|
|
[Editor's Note: Deaglan de Breadun and Barry White participated in this Online Forum on the Irish Peace Talks prior to the explosion of an IRA bomb in downtown Manchester]
The Irish Times is providing coverage of the peace talks from Dublin
The Belfast Telegraph is supplying coverage from Northern Ireland
FEB. 12, 1996: After an IRA bomb in London shattered the 18-month ceasefire, the NewsHour examined the prospects for peace.
DEC. 1, 1995: The NewsHour reports on President Clinton's visit to Ireland
Click here for a menu of past forums.
Is an end to sectarian violence finally within reach in Northern Ireland? This is the tough question that is being tackled right now in a castle on the outskirts of Belfast. There representatives of nine political parties and the Irish and British governments are attempting to create a more peaceful Ireland. Already, the talks have been stormy at best. Due to the Irish Republican Army's refusal to agree to a ceasefire, Sinn Fein, the political wing of the IRA, was not allowed to attend the beginning of the conference. Also, members of Ulster Democratic Unionist Party [DUP], a group dedicated to keeping the north as part of the United Kingdom, have criticized the appointment of Clinton confidante and former U.S. Senator George Mitchell to head the talks, believing Americans to be pro-nationalist.
On May 30th, the people of Nothern Ireland elected party representatives to participate in the "All Party" peace talks. The results gave significant voice to the Ulster Unionist Party [UUP], the DUP, the Social Democratic and Labour Party [SDLP], Sinn Fein and the Alliance Party. Now these groups must formulate an agreement that will bring a meaningful peace to Northern Ireland.
The Irish peace talks carry importance not just in Northern Ireland, but also in the United States. President Clinton has made working for an end to the Irish "troubles" a priority in his administration's foreign policy. He even visited the country last year. Also, Senator Mitchell's leadership ties the U.S. even further to what happens during the talks.
Our forum asked: What are the chances for successful peace talks? What is the feeling in Ireland about the talks? Does America have a role in what is technically a British domestic problem?
Two experts, one in Belfast and the other in Dublin, answered your questions about the prospects for peace and what the public attitude is in Ireland. Barry White, a political columnist and editorial writer for the Belfast Telegraph, and a stringer for Newsweek, has been covering Irish peace talks in their various forms since 1965. Deaglan de Breadun is a political reporter with The Irish Times in Dublin.
A question from Robin M. Walker of College Station, TX:
I realize that the unionist groups feel that Americans are generally pro-nationalist. Is this feeling shared by other interested parties? Generally, how do the Irish people (on both sides of border) feel about America's involvement in the peace process? Also, how do they feel (if they care at all)about the fact that this issue is so important to enough Americans that it plays a role in our domestic politics?
Thank you for your consideration.
Deaglan de Breadun of The Irish Times responds:
Unionist groups may feel that Americans are generally pro-nationalist but nationalist groups in Ireland would not agree.
The nationalists would accept that Irish-Americans tend to be pronationalist, especially those of recent Irish descent, but the nationalists would also see the East Coast WASP establishment as strongly pro-British. The U.S. State Department has been traditionally very favourable to British policy in Northern Ireland. Nationalists see the Clinton White House as being more even-handed. They believe Senator Edward Kennedy and his sister, Jean Kennedy Smith, the U.S. Ambassador to Ireland, have helped to influence Clinton to take this more balanced view.
Unionists would be generally suspicious of the U.S. involvement in the Irish peace process although they would welcome extra U.S. investment in Northern Ireland. Nationalists on both sides of the Border (there aren't many unionists in the south) are very enthusiastic about the U.S. involvement. If President Clinton were as popular in the U.S. as he is in Ireland, he would win the election in November by a landslide. Irish people generally would not be aware of the role the Irish issue plays in domestic U.S. politics beyond the fact that both the Democrats and the Republicans would like to win Irish-American votes.
Barry White of The Belfast Telegraph responds:
Yes, most unionists have the perception that the Americans who are interested in the Irish question - a far smaller percentage than they think - are of Irish origin and therefore sympathetic to the nationalist cause. John Hume has deliberately cultivated Irish-American politicians, since the earliest civil rights days in the late 1960s, rightly calculating that they could influence British government policy.
