COTHROM: 2009

Monday, January 19, 2009

Seeing the other side's point of view, I

There are two sides to the conflict between the Israeli's and the
Palestinians. It is not simply that one group has all the right on its
side, and the other group has all the wrong on its side. Both group
have some of the right on their side, and both groups have part of the
wrong, and both are to various degrees to blame for the conflict.

Humans tend to have certain shortcomings when responding to a conflict,
particularly if they are close to it - they see in colour, but tend to
think in black and white. Situations are in many cases not so simple as
"good guys versus bad guys", but we often blinker ourselves and refuse
to look at a situation in its full complexity. I do not believe that a
proper solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be found unless
we all take the blinkers off, try to look at the situation from all
angles, understand the arguments on both sides (it is not necessary to
agree with a particular set of viewpoints, but at least make an effort
to understand these views) and engage in discussion.

I will play ``devil's advocate" to some extent on occasion, posting
viewpoints and comments, making comparisons with other situations, to
try to present aspects of the Israeli and Palestinian postions as I see
them in a way that makes it easier for outsiders to understand these
situations. Of course I do not expect everyone to agree with my
pronouncements, so I hope other people will add to our general
understanding by posting their own views as either comments in the
blog, or on the bulletin board. I will also post these statements on
the bulletin board (follow the link below), and the bulletin board may
be the better forum for discussion if a particular post provokes a
large number of responses. To start this off, two comparisons
with imaginary situations in Europe, to try to
present to outsiders the situations of both the
Israelis and the Palestinians as these groups
themselves might see their situation.

Imagine if it were the case with Belgium in Europe that all the other
countries in Europe - Britain, France, Spain, Germany, Italy, Portugal,
Holland, Ireland, Denmark, Norway, Poland, ... etc etc - wished
to destroy Belgium, had collectively waged a number of wars against
Belgium with exactly the aim of destroying Belgium, and all that
prevented them from succeeding was that Belgium had a powerful
military. This is the situation of Israel in the Arab world - the Arab
world would destroy Israel if it could, has tried to do so in the past,
and all that prevents them succeeding is the might of
the Israeli military. Imagine the life of the people of Belgium,
if they were to look around at all their neighbouring countries and all
of them wanted to destroy Belgium.

On the other hand, imagine if parts of Belgium were occupied by some
militarily powerful neighbouring country, say Germany, that Germany has
annexed parts of Belgium and claims that these parts are actually part
of its own territory, that it has been settling German citizens on
these annexed lands, that its long-term aim is to use military might to
force the people of Belgium to give up this territory to Germany, that
Germany and its allies say that Belgium has no right to resist this
annexation of their lands, that indeed Belgium has no rights whatever
and must accept the situation as laid down by Germany and that any kind
of resistance whatever makes them international criminals. This is the
situation of the Palestinians in relation to Israel.

Of course both these pictures are over-simplifications, but I believe
both accurately reflect to some extent certain aspects of the conflict.
Any opinions and differing views welcome. We probably would all benefit
from a greater understanding of how various people view this situation.

My own opinion is that the only viable solution is likely to be a two-state solution, but also that such a solution has to be fair, balanced and just, and has to treat the rights and freedoms of both the Israelis and Palestinians equally.

If you have comments or suggestions, please post a
comment in the blog, or on the bulletin board - see the link below.

Visit the Cothrom Bulletin
Board
View my Message Board

Free Forums by
Bravenet.com
Sign My Guestbook below

Get your Free Guestbook from Bravenet.com

Remark: The posts relating to Northern Ireland are copies of documents
from the original Cothrom site from the late '90's/early 00's, and are
reproduced just to show what the original Cothrom site was like.

Cothrom 2009

Welcome to the new home of Cothrom in 2009, a website run by myself, James Mc Laughlin. On these pages I will try to promote a number of related ideas, revolving around social/racial/religious equality, fairness, justice and peace. Much of the violence and injustice in the world arises partly because some groups of people do not treat other groups of people as their equals as human beings, do not respect their rights as human beings and indeed treat them as less than human.

It seems to be part of human nature that many people tend to be polarised into opposing camps by conflict situations, supporting just one side, rather than making an effort to see both sides of the argument, seeing the rights and wrongs on both sides, and then somehow to arrive at a personal opinion as to where equality, fairness and justice lies in the situation, and then moving to support a fair, balanced, just solution to the problem that respects the rights and freedoms of both parties to the conflict equally.

I used to run a similar website in the '90's/early '00's that tried to promote a just, balanced, fair settlement to the conflict in Northern Ireland. I recently posted those old webpages on this blog - read the early posts on this blog to see what I was writing back then. I stopped writing on the old Cothrom website in the early '00's, when it seemed that Northern Ireland was starting to move towards stability. I had been been meaning to start the site up again for several months
now, mostly to air my thoughts about other world situations that bothered me. What finally prompted me to start again (mid January 2009) is the current situation between Israel and the Palestinian Territories, particularly the conflict in Gaza.

It is not that the situations in Northern Ireland and the Middle East are exact parallels, or maybe even closely similar - one immediate difference is that the problem was to find a way in
which the two communities could live together in the same state, whereas it would seem that the challenge facing the Israelis and the Palestinians is to find a way in which an Israeli state and a Palestinian state can live side-by-side.

One parallel that I see with Northern Ireland in the early days of that conflict, is that it would seem, at least on the surface, that many people on each side see only their own point of view. Of course this is not to say that all Israelis or all Palestinians think this way. Indeed I believe most in both populations would support a just, balanced and fair solution if one were on offer. Another parallel that I see is that I do not believe that there will be peace there until a majority on both sides accept the need for a settlement that is essentially just, balanced and fair..

In the next few weeks, I will be posting my thoughts on how to see each sides point of view, what is a just settlement and so on. I will be creating a bulletin board so other people can post their views also. I will also be posting on other topics as they occur to me.

If you have comments or suggestions, please post a
comment in the blog, or on the bulletin board - see the link below.

Visit the Cothrom Bulletin
Board
View my Message Board

Free Forums by
Bravenet.com
Sign My Guestbook below

Remark: The posts relating to Northern Ireland are copies of documents from the original Cothrom site from the late '90's/early 00's, and are reproduced just to show what the original Cothrom site was like.

Saturday, January 17, 2009

END OF OLD POSTS

OK, THATS THE END OF THE OLD POSTS, WHERE I REPOSTED ALL THE DOCUMENTS FROM THE OLD COTHROM WEBSITE.

