Conference tallis::celt

    I agree with Nelson Mandela in that the talks will not succeed
    unless all parties (including Sinn Fein) are involved.  The
    contribution of all groups is necessary for peace to evolve in the
    Northern Ireland.  Any groups left out of the peace process will feel
    slighted and thus probably do their best to undermine any peace effort.
    Thus I am not encouraged by these talks.
    
    -George

    
    
    I think it was "Des" Tutu that made the statement concerning
    the involvement of Sinn Fein in the talks ....
    
    
    Remember, there have been secret meetings in the past !!!
    
    
    Only time will tell.
    
    
    keVin
    

    You're right keVin, I stand corrected.  It was
    Tutu and not Mandela.
    
    -george

   It is interesting to note that Fr. Desmond Wilson also has serious
reservations about the real "good-will" and intent of the British government
to see a peaceful solution to the problem - having seen their "initiatives"
many times over the last 25 years in West Belfast. 

   Below is his view of why seemingly any effort is deliberately designed to 
fail. From his booklet entitled, "Against Violence In Ireland". And let's face
it: when ya have a "hidden agenda", just as the Brit government has in
the north of Ireland, then *dishonesty* and *brutality* are your only means
to that end.


      "In other words, a solution in the north of Ireland could create
a constitutional crisis in Britain which would be very damaging for th British
government. What they will do, however, is create so-called "initiatives"
in N. Ireland which they know will not succeed and which, indeed, must not
be allowed to succeed. So the British government goes through the motions
every three years or so and produces a plan for N. Ireland.

   The plan is always a variation of the one plan which people in Ireland do
not want.

   In Ireland, many people have suggested solutions to the problem: a United
Ireland, Independent Ulster, a Federated Ireland with two states, Federated
Ireland with four states, integration with England, Scotland and Wales, a
return of the old Stormont form of government. Not one of those proposals is
ever placed on the table for discussion. The one proposal placed on the table
for discussion is the solution proposed by nobody but except the Westminster
government itself; namely continued control of the north of Ireland by the
London government with some form of shared power which will ensure that irish
nationalists will never have a chance to form a government, or be an effective
part of government even in their own country.

   The one solution which the British government will allow us to discuss is
the solution proposed only by itself. Any colour you like, so long as its
black. But, the British government knows that neither Irish democrats, nor
pro-British elements in Ireland will accept this "solution". Every initiative
then, must fail, and is meant to fail. If a democratic form of government were
given in the north of Ireland, there would be a constitutional crisis in
Britian. English politicians see that in the end, Scotland and Wales would be
agitated and eventually secede.

   The British government would have other dificulties too, if they decided to
act honourably in Ireland. There are powerful forces within the British system
which would work to thwart it. An example occurred in 1974. In 1974, the
London government set up in the north of Ireland what was known as a
"power sharing executive, " an arrangement by which power in government would
be shared between catholics and protestants, nationalists and unionists -
nationalists of course, always being in the minority. The arrangement, a
slight step towards some kind of equity, seemed to be succeeding when
suddenly, a strike occurred, a strike engineered by loyalists, supporters of
the British government.

   The government version of that event is that this strike by loyalists
brought down the power sharing executive and destroyed the British initiative.
A comparatively few loyalists, badly organized and heavily infiltrated
by the British forces, are said to have broken the executive. 

   What actually happened was that, at the time, the British Army suddenly
became unavailable to the British government to carry out the government's
wishes. Even though the british Army had the men, the expertise, and the
firepower to control the situation in Northern Ireland quite easily,
they made themselves "unavailable" to the British government. The London
government had made a decision about what kind of government there should be
in the north of Ireland, and because the British Army did not approve of it,
the army was not available to enforce that decision. 

   Needless to say, in 1974 when the British Army made itself unavailable to
the London government we recalled a previous event in our history - 1912,
the infamous "Curragh mutiny". On that occasion, the British Army decided that
it would not be available to carry out the decisions of its own government.
What we were seeing in 1974 was a re-run of what happened in 1912.

   If then, you hear Irish democrats saying that United Nations troops should
come into the north of Ireland, the reason is that no matter what arrangement
the London government would make, especially if it were liberal and useful,
our experience shows that the British Army will not be available to carry it
out.

   Like so many other arguements against the policies of the British
government in Ireland, this is an arguement of inescapable logic: If you have
an army in the situation, it must be one you can trust. The British Army
cannot be trusted; another, perhaps the United Nations, must be brought in.

   It is not that the British Army is dishonest - it is, but that is not the
reason. It is not that the British Army is brutal - it is, but that is not the
reason. The reason is that if the British government were to make any
agreement about Ireland which was liberal and generous, the British Army would
not only refuse to support it, but would obstruct it.

   The efforts of the London government to cloud the issues and to prevent a
peaceful solution have to be countered in the USA and elsewhere. Every
intellectual and moral arguement must be used in order to remove the medieval
and undemocratic British government from Ireland and to construct a modern
democracy in Ireland according to our own needs and wishes."

    
    Yes sir, a new *peace initiative*. The Brit government is about as
    honest as pond scum.
    
    Anyone care to speculate as to when the Brits will make this latest
    *peace initiative* (TM) fail?  
    
    Based on computer projection, and HMG's past track record, I say
    sometime in August. 
    
    It's amazing the lengths the Brit government will go to, to pretend 
    to the world that it is the "noble force, bravely standing between 
    two warring factions in Ireland".
    
    But then again, it's all part of the charade of dishonesty the Brit
    government has perfected over the centuries of stealing other
    peoples' land, and countries.

    
    Re: .1, .2 and .3
    
    Desmond Tutu urged that violence should be renounced. He also
    advised that all parties should be involved in talks.
    
    Sinn Fein were given the chance to participate, on condition
    that they renounced violence. They refused.
    
    In my opinion, anyone who wishes others to listen to Bishop Tutu's 
    advice should not be selective.
    
    Toby

    
    Re: .4 and .5
    
    I do not think there is much I can say to change your opinion
    on what is the root of all evil in Ireland, except if all sides
    adopt entrenched positions like yours, then we have not much
    hope here in this country.
    
    Some points:
    
    - The Power-Sharing Executive of 1973, as well was being given
      the coup de grace by the Loyalist strike, was severely undermined
      by an upsurge in the IRA campaign. Of course, the IRA had as
      much an interest in bringing down the Executive as the Loyalist
      extremists had.
    
    - If the talks break down, they will do so long before August
      as there is a 10-week time limit on the talks. This is an
      artificial "break" in the inter-government Anglo-Irish
      conference to allow the Unionist parties to participate.
    
    I would suggest that the major problem on this island is to get
    Irishmen to live together, not to get rid of the British, who
    in any case are only surrogates for the Loyalists.
    
    But let's not have a long discussion, unless we are open to 
    change. The politicians are talking (at last) - maybe we
    should leave things to them.
    
    Toby
    

    
    1969 was the year that the current "Troubles" began with marches
    and riots (including riots by the police). The British Army was
    called in to back up the police, who had lost control of the
    situation. The IRA, which had been dormant, re-emerged as a force
    at that time and within a couple had begun a guerilla/ terrorist 
    campaign in the North.
    
    Toby
    

    re: .7
    
      Toby,
    
        It's not a question of adopting an entrenched position. The point I
    was trying to make is the same on Fr. Wilson is making in his
    booklet: as long as the British government continues to pretend
    to the world that it is "only in NI to keep 'peace' between warring
    factions of Irish", while maintaining the intensely racist and
    discriminatory state of NI against the nationalist minority - by way 
    of massive military presence, then indeed, any and all so-called 'peace
    initiatives' will fail. 
    
        As Fr. Wilson aptly pointed out: these so-called 'peace
    initiatives' have nothing to do with letting Irishmen of both sides
    resolve their own (Irish) problems, but rather, these 'initiatives' 
    are merely a redefinition of the same old problem - partition.
    
        And sadly, no I don't see much hope for Ireland as long as people
    continually allow themselves to hoodwinked by HMG into thinking that
    it has the best interests of Ireland and the Irish at heart by
    continually holding useless talks instead of facing reality and
    getting the bloody h*ell out of IRELAND. Or should I say, taking their
    bloody h*ll out of Ireland?
    
      Regards,
    
       Joe

    re: .3 George, are you sure it was Tutu and not Mandela???
    I mean, far be it from me to challange DEC's political expert on
    NI, keVin Burns. :^>  But...
    
   In July of 1990, Nelson Mandela visited Ireland and England. Perhaps
one of his most famous quotes of that trip was:

    "I asked the question: What is the use in the parties involved killing
     one another, killing innocent civilians when they can sit down and
     address their problems by peaceful means?"
                                                - Nelson Mandela (7/3/90)

   As some of you may recall, the morally bankrupt British hack politicians, 
and Fleet St. media maggots went berserk, resorting to the "business-as-usual",
knee-jerk responses to his statements, creating somewhat of a mini furor. 
The stink these Brit "leaders" made was not so much because of Mandela's 
implicit suggestion that the British government should involve itself in 
peace talks with the IRA, but rather, because his statements suggested 
change to both the *scope* of the current debate about Ireland, as well as 
the *participants* in that debate.
                                               

   re: .7 (redux)

  <I would suggest that the major problem on this island is to get 
  <Irishmen to live together, not to get rid of the British...
 
