Showing newest posts with label Gerry Adams. Show older posts
Showing newest posts with label Gerry Adams. Show older posts

Sunday, September 5, 2010

Euskadi Ta Askatasuna announce ceasfire



Responding to a call made last Friday by the Basque political parties Batasuna and Eusko Alkartasuna, ETA has announced a new initiative to resolve the conflict in Euskal Herria. 

In a statement spokespersons for ETA confirmed "its commitment to finding a democratic solution to the conflict". 

"In its commitment to a democratic process to decide freely and democratically our future, through dialogue and negotiations, Eta is prepared today as yesterday to agree to the minimum democratic conditions necessary to put in motion a democratic process, if the Spanish government is willing,"

"We call on all Basque citizens to continue in the struggle, each in their own field, with whatever degree of commitment they have, so that we can all cast down the wall of denial and make irreversible moves forward on the road to freedom."

Commenting on the Basque Ceasefire events Gerry said 'This is a significant statement and has the potential to bring about a permanent end to the long-running conflict in the Basque country. Its now vital that the Spanish government respond positively and grasp the opportunity'.

There is a regrettable mindset in Spanish political circles which believes that the more people they imprison or the more activists like Jon Anza who disappear only to reappear after many months in a morgue then the more progress is made in resolving the conflict.

They are wrong. The only way forward is inclusive political negotiations. Lets hope they take that step. 

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Gerry Adams on the way in which the Good Friday Agreement and St Andrew's Agreement can lead to a reunification of Ireland.




Below are comments made by Sinn Féin President Gerry Adams to the British Irish Parliamentary Assembly in Swansea. Here he outlines what he sees as the way forward in terms of achieving a United Ireland and the way in which the Good Friday and St Andrew's Agreements can help (and indeed have helped) in this process.

Clearly within such a short set of comments there are many areas that need to be addressed in greater detail, but as an overview of Sinn Féin's policy on how to achieve reunification it is an interesting article. Yet as we all now the devil is in the detail.

----------------------------------------------------

I want to begin by thanking the British Irish Parliamentary Assembly for the invitation to speak here today.

Over the years this Assembly, through its committees and plenary meetings, has created a context in which parliamentarians from Ireland and Britain are able to come together and discuss issues of mutual importance.

This Assembly especially allows TDs and MLAs, from the two elected bodies on the island of Ireland, to come together to discuss all-Ireland co-operation and related subjects.

While this institution, through the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body, predates the Good Friday Agreement, there can be no doubt that the focus of much of your work is rooted in that Agreement and the political institutions that emerged from it.

This is very important.

The Good Friday Agreement is a unique document.

It was born out of centuries of British involvement in Irish affairs. This resulted in conflict, communal division and sectarianism, the partition of the island of Ireland, the partition of Ulster, and the creation of a unionist dominated state in the north eastern part of our country.

Partition was not just a line on the map; it was the construction of a system of political apartheid which relied on discrimination and denied democracy and justice.

Resolving the many complexities resulting from this was never going to be easy.

The Good Friday Agreement and the St. Andrews Agreement put in place mechanisms and arrangements which seek to do that.

These include political matters, institutional arrangements, human rights, equality, policing, justice, language and culture issues.

As well as the crucial issue of constitutional matters.

And it does all of this in an all-Ireland context.

These Agreements are also significant instruments of change; real change in real ways in peoples daily lives.

For this reason elements of political unionism opposed to this new dispensation seek to minimise, to dilute and to delay its potential or to oppose it entirely.

So, the Good Friday Agreement and the St. Andrews Agreement continue to face huge challenges, not least in the failure of the British government to fulfil its obligations, for example, on Irish language rights.

But for the purpose of today’s remarks let me focus on the issue that has dominated politics from before partition – the constitutional issue! That is the relationship between Ireland and Britain.

The Good Friday Agreement clearly sets out the political realities.

It recognises that it is for the people of the island of Ireland to determine our own future – to exercise our self-determination.

In the event that a majority of people in the north prefer a sovereign United Ireland then the British government will legislate for it.

The agreement also sets out the mechanism by which this will happen – by means of a ‘border poll’.

So, there you have it.