HOPEFULLY THE TOTALITY OF THESE OLD POSTS WILL GIVE SOME IDEA HOW I THINK ABOUT ISSUES.

THERE WILL BE NEW POSTS IN THE COMING DAYS ABOUT RECENT ISSUES SUCH AS GAZA, AND OTHER SITUATIONS.

Visit the Cothrom Bulletin Board

View my Message Board

Free Forums by Bravenet.com

Sign My Guestbook below

Thursday, January 15, 2009

Cothrom Guestbook

Remarks: These pages were originally created in the '90's, so some of the links are long dead (and the group or organization may no longer exist), but I am leaving the page as was just to give an idea how it used to be.

*****************************************************
Thank you for visiting the Cothrom pages. I would like to hear what you think of the Cothrom site, what I could do to improve it etc. I have added this guestbook so that people can comment on Cothrom and the Cothrom site.The bulletin board remains as a forum for discussing peace and politics. All comments/advice welcome but not necessarily acted upon/listened to! I hope you will Add to this guestbook!

This is a very good page as it gives the time as well as the date of a posting. We should use it more.RicN Ireland, UK - Sunday, June 15, 1997 at 10:27:52 (CDT)

Hello Joey - I was just testing to see if there was anyone out there as this page seems to somewhat underused. Want to debate?RicN Ireland, UK - Sunday, June 15, 1997 at 10:21:01 (CDT)

Cool! Ric, and you say leo/surfer posts inane pointless stuff over bulletin boards and guest books.Joey (the Angel) <joey_the_angel_@hotmail.com>Sydney, NSW Australia - Friday, June 13, 1997 at 01:31:06 (CDT)

Hello everybody!!RicN Ireland, UK - Monday, June 09, 1997 at 17:10:43 (CDT)
Well done to this site, the documents on the way forward and each groups position are clear and easily understood. Hope this unusual state of affairs keeps going instead of the usual fire-breathing! Good luck!Robbie Cole <cm4bcrkc@bs41,staffs.ac.uk>Stuttgart, Germany - Wednesday, May 21, 1997 at 07:34:46 (CDT)

This board is a disgrace and everyone who has signed this guestbook with the exception of the IAC, is totally nuts. The only one with any common sense or realistic and creative ideas thus far, has been Colleen Malone. As for Bill Cooke well the word SCARY.....REALLY REALLY SCARY comes to mind. To think that there is actually someone like this walking the streets of Baltimore or maybe even attending an Orioles game is just beyond belief let alone safe. I for one say thank you very much to Loyola University for sticking it to him with parking tickets and would encourage Loyola to keep up the good work. We need more Universities like this one; in fact, why bother to ticket him, next time tow him. Now Bill O'Brien..... well the words DoDo bird springs to mind... ..."related to the pigeons but larger than a turkey". Honk Honk!!!! Irish American Coalition <Anywhere>Somewhere, AL USA - Monday, April 28, 1997 at 16:06:04 (CDT)

i really like the bitchin board jim.leo corcoran,the silver surfer <last chance saloon>glasgow, scottish republic - Friday, April 18, 1997 at 08:18:25 (CDT)

I welcome any effort to identify the ludicous situation where Irishmen kill Irishmen for the sake of an island called Ireland. Anyone would think the Russians had landedO`NeillBallymena, ULSTER - Wednesday, April 09, 1997 at 18:25:44 (CDT)

My first visit, and will reserve my comments until I have more exposure. However it is a great idea and I only hope it will be used and assimilated in a mature manner for purposes of education and understading.William Farrell Heatley <BINO2731@AOL.com>Clarkston, Mi USA - Wednesday, April 02, 1997 at 20:47:13 (CST)

It would appear that you have a bunch of looneys on theis BB. No one has anything realistic to say. You should purge some of these people starting with colleen.David O'Brien <obrien1@earthlink.net>Derry, NH USA - Monday, March 31, 1997 at 15:09:44 (CST)

I think that you have a wonderful site that I have learned much from. Keep up the good work! Slan, MairinMairin <kiernans.leprechawn@usa.net>CT USA - Wednesday, March 26, 1997 at 12:44:33 (CST)

Someone told me that there was a death threat against me on this board so I came back to see that he was right. Only two days again someone left another threat on the IRA board, except this time it was against the President. I get a lot of hate mail and occassional threats such as this. So, I would urge whoever is making such threats to stop this instant unless you force me to file civil and criminal charges. I could do that now, but frankly I have better things to do. But if this continues you will leave be no choice. Bill Cooke <falkland@bayserve.net>Baltimore, MD USA - Tuesday, March 25, 1997 at 09:50:43 (CST)

Because I will surely receive harassment from Jennifer Furey on this board this will be my only post here. I noticed that nobody has posted to the other board since I started my self-imposed exile. Jimmy can thank Jenny for that. I wish that I could say what I really thought of her, but that would not be right. Instead, I pray that she will leave me alone!!!!Bill Cooke <falkland@Bayserve.net>Baltimore, MD USA - Monday, March 24, 1997 at 15:50:18 (CST)

Great site. Wish you could set up one of those programs to prevent children fouling it up with obscene language, guestures and pictures. I believe there is a great potential for civilized debate without the five year olds.Ian Baxter <ibaxter@swbell.net>Portadown, Co.Armagh Northern Ireland - Monday, March 24, 1997 at 13:52:54 (CST)

Jimmy, you've managed that rarest of things--a well-balanced site on the war in Ireland. For that you are to be commended. Thanks for your hard work and open attitude. Slán, JenniferJennifer Furey <stlouisina@hotmail.com>St. Louis, MO USA - Monday, March 24, 1997 at 11:20:27 (CST)

jimmy,this is,another,excellent idea.you deserve apat on the back.keep up the good workthe silver surferglasgow, scottish republic - Monday, March 24, 1997 at 03:00:59 (CST)

I have seen both good and bad on this BB and so therein it serves the purpose. Jimmy I like you have some revolutionary views on the subject of the north of Ireland. It is great to see a place where people can present them! luck now!Brollachaen O'CaepuilVancouver, BC CANADA - Sunday, March 23, 1997 at 20:38:20 (CST)

Jimmy: Thanks for another interesting point of view with the Cothrom site. It - has - been - interesting to say the least! Barbara G. Barbara <bravo@centuryinter.net>USA - Sunday, March 23, 1997 at 19:04:43 (CST)

Jimmy, You're developing a great site here. I hope visitors to your site will take time to read over some of your thought-provoking documents; you present some very interesting points of view on the issues surrounding Ireland. Best of luck to you and Cothrom!TrishUSA - Saturday, March 22, 1997 at 22:56:00 (CST)

Somebody has to start this off.Jimmy Mc Laughlin(Cothrom) <jgmclaug@math.uiuc.edu>Urbana, IL USA - Saturday, March 22, 1997 at 14:43:20 (CST)

Scripts and Guestbook created by Matt Wright and can be found at Matt's Script Archive

Other Cothrom Documents
Back to cothrom Homepage

Note: All pf these Cothrom pages that relate to Northern Ireland were originally created at the end of the '90's/early 00's.

