I welcome the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs on his first visit to the House since his appointment. I congratulate him and wish him well. I now have pleasure in calling him to open this debate.
Northern Ireland: Statements.
Thank you for your welcome. I very much welcome the decision to make provision for an exchange of views in Seanad Éireann today on the critical question of Northern Ireland.
I am grateful that you have given me an opportunity to open this series of statements by presenting some reflections of my own on this subject. I also hope to be in a position to respond later today to some of the points which Members may wish to raise.
It is fitting that the discussion should take place early in the life of this Seanad. One of the important functions of this House is to provide a forum where representatives of different currents of Irish life can debate in a reflective and considered way the great issues and challenges facing our society.
It is commonplace to include Northern Ireland among the most serious of these issues, but I worry sometimes that the long duration of this problem may have numbed us to its terrible impact on our lives or caused us to lose sight of how costly it truly is.
The heartrendering pictures of the Ball and Parry families in Warrington, which we saw on our television screens, echo the anguish which has been felt, each in their own way, by the families of more than 3,000 victims who have died in the course of the conflict.
The indirect costs of the conflict impose other severe burdens. It is tragic that, in spite of the outstanding achievements our people have to offer the world, there are still many areas where the word Ireland evokes, first and foremost, the idea of terror, violence and civil strife. At a time when so many young people on both parts of the island are crying out for the basic amenity of a job and a livelihood, it is deeply frustrating to witness the effects of this conflict in terms of wasted economic opportunity and the diversion of scarce resources. The bombs and bullets destroy hope as well as human life and limbs.
It is therefore no mere figure of speech when the Programme for a Partnership Government says that the future welfare of all the people of Ireland is overshadowed by this conflict. The programme, and the Government, draw the logical conclusion. This must be a priority issue for us. To come to grips successfully with this problem would be one of the greatest benefits which could be conferred on the people of this island, and indeed of our neighbouring island as well. The priority given to it by the Government is justified on eminently practical grounds, as well as on the higher grounds of moral and political duty.
Having agreed at the outset on the importance of the Northern Ireland issue, the Government programme also sets out a number of principles and general pointers on the discretion in which progress must be sought. Members of the Seanad will already be familiar with that section of the programme. I want to make clear from the outset that I do not believe any one person or group has a monopoly on wisdom in terms of a solution. If we are to escape from this terrible legacy of history, as I believe we must, we will need a co-operative effort of all the forces of goodwill on this island.
I believe there is a new spirit abroad in both parts of Ireland in relation to this problem. I believe a new generation wants to escape from the shackles of the past and establish a new basis for our relationships on this island.
That will require change on all sides. Our starting position must be the acknowledgment that all previous approaches have failed. In my reading on the problem recently I was greatly struck by a comment made in 1970 by the late Seán McEntee, a Northerner and one of the stalwarts of the War of Independence. Looking back in old age over a lifetime spent dealing with Irish politics and the issue of partition he said:
We elders have failed to find a solution for the problem; and after 50 years we may be forgiven for thinking that perhaps we went the wrong way about it. Maybe we were too rigid in our approach, too tenacious of our own point of view, too proud to temporise or placate. Whatever may have been the reason, we made no headway; so our successors must start from "square one".
We must indeed, I believe, again start at "square one" in terms of our readiness to rethink and redefine for our own times the nature of our approach to the problem. When we analyse the failures of approaches to date, I believe we will find a common thread running through them. All of them involved to some degree the denial by one tradition of the reality of the other. They involved implicit — and sometimes loudly explicit — assumptions of victory or defeat for one side or the other.
We are now, belatedly, coming to a growing realisation that for both communities in Northern Ireland these extremes of victory or defeat are both impossible. The four generations which have elapsed since partition have not caused Nationalists in Northern Ireland to redefine themselves as British, and any policy based on the assumption that they will do so in the future is bound to fail. The refusal of Ulster Unionists to conform to the role defined for them or to take the place set aside for them in Nationalist myth is no less categorical and deep-seated.
The reality is that neither tradition can dominate or coerce the other, whether in a Northern Ireland context or in an all-Ireland context. We have all learned that the hard way, but we have not yet succeeded in making the joint effort necessary to build a new political system on that key insight.
If we do so, the prospects for peace will I believe be bright, for such a new system would be founded on a reality which we all recognise in our hearts, rather than on our respective inherited myths which will allow terrorism and evil to flourish in the vast and perhaps unbridgeable gaps between them.
I believe our search for a solution must address all of the dimensions of the problem, and in particular its political, security and economic aspects. It must address satisfactorily each of the relationships involved — those within Northern Ireland, between North and South and between these two islands.
It is common ground between all the parties to the Northern Ireland problem, without exception, that the path to progress lies through political dialogue. It is the circumstances, conditions and objectives of such dialogue which are the points of deep difference, and explain the paradox that something which is apparently wanted by everyone should be so difficult to put in place.
The Government is committed to seeking the urgent resumption of political dialogue to address comprehensively all the relationships involved. Since taking office I have had three formal meetings with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Sir Patrick Mayhew, to consider how this objective, which we both share, can best be translated into reality.
I have actively sought to foster fresh thinking on possible new approaches to the problem. I have tried to show that this Government means to continue, as it began, to quote from our programme:
In a spirit of openness and honesty, with the overriding aim of achieving peace and reconciling the legitimate rights and aspirations of both communities, showing a willingness to discuss all constitutional issues and to initiate and incorporate change in the context of an overall settlement.
I have taken care to ensure that all the significant Northern Ireland leaders were directly aware of my desire to meet with them for face-to-face discussions. I have followed up with meetings with Northern representatives, both political and otherwise, wherever it was open to me to do so on a constructive basis.
I shall be pursuing these efforts to the utmost of my ability because I believe there is, quite literally, no alternative to political dialogue. It is vitally important that both the Irish and British Governments use there collective resources imaginatively and well, to provide the impetus and set the parameters for new nogotiations.
It is clear that in a problem as complex as this, a solution is not simply waiting to be found. It must be constructed painstakingly, in a difficult process of give and take. The British position is still the central focus of all the main political forces in Northern Ireland, whether on the Nationalist or the Unionist side, and that reality, however inconvenient, inevitably has consequences for the role of the British Government.
I have sought to put beyond doubt that the Irish Government will play the most constructive possible role. However, Northern Ireland political leaders have their own responsibilities. There will not be peace and stability in Ireland unless the two main traditions on the island co-operate to create and sustain these conditions. The Unionist community holds one of the necessary keys, and it would be tragic if they refused to apply it.
While a solution to this problem can ultimately be reached only by agreement between Irish people in Ireland, I believe we should not overlook the very helpful role which can be played by the concern and interest of friends of Ireland outside these islands. The United States in particular has been enriched by the contributions of both traditions in Ireland. It is bound by close ties of friendship to both Governments. The constructive interest of President Clinton and his Administration, which I believe has been greatly strengthened by the recent visit of the Taoiseach to the United States, could be a very precious asset to all sides in the search for progress.
In relation to security, the position of the Government needs little advocacy to our people. I know the great majority of them abhor to the very core of their beings, as I do, the horrors inflicted on innocent people in the perverted service of traditional ideals. The dignity in suffering we saw in Warrington will have recalled for many of us the charity and forbearance of Senator Gordon Wilson, whose presence I am happy to welcome. The parents of Jonathan Ball and Timothy Parry, like him, have given us a moving testament of the capacity of the human spirit to rise above hatred and despair, even in the grip of the deepest pain and injury. The inhumanity of the bombers finds its ultimate rebuke in their humanity. Their forbearance and goodness neutralise the poisons which the terrorists on all sides so callously seek to inject into our relationships.
As I address this House this morning, news is arriving of more murders in Northern Ireland and sadly that is a reflection of the times in which we live. Apparently three men were shot dead this morning in Castlerock, County Derry, which heightens the problem and provides more reason for us to do something about it.
This violence not only leaves an indelible trail of misery and destruction; it is also utterly futile. In Northern Ireland, the effect of a paramilitary campaign whose purported objective is to secure Irish unity has been to entrench and exacerbate the existing divisions among the people of Ireland. Far from bringing people together, the violence has widened inexorably the chasm between the two communities and has damaged the prospects for reconciliation and co-operation. Far from promoting the objective of Irish unity, paramilitary violence is the one great obstacle to the achievement of understanding among the people of Ireland.
The Irish Government is determined to do all in its power to remove the scourge of paramilitary violence both from this island and from the neighbouring island. It is intolerable that the desire of the overwhelming majority of people in Ireland and Britain to lead peaceful and orderly lives should be frustrated by a tiny minority, locked into doctrines which ignore even the most minimal respect for the democratic wishes of the people of Ireland and which ultimately become simply a self-awarded licence for indiscriminate murder.
The reality of violence offers the starkest possible remainder that the threat posed by instability in Northern Ireland is a threat to all the people of both islands. It underlines the importance of the fullest possible co-operation between both Governments to ensure that those who adopt or support such methods do not succeed. That principle of co-operation underlies the Anglo-Irish Agreement, as I believe it must underlie the search for a new and more broadly based agreement.
Both Governments have made clear they are open to such an agreement, with, I hope, the support of all the significant political parties on the island who adhere exclusively to peaceful democratic means.
Unless and until that point is reached, both Governments are committed to the fullest implementation of the present Agreement. I hope to use to the full its potential for progress in every respect. I believe it is a mistake to see the Agreement, as some Unionists do, as designed for the benefit of the Nationalist community only. It gives the Irish Government a certain role in relation to the interests of the Nationalist community, and that is a recognition of a reality which some might wish to avoid. However much of its agenda, properly understood, is in the long-term interest of both communities. That is eminently true of its commitment to equal rights. The security dimension, to which it has made a significant contribution, is immediately and directly in the interest of every law-abiding citizen of Northern Ireland.
I would like to speak in a little detail about another dimension of the Agreement, which is also in the direct interests of both communities, and which I am anxious to see developed.
Overriding all political differences I believe all of us in this island have one simple ambition in common — to live a life of peace and to enjoy the benefits of the best standard of living and quality of life which the resources of Ireland, properly used, can offer us. No-one would claim that our political divisions reflect any neat geographical or economic logic. Political differences can of course gravely damage our economic prospects, which is yet another reason why we must address them. However it is also open to us to pursue our agenda of economic co-operation as an important programme in its own right. I am very anxious to do so, using the very considerable potential of the Anglo-Irish Conference wherever that can usefully be done.
We can build on the ever-growing recognition of the significant common ground which already exists between the two parts of Ireland in the economic and social field. There are extensive common interests in the various sectors, far more than may generally be appreciated. I have no doubt that, in the years ahead, many more common interests will be identified, particularly in the context of the Single Market and its associated challenges.
The best way to pursue common interests is to develop joint approaches and strategies. Working hand in hand, we can harness all the energies and resources of this island for the common good. Co-operation in all the areas of economic activity, both at home and abroad, will generate significant new employment, increase business opportunities and improve the material welfare of everyone, North and South.
At the end of the day, this is surely what politics is about. The people who elect us want us to do everything in our power to safeguard their livelihoods and to improve their material circumstances. That is an essential part of our mandate. As the Programme for a Partnership Government makes clear, it is an urgent and overriding priority for this Government.
I know that political leaders in Northern Ireland recognize the enormous value of cross-Border co-operation in these areas and the tangible benefits which it will bring to their constituents. The business community in Northern Ireland has as keen a sense of these benefits as their counterparts in the South and wish to see structures put in place which will facilitate them.
The Anglo-Irish Agreement plays, and will continue to play, a pivotal role in the promotion of North-South co-operation. Over the past few years, the Anglo-Irish Conference has devoted considerable attention to this crucial area of its agenda. It has lent a powerful impetus to existing co-operation in the various sectors and it has identified areas in which there is room for expansion and development.
The conference is at present discharing a substantial programme of work across a wide range of such areas. At our meeting last Tuesday, for example, we carried out a detailed review of North-South trade and considered ways in which this might be developed further. We also considered the scope for North-South co-operation in the area of tourism. We reviewed the progress which has been made so far on a very noteworthy example of North-South co-operation, the Ballinamore-Ballyconnell canal, which will be an important tourism resource for both sides of the Border in the very near future.
These are matters which are directly relevant to the material prosperity of Irish people, both North and South. Our discussion of them highlights the continuing value of the Anglo-Irish Conference as a framework within which Ministers and officials of both Governments can co-operate on matters of practical importance and benefit for everyone on this island. Over the coming months, we shall be discussing co-operation in areas such as employment training, science and technology, inland fisheries, education, transport and agriculture.
Let me provide a few concreate examples of recent North-South co-operation from which direct benefits will flow for people on either side of the Border. An Bord Gáis are currently co-operating with British Gas on the construction of a gas pipeline which will link Scotland with both parts of Ireland. The ESB and the Northern Ireland Electricity Board are engaged in an electricity interconnection project in the North-West. The Dublin-Belfast rail link is being upgraded and modernised at a cost of £73 million.
Projects such as these help us to make more economic use of our scarce energy resources, to improve our infrastructure in a co-ordinated way and to derive benefits in terms of increased investment, employment and tourism revenue. They help in the development of a single "island economy", which I consider the only sensible approach in a global environment marked by increasing competitiveness but also increasing interdependence. The co-ordination of effort and pooling of scarce resources will undoubtedly serve the common good of both parts of Ireland.
The business community North and South has recognised this. A joint initiative undertaken by the Irish Business and Employers Conferderation and the Confederation of British Industry in Northern Ireland is proving very valuable. An IBEC-CBI business development programme involving some 300 companies has enabled new opportunities for North-South trade and for collaboration in overseas markets to be identified. There has also been important co-operation between the Chambers of Commerce, North and South.
The International Fund for Ireland is making a major contribution with its support for a number of projects in the business development area. Valuable cross-Border co-operation in the economic sphere is also underway at local authority level as well as in the private sector and at the level of voluntary and community groups.
At the European Community level, there is enormous scope for co-operation in our joint interest. The two Governments intend to pursue a common approach in the Development Plans which we will be submitting in the context of the forthcoming Structural Funds discussions. A common approach in this area should help to convert European goodwill into further concrete support for our efforts to develop the "island economy". It should also act as an additional incentive to co-operation between business and private sector interests North and South in the context of the Single Market.
The time to act is now. There is a vast spectrum of possibilities which we can explore jointly to our mutual advantage. Let us go forward together in each of these areas, playing to our strengths and building on what we have in common.
A Chathaoirligh, I join you in welcoming the Tánaiste to the House for this very important debate. The Tánaiste has a record of substantial and sustained achievement on the question of Northern Ireland. His genuine concern for the problem is not in doubt and I hope that the progress he makes during his current term in the Department of Foreign Affairs will be as great as it was during his previous term as Tánaiste.
The Tánaiste's speech appeared to hold out some hope but when stripped to its essentials, the speech held out little hope. If we are honest, the situation has never been as bleak as it is today on a number of fronts. It is odd to look back to the beginning of the troubles 25 or 26 years ago and to read in the Crossman Diaries a report of the impact of the troubles on the British Cabinet at that time. According to the Diaries, Mr. Jim Callaghan after his first visit to Belfast said that from the point of view of the British Government, the troubles had some advantages. They deflected attention from British Government deficiencies and the mess of the pound; they had now, "got into something which we can hardly mismanage". That was the first reaction of the British Government in 1969-70. We have seen over the last 25 years how we have all succeeded in mismanaging the Northern situation. A quarter century of missed opportunities and mistakes has brought us to our present situation.
If we are honest we have to first examine the bleakness of the situation. There are no talks at the moment between the parties in Northern Ireland nor are there any plans for talks. The reason given is the imminence of the local elections. Invariably there is some excuse why talks will not take place. Even if talks were taking place, is there any reason to believe that the possibility exists at present, for genuine dialogue or for real progress? Sadly, from talking to people on both sides, I see little possibility at present of any real basis for agreement. The gap between the parties seems to have widened rather than narrowed in recent times. It may be that the current spate of atrocities and the worsening political situation will encourage people to consider a compromise but there is little evidence of that at present.
In spite of the hopeful list of developments outlined by the Tánaiste there are no real talks going on between the Governments at present. The Anglo-Irish talks have resumed and for that we must be grateful, but there is no sign of any new initiative. There is no sign that the talks which broke off last year are about to be resumed or, if they were, that any greater progress would be made. I understand from those involved in the last talks that progress was made but only to a point. We in the Seanad have to analyse carefully what we might have done to block progress.
In Northern Ireland a considerable number of former councillors are not standing in the forthcoming local elections. Some of the best, most committed local councillors have simply had enough. They are frustrated by working in a political vacuum, sickened and tired by the viciousness which passes for politics on so many Northern Ireland councils. An exception is Derry City Council which is a model of powersharing. Derry City Council, led by the SDLP, has put into practice what the SDLP preaches. Yet we may contrast that with the situation in Belfast where the antics of Belfast City Council would make anyone despair of the future for real politics. Belfast City Council is a disgrace to the political process and it is no wonder that people are opting out of politics in Northern Ireland. It is no wonder that so many of the best and most intelligent young people are emigrating, and that few young people are tempted into politics. If the best are not going into politics the situation does not offer a great deal of hope. Furthermore, there is increasing segregation between the communities in Northern Ireland. A report in last Sunday's Independent on Sunday showed clearly the extent to which communities at all social levels are moving toward greater polarisation. Given that this physical polarisation undoubtedly leads to psychological and mental polarisation as well, what hope does that hold for a breaking down of the barriers which have existed in the minds and the hearts of the people of Northern Ireland for so long?
