One comment on recent blogs here made a point that has stayed with me. S/he said that Gerry Adams stated in one of his books that national reunification should precede reconciliation, and that John Hume had persuaded him to look at things the other way round: reconciliation needs to precede reunification.
There’s something to be said for both. Taking the John Hume perspective first, it’s obviously undesirable that we should have Irish reunification with about a million unwilling unionists part of that state. However, people don’t develop their political attitudes and loyalties out of thin air. Some boneheads retain theirs because their forefathers held them, but most people’s political thinking comes from their daily experience of life and their appreciation of what is good or not good in the society they form part of. Just as partition has succeeded in that it has made partitionists of a sort out of those who proclaim themselves nationalists/republicans: that is, although they lay claim to a reunification belief, they’re quick to identify the differences between the north-east of the country and the rest, to the detriment of the rest. So it might be with the one million unionists were reunification to happen. Their experience of the new state and their role in it – 20% vs 2% at present, for example – might well over time result in acceptance of and even enthusiasm for the new state.
Gerry Adams and republicanism in general have embraced the reconciliation-first model. With fifteen years gone since the Good Friday Agreement, it’s fair to ask what signs are there of reconciliation between unionists and republicans. Well, at an official level they’ve worked together in a power-sharing government, which is bound to have brought them closer together.Unionists have begun to show an increased interest in Irish culture, particularly the Irish language. And a lot of people are engaged in formal and informal cross-community conversations that would have been impossible twenty years ago.
Ultimately, it depends on your time-scale. Republicans are famous for their patience and ability to play the long game. As Chinese premier Zhou Enlai is supposed to have said (but didn’t) about the impact of the French Revolution of 1789: “It’s too early to say”.
But it’s not too early to say that unionism has given no major political signals that it has emerged from the deep-freeze in which it existed here during its fifty-year rule. Mike Nesbitt is the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, generally seen as less hard-line than the DUP. Yet Mike Nesbitt has in recent days affected incomprehension of anyone who wouldn’t see the Troubles as the waging of an IRA terrorist campaign. Which when translated says “The IRA engaged in foul violence for no good reason”. That was the view of unionism we were getting in 1974; it’s still the view of unionism we’re getting in 2014. Has reconciliation worked? Not yet. How long should we keep on trying? Pass.
Jude, In that same comment, I asked the question; in light of the failure of the Haass talks to produce an agreement, and if you think of it honestly, the GFA to produce any legislation of meaningful substance, isn’t it time for a strategic rethink of nationalists and republicans?
Is reconciliation possible between the two traditions when everything is judged as either a plus or minus for the union?
For what do Unionists really think of Sinn Féin’s outreach and reconcilation attempts?
Well, I am pretty sure they see them along the lines that they are ”only being nice to us to try and get us to vote the way they want us to.’ So, it is fair to say that Sinn Féin’s ‘hug a Unionist’ play is viewed as insincere and most unlikely to lead to any voting changes in that community. Henceforth, the status qup and all the misery and hatred and frustration that accompanies it.
My best guest is that a section of the unionist community will be just as violently opposed to a United Ireland even if it was agreed through a border poll, or whether it was conceeded through the legislation of both Irish and British governments, however unlikely that is.
It is said that you can get anyone to do anything you want them to if you fill them with fear. Unionist leaders are masters of it. Fear of the Roman Catholic conspiracy. Fear of deBriticization. Fear they will lose their welfare benefits, employment, national health and protective security services. The ogre of a sectarian and revengeful Roman Catholic United Ireland awaiting them is spoonfed to the Unionist community by their political and certain of their ‘religious’ leaders, and easily swallowed in atmosphere of fear and distrust of the unknown.
I am coming to believe the Unionist bluff should be called. This is the starting point for Nationalists and Republicans. To address Unionist fears and distrusts upfront.
To my knowledge, other than Republican Sinn Féin’s Eire Nua document, no political party in Ireland has had the courage to present a vision of what a Unitary Ireland would look like. It sounds great for Sinn Féin to blame successive southern governments for not bringing forward a green paper on Irish unity, but that papers over the fact they have not yet produced a green paper of their own.
Nationalist and Republican Ireland owe it to their fellow Irishmen holding onto the coattails of England to explain what awaits them in a united Ireland, and how their religion, culture and traditions would be accomodated.
An open invitation should be extended to all Unionist groups and parties to join in the discussion, or submit papers. I realise it’s optimistic to expect Unionists to participate at this time, but that should not preclude Nationalists and Republican parties getting together and demonstrating that the aspirations of the majority of people living on the island of Ireland is a real, live and dynamic project, and not just an aspiration and rallying call at election time.
