Report of the Sinn Féin Peace Commission

Introduction

This document is presented by Sinn Féin for discussion and as an answer to those who claim that there is no alternative to the continuation of British rule. It does not represent the definitive republican position, nor is it exclusive of other proposals dealing with alternative scenarios for a British withdrawal from Ireland.

The first section re-iterates the Irish people's right to national self-determination, the second section deals with the question of the loyalists and the final section proposes a way in which the British government could withdraw and transfer power to an all-Ireland constitutional convention and national government.

National Self-Determination

THE island of Ireland, throughout history, has been universally regarded as one unit.

The historical and contemporary existence of the Irish nation has never been disputed.

The Irish people have never relinquished their claim to the right of self-determination.

What has been in contest is the right of the Irish people, as a whole, to self-determination and their freedom to exercise that right.

For centuries, the relationship between the British government and the Irish people has been the relationship between the conqueror and the conquered, the oppressor and the oppressed.

The perennial cycle of oppression/domination/resistance/oppression has been a constant feature of the British government's involvement in Ireland and the Irish people's rejection of that government's usurpation of the right to exercise control over their political, social, economic and cultural destiny.

From the late 17th century onwards, that usurpation provoked both revolutionary resistance and, within the narrowest confines of British constitutional legality, constitutional opposition. In the course of the 19th century, British oppression and famine caused the population of Ireland to be halved.

The only occasion on which the people of all Ireland have been permitted to hold free and fair elections to determine their political future was in the 1918 Westminster election. Sinn Féin, with a political programme demanding complete independence for the unitary state of Ireland, won the election with 69% of the vote. Those democratically-elected representatives of the Irish people formed Dail Eireann and, on January 21st, 1919, enacted the Declaration of Independence.

The Anglo-lrish Treaty of 1922, the partition of Ireland and the Constitution of the Irish Free State were imposed on the Irish people under the threat of "immediate and terrible war''. They were not submitted to the Irish people for ratification and their imposition represents a denial to the Irish people of the freedom to exercise their right to self-determination. The pretext for partition - the wishes of a national minority to maintain British rule - holds no validity against the express wishes of the vast majority of the Irish people.

Secession is not the same as self-determination.

Partition perpetuates the British government's denial of the Irish people's right to self-determination. It perpetuates the cycle of oppression/domination/resistance/oppression. In the words of Séan MacBride, winner of the Nobel and Lenin Peace Prizes:

"Ireland's right to sovereignty, independence and unity are inalienable and indefeasible. It is for the Irish people as a whole to determine the future status of Ireland. Neither Britain nor a small minority selected by Britain has any right to partition the ancient island of Ireland, nor to determine its future as a sovereign nation.''

Law

IRELAND'S RIGHT to sovereignty, independence and unity, the right of the Irish people, as a whole, to self-determination, is supported by universally recognised principles of International law.

The right to self-determination is enshrined in the two United Nations' Covenants of 1966, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights. Article 1 of each covenant states:

"1. All peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they determine their economic, social and cultural development.''

The landmark Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations declares:

"... all people have the right freely to determine, without external influence, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development and every state has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter.''

Partition is in contravention of the United Nations' Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. Article 6 of which states:

"Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.''

Loyalists

THE MAJOR stumbling block to Independence Is British colonial interference. However, it suits the British and the loyalists for the loyalists to be portrayed as the real obstacle to that Independence and allows Westminster off the hook, projecting itself as the `honest broker'.

While we in no way wish to ignore the economic challenge which reunification presents, or minimise the extent of the problem, or the great trauma that will be experienced by the unionist population, we believe that loyalism derives an artificial psychological strength from the British presence, from the Union. Indeed, the relationship between intransigence and past unconditional British support is recognised (though unacknowledged) by Thatcher's government, part of whose present strategy, via the Hillsborough Treaty, is to rock the morale of loyalists, split the unionists and force the emergence of a pragmatic leadership which will do an internal deal with the SDLP.

The loyalists are a national minority in Ireland. According to most opinion polls, the majority of people in Britain want to wash their hands of Ireland. Increasingly, loyalists are finding themselves in an untenable position. Their protest campaign against the Hillsborough Treaty has cost them dearly in PR terms and to the British public it has only emphasized the differences between the Six Counties and Britain. Their refusal to enter into dialogue (with anyone) and their disillusionment with the British government is producing a momentum towards disaster where Civil War, or a Unilateral Declaration of Independence, or repartition are among the irrational proposals put forward by some of the paramilitaries and politicians.