The people living on the island of Ireland can determine our own future, and–when a majority in the north and a majority in the south opt for Irish re-unification, the constitutional process to bring that about will kick in.

The Good Friday Agreement therefore provides for a constitutional route to Irish unity.

That is a significant achievement.

Sinn Féin seeks to build on this by:

Working in partnership with others of like mind in Ireland to build political support for Irish reunification.

There is a particular responsibility for all parties in the Oireachtas and particularly for the government in Dublin to actively work for reunification.

We have to persuade unionists – or at least a section of unionism – that such a development makes political, social and economic sense – that it serves their self-interest.

There is already a growing awareness of the importance to our future prosperity and growth, of the all-Ireland economy and of all-Ireland connections in health, education, energy, the environment and much more.

These are commonsense arrangements which must be built upon.

Sinn Féin is also currently engaged with unionists and especially with disadvantaged unionist working class areas, to a greater extent than ever before.

We need to address the genuine fears and concerns of unionists in a meaningful way.

We need to look at what they mean by their sense of Britishness and be willing to explore and to be open to new concepts.

We need to look at ways in which the unionist people can find their place in a new Ireland.

In other words it needs to be their United Ireland.

So, there are many issues for republicans and unionists to talk about. However it is worth noting that within the current British system, unionists are fewer than 2 per cent of the population; they cannot hope to have any significant say in the direction of their own affairs.

As 20 per cent of a new Ireland, unionists will be able to assert their full rights and entitlements and exercise real political power and influence.

So, Sinn Féin’s vision of a new Ireland is of a shared Ireland, an integrated Ireland, an Ireland in which unionists have equal ownership; an Ireland in which there will be respect for cultural diversity, and a place in which there is political, social, economic and cultural equality.

There is no desire on the part of Irish republicans to conquer or humiliate unionists.

There can be no place for revenge in the thinking or vocabulary of Irish Republicanism.

Nationalists and republicans want our rights, but we do not seek to deny the rights of anybody else. The real distinction that we have always drawn is between justice and privilege. Justice for all and privilege for none.

This means, for example, that Orange marches will have their place, in a new Ireland albeit on the basis of respect and cooperation.

But the Irish question, as it has been described over the years by some, is not simply one for the Irish.

There is not only a democratic requirement on the part of the peoples of Britain to adopt a positive stance on how the Irish question should be finally settled, there is a moral imperative.

It is one thing saying that unionists should not be frogmarched into a united Ireland; it is another to adopt the position of silence in the face of whether or not a united Ireland should come into being, in whatever negotiated form that will entail.

The peoples of Britain have a duty to themselves, to unionists in particular, to the Irish in general, and even to the world, to stand up and speak their opinion on the issue of the reunification of Ireland.

I believe that the economic and political dynamics in Ireland today make Irish reunification a realistic and realisable goal in a reasonable period of time.

I invite the British Irish Parliamentary Assembly to join in this historic endeavour.

We have to persuade the British government to change its policy from one of upholding the union to one of becoming a persuader for Irish unity.

This also involves persuading the other political representatives of the peoples of these islands – whether in Scotland or Wales or the North of England or London or the Isle of Man or Guernsey, that their interests are also served by helping the people of Ireland achieve reunification.

There are also common sense economic and social and environmental and health and many other reasons why Irish reunification makes sense over partition.

In reality the border is more than just an inconvenience.

It is an obstacle to progress and while its adverse affects are most clearly felt in the communities that straddle the border, it also impacts negatively throughout the island.

The reality is that the economy of the North is too small to exist in isolation.

The economies of both parts of the island are interlinked and interdependent.

The delivery of public services is restricted and inefficient.

There are two competing industrial development bodies seeking inward investment, with no coordination in supporting local industries.

We have two arts councils and two sports councils and three tourists’ bodies.

This is not efficient.

There are some who suggest that because we live in a period of severe economic difficulty that Irish reunification should be put off for the foreseeable future.

In fact the opposite is the case.

There is now a need, more than ever, for the island economy to be brought into being in the fullest sense, and for the political and administrative structures to be instituted with that in mind.

Many in the business community, north and south, already recognise this fact.

And all the indications are that the European Union also understands how the needs of Ireland can best be met by treating it as an island rather than as two entities on an island.

