us all, or is he using it to peddle and propagate hatred
    in the furtherance of the cause of Nationalism in Ireland, and a removal
    of all traces of Britain from NI by any means, fair or foul.
    
    Now, I know what I think, and the more he ignores my questions, which
    have been asked before about other attrocities (for instance the
    Warrington bomb where women and small children were blown up by the
    IRA), and ignored in exactly the same way, the more convinced I am in
    my belief that he is actively supporting and promoting the IRA and
    their muderous and illegal campaigns. Such a person is never going to
    help bring peace about. Of course, I may be mistaken, and if he were
    once to answer my questions in the manner indicated above, I would a)
    apologise for having held that belief, and b) take him more seriously.
    
    I hope that answers your question.
    
    Cheers, Laurie.

In for a penny in for a pound (I guess)

The questions irked me, Laurie, prompted me to ask those questions.

the order of your questions is a cul-de-sac.

do you condemn the bombings, yes or no? (no other answer?)

are they justified? yes or now (no other answer?)


What if I can't answer the first because I don't know enough?

Then I would have to say "no"

The answer to the second would be,  "I don't know."


Now before the saber rattling starts, there was another question further back 
that asked if violence should never be tolerated. I'm not facile enough with 
notes to go fetch the pieces and repost them here, but I got the gist.

In Persian Gulf, a certain 1000bl bomb, released from a Tornado blew to bits 
a bunch of "colateral resources". Similar bombs from Eagles, or f112s did the 
same. But the thing is, innocents died. lots of them. 

Was this violence wrong? (Foul murder by scum?)

For thirty thousand years, acts of violence have been a part of the body 
politic, an extension of it called war. 

In the struggle in which I played a part, my country used B52s to drop loads 
of 84 1000lb bombs over a major metropolitan area. I'm sure a lot of 
Englishmen can relate to that. 

Personally, I don't believe that the Irish should give up their weapons until 
peace is achieved. (maybe not even then) It's naive to think that the side 
with all the power (weapons) would then fail to use its advantage. Could be 
the RKBA bias coming through here. But just the idea of someone saying, 
"Come on, my good man. Lay down your weapons, I promise I won't use mine, and 
then we'll talk peace." Seems somewhat of longshot, maybe?

I've read-only a long time. Thanks for prompting my reply.

 

    
    
    
    re 260
    
    >In Persian Gulf, a certain 1000bl bomb, released from a Tornado blew to
    >bits
    >a bunch of "colateral resources". Similar bombs from Eagles, or f112s
    >did the
    >same. But the thing is, innocents died. lots of them.
    
    >Was this violence wrong? 
    
    YES it was. 
    
    >(Foul murder by scum?)
    
    The world social and economic order is based on class and exploitation.
    It is thus fundamentally unstable and leads to war. 
    
    Kevin
          

I think that the analogy is flawed - remember every republican in NI has a
vote (modulo the insane & incarcerated criminals).

I'm sure the UK government would be delighted to be rid of NI once the majority
of people living there want to leave the UK.  Seems reasonable to me.

The IRA's campaign is more akin to Democrats running around killing folk
in upsacle neighbourhoods because they're likely to vote republican and some
republicans voted to have lots of such neighbourhoods in the area in 1897.

//alan

    Why do people consistently refer to the Gulf and Falklands War to
    justify I.R.A. murders?
    
    Please explain.
    
    
    CHARLEY

    I'm sorry, I am utterly incapable of understanding how anyone who calls
    him or herself civilised can believe that planting a bomb in London to
    acheive ones aims is anything other than an act worthy of condemnation.
    
    It may be a failing on my part, but sorry, I completely fail to see it.
    Anyone who can't say "Yes, I condemn the act of planting 1000lbs of
    Semtex in London, the killing of two people, the injury of many
    more, and the destruction of multi-million pounds worth of property",
    will clearly answer "Yes, that bombing was justified". Such an attitude
    indicates a belief that terrorism is a valid means to acheive ones
    aims. This is not twisted logic, it is an inevitable chain of thought.
    It is utterly beyond me.
    
    What such people are saying is that the Oklahoma bombing was the right
    thing to do.
    
    Laurie.

laurie,

just to put the record straight. The south Quays bomb was a fertilser
type thingy. If it had been 1000lbs of semtex , I would be playing
with the angels now, and you probably would have needed Euroglaze round.

As Paddy Pantsdown said, "if you do not condemn it, you condone it "


Expect a "big one" at a train station real soon.