London had ignored bad government in Northern Ireland for years, but had to sit up and take notice when the American politicians, and the American media, began to take an interest. Pressure from the Four Horsemen (Kennedy, Moynihan, Tip O'Neill and ... Carey?) led President Carter's promise of American aid towards a solution, and the formation of the International Fund, to which the U.S. taxpayer contributes 20 million dollars annually. It is spent (75% North, 25% in the Southern border counties) on job-creating and exchange projects. Sinn Fein and the republican movement were slow to get on the American bandwagon, largely because of the IRA connection, through Noraid, and hostility form the Irish government. Now they are deeply involved in fund-raising and propaganda work, which has helped make them one of the richest parties in Northern Ireland.
President Clinton was active in getting Gerry Adams a visa, to promote the peace process, when the British were against it. Hence there is a lot of suspicion about him among unionists, despite his successful visit and his continuing interest in promoting American investment in Northern Ireland. As with everything else, people are divided about America's involvement; Catholics love, Protestants don't, because they fear there is a hidden agenda towards a united Ireland.
The Irish government has worked closely with Hume to keep American administrations interested. Reagan always raised the subject with Thatcher. The Irish, both north and south, are well aware Clinton is using Northern Ireland for domestic political purposes, but as long as his interest is seen to be helping, in a vague way (via the Mitchell report and his chairmanship of the talks), as well as with economic investment, only the extreme unionists object. Nationalist are heavily behind his re-election.
_____________________________
A question from Elizabeth Callender of Washington, DC:
I am curious about the tone of your paper's coverage and the tone coming out of the talks. Most of the coverage I have seen or read has been extremely pessimistic here in America. Most of the stories are about how the extreme groups are unhappy or walking out. What is the feeling in Ireland and Northen Ireland? Are people optimistic or do they view it as a hopeless situation?
Deaglan de Breadun of The Irish Times responds:
There are mixed feelings about the situation among the people of Ireland. After the IRA ended their ceasefire last February by exploding the bomb at Canary Wharf in London, there was mass depression in the country. Hopes have picked up since.
One reason is that the IRA, up to time of writing, has not carried out many violent acts. There have been no significant IRA actions in Northern Ireland itself, so the Protestant groups have not been provoked into killing Catholics again.
There are difficulties in the multi-party negotiations. There have been walkouts and there will probably be more. But at least the negotiations have started. There is a deep hunger for peace among the ordinary people but the divisions between the Protestants and the Catholics in Northern Ireland are very deep.
The best way to describe the feeling of many people would be the Italian philosopher Gramsci's phrase: "Pessimism of the intellect; optimism of the will."
Barry White of The Belfast Telegraph responds:
You can find the Belfast Telegraph editorials and main stories on the Internet. Generally speaking, we are quite pessimistic about the talks process, in the short term at least, but are giving it as much support as possible. The circumstances could not be worse for an agreement, with no ceasefire and therefore no Sinn Fein and with British and Irish governments in a relatively weak position, facing elections inside the next year. No one really expects anything of substance to emerge until the British election, because John Major is so dependent on Unionist votes in the Commons.
At the moment, he has a majority of one, so must try to keep the Unionists, with nine votes on his side. the republican movement - Sinn Fein and the IRA - are also quite pessimistic about their chances of making progress on their British-out agenda under the present Tory government, and live in hope that Labour will get in, and begin to "persuade" Northern Ireland towards a new accommodation with the Irish Republic. That is why people like Conor Cruise O'Brien predict that the new IRA strategy will be intermittent violence, confined to Britain, rather than a continuous war on both British and Irish fronts. There is plenty of evidence to show that bombs in London have had no effect on British policy, making the government more amenable to weakening the link with Northern Ireland. At the talks so far, all the rows have been over George Mitchell and his strong role as chairman - which London agreed to because Dublin argued it could bring about an IRA ceasefire - but there is still the unresolved question of decommissioning of illegal weapons and explosives.