The other Northern Ireland (give your head a much needed rest and get away from Politics)

Odds and Ends

What's New (last up-dated 5th - apr - 1998)

Petitions and other Peaceful Protests

Some other links with relevance to N.Ireland

Some organizations campaigning for peace in N.Ireland

The public Position of the various parties

Remarks: These pages were originally created in the '90's, so some of the links are long dead (and the group or organization may no longer exist), but I am leaving the page as was just to give an idea how it used to be.

*****************************************************

The policies and positions of the parties (click on the red text to access the document)

Parties in Northern Ireland
The Alliance Party About Alliance
Democratic Left A framework for agreement on Northern Ireland
Democratic Unionist party DUP Constitutional Manifesto
Progressive Unionist Party Reasonable Compromise
Manifesto & Vision of The Progressive Unionist Party
Northern Ireland Women's Coalition Program
Republican Sinn Fein Towards A Peaceful Ireland
Saol Nua - A New Way of Life
Eire Nua - A New Democracy
Sinn Fein Sinn Fein Homepage
(Because of the frames format of the Sinn Fein page I cannot provide links directly to sinn fein policy documents/statements of objectives.These are easily accessed from their homepage)
Social Democratic and Labour Party Address by party leader,John Hume,at the 1996 SDLP annual conference
Recent Statements Archive (These also provide good insight into SDLP policy on a wide range of topics)
Ulster Democratic party Council of the British Isles / A Proposal for meaningful co-operation
Common Sense
Ulster Unionist Party Policy & Aims

Parties in the Republic of Ireland
Fianna Fail The Aims of Fianna Fail
Fine Gael Fine Gael's Guiding Policy Principles
Green Party Manifesto Statement on N.Ireland
First Northern Ireland Position Paper
Second Paper: the first Stormont meetings
Third Paper: Headings of Agreement
Labour Party Policy
Progressive Democrats Policy Overview: Northern Ireland

Parties in Britain
Conservative Party*
Labour Party*
Liberal Democrats Northern Ireland
*If a site has a "*" symbol beside it ,it means that I have not been able to find a location where the aims/policies of the organisation has been officially spelled out or that the site is presently under construction.

Important Documents
The Anglo-Irish Agreement (15 November 1985)
The Framework Document (22 February 1995)
(Summary of the Framework Document)
Joint communique (28 November 1995)
Joint Declaration (15 December 1993)
Joint communique (28 February 1996)
Agreement reached in the multi-party negotiations (April 10th 1998).
IRA Cease-fire announcement (31 August 1994)
Statement by the Combined Loyalist Military Command(Cease-fire Statement) (13 October 1994).
Mitchell Report on Arms De-commissioning (24 January 1996)
"Paths to a Political Settlement: Realities,Principles and Requirements"(2 February 1996) .
Report of the Independent Review of Parades & Marches Summary:(from The Belfast Telegraph) .
Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Constitution
The Irish Constitution (in full)
Irish News Cease-fire Documents

Some important public statements/speeches
David Irvine(PUP) : "Small men of Stormont put party politics before peace"
David Irvine(PUP) : PUP wants special relationship with South
Gerry Adams (Sinn Fein) "Any new cessation would be clear-cut"
President Bill Clinton "Clinton's Boost for Peace"

I would appreciate any pointers to sites I do not know about.I am particularly interested in finding an online copy of the Government of Ireland Act(1920) and any other important acts and pieces of legislation such as the Prevention of Terrorism Act.

Lastly,I would be glad of any pointers to any online speeches/ public statements by any of the various parties that indicate a willingness to seek an agreement that recognises both main traditions.

This page is still in the early stages of construction. Keep an eye out for further developments.

Reading the opposing positions of the various parties one might get the impression that there is no possibility whatever of the two main traditions in Ireland ever reaching agreement over N.Ireland and that because of this whatever tattered remnants of the IRA cessation that remain will inevitably be swept away , with the Loyalist cease-fires to inevitably follow. One might get the impression that , on the surface at least , it will be impossible to ever find any settlement which will satisfy the majority of the people in BOTH of these two main traditions.
These impressions ARE true impressions - if it really is the case that the publically stated positions of the parties are the hard reality of the situation and there is a general unwillingness on either side to step back from the extremes and look for a settlement somewhere "in the middle" that acknowledges both main traditions and gives them proper constitutional expression.

It is very difficult in N.Ireland to be certain whether a publically stated position is a "negotiation stance" or whether this statement does accurately reflect a parties true position. It would seem likely that there are people in both of the main camps who do not wish to compromise in the slightest their traditional views. Equally , there are encouraging signs that there an increasing number of people who, for various reasons, see the need for a settlement in N.Ireland that has the support of a majority in BOTH of the main traditions.

On this page there are links to online speeches /policy documents/etc of many of the main parties to the conflict. I hope these will provide some idea of the differing views of the parties to the conflict and of the difficulties to be overcome in resolving the conflict. I also hope to provide links to whatever online speeches /policy documents/etc there are that indicate a willingness to look for agreement and a negotiated settlement respecting both traditions and giving them proper recognition.

Other Cothrom Documents
Back to cothrom Homepage

Note: All pf these Cothrom pages that relate to Northern Ireland were originally created at the end of the '90's/early 00's.

Some other sources of information about N.Ireland and events in N.Ireland

Political Parties and other political organisations in Northern Ireland, The Republic of Ireland and Britain

Cothrom Bulletin Board

Remarks: These pages were originally created in the '90's, so some of the links are long dead (and the group or organization may no longer exist), but I am leaving the page as was just to give an idea how it used to be.

I still have the old bulletin board saved, and if I figure out a way to show it, I may do so.
Quite interesting to see in in retrospect how people were thinking.

Other Cothrom Documents

Back to cothrom Homepage

Note: All pf these Cothrom pages that relate to Northern Ireland were originally created at the end of the '90's/early 00's.