As the Tánaiste was speaking this morning, word came of three more deaths at the hands of northern paramilitaries. When we consider the position of the paramilitaries in this week of all weeks, we can see how much worse the situation is now than even a year ago. The Protestant paramilitaries have organised themselves as never before. Ruthless, heavily armed and focused, their violence is now totally sectarian, unlike the random violence of the past. We see their strong, vested interest in racketeering. We must fear an extension of their activities to the Republic and there is every reason to believe that this may occur in the near future. Most of all, there is no evidence that anybody is getting through to the Protestant paramilitaries. We see no sign that they are listening to the leaders of the Protestant community or that they have any intention of changing their current tactics.
The Provisional IRA are currently active on two fronts: in Northern Ireland with their regular weekly diet of bombing and murder and also in Great Britain. Warrington is the latest example and it will not be the last. We have witnessed an attack on Downing Street and there have been plans to blow up Buckingham Palace. It is only a matter of time before the Warrington atrocity will pale into insignificance compared with what the Provisional IRA are capable of doing and intend to do in Britain.
There is no evidence of any change of heart or mind within the Provisionals. Warrington was deliberate; if nobody had been killed there it would have been a failure from the Provisional IRA's point of view. A policeman's death in Warrington would have been a qualified successs but the death of young innocent children grabbed the world's headlines. In spite of excuses, that was exactly what the Provisional IRA hoped to achieve in Warrington and we must never let them forget that.
Mr. Séamus Mallon said this week in The Irish Times that perhaps the time has come to enter into political dialogue with Sinn Féin. Mr. Mallon is a brave and decent man who knows more than most what is happening on the ground in the Nationalist community in Northern Ireland so what he says must be listened to. I hold out little hope of Sinn Féin entering into meaningful dialogue so long as their ambivalence about what they call the armed struggle continues and so long as they can be ambivalent about the horrific bombing in Warrington.
When we consider the current situation in Northern Ireland is there anything positive that gives us cause for hope? I have mentioned the situation in Derry City Council. Derry is becoming an example of what Northern Ireland could be and that is a tribute to all Derry politicians and in particular to the SDLP leaders. The Tánaiste mentioned the encouraging high level of cross-Border co-operation with regard to CIE, Bord Gáis, ESB and business ventures. In a variety of areas including education and social activities commendable daily co-operation is taking place with exchanges of visits by schools and so forth which was not the case a couple of years ago.
We welcome the heightened level of interparliamentary co-operation between the Oireachtas and the House of Commons but sadly Unionists are still absent from that forum. We see greater US interest in Northern Ireland. I was in Washington last week and heard President Clinton speak at the Ireland Fund dinner. I can attest to the high level of participation by prominent US public figures at that event, and to their commitment to finding some solution in Northern Ireland. Gone is the former certainty of Irish American politicians that they had a simple solution. There is now a new sophistication and a new desire to help.
Our diplomats in the US deserve praise for their hard work over many years to ensure that the Irish issue was kept on the US agenda and that US politicians are informed and up to date about what is happening here. They have helped maintain US commitment to Northern Ireland.
Although these developments are positive and good, they amount to little in the face of the enormous problems associated with any possible Northern solution. The problems, as I see them, are threefold, namely, the failure of the constitutional parties to find common ground within Northern Ireland itself; the failure so far as the two sovereign Governments to find an agreed framework for progress and thirdly, our failure to persuade or to force the paramilitaries to abandon their activities.
I do not believe that any formula or set theory can solve the Northern problem. I sometimes envy the certainty of those who believe that if only their formula or ideas were accepted the problem could be resolved. There is specific action we could take to help resolve some of the issues I have raised. On the question of helping the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland to start talking to each other, all elected politicians in the Republic have a duty to involve themselves more with poltical counterparts in Northern Ireland. How many politicians here regularly travel to the North to meet with politicians of all political parties there? How many of us keep in touch on a regular basis? How many invite Northern politicians here to put their point of view, to explain the situation as they see it and to face questions from a Southern audience? Few from any party do so at present. We are justifiably angry when we hear people talking about Northern Ireland when we know they have never visited that part of this country and have not taken the trouble to familiarise themselves with what is happening.
There is a great deal we can do to create better personal relations with our opposite numbers in Northern Ireland by listening and talking to them and by taking them seriously. By taking the Unionists seriously we can do a great deal to improve relations. There is a tendency on our part to stereotype the Unionists, to brush aside what they are saying and to see them as one homogenous unyielding group. That is not the case. When we look at the progress the Unionists have made over the past year or two, it is quite impressive. We know the place Dublin has in Unionist demonology. The very fact that they were prepared to come to Dublin was a huge step on their part and is one we have not sufficiently appreciated. The Unionists' proposals to the last conference contained interesting and constructive ideas on a bill of rights and a council for the two islands. This acknowledgment of the legitimate southern dimension, of our right to be involved and act on behalf of Northern Nationalists is encouraging. We should make an effort to take them seriously and encourage them where they are making progress rather than closing the door or see them as one group.
The Tánaiste quoted a very interesting and honest passage from Seán MacEntee. It reminds me of another figure from that time, Frank McDermott, who was perhaps more visionary than most on the nature of the problem in Northern Ireland. Frank McDermott made the point in 1936 that since we are the people who want the Unionists to change there is an obligation on us to go further than them and at least listen and try to understand their real fears.
When it comes to the second problem, the fact that the two Governments are not talking to each other at a sufficiently deep level, there is much we can do. I welcome what the Tánaiste said this morning. I appreciate the new impetus which his presence has given the dialogue between the two Governments and I hope this can be speeded up. Over the past number of years we have not been doing enough to ensure that talks take place at a sufficiently deep level. We are all afraid of giving a lead. We all have our ghosts from the past. There is a reluctance today to be brave about Northern Ireland in the way in which Garret FitzGerald and the Tánaiste were during their time of office when, for the first time, the question was addressed seriously. All this nonsense about Articles 2 and 3 is little more than that, Articles 2 and 3 are central to nothing. They are peripheral and I hope we can leave them aside for the moment so they do not interfere with discussion on more serious matters.
Over the past number of years the Anglo-Irish Agreement has not been used as it should be. The Tánaiste knows better than most that the Anglo-Irish Agreement was not cast in bronze. It was intended to be a growing, developing mechanism. It was a deed of foresight which was capable of being adopted as circumstances changed, but only if it was worked. We should remember that the Anglo-Irish Agreement allows us to put forward ideas on a wide range of issues in the political life of Northern Ireland. These include the political structures, human rights, policing, social and economic issues, the courts and prisons, even nominations to public bodies in Northern Ireland. At least, we have the right to put forward proposals and ideas but we have not being doing that. I hope the arrival of the Tánaiste in Iveagh House has ensured that the Anglo-Irish Agreement will be worked to its full potential.
Through our contacts, through the British-Irish interparliamentary body and on social occasions we must also keep pressure on British politicians. We must ensure that our counterparts in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords are kept fully informed and are not allowed to become so absorbed in their own problems that they push the Irish problem to the end of their agenda. That pressure is necessary. The positive attitude taken by senior politicians in the US can also be helpful in applying pressure on the British Government.
The third problem is the most difficult of all, that is, how to get through to the paramilitaries. Unfortunately, there is no answer to that. There are things we can do which may help. For a start, on the question of security — and the Tánaiste devoted quite a bit of his speech this morning to that — there can be no fudging on our part. There can be no question of ambivalence, of giving into the "sneeking regarders" in our society, of the nod and the wink to various paramilitary groups in this part of the country. We have to be seen to be utterly serious, straightforward and transparent in the operation of security policy. We must not give the slightest excuse to the Unionists to misrepresent us or to feel, with some genuineness, that we are not doing all that is possible.
That is only one area. The problem we all face is, how do we talk to these people who, after all, are Irish people. Some of us might even know some of these people, without knowing that they are in the Provisional IRA. There is little hope of us talking to the Protestant paramilitaries. This week Séamus Mallon said we should start talking. Maybe the time has come for talks with Sinn Féin. I see huge problems there. Who speaks for Sinn Féin, who really calls the shots? Can they be believed, can they deliver? As long as they are ambiguous about atrocities like Warrington, can we really talk to them? Is talking an excuse on their part at a time of great unpopularity to take some of the heat off themselves? These are all questions we must face. Nonetheless, if talking to Sinn Féin was to begin a process whereby people would be weaned away from violence and the work of the paramilitaries, then it would be worthwhile. How is it to be done, I do not know.
Senator Wilson is proposing to talk to the IRA and I wish him well. The Senator has shown us an example of forgiveness and generosity in agreeing to talk to people who have done great harm to him and I hope he is successful. In all our attempts to get to the Provisional IRA and the paramilitaries, perhaps there is a place for diplomacy. In the past, we have seen feelers put out quietly behind the scenes that came to light only when the real talking started afterwards. I hope something is going on behind the scenes; I hope attempts are being made to do something to help because ultimately we will have to talk to many of these people. If we can begin to wean them away from violence, then it will be worthwhile.
As I survey it, the scene is bleak and unhopeful. Senator Wilson said on the radio this morning that we must have hope and we must continue to have hope. We must believe it is possible to bring this conflict to an end and ensure that everybody on this island can live together in peace and harmony. I wish to refer to one of the central points in the Tánaiste's speech this morning. He said: "In a problem as complex as this, a solution is not simply waiting to be found. It must be constructed painstakingly, in a difficult process of give and take."
As politicians, we have a small part to play and I have outlined some of the ways in which we can do it. In particular, there should be better co-operation with out colleagues across the Border, we should listen to them and take their fears seriously. We can help by example, by encouraging and putting pressure on our Government and by working with our colleagues in Britain and our friends in the US. We must not give up hope. I wish the Tánaiste well.
I welcome the Tánaiste to the House. He is here to take part in this important debate at a crucial time in the history of this island. This debate is taking place against a background of escalating violence in the North of Ireland and in England.
It would be remiss of me and Members of this Chamber if we did not condemn the latest atrocities committed by the IRA and the Protestant paramilitaries in the North. The atrocities committed by the IRA on an innocent population in Great Britain must be deplored. The death of a four year old boy and the mutilation of a 12 year old boy in Warrington has highlighted the callousness of the IRA.
I hope the supporters of the IRA now realise that they are supporters of a callous and unthinking gang, without conscience and consideration for their fellow human beings. I hope a message will go out from this House today to the fellow travellers of the IRA that they are backing a gang without political or public support. The IRA do not care about the laws of God or man. When we hear expressions of support for the IRA we must intervene and point out the callous nature of these murderers.
I sympathise with the people of Warrington in their sorrow. I hope this atrocity might become a catalyst for the coming together of the people of these islands in an attempt to rid the gun from the political agenda of any group. Although appeals have been made by this House to the IRA I, once again, appeal to the members of the IRA to rethink their misguided campaign and the tactics they use to attain their political end, whatever that may be.
Young people do not support the campaign of terror which the IRA and other paramilitary organisations in the North are engaged in. Nothing positive can be achieved by this campaign. However, a number of negative results can be seen. We have seen an escalation in the number of murders of innocent people by Protestant murder gangs in Northern Ireland; we have seen the suffering of the families of innocent victims of sectarian violence; Irish people in Britain are experiencing a backlash and are perceived as supporters of the IRA, which they are not.
The IRA have no mandate from the people to carry out their murderous campaign nor do Protestant murder gangs have any mandate from their co-religionists or anybody else. The murder by the UVF of a Sinn Féin member in Belfast yesterday must be condemned as vociferously as the murder of any member of the community in the North of Ireland. I was saddened to hear the Tánaiste this morning mention that three more people had been killed in the North. Violence begets violence and it will continue until the people of violence realise that it will not solve the problems faced by the people of Northern Ireland.
I was disappointed to hear that a number of well known and respected politicians in the North will not stand in the forthcoming local elections. These people have worked hard on behalf of both sections of the community in the North. I appeal to these members of the body politic to reconsider because they are needed by the embattled people of the North.
We must examine the common ground shared by people North and South. Most people want the opportunity to live productive lives in an atmosphere of trust and one which recognises differences whether they are religious or ethnic. We should be proud of the contribution made by both elements in society to life here and abroad. Our primary concern must be the establishment of peace in Ireland. We cannot realise the enormous and creative potential of our people until peace becomes a reality in every area of our country. Violence, bitterness and hatred are endemic in Irish society and these elements frustrate the aims they claim to promote.
The recent round of talks between the Irish and British Governments and the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland have been constructive and represent an important breakthrough. Unionists have entered into intensive dialogue with the Irish Government and this will help establish respect and understanding between both parties. The reluctance of the Unionists to take part in future talks may be related to the forthcoming local elections. Politicians in every country get scared before elections. This can be seen in the United States in relation to their foreign policy. When a presidential, congressional or senatorial election is imminent, certain issues are put on the back-burner because politicians will not do anything which might hinder their chances of election.
I hope the Unionist politicians will resume talks because the people they represent depend on them to achieve a political change. If political stability is achieved economic benefits will follow.
The beautiful and spectacular scenery in Northern Ireland could attract millions of pounds of revenue into the area through tourism and this in turn would help accelerate the development of job creation on both sides of the Border.
We must take every opportunity to have funds allocated on an inter-regional basis to relieve the chronic unemployment created by the physical barriers of the Border. We must, through dialogue, negotiation, and a balanced agreement between legitimate identities and the constitutional positions of both major traditions in Ireland, work our way out of the cycle of tragedy and economic deprivation. We must work hard to overcome the cycle of sectarian strife which has become the principal deterrent to economic and political movement on the island.
The Programme for a Partnership Government states categorically that it is to recommence and sustain the process of dialogue with the parties in Northern Ireland and with the British Government building on progress already made. Dialogue will be conducted in a spirit of openness and honesty with the overriding aim of achieving peace and reconciling the legitimate rights and aspirations of both communities. Furthermore, there will be a willingness to discuss constitutional issues and to initiate and incorporate change in the context of an overall settlement. Our long-term policy is to make possible the eventual achievement of a united Ireland by agreement and consent in the spirit of the New Ireland Forum report. We will continue to operate the Anglo-Irish Agreement unless it is transcended by a broader agreement and the wish to step up the pace of North-South economic co-operation. The Government seeks consensus in achieving an ultimate solution.
The constitutional claim to the Six Counties contained in Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution is often referred to by politicians in the North, and by some in the South, as a deterrent to ultimate unity. I do not agree with this. The removal of these Articles from the Constitution would not accelerate the reunification process or initiate progress towards a mutually satisfactory resolution of the aspirations of people who live on this island, be they Nationalists or Unionists.
The final outcome of negotiations on the future of the island must be reached by consensus and then endorsed by a referendum on an agreed package which would achieve a balanced accommodation of the differing positions of the two main traditions on constitutional issues. It would create structures which would bridge divisions and promote reconciliation between the Unionist and Nationalist traditions and ensure enhanced co-operation between both parts of Ireland.
The scope for economic co-operation is immense. The CII points out that manufacturers in the South sell only one-third as much per capita in Northern Ireland as they do in their home territory and that manufacturers in Northern Ireland sell only one-sixth as much per capita in the South as they do in the North. To promote economic development we must identify and agree measures that must be taken to address the problems and then implement those agreed measures.
Tourism is one area where great benefits could accrue from cross-Border co-operation. Tourist revenue in the South in 1990 came to £1,207.6 million and in the North the revenue was only £226 million: in the South it is estimated that in 1990, 82,000 people were employed in tourism while in the North the CII states that only 5,000 jobs were supported by out-of-state tourism. The position of tourism jobs could be dramatically changed if full co-operation and peace were achieved.
Let us leave this House with a renewed vow to work harder with people on both sides of the Border to ensure progress towards peace and reconciliation. Political commentators have repeatedly stated that politicians in the South are not interested in the status of Northern Ireland and only use the North as a political football during election campaigns. It is true that for southern politicians Northern Ireland affairs do not take up much time, on a day to day basis, but that does not mean there is a lack of interest. The constitution of my party is clear about our stance regarding the North and I do not know of any member of the party who wants to see that constitution changed.
We want to see a reconciliation of the people of the North with the people of the South; as Ireland is an island we are physically united. We must reconcile all sides of the political spectrum into whatever political entities that are needed to create a peaceful and harmonious country in which to live. There should be more contact between the ordinary members of political parties in the South with their counterparts in the North, not only on a social or political basis but also on a practical daily basis. At local level, contact between members of local and regional councils could be of immense benefit to both parts of the country as it is obvious that council members. North and South, face the same problems. The contacts could result in a better environment and quality of life for the people represented by the council members.
Social contacts between North and South are equally helpful in promoting our aim to provide a peaceful environment in which our children can grow in harmony with their neighbours and their physical environment. We have seen how sporting contact can help in this context and such contacts should be encouraged by all sporting bodies. Interaction at school level is of tremendous importance and can only enhance the quality of life for young people.
I was heartened recently, when listening to "The Gay Byrne Show" to hear the views of the boys and girls of two Catholic schools in Dungannon. The programme portrayed a vivid picture of life in the North from a young Catholic's perspective and from the perspective of pupils at schools which gave them the means to attain economic freedom and advancement. The problems confronted daily by schoolchildren were vividly expressed: the harassment of being stopped and searched on a regular basis and the trauma encountered by children who confronted death in their own families as a result of the troubles. Indeed, one girl spoke of her father who was killed in the South on his way home from a race meeting. The trauma suffered by that child was equal to the trauma of the children who have encountered death because of sectarian troubles in the North.
