|
|
|
|
| Lectures |
 |
|
Foreword by Professor George Wedell The Good Friday Agreement in 1998 changed the terms of the accord between the political parties in Northern Ireland. It has put historically conflicting communities on the same side. They have committed themselves to a new start. As leader of the Social Democratic Labour Party John Hume has been for all his adult life at the forefront of the search for a new stance for the politicians in Northern Ireland. The trustees decided some months before the award to him and Mr David Trimble of the Nobel Peace Prize for 1999, to ask Mr Hume to indicate the next steps in the historic reversal of the Irish political scene. We are grateful to him for pointing the way. THE IRISH SETTLEMENT: WHAT NEXT? I am very glad to be with you at this particular time which is a very crucial time as you know in our situation in Northern Ireland, and I hope it is a time when, as I have said often, we will provide a lasting peace and lasting stability in this part of the world. The last 30 years have been among the worst in our conflict when in the north of Ireland which has a population of a million and a half people, 3,500 people have lost their lives, and over 30,000 people have been maimed or injured seriously. To understand the depth of that problem that is the equivalent of 100,000 people losing their lives in Britain, and one in 50 being maimed or injured. This means in effect there is not a human being in the north of Ireland who does not know personally someone who has lost a life. Of course, that in itself speaks for the depth of the quarrel and the tragedy of it. As I often say, one of the worst examples of that quarrel is that it has been necessary in the city of Belfast, which is the highest church-going city in Europe on both sides of the divide, to build 13 walls to protect one section of the people from another. I have argued very often and very publicly that those walls are an indictment of all of us because what they scream at us is that our past attitudes have built them. Therefore we should use them as a symbol for change in those attitudes, because a strong message comes from it: if those walls are to come down, then our past attitudes must change because our past attitudes have built them. Of course, when you examine the mentalities that exist in the conflict situation in Northern Ireland, you will find that those mindsets exist in most areas of conflict, and those mindsets have to change. What I mean by that is that if you look at the national community in northern Ireland - and I grew up in that community - I would describe the mindset as a territorial mindset: ‘this is our land, you Unionists are a minority, and therefore you cannot stop us’. My challenge to that mindset has been - and I am glad that the debate has taken place - that it is people who have rights, not territories. That is a wide-ranging statement, just think about it; it is quite a profound statement. Words like ‘sovereignty’ are used quite often and in very emotional terms in areas of conflict and it is applied to territory and land in countries, but in fact when you come to the conclusion that it is people who are sovereign not territories, and it is people who have rights, not territories, and in Ireland it is the people who are divided, not the territory, the line on the map in Ireland showing the border is only a symptom of a much deeper burden. It is in the minds of half of its people. When that is your problem and that is your division, the first obvious lesson is that it cannot be solved in any shape or form by government alone; it can only get worse. Given that one of the main nationalist positions was of course the ‘dying for Ireland’ syndrome, then it is very important to emphasise that given that our people is a deeply divided people, it only deepens the divisions and makes the problem worse, and the real approach to resolve the problem is agreement from among the divided people. Then there is the other mentality which is the Unionist mentality. Given the Unionist people are a minority within Ireland and that their objectives are that they wish to retain their identity, preserve their identity. I agree that it is their absolute right to preserve that identity because it is the right of every section of people anywhere to preserve their identity. My quarrel with them was not their objectives, and their method was that the only way to protect themselves given that they were a minority in Ireland was to hold all power in their own hands and to give nothing to anyone unless he or she was one of them. Of course, that attitude led to very wide discrimination affecting voting rights, housing and jobs. The point I would make to such people is ‘you want to achieve your objective of retaining your identity. I agree with that. Because of your geography and number, this problem cannot be solved without you. Therefore, come to the table and reach an agreement that will protect that identity forever.’ It was a change in both mindsets that I was arguing for, going in the same direction - agreement. That being the case, of course, the right way to get such agreement is that you devote all energies to promoting it and that means getting the two governments working together. Of course, for most of this century, that was not very normal; what we used to call in Ireland ‘megaphone diplomacy’ took place across the Irish Sea! Both governments have worked very hard together, and have devoted their energies to promoting agreement. But when it comes to talking about agreement, you then have to search for methods of arriving at such an agreement. I have to say that in my own approach, I was very strongly inspired by my European experience - I am a very strong pro-European - and I think that the new agreement leans heavily on the methods we have developed in Europe. For example, the new agreement takes account of the fact that all of us were born in Northern Ireland, and that we have to create institutions which recognise that fact, as well as respecting our differences. The new agreement satisfies both these perspectives. In accordance with these perspectives, we elected an assembly providing proportional representation, thus ensuring that all sections of our people are together in that assembly The assembly will elect by the d'Hondt system (which is a European voting system) the Executive, for the administration of our Government, and that will also ensure that both sides are working together. Then there will be a Council of Ireland, a north/south Council of Ireland, because when you have a deeply divided people, you don’t start out knowing which groups qualify. This is unprecedented. There is distrust and hatred, and that is why you acquire a healing process, and by working together in the common interests and leaving aside the areas of disagreement, I believe we will build a trust that will erode the distrust of the past, and out of it will evolve