Category Archives: Editorials

Only the ‘Editorials’ from 2021 onwards are accessible here. For older Editorials please click on the “Go to our pre-2021 Archive Website’ tag on the right of this page.

Editorials: Legacy, Finding our niche, Monitoring

Editorials, Nonviolent News, , , ,

Legacy: At least a little, nearly too late

‘Being left a legacy’ can be a pleasant part of the more unpleasant aftermath of a loved one’s death. But in Northern Ireland ‘legacy issues’ are the painful aftermath of thirty years or more of violent conflict. As an INNATE poster states, “The past is not water under the bridge – It is water filling a reservoir”. https://innatenonviolence.org/wp/posters/ There is nowhere that dealing with the aftermath of violent conflict is easy or pleasant and the path to dealing with it has been tortuously slow in Northern Ireland.

The Stormont House Agreement of 2014 remarkably achieved considerable support across the board on dealing the issue, although not unanimously (e.g. opposition from the Ulster Unionist Party). In a situation where ‘our’ victims are more important and more tragic than yours, getting relative agreement and buy in to a collective process is extremely difficult but vital in going forward. The structures of the 2014 agreement on dealing with the past looked a bit complicated but were a relatively comprehensive take on what was needed.

And then the British Tory government reneged on the agreement and failed to implement it or its spirit. Worse was to come when in 2023 the Conservatives introduced their very own Legacy Act, purportedly to be ‘realistic’ but actually to protect British soldiers and the British state from unwelcome publicity about their role in the Troubles, with an end to prosecutions. It had, in contrast to the 2014 agreement, support from no one in Northern Ireland apart from British Army veterans; this was an amazing piece of arrogance and self-interest by the British government in relation to Northern Ireland.

The recent agreement on legacy between the British and Irish governments takes us back close to the 2014 agreement but with different infrastructure. A Legacy Commission with independent oversight is being set up out of the 2023 Legacy Act’s ICRIR/Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery. A 2024 document from CAJ https://caj.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/CAJ-Reform-of-ICRIR-Report-November-24.pdf can be used for reference in examining the new structure. An Independent Commission on Information Retrieval will be set up on a cross-border basis. Inquests which had been halted by the 2023 Legacy Act will resume and there are other details to the agreement.

In the mean time there have been eleven largely wasted years when the families of those killed have grown older or died, and 2014 was itself sixteen years after the Good Friday Agreement. In the period since 2014, inquests were one feature which had worked in retrieving truth – and those had also been removed by the Tories’ 2023 Legacy Act.

The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. Gráinne Teggart of Amnesty International in the North said ““We will carefully examine this framework to assess whether it fully complies with the European Convention on Human Rights and whether it can genuinely deliver for victims. For too long, families have been met with secrecy, impunity and the denial of their right to truth, this must end.” Let us hope that there is indeed light at the end of this long and dark tunnel. Northern Ireland has enough problems to deal without being anchored to the past by unresolved violent tragedies and unendurable pain for those who have suffered and their loved ones.

–

Finding our niche

The world is in such a sorry mess that it is hard to know where and what we should be doing. ‘Making the world a better place’ and not a total disaster for our descendents (literal or metaphorical) seems such a tall order that finding our own place can be difficult and what we end up doing can be accidental – perhaps somebody needed something doing some time and we enjoyed doing it and thought it worthwhile and continued (and that is not necessarily a bad way to get in to doing things).

Presumably many of those reading this will already have not only found their niche but already feel over-involved. Setting parameters to our involvement is often exceedingly difficult but is necessary for our own preservation, to avoid burnout and give us some quality of life. We should not be aiming for martyrdom.

However even if we do have our involvements, reviewing our engagement can be very worthwhile. What do we consider the most important issues around at any level (international, national, local)? Where can we possibly make a difference or at least a stand that is important? And can we balance one kind of involvement with another, e.g. working for world peace (macro level) while being involved with anti-racism or migrant support (micro level)?

There are many different kinds of personality, and we undoubtedly have widely varying interests. How can we match our individuality with what needs done? Of course doing new things and pushing out our own boundaries is good, and it is never too late to learn new skills or approaches. And it is also a question of what is already being done and what is left undone. If something is already ‘being done’ can we make a difference and push things further or are we better to set out on something new which no one is doing? Our personality and skills level count in this regard; are we happy striking out into the unknown or are we much better as part of a team?

It can be difficult to review our own involvement for a variety of reasons including the simple one that others may not give us feedback. Sometimes we have to step back and read between the lines – and possibly even the lies. But we should also know how to take, and acknowledge to ourselves, compliments which are made about our work. And we can ask for feedback which may be important in helping us whether to continue on a particular path or not.

One choice we have to make – though it may also be made for us – is whether we work full time and paid in the field we wish to be primarily engaged politically or socially. Most of us cannot. Peace (work), for example, does not, except in very particular circumstances, pay. So we then have to work out our work/voluntary work/family balance and that can be a very difficult one to juggle if we have a partner who is less engaged and children or elderly parents who need attention and support.

We also need to consider our ‘job satisfaction’ in our involvements. Every job or involvement is likely to come with certain things needing doing which are boring or not what we particularly want to be doing. That is life. But we do need to assess both our overall satisfaction and our perceived effectiveness. It is important to state here that ‘effectiveness’ can be measured in many different ways and success (cf Bill Moyer, Movement Action Plan, for which you can word search) is not a straightforward path. ‘Success’ might be in raising an issue rather than getting it resolved to your satisfaction – we are not miracle workers.

‘Time out’ is valuable in allowing us to reflect and replenish. Speaking to friends, loved ones and colleagues may help us with our thinking. Building the future is a difficult task but it is one which can be done with enthusiasm, imagination and good humour – if we are in ‘the right place’ both physically and metaphorically. We all have our place to play and it is a team effort, even if we work apart.

May you and your involvements flourish.

–

Monitoring the situation

Nonviolent approaches are very diverse and include both activist intervention and third party conciliation, mediation or other forms of activity. One of these third party interventions is monitoring or observing situations of conflict or potential conflict but there are many different approaches within this – the range is explored in a checklist at www.flickr.com/photos/innateireland/25987023457/in/album-72157629555375796 (part of an album on monitoring, accompaniment and unarmed civilian protection) The terms monitoring’ and ‘observing’ can be used by different people to denote slightly different approaches but generally the terms are interchangeable.

Every technique or approach in life has its strengths and weaknesses. Monitoring can actually be an important tool in some circumstances both in helping avoid trouble developing and in being able to tell a relatively unbiased account of what happened if trouble did indeed develop, and possibly feed back to the parties involved what they could have done better. It has been used in Northern Ireland extensively in relation to parades as well as some other situations. The recent development of a Network of Legal Observers in the Republic [See Nonviolent News 332] is very welcome and legal observing watches the servants of the state, in this case the police/Gardaí to see whether they are acting as they should.

Monitoring is not a panacea. If bombs and bullets are flying, as they were often doing in the Troubles in the North, or there is all out rioting, monitors could potentially see some of what is happening and record it, hopefully from a safe distance, but their presence is unlikely to make a jot of difference to how people behave. Accompaniment of people at risk is another part of this general approach in what can be collectively called ‘Unarmed Civilian Protection”. This whole area however has much potential in situations of racial tension and possible attacks.

The neutrality or impartiality of monitors is an issue. For example, monitors could be deployed in situations of racial tension, attack or potential attack where the intention is to help protect those seen as racially different or at risk. However in this situation the monitors would presumably record what they saw, without fear or favour, about race rioters or demonstrators, police, any counter-protesters etc. Thus ‘on the ground’ they would be impartial but the reason for them being there would be from a desire to help avoid racial trouble or attacks. On parading issues in the North some monitoring organisations were essentially solidarity organisations with one side or another and in these cases they were not ‘impartial’ on the ground. But in any case there is no such thing as ‘value free’ monitoring – or indeed any other form of third party intervention.

