TURNING THE KEY ON ULSTER
Andrew Gimson argues that, in the face of IRA terror, there is no point
trying to please both sides
THE bomb which exploded at the Carlton Club on Monday night may be a forerun- ner of worse attacks. Several of the IRA's recent efforts have caused fewer casualties than the terrorists must have hoped. Be- fore we are driven into paroxysms of rage by a bomb which happens, in their terms, to be more 'successful', we should examine how the British Government is trying to fight such ruthless enemies. `I'm going to keep my mouth shut,' Mr Peter Brooke said last week, 'and it's up to other people whether or not they are going to open theirs.' No wonder the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland wants some quiet. He is attempting an amazing feat; it is no exaggeration to compare him to a man setting out, despite total lack of experience, to walk along a high wire. If he reaches the far end without falling off, he will deserve thunderous applause.
The slowness with which he has accom- plished his first steps is encouraging. Mr Brooke looks as though he knows what he is doing. Onlookers fall silent. In parts of the crowd, optimism breaks out, all the more pleasant an emotion for being un- usual where Northern Ireland's affairs are concerned. But hope is still tempered by fear. Mr Brooke has a long way to go before he reaches the section of the high wire where such gallant predecessors as William Whitelaw and James Prior lost their footing.
Is he being brave or stupid? A final verdict must await events. He aims to set up some form of devolved, power-sharing government in the province, and so far he has made more progress than most obser- vers — including many who agree with his objective — expected. Although one or two 'loose ends' remain to be tied up, a framework for negotiations between the different parties in Ulster, London and Dublin is more or less in place. If all goes well, there will be two more meetings of the Anglo-Irish Conference, in July and September, followed by a gap of perhaps two and a half months while the talks themselves take place.
Exactly how Mr Brooke enticed the most important Unionist leader, Mr James Molyneaux, to the brink of talks (so far there have only been talks about talks) is a mystery. Mr Molyneaux does not want devolution. He believes that Northern Ireland should be integrated into the Un- ited Kingdom (which would indeed be the best policy for the province). It may be that Mr Brooke's offer of negotiations about some alternative to the Anglo-Irish Agree- ment, and the minister's willingness to suspend the conferences between London and Dublin which take place under its auspices, have raised Mr Molyneaux's hopes that at last this counter-productive treaty, signed in November 1985 — in defiance of the wishes of a majority of most of the people in the province it is meant to pacify — can be done away with.
It may also be that Mr Brooke has outmanoeuvred Mr Molyneaux. After all, Mr Molyneaux said the Agreement would not happen, but it did, and claimed after a subsequent meeting with the Prime Minis- ter that he and Mr Ian Paisley had obtained concessions from her, which they hadn't. Moreover, like every other participant in the talks about talks, Mr Molyneaux does not wish to be blamed for their collapse.
As for Mr Paisley, he believes in devolu- tion but not in power-sharing. Among other unionists, opinion is split. As in Scotland, some of the younger generation of politicians despair of getting to West- minster so would dearly like a devolved assembly to be set up. It is their only hope of making a living out of politics. On the nationalist side, the same motive operates with even greater force: there are only three SDLP MPs.
In Dublin, one can be confident that Mr Charles Haughey has the utmost contempt for the latest blundering Englishman to make a bid for immortal fame by answer- ing the Irish Question. But why should the Irish Prime Minister bring the talks about talks to a halt? As he might put it, there's no percentage in that. It could tarnish his bright new image as a European states- man, albeit one who defies European law by stopping the citizens of the Republic from shopping in the North.
It would be unfair to blame any partici- pant in the talks for going this far, except for Mr Brooke. The affair is his initiative and he should have known better, especial- ly as he enjoys the advantage of ancestral links with Ireland. A year ago, Garret FitzGerald, who was Prime Minister of the Republic when the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed, told David McKittrick of the Independent how the Irish find dealing with the British: 'We tend, because of a tradi- tional inferiority complex, to think they're being clever when they're being stupid. The failure of the Irish to understand how stupidly the British can act is one of the major sources of misunderstanding bet- ween our countries.'
The most stupid error the British Gov- ernment makes about Northern Ireland is to suppose it can please both sides. One might have thought that when a majority of people in Ulster wish to remain in the United Kingdom and a minority wish to leave, the obvious policy is to concede the request of the former while ensuring that they do not tyrannise the latter. This course of action has, however, proved too unambitious for British Secretaries of State, except Mr Roy Mason.
Instead the British bend over backwards to woo the constitutional nationalists oblivious to the fact that many 'national- ists' do not actually want a united Ireland to come into existence. The aspiration is of great importance. It is still in the Repub- lic's constitution, has recently been affirmed by the Irish Supreme Court, forms the basis of the political defence by which terrorists can avoid extradition and is particularly insisted upon when neo- colonialist English politicians seem intent on stifling it. But in truth most of the southern Irish do not want it to happen. They regard the North as a military, economic and religious liability, a place they are better off with- out. As Yeats remarked to Lady Gregory in May 1922: 'I have always been of the opinion that if such disagreeable neigh- bours shut the door, it is better to turn the key in it before they change their mind.' Should less literary evidence be preferred, one may consult a recent opinion poll according to which only 4 per cent of people in the Republic regarded Northern Ireland as an election issue.
A large proportion of middle-class nationalists in the North are no less du- bious about unity in any but the distant future. The difficulty for the British Gov- ernment is how to handle the fervent remainder, some of whom have for the past 20 years conducted a campaign of terror in pursuit of their aim. There is no hope of buying these people off by conced- ing a devolved, power-sharing government to them. Even in the almost inconceivable event that such a body functioned for more than a short time, what genuine nationalist would be content with power-sharing in- side another nation? Meanwhile the union- ists would regard the expedient as another stage in the British betrayal of their cause.
The feebleness and unreality of the policy which Mr Brooke, fortified by the advice of the Northern Ireland Office, has carried on from his predecessors, would not matter so much if lives did not depend on it. But the murderers calling themselves the IRA will only be defeated when enough of them give up, and they will only do that once they have abandoned hope that the British may surrender. The integri- ty of the United Kingdom must be strength- ened, not cast in doubt. In the end, the British Government will grasp this simple truth. The policemen, soldiers and other public servants who risk their lives in the struggle against terrorism will then receive the political leadership they deserve, and we will all of us go about our lives in less danger of being blown up. It is a pity we must wait for another Secretary of State to fall off the high wire first.
Andrew Gimson is a leader writer for the Independent and political columnist for the Independent on Sunday.
Previous page
