BS: IRA Apologizes

Subject: The IRA Apologizes
From: The Pooka
Date: 16 Jul 02 - 11:16 PM

So, Mudcatters who are interested: what do you think?

(*I* apologize for pasting so lengthy an article rather than blueclicky-ing; but I gather such news stories may disappear from their websites pretty quickly - ?)

IRA Issues Apology for Deaths
By SHAWN POGATCHNIK
Associated Press Writer

July 16 2002, 7:49 PM EDT

LONDON -- The Irish Republican Army issued an unprecedented apology Tuesday for hundreds of civilian deaths during 30 years of bombings and other attacks, a surprise gesture that could ease a crisis threatening the survival of Northern Ireland's government.

Prime Minister Tony Blair's government quickly welcomed the strength of the IRA statement, saying it comes at a time when the peace process forged in 1998 is under severe strain from continuing sectarian violence.

The apology marks the anniversary of Bloody Friday, when the IRA set off more than 20 bombs within an hour in Belfast on July 21, 1972, killing seven civilians and two soldiers and wounding scores.

Although the IRA has stated its regret in the past for individual acts, it has not previously issued so sweeping an apology, nor was it required by the 1998 peace accord.

The statement released through An Phoblacht-Republican News, the weekly IRA-Sinn Fein newspaper in Dublin, said the apology was aimed at improving the atmosphere in the territory's peace process.

But David Trimble, leader of Northern Ireland's biggest Protestant party, the Ulster Unionists, and head of the Catholic-Protestant government, had reservations.

"It is quite significant that this statement says nothing at all about the recent violence that the IRA has been involved in, nothing about what their future conduct is going to be," Trimble said in the House of Commons.

"Consequently this statement does not absolve the prime minister from the need for him to make clear what the government will do in the event of breaches," of the cease-fire by the IRA.

Trimble has warned the power-sharing arrangement would unravel if Blair doesn't set a tougher policy on alleged violations of the IRA cease-fire.

The outlawed organization, which is responsible for some 1,500 deaths, also acknowledged the grief and pain of the families of the combatants -- police, soldiers and paramilitaries -- killed during the violence.

Its statement said the future would not be found in "denying collective failures and mistakes, or closing minds and hearts to the plight of those who had been hurt. That includes all of the victims of the conflict, combatants and noncombatants."

In Washington, Richard Haass, the Bush administration's point man for Northern Ireland, called the IRA announcement significant.

In an interview, Haass it was important for the IRA and other parties to the conflict to deal with the past as part of the healing and normalization process.

At the same time, Haass said it would be helpful for the IRA and other paramilitary forces to "permanently giving up option of violence, no longer acquiring new arms and decommissioning the arms that they possess."

Britain's Cabinet secretary for Northern Ireland, John Reid, welcomed "the unprecedented strength of the apology" but also made clear that the IRA's future conduct was "the real test."

"The words we have heard today are, I believe, more persuasive than the IRA has so far got themselves to utter," Reid said in Parliament. "I strongly hope that the statement means that at last the IRA has turned its face unequivocally against violence.

" If they have, Northern Ireland has a bright future ahead of it. But the real test is whether the transition from violence to democracy continues and in so doing gives confidence to the whole process," he told the House of Commons.

The IRA gesture was designed to assuage Protestant anger over the continued involvement of the IRA linked-Sinn Fein Party in Northern Ireland's joint Protestant-Catholic government.

Protestant political parties accuse the IRA of repeatedly violating its 1997 cease-fire, and Blair is expected to make a statement in the next week about the status of that cease-fire and the survival of the peace process.

The IRA has made other surprising gestures at critical moments in the peace process, particularly its decision last October to begin scrapping weapons in cooperation with international diplomats. That move, followed by a second disarmament act in April, has helped preserve wavering Protestant support for the Trimble-led government.

However, opinion polls suggest a narrow majority of Protestants oppose keeping Sinn Fein in the four-party coalition and deeply distrust the IRA's motives.

"While it was not our intention to injure or kill noncombatants, the reality is that on this and on a number of other occasions, that was the consequence of our actions," it said.

The future "will not be achieved by creating a hierarchy of victims in which some are deemed more or less worthy than others."

"On this anniversary, we are endeavoring to fulfill this responsibility to those we have hurt," it said.

"The IRA is committed unequivocally to the search for freedom, justice and peace in Ireland," the statement said.

Jeffrey Donaldson a leading Protestant critic of the peace accord, called the statement a "half-hearted apology" that doesn't go far enough.

Copyright 2002 Associated Press

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Jul 02 - 11:25 PM

Shucks, thought it was about the Internal Revenue folk. They take my shorts every year and they can eat them too.

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 17 Jul 02 - 02:50 AM

I'm one of those Internal Revenue (OK, in the UK) but I've never taken anyone's shorts, much less desired to eat them.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: Jock Morris
Date: 17 Jul 02 - 03:53 AM

Speaking purely on a personal level, I'm very pleased that the IRA have seen fit to issue this apology. This is a huge step forward in the Northern Ireland peace process. For the IRA leaders to have been able to issue such a statement there must have been a huge shift in opinion in the grassroots of the organisation, which can only be a good thing. I now have a real hope that me see peace in Northern Ireland within the next few years.

Scott

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: alanabit
Date: 17 Jul 02 - 08:02 AM

I am glad too. I do not know what brought it about and I am not going to try and judge. What I do know for sure is that the last thing the people need there is a new injection of cynicism. I am hoping for the best.

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: GUEST,JB
Date: 17 Jul 02 - 08:34 AM

I bet all those dead people are dancing in their graves at this wonderful piece of news. It would have been far better if the events which are the subject of this apology had never taken place. Same goes for the other side.

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: Dave Wynn
Date: 17 Jul 02 - 08:46 AM

I am not partizan about this problem but terror is terror. But I bet the partizan types think that some terror organisations are OK while others are not. These types will advocate the pursuit of one terror organisation to the bitter end using massive war machines while putting money in the palms of noraid or orange organisations et al.

Stinks

Spot (unusually forthright for a small dog but political apology's make me puke).

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: Big Mick
Date: 17 Jul 02 - 09:40 AM

In my years of political and social activism, I have always had a problem with people whose only response to these types of things have been statements about "it never should have happened" or "the dead wish they weren't dead". These attitudes only serve to extend the very thing they purport to hate. Another unproductive attitude is the one which goes something like "terror is terror". Tell that to the early American revolutionaries whose actions gave us the U.S.A. Tell that to Nelson Mandela, James Connolly, or pick yer own hero/terrorist. They problem with these types of attitudes is that they lend nothing to the process of resolution. It is easy to point out what has been wrong, the events are there for all to see. No big talent involved. The facts are that there are, and always will be struggles in this world. Your view of the fighters will depend on which side you come down on. But one thing is an absolute, and that is peace. The process of attaining peace and democracy is one of give and take, negotiation and reconcillitation. My views on the land of my ancestors are pretty well known. They have been shaped by years of exposure to people who are, for the most part, of the Irish Republican persuasion. Of late (the last 5 years or so) they have also been mightily affected by my exposure through The Mudcat to my friends from the other side of this divide of English and Northern Irish Protestant/Loyalist upbringing. My views of what constitues a just resolution and a bright future for the children of the north of Ireland haven't changed much. But my views as to how that should be achieved has very definitely evolved. My friends here have shown me that peace will only come from within the 6 counties. It will come from those who live there, people of honor and good faith, from all sides, who are committed to a just peace for all the people of the north of Ireland.