The extent to which monitors can intervene, and in what way, also varies considerably They are not mediators but, depending on the model involved, they might take on a limited intervention mode, e.g. suggesting a course of action to police or other parties to de-escalate a situation or avoid problems arising. Mediation Northern Ireland in its involvement had a model of passing information up the line and possible intervention by senior people. Monitor training emphasises that monitors remain human beings and if they feel that, as a human being, they need to do something which perhaps steps outside of their monitoring role then they should do it (e.g. offering protection to someone scared or at risk, if this isn’t already ‘within role’) – and any repercussions can be picked up on later.

The diversity of monitoring as an approach is reflected in INNATE’s photo album on the topic at https://www.flickr.com/photos/innateireland/albums/72157629555375796/ which includes a listing of written resources in the introduction at the start (click on ‘Read more’ and scroll down). INNATE continues to be involved in promoting and training in monitoring and is happy to try to answer any queries people have, or point them in the right direction. It is a field of endeavour which, fortunately or unfortunately given its role in relation to low level conflict, will continue to deserve attention and action.

Editorial: Inaction on racism is not an option

Editorials, Nonviolent News, , ,

The forces of racism are organising and waiting to pounce, that should be obvious (Northern Ireland figures show a considerable rise in reported racist crimes and incidents). Right wing ideology seeks to exploit any incidence, real or imagined, of wrongdoing by migrants, people who have come here from elsewhere seeking to make a better life – like Irish emigrants have done for many generations elsewhere – possibly escaping from terrible conditions and threats of injury or death in their home countries. The right wing may seek to crack down on crime but they don’t single out the fact that the vast majority of crime on this island is committed by indigenous Irish/Northern Irish people; that doesn’t suit their agenda which is scapegoating, creating fear, and seeking to win support by that means.

Racism is inherently violent because it portrays other people as less human, less capable, less moral, less caring than ourselves. This has direct implications and effects. The ‘others’, the scapegoated ones, don’t matter and therefore they can be abused, verbally or physically, and assaulted, even injured or killed and it doesn’t matter because ‘they’ don’t count. They are, in effect, sub-human, ‘Untermensch‘. They have no rights and should be expelled.

There is only one race, the human race, and diversity is something for celebration and a beautiful aspect of our humanity. Of course we can celebrate ‘our’ culture and invite others to join us and enjoy it too. ‘Our’ culture may be fantastic in many regards but it may also have dark and negative aspects to it in the present – and we know that there have been many such features in the recent past in all parts of Ireland.

There are issues where we cannot remain on the sidelines, as a hurler on the ditch. However we, like or unlike a hurler on the ditch, can take verbal action in objecting to the use of racist terminology. We can, and should, intervene immediately and directly if there is a use of racist language or put down so that the speaker is challenged; it might be they are deliberately being racist in which case they know they are being challenged, or they may be unthinkingly using racist language in which case they may be more careful next time.

There are many ways we can be actively anti-racist and this may or may not involve being involved in an avowedly anti-racist group or organisation such as City of Sanctuary or other solidarity groups. Being open to others on a day to day basis and being willing to help others that we come across, whoever and whatever they are, if we can is an important approach. An approach to inclusiveness that welcomes people that are different – not just in terms of origin but in ability and demeanour – is what is needed. We can all make our sporting, cultural, special interest and political groupings and work places welcoming for all; this is in our own interests too, to bring in new people. There are a huge number of positive examples of this right around the island of Ireland – and wherever you are you probably know of good examples of groups being inclusive.

From a specifically nonviolent point of view, beyond civic and civil society mindedness, there are a variety of possibilities which can be explored and built on. In situations of threat, monitoring and accompaniment models can be developed which can help to prevent racist attacks and protect individuals or groups. Of course racist attacks can happen anywhere and monitors and accompaniers cannot be everywhere. But providing accompaniment to people already threatened or attacked can help provide some measure of reassurance; however the role provided needs to be carefully explained and agreed to by those under threat, and there may not be an understanding of what is being offered.

Beyond monitoring and accompaniment there is the possibility of nonviolent protective lines and the like in situations of racist-based attacks – basically that would be attackers have to attack native-born people before attacking those they see as ‘other’. This is obviously a high risk strategy and one which would in most situations require at least passive acceptance by police that the nonviolent activists would not be interfering with police action and responsibilities, or where police are not present. In this situation nonviolent activists could obviously themselves become targets. But we also know – and more intelligent racists will know – that attacking native-born people is not a way to win friends and is indeed a way to alienate those from whom they would seek to receive support. But racists in a physical conflict are unlikely to be thinking too rationally so such action would be high risk for nonviolent activists – but fast and careful on the ground analysis could justify the risk.

Of course racists should be challenged at a political level but we do need careful consideration of whether counter-demonstrations are a good way to do this. They may or may not. Organising a multicultural celebration away from a racist demonstration, but stating it to be your answer to their racism, is an option. Having more people at ‘your’ anti-racist demo can of course make the point that more people locally support anti-racism than racism, but the dynamics of crowds are difficult and creating ‘us’ and ‘them’ friction may not be the best way to go and may reinforce in the minds of borderline racists that ‘society’ is out to get ‘them’ and has sold out to the ‘others’.

Ireland has the ‘advantage’ in relation to anti-racism of having been on the receiving end of racism and forced emigration through colonialism and poverty – this applies to the Ulster Scots who were relatively early migrants to North America as well as 19th and 20th century migrants. Those who ignore that experience ignore Irish history and refuse to learn from it, with racists preferring to adopt a superior attitude to others which is itself in tune with colonialism. How ironic it is that anyone on the island of Ireland should adopt racism as a creed, even lightly disguised racism through claiming “Ireland is full” when it still has rather less people than 1846 and is infinitely wealthier today. Successive waves of migration to Ireland, some of oppressed groups like the Huguenots, have contributed to the fabric of Irish life and made us what we are, and whatever our origin our ancestors all came from somewhere else originally.

Of course there are issues of concern such as the housing crisis, particularly in the Dublin area. The blame for that lies with the government and our capitalist system rather than people at the bottom of the pile who need somewhere basic to live. And it is economic prosperity, and workers needed for the companies which have helped create that, which has contributed to housing pressures – but no one is saying ‘end prosperity’.

Whether actively involved in avowedly anti-racist activities or not, we all need ‘racism awareness’ and commitment to follow up on what we need to do and can do in our lives and our localities. Our humanity demands no less.

Editorials: Might is right, Migration as a fact of life

Editorials, Nonviolent News, ,

Might is right…..down a rabbit hole

We previously covered in this space the extent to which the ‘rules based international order’ was and is a myth and flouted by ‘the West’. Recent events have further emphasised how rampant militarism – on the part of that very same ‘West’ with its supposed values – is dangerously out of control; think of Israeli and USA attacks on Iran, or NATO members committing to spending 5% of GDP on arms, armies and related ‘security’, an appalling waste which will cost humanity massively in a variety of ways. https://innatenonviolence.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Cake-anti-militarist.pdf The sycophancy shown by Mark Rutte, head of NATO, congratulating Donald Trump after the USA bombed Iran beggars belief; there is no evidence Iran was about to get nuclear weapons (as even US ‘Intelligence’ attested) whereas the USA and Israel already have them. The lesson for many from this whole story is that if you want to avoid being bombed by the USA or Israel then you should develop nuclear weapons as fast as you can.