Stuart

1000lbs of fertilser with a small semtex 'core'

Simon

    CHARLEY,
    
    I shall keep saying it in case I am misunderstood. I refer to the
    Falklands war and the Gulf war for a number of reasons.
    
    Several noters here have asked about the Republican attitude to
    violence. I have tried to explain it, not excuse it. There is a
    difference.
    
    
    Secondly, as someone who rejects war as a method of conflict
    resolution, it is perfectly reasonable to take the example of the two
    most recent wars which the UKOGBANI has been involved and discuss the
    ethical issues arising.
    
    Thirdly, I cannot understand why people who support the use of violence
    as a method of conflict resolution are surprised when others take the
    same view.
    
    It is most unfair of you to suggest that by raising these issues I am
    condoning the London bombing.
    
    You may take the view that the NI conflict is not a war, but others are
    entitled to disagree with you aren't they ?
    
    You may also point out that the IRA does not observe the law relating
    to wars and therefore should not be treated as a party to a war, but
    that is another issue.
    
    It is for me consistent and honourable to say that the Gulf and
    Falklands wars were an an abomination. I find it depressing that there
    are so many people who supported those wars. I think you should respect
    that and not smear people as condoning the London bomb.
    
    Kevin   
    

    Sorry Kev, but the note wasn't aimed at you.
    
    
    CHARLEY

    The IRA have always insisted that they are fighting a *WAR*, the
    blanket protest reinforced this view. However, if Britain were to
    accept the IRAs reasoning then that would be tantramount to Britain
    using far more violent means of winning that war. For example, the IRA
    would have to wear uniforms when walking down the street - failing to
    do so would put them in a position where they could get picked up and
    executed for being a spy. I'm sure that there would be an international
    outcry by Republicans, Nationalists and the British populus alike.
    
    My intrepretation of the Geneva Convention may be flawed and I would
    welcome correction but if the Geneva Convention is considered as the
    'rules of war' then Britain could adopt a far more represive stance
    whilst still staying withing the bounds of those 'rules'.
    
    It is thus absurd that the IRA claim they are at war when if they would
    effectively be wiped out if such was the case.
    
    Shaun.

The IRA apologists are happy to term it a war to justify events like the 
recent murders, then in the next breath bleat about British injustice.

They post articles demanding democratic talks, then in the next paragraph
condone the actions of the IRA, an undemocratic organisatation using
undemocratic means.

They whine ad nauseam about collusion, British justice, AI reports and so on,
ignoring the fact that the most monstrous deeds are being perpetrated
in the name of Irish nationalism.

They make me want to puke.

Dave

Extract from a newspaper regarding witnesses who
saw the man who allegedly planted the bomb;

"Her description matches that of other witnesses 
who saw a man jumping and shouting 'yes, yes'
soon after the explosion"


Simon

    >The IRA apologists are happy to term it a war to justify events like
    the recent murders, then in the next breath bleat about British injustice.
    
    I know Dave, all hypocrites.
    
    
    CHARLEY
    

    Seeing the NI conflict as a war is not equivalent to being an "apologist"
    for the IRA.
    
     I would see it as a war myself, as I think it will help to find a
    peaceful solution but I'm not bothered too much. 
    
    I don't know much about the international law relating to wars, so I
    cannot comment on that.
    
    My point is that the IRA are not insane psychopaths in the medical
    sense, and that view doesn't help. There ARE ways of persuading them to
    stop and they CAN be isolated politically to the extent that they can
    no longer sustain a terror campaign. 
    
    I hope I'm wrong, but I feel that an opportunity to do this has been
    squandered and we are in for another long cycle of violence.
    
    Kevin

    How do you think that the I.R.A. could be isolated politically Kev?
    
    
    
    CHARLEY

    re .274
    
    By removing the source of their grievances. That means defining a new
    consensus about anglo-Irish relations including constitutional change. 
    The whole concept of nation and state in NI needs to be fudged with as
    much dilution and joint sovereignty as possible. The details have to be
    negotiated, but nationalists in NI should be able to exercise
    citizenship in a Republic while Unionists remain in the
    UKOBA-Something-else, where the something else relates to the whole of
    Ireland perhaps.  The details are not relevant to my argument, the
    point is we have to make a start down that road and the 99% who reject
    violence MUST work together on it. 
    
    The point is that the Unionists arn't playing, with Dunce Trimble and
    bovver boy Taylor acting the goat all the time. It is monstrous that
    Taylor has publicly insulted Dick Spring and Trimble has been making
    smart-arse remarks even after Friday's bomb. They have done nothing to
    help the peace or build a new consensus.
    