Having set the stage, now let me say that this is a wonderful step. Once again Sinn Fein has taken a very big step. I can only hope for a reciprocal step from the Ulster Unionists, et al. I believe that Trimble recognizes this for what it is. I have great respect for what he has done to date to walk the very tricky path he is walking. I believe that Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness, et al are doing amazing things within their worlds as well. One among here was raised in Belfast, in fact a number were. I ask the question: Did you ever believe that in your lifetime the people of the North would have come so far down the peace path? This is another very important step. As your cousin across the Atlantic, I would ask you to continue on and don't let the naysayers and cynics turn you. The path to peace is a very tough path to walk. But if you successfully negotiate it, you will have shown the world what can be achieved by people of good will and honorable intentions in one of the most entrenched conflicts in history.

And to my friends from places other than the north of Ireland, I defend your right to the debate, and to your viewpoints. But if you don't want to be considered naieve, or just another plastic paddy with no real understanding, then learn to listen to the sides and make pronouncements that support the ultimate goal of peace, rather than those that offer no solutions and only serve to fan the flames and reignite the fire.

Off the soapbox,

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Jul 02 - 09:42 AM

Here's the full IRA statement, from The Guardian website:

Wednesday July 17, 2002

Sunday July 21 marks the 30th anniversary of an IRA operation in Belfast in 1972 which resulted in nine people being killed and many more injured.

While it was not our intention to injure or kill non-combatants, the reality is that on this and on a number of other occasions, that was the consequence of our actions.

It is, therefore, appropriate on the anniversary of this tragic event, that we address all of the deaths and injuries of non-combatants caused by us.

We offer our sincere apologies and condolences to their families.

There have been fatalities amongst combatants on all sides. We also acknowledge the grief and pain of their relatives.

The future will not be found in denying collective failures and mistakes or closing minds and hearts to the plight of those who have been hurt. That includes all of the victims of the conflict, combatants and non-combatants.

It will not be achieved by creating a hierarchy of victims in which some are deemed more or less worthy than others.

The process of conflict resolution requires the equal acknowledgement of the grief and loss of others. On this anniversary, we are endeavouring to fulfil this responsibility to those we have hurt.

The IRA is committed unequivocally to the search for freedom, justice and peace in Ireland. We remain totally committed to the peace process and to dealing with the challenges and difficulties which this presents. This includes the acceptance of past mistakes and of the hurt and pain we have caused to others."

Signed P O'Neill, Irish Republican Publicity Bureau, Dublin.

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Jul 02 - 09:48 AM

There's still an element of hypocrisy in the suggestion that non-combatant deaths were somehow accidental, whereas in most cases the truth is that they may have been seen as regrettable, but predicted and inevitable, which means intentional in normal language.

But it's a step towards reconciliation, and as such to be welcomed. And it is a step that has never been taken by governments who have been and continue to be responsible for far higher death tolls of non-combatants in past and continuing conflicts, such as the British or the Americans or the Israelis or Palestinians.

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: greg stephens
Date: 17 Jul 02 - 09:55 AM

Anybody who doesnt welcome this fully should have a little think. Any idiot can pick holes in the statement on logical or moral or political grounds if they so wish....but this isn't the time surely. It's a move, isn't it? It may not go as far as you wish, in which case offer them your hand, dont turn away. All conflicts breed horrors. That doesnt mean all conflicts have to last forever.

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: GUEST,Patrish
Date: 17 Jul 02 - 09:56 AM

I had written a reply to this thread that I deleted. Why is that - well, I realised that it was not a thought out piece of work - more a shouting off that would mean nothing to anyone but me. I have been involved in an IRA event - not of my own choosing, just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. I saw and heard a lot of things I will never forget. I hope I still have the ability to be tolerant, especially when someone makes the first step and apologises. I dont know that it will mean a lot to those who have really suffered, but if it means something just one person, then perhaps it's a start.
Tolerance
Tolerance
love Patrish xx

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: Big Mick
Date: 17 Jul 02 - 10:08 AM

Patrish, it is people like you who will bring peace. That was a very brave statement and I salute you from afar for your bravery and your heart.

With all the very best regards,

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: Fiolar
Date: 17 Jul 02 - 02:10 PM

The hard liners on both sides will never accept peace unless it is on their terms and that is true no matter what country is involved. Just take a look around the world today and check on the various news items. The IRA statement has been welcomed by many, but have a look at the headlines in today's Daily Express and ponder. Amazing that no matter what the IRA try to do, it's wrong. If an apology is offered, "it doesn't go far enough." If no apology, then they are callous unfeeling bastards. As for the Peace Process, of course according to some they are breaking it regularly. In passing, terrorism is not just a perogative of small groups. If used by the State it is not called that but a fight against evil or what have you. Trust some Mudcatters saw the recent Panorama programmes on the BBC and wondered just what was being done in the name of democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 17 Jul 02 - 02:49 PM

Don't apologize...

Just feckin' stop!

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 17 Jul 02 - 03:27 PM

One of the most difficult things in life is compromise. It entails sacrificing a significant portion of what you know to be right in deference to your opponents beliefs. It never results in complete satisfaction on anyone's part, and it is more difficult to live with than it is to agree to. If there's to be peace in Northern Ireland, the key lies in compromise, and the first step in compromise is admitting to yourself and others that you have been wrong, at least in some cases. This seems to be what the IRA is doing. I say let the Ulstermen and the British adopt the same type of humility, and we may see an end to this particular madness in our time.

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: GUEST,Den at work
Date: 17 Jul 02 - 03:47 PM

I seem to remember seeing a Tv clip recently where Gusty Spence made a similar apology on behalf of the UVF .I'm not sure when it took place, I only caught the end of it.

I'm from N.Ireland, I'm a nationalist and my Godfather was shot dead by the Provos, now there's a scenario for you. Having said that I believe that this is a positive move by the IRA and another step down the road toward peace. Its been a long road and one with many twists and turns and we can't really see the end of it but we're getting there.

