|
Allegedly,
in an internet site from a Loyalist source a few years
ago I was referred too within a threatening context
as "a veteran terrorist as well as being the
f****** theoretician of dissenting republicans".
Apparently because of my opposition to the Belfast
Agreement via letter writing and articles in certain
political papers and magazines, as well as on the
internet.
Now
a veteran republican I well may be but I would not
claim to be the guru of republican dissenterism nor
a terrorist. However I adhere firmly to the concept
of a united Ireland and I believe that their is a
possible alternative to the Belfast Agreement which
will bring and end to the centuries old conflict and
ensure a future of peace which, as I am a republican
socialist, could be the basis for a futuresocialist
republic.
Before
I refer to this possible alternative I would like
to approach it via the following path...
Historians
often refer to the concept of 'the Irish problem'
as if we Irish are responsible for the political mess
that our island home experiences at present and for
hundreds of years. In fact the mess arises from the
British military and administrative presence and therefore
the truth is that it is 'a British problem'.
This
being the case then Britain must clean it up not by
the creation and implementation of expedient concoctions
but by a bold decision to break the connection between
the two islands.
If
we have learned anything from the establishment of
two political entities based upon the Anglo- Irish
Treaty (an earlier expedient concoction) of the last
century and the Belfast Agreement, which many hold
to be a more sophisticated form of the former is,
that in the words of Patrick Pearse: 'Ireland unfree
shall never be at peace...'.
Sadly
religious sectarianism is a part of the 'British problem'
for it was a handy device to help continual British
occupation by dividing the people along religious
lines. This of course was helped by the fact that
in the main the Protestant section of our people were
from the Planters or their descendents. They never
felt a part as invading people and this sense was
manipulated negatively by the British administration.
Of course there were exceptions i.e. Wolfe Tone, Thomas
Davis, and many others who gave their allegiance to
the land of their birth and worked for the welfare
of all its people.
In
fact so successful have the British been in using
the old divide and conquer strategy in the past and
at present that the core authors behind the Belfast
Agreement have come to accept the British position
that our problem is an Irish one. Thus the pleading
by national representatives hoping that that section
of our people who support unionism will jump into
their boat. But that will never happen while the consent
principle as present defined alongside the British
presence remains a reality. Both must be removed!
The
harnessing in this country and throughout the world
of all those who favour Irish unity and self- determination
especially as the British presence is contrary to
the vision of the founders and the principles of the
United Nations is the way forward. The purpose would
be to exert pressurise upon Britain to announce its
departure from the north within an agreed time- frame.
The
proposed alternative must be implemented under the
auspices of the United Nations and guarantees should
be given to those of the Protestant community that
civil and religious liberty will be sacrosanct; that
traditions which they hold dear and which have derived
from their ancestors will be acknowledged under international
guarantee and national law.
But
most important that under a new and radical form of
government administration that the political representatives
of that section of our people equally share in the
power of National Government. Thus the alternative
offered is a 'Power Sharing Government at National
Level'.
In
turn what we require from our Protestant neighbours
is that they face the reality of a new order. For
although mainly the descendants of those who were
settled here in order to keep Ireland subdued and
'British' is it not time for them to acknowledge that
they are as Irish as the walls of Derry... that no
longer is there 'Gael, Norman, or Scot, etc.- only
the indomitable Irish'. Irish by birth and by allegiance.
Which
after all is what their kin who left for what is now
the United States during the religious persecutions
after the Boyne acknowledges- proud of their origins
but out and out Americans. Also as traditionally expressed
upholders of civil liberties they are being asked
to support the principle of democracy which is the
base of the former. The difference being that in agreeing
to the implementation of majority aspiration they
will share equally in the powers of national government.
To
conclude, the contributions of Protestants to Irish
life, nationalism/republicanism, and culture, is immense,
therefore I am convinced that their presence and contribution
is a necessary part of a restored 32 county Republic.
In no way do I see them as the enemy but I do believe
that they are a collective victim and that the author
of their victim hood is Britain. In fact we are all
victims of the problem which is a British problem,
a problem which Britain can remove through courage
and good will or sustained international pressure.
And in its removal the problem should be replaced
with a National Power- Sharing Government. That is
a possible alternative to the Belfast Agreement! Yes,
I acknowledge problems to be faced in its implementation
but that is inevetable because of our fallibility
as humans and our history. The problem I repeat is
Britain's, however, and the ball is firmly in their
court.
Index: Current Articles + Latest News and Views + Book Reviews +
Letters + Archives
|