It is my contention therefore that a reconciliation should take place between all the competing nationalist and republican parties in Ireland, enabling a dialogue to develop that will put substance on the ideals of the Easter Proclamation, to which almost every party claims allegiance.
As we approach the centennial of that document first being presented, the time seems most oportune for a revisitation to its vision and the determination of its contents.
Are nationalist and Republicans up for burying petty party political greivances in the interest of advancing the national unification of Ireland?
Isn’t it time for Nationalists and Republican to leave aside Ourselves Alone, and go foward as Ourselves Together. Stop blaming the Brits and Unionists and lead from the front.
Ah lordy, must be the drink talking.
You make some really good points Colman, but the SDLP loathe Sinn Fein so much they would be prepared to let a Unionist take a seat rather than do a deal at election time. The problem is, has been, and always will be, the SDLP and their hypocritical attitude to Irish unity.
The world can see who is being reasonable and who isnt. I think if republicans can remain respectful, that is enough for me? Do we really need to do anything more though your ideas are great Colman and would applaud any such efforts? If unionists dont want a national identity of thir own like billy no mates, that is their loss. They will realise it one day in their own time.
No need to bend over backwards.
What will be interesting is if they get so upset over a flag on a single building coming down, what are they going to do when the council boundries change and 4 counties turn green?
I mean green letter boxes, all road signs in irish a complete makeover paid for by the english tax payer. The british part of ireland is going to get very small indeed. Will they be able to stop the tri colour flying from council buildings then?
Perhaps there is a third option, make the north the best and most irish part of ireland and national reunification and reconcilliation can follow up later.
Colman – thanks for your detailed and thoughtful commentary. I think there’s considerable truth in it but as other commenters indicate, there may be other routes to a UI, besides which I’m not sure you answer the question ‘What then?’ after there’s been a pan-nationalistic think-in. I agree completely that there should be a detailed picture of what a UI should look like. I think that should start with an economic argument based on real verifiable figures.
Jude, You ask, ‘What then?
I might ask the same question in the event of a positive result in favor of a Unitary Ireland in the fabled GFA border poll? What then?
The GFA is ambiguous; The British and Irish Government are to bring legislation to that effect..or so it goes.,So, what kind of a United Ireland are we to have in the event of a successfull poll?
An incorporation of the 6 into the 26 with a Fine Gael or Fianna Fail led Dublin Government administering for all? A Federal Ireland? Confederal Ireland? The GFA doesnt exactly say, does it? And that is why more and more people now believe that the GFA promised nothing concrete, and delivered even less, except giving those engaged in the futile campaigns of violence a way out.
Even the recently published Haass document was filled with much of the same waffle language as GFA, which inevitably would later be interpreted differently by the parties.
“We’re mature enough to look after our affairs” is a common refrain heard by some party leaders. The failure of the Good Friday Agreement and Stormont Administration to deliver any meaningful change, coupled with the Haass talks failure has shown we aren’t.
A minority section of the unionist persuasion have withheld progress on this island for too long. It is time for a mature approach and some forward thinking by Nationalists and Republicans.
Establish a constitutional convention of all those who claim their allegiance to the Irish Proclamation.
Let’s get the economists in to review the financials, the legal profession to consider progressive legislation, the executives to design the administrative bodies, the local community representatives to advance people’s rights.
Unionists need not fear an All Ireland constitutional convention of interested parties because the purpose is to find a solution that equally embraces their tradition on the island and protects everyone’s religious, cultural and human rights.
All those Unionists that openly embrace their Irishness and cherish peace and reconciliation would have an open invitation to participate and an avenue to present their fears and worries and hopes for their future.
Irish America will throw their weight behind it like no other campaign. You can bet the Irish disapora worldwide would support the efforts of all the Nationalist and Republican parties putting the Irish Republic first, rather than scoring petty political points on a power grab.
At the end, you get the best minds to sell the solution to the Irish People, to the British People, to The US Government, to EU etc…there will be concrete proposals, discussions and hopefully an all Ireland referendum on exactly what a United Ireland entails.
You take the bull by the horns and make a United Ireland a reality and end the ambiguity once and for all.
It can’t be much worse than the stalement and frustration at the moment that is condemning another generation to political stagnancy and inertia.
At this time, the economy is the driver.
Do you think we can bring 3000 pointless sectarian marches into a unified ireland? These issues addressed in the haas talks need to be dealt with first. Britain may be able to afford a 10 billion hit to run this place, but all issues will have to be resolved while they fit the bill first, then the more difficult bits around unification will have been resolved.
We dont need total reconciliation but we do need to identify how unionism and nationalism can co exist on this island before we can contemplate unification.
