Are not the Geneva Conventions and Hague regulations also applicable to the occupied Irish territory as well?

Despite the sordid history of the British dirty tricks counterinsurgency strategy in Ireland, north and south, and the mountain of documented evidence of British state collusion with sectarian loyalist paramilitaries, is not human rights law also applicable to the occupied Irish territory?

Extending this logic to the issue of the border specifically and partition in general, would not the border constitute a violation of international humanitarian and human rights law as well? Rather than attract foreign investment in the occupied northeastern territories, which would only serve to bolster the selfish economic interest of Britain, is there not an erga omnes character of concern to the whole of the international community that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ireland be recognized?

Hmm, let’s try a simple word association sort of fill-in-the-blank exercise with this one: “The Irish territories, despite the limited transfer of powers to Stormont under the Good Friday Agreement, remain occupied in their entirety.” Fun.

Self-explanatory.
Interestingly enough, as Michael Flannery once said, "To fight for the liberty of one's country is recognized world-wide as a just war."

The Wall violates the right of Palestinian people for self-determination, a right that has already been declared by the court more than once as a preemptory right of concern to the whole of the international community.

Is it truly that far of a stretch to argue that the border violates the right of the Irish people for self-determination? Unlike the case of Palestine, however, as far as I am aware no international body, administrative or judicial, has yet to declare the right of the Irish people for self-determination. The 32 County Sovereignty Movement has submitted a brief as well as an addendum to the United Nations on the issue of Irish sovereignty but again, as far as I am aware, no action has been taken by the U.N. The time has come to vigorously step up this campaign.

As the late barrister and winner of the Nobel and Lenin Peace Prizes, Sean McBride, once said, “Irelands right to sovereignty, independence and unity are inalienable and indefeasible. It is for the Irish people as a whole to determine the future status of Ireland. Neither Britain nor a small minority selected by Britain has any right to partition the ancient island of Ireland, nor to determine its future as a sovereign nation.”

Israel enjoys, as any other state, the right of self-defense. However, in this case this right does not exclude wrongful acts arising from the construction of the Wall. The right of self-defense is an inherent right of every state, which could be exercised once that state is attacked by another state. The attacks inside Israel are not attacks originating and supported by another state, rather they originate from territories under Israel’s authority. Surely a state cannot claim a right of self-defense against itself. Thus the court rules out the applicability of potential recent developments in international law arising from the recognition that the US attack against Afghanistan after 9/11 was an exercise of its right to self-defense against a state which harbored and actively supported terrorists. This determination by the court bares consequences on other Israeli claims, including its claimed right of “targeted killings” arising partly from its inherent right for self-defense.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains to pose a threat to international peace and security. From this statement one can derive that any measure intended to prolong this conflict, such as the Wall, and prevent the conclusion of a peaceful and just solution to the question of Palestine is a threat to international peace and security.

The Irish-British conflict, although largely relegated to the back pages of newspapers, if reported at all, is a 900-year-old conflict that deserves to be resolved on the basis of justice. The conflict can never be resolved if the fundamental issues of Irish geographic territorial integrity and national sovereignty are not addressed. Britain has no right to Ireland. Two concurrent referendums do not supercede a single solitary all-Ireland vote. Partition and the border prevent the conclusion of the ‘Irish question.’

As Azem Bishara notes, “This advisory opinion resembles another opinion given by the court in the Namibia case where the court explored the legal status of Namibia and declared it to be an occupied territory. Though advisory in nature, the Namibia opinion determined the status of the territory as occupied and cleared the way for the UN organs to take action against South Africa.” Remember when the African National Congress (ANC) was a proscribed terrorist organization and the likes of Nelson Mandela would be subject to a visa denial policy in the United States? It’s time again to look for common interests folks.

Bishara’s legal analysis continues,

"The legal consequences for Israel streaming out of its violation of international law are clear: First, to put an end to its violations of international law and abide by its obligations. In practice this means that Israel is under a duty to stop the construction of the Wall. Second, to make reparation. Reparation can be either in the form of restitution, compensation or both. However, primacy is reserved for restitution, while the payment of compensation is supplementary in order to fully remedy the violation and restore the situation as it stood prior to the violation. In practice this means that Israel is under an obligation, first to dismantle the wall and the regime associated with it, and second to pay compensation where restitution fails to restore the situation existing prior to the construction of the Wall, which is not made good by restitution in the form of dismantling the wall," (Ibid.)

What, if any, implications are there here in the case of the Irish-British conflict? I would argue that, if it were possible to paint Britain into an international corner like Israel is in with the matter of the West Bank Apartheid Wall, then an argument could be made that Britain’s partition of Ireland; in effect, the construction of a wall (i.e. surveillance towers, sangars, and low-flying helicopters), is a violation of international law, the border must be erased and restitution must be forthcoming. If Israel is compelled to dismantle ‘the regime associated with it,’ would that spell the end of Stormont or the end of direct rule? It would be nice to Smash Stormont with some international backing. I wonder if the British dressed in Sinn Fein clothing would be willing to risk that? Maybe we should consult the temporarily laid off Education Minister.