The IRA say they will never decommission, short of a political settlement, and the loyalist paramilitaries say they will not move unilaterally - even though their representatives, in PUP and UDP were allowed into the talks because their ceasefire is still in place. The British and Irish governments insist on parallel decommissioning, during talks - a suggestions first made in the Mitchell report - but if the IRA sticks to its guns, despite a new ceasefire is still in place.
The British and the unionists say they want guns handed over "within weeks," as a means of proving republicans' good faith. People are pretty pessimistic, because at least six government initiatives have failed since 1973. The difference this time is that the two governments are heavily involved, as well as the representatives of loyalist paramilitaries. All that is missing is an IRA ceasefire and Sinn Fein, but they will be watching closely, probably maintain the present de facto cessation, and waiting to see if the talks are getting anywhere, under the present government. An election could be as early as October, long before there are any results.
______________________________
A question from Rebecca Ferguson of Hartford, CT:
The British Government seems to have been laying low during the talks. Why is this? Aren't they an integral part of the whole process? I mean, has Major or anyone else spoken out about the process?
Are they just hedging their bets in case the thing falls apart?
Deaglan de Breadun of The Irish Times responds:
Many people would criticise the British Government on various counts, but it is not true to say that Britain has been lying low during the talks. The British Prime Minister, John Major, attended the opening day in Belfast with his equivalent from Dublin, the Irish Taoiseach, John Bruton. Major made a speech and took questions from journalists.
The tragedy is that it took so long for the two governments to convene the talks. The IRA called a ceasefire in August 1994, but the British Government failed to take advantage of the lull and the ceasefire collapsed last February. Major has staked a good deal of his political prestige on making the peace process work but there are rumblings of discontent in his party from those who still believe it is possible to defeat the IRA by military methods instead of trying to persuade them to give up their guns and take the political road.
Barry White of The Belfast Telegraph responds:
The British government has been responsible for setting up the talks and agreeing chairmen, rules and procedures with the Irish government. But it cannot dictate to the participants, especially after an election in which they have fresh mandates. Already the unionists are protesting about dictatorship, and the talks have been suspended while the parties present their proposals for the role to be filled by George Mitchell. There is still no consensus, in Northern Ireland, on anything, and the British government cannot impose its will. It cannot withhold funds ($6 billion subsidy annually) because the place would become even more unstable.
It has to proceed by negotiation, trying to find formulate which have the maximum consensus. David Trimble, the UUP leader, was very brave, standing up to opposition from fellow unionists in the DUP and UKUP when he accepted Mitchell as chairman, saying that his powers would be rewritten. The SDLP and Dublin will resist any watering down, but Trimble must be given something, or he will walk out and the talks could collapse - as they nearly did on Tuesday night.
______________________________
A question from Patrick Lee of Boston, MA:
In your opinion, what has the role of the United States in bringing these negotiations into being? Also, why did the governments of Ireland and England select U.S. Senator George Mitchell?
Deaglan de Breadun of The Irish Times responds:
The U.S. has played a crucial role in bringing these negotiations into being. It has encouraged the two governments to convene the talks. By welcoming Gerry Adams to the U.S., it has strengthened him in his efforts to persuade the IRA to adopt the path of peaceful political action instead of violence.
The Irish and British governments chose George Mitchell to head up the talks because they respected his abilities and experience. He has already chaired a committee which wrote a report on ways the armed groups such as the IRA could give up their weapons if they were given political concessions at the same time. This report was widely praised, even by people who disagree on just about everything else in Ireland.
Barry White of The Belfast Telegraph responds:
The American role has been crucial, through the intervention of President Clinton, talking an economic and political interest in Northern Ireland, and through has nominee, George Mitchell. The Mitchell report helped to remove some of the logjam over decommissioning, getting the British government to accept parallel, instead of prior, handing over of guns and explosives. It hasn't worked with the IRA, but it has put alot of pressure on them, which may eventually have results. The selection of Mitchell, as I suggested earlier, was largely an initiative by Dublin, hoping it would prompt a new IRA ceasefire because of his obvious Irish- American connections.