There are so many current factors in the world pointing to ‘danger’ that it is difficult to know where to begin. NATO countries are not, needless to say, committing 5% of GDP on green energy and avoiding catastrophic climate heating. Having promoted the idea of a Russian bogey man they are ramping up a militaristic response. Such military based ‘security’ is a total misnomer; it leads to ramping up an arms race and increased insecurity, at best, and at worst a possible culmination in war. Of course there are dangers from Russia, but the idea that Russia, China or Iran are the only dangers in the world flies in the face of what ‘the West’ is doing; it is the USA and the West that are more likely than anyone to be undertaking military actions. And ‘Western’ military actions this century in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya have caused endless misery and instability – when will they ever learn?

In the Cold War between the USSR and ‘the West’, lies were told about an ‘arms gap’ and Russia’s military capabilities. This was used to justify further rearmament, especially by the USA. Something similar is happening today. Mark Rutte himself has pointed out that Russia’s economy is 25 times smaller than NATO member countries. The Russian economy may be on a ‘war footing’, and that may suit Putin politically, but it is difficult to sustain in the long term, even in a country which can, to date, politically sustain mass casualties. Russian deaths in the Ukraine war could be 250,000 with up to a million total casualties; Ukrainian figures could be up to 100,000 people killed and 400,000 total casualties – but accurate figures are almost impossible to come by.

Real security, human security, comes from dealing with health and wellbeing issues https://innatenonviolence.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Human-security.pdf And there are no greater security issues than dealing with global heating and world poverty. For analysis of perceived ‘threats’, in this case in relation to France, see https://wri-irg.org/en/story/2025/who-threatening-who

Stepping back out of the militarist hole which Europe and ‘the West’ find themselves is difficult but achievable. The first point about being in a hole is to ‘stop digging’ – escalation of an arms race is in no one’s interest. Of course there are difficult decisions for Ukraine to make, and for Europe and the USA in relation to Ukraine, but continuing a stalemate war where Russia is gradually gaining ground is not an answer. Had the neutrality of Ukraine been guaranteed then we might not have been in this situation to begin with; militarist decisions have costs.

And effective Western backing, particularly by the USA but many EU states as well, of Israel as it engages in genocide against the people of Gaza is obscene. That hundreds of people have been killed simply trying to get food is an expression of the desperate situation Gazans are in, and Israel continues its general bombardment. The inhuman situation that exists in Gaza could be stopped by the USA tomorrow if it utilised its power and support for Israel for the good of all and not for its geopolitical ideology. And Europe’s failure to take any action is also reprehensible.

Migration as a fact of life

It would seem that, North and South of the border, we are into an era of periodic racist riots when someone originally from outside these shores has done, or is perceived to have done, something reprehensible. These riots are stoked by right wing anti-immigration activists or fanatics who are happy to use any excuse to attack migrants – no matter what their reason for ending up here or the role they play (e.g. fulfilling essential economic roles in society at all levels including in the health service). The most recent example of this phenomenon manifested itself most prominently in Ballymena where, without police action, migrants would likely have been burnt to death in their homes.

While there may be no figures to hand, there is no reason to suppose that the situation in Ireland is any different to the USA in regard to the level of crime committed by newcomers. In the USA that level is less than for those born in the country. However the crimes committed may be ones that are more visible, plus the colour of the person’s skin, may make illusions of migrant crime waves appear rampant. This is then exploited for racist and self-advancement reasons by rightwingers – including the current President of the USA.

We all come from somewhere else originally, at least our forebears did. The evolution of homo sapiens is complex but the most important migration on a worldwide basis is usually regarded as that out of Africa aeons ago, leaving Africans as the only people without Neanderthal DNA (and thus, if we were to follow racist thinking, the most advanced members of our species…). The Irish history of largely forced emigration – forced by colonialism and economic necessity – makes some on this island more aware of the realities of migration. But migration is essentially a natural phenomenon, ‘as natural as the wind’ https://innatenonviolence.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Migration_swallow.pdf

Migration to both jurisdictions in Ireland has been a hugely positive experience in general for both economic and cultural reasons. The idea that Ireland is ‘full’ is laughable for a whole variety of reasons – including comparison with population densities elsewhere and the role of migrants in the economy in a relatively rich part of the world with an ageing population. However much work is needed to show the benefits that migrants bring and to allow them to be integrated as far as they want; many sporting and cultural organisations, as well as ordinary people, are engaged in this.

Migration being a natural phenomenon does not mean it should not be regulated. However the best way to alleviate forced migration is to work for and towards an end to global heating, for economic justice worldwide and avoiding violent conflicts and war. Everything else, in trying to control migration, is tinkering with the issue. There will always be people who want to try pastures new and better their situation. But the considerable majority of people would rather stay in their home environment or country if circumstances permit. However, tragically, if global heating continues at the rate it is going then current levels of forced migration will be only a drop in the bucket compared to what is to come.

The role of governments in both jurisdictions in combatting racism needs partly to be through dealing with social deprivation and exclusion within the native population. Part of the seedbed of racism is the perception that migrants and asylum seekers are receiving privileged support from the state; this may be totally untrue but in areas of considerable social and economic need it can feel true, and be used by racists to stir up support. This is another reason why dealing with social need and poverty cannot and should not be ignored but receive the needed resources.

Editorial: Courage, compassion – and subservience

Editorials, Nonviolent News, , ,

What compassion Ireland has for people in dire situations internationally stems partly from the colonised experience of subservience. Of course Ireland’s experience of being colonised is not a simple one with some from all sides enthusiastically participating in British colonialism and the possibilities it brought; for others it might have been simply a means to survival and earn some sort of living – in the 19th century a third of the British army was composed of Irish men. And some who were from a privileged background, Protestant or Catholic, also rejected the subservience which was imposed on Ireland as an island. And north of what became the border some on all rejected false divisions and discrimination.

However patterns can repeat themselves and, for example, the tendency to ape a rich elite can be seen in the lifestyle of someone like the late Charles Haughey. An old joke about Charles Haughey – CJH (christened Cathal) – was, what is the difference between CJD (’mad cow disease’) and CJH? The answer was ‘You can catch CJD’. Once the revolutionary generation in independent Ireland had died, the morality they had, such as it was, to a considerable extent went with them. Self-enrichment through politics is less acceptable now before retirement from the political fray but the loss of critical, independent and courageous thinking is still a major factor.

Why does the current Irish government think that it should get as close to EU and NATO militarism as it can (get away with)? Why have they so little understanding of conflict? Why do they seek to fly in the face of more than half a century of Irish military peacekeeping to move to a belligerent NATO model? Why do they imagine Ireland is in danger from Russia? Why do they still see the USA (Trump not withstanding) and its economic and military prowess as a leader and feel in some way indebted to that? Why do they not see that major EU and NATO rearmament is a danger? Why can they not see the possibilities of conflict resolution?

And in the North why is it still acceptable to come at issues of concern, such as the health service or education, from unionist or nationalist perspectives rather than one of justice and equality? Why is there such a lack of vision from the political class about building unity among the people and overcoming existing barriers? Why is the existing community/good relations policy so minimalist? Surveys show that most young people don’t want to stay in the North – how can a society be built that young people actually want to stay in?

Compassion should not be confused with pity. Compassion is about empathy and solidarity, it is about wishing, wanting, and working for, others to have what they should have. But compassion without courage to bring about change is meaningless. In the 1960s in the North the people who got involved in the civil rights movement, Catholic and Protestant as well, realised that subservience of one sector of society was reprehensible and inimical to any kind of justice. And, in the words of Barbara Deming (available as a mini poster at https://innatenonviolence.org/wp/posters/ )

“A liberation movement that is nonviolent sets the oppressor free as well as the oppressed”.