    The loosers are the ordinary people who have to suffer the war.
    
    Kevin
        

 >   Seeing the NI conflict as a war is not equivalent to being an "apologist"
 >   for the IRA.
    
I agree Kevin and don't for a moment regard you as such, far from it.
But if you regard the conflict as a war then to be consistent you must expect 
all the wartime rules to apply, not just the ones that suit you.
I rather think you would be a bit miffed if, for example, the RAF were to bomb 
suspected IRA arms dumps south of the border.  (Just to be clear, 
I'm not advocating that they should!).

The current situation is that the IRA calls it a war and bombs civilian
targets. At the same time it expects the UK to deal with the situation by 
peacetime means.  The moment the UK steps outside of that, the apologists 
have a field day accusing the British of everything in sight.

Dave 

re .275

Don't Trimble & his friends have some right to oppose moves towards a united
Ireland?  After all, as far as I understand the unionists are in the majority
of those who would be affected by a change in NI's governemnt.

//atp

    I accept that the IRA are not phsycopaths and that they have
    indoctrinated themselves so as to justify their murderous actions
    morally. Such men can thus be reasoned with, albeit with diffulculty.
    But what level of reasoning should the British Government stoop too and
    how does the British Government avoid tripping over its democratic
    mandate to the NI majority.
    
    I cannot see any situation where the IRA could be reasoned away from
    terrorism without creating total havoc amongst the unionists. (but then
    i'm quite depressed and pesimistic at the moment)
    
    Shaun.

>Don't Trimble & his friends have some right to oppose moves towards a united
>Ireland?  After all, as far as I understand the unionists are in the majority
>of those who would be affected by a change in NI's governemnt.
    
    NI's government? Hmmm. What government is that? Where is it?
    
    They may have some right to oppose a "United Ireland". They shouldn't
    have any right to oppose some form of economic and cultural integration
    with the rest of Ireland.
    
    And should the Unionists (with British military support) have the
    right to erect a "Berlin Wall" around all of Northern Ireland and
    disrupt the daily lives of all the border people of all backgrounds,
    north and south? Even the cows are disrupted <- this is no joke!
    
    George

Re .275

>   The point is that the Unionists arn't playing, with Dunce Trimble and
>   bovver boy Taylor acting the goat all the time. It is monstrous that
>   Taylor has publicly insulted Dick Spring and Trimble has been making
>   smart-arse remarks even after Friday's bomb. They have done nothing to
>   help the peace or build a new consensus.
    
Absolutely right on. The loyalists need to be sold down the river before
any progress can be made. My idea: Great Britain should secede from the
United Kingdom. I wonder what they'd make of that...

Regards
Neil

>Don't Trimble & his friends have some right to oppose moves towards a united
>Ireland?  After all, as far as I understand the unionists are in the majority
>of those who would be affected by a change in NI's governemnt.
    
    NI's government? Hmmm. What government is that? Where is it?

It's the government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern 
Ireland.  It meets in London, the capital of the United Kingdom of Great 
Britain and Northern Ireland; governments have a a habit of meeting in 
capitals.
    
    They may have some right to oppose a "United Ireland". They shouldn't
    have any right to oppose some form of economic and cultural integration
    with the rest of Ireland.
    
1) Why not
2) Who do you think you are to say what rights other people should have to
   oppose any particular policies?

    And should the Unionists (with British military support) have the
    right to erect a "Berlin Wall" around all of Northern Ireland and
    disrupt the daily lives of all the border people of all backgrounds,
    north and south? Even the cows are disrupted <- this is no joke!
    
The few times I've crossed the border I wasn't even stopped.  What wall are
you meaning?

regards,
//alan

George,

Don't you go blaming all the cow trouble on the Unionists. The cows need 
disrupting. If the Unionists weren't disrupting them, the EC would be,
to stop them collecting illegal subsidies each time they cross the border.

Have pity on those poor cows with their heads spinning as they go from north 
to south to north and back again. Ulster says NO to cruelty to cows!

Dave

    re:
    
    Don't Trimble & his friends have some right to oppose moves towards a united
    Ireland?  After all, as far as I understand the unionists are in the
    majority of those who would be affected by a change in NI's governemnt.
    
    Well it is not going to be that is it? Noone is even talking about NI
    being governed from Dublin, not even SF. The whole trick is to fudge and
    dilute it. Patrick Mayhew has winked quite openly about this.  
    
