FEENEY'S VIEW IS ILL-INFORMED AND BIGOTED
Feeney's view is 'ill-informed and bigoted'
I refer to the article by Brian Feeney in the Irish News (Aug 19 1998).
It is surely a historic piece of journalism, as there can rarely have been planned a more blinkered, ill-informed, bigoted and misjudged piece of prose which made it to the presses.
After reading his analysis of the agreement and the responsibilities which it imposed upon the various strands of political opinion, I was driven to re-read the copy which I received, as the text and sub-text to which he alluded seemed so unfamiliar.
Indeed, upon rereading the document, I can only conclude that either Mr Feeney has never read it, or that when he took a cursory glance through its pages he inadvertently forgot to remove his green-tinted spectacles!
His assertion that Sinn Fein could effectively sit on the sidelines for two years and wait until the unionists and British government delivered before deciding to commit, is a nonsense.
He suggests that they can simply monitor the behaviour of others and that their only responsibility is "to utter soothing statements if they are satisfied with the progress".
They are a party to the agreement, and have responsibilities imposed by it. They are certainly not impartial supervisors of the process!
It is incumbent on unionists, including David Trimble, to get on with the job of making the assembly function as required by the agreement and that includes working directly with Sinn Fein; but the same document requires that Sinn Fein and others "reaffirm their commitment to the total disarmament of all paramilitary groups ... continue to work constructively and in good faith - to achieve decommissioning... within two years".
No-one can cherry-pick, be they unionist, nationalist, British or Irish government or dissenter.
In "good faith" will demand that each of the parties makes progress simultaneously on those aspects of the agreement over which they have influence.
If there are to be no preconditions, then let the rule apply equally to all.
If decommissioning is not a precondition to entry into the assembly, then prisoner releases and changes in security arrangements cannot be made preconditions for decommissioning.
It is only when people move beyond this tit-for-tat approach to the agreement, that it will be seen as a balanced package, rather than as Mr Feeney described "an elaborate game of trade-offs".
His analysis is indicative of the tribal mindset which is the real problem in Northern Ireland, where a gain for one side is inevitably construed as a loss for the other.
Sinn Fein could benefit from progressing decommissioning, not least if it ensures that those factions of republicanism opposed to the agreement are denied the opportunity to use IRA weaponry to launch attacks on the very peace process which Gerry Adams claims to have masterminded.
However, to see the situation from this perspective requires more sophisticated and imaginative analysis than Mr Feeney displayed, with his stereotypical "I'm a nationalist. There's a crisis. Let's attack a unionist" brand of political thought.
As part of this trade-off game he asserts that "the IRA won't hand over any weapons or material until the British have scaled down their military presence, withdrawn to barracks and demolished a significant number of strong points".
The agreement makes it abundantly clear that such scaling down of the security presence will be undertaken "consistent with the level of threat."
Perhaps if Mr Feeney had been watching the television coverage of the carnage in Omagh, instead of locked away from reality writing his article, he would agree that the "development of a peaceful environment" upon which this "normalisation of security arrangements and practice" is dependent, according to the agreement, is far from the reality on the ground.
To scale down security at the present time would be irresponsible in the extreme, a fact recognised by both governments.
Indeed, part of the agreed security agenda written into the agreement has already been implemented by the British government, with the removal of emergency powers, (page 21, paragraph 2 (iii)), and that without preconditions.
His final blow against sanity was struck in the last paragraph where he claims that we should all "stop fighting the war against republicanism. They are already on board".
The people who launched the bomb attack on Omagh are republicans. They are patently not on board, Mr Feeney. I would suggest a few pointers for Mr Feeney which may help him to regain a closer association with reality.
He could actually read the agreement before commenting on it.
He could ask himself the question "Who is my enemy as a constitutional nationalist, the republican bomber or the unionist politician?".
He could try to break free from the compulsion to blame unionists and the British for everything, regardless of reality, and instead apportion blame only where it belongs, instead of writing articles bereft of any constructive thought or analysis.
