A View North Slippery semantics has peace process in skid

By Jack Holland

Sometimes it is a good idea not to throw away government press releases. I have one from the British government dated May 20, 1998 and entitled "Personal Pledge by the Prime Minister to the People of Northern Ireland." I thought it might be amusing to look at it again in the light of the current crisis, with David Trimble resigning over the IRA’s failure to decommission.

Prime Minister Tony Blair said three years ago: "I pledge to the people of Northern Ireland . . . Those who use or threaten force [will be] excluded from the Government of Northern Ireland."

Another press release of the same date — the transcript of a speech Blair gave at the University of Ulster in Coleraine, said: "I understand why people say, how can we trust these people who have been engaged in violence before? How can we trust them now to accept the path of peace? And I say to you that is a reason for supporting this agreement because in this agreement we can provide that only those who renounce violence for good, once and for all, can take their place in the government of Northern Ireland or can get the benefit of the other arrangements under the agreement."

In a press release from May 14, 1998 Blair said the agreement demands "a clear and unequivocal end to violence for good on the part of republicans and loyalists alike, and that the so-called war is finished, done with, gone . . . an end to bombings, killings and beatings, claimed or unclaimed; an end to targeting and procurement of weapons; progressive abandonment and dismantling of paramilitary structures actively directing and promoting violence . . ."

Blair was trying to reassure skeptical Unionists. A month before these commitments were made, Blair wrote a letter to UUP leader David Trimble in which he sought to clarify the agreement’s clause referring to decommissioning. "Furthermore," he said, "I confirm that in our view the effect of the decommissioning section of the agreement, with decommissioning schemes coming into effect in June, is that the process of decommissioning should begin straight away."

Blair was not the only politician to make pledges to Trimble. In July 1999, trying to persuade Trimble to go into a power-sharing government with Sinn Fein, without any decommissioning having been done, President Clinton said: "There has to be a resolution of it [the decommissioning issue] which enables the leadership of Unionism, Mr. Trimble and others who fought for the peace to survive, to sustain their position and go forward and get everybody on their side to honor the Good Friday accords. One thing I would say to the Unionists is that they can walk away from this if the commitments aren’t made at a later date — they can bring this down if the commitments aren’t kept."

This is just what Trimble said he was going to do come Sunday, June 30.

The argument over decommissioning is rather like a Belfast riot. Anyone naïve enough to ask who started it will inevitably be told "the Prods" by one side and "the Taigs" by the other.

The language in which the reassurances are couched, like the language of the agreement itself, affords ample opportunity for both sides to evade responsibility. Look at that sentence in the Blair letter to Trimble. It is appallingly evasive. It does not actually say that decommissioning is to begin straight away. Blair, if he says any thing, is saying only that it is his "view" that it is the "effect" of the agreement that a "process . . . should" begin straight away. It is merely a statement of a view that an effect will start a process, whatever that is. The process, of course, is not the thing itself but something which leads to it. "Should" carries only a moral imperative that something is to be done, not a firm statement that it will be done.

Blair’s pledge is, semantically, as slippery as a freshly caught fish.

Meanwhile, the language of the agreement allows Sinn Fein to claim there is no decommissioning commitment there at all. Or sort of. A few weeks ago, Rita O’Hare, Sinn Fein’s spokeswoman in the U.S., claimed in a letter to the press that "nowhere in the Good Friday agreement is there a prerequisite for Sinn Fein to deliver IRA arms in order that we might get our rightful place in representing our voters."

Technically speaking, she is correct. The words of the agreement never mention anyone delivering arms to anybody. But they do pledge "all participants" to "reaffirm their commitment to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organizations." The participants, the agreement states, have confirmed "their intention" to work with the decommissioning body set up by the agreement and "to use any influence they may have, to achieve decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years . . . "

Sinn Fein, having signed the agreement, is assumed to "have influence" with the IRA in getting it to decommission. That is, Sinn Fein is not the IRA, but merely an influence on the IRA. Clearly then, its influence has failed to achieve its goal. In the three years since April 10, 1998, the IRA has continued to murder people — including alleged drug dealers and one dissident republican; it continues to carry out punishment beatings, though Sinn Fein spokesmen have joined the pious ranks of clergymen and priests in the chorus of condemnations. The IRA has continued to procure weapons (e.g., Florida 1999). And it continues to carry out operations, like the robbery June 8 of $6 million worth of cigarettes from the docks in Belfast. But hang on — what about the other side?

Yes, it’s its fault, too. Trimble’s approach has only made matters worse. The agreement clearly divides issues into two broad categories — those thaBy Stephen McKinley

Splashing through puddles will soon be a thing of the past in Carlow Town, thanks to a £13.1 million grant from the Irish government.

The annual flooding of the River Barrow has been a headache for locals for many years. Minister of State Martin Cullen addressed the problem recently.

"I am aware that the flooding of the areas involved has had a serious economic effect on Carlow Town and the resulting reluctance to invest money in new business or upkeep of existing businesses in the area effectively condemns a section of the town to continual urban blight," he said.

The flooding will be alleviated by several methods: deepening the river to improve fl