| Title: | Celt Notefile |
| Moderator: | TALLIS::DARCY |
| Created: | Wed Feb 19 1986 |
| Last Modified: | Tue Jun 03 1997 |
| Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Number of topics: | 1632 |
| Total number of notes: | 20523 |
[The Irish Times]
[See text menu below at end of page]
OPINION Tuesday, June 11, 1996
---------------------------------------------
The high moral ground
will get us nowhere
-------------------------------------------
John Waters
Here we go again, up the dead end of the high
moral ground. After a brief spell of treading
carefully, we are back to walking with the
certain gait of people who know exactly where
they are going. We have about us the air of
principle which we assumed to carry us
through 25 years of war.
The "principled" approach is to be against
violence, to refuse to condone violence, to
repudiate violence. At face value these
principles are fine-sounding. The fact that
they do nothing but add a hint of certainty
to our step along the road to nowhere is not
something which one gets thanked for pointing
out.
In the past fortnight, the establishments in
London and Dublin have been resuming the
positions they held for a generation. The
"windows of opportunity" have been closing
one by one, the curtains pulled and the
lights turned off. The answering machines are
switched on and the same old high moral tones
echo again throughout the land. No talks
without this. No talks without that. We
cannot yield to this or that or the other.
A simple question: do we want peace or do we
want war? Let us be in no doubt that a
resumption of war is now possible. The IRA
statement of last week can have left little
doubt about that. And yet it is also possible
that, with a little right thinking, the
fragile peace could be saved.
There are a number of interesting aspects of
the culture of condemnation which has grown
up in response to the violence of the past 25
years. In the first place it is noticeable
that virtually nobody condemns violence in a
universal manner. Everyone condemns violence
in accordance with a specific political
outlook. They condemn the IRA and/or the
loyalist paramilitaries, or they condemn the
RUC and British army. In the second place, it
never seems to matter to the repudiators that
their condemnations are absolutely of no
practical use.
But the most interesting thing about this
culture of condemnation is the way in which
it can short-circuit public thinking and send
common sense up in smoke. Thus, in the past
week it has been said that a return to the
conflict is better than allowing Sinn F�in
into talks in advance of a resumption of the
IRA ceasefire. Can anyone in their right mind
seriously suggest that a return to conflict
in any circumstances is preferable to
anything?
Only the covering fire of humbug from the
dead end of the high moral ground enables
such off-the-wall logic to be advanced.
Because repudiation of violence - however
selectively and pointlessly - has been
established as a "principle", it is possible
to use it as a shield behind which to stand
common sense and moral perspective on their
heads.
We either accept there is a problem in the
North or we refuse to accept it. If we refuse
to accept it, then let us go back to the
ostrich posture of the past quarter century.
If we accept it, we must accept, too, that
violence is an element of the problem.
Whether we condone it or not, violence and
war are inseparable bedfellows. We can
continue to make ourselves feel good while
the war goes on, or we can resolve to try and
do something about it.
If we have been guided by the rhetoric, we
may have come to believe that the present
impasse has something to do with principles.
This "principled" analysis goes something
like this: Sinn F�in is being excluded from
talks because the IRA has refused to restore
the ceasefire. Therefore the exclusion is an
assertion of the principle of opposition to
violence.
This is bogus. The true obstacle is the
refusal of the unionist leadership to enter
into discussions in good faith, and the
failure of either the British or Irish
governments to call them to account. The
issue of violence, and the attendant culture
of repudiation, simply add a veneer of
principle to a hard core of cynicism. It
might well be argued that, by persisting with
its commitment to physical force, the IRA is
playing into the hands of its opponents, but
this line of thinking gets us nowhere as
well.
The fog of condemnation serves to obscure the
reality that if we are to see an end to
violence, as the rhetoricians claim to want,
we have to engage with the forces responsible
for continuing that violence. The point of
peace talks is to engage with those who make
war.
Those who have, according to the rhetoric of
condemnation, been most responsible for the
violence of the past quarter century have
shown a willingness to shift from war to
politics. They have made clear that they are
doing so with a view to achieving a
negotiated settlement. In other words, as far
as we can tell, if talks are pursued in good
faith, both republican and loyalist
paramilitaries will accept the outcome.
Therefore, it would seem clear that the "men
of violence" are working towards removing
violence permanently from the equation. The
real inertia, however, is centred on those
who have spent 25 years hiding behind the
"men of violence" - on the one hand mouthing
platitudes of condemnation, while on the
other exploiting the background radiation of
violence to maintain their own positions.
What is doubly infuriating is that the
refusal to confront their hypocrisy and force
them to face the hard centre of this conflict
is utterly unproductive in terms of achieving
peace. The people who have made war no longer
want war, but those who have prospered from
war from a distance are prepared to
countenance its resumption. And fear of their
thunder is rendering us all paralysed.
In truth, they have little real power or
influence. Like a rotten tree-trunk, they
will collapse before the slightest touch. The
worst they can do is vote John Major out of
power. Are we risking a return to war to
preserve the worst British government in the
awful history of British governments?
