Ireland agenda for Americans

By Michael J. Cummings

Americans concerned with the Irish conflict and its aftermath are meeting in San Francisco and New York. The leadership of Sinn Fein including Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness have invited discussion on Ireland’s re-unification and how Americans might best help to bring it about.

Many believe the issue had been resolved with the Belfast Agreement of 1998, and they would be correct to a point. Unfortunately that struggle effectively ended with no do-over of the democratic vote of 1918 that Parliament rejected. Instead there was a “partitioned plebiscite” on the Treaty itself with its oblique references to Ireland’s re-unification. As much as it pains me to say so, Ireland’s unity remains as firmly in the hands of a British Parliament today as it did in 1918. So as far as putting Ireland's national self-determination on the American foreign policy agenda, that train has left the station.

The good news is that the Agreement did end London’s corrupt version of democracy and the murderous rampages of Her Majesty’s terrorists, uniformed and otherwise. The decades of sacrifice by the brave Nationalist community and the resistance of men and women in arms had at last bore fruit.

While the so-called "Good Friday" Agreement now is the major factor limiting any American role ending partition, there are other impediments. There is firstly the matter of scale. Tiny Ireland barely shows up on the foreign affairs radar screen of our Department of State, long under British dictation. Only the huge Irish-American presence in the electorate counter balanced this. There is also the issue of Americans' interest in democracy and justice in the North far exceeding that of the Irish government. This prompted the late U.S. House Speaker Tip O’Neil to chastise his constituents once saying, “What do you want me to do, be more Irish than the Irish government?”

Finally, there is the small matter of pervasive British influence in two areas important to the conduct of foreign affairs: academia and the media. These fields of play have long been ignored by activists. What influential Americans read or hear about Ireland and the conflict is often fed to them by British sycophants John O’Sullivan and self-loathing Irish-American commentators like James Carroll. On campuses across the nation apostles of the mythical "special relationship," particularly those enthralled with all things Royal and Empire, teach unchallenged the English version of Irish history.

However, the problems don’t end there. There is the real prospect of repeating the past mistakes of activists. Take for example this forum. Foreign policy is shaped with strategic and tactical objectives defined at high levels of government and commerce over extended periods of time. The proposed open-mike discussion of Ireland's unity without the Irish government is, in truth, little more than a Sinn Fein pep rally. In the past, capable and informed advocates have been in short supply. A meeting was once arranged to discuss the Irish conflict with Rep. Ham Fish, then a key member of the House Judiciary Committee. Instead of making key points and seeking action, the Irishman lectured the member of Congress on the scurrilous deeds of the English Pope Adrian IV. No advocate should consider ever asking U.S. officials to advocate the repeal of the British Act of Supremacy; a supreme waste of time. Advocacy by Americans often lacked two necessities for success: consensus and focus. Lobbying objectives often shifted with each new escaped Irish prisoner who made it to these shores. Priorities and fund raising changed so often I was convinced it was a British ploy to minimize our impact. Lastly, for too long lobbying efforts were focused on East and West coast friends in Congress with little consideration given to where power in foreign affairs really rested.

Americans can be of tremendous assistance. Prime Minister Haughey in New York once claimed that our support lifted the voice of the Irish government in its dealings with England. Let me suggest the areas where U.S. support might be most welcome.

Media Monitoring—If journalist Bernard-Henri Levy in the Wall Street Journal could criticize the Kremlin for “shameless twisting of law and principle,” what then might we demand our President say about Britain’s corruption of law in justice in the North?

Democracy—No matter what phony democracy is instituted in the six counties of Ireland, Orders of the Privy Council from London can overrule everything including lawful human rights judgments. The U.S. should demand an end to this veto power, a vestige of the colonial era.

Truth—The U.S. has recently demanded from China truth and accountability for Tianamen Square. If the challenge by Secretary of State Clinton is not just for show and we are making these demands of a country that virtually owns America, how much more forceful should we be in demanding the truth and facts of over 1000 unsolved killings (mostly Catholic) by the so-called forces of law and order in N.I.?

Compensation—The Berlusconi administration approved a $5 billion restitution payment to oil rich Libya “as material and emotional recognition of the mistakes that our country has done to yours in the colonial era.” One can only imagine