Direct rule now
Sir: Your leading article 'Direct Rule Now' (October 30) gave excellent reasons for direct rule of Northern Ireland by Westminster.
I am sorry that your argument was not developed further; indeed I turned the page expecting to read a great deal more on the subject.
Whilst in complete agreement that successive Stormont governments have failed in their duty to govern well, will direct rule from Westminster be any better than the centuries of direct rule before 1922? It must be remembered that they also failed to govern well. Had they done so there might indeed have been no Irish mess at all. Nevertheless direct rule from Westminster now, if only for a limited period, is preferable and essential if the fears of both communities are to be assuaged.
The imposition of direct rule must be accompanied by a positive policy and direct action to reassure the minority that they will have equal status and opportunity in fact as well as in law.
The problem of the IRA terrorist activity is a problem which no Westminster government will ever solve alone, or any Eire government for that matter. It will require the co-operation of the people of Eire, the six counties and the Westminster Parliament. It is in the common interest of all that terrorism should be brought to an end. Should terrorism succeed in uniting Ireland, then those same terrorists will seek to impose their will on the Irish people by the same means. This is a fact which the Eire Parliament must have realised and which the people of Eire must be made to realise if they have not already done so. The politicians of both Eire and Westminster must stop making public statements for the sake of political support and start making joint announcements to the effect that the governments of Eire and Westminster are united in their intention to crush the terrorist organisations now operating on both sides of the border. Furthermore that they intend to restore peace and the rule of law on both sides of the border.
If necessary, and it probably would be, Westminster must give financial assistance to Eire to enable them to modernise and reinforce both the police and army to cope with terrorism. This is not to suggest that Westminster should dictate to Eire but merely say, "We have a . common objective, therefore it is our duty
to see that this objective is attained by offering all the assistance of which we are capable." There is nothing new in one country giving this type of aid to another. Britain and the US have been doing it for years. Surely the same assistance can be given and accepted when death, lawlessness and misery prevail within the islands of Great Britain and Ireland.
It is in the interests of both Eire and the UK that the existing border should remain for the immediate future and perhaps for a year or two hence until calm, law and order and confidence are restored. At the same time it is in the interests of both governments that a covenant should be entered into that discussions will begin between them to solve the problem of a disunited Ireland. Simultaneous discussions between the leaders of the Catholic and Protestant churches should also take place.
Both countries are now using all their political skill to negotiate entry into the EEC where they will be equal partners among nations infinitely more varied in their populations than the people of the six counties and Eire. Surely the skills needed to negotiate entry into the EEC can also be used to solve the Irish problem, if only in the cause of humanity and without regard to economic gain, political power or national prestige.
Gordon Colvin 44 The Triangle, Lyngford Estate, Taunton, Somerset
Previous page
