23 September 1999 Edition

Resize: A A A Print

Mála Poist

This struggle ain't over



A Chara,

As someone who supports the strategy of the republican movement, I must say that I found Tommy Gorman's letter (An Phoblacht, 2 September) both patronising and insulting. It also contained a number of false assumptions and rebuttals of arguments that no one is actually making. I have never, for example, heard any republican, much less a republican representative, suggest that the struggle for a secular socialist republic is to be replaced by a strategy to outbreed unionists. This argument, like some of the others he wrestles with, exists only in Tommy's head.

Perhaps I would have felt less offended by his question ``was it all for nothing?'' if, like he does, I thought that the struggle was over. Does a ceasefire from the IRA signify an end to the struggle? The Unionists certainly don't think so, nor have I noticed any diminution of Britain's part of the struggle, which surely would happen if they shared that view. In actual fact, they've never been so ``engaged''. Yet Tommy clearly believes that it's over - all his references to it are in the past tense. I listen to the same news reports that he does, read the same newspapers and live in the same community. And it strikes me that republicans, the republican movement and the republican leadership are just as committed to the objectives of justice, equality and freedom as they ever were. Furthermore, I know of no other group of people in this country that works harder, endures more or struggles as determinedly for these goals. (If anyone does know of such a group they could let me know so that I could avoid them).

Tommy reminds us that he spent some years in prison. He might do well to cast his mind back to the ending of the hunger strike in 1981. The prisoners emerged from this with little more than an offer of ``civilian type clothing'' to replace the prison uniforms they had been refusing to wear. At that time too, there were those who were saying that it was ``all over'' and ``all for nothing''. Fortunately, there were enough others who persevered, continued that particular struggle and, with different tactics, went on to win all their original demands and more.

Finally, if this is Tommy's way of inviting debate within republicanism, might I suggest a little less antagonism? People always prefer to be asked rather than told.


Jackie McMullan,


Belfast.

Party at war



The hysteria whipped up by unionist politicians over the proposed name change of the RUC clearly demonstrates the need for change. Unionists, and especially unionist politicians, view the RUC as their own private law enforcement agency. There is no need for me to go through the infamous history of the RUC, it is well documented. A charm offensive led by the British government to repackage the RUC will not work - any new civilian police force must have a full representation from both communities.

It is depressing to watch the wranglings going on within Trimble's UUP. The people, North and South, endorsed the Good Friday Agreement, yet when it came to the crunch for its implementation the majority of unionist politicians couldn't stomach the thought of sharing power with other democratically elected politicians. If unionist politicians continue to block and obstruct change, then it is up to both the British and Irish governments to proceed and implement the Good Friday Agreement, conceding to the wishes of the vast majority of the people on the island of Ireland.


Tim Jones,


London

The Ulster Unionists and reform



With the latest news of the UUP's rejection of the Patten Report, it would seem that this party supports reform so long as nothing changes.

The recommendation to ``shelve'' this along with the GFA and possibly the Mitchell Review does give the impression they support nothing beyond their own agenda. That shelf is overloaded already and will soon break under the weight of everything that the UUP has rejected.

It is long past time for the UUP to come out in support of implementation of the GFA and the changes that will bring. The GFA is imperfect but does represent the will of the people. The UUP's claiming of support for reform yet rejection of every attempt to affect those changes leaves one feeling that democracy is not a top priority but maintaining the status quo is.


Kitti Willms,


Duluth,


Minnessota

Recognise victims of British and RUC



A Chara,

There is a lot of understandable anger and frustration around the issue of victims and survivors of the conflict, particularly amongst those who have suffered the loss of loved ones and friends at the hands of the RUC and the British army. This centres around the fact that there is absolutely no recognition of state sponsored violence or of the fact that there is no justice for the victims of this violence.

Of the almost 400 people killed directly by the RUC and the British army, over 60 were children. Of the adults killed this left behind young families, in many instances without mothers.

Last week I listened constantly about the feelings of the RUC families who also suffered and of how they were feeling in the wake of the Patten Report and as a mother who lost a young son I understand and sympathise with them. However, there was no mention of the victims of the RUC, of the widows and children and families left behind resulting from RUC/British army violence.

My 13 year-old son Seán was gunned down in Cawnpore Street. His killers were British soldiers and it was the RUC who chose not to prosecute them for the murder of a child. That's nothing unusual, it has been the norm. The source of frustration is that the media largely chose to ignore this constituency of victims and it is as if they never existed at all.

The reality is that the RUC were, and still remain a protagonist in this conflict and that fact has been overlooked. If anything the focus should be given to the people who have been affected by RUC violence and the truth told about the activities of this discredited force.

Chris Patten told everyone that there `was no role for ex-paramilitaries'' in new policing arrangements. Many of us see the RUC as a paramilitary force. Mark Durkin, speaking at the Forum for Peace and Reconcilliation in Dublin Castle in 1995, stated ``many nationalists see the RUC not as paramilitary but as para-terrorist''.

In the early years of political unrest, I and many others, largely from within the nationalist community, took to the streets in protest against inequality, discrimination but above all we rallied as a community against the violent acts perpetrated on our community by the RUC and the British army. We aimed to expose their role and exactly what they were doing to us.

We stood together for civil and human rights against abuse. If we are now to realise that goal, to build a credible society, to emergefrom conflict, then we need to recognise the truth about all victims/survivors, not just some.

What is even more hurtful and an affront to common humanity is that last week many commentators chose only to remember those who carried guns, were in uniform, and who as a force were responsible for some of the most vile human rights abuses committed in this conflict.

What is even more reprehensible is that the force is there supposedly to prevent and protect society from violence was itself actively engaged in violence.

We now need the British governement and in particular Ronnie Flanagan to apologise and to ask for forgiveness for the heartache that they have visited upon almost every home in the north of Ireland.


Flo O'Riordan,


382 Springfield Road,


Belfast

Hunger strike inspiration



A Chara,

I fully endorse Barry McElduff's excellent suggestion regarding the formation of `1981 Societies' (An Phoblacht, 2 September). Like 1916, 1981 was a watershed year in Irish history and one of particular, indeed pivotal, significance for the Republican Movement.

Barry alludes to the effects of the hunger-strikes on the political prisoners themselves and their families while emphasising the repercussions for the wider nationalist community. His recollections of the politicisation of an entire generation of young nationalists in the face of British intransigence and terror are well taken, as are his observations that the period, although well within living memory, tends to fall into a history category for many people under 25.

Surely the stories of sacrifice and heroism forever associated with the hunger-strike should be made available in all their clarity to the youth of today - whose own political development and motivation may be enhanced by them. What better way to do this than through the establishment of `1981 Societies'. I sincerely hope that Barry's idea generates more interest and debate.


Gerry McGeough,


Tír Eoghain

An Phoblacht
44 Parnell Sq.
Dublin 1
Ireland