Of course Northern Ireland descended into the violence and the thirty years little war of the Troubles. But that was not the fault of civil rights activists who were trying to achieve a more just and peaceful society. However the lessons of the Northern conflict have not been learnt by the British or Irish governments in relation to international issues, they have not made the obvious extrapolation, that it is inclusive talking – however difficult that might be – has the potential to solve conflicts, and that getting involved in an arms race frequently ends in war. Governments tend to look to arms and militarism as a way to solve conflicts. This is dangerous nonsense.

The inferiority complex which Ireland had through the colonial experience never totally went away. In the impoverished new Free State, accompanied by ongoing net migration until the 1960s, holding your head high was perhaps difficult. Some people managed to do it. But others wanted to imitate the richer, colonial or ex-colonial powers. This is still going on with Irish foreign policy today. The ruling politicians have bought in to an inferior model of international relations, one where power grows from the barrel of a gun, and the bigger the better. They are prepared to forget the positive stands Ireland has taken in disarmament and international relations over the years. And it is highly ironic that the charge to become a full part of the EU military elite should be led by the person at the head of the ‘Republican Party’, Fianna Fáil. Once more Ireland’s leaders are choosing subservience to our ‘elders and betters’ who are neither of those things.

Subservience can be forced or voluntary, or a mixture of these. While fear of being thought ‘soft’ on international issues of concern to the great powers (including the economic power of US businesses in Ireland) can be a factor, any subservience today is effectively voluntary. Cap tugging to the USA, especially over Shannon airport’s use by the US military, and a totally false concept of being ‘good (militarist) Europeans’ regarding the EU, is rife. Undoubtedly some really do believe in US and EU militarism but it would seem that more are afraid to stand up for what might be unpopular – and this is a form of subservience, not being true to the values which you know are worthwhile. Subservience means the negation of courage and compassion.

Ireland has had a little bit of courage in saying things about Palestine and Israel but little courage in actually putting those thoughts into action (e.g. the severe delay in passing an Occupied Territories Bill). Irish political leaders in working to destroy the Triple Lock on the deployment of Irish troops overseas are totally negating the popular demand for the continuation of Irish neutrality and pulling (a flock’s worth of) wool over people’s eyes, and acting in a sleeveen manner.

Ireland has a modicum of compassion. With a bit of courage to act imaginatively, and a rejection of subservience, we could be so much more.

Editorial: Politics as the art of the possible?

Editorials, Nonviolent News, ,

The idea of politics as the art of the possible is a common conception which has valuable insights. ‘We’, whoever we are, can only do so much. We cannot suddenly change the course of a whole country or the world – perhaps if you are president of the USA you can disrupt things significantly but you still cannot persuade capitalist financial markets to fall into line and thus even that level of power does not give you complete freedom to do whatever you want. We are also dealing not just with current policies of governments but with cultural perceptions, some of which are unique to our own part of the world but all influenced by powerful forces including vested interests of media owners.

In this situation there are limits to what we can do but we can still do plenty. Witnessing and symbolic actions can point to a different way forward. Thinking about better possibilities can take many forms though leaflets, articles, blogs, video as well as longer works. Street theatre and innovative forms of communication, including ‘listening projects’ (listening to people’s concerns without a particular goal or project in mind) can help us break out of our silos. And constructive action in building alternatives and alternative ways of doing things can show that a different kind of politics and future is possible, including how decisions are made inclusively.

Idealism and realism should be partners rather than enemies. While we need an ultimate vision of the kind of society we are working for, we also need concrete achievable goals – these may be very small, even insignificant to an outsider – so we know that our work can bear fruit. And we also need to celebrate what successes we do have, and learn from both them and our failures.

But we need to be careful what we wish for. Donald Trump may be working at a very different level to most of us but he has not been careful in what he wishes for, nor thought out the repercussions of his actions. His stated goal, whatever that might mean, is to Make America (the USA) Great Again. But his policies are actually making the USA less powerful, less influential, and potentially poorer in the longer term. Confidence in the USA has dived internationally and even within the USA those concerned with the capitalist economy are negative or uncertain about his policies. Being nasty and mean has repercussions.

Whether the military empire of the USA, with 800 or so military bases internationally (Shannon Airport clearly counts as one), continues in the same way as before remains to be seen. But the president of the USA making threats against neighbouring countries, whether he acts on those threats or no, is a very poor policy in winning friends and influencing people – and ‘soft power’ is ultimately much more important than ‘hard’ power or military might. ‘Might is right’ is the approach to ruin.

At ‘our’ own level of NGOs, peace, voluntary and community action, it is clear that cooperation and building alliances is key. Politics goes through phases and cycles too and the going can be tough currently with right wing and militarist policies being predominant, even with a supposedly social democratic government as in the UK. And in Ireland, North and Republic, we have forces afraid to depart from the status quo except to take things in a more reactionary direction (as with the reprehensible attack on the Triple Lock on the deployment of Irish troops overseas).

Politics is the art of the possible. But it is also our job to expand both our own and other people’s perception of what is possible. Mohandas Gandhi said (and it is available as a mini-poster for home printing on the INNATE website at https://innatenonviolence.org/wp/posters/ – look under ‘Gandhi…’) “We are constantly being astonished these days at the amazing discoveries in the field of violence. But I maintain that far more undreamt of and seemingly impossible discoveries will be made in the field of nonviolence.”

We know a different world is possible from all the examples of love and solidarity that exist, and from whole societies in the past who have done things rather differently. We know that current policies and relationships are unsustainable. We need to build bridges from where we are currently to where we need to be to survive – ecologically and in relation to military power so we neither destroy our ecosystem nor kill ourselves off in warfare. There is much work to be done and our steps, small but resolute, can help to make the essential difference.

There are different takes on the nature of humanity, of homo ‘sapiens’. However the notion of the ‘survival of the fittest’ is largely discredited. ‘Survival’ is more a question of cooperation, innovation and cross-fertilization and we can take that into the political world too.

– – – – – –

Editorials: Rules-based international order, ‘Defence freeloading’

Editorials, Nonviolent News

A rules-based international order

“A rules-based international order” is what some Western politicians and commentators say has been lost with Donald Trump’s second elevation to the White House. To this issue perhaps we could take Mohandas Gandhi’s (falsely) attributed response to the question on what he thought about western civilisation – “It would be a very good idea”. The idea that ‘the West’ has kept to the rules when it doesn’t suit them is a fallacy. It may have suited them to keep most of the rules most of the time to ensure stability but when they wanted they had other policies and principles too. But we should also remember the alternative ‘golden rule’ – ‘whoever has the gold makes the rules’.

Examples of western rule flouting are perhaps too numerous to mention more than a few. The previous administration in the USA, that of Joe Biden, effectively looked the other way in continuing to massively support genocidal weapons and financial support to Israel. Most western European countries also looked the other way. Britain produced a ‘dodgy dossier’ which was basically false to justify participation in a war on Iraq in 2003. To the adage ‘Do no harm’, NATO’s action in overthrowing the Gaddafi regime in Libya destabilised much of north Africa. Talking about ‘peace’ but bringing or threatening military force is not something pertaining only to the Trump era in the USA.

The USA proclaims (loudly under Trump but still staunchly under other regimes since the Monroe Doctrine in 1823) its hegemony in the Americas but has refused to allow that Russia might have, on the same basis, strategic interests regarding its neighbours; the broken promise to Russia not to extend NATO eastwards after the collapse of Soviet communism has been, in the case of Ukraine, a red rag to a Putin bull – and part of his unjustifiable justification for full-scale invasion more than three years ago. However in a possible rapprochement between the USA and Russia under Trump, each allowing the other to misbehave is not an answer either. And those in the rich world who believe in global heating have been unconscionably slow in acting on that knowledge when it is poor countries who least contributed to the problem who suffer most.