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Decision Time? (23rd - September - 2001)

It would seem logical to assume that if the peace process is to work then at some point people are going to have start believing in the process and start to put some trust in it. At some point all the people who want the present absence of widespread violence to solidify into a permanent peaceful settlement are going to need to start pulling together to make it work. Individuals and parties at some point will need to stop dragging their feet and work with other parties to build the new framework for Northern Ireland and to bring stability.

Individuals and even parties may disagree with certain aspects of what is working out but given the polarization of viewpoints in Northern Ireland what is on offer is as good as it is going to get or very close to it. Any caving in to demands on either side to re-negotiate or re-structure the emerging implementation of the Good Friday Agreement will tend to erode what cross-community support exists.

Given the great differences in political viewpoint that exist, the wording of the GFA was bound to mean different things to different people. These differing interpretations were bound to come into the open during the implementation phase, and it was inevitable that this implementation was going to be controversial. The challenge has been, and is, to implement the spirit of the GFA while treading the middle ground between both sets of interpretations and expectations.

The new policing bill was a case in point. It was always going to be very difficult to keep the support of the majority of the people in both of the main communities and of the majority of the politicians in both of the main traditions. The new policing bill was a success in this regard, now having the support of both Governments, the SDLP and the UUP.

This should have been a turning point. A difficult phase of implementation had been completed and, together with the setting up of the North/South Ministerial Council with its six North/South Implementation Bodies, the framework should have been there to enable the way forward to be constructed and the peace process to be consolidated into a permanent political settlement.

No party is going to have all its objectives met in this settlement and all of the parties need to accept this. Now is the time when parties should take the step of accepting this is the way forward and engaging fully in the process. All parties should engage fully in all of the institutions set up to implement the agreement.

Focus is once again back on decommissioning. Decommisioning is rightly regarded as one of the key questions that need to be settled - de-militarization, policing, security, the political institutions being some of the others. For all areas except decommissioning, there has been at least partial substantial implementation or a time-line has been set up to effect substantial implementation. There has been a substantial security force reduction, the North-South bodies have been set up, the new power-sharing executive has come into existing and legislation for the new police force has been enacted. The one substantial issue for which implementation has not started is decommissioning of paramilitary weapons. Progress towards the settlement of this issue is clearly lagging behind progress in other key areas. Engaging with the De-Commissioning Body is welcome but, to match progress (implementation) in other key areas, actual decommissioning should have occurred by this stage.

Republican-, and Loyalist, paramilitary groups should explain clearly why actual decommissioning of weapons has not occurred by this stage, to parallel progress in other key areas. They should clearly realise that refusal to START to decommission their weapons is substantially hindering further progress in these other key areas. Paramilitaries perhaps need to make clear what EXACTLY they expect to happen before they will decommission their weapons. Presumably the IRA are suspicious of a double-cross - that they will decommission their weapons and then either the Unionist Parties or the British Government will find some excuse to collapse the political institutions and revert back to direct rule or some form of Unionist rule like the old Stormont. Republicans say that Unionist attempts to force decommissioning of IRA weapons shows that Unionists do not actually want to share power. Possibly Unionist politicians and the British Government could help dispel these conceptions by making it clear that they accept the necessity for power-sharing to reflect the two main traditions in Northern Ireland.
Paramilitary groups may have their own agendas but they should consider the wider effects of what their actions might inflict on the people of Northern Ireland. The implementation of the GFA and the development of a peaceful Northern Ireland cannot effectively continue without a start to actual decommissioning of weapons to parallel progress in this direction in the other key areas.

Back to "Cothrom Home Page"

Back to "Other Cothrom Documents"

Note: All pf these Cothrom pages that relate to Northern Ireland were originally created at the end of the '90's/early 00's.

Is mistrust really the problem at this point? (6th - oct - 1999)

Perhaps the most important thing that both Sinn Fein and the Ulster Unionist Party need to do at this point is to honestly determine whether the other party is genuinely determined to make the GFA work, if this present difficulty can be resolved.

If a way forward can be found will the UUP then work to implement the rest of the Agreement in its entirety, including those aspects which go against its fundamental beliefs like the Cross-Border bodies or is it still one of its aim to avoid this compromise and will they then find some other reason/excuse to avoid implementing the GFA?

Similarly, if a way forward can be found will the IRA then engage in that part of the GFA which calls for decommissioning or will they still refuse to decommission and try to find some other way out of this?

Once again it is possible well worthwhile to spell out the suspicions both nationalists and unionists might still have.

A large section of the unionist population probably still believes that the IRA will only go along with the peace process so long as it is weakening the link with Britain and advancing their ultimate aim of a United Ireland, will not ultimately settle for anything less and will restart the campaign if it seems that the GFA will lead to a settlement which will accept a link with Britain until the majority wish otherwise.More subtly there is probably the belief that even if the IRA will accept a settlement which does maintain this link with Britain that they will use the unspoken threat of violence to weaken this link as much as possible and to generally exert pressure to weaken the unionist content of various aspects of the settlement as much as possible. Assuming that unionists are genuine about implementing the GFA, this would explain in part the importance decommissioning has for them.

Likewise, a large section of the nationalist population probably still believes that unionists are not genuine about implementing the GFA, that their aim is to delay the process as much as possible so that it will wither without implementation, that any violence can be contained by the security forces and that eventually the political situation will settle down into one which has no real nationalist content/be purely internal within the UK. Even if they accept that unionists will implement some form of the agreement they probably suspect that unionists will not act in the spirit of genuine compromise and will try to make the final form of any settlement a pale shadow of what was probably originally envisioned - a settlement which was a genuine compromise which did respect and protect BOTH traditions. Assuming that republicans are genuine about implementing the GFA, this would partly explain the reluctance of republicans to decommission before they see evidence of a trend towards genuine political change.

Dealing with these suspicions should be close to the top for both Sinn Fein and the UUP. First of all they need to be aware of the reasons for possible suspicion amongst members of the other party. Secondly they should try to determine if the other party is genuine about real compromise and implementing the GFA in a way which will probably reflect and protect both traditions. Thirdly, they need to accept the necessity for progress on BOTH the political- and decommissioning/de-militarisation fronts SIMULTANEOUSLY.

Politics is often a poker game, bluff and double-bluff, keeping one's cards close and not revealing one's hand. Presently maybe it is a time for a more direct, blunt and honest approach, at least in private discussions between the parties. Politicians in both parties should refrain from playing to the gallery while this important phase of discussion is going on. They should be prepared to ask blunt questions about the other party's intentions and, if it can be seen that the other party is prepared to give straight honest answers, to give straight honest answers in return.