 Toby,
     
   Make no mistake about it, the partition of Ireland remains the British
government's sole policy for Ireland. The current strategy is as it always has
been: maintain the status quo of partition. Despite all indications to the
contrary, the dishonest Brit government keeps trying to shovel effluent
against the tide: wed the denial of democracy (Ireland resolving it's own
problems) to "political stability" (peace in Ireland).

   How many times does it have to be said: Ireland has a British problem to
which there can only be an Irish solution, decided by the people of Ireland
themselves. This artificial creation, known as "Northern Ireland", propped-up
and maintained by massive Brit military presence has only protracted the
conflict, and exacerbated the political instability. If you don't believe
me, how about a quote from the (late) British historian, AJP Taylor:

     "The basic cause of the Irish problem is the presence of the 
      British in Ireland and always has been. As long as British
      forces remain in Northern Ireland, the situation is frozen.
      Nothing decisive can happen until they go.
      
      My own view has never changed: British troops should be withdrawn,
      if not immediately, then at some stated date in the near future.
      Their presence is not helping helping towards a solution, rather
      prolongs the deadlock and even strengthens it."
                                  
                                               A J P Taylor (historian)

   The real scope and agenda of the current "peace initiative" should be:
   1.)Self-determination
   2.)Irish independence
   3.)National democracy (for the entire island of Ireland)

  Instead, the current "peace initiative" from this British colonial governor
(Brooke) is the same old stuff: refinement of partition. And what is the direct
result of this policy? Conflict, bloodshed, and political instability because
of British interference in IRISH affairs. 

   Because of this dishonest policy, peace is as far away as ever.

   Democracy is the key to peace and stability in Ireland. Unfortunately,
democracy is not part of Brooke's so-called "peace initiative." When you get
right down to it, peace has never been on the British government's agenda
for Ireland. "Piece" maybe, but never Peace.

    
    AJP Taylor was an "enfant terrible" of English history - he liked
    challenging and shocking the establishment. Good for him, say I.
    But he was not infallible. In another essay, he wrote how "Lloyd
    George solved the Irish problem." People don't quote him 
    very much on that score these days.
    
    I could quote back to you many contrary opinions, but I am not
    going to bother. I just wish this subject was as stark and simple
    to us who live and wrestle with it, as it is to you.
    
    HL Mencken wrote: "Complex problems have simple solutions - but
    they are generally wrong." So in this case. The complex solution
    that will solve this problem has so far defeated both the Irish
    and the English.
    
    Toby

    re: .14
    
    It's a well-known fact that people involved in a conflict (or a war),
    are "too involved" with their immediate condition to be able to
    see the big picture, to get a sense of the scope of the problem.
    Day-in, day-out involved with this tragic problem has numbed
    mor than a few Irishmen and Irishwomen to the plight of their
    fellow countrymen in the north. 
    
    Perhaps you're due: to step back from the day to day madness and reconsider 
    the problem, as a current song suggests, "From a distance". 
    
    <The complex solution that will solve this problem has so far defeated
    <both the Irish and the English.
                           
    A solution can only occur, when both sides honestly seek to solve
    the problem. When one of the parties has a hidden agenda, and seeks
    to dishonestly maintain that hidden agenda, then what you have
    is a classic example of what we (Americans) found out in the 60's:
    
    if you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem.
    
    Perhaps Irishmen from both persuasions could solve their own problems
    if there were no interference from an outside government that is
    monotonously, and monolithically maintaining its colonial ways,
    perfected in the "bad old days." eh?

    
    Re: .15
    
            -< The solution was obvious to Mandela-why not Brits? >-
 
    It's a well-known fact that people involved in a conflict (or a war),
    are "too involved" with their immediate condition to be able to
    see the big picture, to get a sense of the scope of the problem.
    Day-in, day-out involved with this tragic problem has numbed
    mor than a few Irishmen and Irishwomen to the plight of their
    fellow countrymen in the north. 
    
    Perhaps you're due: to step back from the day to day madness and reconsider 
    the problem, as a current song suggests, "From a distance". 

    > This is laughable. How easy it is to rationalise away disagreement!
    > Why ask Nelson Mandela? Let's get Yitzhak Shamir, Yasser Arafat,
    > Saddam Hussein, Walid Jumblatt, and Colonel Ghaddafi to give
    > their opinions as well. Oh, I forget - Ghaddafi did offer a 
    > suggestion that Northern Ireland should turn Moslem and remove
    > religious disagreement that way. That's as "obvious" a solution as
    > any proposed by Nelson Mandela! 
    
    A solution can only occur, when both sides honestly seek to solve
    the problem. When one of the parties has a hidden agenda, and seeks
    to dishonestly maintain that hidden agenda, then what you have
    is a classic example of what we (Americans) found out in the 60's:
 
    > Quite honestly, I think America has problems enough of its own
    > without volunteering itself as an example to Ireland. The murder
    > rate in New York alone exceeds that of any part of Ireland by some 
    > considerable amount!
    
    If you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem.

    > This is a standard piece of Sinn Fein "logic" - I even think you
    > have it backwards. Its usually stated "If you're part of the problem
    > then you must be part of the solution". Frankly, if your knowledge
    > of Ireland is so poor that you can't even get the mindless slogans
    > right, then I doubt the seriousness of your contribution, which I 
    > must tell you I find shallow and naive. 
       
    Perhaps Irishmen from both persuasions could solve their own problems
    if there were no interference from an outside government that is
    monotonously, and monolithically maintaining its colonial ways,
    perfected in the "bad old days." eh?

    > Huh? What evidence exists for this?

    > Toby
    

    
    I think any talks on the situation can not be dismissed as pointless
    until we see how they progress. Though when I hear arguments about
    "the location" of the talks I am pessimistic...
    
    The talks might come up with something..Sinn Fein, to my knowledge have
    conceeded this..even though they are not involved..and have stated that
    succesful talks would be detremential to IRA support. The point being
    that the Collolary is also true..Unsuccesful talks would prove that
    they have a point!!!
    
    .Wait and see what happens. Does anyone know when the talks are to
    begin and is there a time scale involved????
    

    
    The opening impasse about location of the talks shows how difficult
    these negotiations will be. All sides have their "wild men" at the
    fringe - Haughey and Hume have Sinn Fein/ IRA, while Paisley and
    Molyneux have the UDA/ UFF.
    
    There are 10 weeks to complete the talks (basically up the early
    July "marching season"). The dispute about venue affects the second
    strand of talks between the Northern parties, the British and the
    Irish governments. The Unionists refuse to come to Dublin for any
    part of those talks, ostensibly because of the Constitution of 
    the Irish Republic which has a "claim" to Northern Ireland, but
    the real reason is probably to avoid T.V. pictures of themselves
    that might make them look like suppliants before the government of
    Ireland.
    
    Not to minimise Unionist rejection of the "claim" - it is a real 
    problem to them. By the way, the Irish Government has made it
    clear that it is on the table for discussion in these talks.
    Indeed, I must give credit to the dignity and discretion with
    which the Dublin politicians of all parties have approached the 
    talks. No "markers" have been set for anyone, there is a feeling
    of stepping back and letting Charles Haughey get on with it. This
    is his moment of destiny.
    
    This positive attitude is in contrast to the Unionists who have 
    set quite a few "markers", and also the Gerry Adams/ Sinn Fein/
    UDA/ UFF extermists who have been shrill in their denunciations.
    The "sellout" speeches are already been written.
    
    Incidentally, I don't see how a breakdown of these talks proves
    anything about the "rightness" of the Sinn Fein analysis. What 
    it will prove (again) is that Northern Ireland is an extraordinarily
    intractable problem that will take years of patience and growth
    on all sides to peacefully solve. 
    
    Toby

    
    The first strand of talks was due to begin this week, before 
    the dispute about location of the second strand.
    
    The first strand is between the Northern Ireland parties and the
    British government, the second strand is supposed to involve the
    Irish goverment, and was tentatively set for June. By that time,
    it was hoped, the Northern parties will have reached agreement on
    some internal settlement in the Six Counties.
    
    However, time is running out ......
    
    On a positive note, even Gerry Adams has conceded "At this stage
    the British government has the measure of all the parties...."
    which tends to suggest that the BG have a calculus of the max/min
    of what each participant will accept or reject. I tend to believe
    that the Irish government (which has a very good track record in
    face to face negotiations with the British) also has a shrewd
    notion of what it can gain/ lose. Similarly John Hume. Neither
    of these groups have under particular electoral pressure from
    Sinn Fein for which support has dwindled significantly from their
    "high" of the H_blocks hunger strikes 10 years ago.
    
    The Unionists are the puzzle, who have most to lose and the most
    to gain, and who are probably under the most pressure from their
    extremists. The argument over venue is a sign of this. 
    
    Interesting times!
    
    Toby
    

re: 902.16
    
    < This is laughable. How easy it is to rationalise away disagreement!

Is it really so "laughable", Toby, when you consider the number of Irish
that view the NI situation "from a distance", never having been to the 
northern part of their country? Or worse, view the plight of their fellow
countrymen as some foreign, distant problem, from which they are quite 
insulated and removed. I've met more than my share of Irish that view the
troubles in Ireland "from a distance" Toby. How about you? Have you ever 
lived up there, or seen the situation first-hand?

And, as far as I can see (from a distance), the only thing "laughable" around 
here Toby is the way some Irish go to great lengths to *apologize* for being 
Irish in the face of the British colonial "paper" partition of their homeland. 