There was a realisation that most of their social encounters were of a sectarian nature and that, although job opportunities might arise in the future, education gave them the exit visa to a life outside the strife of the North. The programme, however, did not leave a memory of children filled with despair. We heard young people describing life as it is and it was heartening to hear that many of them planned to enter third level education and to stay in Northern Ireland afterwards. The joy and the music, both traditional and classical, came across as an expression of light in the North. The memory of that programme will stay with me for some time and will be a beacon of hope for me when I get depressed over the future of Northern Ireland.
I was also impressed this week by the interview on "The Gay Byrne Show" with Dr. Feeney of the SDLP. He gave a pragmatic view of life in the North from a political and a personal perspective. I hope he will change his mind and stays in democratic politics. The northern community needs politicians of the style and pragmatism of Dr. Feeney.
On that programme Councillor Rogers, from the north of England, suggested that an integrated schools' system would solve the problems of the North. Contact between schools is important but I believe such an integrated schools' system is only practical in middle class, low problem areas. None of the children from Dungannon suggested that an integrated schools' system would be of benefit to them either socially or educationally as they grew up in a community torn by strife.
No political party or group in the North has a magic formula to break the long standing moulds of northern society. The challenges facing both communities, North and South, are daunting as we face a decade during which there will be many challenges in every area of life. The economic challenges cannot be met in isolation and this is recognised throughout Europe and in the world economy. The construction of Europe goes ahead but the construction job needed on this island is of massive proportions.
How much easier it would be if we combined our marvellous energies into areas of mutual benefit instead of areas of contention? Imagine the energies of east and west Belfast combining to create a Belfast of industry, education and co-operation. Imagine the benefit to the island if Border roads were re-opened and the many members of defence forces on both sides of the Border were released for duties of a civilian nature for which they are badly needed.
Our peripheral situation in Europe requires a concentration of our energies to build a healthy and viable community. We must live together in a society which recognises differences and, through dialogue, uses the differences as strengths. The New Ireland Forum report states that existing structures and practice in Northern Ireland have failed to provide peace, stability or reconciliation. As the conflict of Nationalist and Unionist identities has been concentrated within the narrow ground of Northern Ireland, this has prevented constructive interaction between the two traditions and has fostered fear, suspicion and misunderstanding.
Let the cycle of violence cease, let the people be free and let us go out of this Chamber and endeavour to further the cause of peace. Political and economic progress will follow in the path of peace.
I ask permission to share my time with Professor Lee.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I express my gratitude to my colleagues on the Independent benches who have allowed me the privilege of speaking first this morning. I must catch a plane at lunchtime and, for that reason, I will not, unfortunately, have the privilege of hearing Senator Wilson's contribution. However, I look forward to reading it in the Official Report and in the newspapers.
First, it is a humbling experience for us to speak in the presence of somebody who has suffered so deeply and for whom the sad events of the last few days must be a source of renewed pain and difficult memories. I salute Senator Wilson for the imaginative gesture he has made in seeking contact with the IRA. I said on television, and I stand over my view, that this is, perhaps, a naïve thing to do and I do not mean that in a critical sense. We must try to understand the thinking of these people.
I do not believe Mr. Major's response is appropriate. He is reported in the newspapers as saying that his Government will hound the IRA, pursue them and wipe them out. It is not possible to do that. This issue cannot be approached in that blunt militaristic way but somebody who has suffered may force these people to confront imaginatively the reality of what they are doing. I believe members of the IRA are not monsters; they are human beings. They are sons, brothers, sisters, wives, husbands, fathers; they have human connections, but they have closed off their imagination so that they do not fully comprehend the impact of what they are doing to other human beings.
On a beautiful morning like this, one must be struck by how marvellous it is to be alive in this country. It is a privilege. The most arrogant thing one human being can do to another is to take upon themselves the right to remove that precious gift of life. I read in yesterday's paper the words, the simple, naïve words, of Jonathan Ball's father. If any of these people in the IRA are fathers, sons or brothers, they must listen to this and try to understand the pain they have callously, deliberately and cynically inflicted. Jonathan Ball was a beautiful angel, a lovely innocent child just beginning to enjoy life and that life was taken away from him at the age of three.
I do not believe the excuses of the IRA. I do not believe they gave adequate warnings. I do not believe they did not wish to cause civilian injuries. They wished to cause maximum civilian injuries and maximum revulsion. That is what terrorism is all about. If the bombs had gone off ineffectively and had not injured people, or had not created a sensation or had not been splashed all over the newspapers they would not have been a success in the IRA's terms. The bombs were a calculated attack upon the civilian population; there is no doubt about that.
There was a good article in The Irish Times by Jim Cusack in which he analysed 21 years of bombings. He showed in the very beginning, in the Donegall Street bombings, the IRA gave a series of deliberately confusing warnings to the police. In a most barbarous fashion they drove people from the path of one explosion into the next so that maximum carnage would be inflicted. This was deliberately and cynically planned and, in my opinion, so was the incident in Enniskillen. There was a parallel bomb at another cenotaph which used a timer. Nobody believes the radio messages of the RUC and British Army triggered that.
Cynical, manipulative people are employing violence and terror as an instrument of policy. Perhaps if they were brought face to face with the human cost and instead of hurling abuse at them and calling them names, we present ourselves in our full human vulnerability, that vulnerability might get through to them and open their imagination. For this reason I applaud what Senator Wilson has set about today. I recall his words at that awful moment in Enniskillen when he said "dirty talk will do no good". I believe he is right. If you use epithets of condemnation, scorn and revulsion against the IRA and call them monsters, they will erect a barricade of psychological defence against that. However if you present yourself as vulnerable, ask them questions and try to force them to stop by moral persuasion, perhaps there is a possibility of getting through to them.
I would like to issue a challenge, and I hope the Minister will bring this to Government. I am suggesting a naïve, unsophisticated gesture for these two Houses of the Oireachtas to contemplate. There is a channel of communication to the IRA, that is Provisional Sinn Féin. I know that because ten or 15 years ago I was supposed to have been sentenced to death by these people and I went around to interview them in the office. The vast majority of people there had been convicted of some IRA offence; I could list them but that would be unfair to them and if I did name them on the record, it might make them targets for some other form of abuse.
Senator Wilson approached the IRA and apparently has received a positive response through the channel of Sinn Féin. I opposed Sinn Féin holding their annual conference in the Mansion House because it is always closed by a man from the military command appearing in a mask and giving a report from the army council; so there is a clear relationship. I am not saying it is a one to one connection, but there is a connection. I suggest that both Houses, the elected Members representing all the people of the Irish Republic, should go for five minutes and stand outside the main office of Sinn Féin and demand, in the name of the Irish people with the full authority vested in them by the process of democratic election, that they stop this campaign of bloodshed. This will not have any sentimental impact on the people manipulating in the background but it might send a message to their supporters in North America, Northern Ireland or wherever and to the ordinary people on the street and in the ranks of these republican movements, that their acts are not an expression of the Irish people.
I also suggested in the past that we might consider some machinery by which people convicted of these particular horrible crimes have the privilege of citizenship removed from them. That may be legally possible. I do not want to share my Irishness with people who behave in this manner, who murder three year old children, who leave a 12 year old boy scarred and today hanging on to life by a thread.
I listened with great interest to what the Tánaiste, Senator Manning and Senator Lanigan had to say and there was much that was thoughtful and helpful in it. The Government side frequently talk about reconciliation but it is always reconciliation on their terms, and that is inflexible. Again imagination must be used. We in the South must imagine what it is like to be a Unionist. Whether we care for them, we must try to imagine what their reality is and, of course, we must address Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution. There is no point fudging that issue. I realise it would be unrealistic to say we are going to abolish them. I do not believe it could be done and it is not politically practical, but it is a practical proposition to alter them.
Two years ago I suggested a wording which could be used, and again I issue a challenge to the Government to respond to this. After Articles 2 and 3 is should add a formulation like the following — in any attempt to realise this aspiration the use of violence shall be prohibited. Does anybody not agree with that? Does anybody see it as more than an aspiration? Does anybody in this House believe that violence is justified in achieving a Thirty-two County Republic? If not, what is the difficulty with amending our Constitution in a way that has been clearly illustrated as necessary by a succession of court cases? It has been determined that far from being an aspiration, Articles 2 and 3 are a constitutional imperative. That case also determined the use of violence would not be prohibited constitutionally in the case of the Six Counties, it would be a legitimate instrument of policy. My second challenge is that the Government looks at Articles 2 and 3 and consider some change along the lines I suggest. The vast majority of Irish people would find themselves able to agree to that if the Government campaigned in a unified way. I would be interested in a response.
I share the admiration Senator Lanigan expressed for many members of the SDLP, but they, too, can be inflexible. They are not wholehearted in their support of the RUC. I call on them to make that support clear, because the IRA have driven Roman Catholics out of that force and then claim it is sectarian. They murdered the Roman Catholics who joined it and then say it is a sectarian force because there are no Catholics in it. Any Catholic who puts his head above the parapet in the RUC is going to have it blown off. I challenge the SDLP on that. I also noticed they were reluctant to participate in the moves to give the Freedom of the City of Belfast to the British Army bomb disposal squad. They behaved in an ambiguous way on this matter. This is something we must take seriously, the number of casualties is so large. It is also ironic that the majority of people destroyed by Republican violence are Catholics from a Nationalist background. This has bred tragedy for the Nationalist community.
At the beginning of the AIDS problem in New York, Larry Kramer startled people by writing in the Village Voice a headline which said “1,100 and counting”. It went up, week after week, month after month. There have been 2,300 killed in the North of Ireland and still counting. How many thousand maimed on all sides?
I speak as an Anglican. Many people presume Anglicanism to be a form of Protestantism, although I maintain that it is not. It is a reformed Catholic church. The actions of the Protestant Action Force or the Shankill butchers shame me. I condemn the murder of members of provisional Sinn Féin. I cannot abide the policies of provisional Sinn Féin but that is not a reason to murder people. Some time ago a man was murdered in front of his children simply because his brother was a Sinn Féin councillor. That, in my opinion, is not defensible.
I would like to come back to the question of the psychology of the IRA. By and large, these people are ordinary people. They are not monsters, but have become capable of monstrous acts by some process which we must attempt to understand. A friend of mine is very wise in these matters and has had contact with these people over many years. He told me that he also asked these questions of people involved in the IRA and what he told me was sinister but interesting. When he asked how one gets ordinary young men to perpetrate atrocities, the reply he got was, "you got to blood them first. Once they are blooded they do anything". It is like fox hunting. In other words, their part in an atrocity is arranged, forcing them to deaden their conscience and imagination. This arrangement is made cynically by people in the background using these young people as foot soldiers, and after the first experience one can get them to do more or less anything.
I would say directly to the young men and women involved in this so-called Irish Republican Army, that in later years they will reap the whirlwind. When all the excitement of violence is over, when they are middle-aged or elderly, their imagination will surreptitiously recommence to work and they will have to face the horrible reality of what they have done. I appeal to them, for that reason also, to cease what they are doing in the name of the Irish people.
As a Dubliner I am fed up with reading reports which feature statements issued by the IRA from Dublin giving people the impression that the headquarters of the IRA is located in some skyscraper block in the centre of the city and that everybody in Dublin is perfectly happy with it. I would like the message to go out that we are not happy with that and a special public relations exercise should be mounted by the Government to counter this impression. Every time the IRA issues a statement it should be pointed out that they are ringing from a mobile phone somewhere because they are gutless. On that, perhaps not very reconciliatory note, I would like to hand over to Senator Lee. I commend the House for taking this most important debate today.
Naturally, I want to associate myself with expressions of horror about recent and ongoing atrocities, and with the tribute of Senator Norris to Senator Wilson and the good wishes for his meeting with the IRA. I also see Deputy Currie here as an observer. Their presence reminds me how little one really knows about Northern Ireland and with what little authority one presumes to pronounce on matters concerning it. I have found the discussion so far simultaneously encouraging and discouraging. It is encouraging to note the fund of goodwill here and discouraging to realise that, if we are honest, none of us has any solution whatever. We have reached a stage of admitting or accepting the complexity of the situation and beyond that we simply do not know how to improve matters significantly. I share the bleakness of Senator Manning's diagnosis and prognosis, and I do not expect that anything one can do in the short term will make a significant difference. However, it seems to me that we must try to focus on the essentials which tend to be obscured behind rhetoric of goodwill.
I welcome everything that has been said about the possibilities and the potential of economic co-operation but I do not believe that will make much essential difference to the continuing conflict in Northern Ireland. If there is one issue in the Tánaiste's contribution with which I disagree fundamentally it is where he talks about material matters as ultimately the crucial features or the essence of politics. He said that surely politics is about improving the material welfare of everyone North and South. If we were talking about normal politics it would be, but we are not. A vaster and more significant improvement in economic affairs and co-operation than has been possible up to now is not going to alter the essence of the Northern situation. The mentality behind Enniskillen and Warrington does not give a tinker's curse about the Ballinamore-Ballyconnell canal link-up.
No material improvement is going to crack the kernel of the problem which is one of conflicting and mutually exclusive identities. Identity issues can never be solved in Ireland or anywhere else by material improvement, however desirable that may be or however logical it may appear to national, and largely middle-class, thinking people. Therefore, we have to address more fundamental issues than the ones we are confronting now.
We are all in favour of reconciling legitimate rights, but what are legitimate rights? That is the nub of the problem. The rhetoric of the reconciliation of legitimate rights brings us closer to doing so. The more we meet with northerners of various traditions, and the more they meet us, the better for the future but meetings do not somehow dissolve inherited issues of identity. They may enable us to discuss these issues but I greatly doubt if they will enable us to resolve them.
When the Tánaiste quotes Seán MacEntee, speaking in 1970, an old war horse in dealing with Irish politics and the issue of Partition, it is a revealing, dispiriting and honest admission, but an admission of what? It is not an admission of a solution for the immediate problems of Northern Ireland in 1993, it is an admission of failure to resolve partition. Is that our prime purpose at this particular moment? Senator Lanigan reissued the Fianna Fáil commitment to the unification of Ireland as a long-term objective. What is our hierarchy of objectives at this moment, and what is the relationship between the short, medium and long-term objectives? Do we have a hierarchy of objectives or are we simply staggering from the emotional effects of atrocity after atrocity?
All the parties involved in Northern Ireland, whether constitutional or paramilitary, are behaving reasonably rationally within their understanding of the circumstances. There is no reason to denounce as mindless even the most repulsive behaviour of paramilitary groups. If we are going to change the situation in Northern Ireland we can only do so by changing circumstances; we will not do so by appeals, condemnations or demonstrations however worthy. We will change circumstances only if we address the core of Northern Ireland, that is, mutually exclusive identities, between Unionists and Nationalists not only in Ireland but also within Northern Ireland. We cannot evade the implications of partition however much we might now wish to banish it from our minds.
Articles 2 and 3 have been mentioned. I agree with Senator Manning that they are not central to the main issue involved. They are, however, central conceptually to the Northern Ireland or Irish problem because they accept a territorial concept as the essence of Irish identity. The Irish nation is not described in the Irish Constitution. All that is described there is the national territory and that may be because even when as consummate a Thomist as Mr. de Valera tried to describe one single Irish nation, he found the resources of the English language were insufficient.
If we are thinking in exclusive territorial terms, there will never be a solution to the Northern Ireland problem because territory is a zero sum game. It is an all or nothing claim and as long as we, London or Belfast think in territorial terms there will be no long-term solution. There may be stages of modification or modulation of the conflict, but there will be no ultimate solution.
Unless we can think of solutions to redress the territorial problem we will never get anywhere. Within Northern Ireland the problem is Nationalist experience of domination and Unionist fear of domination. That fear transcends the Border. The Unionists fear domination by what they perceive the South to be. We have expressed Articles 2 and 3 in territorial terms partly because, historically, all forms of Nationalism thought in territorial terms. We are perfectly normal in that respect. We also express Articles 2 and 3 in territorial terms because various pieces of British legislation express their claims, not just aspirations but actual implemented claims, on Northern Ireland, in territorial terms where the phrase "Northern Ireland and every part thereof" recurs.
As long as London and Dublin think exclusively in those terms then, however much they may co-operate on a day to day basis, there can be no solution to the ultimate problem of identity. The only direction in which I can see any possible solution — it is a very long term one and there may be any number of serious objections to it — is in some form of joint authority beginning initially in some predominantly Nationalist areas to try to provide evidence that it is possible for both jurisdictions to co-operate in a manner which is acceptable to the local communities. That may be very long term, it may be unrealistic, it may even be Utopian, but at least it is some attempt to find a solution.
Despite all the good intentions that have been expressed in this House, at public meetings and in the media, we have not seen any specific recommendations that have a possibility of resolving the problem, even in the long term. Everything that is proposed is short term and condemnatory and leaves the problem as it is. Good intentions will have no impact on the paramilitaries on either side, and I share Senator Manning's fears about the potential for paramilitary activity on the Unionist side. That is not the main reason we should be concerned with trying to find a resolution in a modified form of the joint authority proposal in the Forum report. If there is not some evidence of a physical presence of both Governments in those areas of Northern Ireland that are prepared to accept it in the first instance, then we will get nowhere.
I have been encouraged by the welcome I have received from you, Sir, the Minister, the Members of this House, and those outside, and by the goodwill shown to me as evidenced by a message I have just received from Deputy Currie, a fellow northerner, for what I am trying to say today and to do in the future.