Sinn Féin seeks a new constitution for Ireland which would include written guarantees for those presently constituted as 'loyalists'. This would recognise present-day social reality and would include, for example, the provisions for family planning and the right to civil divorce.

The resolution of the conflict would free unionists from their historic laager mentality and would grant them real security instead of tenure based on repression and triumphalism. We do not intend to turn back the pages of history, or to dispossess the loyalists and foolishly attempt to reverse the Plantation. We offer them a settlement based on their throwing in their lot with the rest of the Irish people and ending sectarianism. We offer them peace. We offer them equality. It is only through the process of decolonisation and dialogue that a peaceful, stable Ireland will emerge. Only when independence is restored can Ireland hope to prosper and take her place among the nations of the world. Britain must take the initiative and declare its intention to withdraw. That is the first step on the road to peace. Republicans will respond quickly and positively.

A Scenario For Peace

THE ENDING of partition, a British disengagement from Ireland and the restoration to the Irish people of the right to exercise self-sovereignty remain the only solution to the British colonial conflict In Ireland.

The Hillsborough Treaty and the processes it involves seek merely to camouflage the fact that the Six-County state is a failed entity, socially, economically and politically. The Treaty does not challenge the constitutional status of the Union but actually reinforces it.

Sinn Féin seeks to create conditions which will lead to a permanent cessation of hostilities, an end to our long war and the development of a peaceful, united and independent Irish society. Such objectives will only be achieved when a British government adopts a strategy for decolonisation.

It must begin by repealing the 'Government of Ireland Act' and publicly declaring that the 'Northern Ireland' statelet is no longer part of the United Kingdom.

Furthermore, it must declare that its military forces and its system of political administration will remain only for as long as it takes to arrange their permanent withdrawal.

This would need to be accomplished within the shortest practical period. A definite date within the lifetime of a British government would need to be set for the completion of this withdrawal. Such an irreversible declaration of intent would minimize any loyalist backlash and would go a long way towards bringing round to reality most loyalists and those of their representatives genuinely interested in peace and negotiation. It would be the business of such negotiations to set constitutional, economic, social and political arrangements for a new Irish state through a Constitutional Conference.

Constitutional Conference

FREE ELECTIONS to an all-Ireland Constitutional Conference would be arranged. The conference would consist of the elected representatives of the Irish people and would be open to submissions from all significant organisations in Ireland (e.g. the Trade Union Movement, the Women's Movement, the Churches) and would draw up a new constitution and organize a national system of government.

While the conference could have no influence on the decision by Britain to withdraw, it would play an important role in organizing the transition to a new governmental system. Should it fail agreement on a new Constitution, or on any other matter, a British withdrawal would proceed anyway within the fixed time period.

Republicans have consistently asserted that the loyalist people, in common with all other citizens, must be given firm guarantees of their religious and civil liberties and we repeat our belief that, faced with a British withdrawal and the removal of partition, a considerable body of loyalist opinion would accept the wisdom of negotiating for the type of society which would reflect their needs and interests. The irreversible nature of a British withdrawal strategy would be a major influence in convincing loyalists that we were entering into a new situation which could not be changed by the traditional methods of loyalist intransigence.

British Withdrawal

AS PART of the military withdrawal, the RUC and UDR would be disarmed and disbanded.

The introduction of United Nations forces or European forces to supervise a British withdrawal or fill any alleged vacuum would only frustrate a settlement and must be avoided. Experience in other conflicts has shown that such a `temporary' presence would become `permanent' and the deployment would have a political bias. Their subsequent withdrawal would become a point of contention and there would be a re-run of the bloodbath-threat scenario. Similarly, there should be a real effort to avoid the introduction of forces from the 26 Counties.

The Constitutional Conference would be responsible for determining the nature and composition of an emergent national police service and the judiciary. There is absolutely no doubt in our minds that, if Britain were to be sincere about disengaging and was committed to an orderly transference of power, this could be achieved with a minimum of disorder.

All political prisoners would be unconditionally released.

A cessation of all offensive military actions by all organizations would create the climate necessary for a peaceful transition to a negotiated settlement.