    < Why ask Nelson Mandela? Let's get Yitzhak Shamir, Yasser Arafat,
    < Saddam Hussein, Walid Jumblatt, and Colonel Ghaddafi to give
    < their opinions as well. Oh, I forget - Ghaddafi did offer a 
    < suggestion that Northern Ireland should turn Moslem and remove
    < religious disagreement that way. That's as "obvious" a solution as
    < any proposed by Nelson Mandela! 

Toby, no one is talking about getting opinions from the others you mention. 
The point being made is: Nelson Mandela, (when visiting what British 
colonialists like to refer to as the "British Isles"), made some very
astute observations about British interference in Irish affairs. And, as a 
person who is in the same boat as the Irish who live in NI, (that is, both 
trying to throw off the yoke of an opressive colonialism), Mandela showed 
the way to solve the problem:

      - sit down at a table with ALL parties involved, and SOLVE the problem. 
Not with hidden agendas, and NOT by killing each other, either.

In the future, Toby, try not to mix apples with oranges by lumping Mandela's
statements about how to bring peace to the Anglo-Irish conflict in with these 
"macho" military types, (Hussein, Ghaddafi, etc.) BTW, doing something like 
that is the same dishonest ploy the British government always tries to use: 
lump anyone who speaks out against British state-sponsored terrorism in Ireland 
by labeling the person as a supporter of the IRA, or as a "terrorist". 
You know: blame the victim.

    <<A solution can only occur, when both sides honestly seek to solve
    <<the problem. When one of the parties has a hidden agenda, and seeks
    <<to dishonestly maintain that hidden agenda, then what you have
    <<is a classic example of what we (Americans) found out in the 60's:
 
    > Quite honestly, I think America has problems enough of its own
    > without volunteering itself as an example to Ireland. The murder
    > rate in New York alone exceeds that of any part of Ireland by some 
    > considerable amount!
    
    <<If you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem.

I'm affraid dear boy, you've taken this sentence out of context with the above. 

Since you seem to be apologizing for HMG, and the fact that it is
militarily occupying and partitioning your country, it appears you've
missed my point. Let me re-iterate the point I was trying to make, before 
you went off on a tangent about the homicide rate in NY:

 A solution can only occur, when both sides honestly seek to solve
 the problem. When one of the parties has a hidden agenda, and seeks
 to dishonestly maintain that hidden agenda, then what you have
 is a classic example of what we (Americans) found out in the 60's:
 If you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem.
 (Translation: If HMG has no intention of giving up NI, and it's
  obvious they don't - since they never want to talk about a
  solution, just a refinement of Partition, then the problem will
  never end. Hence HMG is NOT part of the solution, but rather is part
  of the problem. 

      BTW, I don't know about Sinn Fein "logic", but during the mid 60's 
  we Americans were using that "mindless slogan" (about being part of 
  the solution/problem) to try and force our government officials to stop 
  an unjust war by our own government, with it's own hidden agenda. Maybe 
  you heard about it. It was called Viet Nam. If you were living in Ireland
  at the time, I'm sure you heard more about Viet Nam than you did about
  the north of Ireland. 
       
    <<Perhaps Irishmen from both persuasions could solve their own problems
    <<if there were no interference from an outside government that is
    <<monotonously, and monolithically maintaining its colonial ways,
    <<perfected in the "bad old days." eh?

    > Huh? What evidence exists for this?

The rest of your note just shows someone with a limited idea of their own
Irish history and Britain's role in mucking it up. Let me make it
clear for you, Toby: Britain has been kicked out of every colony
and country it ever stole from different races and cultures, save Hong Kong 
and Ireland. And the current British colony of Hong Kong will be returned 
to the Chinese in 1997. Ireland, like every other former British colony, has 
been and will be, in turmoil as long as HMG retains a puppetmaster's hand 
in the affairs of a colonized land.

Let me end this by handing you back one of you're own quotes since it seems 
to fit you:

    >Frankly, if your knowledge of Ireland is so poor that you can't even 
    >get the mindless slogans right, then I doubt the seriousness of your 
    >contribution, which I must tell you I find shallow and naive.     
          

    
    Re: Foregoing
    
    I'm not at all impressed by this. I am an Irishman who loves my
    country, and wishes all men on this island to live in peace. 
    I have been in the North and take an active interest in what is
    happening there - to the extent of exposing myself as much as
    possible to opinions (like yours) that I do not agree with.
    
    Are you sure the North is a "colonial" problem? The "British"
    in NI (who I regard as my fellow-Irishmen) have been there since 
    the Massachusetts Bay colony was founded - are you advocating 
    giving Boston back to the Indians? I doubt if even Nelson Mandela
    would describe SA as a "colonial" problem - it is a residual
    problem of colonialism maybe, but "colonialism" itself in 
    Northen Ireland, South Africa or (indeed) Massachusetts is
    long past being an issue. This is only one area where I think 
    you have not thought out your position very deeply. There are
    others, but why bother pointing them out? 
    
    If you say that it is possible that you could change your position
    if exposed to new facts and opinions, then maybe we can debate.
    To date you have presented me with nothing new that I have not
    already heard and rejected - one of my reasons being that I see
    the results on my T.V. screen in the dead, the maimed and the 
    grieving. But then "from a distance" I could ignore all that.
    
    Toby

    
    I though I might insert the words of Paul Brady's song "the Island" 
    at this point - since we have sought inspiration in songs like
    "From a Distance". Paul Brady is from Northern Ireland, incidentally.
    What I like about it particularly is that he uses a beautiful woman as
    the symbol of Ireland, like in the old Gaelic poems. However here the
    lover wishes his mistress to be peaceful and loving, not as she
    was (like in Yeat's play "Kathleen Ni Houlihan") - vengeful and
    bloodthirsty. This song sums up a lot for me.
    
	They say the skies of Lebanon are burning
	Those mighty cedars bleeding in the heat
	They're showing pictures on the television
	Women and children dying in the streets
	And we're still at it in our home place
	Still trying to reach the future through the past
	Still trying to carve tomorrow from a tombstone

	But hey! don't listen to me!
	Cos this wasn't meant to be no sad song
	We've heard too much of that before
	Right now I only want to be here with you
	Till the morning dew comes falling
	I want to take you to the island
	And trace your footprints in the sand
	And in the evening when the sun goes down
	We'll make love to the sound of the ocean

	They're raising banners over by the markets
	Whitewashing slogans on the shipyard walls
	Witchdoctors praying for a mighty showdown
	No way our holy flag is gonna fall
	Up here we sacrifice our children
	To feed the worn-out dreams of yesterday
	and teach them dying will lead us into glory...

	But hey! don't listen to 'em!
	Cos this wasn't meant to be no sad song
	I've sung too much of those before
	Right now I only wanna be here with you... etc.

	Now I know us plain folks don't know all the story
	And I know this peace and love's just copping out
	And I guess these young boys dying in the ditches
	Is just what being free is all about
	And how this twisted wreckage down on Main Street
	Will bring us all the together in the end
	As we'll go marching down the road to freedom
	Freedom?
    
    

    If I'm not mistaken, and not to detract from the song itself, wasn't it
    also written as a response to one of Christy's songs or in response to
    criticism for his not playing the Caransore Point festivals? There was
    something.......
    
    So many good songs, so few listeners...... 

    
     Looked through today's Boston Globe and perhaps I'm going blind and/or
    getting stupid (which is a possibility I cannot rule out) since I could 
    find nary a word of the talks.  Being interested, yet having to rely on
    an apparently DISINTERESTED American news media, I'm afraid I'm
    destined to fall hopelessly behind on any progress, or lack thereof,
    being made. 
    
     Have the Unionists accepted the terms of the talks vis-a-vis the
    location of the table in Belfast?
    
     Is there in truth REAL HOPE that these talks will help resolve the
    situation?
    
     While I realize that any discussions whatsoever are cause for hope, 
    my sense of historical despair seems too often to overwhelm my belief
    that a just settlement can be reached.
    
     Liam's notes are due tomorrow and, as usual, will help roll back the
    curtain of my ignorance on the subject, yet I'd appreciate something
    on a more daily basis about these talks.
    
     Would that I had the wherewithal to set a few weeks in a Galway pub
    right now.
    
    Thanks
       

    re> .23
    
    Perhaps a more appropriate Christy Moore title would be ............
    
    
    "For all of our languages, we can't communicate"  
    
    
    
    keVin
    
    

    
    The talks have even dropped out of the headlines here ... scandals
    in the beef industry have captured the interest (nothing like
    a juicy ... should I say meaty? .... political scandal to grab
    the headlines).
    
    Definitely the talks are close to disintegration. I feel that it
    is only pressure from the ordinary punter that is keeping the 
    show on the road.
    
    Today (22nd) Peter Brooke is again meeting the SDLP, saying he
    has resolved partially the Unionist's issues over venue for Strand 
    2 and a chairman.
    
    The issue was that the Unionists made a big issue out of agreeing a
    venue for meeting the Irish government (for strand 2 in June) and
    about an "independent" chairman (they wanted Peter Brooke). The
    SDLP and the IG saw this as a tactic to obstruct strand 2,
    which they see as being of paramount importance as it will involve
    the "Irish Dimension". And of course, the Unionists are not crazy
    about an "Irish Dimension". So what seemed a trivial issue had
    matters of some substance lurking in the background. Things could
    not move forward until they were sorted out.
    