Major resisted, knowing the unionists objects, but eventually gave way. In retrospect, since there are has been no ceasefire, it might have been better to choose amore neutral, non-political chairman. The plus is that his presence, if he retains any of the powers proposed for deciding when consensus has been reached between the majority of unionist and majority of nationalist, ensures America's continuing interest and adds to the pressures on the IRA to have a new ceasefire. They have they talks they wanted, with as sympathetic a chairman as they could get, an opportunity to delay decommissioning as long as possible. Still they won't move, but they might in time.
______________________________
A question from Chris O'Brien of London, Ontario:
In light of Senator Mitchell's success in negotiating the January 1995 ceasefire, why and how can the Unionists have any strong objections to his involvement?
Deaglan de Breadun of The Irish Times responds:
Senator Mitchell had no public role in negotiating the IRA ceasefire, which began at the end of August, 1994, not January 1995. He may have played some part behind the scenes.
Some unionists want nothing to do with him because they fear he will take a pro-nationalist, anti-British line in the multi-party talks on the future of Northern Ireland. But the main unionist party have accepted him as chairman of the talks: they are however trying to circumscribe his role and powers as chairman.
Barry White of The Belfast Telegraph responds:
Hey, wait a minute! Senator Mitchell published his report in January 1996 on the decommissioning issue, asking the parties to "consider" parallel decommissioning and proposing six principles of democracy and non-violence, to which all parties should subscribe. The ceasefire was in place from September 1994 to February 9, 1996, when the IRA exploded a bomb in London, killing two and causing $150 million damage. The unionists liked his principles, and accept parallel decommissioning, but they look at his Democratic party background, his support for the Adams visa, his association with the Kennedys and say he can't be neutral. The reasonable ones, in the UUP, now say he is acceptable, but with reduced powers so that he can't dictate so much to them.
______________________________
A question from Terry Silver of Saratoga, NY:
It seems to me that the peace negotiations are in a real bind. On the one hand, the groups most in need of negotiations are the ones walking out and being difficult (i.e. Sinn Fein and all the unionist groups.) Can the peace talks really achieve anything meaningful without those groups? But if the groups that are causing all the problems were in the negotiations, would there be any hope of an agreement?
Deaglan de Breadun of The Irish Times responds:
It is true that the divisions in the Northern Ireland conflict are very deep. The talks have started at long last but it would be foolish to expect a quick solution. The current phase of violence in Northern Ireland has lasted nearly 30 years. Peace will not come overnight.
Sinn Fein has not walked out of the talks. The British and Irish governments say Sinn Fein will not be admitted until the IRA restores the ceasefire of August 1994, which collapsed last February. Some observers expect a new ceasefire during the summer.
It is unlikely that agreement can be reached between every single party in the talks but if there is agreement between the majority of the nationalists on the one hand and the majority of the unionists on the other, then we would have a chance of lasting peace.
Barry White of The Belfast Telegraph responds:
Sinn Fein and the Unionists have directly opposite policies on Northern Ireland's future, so it is virtually impossible - some say entirely impossible - to get them to agree. What the talks are about is finding out if Sinn Fein is prepared to stop short of its ultimate goal - a united Ireland - and will accept that there should be no change in the link with the United Kingdom until a majority in Northern Ireland vote for it. Or is it irrevocably fixed on forcing the British government to break the link, before there is a democratic vote? Clearly they are needed at the talks, but democrats won't sit down with them till they prove they won't go back to violence if they don't get their way in the talks. They exclude themselves, just as Paisley's DUP - with 18% of the vote, the third biggest party - would walk out, if Sinn Fein did qualify to take part. Alot of Protestants - not all - simply do not trust Catholics, because they feel they are a threat, through their nationalist sympathies, to their British identity and way of life. It has to be admitted, even by a liberal Protestant, that there is some justification for their suspicions. Both sides would really prefer to live in separate states - and in housing, they choose separate areas - but they are fated to live together. Gradually, as the unionist majority diminishes, and becomes a minority - it must now be about 55-45, attitudes must and will change.
The Belfast Telegraph can be found at http://www.globalgateway.com/beltel
Click here for a forum menu.
 |
        |
|
| Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. | ||
| ||
| PBS Online Privacy Policy Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved. | ||
| ||
