From: Thomas Lane <tlane@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Date: 17 Nov 92 19:33 PST
Subject: Towards a Lasting Peace in Ireland
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1296500441:000:61149
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!tlane    Nov 17 19:33:00 1992


From: Thomas Lane <tlane>
Subject: Towards a Lasting Peace in Ireland

TOWARDS A LASTING PEACE IN IRELAND


     About this document....

     Towards a Lasting Peace in Ireland is presented at the Sinn
     Fein Ard Fheis by the Ard Chomhairle as a discussion
     document.  Its main purpose at this stage is to inform the
     debate within the party and the wider public debate about how
     best to develop a strategy for peace in Ireland.  This is in
     keeping with the 1991 Ard Fheis decision.

     It aims also to formalize discussion within Sinn Fein on this
     issue so that at the end of a period of open and democratic
     debate we can agree upon conclusions and adapt Sinn Fein
     policy in accordance with these conclusions.


1.  INTRODUCTION

     The heart-felt aspiration of most people in Ireland is for
     peace, If this aspiration remains limited to a popular desire
     it cannot be come reality. A genuine peace process needs to
     recognize that an end to conflict does not, of itself, lead
     necessarily to a lasting peace. Irish history has taught us
     that a mere cessation of hostilities leads inevitability to a
     recurrence of the conflict in the future. A peace process, if
     it is to be both meaningful and enduring, must address the
     root causes of the conflict. For our part we believe that a
     genuine and sustainable peace process must be set in the
     context of democracy and self-determination. A true peace
     process needs to focus on these dimensions. The proposals
     which follow represent a responsible and realistic
     contribution to the debate on peace in Ireland which we
     believe is long overdue. We offer this document as a
contribution to that debate.

2.  NATIONAL DEMOCRACY AND PEACE

     Peace is not simply the absence of war or conflict.  It is
     the existence of conditions of justice, democracy and
     equality which eradicate the causes of war or conflict. It is
     the existence of conditions in which the absence of war or
     conflict is self-sustaining.

     The Irish people have long been denied peace. Despite
     protracted periods of an absence of war in our country and
     undemocratic conditions fostered and imposed on us have
     ensured perennial conflict.

     The Irish people have a right to peace. They have a right to
     political structures which are capable of sustaining peace --
     of making peace permanent.  They have a right to decide for
     themselves what those structures should be.  They have an
     obligation to ensure that the ethos and practice of those
     structures guarantee equality for all Irish people and serve
     the best interests of all the Irish people.

     Those in Ireland who claim to seek permanent peace, justice,
     democracy, equality of opportunity and stability cannot deny
     that the abiding and universally accepted principal of
     national self-determination, in which is enshrined the
     principle of democracy, is the surest means through which to
     further those political and social aims and once having
     achieved them, of maintaining them.

     The refusal to allow the Irish people to exercise their right
     to self-determination has been the and remains British
     government policy. That policy is the root cause of conflict
     in Ireland. That policy in conjunction with the measures
     taken to maintain it are the causes of the ruptures in the
     relationships between the Irish people themselves and between
     Ireland and Britain.

     Division and coercion have always been and are the basic
     intents of that policy. Division obtains not only in the
     physical division of the country through partition but in the
     divisions which spawned the Civil War in 1922 and had molded
     politics in both parts of our partitioned country ever since.
     It exists in the divisions between nationalists and unionists
     which were cultivated by an inequitable system of privilege
     and sustained by the British government-bestowed 'unionist
     veto.' And finally but not least it exists in the very real
     divisions among nationalists themselves.

     Self-determination is universally accepted to mean a nation's
     right to exercise the political freedom to determine its own
     social, economic and cultural development without external
     influence and without partial or total disruption of the
     national unity or territorial integrity. Those criteria are
     not observed in Ireland. British government involvement in
     Ireland has been in contravention of the established
     international norms which create and sustain conditions
     conducive to the establishment of internal peace, democracy,
     justice, stability and national freedom and by extension to
     the development of good relations between Ireland and
     Britain. The Irish national territory has been physically
     divided by partition with the British government assuming
     sovereignty over the Six Counties. The Irish people are
     divided within the Six Counties and between the Six and 26
     counties. National unity, far from being allowed to develop,
     had been consciously and deliberately fractured in the
     interests of the British government. The social, economic and
     cultural development of Ireland has been variously disrupted,
     stultified and eroded.

     The unionist political veto, grafted by the British
     government onto its deliberate fracture of Irish national
     unity, has become the cornerstone of the British government's
     rationale for its continuing exercise of sovereignty over the
     Six Counties.

     British government-fostered political division between Irish
     Catholics and Irish Protestants through a system of
     political, social an economic privilege has fostered the
     unionist or pro-British tradition in the Six Counties.
     Unionists seek the maintenance of British rule, on their
     terms, for a variety of reasons including the perception that
     it protects their interests as conferred by privilege.
     Unionists (and their capacity for violence, the so-called
     'blood bath scenario') are held up by the British government
     as the major reason for its continuing presence in Ireland.

     Today's advocates of the unionist perspective represent some
     20% of the Irish nation. They are a national minority; a
     significant minority but a minority nevertheless. To bestow
     the power of veto over national independence and sovereignty
     on a national minority is in direct contravention of the
     principle of self-determination. To prescribe
     self-determination for a national minority as a distinct
     entity from the rest of the nation is a perversion of the
     principle of self-determination. British government policy
     has created and maintained a division of political
     allegiances in Ireland -- the national allegiance of a clear
     national majority and the pro-British allegiance of a
     national minority.

     British government policy in Ireland arbitrarily and by
     coercive force upholds the political allegiance of the
     unionist community as a national minority against the
     national and democratic rights of the national minority.