    Let us hope things will be resolved today. Time's a-wasting. 
    Yesterday the IRA murdered an ordinary businessman (Protestant),
    probably a Catholic will be murdered soon in retaliation despite
    a UDA/ UVF "truce".
    
    Toby 

    
    Toby,
    
      I lost a bet on the talks.  I bet they would go smoothly for at least
    the first four or five meetings.  Looks like I lost because they
    faltered after the first.  Imagine not being able to agree on the
    location.  I realize there are reasons but the Unionist's have seemed
    to hug the tree much to closely this time.  I thing the Sdlp and the
    gov't in the Republic showed an acceptable amount of flexibility.
    Whereas the Unionists have shown an inordinate amount of rigidity.  At
    least I have formed that opinion from the news I have received.
    
      Too bad there is so much sectarian killing going on.  I wonder if the
    last protestant was killed in retaliation for the last catholic black
    taxi driver killed.  There has been a rash of them done in recently.  I
    have a good friend that has parked his taxi for awhile and is seriously
    thinking of selling it and going back on the dole.  
    
    paddy

    Paddy, it's incredible.  Do the Unionists (and Nationalists for that
    matter) really want to continue living in a military state akin to
    former Eastern Europe?  Cancelling the talks because they could not
    agree on where to hold them?  Simply incredible...
    

    
    
     This thing with the location for round two of the talks sorta reminds me 
    of 
    
        'it's my ball so if we don't play the way I want to play I'll go 
    home and take my ball with me'
    
     Any kind of progress or movement forward is stalled, maybe even doomed
    just because the rules don't suit someone to a 'tee'.  Where the hell
    is common sense here.  
    
    I read somewhere Jimmy Carter was being considered as the referee for
    these talks.  Anyone here anything similar?????  
    
    paddy

   Jimmy Carter would be a good referee for talks in Northern Ireland.
   If he can made peace between Arabs and Jews then there is hope in
   Ireland too.

    
    Re: .27
    
    I believe the IRA murdered the man because he sold vegetables to the
    army, this makes him a "legitimate target" (their words, not mine).
    
    Other points made in previous notes::
    
    Things have improved - a location has been agreed for strand 2.
    It is the old Northern Parliament buildings at Stormont, where
    strand 1 is also taking place. A chairman and standing orders
    for strand 2 has to be worked out today. But things are looking
    up!
    
    I think the Unionists did not intend the major delay that occurred.
    They meant to lay down some markers (weeks ago Ian Paisley said
    they would never meet the IG in Dublin) and were probably as surprised
    as anyone that these details were still open. They almost hung
    themselves on a hook they couldn't wriggle off without seeming weak
    - fatal in the eyes of their extremist wing. Let's hope things 
    move ahead.
    
    Ian Paisley was also quoted as saying that the idea of Jimmy Carter
    as chairman was "absolute farce" - why I do not know, I think Mr.
    Carter would be an excellent choice, given his role in Nicaragua.
    He persuaded Daniel Ortega to step down when he lost the election.
    Surely there must be someone from the rest of Europe who can do the
    job.
    
    Anyway fingers crossed. One thing about these talks (if we get to 
    strand 2), they will have participating the two politicians who 
    can sell an agreement to a sufficiently large number of "Green" and
    "Orange" followers - I mean Charlie Haughey and Ian Paisley
    (remember when Paisley WAS Protestant extremism personified, and
     Charlie was the leading "sneaking regarder" of the IRA).
    
    TOBY

    
     Well, at least the SHAPE of the table isn't an issue.
    
     So are the talks still scheduled to resume?  Everything I've heard to
    date implies that they've essentially collapsed.  
    
     Along with George, I'm disappointed in the extreme that, after all
    that's gone on the past twenty-odd years, the parties don't RUSH to
    the table, ANY table, to end this damned conflict.
    
    Thanks
    

    
    At the moment it is relief all round - the Unionists have essentially
    compromised on location (their opening gambit was that they would not 
    meet the IG on the island of Ireland at all). Even though it may take
    another week to agree a chairman, from what I can gather in the 
    newspapers, all is optimism.
    
    The worrying thing now is all the time that has been lost. 40% of the
    time allocated for the talks has been eaten up. If the Unionists
    intend to obstruct strand 2, they may be trying to string things 
    out so much so as not to leave time for them. On the other hand,
    it is obvious that the IG are eager to get into talks with them,
    so that if the hurdle of strand 1 is cleared, we may be surprised
    at how easily things move ahead.
    
    How I'd just love to be surprised! But the Unionists want a strong
    British link with a vanishingly weak Irish dimension, the Nationalists
    want the reverse. They seem irreconcilable.
    
    Toby

    
    As I write, optimism is growing on the talks. On TV last night,
    Nell McCafferty (am Irish journalist born in Derry with no love
    of the BG) made an unmistakable call for Sinn Fein to get involved
    in talks - even to the extent of giving up the "armed struggle",
    much as the ANC has done is South Africa.
    
    Nell said that this was the strong feeling of the nationalist
    communities in the North - no wonder Gerry Adams is wandering
    around desperately telling everyone who will listen that the
    talks are a sellout.
    
    However to Sinn Fein/ IRA, politics is only "war by other means"
    - will they grasp the opportunity? And if they do, who will
    believe them?
    
    I was amazed at the mood of the studio audience - "everything is
    on the table" was the attitude, this would include the Constitution
    of the Republic.
    
    Maybe people are beginning to let themselves have a tiny glimmer of 
    hope. The more they hope, the greater will be the disappointment
    if the talks fail.
    
    Still the issue of finding a chairman drags on, the only name 
    mentioned so far is that of a Canadian Jewish lady judge - sounds
    like they are looking for a non-Irish non-Catholic non-Protestant
    non-male! But I probably do the lady wrong - she seemed to have a 
    heck of a lot of positive advantages for the job.
    
    Toby

    Also on the list of possible canidates is ex President Jimmy Carter.
    Ian Paisley has stated that this suggestion is a farce - I'm not sure
    why?
    
    .......Gerry

    
    Peter Brooke is in London today interviewing a candidate for 
    the chairmanship - no idea who it is. "London" suggests an
    English person, or someone who flew in for the occasion.
    Since nearly all the other matters have been agreed, we
    may have "liftoff" next week for Strand 1, if all parties
    agree on this person (I presume the IG have already agreed
    - again, the Unionists may be the stumbling block)
    
    The issue now is that without a doubt the 6 weeks left is not
    enough for the talks - the Irish and British may have to extend
    the break in Inter-Govermental meetings under the Anglo-Irish 
    agreement, as this was a condition under which the Unionists
    participated.
    
    The fact that the talks have survived so many brushes with 
    disaster over the last month is adding to the optimism.
    
    Toby
    

    
     Why was there a time limit put on the talks?
    

    
    
      I think if an English person were put in as Chairperson it would doom
    the talks from the start.  
    
      It could be viewed as the 'fox guarding the chicken coop'
    
      My vote still goes to Jimmy Carter ex Prez.
    
      Any other candidates out there.
    
      paddy

    How about Ted Koppel from Frontline (a point/counterpoint news show
    in the US)?  He is a balanced mediator.
     
    -g

    Can anyone confirm a news report which I heard on Radio 4's Today
    programme this morning. In it they said that after resolving
    disagreements regarding the venue of the second strand, they were now
    stuck on the chairman. Apparently everyone involved has agreed on
    someone (I didn't hear who) apart from the Unionists. I didn't hear all
    the report, but the tone seemed pretty grim.
    
    Any more info anyone ?
    
    Clive
    

    
It seems that Brooke has put forward the name of a possible chairman. This 
person is acceptable to the Irish government and SDLP but not to the Unionists
according to to-days Irish Press. 

    
    It emerged today that the putative chairman who Peter Brooke consulted
    in London yesterday was Lord Peter Carrington.
    Lord Carrington was Minster for defence and Foreign secretary in Mrs.
    Thatcher's first cabinet.He resigned at the start of the Falklands war
    and became head of NATO for four years.
    All parties except the Unionists have agreed to Carrington as chairman.
    The Unionists objection,as far as one can understand it,is that
    Carrington is untrustworthy due to his previous Foreign Office
    experience,and his friendly relations with the Irish Goverment in
    Anglo Irish talks in the early eighties.
    
    					Brendan
    P.S. Lord Carrington chaired the Lancaster house talks that led to the
    formation of Zimbabwe in the early eighties.

    
    Re: .37
    
    The talks have a time limit because the IG and the BG have agreed
    to a "break" in meetings of the Anglo Irish Intergovernmental 
    Conference set up under the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985. This
    gives the IG a say in the way NI is run (depends on your interpretation
    to an extent), so is a very unpleasant "Irish dimension" for the
    Unionists to swallow.
    
    After there very bitter demands to "scrap" the agreement, getting them
    into talks while the agreement is still in force, though "suspended",
    was an achievement.
    Again, use and interpretation of words depends on your point of
    view. The 10-week "gap" is hardly a real "suspension", though no
    one is going to rub the Unionists' noses in that.
    
    As the 10 weeks is now nearly half used up, the IG and BG will soon
    have to consider extending the "gap". However, there is suspicion
    all the time that the Unionists would string things out as long as
    possible so as to hinder Strand 2 from getting under way.
    
