Inside File: Committee says North peace in U.S. interest

By Ray O’Hanlon

Does the U.S. gain or lose in national security terms by devoting time, energy and resources to the conflict in Northern Ireland? With what appeared to be a foreign policy home run just 12 months ago now heading for foul territory, the question will inevitably arise yet again in Washington. Already there are those who are echoing New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman’s dismissive description of the North a few years back. Friedman referred to it as a Clinton administration "pet boutique" project. Hardly an endorsement.

On much the same track as Friedman, political commentator Paul Gigot suggested in the Wall Street Journal a few days ago that the Good Friday peace accord got more publicity than its contribution to U.S. security deserved. "America," wrote Gigot, "won’t fight a war over Ireland but it might have to over Taiwan."

There are, of course, others who take an opposite view. The National Committee On American Foreign Policy, which has opened its doors to Northern Ireland politicians since the beginning of the peace process, recently published a report entitled "Journey to Belfast and London." The report was drawn up by the National Committee’s chairman, Bill Flynn, and president, George Schwab.

In their concluding list of "Policy Recommendations," the two state that the ultimate goal of U.S. foreign policy in Northern Ireland is "the establishment of a warm peace in the area." To obtain this, both argue, "is in the interests of U.S. policy."

A group like the National Committee is, by nature, always conscious of the prime importance of U.S. national interest and security. The committee justifies its — and U.S. — continued interest in Northern Ireland in part by making the point that Britain’s hugely expensive military involvement over the years in the North has had a direct and negative bearing on U.S. and European security.

This view turns the Gigot argument back on itself. If the U.S. can help end the security burden that is Northern Ireland, Britain will presumably be stronger and better prepared for larger and more threatening conflicts elsewhere.

The policy recommendations do go beyond the area of security. Flynn and Schwab’s list of recommendations in the report additionally include, "the disengagement of Britain from the politics of Northern Ireland," "the reformation" of the RUC "both symbolically and structurally" and "the decommissioning of paramilitary arms according to the terms of the Belfast Agreement. Symbolic decommissioning to be encouraged prior to May 22, 2000."

Bertie’s bottom line

The pan-nationalist front does indeed seem a bit frayed at the edges. Some, most especially Sinn Féin members and supporters, are casting angry glances at Taoiseach Bertie Ahern.

According to former Taoiseach Charlie Haughey, Ahern is "the most skillful, the most devious and the most cunning" of all the politicians he has known. Coming from Charlie, that’s quite a salute. Sinn Féin is nodding in agreement with Haughey’s assessment right now, given the events of recent weeks, particularly with regard to decommissioning. Ahern has been putting the squeeze on republicans who see holding fast to the IRA’s arsenal as an almost theological tenet of faith.

But should republicans be surprised? No, according to veteran Irish political writer Stephen Collins, who sees Ahern as a master at being all things to all men but decommissioning as an issue he would never attempt to straddle.

"Firstly, Collins wrote in his Sunday Tribune column, "the Irish government and the democratic parties in the Republic have no interest in ensuring that the IRA should be allowed to hold on to its massive and deadly arsenal for all time. . . . The second point is that the Good Friday agreement is predicated on the disposal of arms by all paramilitaries. There is, as the joint declaration says, an obligation on all the parties to ensure that they are "put beyond use" and to argue that this introduces a new precondition is nonsense. If republicans never intended to dispose of their weapons, then they signed the Good Friday agreement in bad faith with no intention of meeting its basic obligations."

Collins has excellent sources in the Irish government, so it doesn’t take much to conclude that the attitude in Ahern’s immediate circles to IRA sensibilities with regard to guns is not very accommodating. One way or another, keeping that AK47 in the thatch is going to be an increasingly difficult proposition for the Provos in the weeks and months ahead.

Heritage, what heritage?

House building reached record levels in Ireland last year. The rate of construction is currently twice that of 1993 and, in relation to population, the highest in Europe. The building boom is well illustrated in the Sunday Tribune newspaper. Not only did the latest issue include a property supplement, but there was an additional supplement called "New Homes." Presumably, the property supplement was already jammed with former outdoor lavatories currently fetching £100,000-plus in the booming Irish property market. Anyway, throw in the returning emigrants, the rising population, immigrants arriving from other lands, zillionaire passport purchasers and the crazy traffic and you’ve got a formula for environmental stress not seen since the Ice Age.

One man facing into this m’lstrom is Michael Starrett, chief executive of the Heritage Council of Ireland. He was in New York recently where he delivered a paper entitled "Heritage Awareness in Ireland" to the Celtic Studies of North America meeting at NYU’s Glucksman Ireland House. Starrett touched on a number of interesting facts unearthed by Heritage Council research.

It seems that the Celtic Tiger yuppies in Dublin have the least awareness and understanding of "heritage." The people in the west of Ireland enjoy the greatest awareness and understanding. The very young and the old come out tops when awareness and understanding is measured by age. More than 80 percent of people responded with terms such as old places, castles and the past when asked what they understood by the word heritage. Only 3 percent considered the environment, trees or nature as part of Ireland’s heritage.

Not surprisingly, Starrett and his colleagues sense busy days ahead for the Heritage Council. Meanwhile, in the time it has taken you to read this, another few square feet of the auld sod have vanished under concrete.