The present difficulty can be overcome with understanding, honesty, a committment to make the GFA work as it should and a genuine willingness to compromise if it is reciprocated.

Back to "Cothrom Home Page"

Back to "Other Cothrom Documents"

Note: All pf these Cothrom pages that relate to Northern Ireland were originally created at the end of the '90's/early 00's.

Trying to Making the Marching Season peaceful (8th -sept - 1999)

In the on-going disputes about Orange marches it often seems that both sides still see only their own point of view. Nationalists in the areas of the marches see only "Sectarian Marches" and their right to be free of them and the marchers themselves see only expressions of culture and their right to celebrate their culture.

Principles are involved on both sides and it might make solving the practical problems of reaching agreement easier if both sides faced up to these principles.

It would probably ease protestant suspicions about the intentions of resident's groups if these groups were to state publically that it is not celebrations of culture that they object to but (as they see it) the attendent sectarianism, attempted intimidation, violence, militaristic exhibitions of supremacist attitudes etc and if they could see that a march was purely a celebration of culture like a music festival/marching bands competition etc, then, in the spirit of toleration, that they would not object to the march taking place. At present it seems that marchers cannot really understand what the objections are and believe that the resident's groups are solely intent on suppressing their culture.- it should be made clearer to them what exactly is objectionable. In other words, resident's should make it clearer that they would be prepared to drop their objections to marches if they could see that these marches WERE purely celebrations of culture, as the marchers themselves claim. Resident's groups need to state that they see that thee is an aspect of the marches that IS purely a celebration of protestant culture and that they understand that this celebration of culture is important to the vast majority of the marchers.

At present it seems to many nationalist that the desire of the Orange Order is to have total freedom to march where they want, irrespective of their behaviour on these marches and regardless of the feelings of local people . It seems to many that their desire to march through contentious ares is motivated solely by a desire to show local nationalists "who is the boss". It would probably ease nationalist suspicions and soften their attitudes if the Orange Order were to publically state that it accepts that a march through a contentious area should not go ahead if it was sectarion/intent on intimidating local nationalist/showing local nationalists "who was boss"/inciting anti-catholic violence etc. In other words, the Orange Order should itself state they need for their marches through contentious areas to be free of what local nationalists see as their negative aspects. On another note, it seems that there is a need to educate nationalists in contentious areas about how the members of the Loyal Orders see their own culture.It only seems wise that if your are marching near contentious areas that you would want people who might be opposed to your marching through misunderstanding to properly understand what your marches are about.

The Orange Order has a job to do here to convince nationalists of the present nature of the Order as nationalists will have long memories of how the order behaved in the past. However, bitterness exists on both sides and nationalists also need to demonstrate a willingness to tolerate celebrations of protestant culture , if these are positive celebrations.

Back to "Cothrom Home Page"

Back to "Other Cothrom Documents"

Note: All pf these Cothrom pages that relate to Northern Ireland were originally created at the end of the '90's/early 00's.

A final Settlement within reach? (5th - apr - 1998)

There has been speculation that a first draft of a final settlement to the troubles in Northern Ireland may be only days away. Let us hope that this is true but realise that some effort is required from all sides still.

There are probably several ways in which the various parties could help this final phase along(if indeed it is the final phase).

(1)Most of the politicians on both sides involved with seeking a resolution to the conflict are realistic in their approach and what they are prepared to accept as a final settlement , knowing full well that only a settlement which has the support of a majority of the people in both of the main communities will have long-term success. However there are a small minority, on both sides who do not accept this and still think in terms of a purely one-sided settlement which gives constitutional recognition to only one of the main traditions. It would help if these people also took to heart the need to find a settlement acceptable to a majority of the people in both of the main communities.

(2)Even at this late stage those who have not already done so could make a determined effort to realise that there are two sides to this situation, two ways of looking at Northern Ireland's position and that from a purely humanitarian point of view any settlement must take into account, recognise and respect these two differing views and traditions. A closed -minded, simplistic , one-sided out-look (on either side) will not help at this stage. Strange as it may seem after so many years, there are probably large numbers of people in both communities who do not truly understand the ethnic identity and aspirations/political beliefs of the majority of the people in the other community but instead have some slanted, imperfect understanding of these.

(3)Everyone involved in the talks should also realise the dehumanising effects on themselves and on their own people of holding onto narrow-minded , one-sided dogmatic views and any settlement which would leave the people of either of the main communities oppressed and unfree also harms the people in the community doing the oppressing . It would mean creating/maintaining a society where everyone is not free and equal but one where people are divided, where some can feel fully part of the society and some feel it is alien. Such a society would be totally unhealthy , both for those in the oppressed community and those in the community responsible for the oppression. A healthy society where both traditions are treated equally would benefit all of the people in Northern Ireland.

(4)Politicians involved in the talks should realise (if they do not do so already)the great responsability they have to the people of Northern Ireland to secure a just settlement which recognises and respects the ethnic identity, aspirations and loyalties of the people in both of the main communities. They should take on board that any settlement must have the support of a majority of the people in both of the main communities and that this necessity must override their own personal wishes or the wishes of their party for a settlement. All parties should accept that if they wish for a certain long-term outcome for Northern Ireland then they must convince a majority of the people in both of the main communities of the rightfulness of that particular outcome. In the meantime the focus of all the parties and politicians should be to find a settlement which has the support of a majority of the people in both of the main communities.

(5)It may be hard to go into the talks with a spirit of genorosity , particulary given that there is such deep-rooted suspicion on both sides. However parties should be prepared to give ground on their own demands if they see politicians on the other side giving ground on theirs ( rather than just seizing on the offered ground and gobbling it up without offering any return). One of the greatest hindrances to the development of a peaceful settlement is the depth of suspicion on both "sides" about whether or not the "other side" really is intent on a just settlement or is involved in some deep plot to con the people on the "other side". This suspicion has dogged the search for peace and while it is too much to expect everyone to drop their suspicions and in fact it may be a good thing in that it will mean that a proper settlement will have to be properly "tied down" in every way, everyone should be aware of how such suspicions may be unfounded and how they slow the process down, if in fact everyone is genuine about reaching a settlement that would be acceptable to the majority of the people in both of the main communities.

(6)If it is the case that the framework of a settlement is worked out that is acceptable to the majority of the people in both of the main communities and generally acceptable to both Governments and all of the main parties then hopefully everyone will put their hearts into it and try to make it work, realising that a proper lasting peace to everyone's benefit can be built on it, rather than letting old enmities cause them to drag their feet.

