Thursday, 6/5/97 We, ourselves: Sinn Fein’s ongoing struggle for
an independent Ireland
By Scott Lunceford Daily Bruin Staff The debate continues. At
the onset of the 19th century, Britain claimed Ireland as its own.
Then, in 1922, in an attempt to end bloodletting between Irish
separatists and the British government, a border was drawn across
the northern region of the island, severing six counties from the
"Free State" to the South. British troops amassed in the North in
order to protect British interests in the area. Today, military
barracks and guard towers mottle the northern countryside. Irish
nationalists continue to vie for a new, reunited Ireland, free from
British occupation. The talks between the primary deliberating
parties – British unionists and Irish nationalists – have been
strained, to say the least. And with distant countries such as the
U.S. and South Africa participating in the debate, the issues of
Northern Ireland have gone global. Because of possible widespread
effects, political sects must take special care in choosing their
diplomats. Sinn Fein ("shin fane"), Ireland’s oldest political
party, has chosen Mairead Keane as its official representative to
the U.S. Sinn Fein president and newly-elected member of British
Parliament, Gerry Adams, has said that "the British have 600
employees in America working for their embassy. We’ll have one
Irish woman. I think maybe the British are at a disadvantage."
(Newsweek, March 7, 1994) Through lobbying, Keane and her
associates at the Friends of Sinn Fein are working to revitalize
the Irish peace initiative. After the world saw the IRA cease-fire
crumble in February, 1996, lasting peace in Ireland seemed
unlikely. Although insistent about British concessions, Keane seems
determined to foster new, hopeful opinions about the diplomatic
process. In an exclusive Daily Bruin interview, Keane discusses the
long road toward an end to British occupation and a "just and
lasting peace in Ireland." Sinn Fein received unprecedented backing
in the recent elections, with Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness
elected to Parliament. The party seems to be changing the balance
of Irish politics. However, Prime Minister Blair has said that
British rule cannot conceivably end until the Protestant majority
is overturned by peaceful processes. Do you feel that IRA
commanders are willing to wait that long? First of all, there is no
doubt we have an enormous electoral mandate, which clearly shows
that our message is relevant to the national constituency who ran
our campaign under the real basis under the need for real dialogue
and negotiations. In terms of what the IRA does, Sinn Fein is not
the IRA. There is some confusion in the media and among legal and
political parties that Sinn Fein is part of the violence. For its
part, the IRA has stated clearly that it is willing to enhance the
peace process and that it is willing to bring about another
cessation as long as there is meaningful inclusive dialogue, so it
is up to all of us to make sure that is happening. There is not
just IRA violence, there is loyalist and British violence, but of
course, they don’t get the focus or media attention. You had an
active hand in bringing about the 1994 IRA cease-fire. How did you
feel when the cease-fire was broken by the IRA? Well, "active hand"
– that was created by the conditions, and by the fact that people
were told in the IRA that there was going to be meaningful
inclusive dialogue … Sinn Fein had a leading role in that, but it
wasn’t really because of Sinn Fein that it happened. Then, of
course, the British put precondition after precondition, and their
objective, in our view, was to slow down the process to take
control of it and to complete minimal change. In other words, they
thought,"The IRA is finished, we don’t have to concede much in this
here now, let’s just drag it out." Clearly, they set forth issues
of handing over weapons and the fact that they actually made people
go to elections to find a negotiating team. However, the minute
that Sinn Fein got people elected, they said, "No that’s not good
enough either." Then the whole process deteriorated, and the IRA
ended their cessation. Our job is becoming more difficult, because
our constituents can say to us, "What indication is there that the
British government is going to change? They are not interested in
peace, they are interested in war." In a sense, we have to put
another large package together with John Hume, who is the leader of
the other large nationalist party in the North and with the Irish
government, which is key in this because it has to be a leader of
nationalism. Another key player, the British government, has to
come in with the political will to say,"Yes, these are going to be
meaningful, these are going to be inclusive, we’re going to do the
business this time." We don’t know what Tony Blair is going to do.
