Before posting this, I will admit that I do not know a lot about the the Democratic Unionists, the IRA or Sinn Fein. My readings into the history of Northern Ireland have been done briefly to refresh what I remember from school.
However, I can still make some observations on the political implications of Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness jointly asking the Northern Ireland Secretary to vacate his offices at Stormont. This means that, on May 8 for the first time since 2002, the Northern Island Assembly will be controlled by political leaders of Northern Ireland. As opposed to direct rule from Britain. That is, if everything goes according to plan.
Now, I look back to the 1919, when the majority Sinn Fein MP's refused to go to Britain to sit in the house of Commons and created the Second Dail (Assembly of Ireland) in Dublin. Shortly after, the Irish Declaration of Independence was drafted and signed. At the time, on the Soviet Union recognised Ireland's independence from England. With the goal of an independent republic, with tendencies towards redistribution to the working class-making it so all men, women, and children have a chance-the Soviet support is not surprising, and is commendable.
Regardless of this, Britain was not impressed with the actions of this little rogue state. Thus, to defend this first chance at freedom, the Irish Republican Army was formed to defend Sinn Fein, and Dublin as the real government of Ireland. After three years of guerrilla warfare and atrocities committed by both the IRA and the Black & Tans-a treaty was made. This treaty gave to Ireland the status of "Dominion" within the long-reaches of the United Kingdom. Ireland now had the same status as Canada and Australia. However, when this legislation was passed by the Second Dail, Sinn Fein and the IRA was split. Those who stayed true to the principles outlined by the original objective and reason for forming the Dublin government and signing a Declaration of Independence. As many know, this split led to years of warfare and fighting in Northern Ireland, and parts of southern Ireland in the immediate aftershock of the treaty.
Now, back to present day. After the IRA's multiple attacks during the 1990's, and the intermittent rejection of Sinn Fein from Peace talks, the IRA gave up arms in 1996, with UN inspection soon to follow. Yet still, there is thoughts from the UN and Mi5 that the IRA retained a few of its weapons. What a great way for these powerful, capitalistic organizations to paint Sinn Fein in a negative light because of their historical alliance with the IRA. After all allowing "the redistribution of wealth, for the well-being of the aged, for the advancement of youth, for the liberation of women and for the protection of Irish Children...a vision for a free Ireland and a free people", which represent the values Sinn Fein, would be absurd.
The political maneuvering left is similar to that done in 1922 and will likely not appease every republican, nationalist, or unionist. Already, members of the Democratic Unionist Party are ready to jump ship because of the power-sharing issue. A multi-party, power-sharing system can only work if politicians are able to work in common and together.
Still, there are some ethical questions raised, especially when taking into consideration the historical tensions of the emerald isle. What if one group decides, as the split IRA of 1922 did, that this is not what the goals of the original revolution were. How long can you justify continuing this battle? At the same time, is it fair to ask a human being to give up their fundamental political and social beliefs? From another angle, does this same human being have the right to continue their fighting if the mass population is ready for peace?
There are questions, I think, that anyone pursuing a revolutionary grassroots movement will have to ask themselves; as will parliamentarians. When it comes down to it, where do your values stand. What can be compromised, and what will you die to defend?
However, I can still make some observations on the political implications of Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness jointly asking the Northern Ireland Secretary to vacate his offices at Stormont. This means that, on May 8 for the first time since 2002, the Northern Island Assembly will be controlled by political leaders of Northern Ireland. As opposed to direct rule from Britain. That is, if everything goes according to plan.
Now, I look back to the 1919, when the majority Sinn Fein MP's refused to go to Britain to sit in the house of Commons and created the Second Dail (Assembly of Ireland) in Dublin. Shortly after, the Irish Declaration of Independence was drafted and signed. At the time, on the Soviet Union recognised Ireland's independence from England. With the goal of an independent republic, with tendencies towards redistribution to the working class-making it so all men, women, and children have a chance-the Soviet support is not surprising, and is commendable.
Regardless of this, Britain was not impressed with the actions of this little rogue state. Thus, to defend this first chance at freedom, the Irish Republican Army was formed to defend Sinn Fein, and Dublin as the real government of Ireland. After three years of guerrilla warfare and atrocities committed by both the IRA and the Black & Tans-a treaty was made. This treaty gave to Ireland the status of "Dominion" within the long-reaches of the United Kingdom. Ireland now had the same status as Canada and Australia. However, when this legislation was passed by the Second Dail, Sinn Fein and the IRA was split. Those who stayed true to the principles outlined by the original objective and reason for forming the Dublin government and signing a Declaration of Independence. As many know, this split led to years of warfare and fighting in Northern Ireland, and parts of southern Ireland in the immediate aftershock of the treaty.
Now, back to present day. After the IRA's multiple attacks during the 1990's, and the intermittent rejection of Sinn Fein from Peace talks, the IRA gave up arms in 1996, with UN inspection soon to follow. Yet still, there is thoughts from the UN and Mi5 that the IRA retained a few of its weapons. What a great way for these powerful, capitalistic organizations to paint Sinn Fein in a negative light because of their historical alliance with the IRA. After all allowing "the redistribution of wealth, for the well-being of the aged, for the advancement of youth, for the liberation of women and for the protection of Irish Children...a vision for a free Ireland and a free people", which represent the values Sinn Fein, would be absurd.
The political maneuvering left is similar to that done in 1922 and will likely not appease every republican, nationalist, or unionist. Already, members of the Democratic Unionist Party are ready to jump ship because of the power-sharing issue. A multi-party, power-sharing system can only work if politicians are able to work in common and together.
Still, there are some ethical questions raised, especially when taking into consideration the historical tensions of the emerald isle. What if one group decides, as the split IRA of 1922 did, that this is not what the goals of the original revolution were. How long can you justify continuing this battle? At the same time, is it fair to ask a human being to give up their fundamental political and social beliefs? From another angle, does this same human being have the right to continue their fighting if the mass population is ready for peace?
There are questions, I think, that anyone pursuing a revolutionary grassroots movement will have to ask themselves; as will parliamentarians. When it comes down to it, where do your values stand. What can be compromised, and what will you die to defend?
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment