ANOTHER VOICE
Ulster will fight, and England will be wrong
CHARLES MOORE
What is the biggest political disgrace in Western Europe today? It is the way Northern Ireland is governed. The fact that we on the mainland are responsible for this disgrace, and that we do not realise what a disgrace it is makes me doubt my own belief in the political genius of the British.
More people are being killed by terror- ism in Northern Ireland than anywhere this side of Yugoslavia. It is getting worse. Last year there were more deaths than at any time since 1982, and the start of this year has been worse than any equivalent period since 1976. Mr Major has said that the security situation is 'under control'. What would be his definition of being 'out of con- trol'? It is true that civil order exists in almost all of the province, but security is not under control. The IRA can murder servicemen and civilians, and it now seems that 'loyalist' organisations have got better at murdering civilians too.
On Tuesday, Mr Major saw the constitu- tional political leaders of Northern Ireland (except, curiously, the representatives of his own party there). It was a characteristic- ally conciliatory gesture. But it is not a poli- cy. As the disagreeable Dr Paisley rightly pointed out in the House of Commons a few days before, it is absurd for mainland MPs to ask Ulstermen to solve the security problem. Westminster took responsibility for security when it imposed direct rule 20 years ago. If so many people are being killed, it is failing to do its job.
The killing could be greatly reduced if the Government reintroduced internment, although in the very short term the killing would probably increase because of repub- lican anger. The reintroduction would, in practical terms, be easy. The power to in- tern remains on the statute book, and could be reactivated by laying an order before Parliament, immediately after the first detentions had been made. Unlike in 1971, when internment began, intelligence is now very good. The relevant authorities claim to know where the relevant terrorists are. The necessary troops and police are ready. It is true that internment would be a good recruiting sergeant for the IRA, but one can put up with a sergeant if one has imprisoned the generals.
Internment will not be reintroduced, however, and for what is a good reason. This is that it would not be effective unless it were also introduced south of the border, and this will not happen.
But why will it not happen? Not because the government of the republic supports the IRA, for it does not, or because Irish public opinion could not countenance the idea. There is a precedent, after all. Intern- ment was introduced throughout Ireland for the IRA campaign that went on from 1956 to 1962. It was successful. The cam- paign was defeated. Dublin will not intern because it feels under no pressure to do so. No international opinion tells it that it is being irresponsible in allowing terrorists to shelter within its boundaries. None of those terrorists is trying to kill southern Irish politicians, policemen or civilians (although they are, of course, committed to over- throwing the existing Irish state when they have got the British out of the North). Irish politicians can express concern about vio- lence in the North with no uneasy feeling, indeed with the pleasant sanctimony that comes from criticising others from a posi- tion of studied moderation. The new Taiseoch, Mr Reynolds, has already be- haved according to form, receiving congrat- ulations for condemning the IRA, but at the same time warning against internment One may not admire the republic's lead- ers for this, but one can hardly blame them. Why should they get involved if no one makes them? And that is the extraordinary thing. The British Government does not try to make them. It gave them an advisory role in the government of Northern Ireland through the Anglo-Irish Agreement — a gift which gravely worsened the political sit- uation in the province — and got nothing in return. Mr Brooke seems to think it ill-man- nered to point out to the republic that it contains unpunished and at large many men who cross over and murder citizens of his country, or to suggest that it rather adds to the tension about the political future of the province for which he is responsible that the republic, in Articles 2 and 3 of its constitution, lays claim to its territory. He might have said some of this to Gay Byrne. Instead he sang 'Clementine'.
And instead of a British policy about what should happen to Northern Ireland, there is the policy of talks, talks as a good thing per se. Mr Brooke wants talks between all the constitutional parties in the province (except, true to form, his own party's representatives there). He has tried to get these talks ever since he became Sec- retary of State, and he has failed to get them. He certainly will not get them now,
because no Unionist politician would be so foolish as to make any deals before the election result is known. All that the province's leaders have agreed to are some desultory talks about talks, for the sake of pre-election politeness. So the policy is talks, and talks will not get anywhere, and there is no alternative policy, and yet and this is the real disgrace — Mr Brooke is actually congratulated for his patience. He is like patience on a monument, smiling at grief. If others are suffering the grief, that smile can get a bit irritating.
But the complacency of most MPs is invincible. The Ulstermen won't have talks because they are bigoted. (Ulstermen here means Unionists: the SDLP are thought to be more reasonable.) It does not occur to them that it is not sane to invite people to talks about a matter on which there cannot be common ground. Unionists wish to stay within the union. Nationalists want a United Ireland. Both are hon- ourable positions, but neither has anything to say to the other. Someone has to decide between them. That is the task of govern- ment, a decision made in the light of the wishes of the people. Those wishes are clear. A majority of Ulster people — a far higher proportion than the equivalent in Scotland — want the union preserved. Yet our Government shirks the task, and claims it is neutral. The IRA are very nearly cor- rect in their analysis of the British Govern- ment's attitude as colonial, but this is not imperialism, rather colonialism in retreat — amiable men trying to think of a way of withdrawing with their plumed hats on their heads and a dignified expression on their faces and a few knighthoods all round.
This is what Brian Faulkner, the last Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, wrote in his memoirs:
There was room for change within the exist- ing constitutional framework, for ensuring a fair deal for everyone, but there was no room for compromise on the basic constitutional issue. Yet the idea of a choice was proving strangely repugnant, and a belief in the virtue of ambiguity persisted. To the IRA and the Protestant militants the message was the same: future policy would be decided not on the basis of political principle but on the basis of conciliating whoever caused most trouble.
The situation is unchanged. What it means is that the IRA are absolutely right, from their point of view, to go on killing. They might win.
Previous page