I welcome this opportunity to speak today from my heart. I speak knowing that God is good, and that God is love. I speak not in my strength but in His. I speak for myself and I speak as Marie Wilson's dad, but I know that I have the great honour of being an Independent Member of this Seanad. I hope you, Sir, and the Members of this House will excuse me if I read my statement. I know it is not allowed, but I hope that, on this occasion, you will allow me to read it because I know many people will hear what I say and I want it to be right.
I hope I do not look as nervous as I feel. I hope I can control my emotions because Northern Ireland and all of Ireland and its people are close to my heart and we are bleeding to death. It breaks my heart to think that overnight three more people are dead in Northern Ireland.
Senators will know that in recent days I have tried to establish contact with the IRA so that I may speak to them. I am happy to say that they have acceded to my request and I look forward to talking to them, but I am bound to tell you that I have not changed a word of my statement of this morning as a result of that acceptance of my request. Many people may accuse me — it has happened in this House this morning — of naïveté, yet I believe they are wrong. The IRA is composed of human beings like ourselves and they have suffered too, just as we have at their expense.
We all have the capacity for good as well as for evil but, more importantly, we have the capacity to change. While knowledge, logic and clear thinking are important in the resolution of conflict, so too are feeling, contact and person to person communication, for if Ireland needs something in particular at this time it needs most to sow seeds for a change of heart among those who have taken it upon themselves in the most brutal and crude manner to shoulder the burdens inherited because of the legacy of our long and bitter history and chose to fight for change rather than negotiate it.
Where communication stops, frustration, anger and ultimately violence develop. There was poor enough communication in Ireland for far too long. People felt disenfranchised, dispirited, even at times despised and we have paid the penalty for such historical legacy very dearly indeed. Apart altogether from our historical legacy there are in today's Ireland increasing numbers of people who feel, through unemployment or from other forms of powerlessness, that they are marginalised and alienated without a significant say in their own country. None of us sitting here, privileged to be elected or nominated to this House, should ever be complacent about the enormous challenges both historical and contemporary which face Ireland and Irish society both North and South today.
Nevertheless, it is my contention that violence by either attitude or action is not a solution for it is self perpetuating: the justification of more violence in reaction to it. To be aware of each other's difficulties we must communicate more. To have any hope of resolving each other's difficulties, let alone the differences which divide us over our perceptions about such difficulties, demands that we communicate. There are many severed hearts in Northern Ireland today; there are many broken hearts. There are many wounded people and fragmented homes. There is still a huge gulf keeping us apart but of this I am more certain than ever: that gulf of unreality will never and can never be bridged by political logic and political action alone. Without a healing of wounds and a change of heart, this gulf will not be bridged, there will not be a fresh start, a reawakening of what is good in Ireland, a rebirth of hope that must travel some day like a torch held aloft to all four corners of our strife-torn land.
Sometimes, I believe, we may be in danger of overlooking that the cross — that great symbol of our common Christianity — has a horizontal as well as a vertical level. We get down so easily on our knees to communicate with our Creator and to ask Him as sinners for forgiveness. Yet, how much more difficult it is, as frail and prejudiced human beings, to stand up and reach across to those from whom we have been separated by the bad blood of past and present violation; separation, with its origins long before our time, widened, deepened and refined by past and present false perceptions which, through history, have led by falsehood and violence to the rotten state of affairs so poignantly highlighted by recent tragedy and atrocity on the other side of the Irish Sea.
The accumulated historical legacy has also brought with it all the confusion associated with individual and collective guilt and remorse on the one hand, and resentment and desire for revenge on the other hand. Thus the unbroken cycle, will go on and on for time to come unless, in addition to the application of fundamental democratic principles, we also search for the means of bringing about the change of heart which this sad island needs so badly. Somewhere, sometime, the cycle has to be broken, so that the reciprocation of violation and violated from one generation to the next is finally laid to rest.
The falsehoods on which so much of our prejudiced attitudes and actions are based have grown through time, with an accumulation of the hurt we have done to each other by attitudes as well as by action. The falsehood will not be broken by sitting idly by; the actions will not cease without a painful reappraisal of ourselves before we start to appeal to others, for it is only by sharing their pain we will finally be able to release ourselves from our own pain. Only by raising the mirror of truth before falsehood will falsehood be seen for what it is and the historical cycle broken, when a change of heart has prepared us to reach across courageously and with love to communicate person-to-person, core-to-core, on the one hand, repenting for our role in the split which, in keeping us apart, has caused so much grief, anger and despair and, on the other, with a willingness to forgive those who have hurt us so deeply.
A physician once told me that his profession was trained to cure disease and was ill-equipped to promote health, which he defined as a "state of well-being". To my surprise, he went on to say that curing disease on its own would not ensure a state of well-being. For this, he was adamant, healing was required. We need the healing of our deep historical wounds, the healing of a socially sectarian and politically divided society. Such healing demands of us that we truly reach across to each other and this is what I must talk to the IRA about. If there is to be hope, then we must find it at the centre of our hearts, to move as Christ would wish us to move, to touch the hearts of those who have hurt us most.
It is, perhaps, appropriate to recall that on the first page of J.C. Beckett's book, The Making of Modern Ireland, 1603-1923, is written:
It is a proverb of old date, that the pride of France, the treason of England, and the war of Ireland...is like always to continue without God set in men's breasts to find some new remedy that never was found before.
Having indicated this afternoon why I wish to communicate with the IRA directly, I would like briefly to go further by inviting this House to join me in creating a climate conducive to truce, ceasefire, and indeed the abandonment of the armed struggle. First, I ask the House to support me in my attempt to engage the IRA by indicating that it is prepared to support my intentions in this respect, even if Members would find it difficult for party political reasons to engage the IRA in dialogue themselves at this time.
Secondly, I beg of the Seanad to set aside some time at the end of the summer session for an open-ended debate on the findings of Initiative 92 and the Opsahl Commission, once these have been published. Over 500 written submissions were made by the people of Northern Ireland to Initiative 92 concerning the social, political, constitutional and economic issues which beset us. Subsequently, the Opsahl Commission convened at various places in Northern Ireland, including Enniskillen, to undertake oral hearings of people and groups selected as a result of reading their written submissions. New insights are bound to emerge, new problems must be addressed and new proposals considered. It would be churlish, indeed, if this privileged Upper House were not to respond constructively and generously to the courageous and thoughtful efforts of so many people in Northern Ireland to look at their own society and make positive suggestions towards the remedying of so many of its problems.
Thirdly, I ask that the Seanad consider setting up an all-party Seanad committee and to explore with parties, groups and concerned citizens in the North their fears and their hopes, and that the committee concerned should listen rather than prescribe, and respond appropriately when the time comes.
Finally, I would like to say something to the IRA. In a very short space of time we have observed Europe changing quite dramatically. With this change significant questions are being posed about matters such as sovereignty and self-determination. Surely then, the social and political energies needed to transcend the past, to enable the Irish people — all of them — to participate effectively in the building of a new future that will meet the current challenge, will never be mobilised adequately until we find the means of ceasefire. Even the most fervent supporters of the IRA must have begun to question a campaign which seems, from the outside, more and more to have become a campaign for continued political stagnation. A ceasefire and abandonment of the armed struggle would release the pent-up radicalism which has no chance as long as the IRA continues to drive people into their respective sectarian camps.
I say to the IRA that, whether they like it or not, the Protestant people of Northern Ireland associate the republicanism which they have on offer with a desire to have them driven, against their wishes, into the sort of Ireland claimed for them by the 1937 Constitution, or alternatively out of Ireland altogether. This may raise smiles, cynical or otherwise; yet, it is how I feel.
In the eyes of all but a small percentage of Irish people, the so-called armed struggle has degenerated into a campaign of sickening sectarian killing of fellow Irishmen and women who have had no recourse either to trial or appeal before being summarily executed.
Whether we will see social justice in our time, let us at least stop the killing, give the new ideas born out of conflict a chance and give our young people the opportunity to articulate and introduce them without fear for their lives.
Finally, may I ask the Seanad to join me in the Prayer of St. Francis of Assisi:
Lord make me an instrument of your peace.
Where there is hatred, let me sow love.
Where there is injury, let me sow pardon.
Where there is doubt, let me sow faith.
Where there is despair, let me give hope.
Where there is darkness, let me give light.
Where there is sadness, let me give joy.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on what has become the greatest tragedy in Europe, or in the world. People of goodwill on all sides of this community have made every effort to restore peace to our island. One of the lines of the Prayer recited by Senator Wilson, "where there is despair, let me give hope", should be the theme of all people of goodwill on this island. After hope, peace must prevail. For political reasons, or for reasons of power or fear, people have failed to show feelings of hope and goodwill which would help to restore peace to this country.
Unfortunately, it needs the spectacle of atrocities on our TV screens before the ordinary people in the South take notice of what has been happening in the North for the past 25 years. This is a small island which has, much to offer in terms of its people. Yet, it is being rent asunder by this terrible tragedy. Over the past 25 years politicians, religious leaders and international leaders have offered support, but there has been no solution. I listened carefully to Senator Wilson. He was born in County Leitrim. He has lived in Northern Ireland and he and his family have suffered the terrible tragedy of the loss of their daughter but, unfortunately, there are, and there will be, many people like Senator Wilson.
Progress cannot be made until peace is restored to this island and this will happen only when the men of violence lay down their arms. It is good that we are calling for peace here today but it is the men of violence who planted the bomb in Warrington which killed one child and left another fighting for his life. Many more people could have been killed. We are familiar with the story that a warning had been given and was not acted upon. However, when a bomb is planted in a public area, death may follow. Violent organisations use propaganda as a major weapon to spread their desire to enforce terrorism and fear on our island. I hope that efforts made in the future to restore peace are successful.
The communities in the North have suffered tragically over the past 20 years. How many times on our television screens have we seen funerals in Northern Ireland with three, four or five coffins? The heartbreak, loss, fear and anger are the same for each family. The words expressed by Senator Wilson today strike at the heart of every human being who longs for the day when peace will be restored.
We have much to offer and this can be achieved if people and politicians forget the past. We must begin by aiming for the goal of peace. People must be prepared to give their all, including, perhaps, giving up what they were brought up to believe, that is, fear of one side taking over from the other, of one side becoming stronger than the other and imposing their beliefs on the other.
We often hear about two sides in the struggle but there is a third side, the people of goodwill who want peace. Progress will be made when that third side realise their own strength and show they are not afraid. In the last few days in Dublin ordinary people have been prepared to stand together at meetings or sign petitions to express their abhorrence of violence and their desire to see peace restored to this island.
I wish Senator Wilson well. I also wish the Government and the Tánaiste well in their efforts to ensure that dialogue continues between opposing side's in the North, between North and South and between the British and Irish Governments.
I would like with your permission, a Leas Chathaoirligh to share my time with Senator Gallagher.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
It is with feelings of hope, despite the enormous difficulties that were outlined in the House this morning, that I welcome the Tánaiste, through the Minister of State, to the House, on my own behalf and that of the Labour Party group in the Seanad.
I also thank Senator Manning for his persistence in requesting this debate. His analysis of the bleakness of the present situation is certainly valid in the context of Warrington, given that more than 3,000 people have been killed in the conflict and that news was received today of three more deaths in the North. The Northern problem is huge and has been well outlined by Senator Manning, Senator Lee and other Senators this morning.
We must seek a way forward through mutual understanding. I listened to all of the speakers this morning and I will be here again this afternoon. To find a way forward we must listen to each other not only in this House but in all parts of the island. We must listen especially to Senator Wilson whose personal experience of this painful conflict has caused him to speak out in a spirit of courageous reconciliation. He spoke this morning of his direct personal approach to the IRA. By that approach he, more than all of us in this House, may bring about change in the North because he speaks from his own personal, traumatic experience. It is only by listening to people such as the Senator and by facing the enormous disturbance in people's lives as a result of the Northern conflict that we can find a solution.
We all have a duty to speak out and to respond to the savage assault on the people and especially the children of Warrington. We have a duty to denounce the murders that have been perpetrated as a result of someone's obscure and distorted interpretation of what constitutes political action and as politicians we have a duty to act. If we do and say nothing we acquiesce in the current situation where we have a divided community intimidated by violence. Is that what we want? If not, and I know it is not, we must work towards new solutions which acknowledge and take account of present fears.
We must examine our own views on Northern Ireland. Have we been willing to open our minds to understand where others are coming from, to understand their fears, our own fears and the fear of moving from the safety of long held positions? If we refuse to budge we continue to risk people's lives. This does not mean throwing away culture and identity but it does mean accepting that others have an equally valid if different culture and identity. It means working to set up political structures that protect different traditions and facing the challenge of the territorial claims as outlined by Senator Lee this morning in the search for an ultimate solution.
In the Tánaiste's speech on 5 March to the Irish Association he proposed that we could:
agree together basic rules and special provisions to uphold the rights, protect the ethos and guarantee the effective participation in power of any community in Ireland which finds itself in a minority position.
He spoke of a new covenant with
fundamental principles to govern all future relationships and entrench these beyond the reach of all changes in regard to sovereignty.
We are all inclined to despair of progress after atrocities like the Warrington bombings but the framework and safeguards which the Tánaiste outlined in that speech may be the way forward. We have to accept that there are different viewpoints to be embraced. More importantly, we have to go beyond the notion that one side must win and another lose. Compromise is essential. I agree with Senator Norris when he said that a solution cannot be found on our terms only.
The Programme of a Partnership Government pledges to put an agreed package of new structures to the people in a referendum. This package must be worked out over time and forged through discussion among all sectors. Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution are a major part of the context and must, in my view, be scrutinised. The programme outlines the need for the final outcome of negotiations to be acceptable to the people, North and South. The programme pledges that:
We will seek any necessary endorsement in a referendum for an agreed package which achieves a balanced accommodation of the differing positions of the two main traditions on constitutional issues, and create structures which will bridge divisions and promote reconciliation between the Unionist and Nationalist traditions and ensure enhanced co-operation between both parts of Ireland.
If we regard Northern Ireland as a political and geographical entity only we will not progress. Senator Wilson outlined clearly for us this morning that Northern Ireland is its people. The real people of Northern Ireland are, of course, much more complex than the simplistic view of two intransigent and implacably opposed groups. Interreligious co-operation and friendship exists in many communities. Senator Lanigan mentioned integrated schools this morning, a most important and progressive move, North and South. There are intercommunity and cross-Border links with regard to EC programmes, tourism and rugby, all of which were mentioned this morning. Although Senator Lee in his contribution said that these links do not contribute significantly to an ultimate solution, I believe they are part of the solution, although admittedly a small part. We must continue to forge links, and especially physical links, whether by canal, road or railway. We must continue above all to talk to each other.
Identity is neither static nor simple. My immediate family and recent ancestry are a mixture of Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter. Many of our children's children are likely to have new strands to their identity, as European and world paths open up for people as well as for products. We must set up new political structures together, with courage and mutual respect.
Doubts were expressed here this morning, mainly by Senator Manning, about the possibility of making progress towards a northern solution. These doubts are sincerely felt and are based on reality. We must build on the progress that has been made to date. We must acknowledge the courage of the Unionist leaders who came to Dublin. We must acknowledge courage on all sides of the community where people have moved to new positions. We must acknowledge the ongoing work of the Anglo-Irish Conference, which was outlined this morning by the Tánaiste. Senator Manning and Dr. Brian Feeney who spoke on radio yesterday morning, were absolutely right to urge southern politicians to visit northern politicians of all sides and their supporters. This invitation was repeated by Senator Wilson this morning. I wish to respond positively to his proposal that we have an all party visit to Northern Ireland.
The people of Northern Ireland have a right to bring up their children in peace. We, as public representatives, have a responsibility to work to achieve this. There has been some progress through dialogue but there have been many setbacks. The ordinary people of Northern Ireland, the Republic and Britain want solutions. The meeting in Dublin last night, which was attended by about 1,000 people, was an indication of our desperate desire for a peaceful solution. I believe we are at a stage of history and public opinion when people are ready to put all strands and options on the table to forge a political solution. This debate must contribute positively towards a solution.
I will conclude by quoting from a song written some years ago by Paul Brady called The Island, in which he says: “Up here we sacrifice our children to feed the worn out dreams of yesterday”. We must dream and work for tomorrow, for the future, not yesterday. It will not be easy but it will be worth while and I do not believe any of us can stand apart from it.
I welcome the debate on the critical question of Northern Ireland. I thank Senator Wilson for his valuable contribution. My geographical location gives me an insight into the North and the way in which it operates. I was born and raised on the Border and I live in Castleblayney, County Monaghan, which is an enclave surrounded by County Armagh, a few miles from the unfortunately well-known towns and villages of Crossmaglen, Cullaville, Cullyhanna, Keady, Armagh and Newry.
My life is intrinsically linked with Northern Ireland. I pass through checkpoints every time I go home, where young soldiers ask me where I am coming from and going to and when I reply they are none the wiser because naturally they do not know these areas. It is just a job for them. Then one hears of a soldier, aged 19 years, being killed, and I think of my brother of the same age and wonder at the horror that brings about so many deaths. On a wall outside Cullaville, the artists of the IRA have painted the words "we aim to be free" under a picture of a Kalashnikov rifle.
The killings in Warrington hit the headlines, but such killings and maimings happen every day and are barely mentioned in The Belfast Telegraph or other newspapers because they are commonplace. The IRA have said that one killing in England is worth ten in Northern Ireland because of the publicity it attracts. That media attention is the oxygen which feeds the terrorists. I believe it would be wiser to refrain from highlighting some killings over others. Each life is sacred and each killing is murder.