in time a new society, a new Northern Ireland, a new Ireland, and of course it will be based on agreement, and respect for differences. It will not be victory for either side because when you have a divided society victory is not a solution. That is the strategy that is behind this agreement, and of course it is our task now, having got the agreement and one of the most important political steps in the whole process was the fact that for the first time in our history, the agreement had to be endorsed by the people, north and south, on the one day. That was a very important thing in real terms because as you know a lot of the physical forced positions on both sides. The second thing concerns understanding Ireland, I did not think I would have to explain this to Unionists to understand what I called the ‘no-surrender mentality’, given that no surrender is one of their repeated slogans. That is a factor as well, that they don’t want to be seen to be surrendering and the other factor when you look at Ireland, north and south today, every major political party, except my own party, was founded out of a bomb. Fianna Fáil, the Irish Government of de Valera, founded out of a bomb; Fine Gael, the opposition party, the party of Michael Collins, was founded out of a bomb - where was their goal? The Unionist Party, around the same time, in 1912, was founded out of a bomb - where was their goal? More recently, the Official IRA which became the Workers’ Party Democratic Left, which was in the Irish Government, where was their goal? We got rid of them ... and therefore to make it an issue of pre-condition, when you think of that and the fact that if that were to become an obstacle it would be somewhat tragic if something like that were to become an obstacle to peace, because when you look at the agreement, in order to ensure that it is serious, every party to the agreement is committed to the implementation of this agreement, which includes the objective of total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations, achieved to the satisfaction of all sides, and achieved through setting up a convinced agenda by a national commission. That was a general agreement. It commits us all, including the parties to the agreement, our political allies. If you take office in Northern Ireland, now in the new situation, everybody has to take pledge of office, and that pledge includes total and absolute commitment to democratic and peaceful elections, and total opposition to anyone of any organisation who uses violence or threatens the use of violence. If anyone in office is associated in any way with that sort of thing, they are automatically excluded. So, in effect the agreement covers all particulars in that sense. I would like that some of the people in politics on this side of the Irish State who are raising their voices in favour of decommissioning would come over with some sort of understanding of our situation. We want a future together. That is the essence of what the SDLP is about. The words of hope and imagination have inspired our endeavors over the past 28 years. They explain the motivation which has kept us going - even in the dark times when to hope was to be unreasonable and to imagine a better future little short of wishful thinking. That desire for a better future kept us going. When grim facts invited despair our philosophy enabled us to reach beyond the bitter realities and to cling to the vision of a peaceful future. In our cities, towns and villages, we have never given up. The label attached to us by the media moderates - always seems off the mark to me. We have always been extremists in our attachment to peace and justice. And we have gone to extreme lengths in pursuit of those objectives. So easy would it have been in the wake of violence and obduracy to fall into despair and negativity, into clichéd assumptions about opponents, into the comforting rhythms of old perceptions and conflicts. The SDLP have also implemented the principle of power sharing and partnership in local government. Whenever we have been in a position to do so, we have built partnership arrangements with other parties. By doing this we have provided a model for the future administration of the whole of the North, for north-south relations and the relations between the peoples of these islands. The principle is now well established, and only the most extreme and self-deluded believe it is possible to govern without inclusiveness. Against the slope of traditional distrusts, suspicions and confrontations, together we pushed our ideals of two traditions at peace, of a resolution of ancient conflicts, of the unity in our diversity. We took them to Washington, to Brussels, to London, to Dublin. To governments of every hue. We took them to fellow nationalists and republicans. We took them to the unionist community and its leadership. We took them to everyone who would listen, We took them to those who would not. Our ideals have found their greatest expression in the principles and practices set out in the Good Friday Agreement. They have been endorsed by all the people of this island in an irrefutable verdict. 1998 has been a momentous year. The Good Friday Agreement, the Referendum and the Assembly Elections are major milestones for the SDLP and more importantly for the citizens of this island and for our neighbours in England, Wales and Scotland. The agreement would not be possible without international involvement. We have to thank Presidents Clinton, Delors and Santer. We have always argued that our conflict was international in its origins and would be international in its resolution. That contention was dramatically verified by the role of George Mitchell, Harri Holkerri and John de Chastelaine. Of many things we may be uncertain. But of this we can be sure. The Good Friday Agreement will be judged by history to be a seminal document, a document which sets its stamp on the future course of relations in this island, in this society and between these islands. This agreement was founded on the unfulfilled potential that we know to be there, the potential to find agreement in the face of paradox and conundrum, find an agreed constitutional and political accommodation for our people. Unionists and nationalists have at last taken their future in their hands, have seized control of their history rather than letting history hold them in thrall. Our party needs to make no apology for our aspiration to the unity of our people. But let us consider our definition of unity. What greater unity is possible today than the referendum North and South which endorsed the Good Friday Agreement? What greater unity is possible than the unity of the joint endeavours of those elected to serve in the Assembly and its Executive? What greater unity is possible than the unity of our shared endeavours in the North - South Ministerial Council? At this point in our history, we have achieved a truly valuable unity.
