Investing in Civil War

Imagine, for a moment, that one of the United States' most important allies in the Western Alliance dissolves suddenly into civil war. Thousands are killed in erstwhile peaceful streets. Hundreds of innocent civilians going about their daily business are murdered in cold blood. The situation gets so bad that the army is forced to intervene to maintain a semblance of order. But the violence continues, even to the extent that there is an attempt to liquidate the entire personnel of the democratically elected government.

This may sound like a far-fetched abstraction, but then you've probably never been to Belfast or Londonderry. It may seem over-dramatic, but then it's difficult to visualize from the third story of the New York Times a massive explosion in the middle of a clear autumn night in a provincial hotel, which came so perilously near to killing the entire British cabinet. It seems as unreal as the Royal Wedding.

But let's assume for a moment that in the country whose citizens financed the slaughter, there are at least some token reactions. While in America, I've noticed two clear lines of opinion, both of which ironically ensure that the IRA's chilling message that "we only have to be lucky once" will eventually come true.

The first is the real killer, and at times like these, it tends to keep itself to itself. It runs something like this: "Well, until the British leave Northern Ireland, and set Ireland free, there will always be violence. Just because the IRA's means are wrong, that does not mean that their grievance isn't just or noble."

These are the attitudes which make it possible for Americans to buy arms for terrorists to kill civilians and policemen. These are also platitudes which have no basis in fact or analysis. The "British" living in Northern Ireland have lived there as long and in many cases longer than many in the Republic, and indeed much longer than many Irish-Americans have lived in the United States. Their culture and country is as embedded and as distinctive as any in Western Europe. The cause of subjugating them against their will and by force of arms, and subsuming them into a foreign state which they have long feared and wanted separation from, is a cause of minimal justice and less nobility. To do so by a long, wearying war of intimidation and fear and murder is one of the most evil endeavours of our age. Its only result will not be a "united" Ireland, but a new civil war--and bloodier than any we have seen so far--in which the embittered minority in the North would attempt to destroy the occupying force of the South. This is the nightmare which Noraid's bombs are designed to create and sustain: for how could such a state be held together except by the superior use of terror? Yet this is the reality of the romantic dream Irish Americans think they are in the process of creating.

The second reaction is less naive and, thankfully, more common. Ironically, to my mind, at least, it is responsible for more deaths. It realizes that no sane individual in the North or South of Ireland believes that it is in Ireland's interest to prostitute herself to the men of the provisional IRA, whose Marxist ideology and links with international terrorism are well known. But nevertheless, it subscribes to the view, especially just after a terrorist attack, that Something Must Be Done. This usually means tinkering about with the constitution, erecting new "forums," adding an "Irish dimension," or initiating what James Prior called "rolling devolution." The Boston Globe said just this: ignore the IRA, but get on with negotiating a "solution." It sounds too obviously reasonable to be true. How could anyone possibly disagree?

I want to disagree on the basis of every attempt at such "initiatives" that have been started since the troubles began. Their inevitable failure results from the fact that neither side can accept any constitutional change. Any infringement on the sovereignty of the North is immediately denounced by the Unionists, whose consent is essential for any "rolling" solution to have a chance of success. Any concession by Nationalists can be immediately declared by any political rival as a sell-out, and forcibly withdrawn. But, you will reply, we must not stop trying: it can't do any harm, can it?

The evidence at least suggests that it can; indeed, that it has. What terrorism thrives on is doubt; what violence lives off is drift at the center of government. As long as there is doubt about the real future of Ireland, the IRA will have a direct incentive for influencing every move in this fluid process in its favor. Every new proposal is greeted by a new attack, every initiative with an atrocity, every new Minister of State with a publicity coup. The most violence-free periods have been when it was quite clear that no constitutional flux was intended, no change envisaged, no new beginnings proclaimed (ironically under the Labourite Roy Mason in the late '70s).

The only way for peace is an emphatic and unapologetic declaration by the British Government that they will defend the Ulstermen's right of self-determination forever. Americans may find it hard to believe, but in the mainland that is a more difficult case to sell than that Britain should abandon this dependent and warring colony to its own bloodbath. But Mrs. Thatcher should have the courage to say it and mean it for the first time since she came to office, instead of treating the problem as an infuriating irritant which might eventually go away. For its part, the Republic's government should have the courage of its own unspoken convictions, and welcome such a move as the only realistic option for the defeat of the terrorists who would destroy them as well. Americans must have the wisdom to back Fitzgerald and Thatcher in this--the calm of this particular moment gives us all an opportunity for an outbreak of statesmanship.

Then the real struggle for reconciliation can begin, Reconciliation takes place in people's minds and homes, not in communiques. It takes generations, not seconds on prime time television. It is a far, far greater challenge to the inhabitants of the island than any that their extraordinary talents have yet accomplished. But let's begin with a couple of practical suggestions to help both sides. Introduce real local government in the North, as the Unionists want, but incorporate Nationalist representation in chairmanships and local councils. In return, construct a viable and comprehensive structure of cooperation between the security forces of the Republic and Britain, to defeat terrorism within the present constitutional framework. Having no constitutional change on the agenda would unleash a new opportunity for a real change in the area that really matters whether ordinary people can live their everyday lives in peace and security. By such an action, we would already begin to unravel the net of fear and anxiety on which the murderers thrive.

This then is a plea to Americans: your opinions matter. Please believe that the romantic dream of reunification is a tragic compelling nightmare, being played out in my countrymen's lives. Feed it neither with your encouragement, nor your money. Peace is never bought so cheaply.

Andrew Sullivan, an Ens sat graduate student in political sic