In answer to Big Mick's question, no I never thought I'd see the day where we were this close to what some people call normal life and I pray to God that it continues. Den

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: Irish sergeant
Date: 17 Jul 02 - 04:48 PM

Being from the U.S. I hesitate to add my two cents on what should be done. It appears that the I.R.A. has taken a very difficult step in moving toward peace. I only hope and pray that all parties see it as athat and continue to move toward a day when Northern ireland need fear no terrorists of any persuasion. And also, that all others inclined to war might see this example and be guided by it. Kindest regards, Neil

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: C-flat
Date: 17 Jul 02 - 05:01 PM

The big problem here is an understandable lack of trust on all sides. In recent years there has been a shift in the approach from the republican element and this is yet another example. The cynics will say it's an attempt to wrong foot their opponents and strengthen political kudos by pulling a head-line grabbing publicity stunt, while the rest of us can only hope that there's a genuine desire to take the guns out of Irish politics.
From little acorns...................

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: Big Mick
Date: 17 Jul 02 - 05:05 PM

Fiolar, don't let the public rhetoric cause you too much uneasiness. They are practicing politspeak and the interpretation (by virtue of the weak "they didn't go far enough" comment)is that the IRA, once again, has shown its committment to making the peace process work. This is very troublesome for the demagogues who banked on the hardliners in the IRA torpedoing the process. When the opposite happens, it leaves them befuddled. I believe that the honorable people on both sides see this for what it is. And that is a move to further the peace process.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: Dave Wynn
Date: 17 Jul 02 - 06:33 PM

Ok..Ok..delete what I said. You are all so reasonable and probably right. Perhaps I let my crusty cynicism rule my mouth.

I get more lessons from Mudcat than ever I did at school.

Here's to you Northern Ireland , your People and Peace.

Spot (drops head on paws and gazes thoughtfully at the fire)

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: Kernow John
Date: 17 Jul 02 - 06:33 PM

Lonesome, when you use the term British you are using too broad a brush.
I am British and I applaud the IRA for the apology.
And many times have I tried to explain to my own countrymen the wrongs committed by the English against Ireland, a period too often glossed over in our history lessons (but isn't that a fault in most countries).
I also decry and despise some of the headlines in today's press and there are many British people who feel the the same as I do.
I pray to my God that yesterday's statement hastens the day when Ireland is one land with a united people.
John

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: Big Mick
Date: 17 Jul 02 - 06:41 PM

Thanks, John, for pointing out an all too often overlooked truth. And furthermore, the broad brush should not paint all English people the same way. The north of Ireland is the last holdout of colonialism. That is the real enemy. And it isn't like the English governments are the only ones who have practiced atrocities. My own land has much to atone for. As do many others. It has been the way of it.

A bold step has been taken. I pray for a bold response. Mostly I pray for this to work so children don't have to grow in soil ruined by conflict. I hope my prayers and your prayers join together with many others.


Mick

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: GUEST,DW at work
Date: 17 Jul 02 - 06:45 PM

I've been involved in situations with people who wouldn't say sorry. They weren't pretty, and I've had to do some ugly things to make them stop. In almost all cases, the perp could give no clear reason why they were committing acts of terrorism. They had simply forgotten what the original argument was all about. Fighting was their way of life, it was all they knew and all they could do. Compromise and trust just wasn't part of thier lifestyle.

The fact that the IRA have seen fit to apologise can only throw into sharp relief those people who won't apologise, nor accept the apology at face value. Someone has to break the circle of mistrust and accusation. Why not the IRA?

DW

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Jul 02 - 08:49 PM

"The north of Ireland is the last holdout of colonialism."

Sadly not true. Last holdout of a particular type of British colonialism perhaps (though in a sense England itself is that) - but other types of colonialism by various countries and multi-national componaies are pretty rife, and if anything they are on the increase.

That's thread drift where it isn't needed, and I hope it won't turn into a discussion that would be better in another thread - but I felt the point needed making.

A real apology has to involve more than words, it has to include an attempt at some kind of restitution or repair. I think that it is quite possible that something like that might even be on the cards here in time, in some way.

And an apology for the way this whole nonsense of partition and divide-and-rule was forced upon Ireland - now that would be very appropriate from the British Government; and more especially from the Conservative Party, heirs of Randolph Churchill with his "play the Orange card". But I can't see that ever happening.

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: Big Mick
Date: 17 Jul 02 - 11:45 PM

Fair enough, Kevin. I should have made the distinction that this is the last vestige of English colonialism. Agreed on the rest of your points, as well.

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Jul 02 - 04:06 AM

A generation has grown old and tired and exhausted by the physical force struggle. Once again the people under their ageing leaders turn to parliamentary politics for a solution to 'the Irish Question'. Lets hope that this time they are not again betrayed by the politicians as they were in Redmond's day. This would inevitably bring about a turning once again to the gun by a new generation of idealistic youth determined to shape their own destiny.

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Jul 02 - 09:54 AM

Somebody's finally grown up! Bully for them. Yoo hoo, Sharon/Arafat, you listening?

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: Jimmy C
Date: 18 Jul 02 - 10:53 AM

I welcome the apology, unfortunately it will not be enough for many loyalists. The ceasefire was not enough, the destruction of arms was not enough, the commitment to the peace process was not enough so I fear the apology will be disgarded as some type of ruse. There were many civilian deaths during those awful years, ( my sister and my brother-in-law being 2 of them), other friends and people I knew were also included. The I.R.A being responsible for some, but so also were the British Army,/ U.F.F./U.D.A./Red Hand Defenders etc. Now if only they would apologise as well we may get somewhere.
There is a great article by Warren Hoge in today's New York Times that sheds a lot of light on the feelings of Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland at this time.
Unfortunately many loyalists feel that they still have the power and the majority enjoyed by their grandfathers and even their fathers, this is of course false, they make up approximately 51% of the population. Many of the younger ones are uneducated, unemployed and they still don't see the writing on the wall. The days of catholics keeping their heads low and taking whatever little perqs thay could get are over. The days of marching with their bigoted bands past catholic churches and through catholic neighbourhoods are over. They and their politicians all appear to be blind to the fact that the old days are gone,never more to return. The days of demanding action etc from the british government are also over. British Politicians don't need the loyalists vote anymore, so the "orange card" is useless. If they really want to ensure thair place in the new Northern Ireland and eventually the new Ireland they better start mending fences now or else their children and grandchildren may unfortunately pay the price for their stupidity and stubborness. It is time to wake up and smell the shamrocks.

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: Coyote Breath
Date: 18 Jul 02 - 11:12 AM

As noted above, it is a good gesture. In my opinion, the IRA sees the value of a political solution more clearly now than ever before. The peace process seems to have been tolerated by Loyalists because they were sure the IRA would cause it to fail somehow. The sectarian mayhem attendent with the "parade season" and the "issue" of Catholic school girls walking alongside a Loyalist neighborhood are seemingly the last "Orange cards" left in a marked deck.