    The Unionists have the right to shape the compromise to protect their
    birthright as it is being called. But they don't have the right to
    obstruct the whole process and take a not-an-inch position or if they
    do, then it is right to accuse them of having destabilised the peace
    and then gloat over the shambles we have now. I fear it will be almost
    impossible to recreate the atmosphere in which Hume and Reynolds
    managed to pull Adams on board and get a ceasefire without the
    loyalists going on the rampage. Enormous political damage has been done 
    and a lot more killings seem certain to happen. 
    
    
    Regarding the democratic mandate: it is obvious that the Unionists will
    have to agree to the settlement, but I am saying they should join in the
    fudge making.
    
    What I cannot understand is why Major suddenly turned his back on
    Bruton and Hume. Was he being blackmailed behind closed doors at
    Westminster? Although I detest his politics you have to say that he is
    normally a smart operator and the way he sidestepped the Tory right
    last year was like Mike Gibson in his heyday. I think it was
    significant too that Reynolds, Hume and Major managed to cook up the
    ceasefire. Need I say I loath Reynolds nearly as much as Major, but he
    is also a talented politician in certain ways (the FF pole is the
    greasiest and hardest one to climb of them all) and it is natural that a
    FF leader would have the best chance of turning SF. I could not see
    Blair and Bruton managing the same.
    
    I fear we are in for several more years of terror. It is a terrible
    pity as NI is such a nice place. 
    
    Kevin  
         

>>    NI's government? Hmmm. What government is that? Where is it?
>
>It's the government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern 
>Ireland.  It meets in London, the capital of the United Kingdom of Great 
>Britain and Northern Ireland; governments have a a habit of meeting in 
>capitals.
    
    The point I was making was that there is no "local" government in NI.

>    They may have some right to oppose a "United Ireland". They shouldn't
>    have any right to oppose some form of economic and cultural integration
>    with the rest of Ireland.
>>1) Why not
     -Because the majority of people in Ireland (the island) think so.
     -Because of the economics in maintaining a duplicate system in which
     border areas suffer.
     -Because of the overwhelming costs of maintain security in both the
     republic and in UK, which could be better spent on education for
     example.
     -Because NI is a failed economic entity - it's an economic sinkhole.
     And so so...

>>2) Who do you think you are to say what rights other people should have to
>>   oppose any particular policies?

     I'm a ordinary citizen like yourself that wants to see an end to
     problems and suffering in NI. Is that wrong?

>The few times I've crossed the border I wasn't even stopped.  What wall are
>you meaning?

     You obviously haven't visited farms near Fermanagh or Tyrone.
     It's udder confusion when the British close another bo/thar at
     milking time.
     

    
    The best analogy that I can think of for the NI sitution, is the 
    black and white conflicts of the mid sixties in Alabama and
    Mississippi.
    
    Ruling Governments:   	US              UK
    State Rule 		        Mississippi     NI
    Oppressed Minority		Blacks		Catholics
    Ruling Majority		Whites		Protestant/Loyalists
    
    Now if the US had let the southern troubles continue there would have 
    been massive slaughter on both sides but mainly on the blacks.
    There was a time when the US Gov sat by and thought that the State
    rulers would do the right thing.  The politions, police and courts were
    all controlled by the supremist whites and had their own ideas.
    FBI and federal troops had to move in to correct the situation.
    The US government seemed to be very impartial in dealing with both
    sides and federal legislation ensured equal rights.
    Although it took a long time to reach, equal rights to all is now
    law, but of course there are still large pockets of "stick to your own"
    feelings.
    
    Now situations would be similiar except for some major differences;
       
       - The UK is not an impartial enforcer now and they weren't 
         in 1969-70.    
       - The IRA, with their mafia style of national rule, actually does
         not want a intermixed NI.  As an example they do not allow 
         nationalist to join the RUC or work on GB/Union type projects as 
         tradesmen.
       - Unionist ostrasize their members who mix with national traditions.
         Example, playing Irish GAA sports.
         They also antagonize the situation by on holding Orange style
         parades through catholic areas. 
    
       Ways to resolution:
    
       1. UK enforces peace:
          UK must force Unionist to the table and enforce fair compromise.
          To do this they have to treat the IRA openly without
          pre-conditions.  Letting disarmament, law enforcement and judial 
          reforms come out of all party discussions.
          Given this scenario, if the IRA violently broke away after a 
          sincere UK and Unionist effort, the national recruiting appeal of 
          the IRA would erode quickly.
    