Geography does not necessarily determine politics, but neither can it be ignored in assessing what is the most effective approach to meeting the challenges of economic development and satisfying the needs of communities.

The Good Friday agreement is an opportunity to develop understanding and to advocate rationally, the benefits of Irish reunification.

The institutional elements of the Good Friday Agreement and of St. Andrews are therefore important mechanisms to be built upon.

The Good Friday Agreement also proposed the establishment of an All-Ireland Civic Forum and an All-Ireland Parliamentary Forum.

An All-Ireland Civic Forum could offer a very important input for citizens throughout the island to discuss problems of a common nature.

It could also enable a greater level of mutual understanding to develop.

As for an All-Ireland Parliamentary Forum, the important work of this body provides ample evidence of the benefits that would derive from the establishment of such a body.

So, my friends if I was to reduce all of these remarks to one sentence it would be to repeat what I have said earlier; there is a democratic requirement and moral imperative on the part of the peoples of Britain to adopt a positive stance on how the Irish question should be finally settled.

This means initiating and supporting measures to bring about the reunification of the people of Ireland."

Sunday, August 2, 2009

Gerry Adams - The Orange Order, Shankhill Butchers, and the need for dialogue



Below is a piece from Gerry Adams' blog about the need for the Orange Order to get real about what the war in the North meant to both sides and to get over their victim mentality.


------------------------------------
July 31st 09


An Open letter to Drew Nelson


Regular Readers will remember that this blog wrote recently about Orangeism and the need for dialogue to resolve contentious orange marches.


At the 12th July celebrations Drew Nelson the Grand Secretary of the Orange Order rejected any talks with Sinn Féin.


But this blog is not for giving up on our orange brothers and sisters. I penned an open letter to him which the Belfast Telegraph carried this morning - Friday.


I addressed the issue of ‘respect’ which Drew raised and pointed out that ‘respect, if it is to be meaningful, must be mutual. If the Orange Order seeks ‘respect’ from others, then it in turn must respect the views of those who differ from them, and address their concerns in a peaceful and dignified way.’


Nowhere is this more necessary than in respect of those ‘parades through or fringing sensitive areas, where little or no respect has been shown to local residents. The annual insistence on contracting Loyalist paramilitary or ‘kick the pope’ bands, the appearance of UDA, UVF and YCF flags and bannerettes and the refusal to countenance alternative non-contentious routes, is hardly indicative of a manifestation of respect or Christian forbearance.


Mutual respect could also be demonstrated if the Orange Order and indeed all the Loyal Orders could agree to a process of meaningful dialogue with the political representatives of the Nationalist community. This should not present a difficulty for the leadership of the Orange Order whose members have over the years held discussions in Belfast and beyond with myself and other Republicans.’


I reminded Drew that the Orange Order declares itself to be ‘Christ-centred, Bible-based and Church grounded’ and in 1998 it agreed with the heads of the main Protestant Churches that you ‘cannot refuse to talk to anyone made in the image of God’. How do these declarations reconcile with your continued refusal to meet with Sinn Féin?


Drew Nelson accused me of glorifying IRA killings and demanded an apology, in particular for those 273 orange members killed by the IRA. In my open letter I tell him that I have never glorified IRA killings and I again ‘expressed my sincere regrets for the deaths and injuries caused by republicans. This includes members of loyal institutions.’


But I posed a number of questions to him. The 12th resolutions state that 335 members of the order were killed. Who killed the remaining 62? ‘Was it a direct or indirect result of membership of Loyalist paramilitaries? Were some brethren killed by members of the British Crown Forces, the same Crown who you reaffirm your devotion and loyalty to every 12th? How many nationalists were slain by Orangemen in Loyalist paramilitary groups? Or in the British Crown Forces?


I draw his attention to some examples of paramilitarism with the Order, for example, one Belfast lodge, that is renowned for its UVF connections, is the ‘Old Boyne Island Heroes’ LOL 633. Their bannerette listed 6 UVF lodge members who were killed in the recent conflict.


Six years ago this same Lodge took part in the contentious Whiterock parade along the Springfield Road. One of those taking part was Eddie McIlwaine, adorned with Orange sash who was sentenced to 8 years for his part in the Shankill Butcher’s campaign of terror.