     When a people are divided in political allegiance then the
     democratic principle is that minority rights should prevail;
     particularly when such fundamentals as national rights are in
     question.

     As individuals and as a significant national minority
     unionists have democratic rights which not only can be upheld
     but must be upheld in an independent Ireland. That is the
     democratic norm. That is an essential ingredient of peace and
     stability.

     Those democratic rights, however, must not extend to a veto
     over the national rights of the Irish people as a whole.

     Moreover, the unionist community hold only a limited tenancy
     of the veto. The title deeds rest in the political vaults of
     Westminster and Downing Street. The unionist veto is, in
     fact, the gerrymander perpetuated by a British government
     which dictated the size and make-up of the respective
     populations of the Six and 26-County states. The historical
     and contemporary purpose of that gerrymander was and remains
     to erect a barrier against Irish unification in perpetuity.
     It flaunts all the accepted concepts of democracy. As such it
     is basically flawed. The inequities which the Six-County
     statelet has spawned are an inevitable consequence of its
     very existence. Inequality, injustice and instability is the
     price which has had to be paid for a statelet founded on a
     system of political, social and economic privilege. That
     price will be demanded and paid for as long as the statelet
     exists.


     The responsibility for partition, for conceiving, enforcing
     and maintaining it, lies with the British government. The
     pretext for partition, the wishes of a national minority to
     maintain British rule in Ireland; holds no validity against
the express wishes of a clear national majority.

3.  IRISH SOVEREIGNTY

     For generations, pre and post partition, the Irish people
     have consistently asserted their nationhood, national
independence and sovereignty.

     The Irish peoples' nationhood, independence and sovereignty
have been reaffirmed in the following historic documents:

A.  Proclamation of 1916

"We declare the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of
Ireland, and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies, to be
sovereign and indefeasible...Standing on that fundamental right
and again asserting it in arms in the face of the world, we hereby
proclaim the Irish Republic as a Sovereign Independent State."


B.  Declaration of Independence of First Dail, January

    21st 1919

"Now, whereas at the threshold of a new era in history, the Irish
electorate has in the General Election of December 1918, signed
the first occasion to declare by an overwhelming majority its firm
allegiance to the Irish Republic.

Now, therefore, we, the elected Representatives of the ancient
Irish people in National Parliament assembled, do, in the name of
the Irish Nation, ratify the establishment of the Irish Republic
and pledge ourselves and our people to make this declaration
effective by every means at our command:

We ordain that the elected Representatives of the Irish people
alone have power make laws binding on the people of Ireland, and
that the Irish Parliament is the only Parliament to which that
people will give its allegiance:

We solemnly declare foreign government in Ireland to be an
invasion of our national right which we will never tolerate, and
we demand the evacuation of our country by the English
government."

C.  The national as defined by the 1937 Constitution

Article 1.  The Irish nation hereby affirms its unalienable,
indefeasible and sovereign right to choose its own form of
Government, to determine its relations with other nations, and to
develop its life, political, economic and cultural, in accordance
with its own genius and traditions.

Article 2.  The national territory consists of the whole island of
Ireland, its island and the territorial seas.

Article 3.  Pending the reintegration of the national territory,
and without prejudice to the right of the Parliament and
Government established by this Constitution to exercise
jurisdiction over the whole of that territory, the laws enacted by
that Parliament shall have the like area and extent of application
as the laws of Saorstat Eireann (The Irish Free State) and like
extra-territorial effect.

D.  Unanimous Declaration adopted by the elected

    representatives in Leinster House, Dublin,

    May 10th 1949


"Solemnly reasserting the indefeasible right of the Irish Nation
to the unity and integrity of the national territory,

Reaffirming the sovereign right of the people of Ireland to choose
its own form of Government and, through its democratic
institutions, to decide all questions of national policy, free
from outside interference.

"Repudiating the claim of the British Parliament to enact
legislation affecting Ireland's territorial integrity in violation
of those rights, and

"Pledging the determination of the Irish people to continue the
struggle against the unjust and unnatural partition of our country
until it is brought to a successful conclusion:

"Places on Record its indignant protest against the introduction
in the British Parliament of legislation, purporting to endorse
and continue the existing Partition of Ireland; and

"Calls upon the British government and people to end the present
occupation of our Six North East Counties, and thereby enable the
unity of Ireland to be restored and the age-long difference
between the two nations brought to an end."

E.  The New Ireland Forum, May 1984

"The particular structure of political unity which the Forum would
wish to see established is a unitary state, achieved by agreement
and consent, embracing the whole island of Ireland and providing
irrevocable guarantees for the protection and preservation of both
the Unionist and Nationalist identities.

"A unitary state would embrace the island of Ireland governed as a
single unit under one government and one parliament elected by all
the people of the island. It would seek to unite in agreement the
two major identities and traditions in Ireland. Historically up to
1922 Ireland was governed as a single unit and prior to the Act of
Union of 1801 was constitutionally a separate and theoretically
equal kingdom. Such a state would represent a constitutional
change of such magnitude as to require a new constitution that
would be non-denominational."

F.  Dr. Patrick Hillery, Dublin's Minister for External

    Affairs told the United Nations Security Council

    in 1969:


"The Six Counties...are an integral part of the island of Ireland
and important part of the country which  throughout history has
been universally regarded as one unit.  The historic unity of
Ireland is so self evident as not to require argument. The claim
of the Irish nation to control the totality of Ireland has been
asserted over centuries by successive generations of Irish men and
women, and it is one which no spokesman for the Irish nation could
ever renounce. The representative of Great Britain is certainly
aware that the claim has been asserted and sustained without
interruption up to the present day, and it has never been conceded
that a unilateral action on the part of the British government
could sunder an entity which nature and history have made one."