       2. UK escalates war to resolve (aka Vietnam vs Gulf War)
    
          Complete house and farm searches with stiff prisonment and
          executions.  This might break the IRA in NI, but what about 
          remote members and simpathizers in the Republic and GB.
          The UK could win this battle but the war would linger on and 
          the new IRA recruits would be knocking down the doors to join.
    
       3. Inpartial Rule and Cival right reforms.
       
          I used to think a united Europe might fill this role, but
          after seeing the Yugoslavian shuffle, I doubt it. 
          This is no longer a reasonable option.
    
    
    My heart is in resolution #1, but the pride and predujice on all sides 
    is so thick and violent at this point, I doubt we can move forward.
    
    Cheers and Slainte,
    Paul
    

                                 [Sinn Fein]

                                4 March 1996

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         Sinn F�in barred from talks

Sinn F�in President Gerry Adams this morning led a party delegation to
Stormont to participate in the consultative process announced by the British
and Irish governments last week in their Joint Communique.

The Sinn F�in delegation included Vice President Pat Doherty, General
Secretary Lucilita Bhreatnach, Ard Comhairle member Martin McGuinness, Gerry
Kelly, Siobhan O'Hanlon, as well as a number of the party's Belfast City
Councillors. (In the last Local Council elections Sinn F�in won more votes
in Belfast than any other party including the Ulster Unionist Party.)

The Sinn F�in delegation were refused admittance to the conference building
where the discussions are taking place.

Speaking after officials refused him entry, Sinn F�in President Gerry Adams
said:

``Our intention in coming here this morning was to make a positive and
constructive contribution to the consultative process. We also have a duty
to assert the rights of those people who vote for our party and Sinn F�in
represents somewhere between 35% and 40% of the nationalist section of our
people in this statelet as well as many more in the 26 Counties.

``A peace process if it is to be successful needs to be inclusive. I think
it is a very sad irony that we, who have made a very definite contribution
to initiating the process and to sustaining it, are being locked out, while
the unionists who are boycotting venues and refusing to speak to the Irish
government, are being rewarded for their refusal to talk.

``This is all evidence of why we advised against an elective process.''

Mr. Adams called for the two governments to take a leadership role in moving
the process forward. Mr. Adams said:

``It is imperative that in a situation where all of the parties will seek to
set their own agenda that the two governments play a leadership role. Both
governments have to take responsibility for guiding this process. What the
British government has increasingly done is take ownership of the agenda and
to subvert the process for their own very narrow purposes.'' Mr. Adams
added:

``There is some media speculation that there are substantive discussions
between Sinn F�in and Irish government officials. That is not the case. The
last formal discussions were held last Thursday night. We have been in
contact with them since but that should not be spun out as substantive
contact or as a substitute for the rights of our party -it isn't.''

Asked about meetings with officials in the consultative process. Mr. Adams
said:

``We will wait for a joint formal invitation from the British and Irish
governments and when we receive that we will consider it and as we have done
so often before we will come to it positively. There are a number of
principles required in any peace process. One is inclusiveness, another is
the removal of all preconditions and the third is an open agenda with
everyone at the table and everything on the table.''

Commenting on the decision of the US Administration to give him a visa Mr.
Adams said:

``I am very pleased to have my visa renewed and for it to have the same
status as before and I commend President Clinton for that. I will go, as I
always have done to make a very positive contribution and to inform people
of the situation here.''

Concluding, Mr. Adams said:

``We have a right, not for any egotistical or party political reasons, but
because those who vote for us are not second class citizens, to represent
our people on the same basis as all others. We will tolerate nothing less.
All of the other parties received invitations to be part of the consultative
process. We expect that courtesy to be extended to us also.''

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sinn F�in Press Office, 44 Parnell Square, Dublin 1
Tel: +353-1-8726100 and +353-1-8726839   �   Fax +353-1-8733074   �
e-mail: [email protected]

Released in the US by:

Friends of Sinn F�in, 1350 Connecticut Ave, NW, Washington DC 20036
Tel: +1-202-331-7886   �   Fax: +1-202-331-8117   �   e-mail:
[email protected]

Released on the Web at:

http://www.serve.com/rm/sinnfein/

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Sinn F�in Home Page   �   Sinn F�in Documents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Web publication by [email protected]
Web archival by [email protected]

    All they have to do is to condemn the atrocities and distance
    themselves from the IRA. Until they do that, the Irish and British
    Governments are quite right to exclude them.
    
    Laurie.