A proper peace settlement could mean the start of a new way of life for the people of Northern Ireland, where violence is at an end , where political instability and uncertainty about the political future has disappeared and people can start living a normal life like it is lived in most other parts of the western world. It would be an incredible day for the people of Northern Ireland if they got up one morning and "the troubles" really were all over for good and the politicians really had succeeded in forging a settlement that the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland were happy to live with. The politicians can make this happen.

Back to "Cothrom Home Page"

Back to "Other Cothrom Documents"

Note: All pf these Cothrom pages that relate to Northern Ireland were originally created at the end of the '90's/early 00's.

The Need for BALANCED constitutional Change (19th - mar- 1998)

(1)There are concerns in both main communities in N.Ireland that any settlement will not be fair and just. There are many details which need to be worked out to arrive at a just settlement, one set of details involving how to reconcile the two conflicting constitutional claims on the territory of N.Ireland. Recently the emphasis has been on amending the Irish constitution and the question arises how will it be possible to amend the Irish constitution as part of a package of constitutional changes on both sides to arrive at a balanced settlement. That is the question which is examined here.

(2)It should be clear to all that the link with the Republic of Ireland means as much to nationalists as the link with Britain means to Unionists and vice versa. Furthermore , there is a growing acceptance that the heritage, beliefs and traditions of BOTH communities must be protected and that there is no simple "one - or - the - other" political solution.For these reasons a just and equal political settlement will require BALANCED constitutional change ( which does not mean NO constitutional change on either side - a settlement will require constitutional changes from BOTH sides.

(3)There has been speculation recently (first week of March 1998) that the Irish Government is prepared to put amendments to Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Constitution before the people of the Republic of Ireland in a referendum. There has also been concern expressed that such changes are the first and main step in what amounts to accepting that Ireland will remain permanently divided and that Britain will retain sovereignty over the six counties of Northern Ireland from this point on.

(4)Constitutional change of such fundamental importance (assuming the speculation is correct and it most likely is ) needs to be handled with great care. First of all, if a genuine settlement which acknowledges, respects and treats both of the main traditions equally is to be found then such constitutional change in BOTH Articles 2 & 3 of the constitution of the Republic of Ireland AND of the Government of Ireland Act will be necessary to reconcile the two conflicting claims.

(5)In arriving at balanced constitutional change it is important to start from a correct viewpoint of N.Ireland's constitutional position within the framework of connections linking it to both the Republic of Ireland and Britain - namely that it is the subject of DISPUTED claims by both traditions. BOTH claims have a certain validity, BOTH certainly have errors in them (depending on how the origins of N.Ireland are viewed - whether the coming into being of N.Ireland is just another example of how borders in Europe have changed as a result of wars and hence its existence separate from the Republic Of Ireland is entirely justified or, on the other hand, the separation of Ireland into North and South was imposed on Ireland against the democratically expressed wishes of its people through the threat of total war and other violence and thus cannot be justified). In short , in attempting to solve this problem properly it is necessary to start from the viewpoint that there are TWO disputed claims here, BOTH with some validity and that these TWO disputed claims must be reconciled , rather than starting from the viewpoint that only one of the claims is valid/legal and that the other is totally invalid/illegal.

(6)It seems that the majority of nationalists are prepared to recognise that Unionists have a valid point of view and that this viewpoint has to be taken into consideration in a fundamental way via constitutional change. On the surface at least it seems that the majority of Unionists still do not accept that nationalists do have a valid point of view and believe that only their view is valid/legal and hence does not need to be amended in any fundamental way. If this is truly the case therein lies a deep problem. If the majority of Unionists truly are incapable of transcending there own world-view and seeing that there genuinely are two valid viewpoints then will not see the necessity of trying to reach a reconciliation of these two viewpoints, except in so far as it is pragmatic for them to throw some minimalist scraps to nationalists to try to salve the situation without truly coming to grips with the fundamentals.

(7)On the other hand this may be just the surface that the Unionist parties are presenting to the public as they really do perceive that there are two viewpoints with validity but believe that Sinn Fein and the IRA are the ones who have not yet accepted that there are two valid viewpoints, believing only that the republican viewpoint is the only one with validity.

(8)Constitutional amendment on BOTH sides will be necessary to resolve the conflict in Northern Ireland.The Irish Government is right to insist that it will only take place as part of an overall agreement and it should only take place if there is a corresponding position of Britain with regard to Northern Ireland.

(9)What would constitute balanced constitutional change? Balanced necessarily means a set of changes on both sides whose sum will result in both traditions being equally represented and equally protected.There are probably many ways to fine-tune this change , but broadly there are probably two main strands:-
a)Either BOTH governments continue to claim the territory as part of their state but BOTH accept that neither should exert governmental control over it that power should be devolved equally from both governments back to some form of assembly which would be equally linked to BOTH states, however weakly or strongly;
or
b)BOTH governments amend their claims to the territory equally, accept that Northern Ireland should only be fully integrated territorially with either the Republic of Ireland or Britain if and when this becomes acceptable to a majority of the people in BOTH of the main communities.This would involve Northern Ireland being equally free from BOTH Britain and the Republic of Ireland but the people being either British or Irish by choice.

(10)Since any changes to Articles 2 and 3 will primarily affect northern nationalists there are two safeguards which should be in-built:-
a)No changes in articles 2 and 3 should be put before the electorate in the Republic of Ireland which opinion polls have not shown to have the prior acceptance of an overwhelming majority of northern nationalists ;
b) No change in articles 2 and 3 should be put before the electorate in the Republic of Ireland unless these changes are part of an overall package which would leave N.Ireland EQUALLY constitutionally linked to both the Republic of Ireland and Britain.

(11)The big danger with the proposed changes in Articles 2 & 3, if they are in line with what has been reported in some of the newspapers(defining Ireland in terms of its people instead of its territory by no longer regarding the six counties of Northern Ireland as part of Ireland and regarding them as part of Britain instead), is that they will leave Irish Nationalists living in N.Ireland in the position of having to look at Northern Ireland much in the same way as an Irishman or Irish woman living in , say, Yorkshire would look at Yorkshire(as part of Britain), making him/her a stranger in his/her own land. This would be a totally biased one-sided change , particularly if there was no corresponding changes in the Government of Ireland Act, leaving Unionists in the position of a Yorkshireman looking at Yorkshire - looking out over territory which was unquestionably British. Such a scenario would constitute the exact opposite of a balanced, just and equal settlement.