"Well done!", I say and hope for more to come.

CB

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Jul 02 - 11:22 AM

I think the IRA statement shows how deeply influenced the IRA has been by the ANC and the struggle for peace and reconciliation in South Africa. I am not a person with allegiances to one side or the other in the Northern Ireland war. I am a peace activist (preferring to remain anonymous here for my own reasons), who has worked with the Fellowship of Reconciliation for the better part of 20 years, preparing to head off soon to Columbia with other Catholic Workers working for peace & reconciliation in that country. I was in Northern Ireland as a human rights observer in 1998 during marching season, doing similar work to what I did as a member of the Peace Brigades in El Salvador in the mid-80s, working as an election observer.

This statement by the IRA is very significant, IMO. It is significant because it demonstrates a clear understanding that the peace process has reached the stage where healing between the communities (the reconciliation part of the process) must become the main focus if the peace process is to hold.

What does this mean to the peace process? That people must begin the painful, difficult task of looking back at what they have done to others, as well as what has been done to them. This stage of the reconciliation process demands that people begin to ask for and offer forgiveness for what has been done. Without working through this stage, the war could easily erupt again, as we have seen with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which never reached this stage of the conflict resolution process, despite all the promise of the Helsinki agreement. Look to the current Israeli reoccupation of the West Bank, and you will see where that road leads.

Since the British government still has it's army of in Northern Ireland, which is still being used to pacify the local population, there is a very real continuing military threat to the nationalist community, who knows that if the IRA were to return to violence, the full brunt of the British military would be brought to bear on their community in response to that violence, just as we have seen happen with the Israeli army in the West Bank and Gaza.

It truly is the nationalist community which stands to lose everything in this process, not the unionists. If there were a return to violence tomorrow, there would be a return to the status quo favored by the unionists, which is to have the British army act as an occupying military force to pacify the nationalist community, and maintain unionist control of the economic, social, and political life of Northern Ireland.

We have seen a peace process more like the South African model than the Israeli/Palestinian model in Northern Ireland. While South Africa still faces many, many serious problems, one of them has been eliminated: apartheid. The government system of apartheid, like the colonial relationship between Ireland and Britain, stood in the way of any progressive change in South Africa. Until it was dismantled, no meaningful change could occur, and the tremendous problems faced by all the people of South Africa couldn't be dealt with in a constructive manner.

The people of Northern Ireland are in a similar bind. Until the British government's infrastructure of colonialism is dismantled in Northern Ireland, the people there will not be able to meaninfully address the pressing issues which need to be dealt with, because all their time, energy and resources keep getting drained by the battle to maintain the supremacy of the colonial infrastructure, rather than the pressing needs of Northern Ireland's citizens.

When a citizen army like the ANC or the IRA makes this sort of a statement, people should never dismiss it as meaningless, or too little too late. The issue of whether or not such a statement goes far enough, however, is a legitimate thing to debate in these circumstances if the peace process is to move forward in genuine ways.

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 18 Jul 02 - 12:46 PM

Very well said, Guest. I might add that I don't think anyone is more anxious to dismantle the "British Colonial structure" in N Ireland than the British people.

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: DougR
Date: 18 Jul 02 - 01:16 PM

I think it is a very encouraging sign. DougR

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: The Pooka
Date: 18 Jul 02 - 11:09 PM

Encouraging, yes: I must agree. Such good commentary here. // Here is one U.S. editorial view, from my local newspaper, The Hartford (Connecticut) Courant:

IRA's Apology Is Helpful
July 18, 2002

Whoever would have thought that the outlawed and unrepentant Irish Republican Army would apologize for killing and wounding hundreds of civilians during its three-decade-long fight against British rule in Northern Ireland?

But here came the unexpected apology this week, several days before the 30th anniversary of Bloody Friday, in which the IRA set off more than 20 bombs within two hours in Belfast on July 21, 1972, killing seven civilians and two soldiers and wounding more than 300.

The IRA has a lot to apologize for: This paramilitary group fighting for a united Ireland is responsible for about half of the 3,600 deaths during the troubles. In the statement published Tuesday, it offered "sincere apologies and condolences" to the families of dead and injured "noncombatants," and also recognized the pain of families of combatants - Protestant gunmen, British soldiers and the police - who were casualties.

Some Protestant unionists said the IRA did not go far enough. Nonetheless, the apology was a major step toward lasting peace. Although late catching up - Protestant paramilitary organizations apologized eight years ago for killing civilians - the IRA nevertheless is maturing. It took the lead in declaring a cease-fire that has held for several years. Further, the IRA has put two large caches of its weapons beyond use under international oversight. Its political wing, Sinn Fein, has renounced violence as a way to advance the Republican cause.

In a land where peace has been hard to come by, the apology is one more hopeful development.

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: GUEST,JB
Date: 19 Jul 02 - 10:24 AM

Like everyone who loves Ireland, its culture and its people, I applaud any step, however small, taken by political and/or paramilitary groups down the road to peace. This gesture by the IRA is one such step and they are to be congratulated for it, despite it having taken so long.

But I can't agree with GUEST who seems (to my dull brain at any rate) to see the presence of the army in Ulster as the cause of the troubles rather than a tool in achieving peace. There's not enough time here to dissect Irish history back to the Boyne, and I appreciate there's a lot of muddy water flowed under the bridge since then, but please correct me if my memory's failing me when I ask "wasn't the army put there thirty or more years ago as a result of the violence and unrest which had already flared up between the unionist and nationalist communities?"

I'm old enough to remember it (and a lot of stuff even further back than that unfortunately!), and I'm sure they were put in as peacekeepers. If they were removed today, would it instantly mean that little girls who pray in Latin would be able to walk to school without being abused and threatened by a horde of adults who don't? I reckon not, and I also reckon those little girls were bloody grateful that a group of foreign young men and women, who probably have little interest in Irish affairs but are there because they've been ordered to be, were around to protect them.

It'll be a grand day when the military is no longer needed anywhere, not just in Ireland, but anyone who thinks that the warring factions would simply kiss and make up if the army were removed is living in cloud cuckoo land.

duplicate message deleted by JoeClone

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: GUEST,McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Jul 02 - 10:57 AM

Pedantic I know, but you don't find many "little girls who pray in Latin" in Catholic School anywhere these days.

Seeing the British presence in Northern Ireland as a key element in what's gone wrong over the years doesn't mean that a times there haven't been good intentions. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

There's been a role for peacekeepers in Northern Ireland of one sort or another. But to use the British Army in that role in a longterm way was to put the soldiers in an impossible situation. They had about as much chance of being seen and treated as "peacekeepers" as the Israeli Defence Forces have in Gaza and the West Bank.