These are the realities which, I believe,
Albert Reynolds was attempting to address
when he said last week that Sinn F�in should
be allowed to participate in all-party talks
in advance of a renewal of the ceasefire. Mr
Reynolds, of course, was immediately drowned
in a flood of scorn and condescension from
the high moral ground. His comments were
eminently sensible.
It should be remembered that Mr Reynolds was
one of the chief architects of the present de
facto peace. If it had been left to those who
now dismiss him, the war would still be at
full throttle.
Such logic will always be dismissed as
morally suspect by those who cloak themselves
in principle. But we are faced with a deadly
paradox: the option which sounds the most
"moral" and "principled" may be the least so.
By blandly claiming to oppose violence while
doing nothing to end it, we guarantee its
continuance into a new generation.
By acknowledging that violence is a reality
of war, we might just have a chance of
bringing it to an end. Faced with a choice
between peace and another 25 years of the
smug culture of condemnation, can we really
be serious in saying that the latter is
preferable?
Editorial:
A Clear Case
For Leadership
Denis Coghlan:
Unionists reap
advantage of
IRA's strategy
Controversy
and confusion
on first day
of troubled
talks
Full text of
Mr John
Major's speech
at Stormont
Full text of
Mr John
Bruton's
speech at
Stormont
Controversy
and confusion
on first day
of troubled
talks
---------------
--------------------------------------
Front | Home | Finance | Foreign | Sport | Opinion | Editorials | Letters
Crosaire | Simplex | Dublin Live | Back Issues | Contacts | Feedback |
History
--------------------------------------
� Copyright: The Irish Times
Contact: [email protected]
| T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1583.1 | TERRI::SIMON | Semper in Excernere | Wed Jun 12 1996 04:30 | 15 | |
All parties have to make a compromise, something that shows they are honourable and can be accepted by the other parties. The British Government has dropped the pre-condition of disarmament. They have asked Sinn F�in/IRA to a ceas fire. The IRA/Sinn F�in have refused therefore showing that they are not willing. For goodness sake, I wouldn't go anywhere near someone for peace talks if they were going to bring their weapons with them, figurerativly speaking. The last cease fire just proves that the IRA/Sinn F�in do not want peace. All they did was to bring morfe weapons and explosives onto the mainland and train new murder cells. From the evidence it now appears that the lorry bomb took up to a year to plan and put into place. Need I say more. Simon | |||||
| 1583.2 | PLAYER::BROWNL | Cyclops no more! | Wed Jun 12 1996 05:47 | 11 | |
Point 1) Sinn Fein have not been excluded, they have been invited to
the talks. They will, however, be locked out until such time
as the IRA call a ceasefire. The entry of Sinn Fein,
therefore, is in the hands of themselves and their masters,
the IRA.
Point 2) Any group determined to acheive a peaceful settlement does not
need the ultimate sanction of the bomb and the gun. Therefore, any
group refusing to give same up, is insincere.
Laurie.
| |||||
| 1583.3 | read what he wrote | ESSC::KMANNERINGS | Wed Jun 12 1996 05:50 | 19 | |
There is little in John Water's article I would disagree with, except
to point out that there are some who have consistently opposed British
Imperialism AND the futility of the IRA armed struggle.
What needs to be added though, is that the stupidity of the IRA has
enabled the Unionists to carry on their carnival of reaction, allied to
the worst elements of the British tories. Of course it is true that the
Unionists need the armed struggle. They were delighted when the
ceasefire broke down and they are secretly hoping that the militant
wing of the IRA will break out with another atrocity and finally
scupper the 'peace process'. Terror only makes matters worse. It
weakens the ability to mobilise mass resistance and the situation
created is used by the oppressors to increase repression, emergency
legislation, prison and war expenditure etc.
Think about it, rather than wallowing in the romantic crap of
the heroic Volunteer Ed O'Brien on a London bus.
Kevin
| |||||
| 1583.4 | BIS1::MENZIES | Resume the Ceasefire!!! | Wed Jun 12 1996 06:54 | 11 | |
I'd say i'm just about 100% in agreement with Kevin there. If only
their were more John Humes...people who promote nationalism in an
unified ireland context yet do not play into the hands of the cripled
Unionist Machine, unlike the politicaly retarded IRA cronies?
A democratic state cannot be seen to be swayed by terrorism as that, in
itself, promotes terrorism and thus the eventual destruction of the
democratic state.
Shaun.
| |||||
| 1583.5 | PLAYER::BROWNL | Cyclops no more! | Wed Jun 12 1996 07:30 | 14 | |
RE: <<< Note 1583.4 by BIS1::MENZIES "Resume the Ceasefire!!!" >>>
>> A democratic state cannot be seen to be swayed by terrorism as that, in
>> itself, promotes terrorism and thus the eventual destruction of the
>> democratic state.
