ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Tuesday, July 9, 1996 TAG: 9607090082
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-7 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: WAYNE G. REILLY
THE BOMB that exploded June 15 in Manchester, England, was the latest horrific event in Europe's longest war. Everyone can be grateful that this war has developed its own bizarre rules, for it was only a coded warning from the Irish Republican Army to British authorities that prevented a massive loss of life.
As important as that gesture was, however, the bombing has implications far beyond Manchester and suggests that the so-called peace process in Northern Ireland may come to an end. The termination of this hope-filled effort would be tragic, not only for the people of Ireland and Great Britain but for all who value the accommodations of democracy rather than the brutalities of political violence.
The governments of the United States, the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic have invested great effort in the Northern Ireland peace process. After Manchester it is important to ask, "What has gone wrong?"
The answer is extremely complicated, and no one knows it with certainty. This imperfection of knowledge aside, it does seem possible to identify some important factors that have affected the tortuous progress of the peace process.
Simply understanding these "anti-peace" factors will not solve the problems of Northern Ireland. But perhaps a better understanding of some of the political realities will provide us ideas about what might now be done.
While it may clash with the popular image of Ireland as a "land of a thousand welcomes," Ireland has a long history of political violence. More important, violence is seen by many in Ireland as an effective tool, perhaps the only effective tool, for accomplishing important political change. It is from this tradition of violence that the "hard men" on both sides of the divide in Northern Ireland draw inspiration.
In short, democracy and conciliation have consistently failed to resolve the divisive issues of Northern Ireland.
The euphoria that greeted the IRA's cease-fire announcement two years ago was understandable, but that cease-fire did nothing to change the tradition of functional violence. This fact is attested to by the IRA's continuation of "punishment" actions, the resumption of bombings and the recent murder of a policeman in the Republic.
The vast majority of people in Ireland, north and south, want peace, but a very small group of people can carry on an effective campaign of political violence. This capability means that a few people have the capacity to prolong Europe's longest war and all but veto the peace effort.
Unfortunately, little can be done by the governments of Great Britain or Ireland to prevent the violent actions of a few zealots. If aggressive police work, intense anti-terrorist activity and cooperation between the British and Irish governments were capable of restoring peace, it would have been accomplished long ago.
Efforts to create a new form of governmental organization in Northern Ireland are further complicated by the absence of any person or organization that can speak authoritatively for either the British/Protestant majority or the Irish/Catholic minority. Balloting in Northern Ireland to elect participants for the Peace Conference that began June 10 compounded this difficulty because representatives of the extremes did well.
Not only are the legal parties separated into Irish/Catholic and British/Protestant camps, but they are also deeply divided among themselves. Not only is there no one who can effectively commit the contending parties to any course of action, but the leaders of both extremes are not even willing to listen to one another.
In light of the Manchester bombing, the condition of the Sinn Fein/IRA alliance may be the most important in the Northern Ireland equation. Clearly, Gerry Adams and the relative moderates of Sinn Fein have lost control of the republican cause to the physical-force advocates of the IRA's military leadership. It is now much more difficult for all parties to accept Adams as a reliable spokesman for the republican movement.
As if this were not enough, it would not be surprising if the actions of the IRA elicited a similar leadership realignment and violent response from the "hard men" in the British/Protestant paramilitary organizations.
Despite the daunting problems with the peace process, there is really no alternative to going forward in pursuit of that elusive condition. A number of steps would be helpful in sustaining that process:
Meetings about new political arrangements in Northern Ireland ought to be adjourned for several months. In the current emotional climate, those meetings are likely to become nothing more than a platform for the worst kind of political posturing. Northern Ireland has had more than enough of these divisive diatribes.
During the adjournment period, the Irish government ought again to enter into discussions with the nationalist and republican forces in Northern Ireland aimed at clarifying the possibilities of isolating those people dedicated to political violence. The British government should do the same in regard to the unionist and loyalist communities in Northern Ireland.
The United States ought to lower its profile in regard to the peace process. This is necessary because many believe that the military leaders of the IRA have come to think that American support for their cause is now all but unconditional. This belief is rooted not in fact, but in the notion that the Clinton administration needs to cultivate the Irish-American vote in the November elections.
Of course, most Americans of Irish descent in no way support the violent actions of the IRA, but even the suspicion that they do must be ended. This change can best be accomplished by the concerted actions of the Irish-American community and the American government. Prominent Irish-Americans not only should denounce the use of violence in Ireland, but also should indicate their total support for the current peace process as the best hope for the termination of ``the troubles.''
The Amerian government can help by taking two related actions. It must distance itself from Sinn Fein as a mark of displeasure regarding the IRA's renewed bombings and simultaneously must be seen to be supportive of the current peace negotiations.
The Irish and British governments need to continue their patient efforts to demonstrate the values of peace and the enormous costs of the failure of the peace process.
Only in this way can the necessary conditions for a termination of the Northern Ireland conflict be brought about. When that time comes, and only then, can we be confident that the advocates of political violence will be silenced. They will be condemned by the most deadly of all judgments, public scorn.
Wayne G. Reilly is a professor of political science at Hollins College.
LENGTH: Long : 121 lines ILLUSTRATION: GRAPHIC: BERNIE COOTNER/Newsdayby CNB