Naomi R Long
Castlereagh Alliance Association
I refer to the article by Brian Feeney in the Irish News (Aug 19 1998).
It is surely a historic piece of journalism, as there can rarely have been planned a more blinkered, ill-informed, bigoted and misjudged piece of prose which made it to the presses.
After reading his analysis of the agreement and the responsibilities which it imposed upon the various strands of political opinion, I was driven to re-read the copy which I received, as the text and sub-text to which he alluded seemed so unfamiliar.
Indeed, upon rereading the document, I can only conclude that either Mr Feeney has never read it, or that when he took a cursory glance through its pages he inadvertently forgot to remove his green-tinted spectacles!
His assertion that Sinn Fein could effectively sit on the sidelines for two years and wait until the unionists and British government delivered before deciding to commit, is a nonsense.
He suggests that they can simply monitor the behaviour of others and that their only responsibility is "to utter soothing statements if they are satisfied with the progress".
They are a party to the agreement, and have responsibilities imposed by it. They are certainly not impartial supervisors of the process!
It is incumbent on unionists, including David Trimble, to get on with the job of making the assembly function as required by the agreement and that includes working directly with Sinn Fein; but the same document requires that Sinn Fein and others "reaffirm their commitment to the total disarmament of all paramilitary groups ... continue to work constructively and in good faith - to achieve decommissioning... within two years".
No-one can cherry-pick, be they unionist, nationalist, British or Irish government or dissenter.
In "good faith" will demand that each of the parties makes progress simultaneously on those aspects of the agreement over which they have influence.
If there are to be no preconditions, then let the rule apply equally to all.
If decommissioning is not a precondition to entry into the assembly, then prisoner releases and changes in security arrangements cannot be made preconditions for decommissioning.
It is only when people move beyond this tit-for-tat approach to the agreement, that it will be seen as a balanced package, rather than as Mr Feeney described "an elaborate game of trade-offs".
His analysis is indicative of the tribal mindset which is the real problem in Northern Ireland, where a gain for one side is inevitably construed as a loss for the other.
Sinn Fein could benefit from progressing decommissioning, not least if it ensures that those factions of republicanism opposed to the agreement are denied the opportunity to use IRA weaponry to launch attacks on the very peace process which Gerry Adams claims to have masterminded.
However, to see the situation from this perspective requires more sophisticated and imaginative analysis than Mr Feeney displayed, with his stereotypical "I'm a nationalist. There's a crisis. Let's attack a unionist" brand of political thought.
As part of this trade-off game he asserts that "the IRA won't hand over any weapons or material until the British have scaled down their military presence, withdrawn to barracks and demolished a significant number of strong points".
The agreement makes it abundantly clear that such scaling down of the security presence will be undertaken "consistent with the level of threat."
Perhaps if Mr Feeney had been watching the television coverage of the carnage in Omagh, instead of locked away from reality writing his article, he would agree that the "development of a peaceful environment" upon which this "normalisation of security arrangements and practice" is dependent, according to the agreement, is far from the reality on the ground.
To scale down security at the present time would be irresponsible in the extreme, a fact recognised by both governments.
Indeed, part of the agreed security agenda written into the agreement has already been implemented by the British government, with the removal of emergency powers, (page 21, paragraph 2 (iii)), and that without preconditions.
His final blow against sanity was struck in the last paragraph where he claims that we should all "stop fighting the war against republicanism. They are already on board".
The people who launched the bomb attack on Omagh are republicans. They are patently not on board, Mr Feeney. I would suggest a few pointers for Mr Feeney which may help him to regain a closer association with reality.
He could actually read the agreement before commenting on it.
He could ask himself the question "Who is my enemy as a constitutional nationalist, the republican bomber or the unionist politician?".
He could try to break free from the compulsion to blame unionists and the British for everything, regardless of reality, and instead apportion blame only where it belongs, instead of writing articles bereft of any constructive thought or analysis.
Naomi R Long
Castlereagh Alliance Association
Further Information
Publisher: THE IRISH NEWS
Ref: IN/0381
Published Date: 11-Sep-98
Related Images
There have been no images archived for this article.