There is a reference in the Bible which seems very appropriate at this point which says: “Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote of thy brother’s eye”. Matthew 7:3-5 (King James Version)


I said all of this not to make dialogue more difficult but to emphasis the need for all of us to set aside our differences in the interests of finding solutions.


The reality is the political and social and financial costs and risks presented by parades disputes are too great to ignore. ‘The Orange Order and Orangeism is a part of who we are as a nation. Irish republicans want a dialogue with the Orange in order that we can each understand and appreciate the position of the other.’


This blog and Irish republicans accept the right of the Order to parade and to promote its sense of orangeism. ‘But this has to be on the basis of equality and mutual respect and tolerance. The overwhelming majority of orange parades take place without rancour or dispute. But there are a small number which each year give cause for concern.’


And in my letter I again ask Drew Nelson and his colleagues to engage in dialogue with ‘local residents and with Sinn Féin and let us together seek to resolve these in a common sense and respectful manner. Our door is open.’


Note:


For those who are interested the six names on the Orange banner belonging to ‘Old Boyne Island Heroes’ LOL 633 are:


• Aubrey Reid was killed in a premature explosion while on ‘active service’ for the UVF;• Noel Shaw was killed in an internal UVF feud;


• John Bingham, a UVF commander was shot dead in 1986; He received an Orange funeral with members of his lodge flanking his coffin wearing traditional regalia.


• Brian Robinson a UVF and lodge member was shot dead on 2/9/1989 by a British Army undercover team, just after he shot dead a catholic resident of Ardoyne, Patrick McKenna. He also received an Orange funeral.


• Bobby ‘Basher’ Bates, also a UVF and lodge member, who was part of the Shankill Butchers gang which savagely killed many Catholics. He was shot dead by a fellow Loyalist in a revenge attack.


• And finally, Colin Craig, another UVF and lodge member, was shot dead by the INLA in 1994. He initially featured on the bannerette but was removed when it was alleged that he was an informer.


Sunday, July 12, 2009

The Gerry Adams view of the way forward for the Isrealie Palestine conflict.




In April Gerry Adams led a Sinn Féin delegation to Palestine/Isreal and in late June they released their report ‘Israel, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, April 2009 – A Report’. Below are some of the main points in the report.


Whilst I do not wish to deflect from the Palestinian cause, I find it impossible to read without thinking of the steps taken to bring about the current settlement in the north and I ask myself where would we be now if Sinn Féin had not gone down the path it did and Adams had not led the process in the way he did.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EXTRACTS FROM "ISREAL, THE GAZA STRIP AND THE WEST BANK, APRIL 2009"



It is obvious that the political conditions for ongoing violence and poverty and instability still dominate the situation.


These must be tackled effectively if a peace settlement is to have any potential for success.


It was also clear from the scores of Israeli and Palestinian citizens that the Sinn Féin delegation met that there is a deep desire for peace.
This desire must be turned into reality.

I believe that dialogue is key to this.
The Sinn Féin peace strategy helped create the conditions for the Irish peace process, which has transformed political conditions in Ireland.



While no two conflicts are the same there are nonetheless broad principles which can be helpful in all conflict resolution processes.

Sinn Féin's position is that the integrity of all democratic mandates should be respected and accepted. And, clearly, any attempt to achieve peace must involve dialogue between opponents and enemies.


Sinn Féin's view of the situation.

In brief this included the following opinions:
_ The situation had deteriorated since my first visit in September 2006.
_ Israelis and Palestinians are destined to share the same piece of ground and to live side by side.
_ Everyone deserves and requires justice, stability, security and peace.
_ A two-state solution holds out the best prospect to secure these objectives.
_ Dialogue is central to this.
_ There should be a complete cessation of all hostilities and freedom of
movement for everyone.

What is needed:
_ The firing of rockets should cease.
_ The building of Separation Wall should stop as a first step towards its demolition.
_ The building of Settlements should stop.


GAZA

Over a three week period from 27 December 2008 to 18 January 2009 it is reported that:
_ Over 1400 people were killed including more than 400 children and over a hundred women.
_ Casualties were in the region of 5,000 including 1,800 children and almost 800 women.

The resultant suffering past and present, especially within a population of which 60% are under 18 years of age, can only store up a festering resentment which will fuel further conflict in the absence of a political settlement.