There is nothing to stop the border counties from better cooperation in terms of sharing resources such as hospitals where mutual benefit result, dublin is the capital of this island and will have the most resources so more high level services can be outsourced there as with the rest of the island.
The new council boundries will allow unionists to get used to seeing the tri colour on council buildings but the key will be to implementation of nationalist identity without making the mistakes of disrespecting theirs. This does not mean allowing them to march all over the place at great cost to the economy but to meet reason with reason, respect with mutual respect.
The GFA is very ambigious but it does I believe recognise the nationalist population here who see the tri colour as their national flag and look to dublin as their capital city. The tri colour must fly from council buildings here to fulfill the GFA and is something unionism here are going to have to learn to respect.
Great post as usual Jude, I honestly despair that Unionism will EVER accept the Nationalist/Republican viewpoint. The mighty Mike was talking about the IRA waging a terror war, but has no grasp of the reality of life for Nationalists under the RUC and British army jackboot. Still, we can hope.
Some very good points there Colman
Great post as usual Jude, I honestly despair that Unionism will EVER accept the Nationalist/Republican viewpoint
Do Nationalist/Republicans/Republicans ever accept the Unionist viewpoint?
Three Judes in one day…two gushing away there and the other accusing Mike Nesbitt of incomprehension of another’s viewpoint. He certainly can do without you translating for him or putting words in his mouth And Jude try saying ha-ha-haass.as we don’t want another Hannahgate.scandal.
Ah pretzellogic – you couldn’t have too much of a good thing and you couldn’t have too many Judes…
I’m actually not putting words in Mike’s mouth or translating for him – he’s quite clear – the Troubles was a terrorist campaign. In contemporary parlance ‘terrorism’ is a damning term. (Wrongly, of course, since what is termed terrorism is just a particular form of warfare – no better or worse than any other). A man of his intelligence knows that like saying ‘My garden is a bunch of nettles’ when at best one corner of it sprouts same.
Jude
Is there such a thing as a just war to you? And if so are all forms of warfare, including ‘terrorism’, in that just war acceptable?
Once war has been decided upon is it the case that civilians in their homes are the same as soldiers on the battlefield?
Or are you saying that war is always wrong and trying to draw up rules for it only disguises the barbarity?
What a splendid series of questions, Gio.
OK – here goes. Do I think there’s such a thing as a just war? Reluctantly, since as I think I said earlier the taking of human life is the ultimate barbarity – reluctantly I’d say Yes. Most wars that’ve been fought, each side believes they are in the right, God is on their side, it is just. George Orwell has a character in one of his novels explain imperialism (inexact quotation): “It’s when you go to someone else’s place, kill him and steal his things”. It’s hard not to see resistance to such imperialism as justified.
Are all forms of warfare acceptable? To be honest, there seems something almost quaint about setting out rules of engagement: we’ll kill you using these means but not those means. My handy little dictionary defines terrorism as “the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims”, but of course that describes all wars. It’s usually used when people say a combatant or a side in a struggle is setting out to inspire terror in the civilian population as a way of winning a war. That, by and large, was the loyalist paramilitaries’ strategy here. The IRA engaged in it also but not, I think, as a consistent policy. But again, of course, the Second World War featured mass terrorism by both Britain and her allies, and Germany: the bombing of German and British cities was surely terrorism, in that it attacked civilians. And of course if you build nuclear weapons, you’re using a terror-threat against civilians to achieve your political ends.
I think your last sentence comes near the truth. I don’t think war is always wrong but I do think the rules leave room for such foul activity, they’re hardly worth drawing up. Nobody observes them anyway.
Good questions, Gio – thanks for them. Of course, sitting as we do on the sidelines in relative peace, we mightn’t be so much detached in our judgements as out of touch. It’d surely test the pacifism of the staunchest Quaker if his/her sister were slaughtered in front of his/her eyes…
There is no such thing as a war without terrorism and in my opinion no such thing as a just war.
That doesnt mean war cannot be innevitable as we unfortunately know to well. Reality also shows us that civilians are always victims, just look at Iraq and the middle east.
War is never right in my opinion. It does not mean I would never violently defend my home or go to war or if I did so would not do terrible things that I would not want to even consider today, but I would still never consider my actions just regardless of the provocation but that is just my opinion.
At the same time, we have to live in the present to make the future the best for our children. Looking to the past at the expense of their future is I beleive shameful.
As for nesbitt, I never realised what a true bigot he really was, he kept his true colours well hidden on camera.
Jude
Thanks for the reply.
They are difficult questions and I don’t pretend to have a good answer to them.
If we accept it is right to defend oneself as a last resort, from violent attack,then I suppose we can extrapolate that to justifying war in some cases. Given that then it is understandable that rules of engagement have evolved over time. And deliberate attacks on civilians are generally considered to be breaking the rules.