The media should be careful not to focus on tragedies in a way which encourages others to retaliate.
Such publicity facilitates the recruitment of young men and women into the hands of the terrorists. These people are young. They are often from socially and economically deprived backgrounds and the attraction for them is to become important by being known locally as "a member". It is a simple idea of status rather than any ideological theory which attracts young people to violence in the North. They are blooded by active service and become immersed in that dreadful system. It is a fact that when these young people serve prison sentences or simply grow up they often leave these terrorist organisations. Therefore, if we are serious about finding a solution we must look at the young people of the North.
The real problem of the North is the ingrained attitude of both sides of the community. Do people in the South realise that Protestants in the North have very little contact with Catholics and vice versa? Do they realise that Protestant and Catholic children who went on holiday through a project known as Co-operation North, until then, had never played with a child of another religion? Do they realise that Belfast city is divided into 51 wards, 35 of which are completely segregated to the extent that over 90 per cent, and in some cases as many as 98 or 99 per cent, of the residents are Protestant or Catholic?
We can talk about political and economic co-operation for ever but we will not see any improvement in the North until we integrate the people in a social way, until they go to the same shops, leisure centres, pubs and discos and the children go the the same schools. That segregation facilitates the terrorists.
Recently some people daubed a car in a Catholic housing estate, knowing that in the morning the owner would come out to clean it and it was then that they killed him. They did not know him from Adam. All they knew was that he had to be a Catholic because he lived there, that was all they needed to know.
That is why I am strongly in favour of an integrated school system. That is where we must begin. Only when children come together on the buses, chat and play together, will the great barrier of fear and ignorance of the other side be broken down. That is crucial. It will ultimately make it more difficult for those killers to step out and shoot a schoolmate or a neighbour. An integrated school system will help to bridge the enormous gap between the two sides of the community. Housing must also be mixed. If the authorities in the North really want to make matters difficult for the terrorists they would come up with some plan which would reduce the apartheid which exists in Northern Ireland.
Let me say this, and I speak from experience, the problems of the people of Northern Ireland are more complex than a spider's web. Political talks will help and I very much welcome them, but talks on their own will achieve little unless at the same time the attitudes of both sides change. The talks are a far cry from the everyday lives of people in Belfast who are confined to their own areas. They are of little importance to Nationalist farmers in the North who find British soldiers hiding in their fields. They are of little help to the people in the North who live in fear of the terrorists, who cannot serve the Defence Forces in their shops let alone speak to them, who are afraid to speak out because of intimidation and who witness racketeering in every sphere of business life. What good can come of talks when a former Lord Mayor of Belfast refused to welcome Michael Carruth, a sportsman, to the city? If people there are so bigoted as to treat a sportsman in that fashion, what hope have our politicians?
Dr. Brian Feeney of the SDLP said yesterday that genuine politicians in the Unionist parties are being gagged by those in charge, those who shout "Ulster says no". I would like to point out that includes a claim for territory which they do not own, counties Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan, which I very much resent. They are the people who see Catholics as antichrists, those who call on us to remove Articles 2 and 3 from our Constitution as a precondition to talks. Remember this, if Articles 2 and 3 are a problem for the ordinary Unionists in the North, which I very much doubt, the Border along which I live is a problem for the Nationalists in the North, and I do not hear the SDLP calling for its removal.
Let us be realistic. Articles 2 and 3 can only be removed by means of a referendum and I will fully accept the decision of the people on that matter if, and when, it happens. However, will the existence or removal of these Articles really bring us closer to peace, or will it further alienate those people who consider themselves Irish? Sadly, it takes so much more to achieve peace. All people in the North must make an effort to achieve peace otherwise the violence continues while we wait, and each life lost causes so much hurt and grief and it is so utterly futile.
The hope for unity is a legitimate one but the effect of a paramilitary campaign does us no favours. Last year the UFF and other Unionist forces killed more than the IRA. All are criminals of the worst kind and any attempt by them to defend their horrific acts on the basis of some ideal of unity, whether it be with the Republic or with Britain, must be quickly refuted and stamped on. Those criminals — and that is what they are — operate beyond this and have only served to widen the chasm between the two communities.
I welcome the Tánaiste's reference to programmes and projects aimed at increasing co-operation between North and South in the economic sphere, in tourism and trade. That will help, but I remind this House of what I referred to earlier — what is needed is a change of attitude. This must be achieved in the minds of both communities. We must break down the physical and mental barriers which have been erected through the troubles and the apartheid which feeds them. Only then will we achieve peace.
I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate and welcome the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs to the House. I wish him well in his very difficult task of dealing with the Northern Ireland question. He is part of a group who have to address that issue.
I compliment Senator Gordon Wilson on his contribution here today and the great humanity and Christianity he has shown by being generous enough to make an offer to the perpetrators of the crime which killed his daughter six years ago. Such generosity, understanding, compassion and humanity must be lauded and this House should recognise Senator Wilson's generosity. I am delighted the IRA have acceded to his request for talks and I wish him well.
I was most moved by the Senator's compassion in recognising that the IRA have capacity for good as well as evil because it is true that most of us believe that most people in that organisation have a greater capacity for evil. I hope Senator Wilson can exploit their capacity for good in the course of his talks. The Senator must be the first person on this island who has spoken to the people who were responsible for the murder of a member of his family and I compliment him on his generous action.
I also welcome the Senator's suggestion of an all-party committee of the Seanad to deal specifically with Northern Ireland. We spoke when the Seanad first met of the relevance of the Seanad and is usefulness. This is an area in which we as a group can at least make ourselves more useful by addressing this specific issue. I hope that a number of the Members of this House will get together either in a formal or informal capacity to assist in resolving this very difficult problem.
It is the function of politicians at every level to attempt to resolve political problems. It has been said that politics is the art of the possible and no politician at any level has a right, when a problem gets difficult, to throw their hands in the air and say, "This is impossible, forget about it; we will no longer deal with it." A politician has a responsibility to proceed along another avenue and try to find a solution to the problem. If one avenue fails we must try elsewhere.
In relation to Northern Ireland the climate for talks is extremely difficult, particularly since the dreadful atrocities in Britain last week and the atrocities that took place in Northern Ireland this morning. To sit down to talks in that kind of climate is extremely difficult and is challenging to all politicians. However, the responsibility is on politicians to ensure that talks continue and are not stopped by the men of violence. If the talks stop it is giving in to the men of violence who will then succeed in their objective to halt the political process. As elected representatives we have a responsibility to ensure that negotiations and talks continue at all levels.
I have been impressed by the contributions here this morning, particularly those of Senator Lanigan, Senator Gallagher and Senator O'Sullivan in relation to the fundamental issues. We accept that politicians deal very much with the politics and the political reality of a situation but ordinary people are entitled to live ordinary normal lives. They are entitled to have their political, administrative and social structures operate in an effective way and to live in a peaceful way so that they can go about their business.
I disagreed slightly with the comment of the Tánaiste in his speech this morning when he said that paramilitary violence is the greatest obstacle to the achievement of understanding among the people of Ireland. It is an obstacle but I believe one of the greatest obstacles is the problem of attitude and the total divide in outlook among the communities. Until the barriers are broken down, we are not going to succeed at the top political level but politicians can assist in breaking down the divide.
This matter was mentioned by Senator Gallagher and Senator O'Sullivan in relation to the fundamental issue of education. Governments provide funding for education and the more interdenominational education there is on both sides of the Border, the more understanding there will be of all traditions. The Tánaiste in his speech said neither tradition has yet set out to redefine their position. Part of the reason for the lack of the redefinition is the educational system which very definitely inculcates in the various traditions their very determined and strong beliefs. The system does not encourage a spirit of understanding among the various traditions. If there is more communication between the groups and if more interdenominational education is provided, then people will come to understand and respect each other's point of view.
There is one group North and South, particularly in the North, that has not been considered in this entire debate; I refer to the women of Northern Ireland. The women and children of Northern Ireland have been the greatest sufferers and victims over the past 20 to 25 years. They are the people left without father or husband and the psychological effect of that on the women and children has been traumatic. If the ordinary women of Northern Ireland from the Catholic nationalist tradition and from the Unionist tradition, were to come together as a group and operate at an ordinary level, away from the political scene, and if they decided they were not going to tolerate any more, they would be a powerful force. Politicians should examine the possibilities of exploring that very powerful avenue in attempting to resolve the problem.
It is not a simple matter. As previous speakers have said it is good that discussion and dialogue takes place but until ordinary people are willing and agree to live in harmony, the dreadful atrocities on all sides will continue and the paramilitaries will not be hounded out of the various communities in Northern Ireland. We must recognise that the attitudes of people have been inbred for centuries. Such views have been held on this island for the past 800 or 900 years, in Northern Ireland since the beginning of 1600. It goes back to the Ulster Plantation and the views that have been inbred for centuries in the minds and hearts of the people will not be rooted out overnight. It will be a slow and difficult process but it must start in the educational system and in the communication between communities.
Perhaps it is naïve of me as a southerner to say that but, as Senator Wilson said, there is good and a capacity for good in all people. We need to examine that aspect and to develop it because the situation existing for the past 25 years cannot be allowed to continue.
It has been said that Senator Wilson is naïve in seeking discussions but his discussions with the IRA could be helpful. Communication between various groups at all times is helpful; unless doors are kept open and views exchanged, we are going nowhere.
I will conclude by wishing the Tánaiste every success. I know this is a matter he has been extremely interested in for years and in his capacity as Tánaiste in the Government of 1982-87, he was involved in the Anglo-Irish Agreement. He treats this matter as a priority and I wish him every success in the work ahead. I also wish Senator Wilson every success with his talks.
Sitting suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.
Yesterday, the Cathaoirleach, referring to the Warrington atrocity, said it made him ashamed to be Irish. This morning I want to say very deliberately that I have scarcely ever felt as proud to be Irish. The reaction of the ordinary people of this country as evidence by the spontaneous expressions of sympathy for the victims, and their abhorrence of the violence of the Warrington atrocity, their reactions as evidenced at the GPO yesterday, Trinity College last night and today, in the countless bouquets being prepared to send to the families in Warrington, are the true expressions of the Irish people and they make me more proud than ever to be Irish. They speak for all of us; the IRA speaks for none of us. There is never any reason, when the IRA totally reject and repudiate the values of this country, any of us should feel ashamed to be Irish.
As we talk, the consequences of the tragedy keep coming through to us, and now young Timothy Parry has died — perhaps it is a merciful release. One can be proud of the new relationship and understanding between the people of Britain and Ireland that has been born of the terrible tragedy that these families have suffered. The fact that this House has the opportunity to debate this issue now should make it absolutely clear to the people of Britain, Ireland and the world at large, that we still have our principles, hopes and expectations and we totally reject and repudiate people who perpetrate such horror and tragedy in our names.
If one were not proud already, one would certainly be proud after the moving statement, the understanding and forgiveness expressed by Senator Wilson in this House this morning. He would make any one of us proud to be Irish. His is the truly authentic voice of Ireland, of the disparate backgrounds and traditions of Ireland. It is a sign of hope, understanding and harmony for the future. He may be politically naïve as he said but, there are times when naïvety has an important place in consultations. I am sure I reflect the views of all in this House in wishing him well in all his discussions, with the IRA and Sinn Féin. As an Independent from Northern Ireland he may have a better opportunity to meet these people than we would because of the possible implications of such discussions.
For that reason it is very difficult to conduct a reasoned debate in the immediate aftermath of the Warrington atrocities. We are all united in our condemnation of these terrible deeds and of those who perpetrated them. We reject and repudiate those violent men who have inflicted such destruction and pain on innocent children and their loving families. When children are killed or maimed understandably there is an immediate and automatic sense of revulsion. However, we should not forget the tragedy that is inflicted on many other people.
If the perpetrators of this tragedy are unmoved by the plea of the brokenhearted father of Johnathan Ball, who showed a great capacity for forgiveness when he said stop it right now, and if they will not listen, we must make a renewed commitment to create the conditions which will eradicate violence North and South. That is the role of public and constitutional representatives and we must use our influence to eradicate the causes of that violence. The tragic events of Warrington impose an even greater obligation on elected public representatives in Britain and in Ireland, North and South, to face our responsibility as constitutional politicians and to leave no vacuum to be filled by the men of violence.
I wish to address some of the positions of constitutional politicians because in this Republic we have always sought progress through consultation and agreement. That has not started now, it did not start last week, two weeks ago or five weeks ago; it has always been the position of the constitutional representatives of this country. As Minister for Foreign Affairs for over two and a half years I represented that view. Agreement between North and South, agreement within the North and agreement within both Governments has always been the fundamental principle of all Governments, and hopefully will always remain so, in addressing this problem. That is the only basis to which we can apply all our resources to eradicate the cause of violence.
While continuing our fight against terrorism we must seek progress and co-operation on a tripartite basis for agreement between North and South, within the North and between the Governments of Britain and Ireland. As our approach is based on agreement — and I want to stress this — it follows that there can be no element of a claim by us on them in any constitutional position we adhere to in our relationship with our fellow Irishmen in the North. Equally, there can be no suggestion of a jurisdictional claim of a takeover by us on them in the North. All such distortions of our constitutional position are incompatible with its fundamental principle of agreement. We should make it clear that we will not tolerate any distortion or misrepresentation of our position.
I would say in relation to Articles 2 and 3 that they do not, cannot, never have and never will represent a claim by us on them. Such claim would be totally at odds with the established approach of agreement which I am glad to see is still being pursued by the Government. Those who misrepresent that approach do no service to the cause of reconciliation and understanding. I have had occasion to represent Ireland as Minister for Foreign Affairs in discussions about the North of Ireland and our approach was always based on economic co-operation. I met with Unionists in the North of Ireland many times as Minister for Foreign Affairs and as a member of the Fianna Fáil Party but I never advertised those meetings.
There is great scope for common purpose and for economic co-operation and understanding between North and South. The Tánaiste said in his opening speech in relation to economic co-operation that it is self-evident that together we can do much to improve the lot of people North and South, through tourism, investment in industry and agriculture. During my four and a half years as Minister for Agriculture, most of the agreements achieved for the Republic were automatically accorded to the North of Ireland; Northern Ireland farmers know that. The British Government's interests in relation to agriculture differ from our interests and those of Northern Ireland farmers. Agriculture is one area in which we have much in common with the North— tourism is another example and the control of illegal drugs is yet a third.
Political representatives on this island have both obligation and opportunity to work towards the resolution of conflict in the North. Representatives who choose not to meet that obligation or to take that opportunity can be accused of condoning further dissent, tension, fear, hatred and violence, just as much perhaps as those who perpetrate the awful deeds. Let us hear from all political representatives, North and South, a total condemnation of every gunman on every side. Let us hear the same unqualified condemnation of the UVF, UFF and UDA that we express in respect of those who claim a common interest with us. Those who choose not to take part in talks but who stand back and impose a veto are not meeting the obligations of a political representative, nor do they release their people from the chains of fear, mistrust and hatred. It is easy to stand back and accuse others and easy then to feed off the prejudice generated by fear and misrepresentation. That is not the kind of political climate we want in Ireland today or in the future.
If I have a unique claim to speak on this matter it is that I have been involved in talks on the Northern Ireland conflict on behalf of Government for almost 25 years. The Unionist people of this island have a great tradition and, as the Tánaiste said, we must show them that we respect that. There is a place for them on this island. They, unlike us, are not represented in Europe at the Council of Ministers, the Commission or in the European Parliament. They are not represented at the United Nations. Surely they want a voice so that they, like us, can be heard.
I will finish with a personal recollection that makes me feel deeply conscious of the great Unionist tradition. I am not ashamed of the past, far from it. My father was interned in Belfast jail during the War of Independence, and after his release worked in the woollen trade, in Belfast, with good Northern Orangemen. The friendship that developed between him and those men lasted for the rest of his life and my first introduction to the North was through good, gutsy Orangemen. I hope Unionists know we are ready to share with them in a spirit of trust and co-operation to realise the potential of Ireland for everyone. Let nobody try to misrepresent or distort that position for the sake of sowing further seeds of distrust and hatred.
With the agreement of the House, I would like to share my time with Senator Henry.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I am deeply appreciative that the Tánaiste has shown such attention and interest in this debate which has been charged with emotion and concern.
I have been concerned over the years that many people who are removed from the situation in the North have often spoken with ambiguity of simple solutions and have expressed vague aspirations on the subject. I realise that it is only when one is personally affected by the violence in the North that its full impact is appreciated, as we heard from Senator Wilson today. I speak from personal experience. Some 20 years ago I received a phone call to say that my brother-in-law had been shot dead. I had the responsibility of going to my sister to tell her that her husband had just been shot dead and that her seven children had lost their father. Each time I learn from the media of another killing in Northern Ireland, I know exactly the feeling of those left behind and the impact of that killing upon them. It is only when a death like that affects one closely that one realises the trauma and emotion affecting so many in the North of Ireland. Sometimes I think we are brought to a state of utter helplessness at hearing of murders over and over again. Surely this utter helplessness that ordinary people feel is one of the most depressing aspects of recent events. From generation to generation we see the situation continue, getting steadily worse.
The public response of the last few days following the Warrington killing — I understand from Senator O'Kennedy there has been a second death — need not be a flash in the pan. The initiative undertaken by Senator Wilson may succeed. I do not think we should expect an immediate response from the Provisionals but given the support Senator Wilson's initiative has received let us hope that something may come of it.