As part of the settlement, the British government must accept the responsibility for providing financial support by agreeing by Treaty with the national government to provide economic subvention for an agreed period. Given the disastrous involvement of British rule in Ireland, reparations for an agreed period are the least contribution Britain could make to ensure an orderly transition to a national democracy and the harmonisation of the economies, North and South.

Section 2.6

Paragraph 5

Declaration text. Paragraph 5 5.

The Taoiseach, on behalf of the Irish Government, considers that the lessons of Irish history, and especially of Northern Ireland, show that stability and well being will not be found under any political system which is refused allegiance or rejected on grounds of identity by a significant minority of those governed by it. For this reason, it would be wrong to attempt to impose a united Ireland, in the absence of the freely given consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland. He accepts, on behalf of the Irish Government, that the democratic right of self-determination by the people of Ireland as a whole must be achieved and exercised with the subject to the agreement and consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland and must, consistent with justice and equity, respect the democratic dignity and the civil rights and religious liberties of both communities, including:

 the right of free political thought;

 the right of freedom and expression of religion;

 the right to pursue democratically national and political aspirations;

 the right to seek constitutional change by peaceful and legitimate means;

 the right to live wherever one chooses without hindrance;

 the right to equal opportunity in all social and economic activity, regardless of class, creed, sex or colour.

These would be reflected in any future political and constitutional arrangements emerging from a new and more broadly based agreement.

Derry Submissions

Mary Reid, a community activist, points out that the only reference to Six County nationalists in this paragraph. She argues that neither government is prepared to recognise unionist hegemony.

Aine Mhaire Ni Sheoighe counted 12 references to the reinforcement of the unionist veto in the Declaration. She believes that the Declaration lacks the reassurances sought by the Nationalist community.

Dublin Submissions

Cormac Breathnach felt that peace process must address the many injustices of the last 25 years. D6, a private submission emphasised that the Republican Movement should emphasise "its belief in the fundamental and inalienable rights of man and the removal of inbuilt barriers in social and political structures which prevent free expression of those rights".

Sean 0 Donaile asks how can nationalists take the rights listed in paragraph 5ns that "If this paragraph were applied to the Nationalist community within N.Ireland there would be no need for the Declaration at all as there would probably be no armed conflict".

Cork Submissions

Enda O'Riordain feels the commitments by Reynolds in both this paragraph and paragraph 6 is in fact an acceptance by the Irish government of the unionist veto outlined by Major in paragraphs 2 and 4.

Belfast Submissions

The Falls Community Council gave a clear outline of what rights and guarantees they wanted included in a new Ireland. The chief aim of these should be to create institutions "to which everyone can give their allegiance and which guarantees equal treatment to all citizens".

Paragraph 5 according to Paddy Doherty shows how far the Dublin government is prepared to go to "convince unionists of their sincerity". He felt that that unionists would not be able to respond in a positive way while Britain upholds unionist veto.

The Divis Joint Development Committee believed that there must be a bill of rights in the event of an agreement and the principle of secularism must be built into any such agreement.

The Lower Ormeau Residents Association proposed that citizenship can only be "based on equality and only on this basis can a truly pluralist society, which respects the religious and cultural needs of all its citizens be built". They propose that there would have to be equal funding in all areas.

Fr Des Wilson echoed this in his submission when he argued for "total and absolute equality for all citizens; this equality and freedom will not be guaranteed by a bill of rights and a constitution". He argues that "the only way of ensuring that governmental abuse is curbed is by giving citizen's power". He states that this has never existed in the north of Ireland. Britain has to be committed to the creation of a democracy.

However the Ulster Quaker Peace Committee believed that within the Declaration there is a good basis "for guaranteeing the civil rights and liberties of both communities. Ensuring parity of esteem must be enshrined in any future agreement".

Belfast Equality like Derry Equality highlight in their submission the system of economic apartheid constructed in the Six Counties by the unionists and successive British governments. They believe this affects the credibility of the whole document. They point out that Britain has failed to address the issues of equality. They say that nowhere in the Declaration are the issues of economic inequality that still persist mentioned.

Paragraph 5; Summary

Submissions highlighted the phrase in this paragraph where the Taoiseach accepts that "the democratic right of self determination by the people of Ireland as a whole must be achieved and exercised with and subject to the agreement and consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland". Many submissions saw this as an acceptance by the Dublin Government of the unionist veto and partition as a legitimate framework.