    Pity about Peter Carrington. Given his track record he would have
    made an excellent choice. HOwever, the Unionists have always 
    suspected the Foreign Office as a nest of traitors and sellouts,
    the fact that he persuaded the Iron Lady herself to accept the
    bona fides of the "terrorist" Robert Mugabe would render him
    suspect - he was never forgiven by the right wing Tories, and
    was made the scapegoat for the Falklands debacle (the original
    Argentine invasion). However it is true he got on extemely well
    with the IG - I have just heard Brian Lenehan making laudatory
    remarks about him on the radio.
    
    So its back to the drawing board!
    
    Toby 

    This about sums it up. Reprinted without permission from the current
    issue of Phoenix.
    
     
                     BROOKE INITIATIVES PLC
    
         is a young and rapidly contracting company with
         a virtual monopoly in the Northern Ireland talks
         industry.
    
         We now have a vacancy for an
    
                      INDEPENDANT CHAIRMAN
         
         to head our "Strand Two" operation
    
         If you are dynamic, resilient and out of your cotton
         -picking mind, you could be the person for us.
    
         The sucessful applicant will be a self starter (nobody
         else is likely to turn up) with a proven record of sitting
         on the fence  on a wide range of issues. Language skills
         are not essential, but a complete ignorance of English
         would be an advantage.
    
         An attractive remuneration package includes generous 
         Occupational injury benefit and on completion of contract,
         false passport, a plastic moustache and a new home in any
         country of choice.
    
         Please send psychiatric report and CV stating career experience
         , religious beliefs, sexual habits, and a detailed account of all
         movements in the last 25 years to:
    
                            PETER BROKEMAN
                            THE FUNNY FARM
                            STORMONT-IN-A-TEACUP
                            N. IRELAND
    

    How's about Maggie now she's given up the day job 
    and has time on her hands......... :-)
    
    
    Louis
    

    Who have the unionists proposed ?
    
    What sort of qualities are they looking for in a chairperson ?
    
    Are there not heaps of [independent] people to choose from in countries
    like Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal or Sweden who would not be
    considered biased.
    

    Leaprechauns sometimes wonder at the constitutional ignorant.
    
    re. 46
    
    The chairperson can only come from either Ireland or mainland Britain.
    
    There is a simple unspoken reason for this.  HMG is bound by the
    unwritten constitution of the U.K. on this one.  You see Northern
    Ireland is NOT a colony it is part of the U.K. by their reasoning.
    
    For a chairman to come from any country other than Irl or U.K. would
    place some non-subject in authority over a piece of Her Majesty's
    sovereignty.  This of course cannot be contemplated as you would be
    asking HMG to do the very opposite to what they were appointed to do 
    viz; uphold the realm.
    
    Do I hear you say that an Irishman would also be ruled out in that 
    scenario ????  The answer is NO s/he would not, as through a little
    known quirk of the U.K. constitution the Republic of Irl. is not 
    separate in total from the U.K. as the declaration of the Irish 
    Republic in 1949 was never recognised by the U.K. parliament or the
    monarch who was up to that time technically the soverign of the Irish
    Free State.  
    This might sound like poppycock but its the reason that an Irish person
    does NOT require a passport when going to the U.K. and visa versa.
    Protocol me boyos has deep meaning.
    
    Of course the Unionists won't have an Irish person in the chair anyway.
                                   
    In fact the U.K. has a "pretext" for the re-usurpation of Ireland if
    it ever wanted to do it.  The advent of the EC has made all this less
    relevant however, unless of course a weak neutral Ireland had to be
    secured to prevent a bad overlord from providing a "back door" aircraft
    carrier to threaten the interests of the whole of Europe.
    
    If a non-British chairperson is agreed there will be constitutional
    precedents set and I for one will be a very surprised individual.
    
    So forget the rest of the sources.
    
    Snakes were the original masters of Ireland until the first British 
    invader in 432 a.d.
    
    

    
    RE: Previous 2 notes.
    
    I think Mike is falling into a common Irish trap - expecting the
    rest of the world to be familiar with the intricacies of the
    Anglo-Irish imbroglio. Not so, I'm afraid, perhaps Mike could
    give us the benefit of his knowledge of Basque separatism and
    the Spanish constitution? If you are not a Spaniard or a Basque,
    why should anyone bother to find out, except out of curiousity?
    
    Keep the questions coming, Tony.
    
    From rumours over the weekend, the Unionists have suggested three
    people - 1) Michael Havers (now Lord Havers) was Mrs Thatchers
    Attorney-General, was early in his career involved in some 
    prosecutions of IRA "terrorists", who turned out to be innocent
    people fitted up by the police (Birmingham 6, Guildford 4). Was 
    involved in Supergrass trials in the early '80's. Not likely to 
    be accepted by the IG - said to be on the opposite end of the 
    Tory political spectrum to Lord Carrington.
    
    2) Lord Lowery - former Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland.
    Oversaw the system of non-jury Diplock courts for suspected IRA
    men, thus a bit dubious in Nationalist eyes. Not likely to be
    accepted by IG.
    
    3) Merlyn Rees - former Labour Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
    Largely ineffectual - blamed by Nationalists for not supporting the
    power-sharing executive set up under the Sunningdale agreement in the
    mid-'70's, caved in to Loyalist general strike. However, is generally
    reckoned to be broadly Nationalist in sympathy, and a respected MP.
    A "maybe".
    
    I think you can gather from these the type of person the Unionists are
    looking for - basically pillars of the Establishment!
    
    Toby

    
    Re -1 Lord Lowery!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    Bit like getting Sadam Hussein to referee a USA V Iraq football match
    -) -) -).
    
    This crack about a chairman is an insult to the people of Northern
    Ireland....What do the people on the street of the north think. Is
    there much interest in these talks?...any faith ???.
    
    Mick
    

    
    Looks like MIke's statement that a UK person has to chair the talks
    is not the case - the DUP have suggested a Zimbabwean judge, and
    a Canadian judge was mentioned as an early possibility. No one has
    ruled them out as being non-UK nationals.
    
    At first I though the Zimbabwean might be Ian Smith! However, the
    candidate has an African sounding name (don't ask me to spell it!).
    
    As to whether the Northern parties are in earnest, the answer is
    YES. The Unionists so not seem to realise that they are expending
    their energy on side issues, and that when the negotiating begins
    they will be in a weak position to threaten any walkouts. 
    
    As I said above, the Unionists are not used to negotiating from
    weakness, as the SDLP are, or at negotiating in international 
    forums, as the IG and BG are.
    
    Some more good signs over the weekend (which was a bloody one):
    Peter Robinson, Paisley's deputy, said he believes the talks will
    succeed. John Hume said that he would talk for 15 weeks or 15
    months if it solved the problem. The will to talk is there, but
    this initial positioning is infuriatingly long drawn out.
    
    Toby 

    
     I want to thank you, Toby, for keeping me/us updated.
    
     I won't bet the farm on their success, but it would surely be a great 
    accomplishment if these talks produced nothing but the end of these 
    damned killings.  
    
    Slainte,
    
    Frank
      

    RE:  50
    
    Toby, I know Canada is in the british commonwealth, but not sure of
    Zimbabwee.  Maybe the the UK constitutional wording includes this?
    
    RE:  18
    
    Toby, you drew a parallelism between John Hume and Sin Fein.  I know 
    they both lean on the same side, but Hume is and has been US civil
    rights protogee, inspired by Martin Luther King.  I have never heard
    him advocate violence as a means to reach peace.  Only through peaceful
    talks and compromises can peace be reach.
    
    
    Personally, I don't see how the talks can succeed.  The IRA's existence
    and poplulatity is based on the British Army in Northern Irelanc and the 
    non-Catholic RUC.  The Unionists want to remain totally British while  
    living in Northern Ireland.
    Both of these hard lines don't seem to want to give an inch.
    I might also add, from my relations and travels to the north, that 
    these two extremes, do not reflect the northern society as a whole.  The 
    average citizen and family just want peace under Fair rule, whether it
    be British or Irish.
    
    After 1992 will the EC have a common UN like peace keeping force to 
    use in violent stalemate areas?  et al NI, Basque region of Spain, etc.
    
    I may be dreaming, but the only path I see to Northern Ireland peace is;
    
    - Both extremist sides, UVF etc. and IRA etc. must have a complete 
      and total cease fire!
    - The British Army must leave Northern Ireland and all the pillar 
      blocks, blocked roads and neighborhood wall partitions must come 
      down much like the Berlin Wall.
      (It would help if there was no currency exchange rate difference, 
       i.e.  Euro $ unit, and an equal VAT on all goods.) 
    - The IRA and other national fractions must allow the Catholics to 
      join the RUC or a completely new Northern Ireland resident police force  
      must be formed.
    - A UN of Euro (no British or Irish) force will most likely be needed
      to prevent a civil war.
    - Youth intergration mandatory for some activities, a few days
      during the week.  
      (The Catholic church will not allow a state school so some common
       non religous ground would have to be found.)
    - A new country formed with their own constitution, including clauses
      for joining either Britain or Ireland in the future if the populace
      so desires.  There would need to be complete constitutional 
      separation from church and state, with mutuall agreed upon holidays
      and days of celebration.
    
    
    I know, I know, there are a lot of obstacles in working out the fine
    points and getting the people not to kill each other, but this is my 
    view as an interested outsider with many sympathies.
    
    Now that I have 2 kids, everytime I read of a killing in Northern
    Ireland I look to see if the person was married and has kids.
    These numerous killings can never be justified if you stop to think
    about the scars and deprivatiy the kids and widows will carry thoughout 
    their lives!
    

