Editorial Green grow the Bushes O

Surprise, surprise. The St. Patrick’s Day event at the White House is now the subject of partisan sniping. There are those who, because President George W. Bush did not throw the massive party associated with his predecessor, are claiming that the new administration is downgrading its Irish agenda. Elements in the British press are positively gleeful, seeing a resurgent "special relationship" between the US and UK. Some like Peter Robinson, the Rev. Ian Paisley’s deputy in the anti-Good Friday agreement Democratic Unionist Party, are crowing that it is proof that "this president won’t be as interventionist as the previous one."

Meanwhile, some Democrats are moaning that Bush has now to prove himself — fine words are not enough.

Hold on. Let’s look at this objectively for a moment. It was actually a dignified occasion, even though a few of the guests (Paisley and Robinson) fled in terror lest they be seen having a good time.

The British press has got it wrong, as it usually does with anything linked to Irish America. The fact is that President Bush’s speech on Friday, March 16, was of historic significance. For the first time, a Republican president has declared publicly that the U.S. must help make the peace process in Ireland a success because it is in the "national interest" to do so. Those are strong words, and indicate a powerful commitment from the new administration. Never before has any administration, Democratic or Republican, at such an early stage, taken so strong a stance on the issue.

There is no suggestion that the new president will take personal hold of the issue, as did his predecessor, Bill Clinton. That was never expected. And that is not George W. Bush’s way. The important thing for the Irish-American community was to establish continuity on the Northern Ireland issue. Bush’s short but powerful speech did just that. It acknowledged the importance of the Irish-American presence, and reaffirmed its influence quite explicitly. It also, gracefully, recognized the contribution the Irish have made to America and linked that quite directly to the U.S. determination to stay involved in the North.

The truth is that the president did respond to Irish-American concerns in a way that bodes well for the future. Democrats, of course, will argue that we must wait and see what happens next. That is only to be expected. It might well turn out that a U.S. role in the North will now be lesser than what it has been in the recent past. That could well be because the situation will no longer needs the kind of micro-management characteristic of the Clinton approach, not only to the North but also to other complex problems, such as the Middle East. In the end, that does not matter. What matters is that the problem continues to be seen in all its multi-dimensional nature, one of whose vital components is the American connection. That connection is, therefore, also vital to finding a solution. Bush has committed his administration to retaining that context.

Democrats can be skeptical. But they should not carp, otherwise people may conclude that their green credentials have now more to do with envy than anything else.