COMMENTARY: In Northern Ireland, peace didn’t have a chance

c. 1996 Religion News Service (Andrew M. Greeley is a Roman Catholic priest, best-selling novelist and sociologist at the University of Chicago’s National Opinion Research Center. His home page on the World Wide Web is at http://tekweb.com/greeley.html. Or contact him at his e-mail address: agreel at aol.com.) (RNS)-When the history is written of the most […]

c. 1996 Religion News Service

(Andrew M. Greeley is a Roman Catholic priest, best-selling novelist and sociologist at the University of Chicago’s National Opinion Research Center. His home page on the World Wide Web is at http://tekweb.com/greeley.html. Or contact him at his e-mail address: agreel at aol.com.)

(RNS)-When the history is written of the most recent failure to end the violence emanating from Northern Ireland, one version will blame British Prime Minister John Major for negotiating in bad faith.


But Major hasn’t deviated from the tactics of any of his predecessors who have attempted to defuse this long-running conflict. To my mind, the cease-fire fell apart because the British leadership does not and probably never will understand the Irish.

Eighteen months ago the Irish Republican Army agreed to a cease-fire and to try peaceful negotiations with the British and Irish governments. But after the cease-fire, Major added a new and unexpected condition: He demanded the IRA surrender its weapons before negotiations could begin.

The reason for this when all other excuses were swept away was that for the IRA to surrender its weapons would signify that England had won a military victory.

On the face of it, such a pose was absurd. The IRA has been blowing up buildings and people in England and Ireland for 75 years, ever since Britain partitioned Ireland against the will of the majority of its people. It is conceivable that the IRA could continue its acts of terror for another 75 years.

But British leaders have yet to learn the lesson of the early 1920s: the IRA will never be defeated by military means. Only negotiations and compromise can end the violence.

The military leadership of the outlawed IRA-which is distinct from its legally recognized political arm, Sinn Fein-knows that full well.

But England wanted a symbolic surrender and the IRA refused to engage in such a sop to England’s pride and vanity. Indeed it is doubtful they would have accepted the cease-fire proposal made by Sinn Fein’s Gerry Adams if they knew that such an extra condition was to be added.


Major, however, appeared to have prevailed. Peace became immensely popular among Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland. It was a peace that was achieved without negotiations, a peace that everyone hoped would continue. Major could postpone negotiations indefinitely.

But, as in the past, the gunmen don’t care what the majority of the people think. They never have. Dedicated revolutionaries that they are, the IRA cares only about their dream of the”Republic: One and Indivisible.”Major was warned repeatedly that his insistence the IRA give up its weapons was endangering the peace process. He dismissed these warnings as irrelevant.

Then, under the leadership of President Clinton, a compromise was reached. An international commission, headed by former Senator George Mitchell, recommended a way to get on with the negotiations.

But Major dismissed the Mitchell commission report with hardly a comment. Moreover, he proposed parliamentary elections be held in Northern Ireland, which the Protestant majority would dominate as it always has, especially in the gerrymandered electoral districts.

Major made this proposal without consulting the Irish government or President Clinton. The Irish government, feeling betrayed, and Sinn Fein, feeling that the same old game was being played again, were both furious. The possibility of resolving all these longstanding issues at the negotiating table began to evaporate.

The result was the bombing in London. I have no sympathy for the violence of the IRA. But it was inevitable, given the volatile sensibilities of the IRA and John Major’s stonewalling and bad faith.


Did Major actually want violence to resume as an excuse to extricate himself from the peace initiative and thus keep the support of the Northern Protestants on whom he relies for his majority in Parliament?

I’m sure he would deny that. But given the long history of British mistakes in dealing with the Irish, Major has little credibility. His one claim for greatness might have been that he ended the violence in Northern Ireland. Now he joins the long list of arrogant leaders who squandered opportunities for peace.

MJP END GREELEY

Donate to Support Independent Journalism!

Donate Now!