Conference tallis::celt

  Interesting that the British north east Ireland
  Secretary thinks the major obstacle is the
  Republic's territorial claim.  Looks to me like
  the British never really intended to see this
  proposal go anywhere but down the tubes.

  When one takes into account the one sides requirements
  for a cease-fire, the ambiguous text, the quarantee
  of the Unionist Veto, the refusal to stop the death
  squad killings, and then the even more imflamatory 
  British"clarifications" (purposely dragged out and
  delivered late in the game), it's easy to see why 
  the plan was rejected.

  Time for an outside peace envoy.

                     Mark

    
    Well I don't think the process of talks will end here. true Sinn fein
    have effectively rejected the declaration...and this was pretty much
    expected. The posturings of the irish press and some political folk in
    suggesting that the whole situation would be rectified by Sinn Fein
    saying yes was unbelievable.
    
    I don't believe the British government have given up hope or are
    tottaly dishonest in their dealings. It should be pointed out that 
    am important gesture was made yesterday where they announced  that
    some Prisoners will be allowed serve their time in Northern Ireland
    as opposed to the UK Mainland...(4 to be immediately transfered). 
    
    THAT is REAL negociation and I would see this as a step which may
    (hopefully) invoke a similar gesture on the republican side.. (ie
    end to say sniping british Soldiers). Not a 100% solution by any means
    ...will not end all killings....But small progress to be built on.
    
    
    rgs,
    
    Mick
       
    

	re .1

  >>>>>>  British north east Ireland
 
  >>>>>>  refusal to stop the death squad killings 

  >>>>>>  imflamatory British"clarifications" (purposely dragged out and
  >>>>>>  delivered late in the game)

  >>>>>>  Time for an outside peace envoy.

          
    	No Mark....time for you to get a grip !!
    
        F.

>    As widely predicted, the declaration's commitment to the consent of the
> greater number of Northern Ireland's  citizens - the so called Unionist veto-
> was at the heart of Sinn Fein's objections.
>
>  The Sinn Fein president, Gerry Adams, said in his conference speech that...
> ..............................all of these essential elements must be based
> upon principles which are founded firmly in democracy and justice." 

 Can you imagine telling South Koreans that the majority of Koreans will 
 now decide whether they will be unified with North Korea, under threat of 
 being nuk'ed if they don't agree with the idea?.
 
 Could East and West Germany have been unified if either the East Germans or 
 the West Germans did not agree to it happening ?. So they held a referendum in 
 both West Germany and East Germany to decide it. And both had to say yes.

 Could Canadians be told that the majority of North Americans will now
 decide whether Canada should be "unified" with the U.S.A..

 The majority of the people in Northern Ireland don't, today, want to be part 
 of a United Ireland. While I hope some day that they will, that day will
 never be brought about by the violence of the IRA and Sinn Fein.

 Let them not fool you. The IRA and Sinn Fein don't want peace and democracy.
 They want power and they want revenge, just like Hutu militia did in Rwanda.

 Yes, a very few British soldiers pass information on Nationalists to the UVF.
 And yes, there is still job discrimination by Protestants against Catholics. 

 But if the IRA are enabled to "drive the British Army out of Northern Ireland" 
 I won't need to tune into CNN to watch another civil war.......... 

 Think about it, 
 Peter. 

 

> Could East and West Germany have been unified 

  Not until the foreign Russian soldiers were chucked
  out, or at least committed to leaving.

  Your attack on Sinn Fein and the IRA forgets to
  mention that the people they represent were
  forced into an artificial state with boundaries
  drawn to purposely make them a minority.

> Yes, a very few British soldiers pass information on Nationalists to the UVF

  Collusion is at the highest level.  Besides, can you
  somehow justify the British sponsored loyalist death
  squads by the fact that they've concentrated their
  efforts on Northern nationalists?

                          Mark

>Collusion is at the highest level.

And you know this for certain, do you?  Or is this just yet another
example of your biased speculation made to look like fact with the
intention of misleading people?

    
    re .5, get off your high horse, Indian land occupier.
    

    
    re .6, of course not. He's dissembling again. We've asked him many
    times to prove this. problem is he can't read  his AI reports too well.
    They never suggest collusion at the highest level, whatever that means.
    You mean no 10 downing st, do you Mark? 
    