The list of civil and human rights also in paragraph five raised considerable comment in the submissions. A range of submissions wondered why both governments did not subscribe to this part of the Declaration.

The second issue raised about paragraph 5 was as to why there was no mention of rights of the nationalist community in the Six Counties. They asked if it is wrong as is stated in paragraph 5 to impose a united Ireland in the absence of "freely given consent", where does this leave the nationalists of the Six Counties. The submissions, which addressed this point also, stated the nationalists living in the Six Counties had their democratic rights denied to them solely because their homes lay within a geographical boundary drawn only to create an artificial regional majority — in fact a national minority. A minority whose votes now supersede all others.

These submissions asked, were the rights outlined in paragraph 5 a recognition that "democratic dignity and civil rights" were systematically denied to the nationalist community? They asked, that if that is the case, why does the Declaration not state so plainly?

Section 2.7

Paragraph 7

Declaration text. Paragraph 7 7.

Both Governments accept that Irish unity would be achieved only by those who favour this outcome persuading those who do not, peacefully and without coercion or violence, and that, if in the future a majority of the people of Northern Ireland are so persuaded, both Governments will support and give legislative effect to this wish. But, notwithstanding the solemn affirmation by both Governments in the Anglo-Irish Agreement that any change in the status of Northern Ireland would only come about with the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, the Taoiseach also recognises the continuing uncertainties and misgivings which dominate so much of Northern Unionist attitudes towards the rest of Ireland. He believes that we stand at a stage of our history when the genuine feelings of all traditions in the North must be recognised and acknowledged. He appeals to both traditions at this time to grasp the opportunity for a fresh start and a new beginning, which could hold such promise for all our lies and the generations to come. He asks the people of Northern Ireland to look on the people of the Republic as friends, who share their grief and shame over all the suffering of the last quarter of a century, and who want to develop the best possible relationship with them, a relationship in which trust and new understanding can flourish and grow. The Taoiseach also acknowledges the presence in the Constitution of the Republic of elements which are deeply resented by Northern Unionists, but which at the same time reflect hopes and ideals, which lie deep in the hearts of many Irish men and women North and South. But as we move towards a new era of understanding in which new relationships of trust may grow and bring peace to the island of Ireland, the Taoiseach believes that the time has come to consider together how best the hopes and identities of all can be expressed in more balanced ways, which no longer engender division and the lack of trust to which he has referred. He confirms that, in the event of an overall settlement, the Irish Government will, as part of a balanced constitutional accommodation, put forward and support proposals for change in the Irish Constitution, which would fully reflect the principle of consent in Northern Ireland.

Derry Submissions

Forum 2&3 were concerned at the promise by Albert Reynolds in paragraph 7 of the Declaration that the Irish Government would "put forward and support proposals for change in the Irish constitution which would fully reflect the principle of consent in Northern Ireland". They say "Does it not seem ironic that when, for the first time in Anglo-Irish relations, Britain acknowledges the Irish people's right to national self determination, it seem Ireland might seek to relinquish such a claim".

Galway Submissions

Brendan Murray asks "will Britain be a persuader for Irish unity and will it bring about balanced constitutional accommodation for Nationalists in the meantime as An Taoiseach states the Republic will for Unionists?'.

Paragraph 7; Summary

In paragraph 7, the Taoiseach again returns to allaying unionist fears. He acknowledges the "presence in the Constitution of the Republic of elements which are deeply resented by Northern Unionists". Later in the paragraph the Taoiseach confirms that "in the event of an overall settlement, the Irish Government will, as part of a balanced constitutional accommodation, put forward and support proposals for change in the Irish constitution which would fully reflect the principle of consent in Northern Ireland".

The Submissions picked out three issues arising here.

Firstly they asked, why is there no mention again of the fears of Six-County nationalists? In the event of a constitutional accommodation not being reached what guarantees do they have in he Declaration from the British government? None.

Secondly, if there were a "constitutional accommodation" would this involve changes to the Government of Ireland Act. Why is there not a similar commitment from the British government in this paragraph? It detracts from the whole document that this balance is missing.

Thirdly submissions, which addressed this paragraph, felt that, a change in the Irish constitution to replace or supplement the British guarantee to the union will only ferment the conflict and cause nationalists to feel betrayed and isolated from the rest of Ireland. They believed that it could be the acceptance of partition as a political solution.