If you look at the history of the Labor Party in Ireland, it has
been the Tory Party. They usually speak with one voice when it
comes to Ireland, and there is a racist attitude, in our view, from
the British establishment to the Irish. But there is a new
opportunity. His [Blair’s] speech was very pro-Unionist. Gerry
Adams responded to that and stated to them that we had no problem
with the speech being Unionist. We already know that the Brits
aren’t neutral. They have tried to say they are; we know they are
not. We expect them to fight for their position. So it is complex,
but we need to move forward. The Labor Party has vowed to
facilitate communications regarding North Ireland. Other than
Blair’s not-so-objective speech, have you seen an improvement in
Britain’s diplomatic policies thus far? Well, there certainly has
been a change in style. You have Mo Mowlam, Northern Ireland
secretary to Parliament, which is a change somewhat from Sir
Patrick Mayhew, who has very much the Tory politician from the
aristocracy. This new secretary is more reasonable, more
down-to-earth … She went to go visit some of the nationalist
areas where there is trouble, and that was important, because too
often these people just talk about us but never go to our
communities. And that symbolism is important. They have done a
couple of small things. The change in style, but there is not a
great change in substance. There is no doubt that Sinn Fein and
Gerry Adams have taken risks for peace. Clinton has taken risks for
peace. The British have taken no risks for peace, and they really
do have to take risks and stand up to the community and act as
persuaders. Can peace talks bear serious results if members of Sinn
Fein and the Ulster Unionist Party are not sitting at the same
table talking about the issues? Well, in our view, everyone needs
to be around the table. Every side needs to be represented and all
the issues. We are an Irish Republican Party, so we believe the
best solution to our problems is the end of British rule in Ireland
and a united Ireland. That is our belief. Partition was imposed by
the British … We will want to see an end to the militarization of
the situation – and end to IRA, loyalist, and British violence. We
also want the release of all political prisoners which are
political hostages as well as a new police force, which is a
sectarian, paramilitary police force. The problem for the Unionists
is that they have a mentality that equates sitting at a table with
conceding change. They are happy with the status quo. That is where
the British come in and have to say,"We have to have change here.
We have the sovereignty. We lead the talks." It is also our view
that if the Unionists say they are not going to sit with Sinn Fein,
but are forced to by the British, then the Unionists will come back
into the talks and not leave it for a week or so, because it is in
their self-interest to come back. Where else are they going? They
have to fight for their rights within the existing state. There was
a conference call here last May of 1995, when Clinton called an
economic conference which brought all shades of political opinion
into Washington. All shades of political opinion were at that
conference – Republicans, nationalists, the Irish government, the
British government – they were all under the same roof, because it
was about money, and it was about investment, so there is no
problem coming into the same room when they felt their actual
economic advantage was going to be threatened by not being there.
There were recent talks from visiting Irish delegations in Cape
Town. Do you know if the talks revealed anything about the current
climate between Sinn Fein and groups like the Ulster Unionist
Party? Well, I think that the fact that they are in South Africa is
probably because they were probably forced to go to South Africa,
because they couldn’t say no. In a way it exposes their position,
because we have no problems sitting down and talking to them.
Members of my party have been assassinated by loyalist death squads
fueled by the British army. There is a history of violence there
and suffering on all sides, but they would never acknowledge the
hurt they have inflicted on our people. The fact that there is an
international spotlight forces them to go there and do that kind of
thing. But then they get there, and they become a laugh in the
media; people start saying "Oh, apartheid – Irish-style." How do
you feel about considerable U.S. involvement in the peace talks?