Of course we question military hegemony in any region by any country but within the existing order there is a severe lack of self perception ‘in the West’. While President Trump’s erratic and sometimes threatening behaviour has made other countries look askance at the USA, there is also a huge lack of awareness of how conflict develops and wars start. Europe at the moment feels a bit like the arms race prior to the First World War with two sides gearing up for a military confrontation that would be totally disastrous and would be the worst of lose-lose results. How is rearmament in western Europe seen by ‘the other side’, i.e. Russia? That is a question which is demonstrably not asked.

Yes, there is a need for a ‘rule-based international order’ but it may not look much like what Trump, Putin, Starmer or even Martin envisage. We need a rules based international order with the primacy of a reformed United Nations, with the UN Security Council either stripped of its ‘great power’ privileges or sidestepped in favour of the General Assembly. We need an international order where human rights is prioritised and bodies like the International Criminal Court are strengthened. We need moves towards disarmament, not rearmament.

‘Defence freeloading’

An accusation made against Ireland (Republic), largely abroad but also at home to some extent, is that it is a ‘defence freeloader’, i.e. that it spends little on military defence and relies instead on being protected by NATO ‘for free’. This is complete nonsense while based on the reality that Ireland does spend relatively little on its military – although rapidly increasing expenditure.

The alternative accusation which can be made, and we would support, is that NATO and many other countries are ‘military wasters’, i.e. spending money on their military which is needed for welfare, green and infrastructure development. The ecological crisis is undoubtedly the largest contributor to forthcoming conflicts on a global scale. We currently have the scenario in Britain, our nearest neighbour and custodian of Northern Ireland, of the government cutting disability benefits while ramping up military expenditure. Military expenditure does create employment – not as much as in other government supported sectors – but is money wasted in terms of social development. However it can also contribute to an arms race – which we currently have in Europe.

There are many points which can be made here. The Irish government and establishment would undoubtedly join NATO if the citizenry would allow it, which they won’t, but they have played a clever game in cosying up to NATO through the so-called ‘Partnership for Peace’ and through removing the Triple Lock on deployment of Irish troops overseas they want to buy in to EU and NATO operations – and warfare. Part of the rationale is being ‘good Europeans’ – we would argue that it is actually being ‘bad Europeans’ and acting against peace.

From the start of the Irish Free State there was an attempt to contribute to international peace through involvement in the League of Nations. Later on Ireland had a strong non-aligned policy and contributed significantly to nuclear non-proliferation and more recently to treaties banning landmines and cluster munitions. The direction the country is heading is a total negation of that history and experience.

The idea that Ireland is at risk of invasion is nonsense and there is an argument that in the Second World War Irish neutrality was more beneficial to the Allies because they did not have to have troops tied up to defend it. Some people have tried to create the idea that, vague as it may be, Russia is a threat to Ireland. It is not, reprehensible as its war on Ukraine may be. And the only risk to Ireland, including international communication cables, is though general escalation and warfare in Europe.

NATO is an aggressive military force and is prepared to use nuclear force as it deems necessary (including ‘first use’). The EU is ramping up to be a regional, if not world, superpower. Ireland’s role, consistent with its history and the desire of its people, should be as a conciliator, an actor for peace, continually looking at how de-escalation and disarmament can be brought about, not just in Europe but globally. A small country such as Ireland could make a significant contribution to world peace.

Within conventional military thinking there is a concept of ‘non-offensive defence’, i.e. military defence and preparations which cannot be considered provocative by ‘the’ – or any – ‘other side’. This is totally missing in Europe at the moment and is part of the reason for the Russian invasion of Ukraine which, as stated, we consider totally reprehensible. In expecting Russia to accept what would be totally unacceptable to the USA – an opposing military force on its borders with Ukraine through possible membership of NATO – ‘the West’ played in to Putin’s hands and gave him a perceived justification for invasion.

The Forum on International Security Policy held by the Irish government in 2023 refused to consider possibilities for nonviolent civilian defence; INNATE offered in good time for this to have been included but this was fobbed off. The government seems to have a one track mind which is a sad reflection on Irish independence and any possibility of an imaginative and creative response to world issues.

Yes, the Irish government should spend more on active involvement in the international sphere but we would say this should be through contributing to peace. Much could be done in terms of diplomatic and mediative actions, and work to address potential conflicts before they simmer to boiling point. This should include financial assistance to areas in need where conflict is a likely outcome of poverty and lack of developmental infrastructure. Simply being another small actor in NATO and EU militarism will contribute, not to peace, but to war, warfare and military waste.

This is the 21st century. Have we learned nothing from the wars of the 20th and early 21st century?

Editorials: Picking the Lock, Violence and nonviolence

Editorials, Nonviolent News, , ,

Picking the Lock

The term ‘to pick a lock’ means to open it without a key using a device to open it without breaking or cutting the lock. It is usually for underhand or nefarious purposes. This aptly describes what the Fianna Fáil government is doing to the Triple Lock in working to remove it and open the Irish army up to the service of EU and NATO militarism. Fianna Fáil were not even honest in their election manifesto when they promised ‘sensible reform’ of the Triple Lock since the only reform they will bring is its complete destruction.

Micheál Martin and Fianna Fáil have been the frontrunners on this for some years now and the whole purpose of the Consultative Forum on International Security Policy in 2023 was to provide an excuse to proceed. The fact that this ‘Forum’ did not work in the way it was intended was no deterrence to proceeding. It looked like the move might have happened before the election but now that Martin is ensconced again as Taoiseach means that a move is imminent. It is included in business for the spring session of the Dáil https://www.gov.ie/pdf/?file=https://assets.gov.ie/319531/3760a815-ee4f-49ea-ba3b-e42244711ea4.pdf#page=null (see page 4)

The Triple Lock https://swordstoploughsharesireland.org/triple-lock/ entails UN, government/cabinet and Dáil approval for deploying more than 12 members of the Irish military abroad – but the Irish establishment want to fully integrate with, and have the army fighting with, the EU army. And since the EU, which began as an economic-led peace project, is increasingly a military project and the European wing of NATO, not joining NATO – which the bulk of Irish citizens oppose – is immaterial. In any case the Irish army is already cooperating with NATO through membership of the misnamed NATO ‘Partnership for Peace’.

Removing the United Nations support as an obligatory part of the Irish army being sent overseas means the government – which by definition has Dáil support – has no hoops to go through in committing the Irish army to armed action anywhere and any time. As the western world gears up increasingly for war through increased spending on arms and armies this is a sickening thought. And the EU is shaping up to become yet another military power on the world stage; as everywhere, the rhetoric may be benign but the reality is different.

It is almost beyond irony that Fianna Fáil, the party of Eamonn de Valera and Frank Aiken, should be in the forefront of ditching Irish neutrality. It is also fundamentally dishonest since the Triple Lock was introduced to get the Nice and Lisbon treaties agreed by the citizens of Ireland in referendums. Because, also dishonestly, this was not done as a formal protocol, no referendum is required to undo it. The honest course of action would be to hold a referendum on the issue but that will not happen since, Irish neutrality being popular with citizens, a proposal to radically alter it would be defeated. An Irish Times/ARINS survey (Irish Times 8/2/25) showed that even in the event of Irish unification only 19% of citizens in the Republic felt Ireland should join NATO (7% definitely join, 12% join) whereas 24% said it shouldn’t join and 25% definitely not join. But the leaders are taking their own path to militarisation.

The move to abolish the Triple Lock is a negation of democracy and may help get Ireland fully integrated with European war machines but it will do nothing for peace, in fact the exact opposite. Peace and democracy activists have been mobilising to defend the Triple Lock but it has been hard to get the issue the attention it deserves, not least because of mass media apathy or active support for militarisation and a clever game by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael in denying anything is happening. The government should hang it head in shame at abandoning Irish neutrality and refusing to consider how it, neutrality, could be developed as a real and active force for peace in the world.