"Partition was accomplished by the British government as a
concession to an intransigent minority within the Irish nation.
Ireland was divided as a result of an Act of the British
Parliament in 1920, and Act in favor of which not one Irish vote,
either North or South was cast..."

G.  The Hillsborough Agreement, November 1985

The Dublin Supreme Court, the ultimate interpreters of the Irish
Constitution, recently ruled in a major legal challenge to the
Hillsborough Agreement in McGimpsey v Ireland & Others that
Article 2 of the Irish Constitution must be construed to be a
'claim of legal right' and not a political claim or aspiration.
The Supreme Court held that no government of Ireland could
repudiate that claim by any legal instrument, and that the
Hillsborough Agreement did not concede any recognition by Ireland
(or its people) of the right of Britain to maintain control of any
part of the national territory.

I.  International Law

Ireland's right to reunification, independence and sovereignty --
the right of the Irish people, as a whole, to self-determination
-- is furthermore supported by universally recognized principles
of international law.

The right to self-determination is enshrined in the two United
Nations' Covenants of 1966 -- the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights.  Article 1 of each covenant states:


     "All peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue
     of that right they determine their economic, social and
cultural development."

The landmark Declaration Principles of International Law
Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in
Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations declares:

     "...all people have the right freely to determine, without
     external influence, their political status and to pursue
     their economic, social and cultural development and every
     state has the duty to respect this right in accordance with
the provisions of the Charter."

Partition for its part is clear contravention of the United
Nations' Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial
Countries and Peoples. Article 6 of which states:

     "Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the
     national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is
     incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter
of the United Nations."

That position is explicitly endorsed by the final act of the
Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe.

VIII.  Equal rights and self-determination of peoples.

     "The participating States will respect the equal rights of
     peoples and their right to self-determination, acting at all
     times in conformity with the purposes and principals of the
     Charter of the United Nations and with the relevant norms of
     international law, including those relating to territorial
integrity of States.

     "By virtue of the principal of equal rights and
     self-determination of peoples, all peoples always have the
     right in full freedom, to determine, when as they wish, their
     internal and external political status, without external
     interference, and to pursue as they wish their political,
economic, social and cultural development.

     "The participating States reaffirm the universal significance
     of respect for any effective exercise of equal rights and
     self-determination of peoples for the development of friendly
     relations among themselves as among all states; they also
     recall the importance of the elimination of any form of
violation of this principle."

4.  BRITISH RULE

Division and Coercion

     British rule in Ireland has rested on the twin pillars of
division and coercion.

     This deliberately fostered division between the people on
     this island in the interests of maintaining British rule has
     been developed throughout the 20th Century. The British
     government's partition of Ireland not only entrenched that
     initial fracture of national unity but added to it the
     divisions between the inhabitants of the Six and 26 Counties
and the accompanying divisions between nationalists.

     The classic colonial divide and rule strategy has driven the
     Irish nation in several directions. The effect is that only
     the divisions and their consequences are seen in relief while
the cause of the divisions is obscured.

     Today's propaganda has made it fashionable, not to say
     dishonest, to treat those divisions as a free standing entity
     which had evolved of its own volition. The British
     government-created divisions are thus addressed as three sets
     of relationships, that is, between the two communities in the
     Six Counties; between the Six-County statelet and the
     26-County state and between the Dublin and London
     governments. This approach serves only to distract attention
     from the fundamental cause of the conflict which is the
     British presence in Ireland. Only when the issue is tackled
     explicitly and forcefully will we be able to move towards
     national reconciliation and democratic compromise in
Ireland.

Under pinning the divisions in the Irish nation, which as been
central to the maintenance of British rule, lies the threat and
use of British force. Partition was imposed on the Irish people
under the threat of 'immediate and terrible war.' Since its
inception the Six-County statelet has relied for its existence on
a system of repressive legislation enforced by military and
paramilitary forces and a complaint judiciary. An abnormal state
of "permanent emergency" has been the norm.

     For two continuous decades not repression has been the chief
     instrument of British rule, substituting the force of the
government for the consent of the governed.

     During that period more than 30,000 British forces have been
     deployed as an army of occupation. Almost 3,000 people have
     been killed and more than 30,000 injured. Comparatively, in
     Britain, this would amount to nearly 100,000 dead and over
one million injured.

     Today, Britain's only argument for the continued partition of
     Ireland is the wishes of the artificially constructed
     unionist majority in the Six Counties. To this is added a
     lurid 'blood bath scenario in the event of Irish
     reunification. Neither of these arguments rest on
     international law or is definitive, as we have seen.
     Recognizing this, the British government and the British
     Labor Party have recently attempted to make their positions
     more credible. Peter Brooke now argues that the British
     government has "no selfish strategic or economic reason" for
     maintaining the partition of Ireland and does so simply to
     keep the peace. The Labor Party goes further and claims a
     commitment to "unity by consent" in Ireland. We have yet to
     see much evidence of either claim but, more fundamentally,
     there id the glow of continued bi-partisan acceptance of the
     artificially constructed and bolstered unionist veto on any
     move beyond failed policy of partition. Peter Brooke's claim
     that the British government has "no selfish strategic or
     economic" reason for remaining in Ireland needs to be set
against his other remarks.

Brooke said:

     "The party that sustains the present government remains the
     Conservative and Unionist Party, and the prime minister, as
     the leader of that party has made clear that her views are
     supportive of the Union...The Conservative Party would wish
very much to see Northern Ireland remain part of the Union."

     SDLP leader John Hume drew the conclusion from Brooke's
     statement about "no selfish interest" that Britain was now
     'neutral' and that it was now up to nationalists to get
     Britain to join the ranks of the persuaders of unionists to
     look to Irish unity. Brooke said that this would be "a false
     analysis if it was thought that the British government is
     part of the process seeking to exercise that element of
persuasion."