    
    Re: .52
    
    Thanks, Paul, for your contribution. Having lived here and travelled
    to the North you realise its complexity. I believe that the Irish
    have somehow to put the past behind and start from where we are
    RIGHT NOW to break down barriers and build up trust between the 
    communities. That's means each side giving a bit and getting a bit 
    - something that I hope will happen in these talks. 
    
    I don't agree with your full solution, but most of what you say
    I fully support.
    
    I did not mean to lump John Hume with Sinn Fein, and did not realise
    this had been done. There is a major difference in method. 
    
    Toby 

    
    Just heard on the car radio in the way in here - newsflash of
    a breakthrough in the Northern talks. Sustantive round table
    talks between the SDLP, Unionists, DUP and Alliance parties
    will now definitely begin on Monday 17th June. All issues
    over location and standing orders have been settled.
    
    The four party leaders met this afternoon - a chairman for 
    strand 2 has yet to be agreed but all seemed confident that
    this was now no obstacle (suggests a short list has been agreed).
    The leaders emerged so smiling and happy I don't think the 
    RTE reporter could quite believe his eyes, after some of the
    recrimination of the past weeks. 
    
    Fingers crossed for no more banana skins!
    
    Toby

    RE: .55
    
    Snake,
    
    I agree with you nearly 100%.  The paramilitaries must be involved,
    since they are in power now and a complete UK-independent chairperson
    is needed.  Anything less is and will be a farse with the continuation
    of more senseless killings.  
    
    This is why I was speculating how a post 1992 Europe will look and act
    like, regarding their internal troubles.  Northern Ireland being right
    on the top of their "troubles" list.  Will they have any power to act
    on the Northern Ireland situation?  I don't know.
    
    I too am pessimistic about the latest talk or shall I say lack of talk.
    There is obvious hidden agendas on all sides.  The extremists will 
    never give in too much to the other side while UK and Ireland are
    have a direct say in the way their state is run.
    I can't really see the UK conservative government doing anything 
    liberal or dramatic in NI.  Their history speaks for itself.
    
    Well the system just booted....back to work!
    
    Cheers,
    Paul

    
    Leprechauns should read the newspapers.
    
    The Unionists have now put forward a total of 23 names, including
    a Canadian judge, a Zimbabwean judge and a U.S. Professor of
    "Conflict Resolution" at University of Virginia (I kid you not).
    BTW, the Zimbabwean spent most of the '70s in Zambia where he
    fled for his own safety. He was the first black Chief Justice of
    an Independent Zimbabwe (under Mugabe).
    
    No one expects the shooting to stop just as soon as there is an
    internal settlement in the North, or a North-South settlement. 
    The IRA/ Sinn Fein will not tolerate being left out and will do 
    their utmost to overthrow any settlement, even if backed by 
    referenda north and south. That is democracy, IRA-style
    (i.e. the people do not have the right to be wrong, be my 
     brother or I'll kill you).
    
    I anticipate even an increase of violence ahead as desperation 
    sets in (the signs are there - yesterday the IRA planted a large
    bomb on a civilian housing estate). However, if all the parties
    keep their nerve, it can be defeated.
    
    Sinn Fein have been given the opportunity to participate, provided
    they renounce violence and commit themselves to the ballot box.
    There is absolutely no reason why they should not do so, and 
    save pointless grief. Why should constitutional parties bend over
    backwards to be more accomodating? Sinn Fein have the support of
    about 3% of the electorate on this island - what have they got
    except guns that makes them deserving of a veto over progress?
    
    I concede that Sinn Fein draws its support mostly from the embattled
    areas of Northern Ireland, and something must be done to draw these
    into the political process. Assuming a settlement is reached (and
    o.k., it is only a 50-50 chance) I would allow a decent interval for
    Sinn Fein/ IRA to enter constitutional politics. If that fails
    I would introduce internment known IRA men north and south which 
    as it would extend over the whole island would probably be as effective as
    it was in 1956-60 (when Fianna Fail introduced it in the Republic).
    After a year, all who signed commitments not to use violence
    would be returned to society. I would not touch Sinn Fein elected
    members, unless also members of the IRA. A significant reduction 
    in violence for a 1-year period could work wonders.
    
    Incidentally, it is interesting to hear old tapes been played so
    loudly by Mike - "We wuz robbed" to the refrain of "Perfidious
    Albion" is an old tune played often in Irish pubs. Now its been 
    played even before talks begin! However, I believe that the
    BG and IG have a clear idea of where they are going, I for one
    have high hopes in our maturity as a state to ignore old tapes 
    and live in the present as the key to the future, rather than
    (to quote Paul Brady) "trying to reach the future through the
    past".
    
    Toby

    >Sinn Fein have been given the opportunity to participate, provided
    >they renounce violence and commit themselves to the ballot box.
    
    
    	Did the other parties to the talks have to renounce violence ?
    
    	Did the British Govt./Army/SAS renounce violence ?
    
    
    
    	Tony.

    
    
     re .58
    
    
                                   BULLS-EYE!
    
    

 re -> Internment for known IRA men.

I have no doubt that this is on the "hidden" agenda. I presume you simply 
forgot to say you would support similar action for UDA people -) -).

Sinn Fein have already stated that they will study the outcome of the talks.
You suggest they have being given an opportunity to participate. No they
have not. If you call "an opportunity" agreeing to Mr Paisleys or Robinsons
"pre-conditions" then Ok. But thats neither feasibile nor realsitic.

How about realeasing all the prisoners first and banning the UDR from patrolling
Nationalist areas. How do you thing Mr paisley would look at that. ie When you
start preconditions terms both sides could have alot to say about it. Whats
wrong with simply inviting SF to the talks to hear what they have to say ??? 

By the way try run the word "internment" past people in a Nationalist area!.
There are nice arguments for it when your not affected by the outcome of it.
I mean is that not trying to reach the future through the past?????
                                      
rgs,

Slainte

Mick.

    
    Re: Previous Notes.
    
    No one is asking the IRA to renounce violence, however if Sinn Fein
    is to be accepted as a constitutional political party then it must
    renounce its private army, as Eamon De Valera had the courage and
    good sense to do when he founded Fianna Fail.
    
    IF a settlement is reached (and we all hope and pray one is reached),
    then I believe referenda should be called North and South to allow
    the Irish people (Catholic and Protestant) to give their approval
    (this should concentrate wonderfully the minds of the politicians!).
    This will have to happen anyway, if the Republic are to change 
    Articles I and II and the Constitution.
    
    Assuming the referenda are passed, I would expect the IRA to give up
    its "armed struggle" as having no legitimacy whatsoever in the eyes
    of the Irish people - no that it has legitimacy in any event, but this
    should drive the message home as nothing else could. Sinn Fein should
    also enter the full constutional process.
    
    THEN, IF the IRA do NOT renounce the "armed struggle", I would start
    limited internment North and South to allow the constitutional
    settlement to take root. It would be extremely important for it to
    be North AND South, particularly to have the approval of the IG. 
    Effectively, the IG have a veto over the introduction of internment.
    
    It is extremely naive to equate the IRA with the Northern Security
    forces. I support the Irish government and the people who are trying
    to redress injustices in the Northern legal system, however these are
    LEGITIMATE forces with LEGAL authority recognised by every government
    in the world, including the government of the Republic of Ireland,
    enshrined in the Anglo-Irish agreement. You cannot equate a group of
    tribal Nationalist guerillas with the forces of the Irish and British
    governments, who are both co-operating to fight the IRA.
    
    Besides, why don't the IRA call a "truce", and allow Sinn Fein to go
    into talks, given the opportunity is there? I quoted Nell McCafferty
    above that the deep feeling of the Nationalist community in the North
    is that this should happen. But since when has the IRA listened to the 
    Democratic wishes of the Irish people?
    
    Toby

Hi Toby,

Agenda points.

Are articles I and II on the agenda to be changed?. Do you think a Fianna Fail
govt. would agree to that?. ( Realistically  speaking I doubt it )...and I don't
think the majority of the people in Ireland would either.

Not sure what you mean in people  equating the IRA to the security forces.
I would imagine everyone would like the violence to stop but accusing one
side of being TOTALLY at fault and ignoring the underlying and obvious 
injustices by so called legitimate bodies ain't going to get a solution.

Yes a ceasefire/truce would be nice...and possibily feasibile if it included
things like keeping the UDR out of certain areas etc for the duration...
seemingly the last one left a bad taste in the republican movement causing
a split (correct me if I'm wrong here,). 

Incidently is there any info..rumours etc about whats on the agenda...besides
selective internment?. Any powersharing proposals ?.. 

slainte and thanks for keeping us up todate

Mick

    Leaprechauns are still on the ball.
    
    The name proferred by the two gvmts. to the Unionists begins with Sir
    and his former role was governor general of Australia.
    
    We all know that the governor general of Australia is an appointee of
    HMG and acts for the crown not for Australia as was evidenced in the
    '70's when a governor general dissolved the government of Australia
    against the wishes of the Australian parliament.
    
    Its a doomed process until HMG recognises that it is NOT the arbitrer
    of an Irish settlement.  You cannot be part of the solution when you
    are part of the problem.
    
    Snake is still on target but ordinary folk usually don't understand
    the niceties of protocol, precedent, and constitutional finery.

    The accepted chairman is Sir Ninian Stevens, ex Governor General of
    Australia. He was , I think, responsible for sorting out relations
    between GB and Australia after the sacking of the Whitlam (sp?)
    government in the 70's. He is also a supporter of Aboriginal rights and
    minority causes. Finally, he knows nothing about the situation in
    Ireland, which may well be the best recommendation.
    
