Ulster: a wrong verdict
We said last month (May 1998) that Tony Blair's Ulster 'peace deal' was a sell-out of the loyalist people of Northern Ireland. During the month Tony, not uncharacteristically calling in the help of rock musicians, made a special effort to coax the Ulster people into voting for the deal by referendum.
That he won the support of the vast majority of republicans was hardly a surprise. The deal gave them a great deal of what they wanted, with the hint of more to come later.
Neither was it a surprise that the loyalist community in the province by no means overwhelmingly endorsed the deal. Ulster Protestants are a canny people, not easily conned. The 'hoorah!' atmosphere whipped up by the deal's supporters may have fooled some of them, but a healthy number remained unconvinced. Beneath the din of songs saying 'Give peace a chance', they were examining the nuts and bolts of the agreement, and they didn't like what they found.
The referendum was, to the shame of its promoters, conducted in an atmosphere of bribery and blackmail. The bribes consisted of economic 'goodies' to which Ulster people could look forward if, like obedient little lambs, they voted 'yes' - including, of course, the familiar bait of more foreign investment, which in the present British climate is always assumed to be essential to economic progress. But the blackmail was perhaps even more reprehensible; the whole wording and style of the 'yes' campaign were such as to imply that anyone who voted otherwise must want a return to violence and terror.
The 'yes' argument was, from the very beginning, downright dishonest. Its main thrust was that by voting this way people would be turning their back on the past and 'moving forward'. "If you vote no," the argument ran, "you're voting for 'no-change', just a repetition of what has been going on for the past 30 years."
But what actually has been going on for the past 30 years? What has been going on has been a campaign of violence and terror constantly rewarded and encouraged by government appeasement. What has not been going on - because no government has had the courage ever to try it - is a firm policy of dealing with the terrorists by means of ruthless measures of suppression and deterrence, combined with one of no concessions to their political aims.
Those who in the recent referendum campaign urged the people to vote in favour of the vaunted 'peace-deal' were the very people who, together with their political predecessors in the 1970s and 1980s, have favoured this policy of appeasement and concession, and most certainly will continue with that policy. So, far from representing a 'new' path, these people in fact are only continuing along the old path - the path that has constantly failed to bring the very peace that they claim to seek.
These 'yes' champions must be dim-witted in the extreme if they think for a moment that Sinn-Fein/I.R.A are going to be satisfied for very long with the peace agreement formula as they presented it to the mostly unsuspecting public. As one example, the assent by the Government of the Irish Republic to remove its constitutional claim on Northern Ireland is not worth the paper it is written on as long as the I.R.A is present and able to renew its operations the moment it decides that the speed of progress towards 'Irish unity' (i.e. of British surrender) is not fast enough.
hese considerations aside, there were other good reasons for loyalist voters in Ulster to reject the 'peace deal' and everything leading up to it. It was a shameful document preceded by a series of shameful gestures, which no self-respecting nation would ever stoop to take. In particular: -
Foreigners have been invited to assume that it is 'open season' to interfere in British internal affairs. U.S President Clinton was used by the British Establishment to back up its appeasement campaign. An American was invited to chair the all-party talks on Northern Ireland. The Government of the Irish Republic was treated throughout as if it had a legitimate interest in the outcome of the talks, and by the agreement has been granted a say in future Northern Ireland affairs. Finally, the voters of the Irish Republic have been invited to take part in a referendum over a matter that is none of their business.
Sinn Fein has been virtually given an assurance of a place in the future government of Northern Ireland; a province which that party is intent on annexing to the Irish Republic.
The agreement contains no stipulation either that the I.R.A must decommission its weapons or that it must make a pledge of no further violence. Feeble efforts were made to obtain such undertakings but once those efforts failed they were abandoned.
A virtual pledge was made of an amnesty to terrorists, who very shortly are expected to be out of prison and free to resume their violent operations just as soon as they choose.
The reality is that the 'peace deal ' constitutes just one more phase in a disgraceful process of surrender, scuttle and betrayal by British Government. It will not be the last, for the handing over of Northern Ireland to the Irish Republic, at the behest of the I.R.A and sundry foreign powers, is the ultimate objective of this contemptible policy. The people who voted 'no' to the policy in the recent referendum want to see peace in Northern Ireland as much as anyone else. But there is an essential difference: they are not prepared to buy peace at any price. That is why their verdict was the right and honourable one - even if, as was always probable, it was not the verdict of the majority.
Webmaster's note: This article was originally published in 'Spearhead' magazine No.352, June 1998.
Any readers interested in subscribing to 'Spearhead' should write for details to Spearhead, c/o PO Box 117, Welling, Kent, United Kingdom, DA16 3DW.