(In Padraig O'Malley Northern Ireland, Question of Nuance, 1990.)


     The formal British government position, Conservative, Labor
     or coalition, for the foreseeable future is to be found in
     clause 1(a) of the Hillsborough Agreement of 1985 between the
London and Dublin governments:

"1. The Two Governments

(a) affirm that any change in the status of Northern Ireland would
only come about with the consent of a majority of the people of
Northern Ireland."

     It is upon that formal position that this political reality
     of the continued bi-partisan British position rests. The
     border partitioning Ireland was drawn by a British government
     so as to ensure that no such majority would be possible.
     Hillsborough merely endorses that position and was correctly
     identified at the time by Fianna Fail leader Charles Haughey
     as a "copper-fastening" of partition; and by British
     government minister Tom King as meaning that "for all
     practical purposes, and into perpetuity, there will not be a
united Ireland."

     The British parties public proffering of "no selfish
     interest" and "unity by consent" is but an attempt to put a
     veneer of respectability on the violent partition of Ireland
     by Westminster 70 years ago against the express wishes of the
majority of the Irish people.

     But implicit in the public political posturing is the
     suggestion that the responsibility for dismantling partition
     lies largely with Irish nationalists and their powers and
     ability to persuade an appropriate percentage of unionists
     that their best interests lie in a reunited Ireland. This is
     but a shallow attempt to displace responsibility for
     resolving a situation which was wholly manufactured by
     Westminster and whose disastrous consequences are almost
     wholly borne by the Irish people. No amount of public
political posturing can change that.

     For the British government, where there has been real change
     it has been in the area of its political strategy for ruling
     the Six Counties. Since 1973 that strategy has aimed to
     enlist the active support of Irish nationalists, the Dublin
     government and the SDLP, for partition. It is in that context
     that the Sunningdale Agreement of 1973, the power-sharing
     Executive of 1974, the Hillsborough Treaty of 1985 and the
     Brooke Talks of 1991 should be viewed. All have been
     instruments which serve the preservation of partition as a
policy end.

     All seek to address and treat the consequences of partition
     while leaving the root cause of strive and conflict
untouched.

     In 1969 the Dublin government, in a letter to the United
     Nations Security Council, correctly stated that the
     intervention of British troops was not "...likely to restore
peaceful conditions and certainly not in the long term."

     This has held true before and since partition and is still a
fact today.

     British rule in Ireland and conflict have been and are
synonymous.

     Today, the voices raised for peace n Ireland are many. Yet,
     there is an almost complete absence of the political will to
     publicly identify, let alone to tackle, the source of the
conflict.

     What is, in effect, being advocated is not peace but simply a
     program to politically stabilize and perpetuate partition.
     Peace is, however, not simply the absence of war or conflict.
     It means also, as we noted above, the existence of conditions
     which eradicate the causes of war or conflict. Only on that
basis can permanent peace rest.

     Partition not only defies the accepted norms of democratic
     principles, it simply does not work by any universally
accepted standards.

Social and economic consequences of partition

     Apart from the political conflict and sectarian divisions
     which partition reinforced, the social and economic
     consequences have been disastrous for working people North
and South. As the New Ireland Forum stated:

     "The division of the island has been a source of continuing
     costs, especially for trade and development in border areas,
     but in general also to the two separate administrations which
     have been pursuing separate economic policies on a small
     island with shared problems and resources. The North was not
     a natural economic or administrative unit and its separation
     from the rest of the island, resulting in separate approaches
     rather than a single policy for each sector, without
     provision even for joint planning or capital investment
     programs, had heavy economic penalties...In addition, there
     has been duplication of effort at official and private level
     and an absence of economies of scale in the transport,
     tourism and energy sectors and in the health and education
services."

     Partition has also led to job discrimination (as unionists
     tried to perpetuate their majority) and the waste of millions
     of pounds on 'security' every year. The separation of the two
     economies has also contributed to the external dependency of
     both states, which has resulted in levels of industrial
     underdevelopment, unemployment, emigration and poverty, in
the 32 Counties, which are way above European norms.

     Partition has allowed social backwardness to prevail
     throughout Ireland. The creation of two states, both of which
     were dominated by the most conservative elements on the
     island set back social progress for decades.  The position of
     women in the two states, the ban on divorce in the 26
     Counties, and the degree of clerical control or influence in
     both states, even to this day, in areas of education, health
     and other public policy are further signs of the stagnation
     which partition helps to sustain. A new united Ireland would
     of necessity be pluralistic and would allow for the
     development of a tolerant, open society which would respect
     the freedom of conscience and freedom of choice of the
individual.

     The recognition and acceptance of the fundamental facts about
     the partition of Ireland and the development of a strategy
based upon them is the starting point of the resolution.

     Above all else, the pursuit of a democratic solution capable
     of making peace self-sustaining is dependent on the
     recognition of these facts by a British government. Failing
     that, sufficient political pressure should be brought to bear
     on the British government to induce it to act in accordance
     with the logic of those facts by accepting that partition has
     failed and that the only realistic option is to finally
     recognize the right of the Irish people as a whole to
     self-determination. If there is to be a genuine debate about
     peace these are the fundamental issues to be addressed. It is
     only in that context that the debate about all of the other
     problems which beset us can take on a meaningful form and
     produce policies and measures which can realistically seek
their resolution.

5.  CONDITIONS FOR DEMOCRACY AND PEACE

     The search for peace in Ireland is everyone's responsibility.
     In particular it is the responsibility for the
     representatives of organized society -- the political
     parties, the churches, trade unionists, leaders of industry,
     the women's movement, cultural organizations and the medial.
     Specifically, it is the responsibility of the two 'sovereign'
     powers, London and Dublin.  They have the power to effect the
necessary change.

     And in today's 'global village' it is also an international
responsibility.