    What Holohan does is what all propagandists do - repeat untruths hoping
    they will be accepted as truths. Unfortunately he is wasting his time
    here, as we are more or less mature adults who know bs when we see eit.
    
    If the collusion is so ingrained, how come the cops and army are
    risking their lives defusing prot loyalist bombs? 
    

 re. .7, .8

 "In recent years the organization has also been 
  investigating collusion in political killings
  between members of the security forces and armed
  civilian groups, known as Loyalist in Norhern Ireland,
  that support the continued union of Northern Ireland
  with Great Britain.  The victims of these killings 
  have come from the minority Catholic community, and
  in particular those known for their activities in 
  support of a united Ireland, commonly referred to
  as Republicans.  Such collusion has existed at the
  level of the security forces and services, made
  possible by the apparent complacency, and complicity
  in this, of government officials.  This element of
  apparent complicity has been seen, for example, in
  the failure of the authorities to take effective
  measures to stop collusion, to bring appropriate
  sanctions against people who colluded, or to deploy
  resources with equal vigor against both Republican
  and Loyalist armed groups that pursue campaigns of
  political murder."

             AI index: EUR 45/01/94 Page 2

  It goes on to describe how 350 people were acknowledged
  to have been killed by members of the security forces
  in Northern Ireland.  About half of the 350 were
  unarmed.  Most of those killed came from the Catholic
  community.

  Pages 14 - 34 describe some of the cases of collusion
  between the security forces and the loyalist death
  squads.

                        Mark

re. .7
  "Indian land occupier"
  
  I've never been to India.  If in your infinite
  British conceit, you meant native Americans, I assure
  you that the British managed to slaughter most of
  them way before I came here.

    
    Oh get a clue, Holohan. That's all you do - trot that out again and
    again. Where does it talk about 'collusion at the highest levels' and
    just how would they (or you) know. Argue for yourelf, or go away.
    

    
    As for the British slaughtering the Indians, if they did you're still
    sitting on occupied land aren;t you? And in any event, the Indians were
    being slaughtered long after the US became a nation as even you may
    know.
    

    RE: .11  by NOVA::EASTLAND 
    
    >As for the British slaughtering the Indians, if they did you're still
    
    I thought the British eventually gave up slaughtering the Indians and
    let them have their country back shortly after WWII.
    

    
    Not _them_ Indians, Dennis.
    

    
    Wonder if Holohan's beloved IRA freedom fighters claimed responsibility
    yet for the mortar attack a few days ago. Nasty one that. Of course the
    brave freedom fighting soldiers lobbed them from the back of a truck
    so they could make a quick getaway, ooops .. tactical rear guard
    action.
    
    They left 20 or 30 men, women and children with glass in their eyes,
    those that had eyes left.
    
    Must be nice to support all this from 3,000 miles away.
    

Re .5 (KOALA::HOLOHAN)

>  Your attack on Sinn Fein and the IRA forgets to
>  mention that the people they represent were
>  forced into an artificial state with boundaries
>  drawn to purposely make them a minority.

    I agree (partly) with you, Mark !. The boundaries of Northern Ireland were 
    drawn up by the British Government ~70 years ago on the crude basis that 
    these Six Counties were majority Protestant. This is the same crude basis 
    that decided some of the crazy state boundaries in Africa.  Sizable 
    minorites got separated from their tribal relations by mere lines on maps.
    Rwanda/ Burundi is a good example.

    Both the British and Irish Governments have said that anything is possible 
    once violence ends. Then the dialogue about alternatives can begin.

    Maybe something imaginative could be agreed. Like redrawing the border to 
    transfer largely Nationalist areas adjoining the border into the Republic. 
    This plus adequate assistance over a 5 year transition period for those 
    who want to be resettled might meet mainsteam Nationalist demands. That 
    would reduce N.Ireland to probably 4 counties which would be 80%+ Unionist. 

Sinn Fein/The IRA must accept that 60%+ of the population of Northern Ireland 
are entitled to want to be part of the U.K.. On "the people they represent",
the SLDP, led by John Hume, are fighting POLITICALLY and PEACEFULLY in 
Northern Ireland for a United Ireland. The SLDP represents mainstream 
Nationalist aspirations, not Sinn Fein (who get only 5% of the first votes 
in Northern Ireland elections).  

