Blair and Mowlam on the fence

The sooner the British Government recognises its own role in the conflict, the sooner we'll get a meaningful settlement, argues Brian Campbell, editor of Sinn Fein's An Phoblacht/Republican News.

To the puzzlement of almost everyone involved in the Irish peace process, Mo Mowlam and Tony Blair spent March talking up the prospect of a lasting agreement. The positive spin was so overdone that the Irish Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, felt he had to brief journalists during a Saint Patrick's Day trip to Toronto on the need to adopt a more realistic view.

Similarly, all the main players talked about the enormous difficulties ahead. Unionists have spoken about the prospect of an agreement being negligible -- John Taylor, the UUP deputy leader, puts the chances at less than five per cent.

Mowlam and Blair are clearly playing to the gallery. It comes naturally now to members of this Government to believe that reality can be changed by winning the fickle hearts of the media, and so Mowlam tells everyone who will listen that an agreement is close.

But this frantic optimism hides a fundamental reality. Mowlam talks as if the British Government really has nothing to do with the problem. During interviews she never acknowledges that she represents the most powerful protagonist in the conflict. Instead, she speaks as would a benign counsellor trying to mend a sadly broken marriage between "the two traditions". Of course agreement is closer if you consider the two sides to be irrational forces who have to be persuaded of a middle way of enlightened liberalism.

Blair talks of agreement being "tantalisingly close" and it is not hard to see where he's coming from. Middle England thinks it stands aloof from the conflict in Ireland and suggests a common sense compromise which is so obviously acceptable to everyone.

But of course it's not obvious and it's acceptable to hardly anyone. That is because Blair and Mowlam are wrong. The British Government is not taking a full part in the negotiations if it continues to act as a neutral referee. It is a party to the conflict and must take responsibility for that. The conflict is not some ancient quarrel between irrational neighbours. It is a conflict of rights -- national and civil -- and their denial. Who has responsibility for the RUC and their interrogation centres? Whose forces operated a shoot-to-kill policy? Who is responsible for endemic discrimination in the public sector and in local government?

There is pressure on David Trimble to engage with Gerry Adams -- and without that type of engagement there can be no lasting agreement -- but there should be similar pressure on the British Government to begin an honest engagement in the talks.

For example, there can be no lasting agreement while political prisoners remain in the jails. So far, Mo Mowlam has refused to face up to that reality until an agreement is signed. But it must be addressed now. Similarly, the unacceptability of the RUC is an issue which is not going to go away. Without proper, accountable policing, or while British forces continue to strengthen their bases and harrass young nationalists, no agreement is going to stick. Mowlam must also address the imbalance in employment, the discrimination against the Irish language and a range of equality issues if an agreement is to stick.

Moreover, the British Government must be responsible for managing the inevitable change in Ireland. Instead of wishful thinking and high-intensity spin-doctoring, Mowlam should expend energy on producing solutions on the ground if she wants to see a lasting agreement. Only then could her confidence carry credibility. It is time for the British Government to roll up its sleeves and engage meaningfully.

previous article ·  April '98 index of LLB ·  write to LLB ·  LLB home page ·  next article