Back to "Cothrom Home Page"

Back to "Other Cothrom Documents"

Note: All pf these Cothrom pages that relate to Northern Ireland were originally created at the end of the '90's/early 00's.

Will the parties ever get down to the nitty gritty? (13th - feb - 1998)

Every time people begin to feel that the peace process might at last be starting to go somewhere it seems that something happens that throws everything into confusion and raises fears that it could all slip back to a full-scale outbreak of violence again. I am sure there are quite a few people who will have come to the conclusion that this problem will never be solved and that like a brush fire , will continue burning until there is nothing left to burn.

What the violence shows(irrespective of which side it comes from ) is how dangerous the situation is without a proper political settlement, how small groups determined to use violence can set the agenda in a society that is very strongly polarised .This fact must be well known to the parties and so a reasonable question to ask is :-
"Why is it taking so long to get to even discussing the fundamental issues in the talks?"

There are possibly several answers.

First of all, and there is some evidence for this, some of the parties are very unwilling to abandon old dogmas and ideals and to fundamentally compromise traditional beliefs. As pure ideals , Nationalism and Unionism are totally irreconcilable and it will be impossible to forge an agreement between them unless BOTH traditions adopt the principle of consent - that any political settlement must have the support of a majority of the people in BOTH of the main communities.

It is a very difficult problem to solve for many reasons , not least being the different ways nationalists and unionists view the N. Ireland state. Unionists would see the state as an expression of the democratic will of the majority there and regard its coming into being as a fact of history, much as many of the states in the world were born out of a violent history. Nationalists on the other hand would view the northern state as being born out of the very antithesis of democracy - through the threat of total war on the part of the British Government and the rejection of the expressed democratic wish of the Irish people(via the ballot box) for home rule by the then unionist minority in Ireland. Before people can reach a solution perhaps both sides need to fully understand the other side's point of view. Possibly an agreement will not be worked out until the parties do move to accepting consent as described above.

It is clear that there are minorities on both sides who do not want this present initiative to succeed.A much bigger problem exists if it is the case that some of the main parties do not want the talks to succeed. I personally do not believe that this is the case. However it will be very difficult in particular for any unionist leader to sit down in comprehensive negotiations as if only a superficial view is taken it will seem that unionists will be giving up more than nationalists. Unionists will have to compromise on an actually existing situation (if an agreement is to be reached) whereas nationalists will have to compromise on ideals and viewpoint. In an unstable situation a minority who do not wish to compromise at all will try to whip up fears in the unionist community about any leader who tries to work out a deal involving compromise, even if the intention is to work out a settlement which will have the result of protecting the identity and aspirations of both communities and which will produce a system in which the people of both communities can live side by side with the suspicion, mistrust and fear of the past and present gone.

The coming talks (assuming they will eventually get down to fundamentals) will be a very strong test of character for the leaders of unionism. Not only will they have to negotiate a deal which will protect the identity of the unionist people but their humanity will also be tested since what will be needed will be an agreement which also protects the identity of the nationalist people. At the same time they will have to quell the fears and suspicions of their own people about such a deal and fend off attacks from those on their own side who will find it easier to be critical than constructive. For these it will be easier to be a stone than to be a man (or woman). At this present stage It often seems that unionists do not see the need to reach agreement, do not accept that N.Ireland is a disputed territory, do not accept that there are two views of this situation and that a reconciliation is needed which takes account of BOTH of these views. Perhaps the first step for unionists is to accept that they are not the only people who have to be taken in to consideration in N.Ireland and , even though they are the majority in N.Ireland, "Majority Rule" cannot be the governing principle in N.Ireland because of the way this principle was flouted in the past.Perhaps another thing that unionists have to face up to is that it is not primarily with the Republic of Ireland that they need to reach agreement , but with the catholic population within N.Ireland.

Republicans will also have to accept compromise. They will have to accept that a United Ireland should not come into being until it becomes acceptable to a majority of the people in BOTH communities. It is probable that many of the people in the unionist community are very sceptical of Sinn Fein and the IRA , believing that the they will go back to violence unless the outcome is one that makes a united Ireland inevitable, regardless of the wishes of the people in the protestant community. If this is presently the case then this is wrong and republicans will have to make the same shift to adopting the principle of consent outlined above as unionists. Perhaps a similar criticism could be leveled at republicans - that they also do not see N.Ireland as a disputed territory , do not accept that there are two views of the situation and that these two views have to be reconciled and that the wishes of the protestant people in N.Ireland also have to be taken into consideration ( rather than the wishes of the people of Ireland as a whole).

Maybe it is time the two Governments faced up to the possibility that the parties in N.Ireland might never reach agreement , being too entrenched in the status quo and/or old ideologies.This being the case there are two things they can do:-

(1)to go over the heads of the parties directly to the people of N.Ireland and start a really intense publicity campaign with a theme along the lines that neither of the two extreme possibilities ( a united Ireland or N.Ireland fully integrated within the United Kingdom) is a viable option and that what is needed is a settlement which acknowledges and protects BOTH traditions and prevents either of the two extreme possibilities from coming in to existence unless it becomes acceptable to a majority in both of the main communities there. If the majority of the people in N.Ireland are more reasonable than the politicians then such an equitable settlement should be acceptable to them, provided it is properly thought out, explained and will be seen to be implemented in such a way that BOTH communities will be left equally free and that neither will be "sold " totally into one of the extremes without their consent. If the majority of the people are NOT more reasonable then no matter what might be hammered out at the talks it will not be accepted in a referendum.

(2) Once the two Governments have thought out their settlement which treats both of the main traditions equally and guarantees to protect both traditions equally and explained it properly in an intense advertising campaign they should go to the people in a referendum and put it to the vote. If the ordinary people of N.Ireland are so polarised that they will not accept compromise then the two Governments will have no choice but to impose a joint settlement with the same guarantees for both traditions. Most of the people in N.Ireland probably would accept compromise if their tradition was equally protected and if this situation was arrived at most would probably wish for peace to come and there hopefully would not be the same support for paramilitaries as at present. Possibly even the paramilitaries would accept such an equitable settlement if it was clear that N.Ireland could neither be absorbed into a United Ireland or totally integrated within the United Kingdom without the agreement of BOTH of the main communities there.

Probably neither of the two Governments likes the idea of trying to impose a solution but they way the situation on the ground seems sometimes to be shaping up they might have no option. Getting all the parties around the discussion table in N.Ireland may be a case of "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink." Outsiders, if they follow the N.Ireland situation closely might have often asked themselves:- "Where is REASON and COMMON-SENSE in this whole process? What is preventing so many of the people on both sides from seeing that there are TWO sides to this situation?"