Terrorism and democracy are incompatible. A terrorist uses violence,
intimidation and a climate of fear to acheive his ends outside of the
democratic process. He does that because it is the only way he will
ever acheive his, by their nature, extreme ambitions. It is for this
reason the IRA don't call a ceasefire, and their supporters openly
support this stance.
Laurie.
| |||||
| 1583.6 | METSYS::THOMPSON | Wed Jun 12 1996 08:25 | 24 | ||
re: ceasefire: There already is one in fact if not in name. If SF were to enter the talks it would "lock in" a ceasefire. >For goodness sake, I wouldn't go anywhere near someone for peace talks >if they were going to bring their weapons with them, figurerativly speaking. I think there will be no shortage of weapons there. It is British Govt. Civil Servants that are keeping SF out. Imagine being invited to a snooty restaurent and being barred because you didn't have a tie, and the bouncer saying "You've excluded yourself because you're not dressed right". You would think they're nuts! >>> "and their supporters openly support this stance" This is not so. In a recent poll, most SF supporters wanted a ceasefire but did not want it as a precondition. M | |||||
| 1583.7 | CHEFS::COOPERT1 | tell mum before you go somewhere | Wed Jun 12 1996 08:35 | 8 | |
>It is British Govt. Civil Servants that are keeping SF out.
It is the refusal of the I.R.A. to announce a ceasefire that is keeping
S.F. out. Nothing more, nothing less. Announce the ceasefire and
they're in.
CHARLEY
| |||||
| 1583.8 | TERRI::SIMON | Semper in Excernere | Wed Jun 12 1996 08:41 | 6 | |
Not strictly true Charley. It is all down to the British. You see in 1465... cont P94 Simon :-} | |||||
| 1583.9 | BIS1::MENZIES | Resume the Ceasefire!!! | Wed Jun 12 1996 09:28 | 9 | |
How can any human being not demand a ceasefire, regardless of talks.
How can any human being stand by and not condemn a group, any group,
that commit attrocities opon innocent civilians. The IRA should have
called a permanent cessation of violence anyway...regardless of whether
they get a place at the talks.
There is no argument so put down yer guns yer twats.
Shaun.
| |||||
| 1583.10 | TERRI::SIMON | Semper in Excernere | Wed Jun 12 1996 09:57 | 7 | |
� The IRA should have called a permanent cessation of violence They did, don't remember Mr Holohan spouting off about what permanent meant. Well it looks like the IRA's meaning of permanent, ie for ever, is 18 months. Simon | |||||
| 1583.11 | PLAYER::BROWNL | Cyclops no more! | Wed Jun 12 1996 09:59 | 14 | |
RE: <<< Note 1583.6 by METSYS::THOMPSON >>>
>> It is British Govt. Civil Servants that are keeping SF out. Imagine being
>> invited to a snooty restaurent and being barred because you didn't have a tie,
>> and the bouncer saying "You've excluded yourself because you're not dressed
>> right". You would think they're nuts!
This is a very poor analogy. A far better one would be If I were to be
told by a restaurant at the time I booked my table, that ties and
jackets are required, I would be nuts to expect to be able to turn up
in a T-shirt, and be let in. SF, at the moment, are wearing that
T-shirt. They have known the rules all along; it's no surprise.
Laurie.
| |||||
| 1583.12 | Behind the scenes at Westminster.. | METSYS::BENNETT | Straight no chaser.. | Fri Jun 14 1996 15:43 | 41 |
The following is a true story, relayed to me by a friend and occasional
drinking partner who is a reporter for the Guardian -- an English
broadsheet of some repute -- and who has reported widely on Northern
Ireland issues.
It may seem hard to believe at times, but behind the scenes, many
antagonists in Loyalist and Republican political circles are really
quite friendly with eachother, and quite often share a glass or two of
refreshment in one of the many bars in the Houses of Parliament.
On one such occasion, a couple of months ago, John Hume and Ian Paisley
had a few beers together. Both are known to have bladders of fairly
high capacity, but come as it did, JH had to leave temporarily to visit
the mens' room. Ian followed seconds later. As Ian unzipped, he turned
casually and couldn't help but notice that JH's member was rather
large. Stunned.. he was..stunned.
"D'yew Roman Kiathlics have spashel genes that allow yew te have big
mambers like yon thing y'have in yer hawn?"
"Weell.. no, Ian" says John, "as a matther o'fact, ah tuk a tip from
a wise oul mawn some yeers ago nouiw who toul me that te keep me wife
and keep hur happy, ah shude take oul JT out on the way up the stairs
last thing at nite and slap it on the wall while am goin up te bed..
an ye know what.. when ah did it over a few months like.. it grew an
grew. Unbeeleeabel.."
"Tell ye what John.. ah must try this the naxt time am goin' over t'see
wee Eileen.. the missus."
Well, Ian went home the next week. He hadn't seen Eileen for some time.
And as he was going up last thing at night, he took John's advice to
the letter. Just then he heard his wife's voice..
Is that yew John?
Exeunt omnes...
jb!~
| |||||