I would like to talk about what we as ordinary people can do to help. Beyond today's public expression of revulsion at the Warrington bombings, is there some way in which individuals can act?
We can do one thing; we can start regarding this country as a single unit in our own minds. To do that we almost need a mind set change. Let us start buying and selling more from each other. That is just one way that those north and south of the Border can help one another in a material sense. It is one way we can build a practical bridge across the gulf that sometimes divides us. We can also help through tourism.
My mother came from County Armagh and my father from County Down. Therefore, it has been traditional for me to visit cousins and relatives, to holiday and play golf in Portrush and Royal County Down and to visit the Giant's Causeway. How many of us have not had that opportunity because we have not had the link of a close relationship? There is an uneven balance because there are far more northern people coming here than the number travelling to the North. We should try to learn and benefit from one another in that way.
It seems ironic that the North is almost a no-go area for us when we go on holidays. It is even more ironic when one observes the increasing co-operation between the two tourist boards in attracting visitors from overseas. They have made marvellous efforts in this area. It is not well known that the two tourist boards co-operate in attracting what is referred to as the back-track traffic from London of people who are coming across the Atlantic. They have learned to sell Ireland as a whole and they do this in many ways. Yet, within Ireland, many people do not see this country as one when they are planning their holidays or short trips.
It would be tragic if the outpouring of public sympathy and emotion following Warrington became dissipated in the next few weeks because it is clearly very strongly felt now. These are some practical ways in which we, as ordinary people, can become involved in building a road towards peace in this island.
There are other things we can do to help move things forward. We, in the South need to change our attitude. It is a little ironic that while many of us share the aspiration of a united Ireland, most of us treat the North as if it was a foreign country. This week, in our own company we decided to promote Irish products by placing a shamrock in front of the products on the shelves in the supermarkets and I was surprised when I went round the other day to discover that we had unintentionally become Twenty-Six County-minded. Without thinking, we had sometimes omitted to regard products from north of the Border as Irish products. There are things we do unconsciously that we can correct. Some people feel the North is not our problem. Surely a change of attitude is required here?
There are common problems in both parts of this island quite apart from the question of violence. Both share the highest unemployment levels in Europe and it makes no sense to ignore what we can do to help each other on such problems. We can help each other by trading more with one another. This part of the country presents a major opportunity for companies in the North but it is one which is largely neglected. Now that customs posts have gone it is utter madness not to trade more with each other. Northern Ireland presents a vast export opportunity for our companies but it is neglected in favour of Britain, mainland Europe or even markets further afield. We forget that Northern Ireland is a market on our doorstep. The point I am making is illustrated by the fact that An Bord Tráchtála does not even have representation north of the Border as it has in other parts of the world.
These are practical things the ordinary people of Ireland can do. I have heard it said that the impossible is often the untried. If we really want to try in the depths of the gloom and depression following these tragedies, we may discover that those things we thought were impossible are just things we have not yet tried.
Our response to Warrington was correct. It was wonderful to see the flowers on St. Stephen's Green but our sympathetic response to tragedies in the North of Ireland has become far too muted. Like Senator Quinn, I have many relations in Northern Ireland so I travel there frequently and my husband does a great deal of business there. I spent St. Patrick's Day in Northern Ireland. As I went through Newry to lunch with a friend in Lisburn, a British soldier was shot dead in Forkhill, seven miles down the road. It was not the death of a child but his death left an 18 month old child who will never know her father. His death was as tragic as the death of the people in Warrington. They are all interrelated and our response to deaths in Northern Ireland has become too muted. It was interesting to visit Belfast. I have been travelling to the North all my life. The wire around the Europa Hotel has been down for about a year but the prickly psychological wire around the people seems to be worse each time I visit.
In a speech the Tánaiste gave in the Mansion House last week he said we are inclined to look on Unionists as lapsed members of the United Irishmen. I think we are. We do not realise that their aspirations are different from ours and that we will have to look at this seriously. We are in a stronger position and when one is in a stronger position one always has to be generous and go forward. The Unionist position papers suggested an inter-Ireland relations committee. This was tremendous progress. I never heard of such a proposal before and I hope the Government will make urgent efforts to set it up at whatever level is agreed.
We should look at the situation from a European perspective. If the Benelux countries conducted their trade and tourism as we do they would not be able to function at all. Why have our efforts in these areas been so weak? The Northern Ireland Tourist Board have opened an office in Nassau Street. At least now one can complain about any problems one has with hotels in Belfast or elsewhere.
We should get the reports of the Opsahl Commission and discuss them. They went all over Northern Ireland meeting people in places such as Ennis-killen, Portrush and Belfast and listening to their views. Andy Pollak must be congratulated on the efforts he made in setting it up. It is most important that we listen to what people in Northern Ireland are saying. Far too often grim faced politicians tell us what they think but little thought is given to the views of the public.
I gather some people this morning were decrying cross-Border visits. This is wrong. The more effort we make to organise even the smallest event that brings us together the better. Some years ago I organised a visit of women doctors from Northern Ireland to Áras an Uachtaráin. President Hillery's wife, Dr. Maeve Hillery, spent four hours talking to them. They said she had done more for cross-Border relations than anything they could remember. The following year we paid a return visit to the North. Why did these visits stop? Why do we not have the energy to organise such events? Our needs are the same especially in relation to trade, agriculture, tourism, transport and so on. By emphasising similarities we can progress and prevent the dreadful destruction experienced by the people of Northern Ireland. Nothing will be accomplished if we stand back; we must go forward. As we are the people in a position of strength we must make the greater effort.
I opened The Irish Times yesterday and I read a headline: “Boy (12) injured in blast to be taken off life support”. This young boy has since died. The article also mentioned the three year old boy Johnathan Ball who was killed in the Warrington attack. Another headline on this page read: “McAnespie inquest finds soldiers broke standing orders.” Aidan McAnespie, aged 23, was shot dead at a British Army Border checkpoint. On the following page one reads the headline: “Woman bled to death, trial told”. The report continues as follows: “The Belfast woman, Miss Karen Reilly, alleged to have been shot twice in the back when paratroopers opened fire on a stolen car two and a half years ago bled to death.” These are examples of four young lives which were needlessly lost. It does not matter whether they were killed by a bomb or a bullet. Their lives are gone and their families are left to mourn their tragic loss. This killing has to stop and it has to stop now.
The heartfelt aspiration of most of the people is for peace. If this aspiration remains limited to a popular desire it cannot become reality. A genuine peace process needs to recognise that an end to conflict does not, of itself, lead to a lasting peace. History has taught us that a mere cessation of hostilities will not lead to peace. A peace process, if it is to be meaningful and enduring, must address the root cause of the conflict. A genuine and sustainable peace process must be set in the context of democracy and self-determination. A true peace process needs to focus on these dimensions.
I quote from the unanimous declaration adopted by elected representatives in Leinster House, Dublin on 10 May 1949:
Solemnly reasserting the indefeasible right of the Irish Nation to the unity and integrity of the national territory,
Reaffirming the sovereign right of the people of Ireland to choose its own form of Government and, through its democratic institutions, to decide all questions of national policy, free from outside interference.
Repudiating the claim of the British Parliament to enact legislation affecting Ireland's territorial integrity in violation of those rights, and
Pledging the determination of the Irish people to continue the struggle against the unjust and unnatural partition of our country until it is brought to a successful conclusion:
Places on Record its indignant protest against the introduction in the British Parliament of legislation, purporting to endorse and continue the existing Partition of Ireland, and
Calls upon the British government and people to end the present occupation of our Six North-Eastern Counties, and thereby enable the unity of Ireland to be restored and the age-long difference between the two nations brought to an end.
What has changed since 1949? The only thing that has changed is that electoral districts are no longer gerrymandered. However, discrimination still exists.
Dr. Patrick Hillery, when he was Minister for External Affairs, told the United Nations Security Council in 1969:
Partition was accomplished by the British government as a concession to an intransigent minority within the Irish nation. Ireland was divided as a result of an Act of the British Parliament in 1920, an Act in favour of which not one Irish vote, either North or South was cast.
The New Ireland Forum in May 1984 said:
Historically up to 1922 Ireland was governed as a single unit and prior to the Act of Union 1801 was constitutionally a separate and theoretically equal kingdom.
I believe Partition is wrong and it is one of the basic causes of the problems of today. It is wrong because it defies the wishes of the people and rejects the wishes of the population of Britain as expressed in opinion poll after opinion poll. It flouts international law, it is undemocratic, and it is permanently abnormal and can only be maintained by extraordinary means. Partition does not work at any universally accepted standards and its consequences have made victims of, in greater or lesser degree, the entire Irish nation for generations, North and South, Nationalists and Unionists. It has been responsible for thousands of casualties in the Six Counties and in the United Kingdom. It perpetuates conditions in which conflict seems almost inevitable. It is a lesson of history in all societies that where peaceful evolution is made impossible violent revolution is almost inevitable.
The reason the British Government give for not withdrawing from Northern Ireland is the Unionist political veto. The British Government has fostered political division between Irish Catholics and Protestants through a system of political, social, economic privilege and it has fostered a Unionist or pro-British stance in the Six Counties. The late Cardinal Ó Fiaich said:
The present policy of the British government — that there will be no change in the status of Northern Ireland while the majority want British rule to remain — is no policy at all. It means you do nothing and it means that the loyalists in the North are given no encouragement to make any move of any kind. It is an encouragement to sit tight.
Advocates of the Unionist perspective represent 20 per cent of the Irish nation. They are a national minority; a significant minority but a minority nevertheless. To bestow the power of veto over national independence and sovereignty on any national minority is a direct contravention of the principle of self-determination.
The Partition of Ireland has dominated Irish politics for the last 70 years. This artificial boundary has no basis in history or geography and it is viewed by the world as an archaic relic of bygone colonial days. All efforts to solve the Northern problem — which is a problem for us all, North and South — on the basis of the legitimacy of Partition have been counter-productive. It is like trying to heal a compound fracture with a sticking plaster.
Ireland has suffered socially, economically and culturally as a result of Partition and its consquences. It has suffered the tragedy of thousands of people who have been killed or psychologically or physically injured. The scars and deep hurt felt by the community as a result of the strife and the violence which is a daily occurrence will last for a long time.
We must try to stop this and I believe we can do so. How? We are a people who achieved internatinal prominence and fame as a result of our missionary and peace-keeping work; as a result of our success in the fields of sport, culture art and crafts. We have never colonised or sought to exploit any other country, as a result of which we are accepted as a neutral and fair contributor to the world order and peace. Our stature among the States of Europe was evident during the period we held the European Presidency which was a model of professionalism, decorum and dignity.
Against this background of world service and recognition, it is understandable that we should look to our many friends throughout the world for support and representation in our efforts to bring about a lasting and just peace for the whole of Ireland. We must find a solution which would take cognisance of both political traditions on this island and forge strong links and promote mutual understanding in an All-Ireland alliance. Such a development would be in keeping with the policy of cohesion in Europe and a reflection of the removal of barriers and obstacles which we are now witnessing. In many ways, the division of our country and its tragic consequences — which receives ongoing worldwide exposure — is a blight on the grand vision of the architects of European unity.
The current debate on Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution is more of a distraction from, than a contribution to, a lasting solution to the problem. It generates, more heat than light. It adds to the division and suspicion and further polarises people and it alienates the Nationalist community from the political process. They would question how the legitimate Irish claims to full sovereignty could be waived without giving offence to the Nationalist majority in this island while at the same time continuing to condone the British claim of control over the North as contained in the Government of Ireland Act, 1920. To enter into such an arrangement because of political expediency would be seen as an act of betrayal by the Nationalist community in the Six Counties. It would compound and exacerbate the problem and undermine the moderate, middle ground of the Nationalist community. It would not assuage the Unionist community in any significant manner.
In his speech at the annual Wolfe Tone commemoration ceremony at Bodenstown on 18 October 1992 the Taoiseach said:
While acceptance of the reality of Partition was part of the price of independence, the Irish people were nevertheless given clearly to understand that it was only intended to be temporary, that Northern Nationalists would be fairly treated on a equal basis with the Unionists population. Further, an institution would be established which would facilitate North-South co-operation and assist progress towards eventual reconciliation. Both the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, and the Anglo-Irish Treaty, 1921, were based on this concept of the essential unity of Ireland to be re-established as soon as practicable and accepted by the British Government as a desirable long-term aim. The balance was subsequently lost and forgotten.
What is required at this stage is real and constructive dialogue which is representative of the middle ground and not of the extremes. However, I believe that no dialogue will succeed unless Sinn Féin is included in talks in the future. I know they have only 10 or 13 per cent support but that support must be recognised and taken into account. It was not might that removed the barriers in Eastern Europe but the will of the people.
We must accept that the majority of our people are reasonable and fair-minded, who possess a vision of Ireland which would best serve the needs of present and future generations and which would enable us to enhance our stature internationally as a democratic, sovereign and Christian people. We must believe that, if we accept and contribute to unity of the diverse traditions of Europe, then a similar concept for Ireland is essential.
Our duty is to persuade the British Government that the Partition of Ireland has been a disastrous failure. Our duty is to persuade the Unionists of the benefits of Irish reunification and to seek their views on the constitutional, legal and financial arrangements needed for a united Ireland. We should also persuade the international community, through international fora and institutions, to support Irish national rights. Our duty is to resist further erosion of Irish national integrity by opposing the deletion or dilution of that claim as contained in the 1937 Constitution, unless it is part of an agreed overall package which includes the Government of Ireland Act and a declaration of intent to withdraw by the British Government.
The Taoiseach also said, in the speech I referred to earlier, that he would give an undertaking that any agreement reached between the two Governments and the political parties on the North of Ireland would be put in a referendum to the people, North and South, at the same time. In that way all the people of this island would be given the opportunity to endorse simultaneously, for the first time since 1918, the form that future relationships on this island might take.
We should use the Anglo-Irish Agreement, as is our right, to make proposals on political structures, on human rights, on political and identity problems, on policing and other security structures, on social and economic issues, on prisons, as regards policy and individual cases, on the courts, on the judicial system and nominations to public bodies.
In that connection, on 28 May 1991, Deputy Blaney launched the "Directory of Discrimination" at a meeting in Dublin in which it was shown, using figures taken from the Fair Employment Agency and the Fair Employment Trust, that discrimination still takes place. There is a motion for resolution before the European Parliament in the names of MEPs Blaney, Hume, Lalor, Maher, Andrews, Fitzgerald, Killilea, Fitzsimons, Lane and 44 or 46 other MEPs that there be an investigation into discrimination in access to employment in Northern Ireland. The Taoiseach in a speech to the American-Ireland Fund national gala dinner at Capitol Hill, Washington on Tuesday, 16 March this year, said: "The ending of discrimination in Northern Ireland will make a very important contribution to restoring peace and confidence there and building trust for the future".
It is important also that we recognise and applaud the many positive everyday acts of kindness, co-operation and Christian charity between communities in the Six Counties. They are more widespread and enduring than the divisive activities which receive so much publicity. Cross-Border co-operation between different organisations and agencies continues to grow and stabilise. It includes projects in tourism, sport and culture and the results flowing from such solid co-operation are beginning to impact on the community in general.
One project which comes to mind and which epitomises the co-operative spirit to which I refer is, appropriately, in the field of genealogy — the Irish Genealogical Project. This multi-million pound project is now at an advanced stage. It is funded by the International Fund for Ireland, by European Structural Funds and by private investment. Of the 35 centres envisaged, North and South, 28 are already computerised. The project has the support of the major churches, Civil Service, North and South, Bord Fáilte, the Northern Ireland Tourism Board, Shannon Development and the training agencies FÁS and ACE who, with the Irish Family History Foundation and the Association of Independent Genealogists, create a unique partnership for the whole island. It is projects of this type that will make the Border irrelevant, and that is the only way it will disappear.
The Irish Genealogical Project will not only be of service to the people of Ireland but also to thousands of people of Irish extraction abroad. It reaches, through the centres, into nearly every county in Ireland and into every Irish heart worldwide. It is non-sectarian and nondenominational but it is wholly Irish. It will make an immense contribution in the spheres of heritage, tourism, employment and community relations. This project is a tangible model of what the future could hold for Ireland. It is based on constructive involvement, mutual respect and a commitment to our common birthright. It demonstrates, more than many other things, that our heritage is older than our political divisions.
We must do everything in our power to cease the terrible conflict in Northern Ireland and to recognise the root cause. I believe the root cause is Partition and that, at some time in the future, the British Government will withdraw. They have done so in every country they have colonised; it is only a matter of time. At that point we must be ready and have structures in place to accommodate the people of the different traditions in the Six Counties and to integrate them into a united Ireland by giving them the financial, economic, social and other benefits they need to allow them freedom of expression in regard to their beliefs and attitudes. I hope that one day, perhaps on St. Patrick's Day, we will see Orange bands marching in front of the GPO.
I welcome the Tánaiste to the House. I am pleased he has visited the Seanad so early in the session. I recognise the sincerity of his commitment to the Northern Ireland problem which was evident not only since he was appointed Tánaiste but also when he was in Opposition and previously when he was a member of the Government that signed the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
It was a privilege for me to listen to Senator Wilson. We all accept he would not be a Member of this House if it were not for the Northern Ireland problem. As Senator Wilson says, he speaks as Marie Wilson's dad and it is because of her, and what happened to her, that he is a Senator. This is something we often forget when we talk of Northern Ireland; we speak as if it was a territory, just a green field unoccupied by people. However, the problems of Northern Ireland, as Senator Quinn said, are the problems of the people and they have had sad consequences for Senator Wilson's daughter, for the people who were killed today, and for the people in Warrington who have lost their children. This is often forgotten.