Section 2.8

Paragraph 9

Declaration text, Paragraph 9

9. The British and Irish Government will seek, along with the Northern Ireland constitutional parties through a process of political dialogue, to create institutions and structures, which, while respecting the diversity of the people of Ireland, would enable them to work together in all areas of common interest. This will help over a period to build the trust necessary to end past divisions, leading to an agreed and peaceful future. Such structures would, of course, include institutional recognition of the special links that exist between the peoples of Britain and Ireland as part of the totality of relationships, while taking account of newly forged links with the rest of Europe.

Derry Submissions

John Neil proposed a parliament or a forum open to all the people of Ireland and local autonomy for the regions as possible new structures.

Dublin Submissions

Sean 0 Donaile asks will the new structures promised in paragraph 9 mean the dismantlement of the RUC and RIR. He asks will the local government be expanded and given more powers, and could nationalists trust these institutions. He argues that this is all unclear.

Rita Ui Raghaill points out that many nationalists in the North do no want a mere extension of the 26-County state and that this is a false understanding of an agreed united Ireland.

Michael Farrell also thought that issues such as the RUC, RIR and British Army need to be grappled with.

Cork Submissions

John Redington writes in his submission that within the current status quo "the British Government must provide sufficient incentives through legislation for the Nationalist community". He believes that these must include "guarantees of participation in the structures of government", "official recognition of distinctive expressions of culture" and safeguarding their rights in all spheres of legislation

Central Submissions

CEN 27 made a very detailed analysis of the role of local democracy. They made a range of detailed suggestions as to what measures could be taken so as to ensure democratic rights both now and in the future. They argue that if the Declaration is about a democratic solution, then powers currently exercised at an executive level should be returned to local statutory bodies.

Moya Frenz St. Leger proposed a range of new structures including an Anglo-Irish Commission to rewrite the Irish constitution to accommodate the aspirations and requirements of the people of Northern Ireland. Other proposals include the setting of a date for withdrawal and a provisional date for relinquishing sovereignty.

Paragraph 9; Summary

Many of the submissions saw this paragraph as signalling the intent of both governments to create new democratic structures for the island. Many submissions believed that the criteria for such talks should be the mandate of public representatives without preconditions as to their political affiliations. One view of the paragraph from the submissions was that it includes a specific pre-condition aimed at Sinn Fein and we believe that this fundamentally undemocratic, unacceptable and out of step with other elements of the Declaration. The Declaration claims to be a set of principles but here in this paragraph submissions pointed out the inclusion of a pre-condition, which is not a principle.

The second issue submissions raised about this paragraph are the proposals for new institutions and structures. They asked what present structures is an impediment to peace and why? Some submissions had a very simple answer to this. They believed that it is the undemocratic structure of the Six-County state that was at fault. Submissions believed that there is a need to elaborate on the scope of such change.

Section 2.9

Paragraph 10

Declaration text, Paragraph 10 10.

The British and Irish Governments reiterate that the achievement of peace must involve a permanent end to the use of, or support for, paramilitary violence. They confirm that, in these circumstances, democratically mandate parties which establish a commitment to exclusively peaceful methods and which have shown that they abide by the democratic process, are free to participate fully in democratic politics and to join in dialogue in due course between the Governments and the political parties on the way ahead.

Derry Submissions

JJ Me Shane asks in his submission how would nationalist areas be policed during the three-month period. "Would the RUC be disbanded he asks and be replaced by an unarmed and 50% Catholic police force. He also asks what role would the RIR have.

Ainemhaire Ni Sheoighe points out that in point 10 "Both governments talk of an end to 'the use and support of paramilitary violence". She believes that this point must be clarified "Does it mean an end to loyalist and British violence also. She believes that there must be demilitarisation by all to make the political process viable.

Dublin Submissions

Sean 0 Donaile points out that paragraph 10 makes no reference to British or loyalist violence. He asks will the call for and end to " the use of, or support of paramilitary violence", include the termination of the RUC leaking documents to loyalists death squads and other forms of collusion. He asks "will it involve the ending of physical harassment by the security forces, the use of plastic bullets and regular torture in Castlereagh". Finian McGrath also felt that discrimination against nationalists needs to be highlighted. He felt there was a need a new social and economic framework. John Montgomery PRO for Ballyfermot Community Association says in his submission that it is wrong to expect demilitarisation on one side only. He writes, "Some system of joint monitoring of the administration of trial, sentencing and policing would have to be developed".