Violence and nonviolence in an age of uncertainty

Change may be the only certainty in life but we, as a human species, are not always good at dealing within it. And our ‘common sense’ response to it may not be sensible at all. Thus with Russia’s war on Ukraine and President Trump’s bull-in-a-china-shop act in his second incumbency, we may react in ways which are not only unhelpful but actually detrimental to the cause of peace and justice.

The Western world is currently heading, in general, to the right and to increased militarism. More than one commentator has likened the situation to the lead up to First World War; then clashing imperialisms came to fight on the battlefield, and we already have the trench warfare in Ukraine, albeit with drones being a crucial weapon this time around.

The forces for peace can feel totally powerless when confronted with such massive pro-militarist action and propaganda. And such belligerence is backed by the mass media and some social media as well.

Powerlessness can be totally debilitating and push us into apathy. Instead we need to hold firm in our convictions and our work and be prepared so we can use any opportunities which present themselves to get or views across and to build the movement we need, in an alliance with other progressive forces, to bring transformation.

The forces of peace and nonviolence are not powerless, we should know that from Gene Sharp, Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan, among many othersi. But while we can make an impact with small numbers, to be successful we need to mobilise on a broad base and that requires cooperation across different sectors (trade unions, human rights, ecological, left of centre and so on), lots of preparatory work, a good tailwind, and seizing the moment when it comes. Awareness of the stages successful movements pass through (as with Bill Moyer’s Movement Action Plan) can help us plan and be prepared as well as perhaps avoiding depression when the going gets tough.

Editorials: Antisectarianism, Tiocfaidh ar lá

Editorials, Nonviolent News, , , , , ,

Antisectarianism

Antisectarianism in the Northern Ireland context is positive action to overcome sectarianism and sectarian divisions. Nonsectarianism is not ignoring sectarian divisions but deliberately treating everyone the same and avoiding, as far as possible, thinking in sectarian terms. Of course in the North awareness of ‘who is what’, what foot people kick with, is difficult to avoid and most people will have grown up with that awareness imbibed with their mother’s milk – this is almost literally true as surveys have shown even young children may be aware of the otherness of people across the main divide.

Antisectarianism and even nonsectarianism were often brave choices during the Troubles (and before) when expectations could be to stick to and support only your own perceived side or tribe. There are those who suffered physically or through ostracism because they were seen to be friendly to the other side. Although it is different, there was also bravery in the face of violence or the threat of violence, a prominent example is 15 year old Stephen Parker who sacrificed his life in 1972 trying to warn people about the bomb which killed him. Less bravery is required today in most circles in Northern Ireland, not all, but it still requires determination, and the blurring of some old divides does not mean they have disappeared. Other examples include those who painted out sectarian graffiti or who tried to assist at risk neighbours who were of the opposing ‘community’.

There are all sorts of assumptions made about ‘the other’ still, and the corollary is that all sorts of assumptions are made about ‘our kind’, and breaking out of that straitjacket can be a difficult task. Difficulties in deciding what is ‘sectarian’ come mainly from the overlap between religious-community (‘Catholic’ or ‘Protestant’) identity and cultural and political identity. In terms of voting strengths this is usually thought of these days as 40:40:20, i.e. 40% each identifying as Catholic/Nationalist/Republican or Protestant/Unionist/Loyalist, and 20% as ‘other’. Nationalism and unionism are legitimate political identities and it is unfair that anyone should be castigated for simply supporting either. But scratch at any of the three categories mentioned and you will find considerable diversity, and many of the 20% ‘others’ may still carry not just some beliefs from their background but some prejudices as well.

Norn Iron is certainly a long way from being there. Even people who think of themselves as nonsectarian may be far from that because they have never seriously examined their assumptions and carry prejudices with them.

One of the tasks which INNATE has sought to champion (largely unsuccessfully we might add) is telling the story of those people in civic society who did work for peace and nonsectarianism during the Troubles. A few of those stories have been told including some aspects of work by the churches and something like the, very significant, input of the Women’s Coalition to the Good Friday Agreement. The story of the Peace People is ‘known’, often with mistaken assumptions of one kind or another, but the story of other peace and reconciliation groups is not known. INNATE’s contribution in this area consists of some chronicling on our photo and documentation site https://www.flickr.com/photos/innateireland and a listing of peace groups https://innatenonviolence.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Irish-peace-groups-listing-2024.08.pdf – though this latter includes groups all over Ireland and ones focused on peace internationally as well, over a longer time frame.

This work is not just for the purpose of giving credit where credit is due but also to show that there were people trying to provide alternatives and that republican, loyalist and state narratives that they had ‘no choice’ to the actions they took are simply untrue. It may be true that they did not see a choice, it may also be true that some did not look too hard. But the fact is there were alternatives which they did not, perhaps even could not, explore because of their belief systems and conviction in the power of violence. Of course those violent responses took Northern Ireland deeper into the mire and engendered violent responses from the other sides (of the three broad entities mentioned above – republicanism, loyalism and state). However INNATE’s stand has been it is pointless to be condemning violence in any situation without showing the possibilities of nonviolent alternatives; the old Troubles slogan coming from some conservatives to ‘root out the men of violence’ was counter-productive.

However occasionally we can stumble across amazing stories which we are unaware about in antisectarian action. The Books “Q&A” with children’s writer Martin Waddell in The Irish Times of 23rd November 2024 had one such story. Well into the interview, the interviewer, Martin Doyle said “The Troubles had a big impact on you” and Martin Waddell replied: “I had been keeping my eye on the small Catholic church in Donaghadee as there had been attempts to burn it. I saw some youths running out and laughing, and I went to check. I saw a thing like a wasp’s nest and that’s the last thing I remember.”

He continued “I was told that if I’d been six inches forward or six inches back, there wouldn’t have been a body. Apparently some sort of vacuum forms when there’s an explosion. The bomb went up and the church came down on top of me. Luckily somebody had seen me go in, otherwise I’d have just been buried. I had a big slice across my neck, but nothing vital, and was sliced across the right arm, my eardrums were burst, but I was more or less wrecked. Remember, I’d made the breakthrough, I’m now a professional writer but when I got blown up, I was no longer fit to do that. I lost several years.”

Obviously Martin Waddell did not know he was risking his life when he went to check on a church from across the main divide from him in the North. But he did. And the above was his matter of fact account of it with an extremely close shave with death and major personal repercussions. But it was a significant antisectarian action which deserves to be remembered.

There are many, many more stories of people’s bravery in standing up for antisectarianism and peace. But it needs work to uncover them before those involved die. And that work is needed to show that there were people who stood up for peace and antisectarianism throughout the Troubles, often in very difficult circumstances.

Tiocfaidh ar lá

Usually translated as ‘Our day will come’, this Irish Troubles era republican slogan could be adapted for peace purposes. While there are debates as to its linguistic appropriateness in Irish, the meaning is clear; our aims will be achieved. So long as it is removed from its previous context, and not understood in a triumphalist way, there is nothing wrong with it as a slogan. It is difficult to be optimistic in relation to peace in the world today when wars are seen as a method of resolving policy and when demagogic and xenophobic nationalism are so rampant.

We may plough on regardless, trying to build a better, more peaceful and just world when things are going to hell in a handcart, not least on global heating (where the ‘hell in a handcart’ metaphor is indeed appropriate). But how can we sustain activism when all around seems to be going in the Wrong Direction?

There are a number of answers to this and they exist on both micro and macro levels. It may be somewhat simplistic to list them in such a short form here, but needs must.

