23 January 1997 Edition
A genius for understatement
BY MICHEAL MacDONNCHA
The British genius for understatement is renowned the world over. John Major's remark on Wednesday that the Irish peace process has ``hit a sticky patch'' was on a par with the infamous description of the Second World War as the ``recent unpleasantness''.
It is not a sticky patch that we are at but the edge of an abyss. That was emphasised the day before Major made his comment when the Northern Ireland Office issued a significant statement on the continued presence of the loyalist parties at the Stormont talks. A British spokesperson said that the recent loyalist car-bomb attacks and the attempted murder of two republicans ``inevitably raised questions'' over the future of their political parties' involvement in the talks. The spokesperson added that the situation was being monitored.
A number of loyalist attacks have taken place since the murder of Michael McGoldrick during the Drumcree stand-off last July. The latest was this week with an under-car explosive device targetting a family in Larne, believed to have been planted by loyalists.
Throughout that time the loyalist parties have remained at the talks and Sinn Féin has been excluded. Yet for the entire duration of the IRA ceasefire from September 1994 to February 1996 the British government and the unionist parties refused to convene all-party negotiations because Sinn Féin would have to be present.
Attempts have been made to misrepresent the position of Sinn Féin on the issue of the attendance of the loyalist parties. An editorial in the Irish Times on 14 January stated wrongly that the party was at one with Ian Paisley and Robert McCartney in ``denouncing the continued presence of the political parties linked to the loyalist paramilitaries''. With warped logic the editorial said Sinn Féin ``desperately wants justification for its own exclusion''. In a reply to the editorial Sinn Féin Chairperson Mitchel McLaughlin pointed out that the party is on public record as calling for all-inclusive negotiations and of ``emphasising the role that the loyalist representatives will play in the quest for a democratic accommodation''. He said that despite the recent loyalist attacks Sinn Féin ``refrained from calling for, or supporting, the expulsion of the loyalist representatives''. So long as the Combined Loyalist Military Command do not claim responsibility for the actions of their constituent loyalist groupings both governments will ``continue to confound and contradict the very criteria that they apply to exclude Sinn Féin''.
Similarly it can be argued that the presence of David Trimble and Ian Paisley could be challenged because of their behaviour during the Drumcree crisis. But it is only to Sinn Féin that the strictest of standards apply and that party's voters continue to be discriminated against.
It remains to be seen what is the full signifigance of the NIO statement of Tuesday; in all likelihood it was simply that - a statement to blunt the accusation of double-standards. But the actions of loyalists themselves may change the situation and force the British government to act.
The shadow hanging over all of this is the fear of a return to the full-scale conflict before 31 August 1994. Such a scenario is unthinkable and any sense of fatalism or inevitability should be resisted. The reasons for the breakdown of the peace process constantly need to be recalled. Those responsible for the breakdown - the British government - must not be allowed to walk away and point to the `irreconcilable' Irish `fighting amongst themselves' again. John Major would dearly love to be able to end his premiership posing as the honest broker who did his best to sort out the Irish problem in which Britain is, of course, a neutral arbiter.
Major will not be contradicted in that by the Labour Party which is likely to form the next British government. Their message to voters on every issue including Ireland could be summed up in the phrase ``Don't worry, we won't change anything, but please give use power `cause we're nicer than the other chaps.'' It is difficult to discern therefore what their real policy will be if they gain power. Speculation is pointless, what has to be remebered is that they will have to respond to the political circumstances which are created by nationalist Ireland. All nationalists thus need to consider what they have to do to create the most favourable conditions for a renewed peace process with a new Dublin government, a new Clinton administration which is still engaged in the Irish issue, and a new British government.
The British genius for understatement is renowned the world over. John Major's remark on Wednesday that the Irish peace process has ``hit a sticky patch'' was on a par with the infamous description of the Second World War as the ``recent unpleasantness''.
It is not a sticky patch that we are at but the edge of an abyss. That was emphasised the day before Major made his comment when the Northern Ireland Office issued a significant statement on the continued presence of the loyalist parties at the Stormont talks. A British spokesperson said that the recent loyalist car-bomb attacks and the attempted murder of two republicans ``inevitably raised questions'' over the future of their political parties' involvement in the talks. The spokesperson added that the situation was being monitored.
A number of loyalist attacks have taken place since the murder of Michael McGoldrick during the Drumcree stand-off last July. The latest was this week with an under-car explosive device targetting a family in Larne, believed to have been planted by loyalists.
Throughout that time the loyalist parties have remained at the talks and Sinn Féin has been excluded. Yet for the entire duration of the IRA ceasefire from September 1994 to February 1996 the British government and the unionist parties refused to convene all-party negotiations because Sinn Féin would have to be present.
Attempts have been made to misrepresent the position of Sinn Féin on the issue of the attendance of the loyalist parties. An editorial in the Irish Times on 14 January stated wrongly that the party was at one with Ian Paisley and Robert McCartney in ``denouncing the continued presence of the political parties linked to the loyalist paramilitaries''. With warped logic the editorial said Sinn Féin ``desperately wants justification for its own exclusion''. In a reply to the editorial Sinn Féin Chairperson Mitchel McLaughlin pointed out that the party is on public record as calling for all-inclusive negotiations and of ``emphasising the role that the loyalist representatives will play in the quest for a democratic accommodation''. He said that despite the recent loyalist attacks Sinn Féin ``refrained from calling for, or supporting, the expulsion of the loyalist representatives''. So long as the Combined Loyalist Military Command do not claim responsibility for the actions of their constituent loyalist groupings both governments will ``continue to confound and contradict the very criteria that they apply to exclude Sinn Féin''.
Similarly it can be argued that the presence of David Trimble and Ian Paisley could be challenged because of their behaviour during the Drumcree crisis. But it is only to Sinn Féin that the strictest of standards apply and that party's voters continue to be discriminated against.
It remains to be seen what is the full signifigance of the NIO statement of Tuesday; in all likelihood it was simply that - a statement to blunt the accusation of double-standards. But the actions of loyalists themselves may change the situation and force the British government to act.
The shadow hanging over all of this is the fear of a return to the full-scale conflict before 31 August 1994. Such a scenario is unthinkable and any sense of fatalism or inevitability should be resisted. The reasons for the breakdown of the peace process constantly need to be recalled. Those responsible for the breakdown - the British government - must not be allowed to walk away and point to the `irreconcilable' Irish `fighting amongst themselves' again. John Major would dearly love to be able to end his premiership posing as the honest broker who did his best to sort out the Irish problem in which Britain is, of course, a neutral arbiter.
Major will not be contradicted in that by the Labour Party which is likely to form the next British government. Their message to voters on every issue including Ireland could be summed up in the phrase ``Don't worry, we won't change anything, but please give use power `cause we're nicer than the other chaps.'' It is difficult to discern therefore what their real policy will be if they gain power. Speculation is pointless, what has to be remebered is that they will have to respond to the political circumstances which are created by nationalist Ireland. All nationalists thus need to consider what they have to do to create the most favourable conditions for a renewed peace process with a new Dublin government, a new Clinton administration which is still engaged in the Irish issue, and a new British government.