Galway Submissions

In his submission Joe Neylon describes this as a carrot article for the Republican Movement and Sinn Fein. He also points out that the "State security forces" are never mentioned in the Declaration.

Brendan Murray believed that the achievement of peace must include the withdrawal of the British army from Ireland.

An anonymous submission G29 believed that the meaning of paragraph 10 was that "the British reserve the right to use violence in Ireland".

A submission from Dermot Connolly felt that peace can only be achieved by removal of injustices.

Belfast Submissions

The Divis Joint Development Committee believed that if there is a total cessation of hostilities it must be inclusive and simultaneous for all parties. There would have to disbandment and replacement of the RUC and RIR.

An anonymous submission (B7) believed that the Declaration itself "does offer a structured movement towards demilitarisation". However the submission believed there was a "whole series of unanswered questions". In particular the submission highlighted the issue of loyalist violence and British harassment of nationalists. Would there be a "defacto return to barracks".

Fr Gerry Reynolds, Clonard Monastery Belfast, sees the Declaration as "the end of the present form of British involvement in Ireland".

Paragraph 10; Summary

This paragraph raised considerable comment in the submissions. Most who did address this paragraph asked why does the paragraph only specify "paramilitary" violence. They said that the Declaration makes no mention of the British army and its garrison, the largest armed force engaged in the conflict. The submissions on this paragraph believed that the implication of the Declaration is that non-state violence is the cause of the problem rather than a political conflict. They pointed out that there is no commitment on the British Government's behalf to demilitarise the conflict.

Many submissions made reference to Albert Reynolds' statements on demilitarisation as being the focus that should be taken. Finally submissions, which addressed this paragraph, pointed out that the paragraph makes two references to democratically mandated parties and the democratic process. They believed that Sinn Fein should be included in any talks process as it is a democratically mandated party.

Section 2.10

Paragraph 11

Declaration text. Paragraph 11 11.

The Irish Government would make their own arrangements within their jurisdiction to enable democratic parties to consult together and share in dialogue about the political future. The Taoiseach's intention is that these arrangements could include the establishment, in consultation with other parties, of a Forum for Peace and Reconciliation to make recomm-endations on ways in which agreement and trust between both traditions in Ireland can be promoted and established.

Derry Submissions

John Robb welcomed the proposed Forum in his submission and believed it could lead to new institutions and structures.

Dublin Submissions

Roger Cole in his submission writes that the Forum proposed in paragraph 11 represents a framework where democratic national forces could develop a common approach.

Paragraph 11; Summary

The Forum for Peace and Reconciliation was a welcome proposal by the submissions, which addressed the issue.

Section 2.11

General

Derry

The Peace and Reconciliation Group were encouraged by the fact that the Declaration was actually written. They believed that despite its "shortcomings and ambiguities, it does contain some positive features for all the people of the island". They also argued that the Declaration does need to be "clarified to everyone's satisfaction".

The Springfield Inter Community Development Project believed that distrust was the biggest obstacle to any solution and that any dialogue that excludes any party to the conflict is meaningless and must not be dictated by preconditions. They welcomed the Declaration as a step in the process. An anonymous resident from Carnhill (Derry 27) believed that the Declaration is full of contradictions and attempts to be all things to all people but is a good opportunity to bring the conflict to an end. Another anonymous submission (Derry 28) believed that the union is as good as dead and that there is no real affection between the British government and the unionist people. The person believed that "peace would transform the situation".

Dublin Submissions

The Peace Train submission believed that the Declaration provides a basis for upon which a just peaceful and mutually respectful future can be built.

However Ulick O'Connor took an opposing view to the Declaration as a whole when he says that in previous agreements such as Sunningdale "the British Government failed to fulfil its obligations". This was echoed in Rita Ui Raghaill, who says in her submission that the British government has given no indication that it is worthy of trust. She felt that Britain must give more assurances to nationalists. Michael Farrell also made this point when he says that the British Government must be pressurised to balance the Declaration with equivalent guarantees to nationalists in North.

Matt Merrigan took this a step further and said in his submission that the British Government must state what the next step is after the Declaration.

Eoin 0 Mhurchu proposed in his submission that one of the next steps should be the formation of a nationalist consensus. He believed that the Declaration did signify a shift by Britain. He argued that a mass national movement was the logical step in the desire for creating a lasting peace.