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: An Pluiméir Ceolmhar
Date: 19 Jul 02 - 11:08 AM

At the risk of major thread drift, I'd just like to point out to Guest JB that the real problem was that the British Army wasn't really trained for peacekeeping duties, and once it deployed in Northern Ireland in 1969, its concept of operations was largely based on an internal security doctrine developed in decolonisation wars like Kenya, Malaya etc. Ask anyone in South Armagh.

I read the standard BA manual at the time - author the then Brigadier Frank Kitson - and saw how the operation was condemned to go off the rails as the army initially relied on the local police for intelligence, and natives were identified as friendly or hostile and treated accordingly. When it followed the book and introduced internment and carried out "arms searches" (selective trashing of people's homes), it moved from being a perceived peacekeeper to being a perceived oppressor.

Regarding the IRA apology, it depends which end of the telescope you look through: from a militant-nationalist perspective it was a giant leap, whereas from a loyalist perspective it was a meaningless gesture. But in my book, anything like it, which helps to keep the politics show on the road and signals, however faintly, a renunciation of violence is to be welcomed. The whole logic of the peace process was not surrender by either side, but recognition of a military stalemate and an agreement to create political structures which would gradually render violence redundant.

I just wish that David Trimble was more of a statesman and did more to support the process which he signed up to, rather than continue to gloat, to belittle his opponents and thus to undermine the primacy of politics over violence as a means of resolving conflict. Mind you, with George Bush rattling his sabre at Iraq, and Spain and Morocco facing off like a pair of nineteenth-century empires over a worthless, uninhabitable rock, maybe Trimble is more in keeping with the Zeitgeist than I realised.

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Jul 02 - 04:37 AM

It is not helpful to look backwards at this time. I just heard a US radio presenter unfairly play back to the NI Minister Of Education (Martin McGuinness) a reply he made when he was a high ranking provo. It must have been hurtful for MM to be reminded that he then believed that when ordinary innocent people were caught in the blast of provo car bombs it was their own fault for not getting out of the way fast enough.
If such a heartless and ruthless terrorist can be transformed into a caring politician, there must be hope for Ireland and the world.

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Jul 02 - 05:04 AM

I can't see anything unfair inthat. Everyone has to live with the words they've said, and be willing to put their hands up to having said things they wish they hadn't.

A quote like that, if accurate, provides a person with an opportunity to add a personal apology to the general one. I don't know if Martin McGuinness had the sense and humility to respond that way - quite possibly he would have.

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Jul 02 - 05:24 AM

Perhaps there is a lesson for the US in all this. Perhaps instead of trying to hunt down and destroy Bin Laden, he should be offerred a position in government. Then, who knows, one day he might say sorry for all the bad things he once did.
Then you could happily forget the WTC and embassy bombings as we must forget Bloody Friday, Enniskillen, Omagh, Warrington, Manchester, Baltic Exchange, Canary Wharf, etc., etc.,etc., etc., etc., etc.

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: GUEST,JB
Date: 20 Jul 02 - 06:41 AM

So, Mr. McGrath and the guy with the Gaelic pseudonym, if you acknowledge the point that there was a need for some sort of peacekeeping presence, who exactly would you have put in there? Volunteers with Ken Dodd-type tickling sticks? I don't think there would have been many takers.

The point I was trying to make (maybe not too well) was that it's a three-sided problem, not one, and that two of the sides were already 'at it' willingly before the third side was obliged to join in. If you simply point the finger at one side, there will never be a solution. You're quite right that the British army's not brilliant at the peacekeeping task, but it's a job that had to be done and they were the ones who were drafted in to do it.

Oh, and by the way smart-arse, whether they pray in Latin, Cantonese or Gibberish, the plain, simple and inescapable fact is that those children WERE shitting themselves with fear as they were terrorised by adults who should know better. Or perhaps your view of that is one-sided too?

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jul 02 - 02:01 PM

Guest JB--the answer to "who to police" is: a United Nations peacekeeping force.

Problem is, the world's trouble spots controlled by the dominant European and American powers, don't allow UN peacekeeping forces on their turf.

A shitty double standard if ever there was one. Imagine how much shorter the wars would have been if there had been UN peacekeepers in Northern Ireland instead of the British Army, or in the West Bank and Gaza instead of the Israeli Army.

Hmmmm...

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Jul 02 - 08:28 PM

Not the British Army, not the Irish Army, for a start. Neither of them could possibly avoid being seen as on one side or the other.

Having excluded these what needed to be done was look round for people who could do the job, were willing to take it on, and could have a hope of being seen as neutral. Not that easy, but it's a big world.

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: DougR
Date: 21 Jul 02 - 01:12 AM

I saw a small story in the newspaper today that the IRA had made another encouraging gesture. They have agreed to move a monument that their opponents found objectionable. The first time, according to the story, that they have done that.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: An Pluiméir Ceolmhar
Date: 22 Jul 02 - 06:10 AM

Agreed entirely, GUEST of 20 July and McGofH.

GUEST JB: The Irish Government tried to raise the NI problem at the UN in 1969, but UN intervention was blocked by the way the dice are loaded in the Security Council (UK permanent membership). The UN is far from perfect, but it's the nearest thing we have to a means of ensuring the rule of law in international relations. Unfortunately it has been starved of the resources needed to enable it to act effectively. In its absence, we have a whole lot of one-sided interventions which do more harm than good. And now, after a twentieth century of world wars and resolutions that there should "never again" be such a resort to violence, Dubya and friends have just discovered the great new legal principle "might is right".

I do have a lot of respect for the British Army as a fighting army, BTW, but it became part of the NI problem from 1969 on. If you have any recollection of the introduction of internment (accompanied by "ill-treatment" which in many people's book amounted to torture), or more saw the BBC programme on Bloody Sunday, GUEST JB, you could understand that the BA by its ill-judged actions brough about the rebirth of the IRA, which by 1969 had bcome an irrelevancy. And talking of double standards, if the assassination campaign conducted by the BA through Brian Nelson (cf BBC documentary) had been carried out by the Argentinians, it would surely have been added to the charge sheet against Pinochet.

I can well imagine that the frustration generated by the same kind of persistent niggling oppression (by curfew, checkpoint closure, etc.) and occasional brutality by the Israeli Defence Forces is what is driving young Palestinians into the arms of the violent organisations.

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Jul 02 - 08:01 AM

It should be remembered that the IRA we are talking about here is the PIRA. Very early on the Official IRA took the stance that there was no role to play and that, through dissention in it's membership, brought about the birth of the Provisional IRA who were responsible for the events of Bloody Friday.

The comment above

"The Irish Government tried to raise the NI problem at the UN in 1969, but UN intervention was blocked by the way the dice are loaded in the Security Council (UK permanent membership)."

Is incorrect wrt how the UN works. The UN are not allowed under the terms of its charter to involve itself with the internal affairs of any country unless invited to do so by the country in question. During the period 1972 - 1974 Harold Wilson proposed an international force. Parties approached were the Americans, the Canadians and NATO (British Forces excluded) - All refused to get involved.