Well, we think it’s important, because Ireland by ourselves is too
small. Britain has always said, keep out, this is our problem, it
is an internal part of the United Kingdom, it has nothing to do
with you. It is clearly a colonial situation. It was the first
colony, it is the last colony. Once the international spotlight
came on the situation, particularly in 1992, with the opportunity
that was created by the IRA cessation, Seamus Heaney, the Irish
poet, described that as "a space where hope could grow." And it
was. It had to be nurtured and developed, but the talks, the
political will – none of that came. So, we looked outside of that
and as a focus of our peace strategy we saw the U.S. as being
vitally important . The history the U.S. and Ireland is a very
close history. A lot of our people emigrated here during the
hunger, the (Great Potato) Famine, on the coffin ships. The people
who came here, I think, had a sense of wanting to see peace and
justice in their ancestral home. In other parts of the world,
conflicts were getting resolved. There was movement in South
Africa, there was movement in the Middle East and other areas. And
then, more importantly, you had an American president who took an
interest in the issue. No American president beforehand had taken
an interest, or had mostly sided with the British. Margaret
Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were like the love affair of the world!
(laughs) – Maggie and Ronnie. Clinton took risks, but he made the
right decision, because he saw the opportunities and he wanted to
do the right thing. So, we feel that with any rebuilding, we are
going to need all of that involvement from Irish American
involvement and progressive opinions in this country. Has there
been any solution regarding the situation with the opening of the
Commons Office and Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness taking their
seats in Parliament? Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness campaigned
on an abstention slate. They are Irish Republicans. They don’t
believe Britain should have any interference in Ireland, and they
are certainly not going to swear an oath of allegiance to the
British monarchy. They made no allowances for the fact that their
constituents don’t believe that the British government has any role
in Ireland. If the British government wants to do something about
confidence building, they could have had a real vote of confidence
there and said "yes, you are entitled to the office" but they were
just vindictive enough to say no. Irish people in the rest of
Ireland would look at that and go, well, typical, typical attitude
to the Irish, you know? So, that is the situation with that, but it
is not a big deal with us. It has no real effect on the building of
the peace process. The issues we raise anyway, and we are
continuing to look forward to the renewal of new meaningful,
inclusive negotiations. What are the chances of an IRA-sanctioned
cease-fire in the near future? Well, the IRA has said that they are
ready to enhance the process if there are meaningful inclusive
negotiations. What does that mean? That means there must be talks
with no preconditions. The other factor is there must be a
time-frame for the negotiations – how long are they going to be on?
Are they going on five years? Look at them after a year, and they
haven’t done anything. We believe we should set a time frame of six
months get down to the issues, led by the two governments, so that
all parties have to push along. The other thing is that Sinn Fein
has to be allowed entry into talks. The IRA can call a cease-fire,
but the last time the IRA called a cease-fire, we had to go through
this decontamination program, as the then-British government titled
it, where you have to talk with officials, and then talk to the
next step, and then maybe Sir Patrick Mayhew, and then they really
didn’t care. They dragged it out. The Sinn Fein has to get an
immediate entry into talks. We should be there on our democratic
mandate. There has to be confidence building measures in the
British government. What they did last year, with beating those
Irish marchers people off the street, that wasn’t a confidence
building measure. There are hundreds of political prisoners who are
in really bad condition. It’s the whole issue of the fact that if
you have an Irish identity and are in the North, the symbolism of
your identity is not recognized. Your flag, your music, your
language – none of that has any status in the state. The Union Jack
is the British Monarch – you are just in a state with no identity.
There is all of that symbolism that they can work on. The fact that
there is discrimination, take, for example the fact that Catholics,
Protestants are two and a half times more likely to be unemployed.