Cork Submissions

J McLaughlin stresses in his submission that "any political settlement in N. Ireland should acknowledge formally that there are two ethnic groups in Northern Ireland".

Green Party member Vincent MacDowell describes the Declaration in his submission as "inadequate". He believes that "the Northern Irish people should not be required to submit to an arrogant Diktat, whose terms they had no hand in composing".

Labhras 0 Donnghaile argued for clarification in his submission. However he also believed that clarification should not only be sought from the two governments but from all groups who have been loud in support of the Declaration.

Brendan Ryan said in his submission that the Declaration was a viable alternative. He believed that it had changed the political climate and was a unique opportunity to make silenced people heard. Jim Corocoran also felt that conditions now exist for opportunities to advance. Green party councillor Dan Boyle articulated this in a different way when he says the Declaration is a political fudge, but this necessary as it could bring everyone to the table.

John Redington wrote in his submission wrote that "The Six Counties is an unstable constitutional entity in which normal participatory democracy cannot develop".

Professor John Maguire in his submission argues that the prospect of an Irish democracy poses a deep challenge to the British establishment in that it would be a crucial blow to their own polity.

The submission from the Cork Council of trade unions emphasised the need for negotiation. They said that settlements, which fail to get to the root of a problem, tend only to be of a temporary nature. They felt that "a door is open for negotiation".

Belfast Submissions

Liz Groves in her Submission felt that the document as a whole was little different from the 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement which she writes "didn't make any difference to our lives, nor did it redress the imbalance of equality and injustice". She supported clarification being given to Sinn Fein.

The Falls Community council believed that "interpretation of the document differed between the two governments".

An anonymous submission (B7) believed that the Declaration "is the last and best hope for the Republican Movement to come in from the cold.

Former leader of the Corrymeela Community, economics lecturer, John W Morrow said in his submission that though the Declaration "is no panacea for all our ills" it is a statement by both Governments "that they have no desire, on either side to impose their will on us". He does not specify whether this "us" is the people of all Ireland or just the Six Counties.

An anonymous submission from a protestant cleric (B 15) argued that if the Republican Movement accepts the Declaration "there is everything to negotiate for, everything to lobby for/ and everything to legislate for".

Feile an Phobail in their submission argue, "a new approach must be adopted". They write that this new approach must be "one that includes all opinion and thought, looks at all ideas and excludes none".

Initiative '92 believed that Protestants do not want to become part of an all Ireland state and that the Republic cannot absorb the north in the foreseeable future. They do not rule out Irish unity as a long-term objective but believe that what is required in the short term is parity of esteem and equality.

The Springfield Inter Community Development Project wrote in their submission that "The main issue now for the Republican Movement is not getting the Brits out of Ireland but convincing those who look upon themselves as British that their true destiny lies in an Irish Socialist Republic". William Rutherford took this another way in his submission when he said, "Your real task is to persuade and convince the Unionist community that a united Ireland is in their best interest".

The Corrymeela Current Affairs Group believed that the Declaration "offers a possible opportunity for us all to begin to rebuild".

Central Submissions

Dr R M Temple felt that the Declaration was a window of opportunity for nationalist inclusion in the Six Counties and that nationalist aspirations were recognised in the Declaration.

The submission CEN 3 felt that "the declaration is deliberately a studied ambiguity". However they still felt it was a progressive document in that the British government now sought the inclusion of republicanism rather than a policy, which entailed smashing the Republican Movement.

Tom Lyne wrote in his submission that the Declaration "goes much further in recognising the legitimacy of nationalist aims than could have been expected of a government dependent on Ulster Unionist votes". He believes that the Declaration "concedes that the continued partition of Ireland is not in the interests of the British state".

Aidan McCourt states in his submission that "the documents contents and subsequent qualifying statements by both government leaders would appear to put the prospect of a united Ireland on the long finger". He says that in this context "one could expect there to be some assurances given directly to Nationalists in the Six Counties". He says that "not once in the document are Northern Nationalists even mentioned and no recognition is given to the historic and ongoing discrimination that they have suffered in a state that they are told they must accept for the foreseeable future".

Pax Christi interprets the Declaration as providing an unprecedented opportunity. They say that it recognises the aspirations of republicans as being legitimate.