     Peace as an aspiration or expressed only in terms of popular
     desire is of itself of limited use only. The achievement of
peace requires a peace process.

     Peace, to be both achievable and sustainable, must have as
     its foundation democracy, of which national
     self-determination is the cornerstone. The exercise of the
     right to national self-determination is the core from which
     flows the ability to promote, exercise and defend all other
rights.

     The criteria by which any initiative which claims peace as
     its end is to be judged is the degree to which it promotes
     the conditions in which the right to national
self-determination can be exercised.

     An end to conflict is not of itself peace. In the Irish
     experience to date it has represented but a pause -- a
postponement of conflict for a decade or a generation.

     An end to the conflict must of course be an objective. But to
     have any lasting value it must be in the context of a peace
process which eradicates the cause of the conflict.

     British rule in Ireland and conflict have been and are
synonymous.

     British rule in Ireland and peace are incompatible.

     The long, tragic, bitter and cyclical experience of the
     population of this island bear accurate, abundant and
irrefutable evidence of that.

     It follows that the creation of conditions in which peace can
     be made permanent in Ireland must involve at some future date
     the removal of British interference from the political
equation in Ireland.

     The elements which are needed to bring about conditions for
peace are:

(i) A British government which makes the ending of partition it
policy end'

(ii) A Dublin government which has the same policy;

(iii) Co-operation between the British an Dublin governments to
bring about their joint purpose in the shortest possible time
consistent with obtaining maximum consent to the process and
minimizing costs of every kind;

(iv) Democracy and practicality demands that this be done in
consultation and co-operation with the representatives of the
Irish minority, the Northern unionists, as well as with the
representatives of the Northern nationalists. In effect a process
of national reconciliation.

     These are the requirements towards which those who claim
     peace as their end should work. These are the criteria
against which any claim to peace as an end should be made.

6.  ARMED CONFLICT IN IRELAND

     Violence in Ireland is nothing new. There has been recurring
     conflict here ever since British interference began; it has
     happened as a direct result of that interference. Over recent
     years those politicians who support British rule in Ireland
     have focused only on republican violence and have dismissed
     British and pro-British violence as merely a response to IRA
     actions. The facts of the last 23 years undermine that
argument.

     At the start of the present phase of the Anglo-Irish
     conflict, as at the time of the Home Rule crisis in 1912, it
     was unionism and the British state which introduced violence
     and the threat of violence into the political situation.
     Having for 50 years in maintained the Six Counties a state
     founded on violence against the nationalist population the
     unionist establishment was faced in the late 1960s with a
     peaceful campaign for democratic rights. At a time when the
     IRA was dormant the forces of the state -- the regular RUC
     and RUC Special Constabulary -- together with unofficial
     loyalist forces, reacted to that campaign with brute force,
     claiming the first fatal victims of the conflict and carrying
out pogroms against nationalist districts.

     The British army was introduced by the British government in
     1969, not a response to the IRA -- which was then virtually
     non-existent as a military organization -- but to shore up a
     political and security crisis brought about by the violent
unionist reaction to the civil rights campaign.

     It was seen to be in Britain's interest to maintain partition
     and the Northern state; the stability of the Northern state
     seemed threatened; therefore the British government
     intervened directly.  This, and not the protection of the
     nationalist community, was the motivation for the
     reintroduction of troops. In previous decades when there had
     been loyalist and RUC assaults on the nationalist community
     the British state had seen no need to intervene directly as
no threat to its position existed.

     In the period from 1969 to 1971 (when the IRA killed the
     first British soldier to die in this period of war) the
     nationalist community was subjected to repeated
     RUC/loyalist/British army attacks. It was in that context
     that the present phase of armed struggle by the IRA began.
     Armed conflict in the North per-dated the start of the IRA
campaign.

     As in all wars it is civilians who have suffered most.  The
     majority of civilian deaths, most of them nationalists, have
     been caused by British forces and loyalists. Over 90 per cent
     of those killed by loyalists and 55 per cent of those killed
     by British crown forces have been civilians. When the use of
     loyalist paramilitaries by the British as unofficial death
     squads is taken into account a truer picture of the impact of
     British violence in Ireland is seen. This is the tragedy
     which has been perpetuated by the failure of successive
     British government, and not any section of the Irish people,
     nationalist or unionist, which is responsible for continuing
death and injuries in the political conflict in our country.

ARMED STRUGGLE


     Armed struggle has, throughout history and in all parts of
     the globe, been seen as a legitimate component of peoples'
     resistance to foreign oppression. In Ireland, it was armed
     struggle which created the conditions for the removal of
     British jurisdiction over the 26 Counties and the emergence
of a separate (if truncated) Irish state.

     However, armed struggle is recognized by republicans to be an
     option of last resort when all other avenues to pursue
freedom have been attempted and suppressed.

     It must be recognized that there has been no consistent
     constitutional strategy to pursue a national democracy in
     Ireland. Certainly, there has been no consistent and
     principled strategy advanced during the last 20 years of
continuous conflict.

     Objective evaluations of the armed struggle, including those
     of the British government, recognize that its history to date
     indicates that it is likely to be sustained for the
foreseeable future.

     In these circumstances there is an onus on those who proclaim
     that the armed struggle is counter-productive to advance a
     credible alternative. Such an alternative would be welcome
     across the island but nowhere more than in the oppressed
     nationalist areas of the Six Counties which have borne the
     brunt of British rule since partition and particularly for
     over 20 years past.  The development of such an alternative
would be welcomed by Sinn Fein.

7.  THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT

     British propaganda now claims that while 'preferring' to keep
     the Six County statelet within the 'United Kingdom' it has no
"selfish strategic or economic" reason for doing so.

     British preference in relation to matters internal to Ireland
     holds no validity against the preference of the clear
     majority of the Irish people for national independence as
expressed for generations.