Nationalists, republicans and unionists - we have all travelled far in our thinking and attitudes over the years of this peace process. It has been a very positive journey the success of which may not be obvious to those who have been directly involved in its creation. What was the inconceivable is now the common place and the norm. Nationalists and republicans have taken their place in a local Assembly. Nationalists and unionists are preparing to share power in an executive. Unionists have accepted that the North South Ministerial Council is an essential institution without which neither the Assembly nor the executive would be possible. Unionists have accepted the operating principle of sufficient consensus, of parallel consent, the recognition that both traditions must be recognised as equally valid symbolically and politically. We have all accepted the expression of the totality of relationships represented by the British - Irish Council. Without reservation, Commissions on Human Rights and Equality are to be established and embedded as essential institutions for the good government of Northern Ireland on a day-by-day, case-by-case basis. The European Convention on Human Rights is being incorporated as a matter of law and practice. And so much more. Prisoners, victims, policing, security normalisation, criminal justice have become part of a process of profound change and renewal. We have achieved so much. Inevitably, implementation was bound to unveil some differences of interpretation and intention. None more so than on the question of the decommissioning of arms. Think of what we have decommissioned. We have decommissioned the reality of violence. We have decommissioned in a profound way the prospect of conflict leading to more victims. Drumcree and Omagh remind us that putting the genie of violence back in the bottle is no easy task. But we live now in the prevalence of peace, not the prevalence of violence. We have decommissioned mind-sets that saw only difference and division. We have decommissioned the political paralysis of direct role and the exclusion of local politicians from power and responsibility. Let us take that approach and apply it to the issue of decommissioning of arms. This is an issue that received very serious attention in the all party talks and it was the dear and agreed view that this was a matter that could only be dealt with to the satisfaction of all sides by an independent international Commission. There is no precondition of decommissioning under the Agreement. The only real precondition for anything under the Agreement was the people's verdict by referendum. It is the will of the people that disarmament takes place as provided for in the Agreement as part of the full implementation of the Agreement in parallel with its other provisions. The SDLP and all other parties we obliged by our own commitments to work constructively with the Independent Commission and use our influence to achieve such disarmament. We have to ask ourselves whether adopting tactics or rhetoric which create impediments around this issue is the most constructive contribution that can be made to this task. Is it the best use of a party's own influence to adopt negative postures which do little to enhance or encourage the positive influence which we need others to use to good effect? We must all do all we can to make disarmament happen as soon as possible within the time scale for the Commission's work, not least by doing all we can to implement all other aspects of the Agreement in their own terms as soon as possible. We have won our peace in Northern Ireland because we, as individuals, as a party, as a tradition of constitutional politics, prepared for it and worked for it for as long as we have been in existence. But the peace we have today is not the end of our achievement, no more than it represents finality for the republican movement or the unionist community. Thus, in our own way, every party to the Agreement is rightly seeking to advance a better, more secure peace. We must ask ourselves about the quality of peace. We must dedicate ourselves to judging the quality of peace we enjoy, to securing a better quality of peace for the future. Peace is not an absolute. There are varieties of peace. There is a measurable quality to peace. We must hone and define our definition of the peace we want, a peace of real quality. We want a true peace, a peace of the heart. A peace of truth and understanding. A peace of concord and reconciliation. The SDLP's new and essential tasks will also mean pursuing and improving our relations with unionism. Sufficient consensus can only work as this relationship improves and grows in mutual confidence. As this relationship grows, we will find a consensus across the floor - that is the true purpose of sufficient consensus, the basis of real and lasting stability. A better quality of peace also means pursuing and improving relations in the entire nationalist community. This will mean many things, involve us as politicians in many new tasks - the essential tasks of government. The SDLP are and will be in government. That is where we should be. This is not a question of individuals seeking office. None of us would be here if that were our motive. It is simply ensuring that our political institutions reflect the realities of our society. It is simply ensuring that the talents of our party are exploited for the benefit of society as a whole. We exist to promote change, now we will have the instruments of power to fulfil our purpose. We are undergoing a revolution in politics - a cultural revolution. There is the obvious one that most parties, of very different outlooks and traditions, will be working together for the mutual benefit of all. No one should underestimate the political and indeed personal difficulties involved. But the people have spoken. We have a mandate to look to