The identifying trait is your name, where you go to school, rather
than your color, and that is the way it works in the North. We are
not saying that they have to solve all of them, but what they can
do is show that they are a changed government. In our view, the
biggest change the IRA can make in terms of confidence building
measures, is to restore the cessation. But unless you have a
willingness by the British government to have meaningful
inclusiveness negotiations that incorporate all of that, the other
things aren’t going to happen. It is impossible to persuade, for
anyone to persuade the IRA to take that step, without meaningful
inclusive negotiations. You are dealing with the lessons of the
past. In other words, the style has changed, but the substance
hasn’t. Hopefully, there will be an offer, and we will move to a
resolution of this conflict. I read that Gerry Adams was recently
quoted as saying that there is no real chance for a cease-fire
until the U.K. releases all political prisoners who were imprisoned
during the conflict. Is there truth to the statement and, also,
what defines a political prisoner? No, I think he was
misrepresented. Sometimes, oftentimes, he has been misrepresented
in the media. When he was talking, probably, about political
prisoners, he was talking about the fact that there are people who
are held hostage because of the conflict. They are there because
they were forced or because they saw the only solution to
themselves providing any change in their countries was to use
political force. People can have a judgment of whether they were
right or wrong, or whether they should have done that – the reality
is that they are there because of conflict. The British have had
shoot to kill policies, we have had collusion between the British
military forces and the loyalists, all in the interest of the
status quo maintaining their rule. It is very much like
counterinsurgency strategies that they have used in other
conflicts. People who have seen conflict in other parts of the
world have a hard time feeling that that sort of thing exists in
Ireland, but when they go to the North they cross the border and
they are met by spy posts, armored vehicles … You see large
countryside with big spy posts looking down, all the Chinook
helicopters, all the arsenal of surveillance stationed near your
local friendly police station, which is just a huge barracks with
barbed wire. You know the police are hiding for some reason. Since
the IRA cease-fire there are underground RUC police stations, so
that if the IRA ever went back, they would be able to attack them
on the front and from underneath. It’s a warzone, so and if you
ever go to that part of the world, you should always go to see it
for yourself. People are always surprised by it when they go. When
we talk about the need for change, we want all of that changed, but
first we want meaningful inclusive talks for that change. Gerry
Adams has said that the next time he comes through the U.S. to the
East Coast, he would like to visit Harlem. Do you feel that the
pervasive element of discrimination in North Ireland has created an
alignment – a recognition, perhaps – with the African American
experience? Oh, very much so. Between any people that have been
oppressed, you still have to talk too long about a condition
because you immediately identify with them. There is a resolve. And
there was a delegation, probably during the hunger strike or after
where it was called the black and the green. A group of black
leaders went to Belfast, and they actually did a video on us – it
came out of the ’80s after the hunger strike. We have also had
Native American delegations – lots of identification I found going
around in this country on different occasions. I was in the women’s
department … they identify with the same issues and connect,
which is the reality of oppression anywhere. What probably happened
in this country, you know, emigration is a personal thing. The
Irish immigrants came, when they first came here, there was no
Irish, the same as all the other, but then the Irish … could
identify and assimilate. It just seems to me just being here and
looking at us, to be the big difference there seems to be a lot of
problems, which are none of my business. (laughs) You’ve talked
about a new Ireland, reflecting the vision of James Connolly. What
does that vision entail? Well, James Connolly was one of the
leaders of the 1916 uprising. He was executed by the British, and
he was a socialist. He wanted to develop an economy that was in the
interest of the Irish people. His vision has influenced our vision,
obviously updated and all that – we live in a democracy. Sometimes
when you say "socialism" you hear,"Oh God, back to the commies’
era." There is so much energy at the moment in the country in the
arts, in music, politics. In places like the West Belfast community
festivals you have community theater, politics – and it has come
out of the struggle. It started about 10 years ago and the whole
community was demonized as the terrorist community. Now the
festival is common in the Irish Times. There were two films in the
last year worth mentioning, "Michael Collins" and "Some Other
Sons." I always felt that "Michael Collins" was difficult for
Americans because it was too detailed and you have to know a lot of
Irish history, but "Some Other Sons" was about the Hunger Strike,
which told the story from a mother’s point of view, which anyone
could identify with. Unfortunately, it only opened for a short time
and then it closed. He (the director) had started making the film
probably during the peace process and then it started falling
apart. Keane is the executive director of the Friends of Sinn Fein,
and serves as Sinn Fein’s official spokesperson to the U.S. A
former convenor of the party’s Peace Commission and head of the
Women’s Department, Keane also launched two related publications,
"Women in Struggle," and "The Starry Plough." JAMIE SCANLON-JACOBS
Mairead Keane, spokesperson for Sinn Fein, discusses the
difficulties that have plagued the peace process in Northern
Ireland. Related links:Sinn Fein Britain’s Labour Party