Gerry Adams is no Che Guevara, Mark.  And Northern Ireland is not Haiti.

- Peter


                                                    

 re. .15

"Both the British and Irish Governments have said that anything is possible 
 once violence ends. Then the dialogue about alternatives can begin."

 The violence must end on all sides, not just unilaterally.
 The British forces must stop colluding with the loyalist
 death squads, they must stop censoring political opposition,
 and they must stop holding jury-less trials etc etc.


"Maybe something imaginative could be agreed. Like redrawing the border to 
 transfer largely Nationalist areas adjoining the border into the Republic. 
 This plus adequate assistance over a 5 year transition period for those 
 who want to be resettled might meet mainsteam Nationalist demands. That 
 would reduce N.Ireland to probably 4 counties which would be 80%+ Unionist."

 Would we then go on and call these "resettlement" areas,
 Nationalist Reservations?  This looks like a sick 
 parallet to the Native American reservations.

 How about instead of "resettling", the British government
 began to play an honest broker, and spend it's time and
 money convincing the loyalist minority on the Island of
 Ireland, that they won't melt from having to live in
 a United Ireland?

                         Mark

 re. .16 from KOALA::HOLOHAN 

> The violence must end on all sides, not just unilaterally.
> The British forces must stop colluding with the loyalist
> death squads, they must stop censoring political opposition,
> and they must stop holding jury-less trials etc etc.

Agreed. Every war produces attrocities by soldiers and suspension of civil 
rights, Northern Ireland is not unique. It happened in the American Civil War 
and it happened in Vietnam. If the IRA ended its terrorist war in Northern 
Ireland, collusion by the few soldiers with Loyalist terrorists, etc would
come to an end. By the way, a soldier in the Royal Irish Regiment was charged 
in Belfast yesterday with passing information to the outlawed Ulster Freedom 
Fighters. It was the RUC (who the IRA keep murdering) who charged him !.  

> How about instead of "resettling", the British government
> began to play an honest broker, and spend it's time and
> money convincing the loyalist minority on the Island of
> Ireland, that they won't melt from having to live in
> a United Ireland?

  You seem not to accept that Northern Irelamd is today part of the U.K.,
  while in reality it is. You seem also not to accept that the majority of 
  people in N.Ireland have the right to decide to remain in the U.K., when 
  in reality they do. The IRA and Sinn Fein don't accept these realities either.
  The majority of people in Ireland accept these realities, why don't you ?.

  By the way, would you agree with Canadian Taxpayers money being spent by the 
  Canadian Government trying to convince Canadians to live in a United America,
  even if they clearly didn't want that ?.  

  	I would like to see a United Ireland, Mark. Would you have me overthrow 
  	the government of the the Republic of Ireland ?. Take the Irish people 
    	into a war with the U.K. to try to "repossess" Northern Ireland ?. 
    	Shoot every Protestant who doesn't flee to Britain ?. Ask for an 
    	invasion by boatloads of armed volunteers from America ????????. 

 - Peter.                                                              

    re .17 You'll just confuse him with facts, that ain't fair!

>Agreed. Every war produces attrocities by soldiers and suspension of civil 
>rights, Northern Ireland is not unique. 

 It seems you don't agree with the British government.  They don't consider
 this thing a war.  Like you I also consider it a war.  I guess we agree
 then, that the Irish Republican Army soldiers are prisoners of war.


>If the IRA ended its terrorist war in Northern 
>Ireland, collusion by the few soldiers with Loyalist terrorists, etc would
>come to an end. 

 If the British forces ended their terrorist war in north east Ireland,
 then their wouldn't be much need for the IRA.  Much of the support for
 the IRA comes because of the censorship, the British collusion with
 loyalist death squads, the jury-less trials, the imprisonment of the
 innocent, and various other human rights violations reaped upon the
 Nationalists people by HMG.

>By the way, a soldier in the Royal Irish Regiment was charged 
>in Belfast yesterday with passing information to the outlawed Ulster Freedom 
>Fighters. 