Back to Bishara:

"Israel, not surprisingly, has already declared that it will not comply with its obligations under international law as stated by the court. Here lies the second importance of the advisory opinion, namely the statement that Israel's construction of the wall violates erga omnes obligations, including the right of Palestinian people to self-determination. This means that the rights violated are not only of concern to the Palestinian people but also of concern to the whole of the international community, which is under the obligation to preserve and guard those rights. Three consequences stream out from this determination. First, states shall not recognize the unlawful situation created by Israel's violation of international law, in particular the de facto annexation of territory. The importance of this determination is significant in the light of president's Bush declaration that Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders is unreasonable. Second, states are not to provide aid or assistance to Israel in its endeavor to construct, complete and impose the regime affiliated with the wall. Third, the international community is under an obligation to cooperate in order to bring an end to the unlawful situation created by Israel. This third consequence puts an obligation on states to consider steps against Israel in order to induce it into compliance with its international obligations," (Ibid.)

Okay, Bishara covers a great deal of ground here. As is cited numerous times above, Israel has no intention of recognizing the advisory opinion of the World Court and similarly has no intention of honoring any subsequent actions from any international body. I would not expect Britain to act differently. Still, we are talking about a public relations battle here. The World Court has recognized the right of Palestinian self-determination and has stated that there is an inherent erga omnes interest in that issue. I fail to see how the Irish and British should be held to any different standard. If self-determination is a right of the Palestinian people then it is a right of the Irish people and since 1919 the British have violently suppressed the expression of that self-determination.

Bishara notes three consequences that are derived from the determination discussed above. “First, states shall not recognize the unlawful situation created by Israel's violation of international law, in particular the de facto annexation of territory.” Britain annexed Ireland. Therefore, countries are obliged to withhold, say, diplomatic recognition of Britain’s existence on any square inch of Irish soil. “Second, states are not to provide aid or assistance to Israel in its endeavor to construct, complete and impose the regime affiliated with the wall.” I hold this to mean that, for example, the United States must cease and desist from FBI training of the RUC or oops, PSNI or whatever name they’re going by these days. What do the people of the Ardoyne area call them Gerry? (Kelly that is.) American gun manufacturers must stop selling weaponry to the British cops in Ireland. “Third, the international community is under an obligation to cooperate in order to bring an end to the unlawful situation created by Israel.” As far as the American government is concerned, perhaps a few good steps to take toward ending the unlawful situation in Ireland created by Britain, might be to end the blanket policy of visa denial against Irishmen and women, such as Republican Sinn Fein and 32 County Sovereignty Movement representatives, who advocate an alternative Republican analysis or urge the United Nations to unearth the submission of the 32CSM and debate the subject! Just a thought.

“To conclude, the advisory opinion of the ICJ is more than another recommendation or advice with regard to the question of Palestine. It sets the fundamentals of international law applicable to the Palestinian territories and claims a role for international law in solving the question of Palestine that has long been subjected to the balance of powers. It remains to be seen whether the international community will live up to the promise and realize its self-image as a community constituted on common principles,” (Ibid.)

Ireland has long been subjected to the ‘balance of powers,’ as long as by ‘balance of powers,’ that is taken to mean countries other than Ireland and interests other than Irish. Britain has long dictated and manipulated the course of Irish history. In the negotiations that culminated with The Treaty of 1921, British Prime Minister Lloyd George demanded submission or ‘immediate and terrible war.’ In 1997/98, Sinn Fein and Óglaigh na hÉireann were forced to make numerous initial compromises (read concessions) prior to the deal so that the end product was merely a grand compromise on top of numerous compromises. Who was it that said that you never win at the bargaining table that which you do not take from the battlefield? As Howard Zinn wrote, “The lesson has been well learned by now; throw the full weight of attack into the fray despite demands for prior concessions; then the final compromise will be at the highest level possible,” (The Zinn Reader, Howard Zinn, 137). The only balance of power at work here is the British government vainly holding onto the last remaining vestige of their former colonial empire, profit margin centered and driven American business interests, all on top of that oldie but a goodie (?) the Unionist veto! Hmm, what do you say Dr. Seuss, “Oh, the Places You’ll Go.” I guess not too far from the status quo.

Alright, more on the genesis of the border partitioning Ireland that not only divided the country in a geographical sense but also in a psychological sense.

The British conceived and engineered geographic and political entity known as Northern Ireland, which had been the whiny bastard child of the Government of Ireland Act, was permitted to withdraw from the Irish Free State within one month of the Treaty (1921 Anglo-Irish style) coming into effect. If this partitioned piece of real estate chose to withdraw, a Boundary Commission would convene to draw the proverbial line in the sand between the Irish Free State and Northern Ireland (Anglo-Irish Treaty from Wikipedia). The Commission's brief included a vague proviso that the border should be drawn "in accordance with the wishes of the inhabitants, so far as may be compatible with economic and geographic conditions," (Ireland: The 20th Century, Charles Townshend, 122). Sure enough, in 1924 the three-man Boundary Commission convened and recommended a degree of alterations to the border but, due to a leak of the report to the London Morning Post in November 1925 and an ensuing public relations explosion, the British and their Irish lackey counterparts, like dutiful and subservient acolytes of imperial design, defended the religion of political paralysis and societal stability, otherwise known as the status quo, otherwise known as the border such as it was basically imposed by the terms of the 1920 Government of Ireland Act.