The first point, at a personal level, is to draw on our philosophical and/or religious beliefs and roots, and our reading of the past and history – which moves us quickly from the micro to the macro. We know from experience that, collectively, ‘peace through military strength’ is a recipe for disaster. Some people might well say, “Military strength was needed to defeat Hitler” but where did Adolf Hitler come from, what was the scenario from which he emerged? The answer, in longer term analysis, is surely from the mayhem caused by clashing imperialisms and war. Nationalism, antisemitism, and xenophobia were undoubtedly factors in Hitler’s immediate path to power but without that background of war, victory and defeat, his emergence would have been unlikely or impossible.

The ‘lifestyle’ precepts of both humanism and virtually all religions are in tune with ‘the Golden Rule’ – treat others as you would like to be treated yourself. People often play lip service to a humanistic or religious belief but avoid the very real implications. Killing people or treating them unjustly is not treating others as you would like to be treated.

There is of course always a danger in feeling we are right and everyone else is wrong; we may well have the right analysis of a situation but if we enter a tunnel of self-reinforcement, e.g. rejection coming to indicate we are on the right track, then there is a danger of self delusion. We always need to be analysing the appropriateness of our own analysis and actions. However it is also quite possible that we are part of a small band who have a clear and correct analysis of a situation; that after all, is how change can happen – a small bunch of people, perhaps seen as fanatics or dissidents start a ball rolling which gathers momentum. The kind of understanding shown in the Bill Moyer ‘Movement Action Plan’ outline of stages a successful social movement goes through is important in this context; the Peace People in Northern Ireland in 1976 is an exception to this rule in that it started large and then got smaller. See e.g. https://commonslibrary.org/resource-bill-moyers-movement-action-plan/

We personally also need to understand the power and possibilities of nonviolence. The ‘peaceful option’ is often quickly dismissed as impractical but there are many struggles, and the research by Sharp and by Chenoweth and Stephan (for example), which show it to be a strong and viable response to injustice and tyranny.

We should also not underestimate the power of individual, or small scale, witness. We have to be true to ourselves and our beliefs. However just as most businesses that are set up do not succeed, so most peace witness may not be particularly successful either, but if we not not try then we cannot be even moderately successful. If we sow seeds we may not be aware of where they grow or when they grow. We can stand up and not be counted. We can face clever and sustained opposition and the ignoring of our claims – the Irish establishment and media denial of changes to international neutrality is such an example where the response is always ‘things haven’t changed, nothing to see here’ when things are changing, slowly but surely, in a more negative and militarist direction.

But we can have small victories, and aiming for intermediate or even immediate goals which are very achievable, even if they are small, is important. In relation to Irish neutrality, the successful civil society challenge to the government’s “Consultative Forum on International Security Policy” and its legitimacy in 2023 was a small but significant spanner in the works for moving at that point to undo the Triple Lock on the deployment of Irish troops overseas. https://www.flickr.com/photos/innateireland/albums/72177720309217408/ Celebrating our successes is something we may not be good at but needs done so that we, and others, can see that change is possible.

The world goes through phases of tension and détente, of conservatism and relative liberalism, and similar patterns can re-assert themselves in different eras, e.g. conflict between Russia and parts of western Europe. We are currently in a phase of tension and conflict with uncritical official responses to this. This will change and indeed has to change if humanity is to survive.

There can also be some success comes from unlikely or unintended sources. An example is the fact that Donald Trump, despite his threats over Panama, Greenland (and Canada!) and despite his MAGS ‘manifest destiny’ bluster may be less likely to engage in or support war than most other US presidents. Obviously with Trump nothing can be taken for granted so this is a possibility rather than a certainty and how the Russia-Ukraine war will proceed, or end, without US support for Ukraine remains to be seen. But despite early Ukrainian successes it should have been obvious to have had an early resolution – which was possible through negotiation in the early months of the war.

The coal Miners’ Strike in Britain in 1984-85 was a bitter industrial dispute where prime minister Margaret Thatcher was trying to break the trade unions, especially the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM). She succeeded with lasting negative social and economic effects for those involved and their areas. The issue of carbon emissions was presumably not a concept to which Margaret Thatcher gave a moment’s thought but the closure of almost all coal mining in Britain led to a very considerable decrease in carbon emissions and thus a contribution to cutting global heating. ‘Events’ can have very divergent outcomes or repercussions, both negative and positive.

Pablo Neruda wrote about idealism and realism (in English translation) – “I love you, idealism and realism / like water and stone/ you are / parts of the world / light and root of the tree of life”. https://www.flickr.com/photos/innateireland/46318259912/in/album-72157609617432905 Without our idealism we are sunk; without our realism we are detached and living in fairy land. In grim times such as these we need to hold strong to our idealism and our ideals because we need to be the yeast that makes things rise to a better future, indeed a future at all. We wouldn’t advise you to go around shouting “Tiocfaidh ar lá” but our day will come in the sun – and with solar power.

Editorial: Why?

Editorials, Nonviolent News, ,

In the Odyssey Centre in Belfast there is a children’s educational-entertainment or “interactive discovery” centre named W5 – standing for WhoWhatWhereWhenWhy. In this piece we are going to look at some “why’s” concerning both parts of Ireland with some very simple answers on different aspects of conflict.

Q1. Why has the conflict in Northern Ireland lasted so long?

A. Because conflict can be not only multigenerational but exist over many centuries. Despite all the changes which have taken place in life since the 17th century and the Plantation of Ulster, the two main groupings from then, cultural Catholics and cultural Protestants, continue as fairly distinct entities in the North. Of course there are ‘betweeners’ of various kinds, and opportunities for ‘betweendom’ are increasing, but they are a minority. The original conflict arose by settlers taking the land and property of the then native Catholic Irish as part of an organised takeover.

Q2. Why do ‘good relations’ and peace activists in the North believe things can change?

A. Apart from a commitment to positive change it is because they have already changed significantly since the start of the Troubles and especially since the Good Friday Agreement. The powersharing political arrangements at Stormont are not ideal, nor are they a necessarily fit for the long term, but they are a start, and are a vast change from the time of the hunger strikes, the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985, or indeed the ‘one party rule’ (elected) prior to 1972.

Q3. If peace came to Northern Ireland through dialogue, of various kinds, why have people not extrapolated from this to broader questions of conflict?

A. A difficult question. The British have certainly ignored how peace came to Northern Ireland in their dealings with Afghanistan, Iraq, Ukraine and elsewhere, and within Northern Ireland wanted ‘business as usual’, e.g. with military recruitment. Within the North, both nationalists/republicans and unionists/loyalists have not connected how peace came about with how they think of international issues and unionists/loyalists are especially prone to simple identifying with things ‘British’, including military policies.

Q4. Why do paramilitaries still exist in Northern Ireland?

A. For a variety of reasons. While participants in these may often think of them as a line of ‘defence’, others see them as a line of ‘attack’. The small paramilitary groups on the republican side are still committed to armed struggle for a united Ireland based on their belief that this is the only way, and justified by history. Loyalist paramilitary groups still exist in a much greater way; for individual members this may be a badge of meaning, identity and commitment as British – or of power and enrichment (for some leaders) through extortion and other crime.

Q5. Why have people from bodies formerly, or indeed, currently linked to paramilitarism not apologised for past violence?

A. To do so would be to disown their raison d’etre and undermine their existence. While there were some apologies at the time of the ceasefires, e.g. from Gusty Spence, paramilitaries and Sinn Féin generally refuse to apologise for using armed struggle since they regard it as justified during the Troubles. In addition, Gerry Adams and others worked to ‘take people with them’ in moving to discard the ‘armalite’ and this entailed not disowning the past. Individual incidents of violence are sometimes apologised for, but not armed action per se.

