totally off topic, but as Thanksgiving approaches, peace to all of you ... two important non-business news stories today of note ... the issues are about the same thing if you think about it ... Ken Wilson
First, from The Economist, dated November 20, 1999
NO GUNS, no government is about as pithy a political slogan as you could ask for. It has given the Ulster Unionists the perfect encapsulation of their approach to Northern Ireland's peace process. Until the IRA begins to disarm, say the unionists, they will not contemplate forming a power-sharing government with Sinn Fein, the IRA's political wing.
Or rather that was what they used to say. This week's news from Northern Ireland is that the sickly peace process nursed along by former Senator George Mitchell has suddenly sprung back into vigorous life. But that is only because the unionist leadership is backing away from its demand that disarmament must begin before a government can be formed. Instead of giving up weapons now, Sinn Fein has made a statement committing itself to exclusively peaceful means and acknowledging that decommissioning is essential to the peace process. The IRA has made its own pronouncement, backing Sinn Fein's position and promising to liaise with the official body charged with supervising decommissioning.
David Trimble, the leader of the Ulster Unionists, wants to embrace this deal and get on with forming a government. But peace is by no means yet a done deal. A significant part of Mr Trimble's own party want to stick to the no guns, no government formula. And anyone with a knowledge of Northern Irish history will know not to dismiss the rejectionists. Brian Faulkner, the last unionist leader to try to do a political deal with Catholic nationalists, was brought down by Protestant rejectionists in 1974.
Beyond the political conjectures of whether Mr Trimble will carry the day lies the bigger question: is he right to embrace this compromise deal at all? The rejectionists may not present a very pretty public face, but their arguments are not lightly dismissed. They point out that the IRA has yet to yield a single weapon, or offer a firm timetable for disarmament. They argue, reasonably enough, that it is wrong to expect unionists to share a cabinet table with Sinn Fein if the republicans are still backed by a private army. In such a situation, Sinn Fein would always be able to back its political demands with a tacit threat of a return to violence. And once the likes of Martin McGuinness of Sinn Fein have their feet under the cabinet table, it will be virtually impossible to eject them from the government-even if the IRA never does disarm.
Anyone considering these arguments needs to weigh three questions. Is decommissioning the right issue on which to pin the peace process? Are the fears of the rejectionists likely to be realized? And what is the balance of risk between accepting the current deal and turning it down?
Arguably, decommissioning should never have been elevated to the importance it has achieved. The most important thing is whether weapons are being used, not whether the IRA has access to them. In fact, with republican weapons buried all over Ireland, no one could ever be sure that all weapons had been surrendered. And in any case, if the political situation really deteriorated there would be nothing to stop the IRA rearming.
Be that as it may, decommissioning is now at the centre of the peace process-and even Sinn Fein acknowledges that it is a legitimate issue which must be dealt with. So the next question is whether the rejectionists are right to suspect that the IRA is offering only words, and that the actual surrender of weapons is still a long way off. Here, there are no guarantees. The republican movement is famously impenetrable-but voices within it are still highly resistant to giving up their guns. All that can be said is that the language now being used by Sinn Fein seems different. If and when a power-sharing government is formed, it will be difficult for the republicans to continue to dodge the question of disarmament.
But the final question still remains. What if Sinn Fein gets into government and the IRA does not disarm? Would that lead to the dreaded mafia state, which the rejectionists warn of, in which an armed faction holds the state to ransom?
It seems unlikely that the unionists will get the guarantee that they have sought-that without decommissioning Sinn Fein will be expelled from the government. But all the same their nightmare scenario is not as plausible as it sounds. Even if Sinn Fein managed to cling on to its cabinet seats, without decommissioning, the republicans' position would be severely weakened. Having failed to deliver disarmament, they would find it much harder to get their way on other crucial issues that must soon be dealt with,in particular, the emotive issue of reform of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
As ever, the fate of the peace process seems to hang on how much mutual trust the two sides can muster. After days of unprecedented face-to-face talks with Sinn Fein, Mr Trimble seems to be convinced that they are in earnest about peace. That is a big and significant change, given his history of deep suspicion and hostility to armed republicanism. But even those who cannot bring themselves to trust the IRA should reflect on the balance of risk in accepting the deal now on offer. The potential prize is enormous; the establishment of a lasting peace, after 30 years of civil war. And the downside? The risk that the IRA will once again disappoint, and will have established a precarious foothold in a Northern Irish government. Mr Trimble is right to go for the deal.
Second, today is the 136th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's words that remade America, November 19, 1863-the delivery of his address at the dedication of the National Cemetery at Gettysburg, four months after the battle of Gettysburg - 272 words full of meaning and a rededication of the American spirit.
as reported in the New York Times, November 20, 1863.
"Fourscore and seven years ago our Fathers brought forth upon this Continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. [Applause.] Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We are met to dedicate a portion of it as the final resting place of those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But in a larger sense we cannot dedicate. We cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here have consecrated it far above our power to add or detract. [Applause.] The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. [Applause.] It is for us, the living, rather to be dedicated here to the refinished work that they have thus so far nobly carried on. [Applause.] It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us, that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion; that we here highly resolve that the dead shall not have died in vain; [Applause.] that the Nation shall under God have a new birth of freedom, and that Governments of the people, by the people and for the people, shall not perish from the earth. [Long continued applause.] |