the future. Forgiveness and forgetting we personal matters, but those of us elected to represent the people have been given clear instructions that we are to focus an building a future together. There is a cultural revolution needed if we are to succeed as a party of Government. There is one thing that unites all parties in the North. All of us, for a quarter of a century, have been in opposition. Not one of us has been in Government. During that time only a handful of people across all the parties has any experience whatsoever of government. We will have to defend our decisions. We will have to explain our decisions. There will be no easy get-out clauses or alibis. So we had better get these decisions right. Of course our party must have policies, as we have, but it must also have priorities. The key to success in this respect is to establish our priorities as a party, and then to work towards those objectives through the Assembly, the Executive, the North-South Ministerial Council, and the British-Irish Council. I would define three basic priorities for our new institutions. First, we must work towards serious economic development to ensure prosperity and equality for all our citizens. Second, we have to improve our system of education and training so that all our citizens can contribute to the development of our society to the maximum of their potential. Our present system serves the interests of a minority very well. We need a new system that serves the interests of all. Third, we must create the physical and telecommunications infrastructure needed if we are to be successful in competing in the global economy. These are ambitious targets. They would be ambitious for any political system, let alone a new one like ours. But in a way the sheer scale of the economic and social challenges we face will be positive for our new institutions. The areas of common ground between us are so big that they should help to carry us beyond the political obstacles that are so evident. We are at last moving into what we have sought throughout our existence, real politics. We will be working to build an economy, to tackle and solve our serious unemployment problem and to provide a decent standard of living for all of our people. In doing this we shall make very positive use of the international contacts that we have been building in both Europe and the United States in order to create jobs by seeking inward investment and in marketing the products of small and medium sized enterprises. One of the major ways of doing this will be by building on the special relationship that we have with our sister parties in Europe. They are now the government of 11 of the 15 member states of the E.U. and I look forward to using our special relationship not only to ensure that we retain our necessary economic support as a member of the E.U., but also to assist us in particular with the development of marketing on behalf of our small and medium sized enterprises in their countries. We must commit ourselves to the social and economic objectives of the marginalised, the poor, the unemployed, the dispossessed, men and women, as Wolf Tone put it, of "no property'. How valuable and enduring is our peace process if those who have had no stake in society continue as the men and women of no property with no investment in the future for themselves and their children? In implementing an agreement we must advance the cause and status of women in our society. We must address unemployment, the balance of employment, the distribution of wealth, the needs of deprived areas. Our success will be fuelled by exploiting the great potential of this agreement. No longer obstructed by conflict, our talents and diversity as a people and a society can blossom. We can rectify the deficit in cross border trade and commerce. We can combine our efforts North and South to cut costs and improve economic opportunities. We can jointly trawl the international economy for inward investment and trade. Through growth and expansion, we can create the opportunities to solve the economic and social problems of our people. The quality of the peace we have and will have in the future is our responsibility as political leaders in the Departments and institutions of government of which we will be a part. We have now an opportunity to make manifest the o social and economic ideals of our party. That will be the privilege and responsibility of those of our party who find themselves in power, of those who advise and support them, and of you, the delegates, who ultimately direct them. True peace is the peace of harmony, reconciliation and justice in all its forms. If we want this peace we must prepare for it. We must work to it as the transcending principle of government over the life of the Assembly and Executive. Each government must bend its will to that great objective. Every citizen must do so. Note: This text contains both material in Mr Hume's Corbishley lecture and material on the same theme delivered to a meeting of the SDLP in November 1998. The Thomas Corbishley Memorial Lecture is given annually in memory of Father Thomas Corbishley S.J. Father Corbishley was Master of Campion Hall, Oxford and later Superior at Farm Street, London. He was the first Chairman of Christians in Europe, an Ecumenical group dedicated to educating church people about the European Community, and a tireless supporter of the work of the International Ecumenical Fellowship and of the Wyndham Place Trust. This is the 22nd lecture. Recent titles include: The Spirit of 1989:
Europe on the Threshold of a New Era? The role of the churches
in the international order, The role of television in an
area of ethnic tension: the case of Sarajevo The United Nations - forward
or back? The management of
intractable conflicts Securing the future of
democracy The Macedonian question:
A diplomatic initiative in the 1990s |
|