    Any other thoughts, comments, etc on his appointment.
    
    Clive

    
    Sir Ninian Stephens' appointment gives rise to completely neutral
    feelings in me, which seems to have been the general reaction.
    This in itself means that it is probably a good appointment, as
    long he has the qualities to stamp his personal authority on the
    proceedings, as well as being conciliatory enough to progress
    the work of the talks.
    
    Mike's reaction is very amusing - far from being the reaction of
    a constitutional theorist, it seems to stem far more from a
    paranoia that anyone with a waft of "the crown" about him, is bound
    to be part of a secret freemasonry to re-establish the British Empire
    in all its glory. One need only to look at the parts played
    by Lord Carrington, and Christopher Soames (son-in-law of Winston
    Churchill) in the independence of Zimbabwe to realise that being
    a member of the British upper crust does not mean that one wants to
    perpetuate the British Empire for ever.
    
    Stephens is not even from the British upper crust but is from a country 
    that is now an independent power centre within the Commonwealth and
    the world at large. If Mike tried to convince the Aussies they were, 
    all unawares, agents of the British Empire, he would just be 
    horse-laughed out of town.
    
    Australia suffered a very disillusioning moment in 1942 when it
    was exposed to Japanese attack and suffered major casualties in 
    Malaya and New Guinea, with Darwin bombed, while their troops
    were thousands of miles away defending Britain and the Suez Canal. 
    It culminated a process that started with Gallipoli. Australia has 
    always ploughed her own furrow since 1942, and certainly does not 
    follow Britain in foreign or domestic policy. For example, it led 
    the pressure on Maggie Thatcher in the 80's on sanctions against 
    South Africa.
    
    What is more amusing of all, is that Mike's attitudes is exactly
    parallelled by that of the UNIONISTS. It was these who held up
    the talks for seven weeks arguing about the "constitutional
    niceties" Mike professes to be an expert on. To most of us they
    seemed fairly trivial, worthy of discussion yes, but hardly 
    warranting such prolonged attention. It is also the Unionists who 
    were intent on barring the charimanship from anyone with a waft of 
    "green" about him, just like Mike would bar anyone with a waft of 
    "orange".
    
    After a while you just wish that people would grow up a little.
    
    About the talks in general, let's sit and wait because they are
    shaping up to be a long drawn out process, possibly even a year
    or more. One current issue is the next meeting of the Anglo-Irish
    conference - should the two ministers meet as part of the A-I 
    agreement? This raises Unionist hackles, as part of the "carrot"
    for them in the talks is that the agreement will be scrapped. 
    
    Toby
    

    Reading the comments in this file reminds me of the final words from
    Leon Uris' novel TRINITY,
      "... the sorrows and the troubles have never left that tragic, lovely
       land.  For you see, in Ireland there is no future, only the past
       happening over and over."
    

    
    Re: .62
    
    I don't know if a Fianna Fail minister has said that Articles 2 and 3
    are on the agenda, but "generic statements" have been made that make
    it clear that this is the case. It has to be on the table for
    realistic discussions with the Unionists to take place. Besides,
    every Fianna Fail Taoiseach has made it clear that all Irishmen
    gathered around that almost mythical "table", then constitutional
    change would have to be on the agenda. This is that moment.
    
    I am not "blaming one side", I hope. However, the IRA campaign by
    its prolonged duration and savage character, has stripped itself
    of legitimacy in all but some areas of Ireland. In the early
    '70's I think the majority of us were "sympathisers" to a greater
    or lesser extent, particularly during internment. However, an
    effect has happened similar to the US in Vietnam - people are
    being challenged, mainly through their nightly news bulletins,
    to choose where their feelings are (yesterday a young soldier was
    murdered in front of his fiancee as they planned their wedding).
    While the aspiration to a United Ireland is still strong among
    nationalists, it is liable to remain just that, moreover considerably 
    weakened by its identification with the same IRA.
    
    There is evil in the UDR and the British Army, but much of what
    they do is reactive - most controversy and attention about the
    North centres on the activity of the security forces or the IRA, 
    not about the legitimacy of the 6-county state, or its part in the 
    UK. It has been said "the conflict is about the conflict" i.e. it is
    a vicious circle. The only people who can realistically break this
    circle is the IRA. To ask the BA or UDR to back down is unrealistic
    - besides it would only encourage the IRA.
    
    The IRA campaign has long passed the point where it has any military
    value, it now a pure terror campaign more like the Red Brigades than
    the IRA of 1919-21, or the Israeli Irgun of 1945-48. 
    
    The issues aroung the legal system in the North are like the Civil
    Rights issues of the '60's and it is around these that debate and
    pressure on the BG should concentrate. Unity of Ireland will wait
    until it can be done in brotherhood as Wolfe Tone said
    "Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter adopt the common name of
    Irishman". Today, we have Loyalist Irishmen, Unionist Irishman,
    Nationalist Irishmen, Republican Irishmen - some
    day we will generate a common set of symbols that will embrace
    them all. But the time is not yet .....
    
    Toby

    
    re: .65
    
    If you read .22 you will find that Paul Brady is saying (or
    singing) the same thing in a much more challenging way.
    
    Ireland has a lot of characteristics of what behavioural psychologists
    call patterned behaviour - the best example is the wife raised in
    a violent family who marries a violent husband and stays with him
    for years. She is conditioned to accept low self-esteem in herself
    from youth, and draws perverse comfort from having her innermost 
    feelings about herself continually confirmed.
    
    Much too often we indulge in unthinking "British perfidy/ Irish
    innocence" or "British tyranny/ Irish justification" reactions
    (as also do the Unionists, but of a different type) because they
    confirm a stereotype we already have, rather than because they 
    conform to objective reality. Credit must be given to a new
    breed of revisionist historians, and to people like Conor
    Cruise O'Brien, who have challenged some of the old myths -
    not that all they saying is necessarily correct, but his has
    challenged the old patterns, and hopefully lead to new perceptions
    of Ireland and Irishness.
    
    Mustn't forget Jack Charlton either, leading a team of mostly
    Englishmen - when I was younger who would believe England's full
    back in the 1966 World Cup would become "Uncrowned King of Ireland"?
    
    To read some of the notes here, one might believe that the
    BG was composed of political Machiavellis, while the IG were
    a bunch of political virgins! Come on! We're talking about
    Charlie Haughey, Gerry Collins and Dessie O'Malley here!
    Men who have milked the EC to the last drop, and kept 'em
    smiling all the time. Jeesus lads, the Brits will be offering
    us Scotland by the time the talks are over!
    
    Toby
    

	Re .66
         
      
	We do as a Nation have a tendency to look back and
	relive and re-tell history....

	Hopefully, in my view more and more people will use
	history in a positive sense - to learn from it in setting
	the direction for the future.

	The future is all that matters. If the various "sides"
	meeting together at the moment can demonstrate leadership
	by throwing off the shackles of the past AND bringing the
	majority of their people with them in a new direction 
	we MAY be on to something here.
	
	I'm hopeful.

	Louis

	ps - Keep in goin' Toby!	

    Loyalist:- A person who is Loyal to the Crown (of Britain).
    Unionist:- A person who supports the Union of Northern Ireland with
    Great Britain.(Originally Ireland and Britain were united by an Act
    of Parliament,The Act of Union,in 1800.)Same as Loyalist.
    Republican:-A person who supports the idea of an Irish Republic.
    This idea was first raised in 1798 by Wolfe Tone who founded the United
    Irishmen and was inspired by French Republicanism,which was in turn
    inspired by the American variety.
    Today,it is used to refer especially to anyone who aspires to a republic
    that would cover ALL the island of Ireland.
    Nationalist:- One who supports the Irish nation in general,as opposed
    to Loyalist or unionist,but not necessarily in support of a republic.
    
    

    The military (GB Army), police (RUC), and the paramilitaries (UDR/UFF,
    IRA) all have their roles in the never ending vicious circle of defend
    and fight back.
    The GB Army is there to defend all people in NI, but let's face it,
    most if not all are English, Scottish or Welsh that have strong
    loyalist up bringings.  They give the IRA non-Irish targets and
    depending on your point of view act, as a great IRA recruiting
    incentive.   The youths, in particular the Catholic ones, grow up
    always seeing the military in their various patrols, checkpoints and 
    searches.  This constant military exposure just adds to the IRA 
    recruitment.
    
    The RUC could play a more critical role, but from past exposure, is a
    very corrupt organisation lacking the respect of the general public.
    It has no civil outside review board to legitimize it.  On top of this,
    it is mainly made up of NI Loyalists.  The IRA will not allow Catholics
    to joint the RUC and if they do they are warned, intimidated or
    shot or possible family members shot.  Here's where the IRA looses 
    a lot of its legitimacy and mirrors the Mafia with intimidation and
    fear as its most potent weapons.  An intermixed RUC could add a lot
    of stability to NI.  It is the same scenario in American cities in
    defending black areas.  If they went in there with a 100% white force
    all neighbors from kids to the old would distrust them.  But most city
    police forces have an even mixture of black and white officers to
    police black neighhoods with many of the black officers coming from
    the community that they are policing.
    