There also seems to be some confusion as to the role of UN peacekeeping forces, which are clearly defined in the UN Charter. They cannot be sent anywhere to impose any settlement or solution, they are deployed to keep warring factions apart, normally along clearly defined borders/front lines (examples: The Lebanon and Cyprus), so that dialogue can commence. They basically arrive to maintain the status quo until a political solution can be worked out by the parties involved. UN peacekeeping forces are lightly armed purely for self defence, they are deployed with no heavy support units as they might be viewed by one side or the other as provocative. Almost always if UN peacekeeping forces come under heavy and sustained attack they are withdrawn immediately.

The second paragraph of the Apology Statement posted above by McGofH states:

"While it was not our intention to injure or kill non-combatants, the reality is that on this and on a number of other occasions, that was the consequence of our actions. "

Twenty bombs were placed in Belfast City Centre, timed to detonate within a period of two hours (one bomb every 6 minutes) while the city was at it's busiest. Damn right they intended civilian casualties, the only reason that the death toll was as light as it was, was through the efforts of the RUC, the emergency services and the British Army.

The role of the army in Northern Ireland was that of "Aid to the Civil Power" - at no time did the army operate independently from civil control. Internment without trial and trial without jury were first used against the IRA in Ireland in 1938 at the instigation of Eamon De Valera, to protect Ireland's neutrality in the war that was foreseen in Europe (The IRA were keen to promote their cause by assisting Nazi Germany) a brief bombing campaign was carried out on the British mainland ( re the song The Auld Alarm Clock).

The statement made should be welcomed and recognised as significant. It clearly demonstrates that the organisation is fully committed to the ongoing peace process - That is the only game in town.

Subsequent to the signing of the Good Friday Agreement there were two referenda held, one in Northern Ireland relating to the Agreement itself, and a second which encompassed the whole of Ireland regarding the use of arms. The results of that second referendum was virtually unanimous in the condemnation of the use of force. Any talk about a return to "the armed struggle", is purely that - talk. It has been clearly shown that they have no mandate to do so and they would be universally vilified if they attempted to return to the use of terror.

How the statement is viewed by the relatives of those killed can only be expressed by those people themselves, but the statement taken at face value shows what I believe to be an honest desire to aid reconciliation and heal the wounds of the past. I hope that along those lines that a further step is taken in the form of accurate information being given in relation to the locations of the graves of those abducted and executed by the PIRA in the course of their campaign.

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jul 02 - 12:32 PM

Lets not forget that in 1921 the British govt arbitrarily partitioned Ireland's territory because it had the power to do so and thereby left a running sore that could not heal. If it had instead encouraged the Unionists to seek accomodation with the large majority of Nationalists (as is finally happening)and not given them carte blanche to do as they liked for the best part of a century and not have to accept the consequences, we would never have had the 30 years war, Ireland would still be one country and quite possibly a republican member of the Commonwealth like India. The extremists of both sides would long ago have been isolated and their influence hugely diminished by now. But the Colonel Blimps and squires of the Tory party and their relatives in Ulster saw their 'glorious empah' breaking up and showed how little they really cared for constitutional politics and British fair play and all the rest of the clap-trap they love to rattle on about. In this thread the ordinary and fair-minded Brits are displaying their wish to get out of Ireland where they know full well they have no business to be.

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: An Pluiméir Ceolmhar
Date: 22 Jul 02 - 12:41 PM

Thanks for your measured contribution, Teribus.

I was conscious of the risk of triggering a burst of whataboutery when I got into this thread, but I set out to explain to GUEST JB how the British Army became part of the problem. They were indeed acting in aid of the civil power, but the civil power, particularly in the form of the RUC and even more so the "B" Specials, was unacceptable to a substantial part of the community, especially in the light of its response to the Civil Rights movement. I recall thinking how almost surreal it was to see TV footage of British soldiers being welcomed with cups of tea in Catholic areas. The widespread sense at the time was that they were protecting those areas not only against loyalist mobs but also against out-of-control RUC and Specials. The IRA spokesmen at the time who objected to the British Army were the ones who looked ridiculous and out of touch with reality: remember the slogan "IRA = I Ran Away"? No doubt IRA attacks helped to polarise the British Army and make up their minds who were the cowboys and who were the injuns, but my point was that a neutral peacekeeping force under UN sponsorship would have had a different outlook from a military force acting de facto in support of the RUC. It would also, by virtue of its more visible neutrality, have been less likely to come under attack from the still largely inexistent IRA.

The problem with internment as applied in NI was twofold: first, it was initially based on lists of names supplied by the RUC, which gave rise to some people being wrongly interned, but secondly, and above all, the ill-treatment of people who were selected for "questioning", retrospectively vindicated the initially ridiculous perception of the Army as an occupying force.

I never heard of the Wilson plan you refer to, but I assume that it was not to be under a UN aegis, which may have made it less attractive to the invitees. I do recall Patrick Hillery, then Irish Minister for External Affairs, addressing the UN (whether GA or Security Council I can't recall), and my recollection is that he was asking for UN intervention.

You are right in saying that UN peacekeeping forces intervene only on invitation. The invitation didn't come because Britain regarded the incipient troubles as a purely domestic affair, disregarding NI nationalists' rejection of partition. There was even a school of thought at the time that the Irish Army should make a token incursion, purely in order to internationalise the conflict, but this option was rejected by the Government as it would have put the nationalist cause legally in the wrong and because of fear of the incalculable number of casualties. Nobody at that stage could even begin to imagine that the ultimate body count would be of the order of 3,500. With regard to UN forces being lightly armed, a visibly neutral peacekeeping force would probably not have come under attack in the way the British Army did.

Much of my ranting is due to a firm belief that the UN could work, but that it has never been given a chance. It might just have come into its own after the end of the Cold War, but the opportunity was missed because of a combination of cynicism/realpolitik and glory-hunting unilateralism. The permanent membership of the Security Council is inappropriate and an anachronism, hence my jibe, but the behaviour of the present US administration vis-à-vis the international community plumbs new depths of cynicism, which is why I veered so far OT. The gross underfunding from which the UN has suffered for decades (notwithstanding Ted Turner's laudable fit of patriotic embarrassment at the US's failure to pay its dues) has made it a byword for failure even when it does try to act. Didn't your blood boil too at the collapse of the "UN safe haven" of Srebrenica?

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: Big Mick
Date: 22 Jul 02 - 01:12 PM

I am very pleased at these discussions, and offer my congratulations to An Pluiméir Ceolmhar, Teribus, and others for well reasoned opinions that seem to have their facts right. Where there is conjecture, it is based on sound reasoning and I applaud you for that.