If the World Court is capable of ruling that Israel's meandering, colonial and expansionist Apartheid Wall sits illegally on usurped Palestinian land then should not the same precise logic apply to the fact that Britain's gerrymandered border divides Irish farms and property? In 'Bandit Country': The IRA & South Armagh by Toby Harnden there is a photograph of "the Caraher family in 1986 on their land near Cullyhanna, which is divided by the border." Five members of the family stand in Northern Ireland and five younger children stand in the Irish Republic. By all accounts, a reasonable person would determine that the border was imposed in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Harnden writes,

"The Boundary Commission concluded that a more rational border should be drawn up, tidying up the meanderings which cut loughs and parishes in two and divided farmhouses down the middle. The length of the border would be reduced from 282 to 231 miles with 12 main pockets of population being affected; eight would change sides from North to South and four would go the other way…The result in South Armagh would have been to make 13,859 Catholics and 817 Protestants into citizens of the Free State," (Bandit Country, 146-147).

As numerous authors have written, the general consensus (at least in the Nationalist psyche of the 1920's) was that the partitioned statelet of Northern Ireland would be economically unviable and would eventually lead to reunification or, at a minimum, heavily Catholic and Nationalist areas such as Fermanagh, Tyrone and South Armagh would be transferred to the Free State. As Harnden notes, "the people of South Armagh were convinced that the Boundary Commission would transfer them from Northern Ireland to the Free State," (Bandit Country, 144).

In my estimation the point at issue is one of sovereignty. The Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921 was a British denial of Ireland's right to self-determination free from foreign intervention. Michael Collins urged that the treaty, "gives us freedom - not the ultimate freedom that all nations desire and develop to, but the freedom to achieve it, " (Ireland: The 20th Century, Charles Townshend, 109). The Treaty of 1921 is an example of Britain dictating the terms to Ireland; that is all. It was Mary MacSwiney who said, "Those who stand for expediency could yield to those who stand for right, but those who stand for principle could not yield to those who stand for expediency," (Ibid, 110).

Fast-forward to 1998 and we hear the rationale of Collins in the words of illustrious and prominent Republican Joe Cahill when he said that, “The Good Friday Agreement is not a settlement. It’s not perfect, it has faults, but it’s a basis for progress. It could and should be a stepping stone to a thirty-two-county republic. I see it as a new line of strategy,” (Joe Cahill: A Life in the IRA, Brendan Anderson, 361). I wonder how that statement can be reconciled with Cahill’s own words about the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985. He said,

“The Anglo-Irish Agreement was supposed to be constitutional nationalist Ireland coming to an agreement with the British government. This would give more power, more influence to the nationalist side…But it didn’t quite work out like that, for a lot of reasons – not least because the British government did not honour any of the promises that were made…The problem was that if you were a nationalist living in Tyrone or Fermanagh, the UDR were still giving you hassle, still messing you about, still abusing and harassing people, still raiding. Discrimination was still going on. All the problems that existed before the Anglo-Irish Agreement still existed afterwards, and in some cases got worse,” (Ibid, 331).

Astounding! Who would have thought that those masterful artists of deceit and diplomacy – the British – would renege on promises? Promises, promises, promises.

How much has changed since 1998? Are Nationalists still abused? Are Republican activists still harassed? Are triumphalist and sectarian parades permitted to march through heavily Nationalist and Catholic enclaves despite prohibitions from a Parades Commission? Is there a new and equitable police service or is it merely a reformed (or retarded) RUC? I think we all know the uncomfortable truthful answers to these questions. The fact of the matter is that Joe Cahill was right. The Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985 was a wash but so is the Good Friday Agreement of 1998. Enough of the bartering for a better deal with the Brits. It’s time to jump litigious with the black bastards and fight in the World Court.

To bring an end to this near inconsiderately lengthy tome, consider a parable as relayed by Howard Zinn in an essay entitled Just and Unjust War, originally published in his book Declarations of Independence (Harper Collins, 1990).

“There is a fable written by German playwright Bertolt Brecht that goes roughly like this: A man living alone answers a knock at the door. When he opens it, he sees in the doorway the powerful body, the cruel face, of The Tyrant. The Tyrant asks, “Will you submit?” The man does not reply. He steps aside. The Tyrant enters and establishes himself in the man’s house. The man serves him for years. Then The Tyrant becomes sick from food poisoning. He dies. The man wraps the body, opens the door, gets rid of the body, comes back to his house, closes the door behind him, and says, firmly, “No.”

Suggested complaint: The Irish People vs. The Tyrant.

Tiocfaidh ar La!