     Moreover, notwithstanding Britain's alleged lack of 'selfish
     strategic or economic' reasons for maintaining partition
should go:

o  It defies the wishes of the Irish people as a whole;

o  It rejects the wishes of the population of in Britain as
expressed in opinion poll after opinion poll;

o  It founts international law;

o  It is undemocratic;

o  It is permanently abnormal and can only be maintained by the
most extraordinary means;

o  It simply does not work by any universally accepted standards;


o  Its consequences have made victims of -- in greater or lesser
degree -- the entire Irish nation for generations; North and
South; nationalist and unionist;

o  It has created a generation of casualties in the Six Counties;


o  It perpetuates conditions in which conflict is actual or
inevitable;

o  It cannot produce lasting peace.

     Today, the British government, maintains partition in
     response, it claims, to the wishes of the unionist people.
     They back up this stance with misleading propaganda about a
     blood bath should they leave.  They have now added to this
     scare claim the spurious argument that while they prefer the
     union they have 'no selfish strategic or economic reason' for
     maintaining partition. The British government cannot have it
     both ways. It cannot on the one had claim a 'preference' for
     maintaining the union while on the other hand claiming no
     strategic or economic interests in being in Ireland.
     Governments act out of their perceived political interests
and preferences. The British government is no exception.

     Formal British government policy as contained in the
     Hillsborough Agreement -- the 'unity by consent' formula --
     which is also ostensibly British Labor Party policy, supports
the maintenance of the status quo of partition.

     As has been stated by the late Cardinal Tomas O Fiaich:

"The present policy of the British government -- that there will
be no change in the status of Northern Ireland while the majority
want British rule to remain -- is no policy at all. It means you
do nothing and it means that the loyalists in the North are given
no encouragement to make any move of any kind. It is an
encouragement to sit tight..."

     This stance is an attempt by the British government to
     minimize its responsibility for resolving the crisis and to
     shift that task onto the shoulders of the Irish people --
nationalist and unionist alike.

     Britain created the problem in Ireland. Britain has the major
     responsibility and role in initiating a strategy which will
     bring a democratic resolution and lasting peace. That must
     involve, within the context of accepting the national rights
     of the majority of the Irish people, a British government
     joining the ranks of the persuaders in seeking to obtain the
     consent of a majority of people in the North to the
     constitutional, political and financial arrangements needed
for a United Ireland.

     Without the explicit expression of a desire on the British
     government's part to end partition unionists are unlikely to
     be influenced and will remain intransigent, in the confidence
     that the British government will continue to underwrite their
contrived majority with force and finance.

8.  THE DUBLIN GOVERNMENT

     Notwithstanding the overall responsibility of successive
     British governments for the creation and maintenance of
     conditions which have sustained the past 20 years of
     continuous conflict Dublin has a clear responsibility and a
     major role to play in providing the democratic resolution
     which will bring lasting peace. It possesses the resources;
     the political and diplomatic accesses the world centers of
power.

     For the greater part of the 26-County state's existence,
     successive Dublin governments have adopted a negative
attitude in regard to the issue of national democracy.

     For most of that period the issue of the British-imposed
     border has been addressed largely for purposes of electoral
gain.

     Since Hillsborough, we now have a firm hands-on approach from
Dublin in support of the partition of our country.

     Sinn Fein would argue that if there is to be peace in Ireland
     a Dublin government will have to assume its national
responsibility.

     Upholding that responsibility must involve the Dublin
government in developing a strategy aimed at:

o  Persuading the British government that the partition of Ireland
has been a disastrous failure;

o  Persuading the unionists of the benefits of Irish reunification
and seeking their views on the constitutional, political and
financial arrangements needed for a united Ireland;

o  Persuading the international community through the use of
international forums and institutions to support Irish national
rights;

o  In the interim, promoting and defending the democratic rights
of the population of the Six Counties;

o  Resisting further erosion of Irish national integrity by the
deletion  or dilution of that claim as contained in the 1937
Constitution.

9.  A STRATEGY FOR CHANGE


     In the above context the obvious response in Ireland to the
     continuing division of our country and our people by British
     government policy should be the development of the maximum
     degree of unity and action possible in the peaceful pursuit
     of democracy and peace.  Sinn Fein has already commenced this
     process, with the few resources we have at our disposal. We
     will continue to argue in both the national and international
     arena for a British withdrawal and a solution based on an
Irish national democracy.

AIMS


     To secure maximum national and international political and
popular support for the principles:

o  The recognition by the British government that the Irish people
have the right to national self-determination;

o  That the British government change it current policy to one of
ending partition and handing our sovereignty to an all-Ireland
government whose selection would be a democratic matter for the
Irish nation;

o  That the future of the unionists lies in this context and that
the British government has a responsibility so to influence
unionist attitudes;

o  That a part of this process the Dublin and London governments
should consult together to seek agreement on the policy objective
of ending partition.

    Having agreed this both governments should issue a public
    statement outlining the steps they intend taking to bring
    about a peaceful and orderly British political and military
withdrawal from Ireland within a specific period.

     If the British government refuses to do the above then the
Dublin government should strive:

1. (a) To win international support and commitment for the Irish
demand through a campaign utilizing to the full Irish diplomatic
skills and resources and maximizing the good will which the Irish
nation enjoys internationally;

   (b) To mobilize support for the Irish demands among Irish
   people and descendants of Irish people exiled abroad,
especially in the USA, Britain and Australia;

   (c) To utilize every avenue available in international forums,
   including the United Nations and the CSCE in support of Irish
demands;

   (d) To mobilize political and popular support in Britain
   itself, to create conditions in which the right to Irish
national self-determination can be secured;

   (e) To initiate a debate leading to dialog with Northern
   unionists opinion on the democratic nature of national
   self-determination. To assure the unionists community of full
   commitment to their civil and religious rights and to persuade
   them of the need for their participation in building an Irish
society based on equality and national reconciliation.