I would like to offer a hearty second to the opinion expressed that the behaviour of the present US administration vis-à-vis the international community plumbs new depths of cynicism. It is no secret that I was a part of the campaign to elect Al Gore. One of my expressed concerns upon the election of George W. Bush was his tendency towards the "cowboy with the fastest gun" type of diplomacy. He and much of his cabinet seem to hold the attitude that the US is the only real player and the rest of you are simply nice little countries and we will let you know what we think you need to know. One also gets the sense that they would like to be isolationist unless that isolationism might cause US oil companies discomfort. I just don't think they have a genuine interest in these types of things.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: catspaw49
Date: 22 Jul 02 - 01:35 PM

Thank you all for an incredibly civil and well reasoned discussion. I can only applaud any efforts at compromise/peace/goodwill....whatever it is, and I try not to look too hard to find ulterior motives.

In my dreams I have often wondered what would happen if you could move all these folks apart for about 30 years and then let them go back. Maybe enough younger people would come along unexposed to the daily violence........aw fergit it. There's hope and sometimes it gets brighter as it seems to be in NI........Now, as someone else mentioned, perhaps it could light up a bit more in the middle east.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: GUEST,JB
Date: 23 Jul 02 - 08:26 AM

I don't recollect saying that the Army aren't a part of the problem guys, I just said that they aren't the whole problem. And also that finger-pointing at one side which, incidentally, you're continuing to do, simply polarises attitudes on all three sides even further (if that's possible). Its that ole black magic called bigotry again.

I just hate it when people try to put the blame on one side, that's all - it takes two to tango (three in this case).

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jul 02 - 08:59 AM

I get sick and tired of Brit apologists claiming there really are two sides at fault for conflicts rooted in British imperialism, too.

Facts are facts, Jack. Nobody on the planet invited the British empire into their countries. Nobody. One sided? Finger pointing? So be it.

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jul 02 - 09:35 AM

Guest of 12.32, I'm no historian but I do not think that the british Government did want to partition Ireland, they wanted rid of all of it. The problem was that the Ulstermen were prepared to fight to stay out of thr Republic. British Army officers were prepared to resign their commisions rather than fight against former friends under their own flag.
Guest of 08.59, No one invited white colonists into North America either, but what should be done about it?
Britain alone of the old colonialist countries gave away it's empire and remains on good terms with former colonies who are happy to remain part of The Commonwealth.

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Jul 02 - 09:47 AM

GUEST 23-Jul-02-08:59 AM

"Facts are facts, Jack. Nobody on the planet invited the British empire into their countries. "

Both your facts and statement are incorrect.

If you disagree, please state your facts and sources.

Take Malaysia as an example - Malaysia is made up of a federation of independent states - perhaps you can tell us when Mighty Britain invaded an conquered those states? There were minor dust ups with Dutch trading posts during the early parts of the Napoleonic Wars, but most of those states elected to place themselves under the protection of the British Crown.

Also take a look at the history of Brunei, Sabah and Sarawak, particularly the period involving a character called Rupert Brooke - he was actually offered the crown of Brunei and refused it, counselling the local rulers to opt for British protection. He, almost single handedly, organised the defence of the coastal villages from constant attacks by pirates and slavers that had been their lot for centuries. As a British Protectorate he knew that that protection would continue after his death.

In the mid 60's when Sukarno of Indonesia attempted to annex Sarawak, Brunei and Sabah, Britain honoured her alliance obligations to defend those states and was supported totally by the local population.

In Malaysia between 1947 and 1964 (War of the Running Dogs) the constituent states of Malaysia were subjected to a communist inspired, and backed, war of insurrection. Again, British forces, with the backing of the majority of the population, defeated the terrorists and the insurrection failed - the only example in the world of this ever happening.

The Commonwealth Games kick off shortly with representatives of 72 countries competing - as an international sporting event it ranks second to the Olympics - Oh, how we must have been truly despised and hated to belong to such a large, voluntary, international group of countries, who were once under our heel and are now fully independent.

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: Declan
Date: 23 Jul 02 - 10:03 AM

Guest,

There was a certain Dermot NcMorough, King of Leinster who enlisted the help of some Welsh based Normans in a row he was having with Rory O Connor the High King of Ireland in 1169. He probably expected that they'd go home once the row was over !

I've never been a supporter of violence in solving the Irish troubles, but if there's going to be a settlement then every step in the process needs to be encouraged. We can but hope that the IRA apology is sincere, and their re-affirmation of support for the Peace process is to be welcomed.

The combined loyalist army council did, as pointed out above, issue an apology when they announced their ceasefire, but that ceasefire has since been broken repeatedly - the provisionals didn't apologise at that time, but have held their ceasefire to a greater extent.

It is a shame that at this stage of the proceedings people are still being shot in Belfast. We hear loud condemnations of the continued military activity of certain republicans from Unionist leaders, but very little in the way of condemnation of continued violence on the loyalist side. Perhaps these condemnations are being made and I'm just not hearing them down here.

There is a very fragile peace being held on to in Northern Ireland at the moment and it is very important that all sides in the conflict encourage the continuation of the current process rather than seek to gain party political advantage in the run up to next year's assembly elections.

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jul 02 - 11:08 AM

Declan, 1169 far precedes the British empire. To suggest the Normans are the equivalent of the modern British empire of the 19th century is an absurd, but an idiotic argument often used to shore up the "we've been fighting like this for centuries so both sides are at fault" arguments of Brit apologists. The medieval history of Britain and Ireland has some bearing on the contemporary Troubles, but certainly nothing like what Brit apologists are suggesting. The true conflict is rooted in 19th century British colonial imperialism, in the formation of the United Kingdom, of the "Great Britain and Ireland" historic era. Not the feudal fighting of medieval times.

And Teribus, your claims of "fact" reflect the opposite tendency to Declan. From the latter half of the 19th century onward, the world conquered by the better equipped and much more savage armies of the European empires has been racked with violent conflicts in once colonial territories and countries, as various peoples engaged in armed struggles, often between warring groups within their own societies, to gain independence. Sometimes this has meant independence from their European colonial oppressors, sometimes it has meant fighting for independence from the warlords put in place by the European conquerors before they withdrew their colonial governments and armies before withdrawing.

To suggest that these violent conflicts where one group within a country wishes to pledge allegiance to the British crown means that the people of those societies actually wanted British intervention in their affairs is a blind attempt to manipulate the historic facts. There have been, in every former colony, organized factions who have forged alliances with the colonial oppressors in a blatant attempt to gain power over another faction within their colony, in order to seize power in the political vacuum left when the colonial government and army withdraws it's forces.

To suggest that is the equivalent of "inviting the British empire into their nation" is just as much hogwash as the suggestion that because one Irish faction attempted to create an alliance with the Normans to gain the upper hand in Ireland proves that the Irish really wanted to be conquered by the English. It is all smoke and mirrors, which denies the reality that very few former colonies have gained independence and stability in the wake of the colonial powers pulling out.