We tend to think about the victims in Northern Ireland when we read about them on page three or four of the daily papers; we do not realise how each tragedy affects the lives of those who are left behind. This is something which we in the South must face. It is easy for us to sit comfortably in Dublin, Laois-Offaly or wherever we come from, and talk about the tragedies; we express our outrage and then carry on as normal. However, life is never normal for the people who are left behind in Northern Ireland.
Senator Taylor-Quinn said that perhaps women from both communities in Northern Ireland could come together and in that way create some hope for the future. In the past we saw how the peace people came together and tried to solve the problem but obviously such people find it difficult to progress alone. Politicians must work to provide the drastic solution that is necessary.
Senator Gallagher spoke about changing attitudes; she said it is only when both communities in the North change their attitudes that we can hope to have lasting peace. I accept this but I also believe we must help to change many attitudes in this part of the country. We must always give clear messages to the men of violence and not just when atrocities are committed.
We must also change our attitude as politicians. The Tánaiste said in his speech:
I have sought to put beyond doubt that the Irish Government will play the most constructive possible role. However, Northern Ireland political leaders have their own responsibilities. There will not be peace and stability in Ireland unless the two main traditions on the island co-operate to create and sustain these conditions. The Unionist community holds one of the necessary keys, and it would be tragic if they refused to apply it.
I agree with the Tánaiste, but we must ask ourselves: what keys do we hold? What keys are we not using to solve this tragic problem?
I welcome the developments that have taken place in the Ango-Irish Conference and the Northern Ireland talks. The Tánaiste mentioned the conference meetings this week and how it is carrying out a substantial programme of work across a wide range of areas. These areas included those spoken of by Senator Quinn: trade, tourism and co-operation in many sectors. I think the main problems in Northern Ireland are violence and death.
On the radio this morning I heard Susan McHugh, who organised the public meeting held in Trinity last night, say that the politicians have sat idly by for long enough. That is a dreadful indictment on all of us. She is obviously talking about politicians in this part of the country as well as those in the North and in Britain. We have to ask ourselves, how long will we sit idly by? Are we making any long-term plans, or have we any long-term solutions to the problems in Northern Ireland?
Senator Lee spoke earlier about the possibility of a joint authority. The problems in Northern Ireland are urgent and serious and they need drastic solutions. We must be brave and make tough decision in this part of the country. Senator O'Kennedy spoke about our hopes, expectations and principles. We should ask ourselves, what are our hopes? What are our realistic expectations? What principles are we talking about? Senator Lydon spoke about a debate on Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution and said it caused more heat than light. I would feel as strongly as he does but probably in the opposite direction. There is a great challenge for us all here.
As the Leader of the House said this morning, it is eight years since Northern Ireland was debated in the Seanad. What progress has been made in the intervening period? The Tánaiste quoted the late Seán MacEntee. He said:
We elders have failed to find a solution for the problem and after 50 years we may be forgiven for thinking that perhaps we went the wrong way about it. Maybe we were too rigid in our approach, too tenacious of our own point of view, too proud to temporise or placate. Whatever may have been the reason, we have made no headway; so our successors must start from "square one".
That was said 23 years ago. All that has happened in Northern Ireland since is that the violence has continued. I know the Tánaiste is firmly committed to trying to bring a solution. All of us must give support to our politicians and leaders but we must also let them know what we want to happen. All of us must have courage. I support the proposal made this morning by Senator Wilson to have an all-party Seanad committee. I also support the idea of visiting Northern Ireland. I made my first visit to Northern Ireland four years ago; I have been there four times since. As has been said we are terrified of the North. We think we should not be there or go there. Irish people live there, people like us who live in dangerous times and have atrocities committed on them because of the problems in the North. We owe it to Senator Wilson and all the people in the North to try to find a solution. I wish the Tánaiste well in his endeavours. He is very committed and is well fitted to the job.
I welcome the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs to the House. I hope his deep personal interest in the problems of Northern Ireland will bear fruit.
I would like to pay a tribute to Senator Wilson. It was said he is naive because of his suggestion to speak to the men of violence. When Christopher Columbus set off on his voyage, the world said he too was naïve. Naïveté might bring fresh thinking to the intransigence of politicians, North, South and in Westminster.
Once more a callous, cowardly act of violence has been carried out in the name of Irish nationalism. Within a few days a reprisal killing will take place to defend the Unionists of Ulster. The people of Ireland on both sides of the so-called political divide have said time and again they condemn and deplore these atrocities and the men of violence who perpetrate these crimes, yet they continue. People on this island want to live a normal life, to go about their business and their daily chores, but they have been conditioned by politics, propaganda and fear.
We have a great deal in common: we speak the same language and our customs are the same, except on one or two days in the year when people march to show and to convince themselves there are differences. If we look at what we have in common, our differences fade into the background. In an imaginary exercise and using the scales outside a courthouse in Belfast, if I place a pebble on the right side for every thing we have in common and another pebble on the left for things we do not have in common, the scales would tip in favour of what we have in common. The proof of this is that the paramilitaries continue to kill to convince people there are differences.
If we look at the economic implications of a closer unity of the two peoples in Northern Ireland and the people of North and South, we will see that there is no reason we cannot integrate economically. I say to the Tánaiste and the people in politics in Northern Ireland that we must strive to lay emphasis on our similarities and our differences will wane. Tourism was mentioned by Senator Quinn and Senator Henry. Several speakers on this side of the House have brought up the issue of economic integration. In this part of the island we must convince the people of Northern Ireland, Unionists and Nationalists, that we all have a role to play. Borders are imaginery if people believe they are united.
Articles 2 and 3 have been mentioned. The Tánaiste said they were not cast in bronze. Articles 2 and 3 are not sacred; human life is. As a Fianna Fáil Member, I am willing to put Articles 2 and 3 up for negotiation if that would contribute to a peaceful solution to Northern Ireland. I am a Nationalist. My aim is peace. My aspiration is a united Ireland. We must be willing to give a certain amount.
The political stalemate in Northern Ireland frightens me, because the ordinary person in Northern Ireland is not represented by those who portray themselves as defenders of the United Kingdom or defenders of nationalism. I also have no problem in saying that Sinn Féin should be brought into the peace process. This would weaken the men of violence. As long as they are kept from the negotiating table they will claim a right to use violence because they are not listened to democratically.
Mention was also made of integrated schools and integrating people in the workplace. Sadly, this is impracticable because of the ethnic cleansing effect the men of violence have had in Belfast and other major urban areas in the North. I had the horrific "privilege" of driving through Belfast on several occasions. On one side, the population may be 100 per cent Catholic and across a wire divide in the same parish, it is 100 per cent Protestant. The longer the political stalemate and the longer people are seen to be intransigent in the South and in the North, the more difficulties will be caused because a whole generation has been separated and divided. Senator Henry rightly said Catholics and Protestants had never met each other until they were brought together on cross-Border community trips. This is a sad reality. Public representatives in Northern Ireland must bring the two traditions together and must stand aside or get up to represent what the people of Northern Ireland really believe.
I compliment the Tánaiste and encourage him to make every effort to arrive at a peaceful solution. He has the full support of the Irish people.
Today the sun is shining in Dublin; it is shining in Warrington and it is shining in Belfast. It is vital that we make every effort to reduce violence and bring it to an end. The only way that can come about is through peaceful political solutions.
Like other speakers I welcome the opportunity this debate affords us to discuss the issue of Northern Ireland and the direction we are taking on this island. In his contribution, the leader of the Fine Gael group in the House spoke about how bleak things look at this moment. He said no real talks were taking place. He indicated the lack of any new initiative depressed him. He spoke about the lack of progress on the political front and decried the withdrawal of young politicians from what passes as political life in Northern Ireland, people who not long ago seemed to have a great deal to contribute. He spoke of those politicians having grown bone weary of the sterility of the political process there.
On a day like this when one child has just been buried in a quiet English cemetery as a result of the bombing outrage in Warrington and another child has lost his brave struggle for life after receiving horrific injuries in the same outrage carried out in our name we hear of three more murders in Derry. It would be easy to despair, but if we give up hope either here or in the Six Counties, if politicians give up the fight and withdraw from the scene then we who believe that a solution agreed among all people on this island is the best and indeed the only way to achieve peace and prosperity would be guilty of the ultimate betrayal.
We cannot afford to despair at this time. I am not suggesting Senator Manning was counselling despair; he chronicled the facts and said how difficult it was to maintain a positive outlook in the light of events. To despair or to withdraw from the political process would be the ultimate betrayal and would consign the people of this island to the bigots, the demi-gods and the perpetrators of violence on each side of this quarrel. As painstakingly slow as progress has been it is infinitely better than no progress at all.
The Tánaiste in his speech rightly dealt with what has been, and what is being achieved. Even if we cannot solve the constitutional issues in the short term, we can, as he suggested, resolve other issues to all our benefit. I have spoke before of the futility of the all-or-nothing approach which suggests that Articles 2 and 3 must be abandoned by the Nationalists or certain aspirations abandoned by the Unionists before meaningful deliberations or co-operation may begin. That approach, intentionally or otherwise, seems to shunt the destiny of the people of this island into a cul-de-sac.
There is no reason politicians of North and South cannot sit down together to resolve issues on which there are no fundamental differences. Issues such as infrastructure, access transport, common energy needs, employment creation, tourism and our response to European Community policy are not limited by orange or green considerations. Political differences on constitutional issues should not prevent political leaders North and South from establishing structures and processes through which joint responses to our common economic ills can be worked out.
Co-operation should not be confined to economic areas. Degrees of co-operation in education and health have been developed and should be built upon. Colleges and universities in both parts of the island are developing joint programmes with their counterparts in Europe through schemes such as the Erasmus programme. There is no excuse whatsoever for the relative lack of development of co-operation on joint programmes between educational institutions on this island.
Matters of health must surely offer major scope for co-operation. On a small island we face common health problems and there is no reason not to tackle these problems together. Why is there no Thirty-Two County AIDS programme, blood donor service or organ donor service? When bombs threatened the lives of Irish men and women in Belfast in the 1940s, Border and constitutional issues did not prevent the Dublin fire brigade travelling North to assist. Why then should those issues prevent progress in the 1990s, when common sense and co-operation is vital?
We have many more common interests with the North than we sometimes acknowledge. Common economic, social, cultural and welfare interests can and must be jointly addressed. In Ireland and elsewhere, the debate on Northern Ireland understandably focuses on political security and constitutional matters. The importance of these matters should not deter us from achieving progress in other areas mentioned. I have no doubt if over the last 50 years we had devoted a modicum of our national ingenuity to identifying and resolving non-contentious common problems we would now have made considerable progress on the contentious issues also. At a minimum, we would have established a common foundation of trust and co-operation. Perhaps this approach is not what Seán MacEntee had in mind when he said "we elders have failed to find a solution", but it may have been at the back of his mind. We have focused for so long on issues on which we cannot give an inch, that we have failed to identify the matters on which we could make miles of progress. Trust and co-operation spring from dialogue, debate and sustained contact; progress is unlikely to be made while parties are isolated.
I applaud the initiative taken by Senator Wilson who says that he has made contact with IRA leadership with a view to talks. Like the Senator, I discern some signs of a struggle in that organisation between its political and armed wings. Would it not be logical to offer encouragement to IRA members who propose to move towards political and democratic structures when others members remain locked in the sterility of violence?
Senator Wilson's initiative shows great courage, considering his own experience at the hands of the IRA. Even if his chances of success are slim, all people of goodwill will wish him well.
Even if Senator Wilson achieves nothing with the leadership of the IRA, he may have already achieved a great deal. His speech here today will help to break the tyranny of political correctness that has surrounded this debate in the South. For too long, self-appointed political commentators have defined what is and what is not politically correct. By so doing, they have, particularly on this side of the Border, set artificial parameters to political debate and have inhibited reasoned debate on the continuing usefulness, for example, of the section 31 ban on broadcasting appearances by members of prescribed organisations. They have also attempted to stigmatise those who express concern at the operation of the judicial system in Northern Ireland and in Britain. I recall an incident in London a few years ago when, after the failure of the Birmingham Six appeal, in the company of other campaigners, I was described by a senior political commentator as a "crypto-Provo" because I espoused the cause of those six men. Interestingly, that commentator was to the fore with his eulogies when the six were finally freed a few years later. This attitude is, all too often, part and parcel of what passes for informed comment on issues such as extradition.
The stultification of political debate on Northern Ireland is intolerable. On the one hand, it prevents the full exploration of issues and on the other hand, it presents the world with a caricature of the range and diversity of the political views on the question. For that if for nothing else, I applaud Senator Wilson on his courage in striking a blow against the arbiters of political fashion and the tyranny of political correctness. The honest elaboration of ideas and views can do nothing but good. The development of contacts has a great deal to recommend it.
Other speakers have talked about Articles 2 and 3. These Articles are continually moved to the centre of the debate and to my mind, are used to distract attention from what we might do. We all have different views on Articles 2 and 3 and mine are well known. They are an important expression of the legitimate wish for unity among the Nationalist population but I accept as a democrat that there are other views also. I suggest, therefore, that we should have more logical debate on these issues. I omitted to do so at the outset, but I wish the Tánaiste well in the task ahead of him.
It is important that we on this side of the island continously keep the issue of the Northern Ireland problem before us. I was struck when the Leader of the House mentioned that it was eight years since there had been a discussion on the Northern Ireland issue here. That is an appalling reflection on us all.
I was also struck by suggestions that there should be some ongoing system where we can keep in contact in this House and in the other House with developments in the North. There is clearly a need for some form of parliamentary committee, some form of Oireachtas joint committee which would allow not just individual issues to be debated and discussed from time to time but would put us in direct contact with political leaders in the North. I wish to see, for example, political, parliamentary or Oireachtas committees going to the North, sitting down to discuss the diverse range of political views that exist there to try to establish where progress can be made.
Far too much time in this debate is spent establishing the lines that cannot be crossed. It would be more fruitful and beneficial and we would serve the people better if we spent more time exploring where progress can be made.
Everybody will welcome today's debate. Last year I was in Belfast when the Irish Congress of Trade Unions organised a major demonstration as a response to the slaughter of the Protestant workers at the Teebane Cross massacres. Today we have a similiar situation on the other side of the divide. The present situation in the North is nothing short of a civil war. There are no armies facing each other across a battle field, but we have become used to the killings, the maiming, the slaughter and the constant dread. In the last two or three years the situation has worsened and for the first time there has been terrorism of the type seen in South and Central America. We have seen the indiscriminate murder and maiming of people.
In the North we have institutionalised the divisions created by the religious divide; now a person's name, school, hospital or address are elements of what eventually becomes a death warrant for people on either side of the divide. The reality is that people are born in Catholic or Protestant hospitals. A Catholic born in a Catholic hospital will live in a Catholic housing estate, will attend a Catholic school to be taught by a Catholic teacher who has also attended a Catholic school. The child will leave school to work in a predominantly Catholic place of employment, will live in a Catholic housing estate or in a Catholic area. This division in the communities has continued for generations and it is essential that steps be taken to heal it.
Whatever ideas one might have about the future of this island as a political entity, it is obvious that there must be intervention in the vicious circle of segregation and division which is institutionalised in the North. That must be done at various levels. Education is one area a start can be made. We need to ensure that people at least learn together and learn about each other.
I am in an unusual position because I am probably the only person in the House who has an office in Belfast as well as in Dublin, and I have 5,000 members in the North. I live with the day-to-day situation in Northern Ireland. I live with the difficulties of bombs being dropped on the doorsteps of schools, where schools are used as hostages by vested interests. I visited St. Anthony's school in Craigavon, two weeks ago. This school was destroyed by an IRA bomb in December 1991 and, to the credit of the parents, teachers, education authorites, etc., it was replaced with a semi-permanent building within five weeks, and the school was reopened after Christmas. I asked the children what they remembered of the day the school was destroyed and one child said that all she could think of was what happened to the fish in the aquarium in the school. It shows that children are sensitive to what is happening around them. However, there is a danger that we are becoming desensitised to the horrific developments in the North. In my experience there is more tension in the city of Belfast today than ever.
There is also the problem of isolationism. People who travel from North to South or from South to North are very careful about what they say. I have a very simple rule when I meet strangers in the North. I will discuss anything except the weather, sport or television. I would prefer to discuss politics, religion or whatever causes problems in the local community. People spend their time being nice to each other. When people from the Republic visit the North and speak to people from Belfast about how they should be doing their business they are told they could not understand because they do not live in Belfast. People should not be put off by that kind of comment. I lecture people from Belfast as I lecture people from Cork or Kerry, whatever my views. It is important to challenge ingrained ideas, beliefs and relationships.
It gave me great pleasure about six years ago to organise a seminar in Belfast. I invited, on a confidental basis people from all parts of the community — Catholics, Unionists, Republicans, Sinn Féin, the UDA — people from different backgrounds, those in favour of a united Ireland, those in favour of the Union, those in favour of the Republic, and those in favour of a unilateral declaration of independence — about which I have not heard much in recent times. I asked the questions that are not supposed to be asked: for instance, growing up as a Protestant in the North, what did you think about Catholics? How did you perceive Catholicism? One Protestant woman said that when she was growing up, trying to understand the Catholic faith and the sacrament of the Eucharist thought Catholics were cannibals who ate their own God. This is an interesting concept.