 I'm sure the slap on the wrist he gets, will be of more comfort
 to you, than to the family members of the folks he helped murder.

 When is the British government that you seem to trust so highly,
 going to address the collusion at the "highest levels".

>You seem not to accept that Northern Irelamd is today part of the U.K.,
>while in reality it is. 

 Maybe that's because I believe one should change those things that are
 wrong. 
 The U.S. colonies were once under the rule of the British crown.  That
 changed.  India was once under the rule of the British crown, that 
 changed.  Hong Kong was once under the rule of the British crown, that
 soon will change.  Need I go on.
 
>You seem also not to accept that the majority of 
>people in N.Ireland have the right to decide to remain in the U.K., when 
>in reality they do. 

 I don't accept British forces collusion with loyalist death squads,
 I don't accept censorship of political opposition,
 I don't accept jury-less trials,
 I don't accept imprisonment of innocent men and women,
 I don't accept British forces assasinations of political opposition.
 That's a dose of reality for you.

>The IRA and Sinn Fein don't accept these realities either.

  Neither do their constituents.

>The majority of people in Ireland accept these realities, why don't you ?.

  The majority of people in Ireland are not under
  British rule, and hence don't have to live with the human rights
  violations entailed by that rule.



                                     Mark

    
    Deja Vu....

    
    Anyway as an antidote to Holohan's repetitive twaddle...

Editorial from Irish_News, 5 August 1994

Hopes are again rising that the IRA will order a ceasefire.
After a series of bold moves from the Irish and British governments, both of
which have gone further in search of peace than any of their predecessors, the
time is ripe for the IRA to make its concession - the one that really counts. A
permanent end to its campaign of violence is the missing link in the current
peace process.
That vital factor would transform the political climate and kick-start meaning-
ful talks possibly resulting in settlement.
The IRA knows that, just as surely as it knows the victory it seeks - namely a
socialist all-Ireland republic based on the principles of the 1916 Proclamation
- is not available. Indeed outright victory for anyone is off the agenda.
What is achievable is a negotiated settlement and a process of healing between
a bitterly divided people.
Given that, the IRA should consider seriously how  much more is to be gained
through constitutional means and how much damage has been done by its violence.
Much has been achieved by constitutional nationalism despite, not because of,
IRA violence.
Political pressure from the Republic, within the north and from Irish-Americans
has forced Britain to be fairer in regard to policy in Northern Ireland. Gerry
Adams"s visa was not bombed out of the Americans, it was argued out of them
constitutionally.
The Downing Street declaration, just as the Anglo-Irish agreement bbefore it,
was the product of political initiatives and not a response to terror.
IRA violence, on the other hand, has caused more harm to northern nationalists
than all other forces in this conflict put together. It has taken the lives of
the innocent, impeded the drive for investment - the great need of the unem-
ployed - and denied hope of a better life to two generations.
Within republican circles, IRA violence has cast doubts on Sinn Fein commit-
ments to peace. Continuation of the campaign, with the attacks on Newry, New-
townhamilton and Belfast, demonstrates a lack of faith in the force of the
republican argument and in Sinn Fein.
Many republicans know what they have endured throughout the past 25 years. And
they know they owe it to those in prison and to the next generation to ensure
that an open-ended campaign of violence is dropped as an option.
This is the best - and the only - chance there is for peace and progress.
If more answers are needed, let Sinn Fein find them at the conference table via
the constitutional process.
If the issue of a veto on political progress by any one group is such a barrier,
let the IRA consider how much of a hamper its veto on peace has been.
Above all, the IRA must realise the impatience of the Irish people everywhere
for an end to the campaign carried out in their name, a campaign without a man-
date and which they are powerless to have ended.
There is nothing to be gainedfrom more killing.
The IRA has banished hope in the past, a terrible sin. But the next worst crime
is to raise false hope.
By hinting at an imminent ceasefire the organisation can either produce the
news we all want to hear or it can underline its cynicism by producing another
false dawn.
The taoiseach was careful to leave the door open to Sinn fein after the Letter-
kenny conference. That opportunity remains. Only a permanent cessation of IRA
violence will satisfy Mr Reynolds or the rest of us.

It is time for the IRA to deliver.