The violence which ensues in the wake of European and American colonial governments and armies pulling out of a region ARE the history of the 20th century. Ireland has been no different in that regard, and to suggest that "both sides are at fault" for that is ridiculous. It isn't Ireland's "fault" that they were conquered and pacified by the English army, and forced into a political "union" with their conquerors in the 19th century. Ireland, like many other countries conquered and pacified by European colonial powers in the 19th century, fought back. THAT is the fact of the matter. Just like many other countries/territories have fought back. And continue to do so, as is the case in West Bank and Gaza right now.

Next I suppose you'll be claiming the British don't have anything to do with the war in the Middle East, and the French didn't have anything to do with the Vietnam War.

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jul 02 - 11:45 AM

From today's Irish Times

Republican sources have blamed the INLA for shooting a Protestant teenager in north Belfast. The incident was followed by two gun attacks on nationalists, two attempted shootings and the murder of Catholic teenager Gerard Lawlor.

Mr Lawlor (19) was shot dead as he walked home from a pub on the Antrim Road early yesterday. The killing was admitted by the Ulster Freedom Fighters, a cover-name for the UDA.

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: Declan
Date: 23 Jul 02 - 11:47 AM

Guest,

I don't disagree that British Collonialism and Imperialism have played a major part in the history of Ireland and are undoubtedly one of the root causes of the problem, but it is clearly ludicrous to suggest that Irish people on both sides of the conflict don't bear a large part of the guilt for whats been happening for the last 30 years, not to mention the 800 years. This does not make me a 'Brit apologist'. If we can get away from calling each other names it might be another important step in the healing process.

It is also clearly wrong to try to date the source of the conflict which has been going on for centuries to the act of Union, which was voted through the Irish Parliament. (Such a parcel of rogues in our nation). Effectively all this act did was to restore the rule of Ireland, from an unrepresentative group of wealthy Irish arostocrats to London from whence the country had been run for at least 4 centuries before that date. 'Grattan's' Parliament which was revoked by the act of Union in 1801 had only been established in the 1770s. Britain's colonisation of Ireland which began in the 12th Century was consolidated in the 16th and 17th centuries via surrender & regrant policies and later via plantations of various areas in the wake of rebellions.

Any analysis of the Northern Ireland conflict that suggests that it roots are not to be found in the Plantation of Ulster (1650s?), and earlier, is clearly highly suspect.

However dragging up the historical roots of all this is not a good basis on which to achieve a settlement. The current agreement which seeks to look to the future and not the past presents the only viable basis on which the conflict can be resolved. For the sake of all the people on all these islands, lets hope the progress continues.

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jul 02 - 12:55 PM

Declan, I didn't say that medieval history you are quoting wasn't relevant to today's Troubles. But there is a pronounced tendency by most mainstream British and West Brit Irish to claim that the Act of Union, English colonial imperialism, and the British nationalism at the heart of the formation of the empire, conveniently had little to do with the current Troubles, and really, the Irish are just as guilty as the British occupiers, because they used violence to fight for their independence from the British. And that is bullshit.

If violence was an acceptable way for the United States to gain independence from the English in 1776, then in my book, it is an acceptable way for the Irish to gain independence from the English in 1916 and in 1969 and in 1999, and until they gain that independence. Allowing American and European super powers to wreak violent havoc all over the world, while condemning tiny nations from engaging in civilian armed struggles for independence from those colonial super powers, is a double standard the rest of the former colonies see through quite clearly. Which is why people like Nelson Mandela have always backed the IRA's armed struggle for independence, and why the South African connection to the peace process is as strong as it is.

Formerly colonized peoples ain't buying the British and West Brit Irish propaganda about Northern Ireland. Peoples involved in liberation struggles from the colonial powers in the past 50 years around the globe aren't fucking stupid. They know that the majority of British and Irish citizens that DO believe the British and West Brit Irish propaganda lines buy into it because it makes their lives easier and more prosperous, not because they have the moral high ground.

This conflict HAS NOT been going on for centuries. The armed struggle for independence from Britain has been going on since the verly late 19th and early 20th centuries. Partition is not rooted in the medieval politics between feudal fiefdoms in Wales and Ulster. Partition is rooted in the politics of British nationalism, pure and simple. To suggest otherwise is to simply remove Ireland (a bit too conveniently) from the broader context of the modern history of British, European, and American colonial imperialism.

You want to know the truth about the contemporary troubles? Read some comparative histories of Ireland and India under British colonial rule. Read some post-colonial histories, and get your head out of the Irish medieval history clouds.

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: An Pluiméir Ceolmhar
Date: 23 Jul 02 - 01:05 PM

Oops! For someone who didn't want to trigger whataboutery, I'm alarmed to see how quickly we worked our way back to 1169!

Declan's last comment says it best, and he rightly points to the underlying logic of the peace process, which is that we have to draw a line under the past and start again, recognising that both sides have grievances and forgiveness has to grow organically. (The corresponding step taken in South Africa was probably of even greater magnitude. My regret about Israel/Palestine is that from the time of Sharon's advent to power, the parties have returned to tit-for-tat murder rather than building on the fragile basis for reconciliation.)

I wasn't trying to be one-sided, Teribus, and I regret the inflammatory GUEST posting. But I do sincerely believe that the BA was a disproportionately important factor in the slide from a non-violent civil rights campaign (inspired more by Martin Luther King than Patrick Pearse) into a nasty guerilla war in which vicious deeds were perpetrated on all sides. Its role in this regard was partly due to its modus operandi which, I suggest, retrospectively vindicated the initially ridiculous hostility to it on the part of the IRA. If the UK government had been able to accept a more neutral force used to peacekeeping and with a UN mandate, the people who took increasingly lethal potshots at the would-be peacekeepers would probably never have got started.

If I dwell on the past, it's not to attribute blame, but rather to see what we can learn for the future for other situations. The key lesson which I draw from recent history is the need for an effective and respected UN, and that is probably the single reason why I get so hot under the collar about Bush. And the lesson which I draw from 1169 is that small countries should be slow to look for help from powerful neighbours, as they may continue to interfere in your business rather longer than you want them to.

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: Big Mick
Date: 23 Jul 02 - 04:04 PM

Just an observation from a very interested observer. Please don't see this as an inflammatory discussion. It is heated, but for the most part respectful. We are dealing with centuries worth of built up feelings on all sides. This is really a microcosm of the larger debate. I am fascinated by the historical analysis from all parties, as well as the coming back to the bottom line of what it takes to make and hold the peace. The discussion need not be bland, just civil. Thanks so much for the insights you are giving to one who thought he understood the ins and outs of all this. Please.....continue.

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: IRA Apologizes
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jul 02 - 09:08 PM

Civil? Hell! Who appointed a mick as a ref?