A very good Catholic friend of mind from the Glens of Antrim — he died last year — grew up knowing that the Protestants were better off than the Catholics and that everything worked out better for them. He knew that when there was a problem with the water supply, it was the Protestants and Presbyterians in Ballymena who turned off the taps. It took him 20 years to realise that the Protestant poor were no better off than the Catholic poor. However, neither side was told this and they were always kept apart. It is my belief that if people went to school together and lived together they would be forced to come to terms with each other.
All my life I have been opposed to this herd approach to football hooliganism where one group of supporters was left on one side of the pitch and the others on the opposite side. I believe in the concept of places like Craigavon where there is a determined effort to bring communities together. The problem is one of education and lack of understanding. People have to be confronted with each other's differences. It is about contrasting the beliefs, background and the strongly held principles of different groups and explaining them to each other. Sometimes, out of politeness, we dare not ask a question we dearly want to ask of somebody with a different point of view.
Another concept of the North which is very prevalent in the South is that it is a unit; you can refer to it as the Province, the Six Counties or Northern Ireland, it does not matter what you call it; it is not a unit. Senator Wilson from Enniskillen would agree when I say that people from Derry, west Belfast or Enniskillen are completely different and have as much in common as people from Dublin or Dundalk; Dundalk is as close to Belfast and Derry and these people have different attitudes. There is a view that Northern Ireland people are all one; that there is a homongenous North of Ireland person. They are individuals with different views which we need to explore.
Today, three more workers have been shot by people from one side of the divide. They do not care about workers and, apparently, they believe that taking another life, whether it is that of a three year old or a 12-year old child in Warrington, or intimidating shoppers in London, will bring people closer to the Union or to a united Ireland. I believe we need to challenge traditional views, put aside our polite ways and try to appreciate the views of the other side.
Where do the Churches stand in relation to integrated education? How can we justify people living in separate communities if we want them to live together harmoniously later? Surely we can meet the needs of the churches and all the institutions by bringing young people together. In a society where we expect a pluralistic approach, in a Republic that stands for the acceptance of differences and where its strengths and unity comes from such acceptance, and in a democracy that is judged on how it deals with its minorities, surely it should be possible to use all those elements to achieve a better kind of community.
Education is the key factor in all of this. In the last century Cardinal Newman said that tolerance was the first quality of an educated person. If the quality of tolerance is lacking in Irish society today, North and South, we have failed. As an educationalist I am appalled that we have done so; I believe that if people learn to know and love each other and understand each other's differences, it would be more difficult to shoot them. It would also be more difficult for the godfathers of crime, assassination and death to present people who have been baptised in a different church or reared with different values as evil monsters and to insist that political objectives can be attained by killing, slaughtering and assassinating people. We need more interaction. I would like to see Dublin children spending a week in schools in the North, teachers from the North exchanging places with teachers in the South and communities in the North and South mixing on common issues.
There is a wish for peace but we are fighting against generations of ingrained feelings and views. We are fighting against the deterioration of the word nationalism, which was an acceptable word a century ago but which is now being demeaned. It has become like every other "ism", imposing the views of one people on another. We need to intervene in that vicious circle of intolerance, crime, death and assassination. We should seek tolerance and try to develop a greater understanding of the people, North and South.
There are four aspects to the Northern problem — the Northern Nationalists, the Northern Unionists, the British and ourselves. We could, perhaps, tell the Northern Unionists, the Northern Nationalists and the British what we would like them to do but, effectively, we can only organise one of these groups to do something positive and that is ourselves. It is wrong to think that problems in the North do not affect our lives.
People in the South have turned their backs on Northern Ireland. We could and should have become more involved in the day-to-day events in the North. I am as guilty as the next person and I am ashamed to say that I have only been in Northern Ireland once, on my way to Donegal. However, I am not alone on this. Mary McAleese, on the "Late Late Show", highlighted that problem. She said that any time she mentioned the Northern problems to people in the South she saw them switch-off; they did not want to hear; they believed those problems were outside their control. We have allowed the complex political problem in the North to interfere with what we, as individuals, can do.
Senators mentioned trade as a means by which we can become more involved in Northern Ireland. Senator O'Toole spoke of the role of education and Senator Quinn spoke of trade and tourist links; we have outlined today several ways in which we can involve ourselves in day-to-day life in Northern Ireland. We should encourage people in the South to take a greater interest in what is happening in the North because as Senator Kelleher said, partition or the Border means nothing if people have the will to be as one. Unless we start reaching out to the people of Northern Ireland we will foster a mental partition. The partition of Ireland was not of our doing, our opinion was not asked but mentally we have enforced partition.
We have in the past considered ourselves different from the people of the North. Our 1937 Constitution tried as far as possible to separate us. It is an insular and narrowly based constitution which now constitutes a barrier to mutual understanding. Calls for a revision of the 1937 Constitution are met with howls of protest from the South. We are clinging to the wreckage of that Constitution. Several times in the Seanad we have spoken of its outdatedness with respect to other aspects of Irish life. Surely we should now take a look at the Constitution to see how it reflects Irish society today and how it is regarded by people abroad. What do outsiders who look at our Constitution make of us? Does it really reflect the Ireland of today?
The Tánaiste in his speech said: "I believe a new generation wants to escape from the shackles of the past and establish a new basis for our relationships on this island." If we believe this to be true, our actions should be geared towards enabling us to escape from those shackles. Mentally, we must rid ourselves of them.
I firmly believe there is still in this part of Ireland an undercurrent of tacit support for the IRA. One meets few people who say they support the IRA, yet at the end of a night spend celebrating a match, rebel songs will be belted out with great pride and gusto. One will hear ‘the lads" or "the boys" spoken of, half-proudly, in whispers.
In the South there are still families who cling to the ideology of the 1920s, who believe that Seán South was right in what he did in the fifties and who cannot be shaken from that view. What is worse is that there are innumerable safe houses in the South to which the IRA can go for support. Until we begin to discontinue that support, tacit though it may be, there will always be a problem.
If we encouraged some form of North-South dialogue in our own lives and involved ourselves somehow in the day to day lives of northeners it would go some way towards solving the problem. If we give good example others in the North and in Britain may follow. We, as Senator Honan said, are the ones moving from a position of strength so let us take the first step.
It is a great privilege for me to speak on this debate. I listened to the debate all day and it is one of the few times I have heard knowledgeable and informed opinion on the Northern conflict. I wish to be associated with the remarks of those who condemned violence. A solution is not possible without a just peace, bringing justice for all.
People who know me will be aware that I come from a republican background of which I am proud. My republicanism, however, does not lead me to condone the shooting or killing of innocent people; it is based on tolerance of other points of view and a plea for tolerance should be issued by the House today. I was deeply moved by Senator Wilson's contribution. If anybody possesses the qualities needed to solve the horrific situation in Northern Ireland it is somebody of Senator Wilson's calibre, with his message of reconciliation and forgiveness. We must all forgive and be reconciled with one another.
I was slightly disturbed by some of the attacks on the Constitution. The Irish Constitution of 1937 was enacted at a time of uncertainty regarding the final constitutional position of North and South. Mr. de Valera and the members of the constitutional commission which drafted that Constitution after much thought inserted a number of articles to accommodate the Unionist point of view on Northern Ireland. Anybody who reads the Constitution can see although Articles 2 and 3 state that the national territory consists of the whole island of Ireland that they are aspirational and are based on a peaceful reunification of the country. No supporter of violence can say that the Irish Constitution endorses violence; nowhere does the Constitution state that violence is justifiable.
Other Articles of the Constitution provide for the setting up of subsidiary parliaments. This was a very enlightened idea in 1937 enabling a subsidiary parliament to be established in Belfast, Cork, or Galway for instance with another parliament meeting elsewhere for the whole of Ireland. I would not be as quick as some others to advocate setting aside the present Constitution and framing a new one.
However, if it would enable us to resolve the conflict, I would favour the drafting of a new Constitution on which citizens of the Thirty-two Counties would vote. A new Constitution should include a Bill of Rights which would protect the rights of all minorities, not only on ethnic grounds but also on religious and other grounds. Such a solution would focus on the divergence within the community, from which we could all gain strength.
Certain unionist politicians are saying they will talk if Articles 2 and 3 are removed. If these Articles are removed, a whole group of people in Northern Ireland will be left nationless or stateless; they will become the Palestinians of Europe. We have a duty to protect that minority, without alienating the majority. If the point is put forcibly enough that the Irish Government and people do not condone violence and that the legal system and Constitution do not allow violence, then we can change attitudes.
Many speakers mentioned integration in education. As a disabled person, I have encountered certain kinds of prejudice. I am not saying the prejudice I might face would be of the same magnitude as that faced by other people, especially those in Northern Ireland. I believe that children are not guilty of prejudice; that comes from adults. Integration at every level, from the beginning of a child's education, would help to break down many of the barriers and prejudices which are reinforced by adults from both sides of the community.
Senator Wilson in his speech mentioned a very poignant prayer by St. Francis of Assisi. Solving this problem will require a huge spiritual renewal among all people on this island and in Britain. They must resolve to come to some peaceful arrangement which will help us live together
This is a small island and the people living in the North and in the South suffer from the same kind of problems: unemployment, emigration and lack of housing. The major difference is that in Northern Ireland when you go to work you might get shot, or when you go out for a drink the pub might be blown up. However, people's difficulties are generally due to economics. It is ludicrous that the British Government is subsidising Northern Ireland to the tune of £2,000 million a year and the Irish Government is spending another £1,000 million maintaining a Border which it does not want.
Dr. Brian Feeney on RTE radio yesterday said that when the British army wanted to build a new checkpoint on the Border in Fermanagh, the Irish Army had to protect the builders from the Irish side of the Border. It cost 76,000 manhours to protect people building a British army checkpoint which the local people on both sides of the Border, the Irish Government and the Irish people did not want. If that money could be spent on renewing our national and cultural spirit, promoting reconciliation and bringing people closer together, much more could be achieved than the building of a checkpoint. It is quite apparent in certain segments of the media in Ireland and Britain that there is a general apathy in searching for a solution. I am an optimist and I think we have to keep striving to find a solution. I firmly believe that at some stage there will be a solution, but it will not be achieved unless we can all come together and decide what is best for the country as a whole, not just for individual groups.
I commend the Tánaiste and the previous Minister for Foreign Affairs on their work in building bridges among the communities North and South. There also seems to be a desire on the part of the British Government to solve the problem. There is a tremendous amount of goodwill which can be harnessed. It is the duty of us all to harness that good will for the betterment of humankind.
Violence only breeds violence. If I kill somebody today, his brother will kill me tomorrow. The tragedy is that it is continuing without an end. Somebody has to call stop. If the voice is loud enough from people of reason in Ireland — North and South — and in Britain, then the violence will stop. I fully commend Senator Wilson on what he is trying to do. I will be quite happy to give him whatever support I can, however small.
I am very glad the Tánaiste has come to the Seanad today to discuss Northern Ireland and his remarks are very welcome. I come from west Cork, the home place of Michael Collins, the place of his death by tragic means. Memorials at Crossbarry and Kilmichael testify to our fight for freedom and the civil war which wrecked this nation. Many of the people who took part in those events in west Cork in the fight for freedom would be ashamed of what happened in Warrington recently.
My message is for those who may be contemplating, and I hope that it does not go any further, planting bombs in the future and for those who give the orders. I would say to them to hold a photograph, like the one in the Cork Examiner, then they are planning these actions and say that such a child could be killed by the bomb they are ordering to be planted. I would say to the people who claim they are acting under orders in planting bombs to look at that photograph and listen to the taped message of Mr. Parry, the father who spoke when his son's life support machine was switched off. I ask the people who might detonate the bombs to do the same thing and think of the damage they have done, the lives they have taken and the heartbreak, they have caused to families.
I want to get that message across to those people. I know that politicians, North and South, and in Britain can work to bring about unity and peace in our country. The politicians should be left to do this work and there should be an end to the planting of bombs and shootings such as occurred in the North today where three workmen were gunned down in their workplace. The people of Ireland want peace, North and South, and the sooner the bombers realise that the better.
I thank Members of the House for their contributions to this debate and for their welcome to me to the Seanad. I compliment the Leader of the House for providing time for this debate. I am very glad to have had the opportunity to address the Seanad and listen to the remarks which have been made.
I have listened with interest to the contributions. They have been very solid and, in the main, very helpful. The message that came across very strongly is that there is deep concern among all political parties in the South in relation to the work that has to be done to find a solution and a lasting settlement to the conflict which affects this island. We have been discussing this in the shadow of the terrible atrocity committed in Warrington some days ago. This had a profound effect on all people on this island and across the water. Within hours of today's discussion another atrocity was committed at Castlerock, County Derry. The horror of these events underlines the urgency of finding ways to eradicate this evil and to build a future which will ensure lasting peace and prosperity.
A number of suggestions were made in the course of today's debate. The Opsahl Commission has finished its work, other than to write its report, and it was suggested that the report should be debated. I would welcome such a debate at the earliest opportunity. The Commission went about its work in a very diligent and efficient manner and it is important to show our appreciation for their work. It can only help in our deliberations and thinking. Senator Wilson also informed us that he is to meet the Provisional IRA and obviously he is doing that in his personal capacity. I hope that they will learn from him, a man from whom we all have learned in the last number of years. I hope the humanity that he has shown us will show those men of violence that nothing will be achieved by violence. I wish more of us had the strength that Senator Wilson has shown in recent years.
There have to be changes, both North and South. This Government is committed as an overriding priority to meet the challenge confronting us. Senator Manning in his contribution said that things are bleak. Yes, things are bleak and there is a shadow over our proceedings, but we have to rise to the challenge. There has to be goodwill, tolerance, a respect for diversity and for traditions. If we can show those qualities and have a constructive input from all concerned, we will reach our objective.
It struck me during this debate that there are very different political views in this House, among the various parties and the Independents, but there was certainly a commonality of purpose. Nobody could object to anything said in the House. It is heartwarming from my point of view to realise there is understanding and determination on the part of all parties regarding the seriousness of the problems in Northern Ireland and of what those problems have been doing on this island, in Britian and in other parts of the world in recent years.
We have to tackle those problems and be prepared to shake off the shackles of history. That does not mean any disrespect for history. We all know our historical background and the different historical background of the people with whom we seek dialogue and reconciliation. If we are inhibited by history as others are, we will achieve nothing. Reconciliation will require tolerance and it will mean our going a long way down the road. Many people said today that we are in a position of strength and we have to show that. More is expected of people coming from a position of strength than of those who are in a position of weakness. We have to ensure that this is understood.
The Government's position will be an active one. I have said, from the day I assumed office, that Northern Ireland is a priority. We cannot continue with the horrors of the last number of days and we cannot be other than active in our approach. We cannot afford the luxury of standing back, stating our position and allowing events to take their course. There is an obligation on all politicians on this island, North and South, to reach out, to discuss the problems and to test fully any possibilities for agreement.
In a short number of weeks, I have had three meetings with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I believe there is determination on the part of both Governments to face up to the challenge and to work together to bring about the necessary solutions.
Many comments were made here today in relation to exchanges between politicians North and South. I am a firm believer in the work of the British-Irish Parliamentary tier. Some people said, when it was set up, that it would be a talking shop. Even if it is only a talking shop, it is a very necessary one. People are now talking to one another who never spoke to each other in the past. They are beginning to understand differences of view and different opinions. It is very pleasing that Irish and British politicians who less than two years ago only talked across the television screens, with little diplomacy, are now able to sit in conference rooms in London, Dublin and Edinburgh — they will meet in Cork later this year — to discuss their differences. Let us break down the mutual incomprehension that has existed both on this island and between the islands. If we can do that in a constructive manner and in a spirit of openness, then things will be achieved. It will be difficult and we will all have to change if we are to achieve our objective.
As I said at the outset, the Government will be proactive in relation to these problems. It is extremely important that there is contact between political representatives and between all people on these islands. Strong points were made today about the inadvisability of trying to impose a solution from the top. I accept that. It is important that at community and group levels, in sport, at the arts and cultural level and in business, that we forget about the Border and get on with living on this island. If we succeed in doing that, it will make the political solution easier.
This discussion has been constructive. There is an obvious desire among the Members of this House to contribute to the debate needed on this island. I hope that all politicians, North and South, show the willingness that has been shown here. It was said in the course of remarks that this is the first time in eight years there has been a discussion on the subject of Northern Ireland in the Seanad. At times there has been some inhibition in opening up the debate on Northern Ireland but if today's healthy and constructive discussion established anything, it showed that politicians in the South take a very serious and concerned view of the difficulties on this island. Since this discussion started, the Whips in the Dáil have agreed to a debate on Northern Ireland. That will be helpful also.
We have differences in terms of politics in the South, but today showed that because of the seriousness of the situation that confronts us, we all intend to work towards a solution. It showed that we can overcome differences in our points of view. Despite the gloom of recent days I am heartened by this debate and I shall continue my work, to which I am completely committed, because I do not believe any politician can do other than give a 100 per cent effort to bring about peace and reconciliation on this island.
On the Order of Business I took the opportunity of thanking the Tánaiste for agreeing to this debate. I welcome his comment that the debate was dealt with in a proper fashion. I am sure I speak on behalf of us all in wishing him well in the task of bringing reconciliation to this country. I welcome the provisional undertaking for another discussion on a future occasion. It is right and proper that the Houses of the Oireachtas should have an opportunity to discuss the issue.
I thank the Tánaiste, the leader of the Labour group in the House, Senator O'Sullivan, and the Chief Whip, Senator Magner, for their efforts in ensuring that this debate took place today.