    As far as the paramilitaries go;  I think the UDR/UFF/UVF have the
    cards stacked in their favour with many Loyalist ties with the RUC and 
    the GB Army.   Where do they get their guns and explosives from?
    I'm sure its source is more local than Libya.
    The IRA is a ruthless criminal organisation, but one can easily see how
    they stay in business with attitudes and the state of the RUC and GB Army.
    This sectarian killing is such a sickness, with women and children
    forced to suffer constantly.
    
    With GB you can never over state a need for neutrality.  We need to 
    move ahead but learn and grow from history.  
    A neutral peace keeping force and a neutral chairperson is the best 
    ways to legitimacize the NI talks.
    
    Cheers,
    Paul
     
    
    PS.  I like Toby's optimism and his insight, but I lean cautiously 
         towards Snakes fears and lack of trust in GB sincerity.

    
    I agree with a lot of the previous, just a few points:
    
       Definitions: George Orwell would feel at home with these because
       there is a great deal of "1984" about them ("War is Peace" etc.).
       A "Loyalist" is usually taken to be an extreme Unionist, but one
       who is SO loyal that he will rebel against the BG to demonstrate
       his loyalty i.e. "Loyalist" = " Conditional Loyalist"
    
       "Republican" is another good one as when you examine many of the
       the so called "republicans" you find "Unionists need not apply"
       i.e. "Republican = Accept a Catholic/ Nationalist Republic or I'll
             kill you".
       Furthermore, the ideas of Democracy do not seem to have penetrated
       to many "Republicans" as they have consistently rejected the 
       views of the the Irish, North and South, as expressed through
       the ballot box.
       i.e. "Republican = Bullets are better than ballots".
    
       Nationalist seems clear enough, however what "nation" are we
       talking about? Are Unionists part of the the "Irish nation"?
       The Constitiution of the Irish Republic talks about "fidelity
       to the nation" but does not define the "nation" at all!
       The supposition is that the "Nationalism" = "Catholic Nationalism".  
       What "Irish Nationalism" or "Irish Repubicanism" has 
       conistently failed to do is define where Unionism stands
       in relation to the rest of the island. Do the Scots-Irish
       Protestants in the North-East of the island form a nation
       of their own? Or are they part of "our" nation?
    
      So be aware! These definitions should also carry a health
      warning!
    
    	Toby

    
    RUC etc.
    
    I'd like to point out that Cathal Daly, Archbishop of Armagh
    has urged Catholics to join the RUC, and that the SDLP has 
    requested Catholics to give information to the security about
    IRA killings.
    
    I'd also like to point out that most Catholics find the RUC
    acceptable to deal with "normal" crime i.e. if your house is
    burgled or your car stolen, who do you call? Of course the IRA
    has tried to set itself up as a "law-enforcement agency" by
    administering kneecappings and beatings (its called "people's
    juctice" when the IRA do it), however these Catholics still seem
    to prefer the regular justice system to the IRA's kangaroo 
    courts.
    
    We even had the rediculous sight of Sinn Feiners complaining
    that the RUC was not doing enough to defend Catholic areas against
    sectarian shootings, and then cheering when those self-same RUC
    men get shot!
    
    So the "unacceptability" of the RUC can be much exaggerated.
    I would agree that the RUC is not 100% acceptable to Catholics, and
    that they must be encouraged to join. This is about the biggest
    bargaining counter the SDLP have, because to completely normalise
    the justice system you need to give the minority a fairer say
    in the way the North is run. 
    
    On the other side, despite their operations against the BA, the
    IRA at this stage are mainly "Protestant-killers", and to defeat
    them the Unionists must make concessions....
    
    Talks are speeding up, July 16th is crisis day and it is hoped
    that sufficient advances will have been made so that the IG
    and BG will not go ahead with their A-I meeting on that day.
    
    However, if talks do break down, I am optimistic that they will
    come together again within a matter of months. 
    
    Toby

    
    Toby,
    
       When I was in Belfast a couple years ago having a pint and the RUC 
    raided the club there wasn't a person there that seemed to like them.  
    As a point of interest this is a common occurance two to three times a day 
    in all the clubs in West Belfast.  I spoke to some loyalists while I was 
    there and they said that NEVER happens in there clubs.  Even in the Shankill
    area.  I have often wondered why are republican clubs raided and not
    the loyalist's clubs. Especially since you elude that they both support
    or are paramilitary groups.  I always thought, What's good for the
    goose is good for the gander.
    
    Well I'm off for a few days on vacation so you all have fun.
    
    paddy

    
    
    
    	RE: .75
    
    
    	I thought ALL those clubs in West Belfast were "Members Only"  :-)
    
    
    
    
    	keVin
    

No they were just annoyed because they were not invited 

		MBr

The RUC musta thought it was a "Non-members only" bar.


Pat (a non-member in most bars)

    
    The Brooke talks came to an end last week.
    
    It remains to be seen if these talks can be restarted later in the
    year. There are positive signals that this may happen.
    
    Through these talks, Yeats' lines kept running though my head:
    
    "We are closed in, 
     and the key is turned on our uncertainty.
     Last night they trundled down the road
     that dead young soldier in his blood.
     Oh, honey bees, come build in the empty nest of the stare.
    
     We have fed the heart on fantasies,
     The heart's grown brutal from the fare.
     More substance in our enmity than in our love,
     Oh, honey bees, come build in the emtpy nest of the stare."
    
    From "Lines written in time of Civil War"
    
    Toby 

    Leaprechauns are unhappy.
    
    1. The talks were a good try and even an honest try by Mr. Brooke.
    
    2. The end if it is the end had an inevitability about it.
    
    3. Hidden Agendas abounded so the talks were always going to range
       over the superficial and the inconsequential.  Unless the hidden 
       agendas are placed on the table there cannot be any kind of talks.
    
    4. The Unionists have absolutely no reason for entering talks and I
       remain amazed that they took part.  Hence the panic over chairmen
       and locations.  Unionism is founded on a simple piece of doggerel
       known as "not an inch".  To talk would mean compromise and giving
       more than the proverbial inch.  Who was forcing them to do that ??
       Who, Who, Who, Who, ........?????????  They participated so that
       they could go back and say to the outside world that they tried etc.
       but that others blocked them out.  Mr. Paisley has already trotted
       out this line.
    
    5. Yeat's was not an expert on politics and his poetry however
       imaginative and beautiful does not take a single gun off the 
       streets.  I would admire the work but the sentiment is just that
       and we need cool heads more so.
    
    6. If there is a to be a next time then there has to be a set of
       clear objectives going in and some imposed constitutional 
       disincentives in the event of a breakdown.  The old book is not
       yet torn up.
    
    Leaprechauns are mad at the wasted opportunity.
    

Like Gandhi said to the Brits:  
    
                      "In the end, you WILL walk out."
    
    
    
                      British Favor Pulling Out of Ireland

                       William Miller Globe Correspondent
                         Boston Sunday Globe (10/27/91)


   LONDON - More than 60% of the British people favor withdrawal
of British troops from Northern Ireland, according to an
independent television station.

   Channel Four, in its weekly investigative program "Critical
Eye," reported Thursday that an opinion poll conducted in
mainland Britain showed 61 percent of those questioned favored
withdrawal of troops from the province either immediately or
within a set period.

   In the poll, 73 percent said the presence of troops had made
no difference to settlement of problems in the strife-torn
province; only 17 percent said it had helped.

   The survey was conducted by Market and Opinion Research
International, a polling company used by British newspapers,
television stations and political parties.

   The poll results indicated that the percentage of British in
favor of troop withdrawal has not changed appreciably over the
last 10 years. In 1981, the figure was 59 percent, falling to 53
percent in 1984 but reaching 61 percent in 1987.

   Prominently featured in the television program was Rep. Joseph
Kennedy 2d of Massachusetts, campaigner for the unification of
Ireland, who said British troops were sent to Northern Ireland
20 years ago to protect Roman Catholics "who don't want to be
defended."

   Kennedy said, "Go to a Catholic community and ask, 'Do you
want the British troops here?' Not a single catholic says, 'Oh
yeah. We want the British troops.'"

   Kennedy said that while human rights are a concern throughout
the world, "when we get to Northern Ireland many of these issues
are not put in the same light."

   Kennedy also said he found no evidence that the British were
going to defeat the IRA or that the IRA was going to defeat the
British.

   Channel Four's opinion poll also reported that 51 percent of
the British people believe that Sinn Fein, the political arm
of the IRA, should be included in all-party talks on the future
of Northern Ireland.

   At a news conference in Westminster, Tony Benn, a Labor member
of Parliament, called on the Conservative governmnt to withdraw
the military, saying, "Without British troops, the Protestant and
Catholic communities would have to learn to live together. The
presence of the troops has been an excuse that both sides have
been happy to have because while they are there, they can always
blame the British."
                       [End of article]



    In the end, you WILL walk out.

    
    Things have moved on since this note finished.
    
    A new round of talks has been held and is currently awaiting
    the return of the politicians from vacation for a re-start.
    Mike's paranoia expressed in .80 has not been vindicated.
    Besides, it seems to me that talks that contain a denigration
    of the opposition (as he expressed) are fore-doomed.
    
    Also the Unionists took most of the blame for the failure of the
    earlier talks, and it weakened their position to an alarming
    extent. Peter Robinson spoke of them being "pushed onto the
    window ledge of the Union." This time, things have gone off
    amazingly smoothly. As yet, no breakthrough seems in sight.
    
    If there isn't mutual tolerance, no "I'm OK, you're OK",
    then - forget it!
    
    Toby