2. (a) To launch a concerted national campaign to mobilize popular
support for the above in every aspect of Irish life, whether
social or economic and including cultural, community, religious
and sporting organizations and trade unions. To review all
treaties which commit Dublin to cooperation with the British on
issues such as extradition with a view to ending these
commitments;

   (b) To launch a concerted international campaign to mobilize
   political and economic support for the above principles and
   objectives. As part of this campaign particular attention to be
paid to mobilizing British opinion;

   (c) In conjunction with the above to organize through concerted
   political action, nationally and internationally the defense of
   democratic social and economic rights, and to improve social
and economic conditions for Irish citizens;

   (d) To establish a democratic structure by which the above
strategy can be agreed, implemented and overseen.

10.  THE ROLE OF THE NATIONALIST PARTIES


     Those parties in Ireland which describe themselves as
     nationalist, including Fianna Fail and the SDLP, wield
     considerable political influence, be it in the corridors of
     Westminster, Washington or Brussels. This, of itself, places
     on them a responsibility to forcefully and continuously
represent the interests of the nationalist people.

     These parties are in a position to harness the considerable
     sympathy for Irish reunification and sovereignty which exists
     in Europe and further afield. It is essential that they move
     decisively to implement their stated objectives and policies.
     If the Six Counties is regarded by the SDLP and the Dublin
     government as a non-viable context for a resolution of the
     conflict let them firmly and explicitly reject partitionist
scenarios.

     No serious international observer believes that Britain's
     role in Ireland is simply that of 'honest broker' between the
     'warring factions'. The SDLP and the Dublin government are in
     a position of international legitimacy where they can, with
     considerable credibility, reject this spurious
interpretation.

     If the nationalist parties wish to believe that Britain has
     'no selfish interest' in remaining in Ireland they should
     demand that Britain actually carries out that statement to
     its logical conclusion, and formally accept the right of the
Irish people to self-determination.

     Accepting that the pathway to peace will not be quick and
     easy, these parties have a responsibility in Ireland to
     highlight any abuses of human rights committed directly or
     indirectly as a result of Britain's continued presence in
     Ireland. They should, in particular, demand that the
     Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe should
     monitor the abuse of human rights currently being perpetrated
in the Six Counties.

11.  THE UNIONISTS


     Unionists represent around one fifth of the Irish people and
     will thus have a considerable impact, be it negative or
     positive, on the peace process proposed in this document. We
     recognize that peace in Ireland requires a settlement of the
     long-standing conflict between Irish nationalism and Irish
     unionism. We would like to see that conflict, often bloody,
     replaced by a process of national reconciliation, a
constructive dialog and debate.

     At present there is one overwhelming obstacle to the
     commencement of that debate. That is, the British guarantee
     of the artificially constructed unionist majority in the Six
     Counties. These circumstances mean that Unionists have no
reason to engage in debate for as John Hume has said:

"The whole thrust of the guarantee is that it is a sectarian
guarantee... it is a guarantee of perpetual sectarianism. When the
state came into being it was set up on a basis of a sectarian
headcount. That having been done the British government then said
'We guarantee you can stay with us as long as the majority want
to.' By doing that they trapped the unionists into perpetual
sectarianism because in effect what they were saying is 'In order
to maintain your power and privilege you must behave as a
sectarian bloc!' And that's exactly how unionism has behaved. No
other group of people in the same circumstances would behave any
differently.

"If one is to break down sectarianism one has to remove that
guarantee... The British should join the ranks of the
persuaders."

     John Hume should follow the logic of his analysis, on which
     he has failed to act, and work to remove the British
guarantee of the unionist veto.

     If there is to be movement towards conditions in which the
     debate about national reconciliation can take place, the
     British government-bestowed unionist veto needs to be
     removed. If, in the interim, a British government recognizes
     the failure of partition and its Six-County state that would
help create the conditions for dialog.

     In the meantime, while we recognize the obstacles to a
     unionist-nationalist dialog, we believe it is necessary to
     break out of the present conception of politics prevalent in
     Ireland, where one person's gain is conceived automatically
     as another person's loss. The Protestant people of the Six
     Counties who are presently committed to a pro-British
     unionism have nothing to fear from a democratic and secular
     Ireland. We can all gain from a democratic settlement. We all
lose from a continuation of the present impasse.

     Irish republicans realize that to achieve national
     reconciliation the deep fears held by people must be
     addressed. We need to address those fears honestly, going
     beyond political rhetoric to the real underlying issues.
     Democratic debate may be improbable, but not impossible,
     under present circumstances, it necessity is nonetheless
     urgent. The republican tradition will play a constructive
     role in the debate for a new Ireland, which "Catholic,
Protestant and Dissenter" can all claim as their own.

12.  THE EUROPEAN DIMENSION


     Historic changes are taking place in Europe East and West
     which will have profound implications for the island of
     Ireland. The break-up of the USSR and the pro-independence
     development in Eastern Europe opens up a completely new phase
     of history. There is a process of economic and political
     restructuring which has raised the issue of national
     self-determination.  Ireland with its colonial experience has
     a keen interest in this process and can gain valuable
lessons.

     Irish republicanism has its roots in the crucible of Europe
     during the great French Revolution. The current and profound
     changes demand an equivalent breadth of vision and
     willingness to innovate. Irish republicans will not be found
wanting.

     Along side the demand for political democracy in Eastern
     Europe there is the economic restructuring contained within
     EC integration after 1992. The stated aim of both processes
     is to remove artificial barriers and restrictions on the
     movement of people and goods. German reunification is
     underway. The partition of Ireland, equally anomalous in
     international law, and equally repugnant to the majority of
Irish people needs to be addressed in the same way.