It might be unfair to compare some of the politicians in N.Ireland (on both sides) to horses - they are 100% pure thoroughbred stubborn mules who might never listen to reason. If these politicians on both sides who have no time for reason are in the majority the two Governments will have no choice but to try to put together and impose some kind of joint settlement.

Back to "Cothrom Home Page"

Back to "Other Cothrom Documents"

Note: All pf these Cothrom pages that relate to Northern Ireland were originally created at the end of the '90's/early 00's.

Time to grasp the nettles .........?

(1)There has been some progress but the various parties have yet to get down to serious negotiations about the fundamental issues. Possibly some of the parties have yet to face up to the need to reach a negotiated settlement.

(2)Some of the parties have made strong opening statements about their aims and these are fine as opening statements - if they do not move from these opening positions the negotiations will deadlock. It is time ALL the various parties to get realistic about these talks.

(3)Part of the problem may stem from the negotiating strategies adopted by some of the parties - they may be waiting for the "other camp" to come up to the "half-way line" to make some equitable proposal and then ,instead of coming up to this "half-way line" from their own side will very grudgingly move as little as possible past their own "base-line" to try to force the other camp into coming as far OVER the half-way line as possible.

(3)If any party has such a negotiating strategy it shows that they have not faced up to the full context and history of the problem. They have not progressed to the point of seeing that there ARE two sides to this situation, of seeing that a lot of the violence stems from a refusal to accept that there are two sides and , perhaps more importantly , have not faced up to the fact that the problem in N.Ireland CANNOT be resolved in any way that over-runs or oppresses either of the two main communities there.

(4)Perhaps the biggest challenge will be to find a set of relationships linking N.Ireland to both Britain and the Republic of Ireland, relationships which will let each of the two main communities express their national identity without oppressing the people in the other community.

(5)Freedom is of fundamental importance to the people in both of the main communities. Considering the freedom of the people in the Nationalist community the N.Ireland state should never have come into existence as a part of the United Kingdom in the way it did. Equally , considering the the freedom of the Unionist community , a United Ireland was not the answer. In such a polarised society as N.Ireland , "Consent" has to mean the consent of a majority in BOTH of the main communities - no N.Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom without the consent of the majority of the catholic community, no United Ireland without the consent of a majority of the protestant community.

(6)There are several ingredients needed to stabilize the situation in N.Ireland (and they probably all need to exist together)-
- The paramilitary groups should not oppose violently ANY agreed political settlement PROVIDED it has the support of a majority of the people in BOTH of the main communities in N.Ireland;
- The Republic of Ireland should accept (via a change in its constitution ) that unity should only come about if it has the support of the majority in both of the main communities in N.Ireland;
- The British Government should accept ( possibly by new Acts of Parliament) that N.Ireland should only be an integral part of the United Kingdom when that situation likewise has the support of a majority in both of the main communities.
- A new framework of relationships linking N.Ireland to both the Republic of Ireland and Britain needs to be set in place, relationships which will EQUALLY acknowledge both traditions. (Many people immediately think "Joint Authority" when they read a statement like this but Joint Authority is only one of a range of possible options. Other possibilities include cross-border bodies with strong executive powers or N.Ireland could be EQUALLY devolved from both Britain and the Republic of Ireland in such a way that both traditions are given equal recognition and neither state has any strong power over the region. The important thing is to accept that any settlement MUST have the support of a majority in BOTH of the main communities.(This principle is worded in some of the joint documents issued by both governments but the problem is that some of the parties do not accept it.));
- N.Ireland's internal bodies and structures need to be modified , where necessary , to acknowledge and reflect both traditions equally.

(7)There are also different problems with the philosophy/political viewpoint of both republicanism and unionism - in their most extreme forms both suffer from a lack of humanity and a form of blindness in not acknowledging the human costs that the implementation of these philosophies have / would have on a large number of people. In its purest form republicanism refuses to contemplate the abuse of freedom and oppression an enforced United Ireland would impose on the people in the Unionist community. In Unionism there is also the problem of not accepting that the N.Ireland state did not develop out of democracy and that its existence in its present form imposes a denial of freedom and an oppression on the nationalist community.

(8)How might it be possible to get all the parties to agree? Part of the answer might be to try to get the people on each "side" to try to put them selves in the shoes of the people on the "other side"-
- When Nationalists ask for concessions from Unionists they should ask themselves how much they would give up if the situation was reversed and the N.Ireland state had been part of a 32-county republic for the last 75 years and the Unionist community was now seeking links with Britain to acknowledge their identity;
- Equally , when making their own claims for a complete break with Britain they should ask themselves to what extent they would entertain the claims form the Unionist community for a complete break for N.Ireland with the Republic of Ireland in the reversed situation described just above;
- Likewise , when Unionists contemplate how much they should give up they should ask themselves how much they would have liked Nationalists to give up in the reversed situation described just above;
- When Unionists ask Nationalists to accept a situation where their identity is ignored and in effect to accept a state of oppression they should consider the effect the imposition of the reversed situation ( N.Ireland as part of a 32-county Ireland with no links to Britain to acknowledge their identity and right to freedom, as described above) would have had on the people in their own community.

However much separates the people of the two main communities in N.Ireland they should all accept the following:- links with the Republic of Ireland mean as much to Nationalists as links with Britain mean to Unionists(and vice-versa); being British is as important to Unionists as being Irish is to Nationalists (and vice-versa) and so on.

(9)The possibility is there for a settlement that recognises the rights and freedom of the people in both of the two main communities and that allows the people in both of the two main communities to be free , a settlement that has links to both Britain and the Republic of Ireland which express the identity and allegiance of the people in each of the main communities without oppressing the people in the other community. All of the politicians who have not already done so need to come out of their bunkers and actively look for such a settlement.

(10)The people in both of the main communities in N.Ireland are living under a cloud - not just the cloud of violence and instability and not knowing if large-scale violence will break out again. There is also the cloud of un-certainty hanging over the people in both of the main communities, the uncertainty of not knowing if , at some point in the future , their identity and freedom will be totally eliminated against their wishes. It is very difficult for people to lead completely free and happy lives with this cloud overhead. One of the benefits of a genuine settlement would be to remove this cloud.

Back to "Cothrom Home Page"

Back to "Other Cothrom Documents"

Note: All pf these Cothrom pages that relate to Northern Ireland were originally created at the end of the '90's/early 00's.

COTHROM

Followers

Blog Archive

About Me