To counter that we would have to argue that the ultimate outcome in terms of loss of life would justify the use of any means. An argument I am not too comfortable with.
The IRA campaign was certainly not just by any argument and whether you call it terrorism or not there is no doubt they deliberately disregarded the lives of civilians. Consistently and continuously.
As did loyalist groups.
If that is what Mike Nesbitt is saying I can’t disagree with him.
giordanobruno, who here didnt disregard the lives of civilians from the british pm down?
british special forces directed loyalists for decades.
They provided the explosives and training for the dublin monaghan bombs, they actively encouraged loyalists to target and kill innocent civilians to break support for the ira within their communities.
State forces in the early 70s shot women and children for leaving their homes after curfue.
If you are talking about civilian casualties, the state and loyalist forces killed a higher percentage of innocent civilian casualties than combatants by a long shot.
In fact, they killed very few combatants at all and focussed almost entirely on the civilan populous.
Do you seriously believe the nationalist community were not terrorised by british paramilitaries?
Mike Nesbitt obviously does, but do you agree with his one sided narrative?
Ah you’ve stung me with that reply although Mike does seem to be saying something different this time round. What I imagine Mike Nesbitt may have difficulty understanding is someone claiming the IRA or anyone else for that matter engaged in foul violence/terrorism for good reason. But likeways I don’t want to be putting words into his mouth or weeding his garden either.
jess
I wouldn’t take issue with most of what you say. I certainly don’t know why you think I ‘believe the nationalist community were not terrorised by british paramilitaries.’
I would go as far as to say that Mike Nesbitt probably does not believe that either.
But Jude was specifically taking issue with his description of the IRA campaign, which is the point I was picking up on.
Feel free to tell me if you think they did not conduct a campaign of terror. And a futile one at that.
I have yet to hear a convincing argument to that end.
I think Jude was taking issue as I do with his one sided narrative that the troubles were the waging of an IRA campaign and that victims of IRA violence were more deserving of justice than victims of british state led violence.
What the IRA did or did not do is not going to be the historic context of the troubles I assure you that. I have every sympathy for any victim but if I was going to take sides my priority would be on the peace makers rather than orange and green, those who are strong enough to do what is best for the children of the future which is make sure there are no more victims suffering what they have, and there have been plenty of such admirable and brave people.
Mike Nesbitt knows exactly what he is saying and the truth is his, opinion doesnt really matter squat.
jess
“his,opinion doesnt really matter squat.”
And yet Jude blogs about it and you comment on it!
I think it is important to be clear about what has actually been said so I have to ask you has Mike Nesbitt somewhere said the victims of IRA violence were more deserving of justice than victims of British led state violence?
I would be surprised. But if he did he is of course wrong.
As for what the historic context of the troubles will be that remains to be seen. There certainly seems to me to be a battle going on right now to determine how our history will be interpreted.
The blog was not about mr nesbitt but we are entitled to comment on what we see as wrong and yes he has.
He has championed the term innocent victims which he has claimed does not apply to the families of republicans so he supports a division of victims which would be disciminatory and never lead to a legitimate solution. He I am sure knows this, so I assume has other motives for taking us down this route.
Not all victims agree with this stance so he has chosen to support only the victims who want retribution. While I wish them as much luck as the victims of state covered up violence who also suffered the slurr on their names, My opinion is they are being used by politicians.
Was it not also Mr Nesbitts idea to put out the flyers in alliance colours using terminology such as tearing down the flag. Such a positive contributor he is.
Now you are probably getting closer to what he has actually said in that he considers combatants to be different from civilian victims. An arguable position.
As opposed to what you suggested which is that he believes all victims of British state violence to be less deserving of justice.
“Now you are probably getting closer to what he has actually said in that he considers combatants to be different from civilian victims. An arguable position.
As opposed to what you suggested which is that he believes all victims of British state violence to be less deserving of justice.”
But again one sided and divisive as is everything he espouses these days.
For example, would he or you feel the same about combatant victims returning in body bags from Iraq or more recently Afghanistan?
And yes, I would say he would be less supportive of the full truth of the extent of British state violence here being released than victims of republican violence getting prosecutions. That equates in my eyes as victims of British state violence to be less deserving of justice.
Plus the majority of victims of british state collusion were innocent civilians and not combatants so if that were the case, he would be just as supportive of collusion here being fully and independantly investigated with full access to the evidence which exists.
Jess
I have failed to make you see my point so I will let it go.
I am not trying to defend Mike Nesbitt I am criticising you.
Generalization assumption and whataboutery instead of argument..
Really, it sounded to me like you were.
You have failed to make me see your point though.