What is needed:
_ The siege of the Gaza strip should end.
_ International aid on an appropriately large scale should immediately be injected into the area to relieve suffering, restore essential services and kick start the reconstruction of the area.
_ All armed actions or threats of armed action should cease.


Several Palestinians, supporters of the peace process route, mature in both age and political experience told me that they feel as angry now as they did when they were teenagers.

They find, in themselves and their contemporaries, a hardening of attitudes.
Others voice the opinion that generations coming up, unless there is a peace settlement, will make Al Qaeda, in retrospect, looking like moderates.
Conclusions
During my two brief visits to the region and in my conversations with all of those I met I believe that there is a widespread desire for peace among Israelis and Palestinians.

The opinion polls consistently reflect this.

Dialogue has to be a central tenet of any attempt to make peace; to achieve justice, stability, security and peace.

Refusing to engage in dialogue; demonising opponents; treating them as non citizens; stripping them of their rights and entitlements, of their self esteem and integrity as human beings; engaging in censorship and vilification, makes war easier and peace harder.

It is a policy that guarantees a perpetuation of the cycle of conflict.



The international experience is clear.

There are two ways to end conflict. Either one side convincingly beats the other or all of those involved engage in the more difficult and challenging process of peace making.
61 years after the emergence of the Israeli state and the partition of Palestine, and with the increasing sophistication of the weapons of war on all sides, it is clear that no wall - however high -can provide permanent peace or security.

A political settlement is required and this is only possible if there is a recognition and acceptance of democratic mandates of all of the participants.

Peace making is conducted by and between enemies not between friends.


That means that a necessary element of a conflict resolution process in the Middle East, which hopes to achieve a successful outcome, must be an acceptance of inclusive dialogue based on equality and respect.

This required a serious, good faith effort to engage between political opponents.

And this will require determination and commitment to stick with it through all of the inevitable arguments and differences and crises that will emerge.

For Palestinians this means uniting in the national interest by agreeing a truly national political platform involving all of the Palestinian parties.
Fail to do this and the age old tactic of divide and rule will weaken the Palestinian ability to achieve their rights through negotiation.

Party political interests need to be subsumed in the national and democratic cause.

For the Israelis the challenge is equally daunting.

Israel is a major regional and world power.

It has the ability to continue to pursue and implement policies which foster division and conflict, or it can take dramatic decisions for peace.

For both a two-State solution appears to hold out the greatest prospect for an acceptable and durable solution.

Such a settlement would also greatly enhance Israel's standing with its neighbours.

The Arab League peace, which includes a proposal to normalise relationships with Israel, could be a watershed moment in the effort to bring stability to that region.

The recent positions set out by President Obama, and the appointment of Senator George Mitchell, are welcome developments. The United States of America has a particular role to play and is certainly the most influential international player on the Israeli authorities.


29
The wider international community also has an important role to play also, especially Egypt, Jordan and Syria, Saudi Arabia, the wider Arab world, the Government of Iran and the European Union, Turkey, China and the United Nations and Russia.

All can and must provide encouragement, incentives, persuasions, economic and other aid as appropriate and the application without fear or favour of internationally agreed laws and standards.

But in the end it is for Palestinians and Israelis to make the peace.



And that means the renewed commitment to agreements and understandings already reached as the basis to resume timetabled negotiations, for an overall settlement, which includes a timetable for Implementation.


IMMEDIATE STEPS
_ All armed actions and acts of violence should cease.
_ An inclusive process of negotiations should commence in which all democratic mandates are respected, clear objectives are set, and there is a fixed timeframe.
_ The building of the Separation Wall should stop as a first step which would see its demolition.
_ The siege of the Gaza Strip should end.
_ An immediate and intensive programme of reconstruction and economic development must commence.
_ The ongoing Israeli colonisation of the West Bank and the building of settlements should stop.
_ The occupation of the West Bank and the denial of freedom of movement to Palestinians in the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip, and between the West Bank and Gaza, should end as part of the process to decolonise the West Bank.
_ Mutual and expeditious co-operation between Palestinians and Israelis to enhance public safety and security should commence.
_ United Nations Resolutions and International Law should be enforced.