Q6. Why do those who still espouse violence (including the British state internationally) not see the possibilities of nonviolence?

A. A mixture of reasons including adherence to the cult and culture of violence (the perception of it efficacy despite evidence to the contrary) and a lack of imagination and creativity. Nonviolence is seen as weak and ineffective whereas violence is seen as the ‘strong’, natural option.

Q7. Why do a majority of young people in Northern Ireland want to leave if they have a suitable opportunity?

A. Largely because of the divisions that exist but also for economic reasons. In the Republic people are much more likely to leave because of difficulties in acquiring housing. In both cases this is a sad reflection on realities, where people leave for reasons other than ‘spreading their wings’.

Q7. Why is there not a majority for a united Ireland if cultural Catholics are now in a slight majority in the North?

A. Feeling culturally Irish may not trump uncertainties about a different kind of future, and the risks involved – better the divil you know than the divil you don’t. And some Catholics identify as ‘Northern Irish’ rather than plain ‘Irish’, and a few perhaps even as British.

Q8. Why has the Irish government, with its supposed commitment to a united Ireland, not made greater plans towards this end?

A. While some people have broached this, e.g. Leo Varadkar, there is also a reluctance to rock the peace boat in the North and a desire to let Northern ‘sleeping dogs lie’. However the uncertainties about what might eventually appear on the table do not help serious debate and consideration of the issues. In addition, most people in the Republic have not seriously considered what unification might mean – in terms of cost or political change.

Q9. Why do the older established political parties in the Republic (Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael) and the establishment support joining NATO or being a fellow traveller of same?

A. A number of reasons pertain including subservience to the USA (for economic and cultural-political reasons) and the totally false perception that to be a ‘good European’ you have to get militarily involved with EU and NATO militarism and the ‘defence’ of (western) Europe.

Q10. Why is the ‘Russian threat’ used as an excuse to advocate Ireland getting closer to NATO?

A. As well as Russian militarist expansionism in relation to Ukraine, NATO creates a divisive fear about Russian intentions and ignores the role it played itself in creating division with Russia through expansion in eastern Europe – which it had promised not to do. Aside from any international facilities (e.g. undersea cabling) which might be targetted by Russia as part of more general conflict, any danger to Ireland comes precisely because of identification with NATO.

Q11. Why does Ireland currently not not have a positive neutral stance, given its history?

A. Independent Ireland has a considerable record of positive neutral action from de Valera in the League of Nations, work for nuclear non-proliferation, military peacekeeping with the UN, and involvement in banning landmines and cluster munitions. However the establishment (in various forms) considers it should throw in its lot with the former imperialist powers in Europe as well as the USA. This shows a severe lack of both imagination and understanding of conflict and conflict escalation. See also Q9.

Q12. Why has Ireland, North and Republic, largely been a laggard in dealing with climate change issues despite the grave seriousness of the situation?

A. There are a variety of reasons. When something is everyone’s responsibility (in the world, but particularly the rich countries who have largely created the crisis) then it can become no one’s. It has not been a top issue for most citizens. And Ireland has seen itself as less at risk than others – despite increased risks of severe storm damage and the climate becoming like Newfoundland if the ‘Gulf Stream’ stops, and a worldwide cause of severe conflict.

Editorial: ‘They’ haven’t gone away, you know

Editorials, Nonviolent News, ,

Although coming at it from very different angles, both peace activists of the nonviolent persuasion and paramilitaries view the legitimacy of state sanctioned violence as inadequate. Those of the nonviolent persuasion do not go along with the legitimacy of state sanctioned lethal force whereas paramilitaries feel that military-type action outside of the state is legitimate. Nonviolent activists would view both state sanctioned violence and paramilitary violence as immoral and/or unnecessary.

That is not to say that state forces should not be held to higher account than paramilitaries. In the North, the announcement of a long promised tribunal of enquiry to look at the circumstances of Pat Finucane’s killing had a reaction from some on the unionist and loyalist side that this was favouritism to republicans and discrimination against other victims. Leaving aside the fact that Pat Finucane as a lawyer represented loyalists as well as republicans, the state had long ago promised an enquiry, a promise it continually reneged on, and the particular circumstances of his murder – with very considerable issues of both state collusion and parliamentary ‘fingering’ of him – fully justifies such an enquiry.

More general questions of the legacy of violence remain, by paramilitaries as well as state. How do we deal with the very real issues for survivors and families of victims? Certainly not by sweeping it all under the carpet as the last British Conservative government tried to do with its Legacy Act (in order to protect former British soldiers and the state). The extent to which current Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn is moving away from that model is still being defined – and challenged.

However paramilitarism and militarism are still major issues in the North. Small republican paramilitary groups still exist and could pose a threat to individuals but they have very little support. However some loyalist paramilitary infrastructure has continued unbroken through the peace process and beyond; it is estimated that there are still well over ten thousand members of loyalist paramilitaries which is a lot – the PSNI has 6,300 officers and 2,200 support staff, in total certainly below the number of loyalist paramilitaries.

The extent to which loyalist paramilitaries are involved in extortion (such as protection rackets) and drug dealing varies but is very significant and a continuing blight on the North. There have been various attempts, more carrots than sticks, to encourage paramilitaries out of crime and militarism but they have largely been unsuccessful and there is also a certain amount of incredulity that, two and a half decades after the Good Friday Agreement, they still exist and still recruit. It is estimated that up to a third of organised crime has paramilitary links. The carrots and sticks need to have a time limit.

The failure of loyalism to gain political traction, in the way Sinn Féin did for republicanism, is certainly regarded as one factor in loyalist paramilitaries having a niche – while the DUP has often had an ambiguous relationship with militant and military loyalism, it cannot be regarded as adequately representing working class loyalism (e.g. on school selection where working class Protestant boys are the lowest achievers). But other factors are simply power, greed, and fear for the future of Northern Ireland.

A recent independent pro-unionist report from the ‘Northern Ireland Development Group’ addressed this whole issue. There are difficulties, obviously, and the report called for more carrots and sticks. Some of the authors stated “A clear distinction between ex-combatants, community workers and criminals is needed to bolster loyalists who are trying to move on, and to distinguish between them and those who want to use fear to maintain their own reputations and self-serving advantage.” (Irish Times 11/10/24). The attention given to the Loyalist Communities Council, representing the views of a variety of paramilitary groups, by some ministers has also caused anger; however it should be a question of what attention is given to them but whether what they say is justified – and you cannot attempt to ‘bring people in from the cold’ by ignoring them.

On a wider scale we need to challenge both paramilitarism and militarism. They might not be two sides of the same coin but they are both stuck in the same hole. Paramilitary and guerrilla fighters (a k a ‘terrorists) typically inflict harm and death in multiples of ten or a hundred; there are occasional exceptions such as 9/11 when the unit was thousands but that is not typical. Deaths and injuries from state forces are typically numbered in ten of thousands or even millions. And yet most of the time people accept the actions of states, even ones as egregious as Israel’s in Gaza where it has slaughtered upwards of 50,000 people and probably caused the deaths of several times that through the effects of the onslaught on health, nutrition, homelessness and fear.

Paramilitarism takes a military model and uses it for its own purposes within a state. Militarism threatens the globe, directly and indirectly through death, misuse of resources, its major contribution to global heating and pollution, and so on including the very real risk of nuclear annihilation. Humanity needs to move on. There are alternatives but militarism, with its associated symbols of statehood, appeal to politicians (and many other people besides) and they fail to even comprehend that there are alternatives, or examine what these are.

The possibilities of nonviolence are endless. They do require work and people but their costs would be tiny compared to the cost of armies and militarism. When will we start to learn?