     Within Europe there is a popular consensus, reflected even by
     some governments, that Irish reunification is not only
     inevitable but a prerequisite on the road to a durable peace.
     It is essential that the Dublin government galvanize that
     opinion and translate it through the political mechanisms of
     the EC, into practical proposals. Already various EC reports
     have recognized the 'anomalous' status of Britain's remaining
jurisdiction in Ireland.

     While we travel the road to peace, continued abuse of human
     rights seem inevitably to continue. The Conference of
     Security and Cooperation in Europe is empowered to check
     abuses of human rights in any European country. Britain
     should not be allowed to hide behind the argument that human
rights are the exclusive preserve of each government.

     The political and economic transformation of Europe provides
     a golden opportunity for Ireland to finally resolve its
     British problem and embark on a process of economic and
     political reunification and transformation to the benefit of
all its people.

13.  THE UNITED NATIONS


     By any objective international standards the conflict in the
     North represents a failure of the normal political process.
     Successive policies implemented by both the London and Dublin
     governments have patiently failed to produce a democratic
     solution. There is little reason to be confident in the
     ability and will of both governments to resolve the stalemate
     in the foreseeable future of their own accord. In view of the
     intolerable consequences which flow from such a failure, a
     peaceful resolution may entail international cooperation
through the agency of the United Nations.

     International law and the United Nations Charter addresses
     the right of self-determination to peoples rather than to
     governments. If the governments concerned fail to recognize
     those inalienable rights, the people may seek to implement
     that right directly. The United Nations Secretary-General and
     the UN's Decolonization Committee share a duty with the
     member states (through the Friendly Resolutions Declaration)
     to create conditions win which the "freely expressed will of
the peoples concerned" can be reliably ascertained.

     A necessary precondition for such free expression of the
     people's will is the removal of all forms of repression by
     the state apparatus of the administering power. IN the
     context of Ireland this would require not only the abolition
     of emergency laws and special courts in the Six-Country
     statelet and the 26-County state, but also the removal of
     every barrier created to enforce and maintain the partition
     of the national territory of Ireland.

     In this context it is incumbent on all those, in Ireland and
     abroad who seek peace and democracy in Ireland to urge the UN
     Secretary-General to exercise that duty as a contribution to
     ending the political stalemate in the north of Ireland.  This
     would not be an instant panacea but would concentrate the
     minds of those in a position of power and influence to seek a
     definitive resolution of the conflict. In this spirit, the UN
     Secretary-General should request annual reports from the
     British government in accordance with Article 73 of the
     Charter, on its role in Ireland, Furthermore the
     Decolonisation Committee should undertake as it is empowered
     to do, an annual review of the toll caused by the partition
     of Ireland. Intervention by the United Nations need not and
     should not take the form of the introduction of UN forces
     into the Six Counties. Experience in other conflicts has
     shown that such a 'temporary presence' would become
     'permanent' and the deployment would have a political bias.
     Their subsequent withdrawal would become a point of
     contention and there would be a rerun of the blood
bath-threat scenario.

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE


     As the process of withdrawal is underway any deadlocks
     encountered can be dealt with through a number of options
     open to the London and Dublin governments. During the
     transitional period joint application to the UN by both
     governments for assistance can be considered as can a
     unilateral application by Dublin. In that context the United
     Nations can be requested to convene an international
     conference on the democratic resolution of the conflict in
     Ireland. This bid to break the deadlock would involve
     representatives of all political views in Ireland meeting
     together, along with international experts on decolonisation
     and conflict resolution. It would examine these issues and
     the need for constitutional guarantees for the economic and
     political rights of all the people of Ireland, with express
     protections for the rights of minorities in a united Ireland.
     Participation by the United Nations, as guarantor of respect
     for international law and fundamental human rights, could
     assist discussions to lead to positive action. As a body with
     the experience and expertise necessary to assist all parties
     to resolve their differences, the United Nations has an
     indispensable role to pay in creating a democratic and
peaceful future for the whole of Ireland.

14.  SUMMARY


1.  Peach requires conditions of democracy, freedom and justice to
eradicate the causes of war.

2.  The Irish people have the same right to sovereignty and
nationhood exercised throughout history and recognized in
international law as any other nation. The partition of Ireland
contravenes recognized international norms and frustrates national
democracy and reconciliation in the country.

3.  British rule in Ireland lacks democratic legitimacy either
domestically or internationally and has rested predominantly on
division and coercion. The British government should recognize the
historical failure of the partition of Ireland in 1921.

4.  The Dublin government should assume its responsibility to gain
the reunification of the country, in cooperation with the British
government or, if necessary, independently.

5.  The unionist minority in Ireland has nothing to fear from a
united Ireland. Withdrawal of the unionist veto will open the
possibility of a constructive dialog with the rest of the Irish
people.

6.  Irish republicans are determined to play a constructive role
in building a national democracy in Ireland when a British
government is convinced either by continuing armed resistance or
by effective unarmed constitutional strategy to adopt a policy of
withdrawal from Ireland.

7.  Ireland is a part of Europe which is undergoing an historic
process of political and economic transformation. This will be
incomplete while the Anglo-Irish conflict continues. The partition
of Ireland and the British claim to jurisdiction over the Six
Counties is a European issue. Sinn Fein seeks a democratic and
sovereign Ireland which will defend the interests of all sections
of the Irish nation.

8.  The UN has the authority and mandate to monitor a
decolonisation process in Ireland. As an interim measure Sinn Fein
would propose that the UN Secretary-General request annual reports
from the British government on its role in Ireland and conducts a
yearly review of the consequences of the continued partition of
Ireland.

Newsgroups: alt.activism