I, on behalf of the 32 County Sovereignty Movement, would like to address some of the points raised by David Andrews in his column in The Irish Times on Saturday, May 26th, 2001.
The timing of this article is significant, given the recent attendance at the 57th session of the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva by a delegation of the 32 County Sovereignty Movement, led by myself as chairman. The remit of the delegation was twofold: to lodge an addendum to our earlier submission (lodged at UN headquarters, New York, in April 1998), with the office of the United Nations High Commissioner of Human Rights, Mary Robinson, and to present an oral intervention before the UN assembly, condemning both the British and Dublin governments for their human rights violations.
This was the first time a submission was lodged at the United Nations demanding an end to Britain's illegal occupation, and the restoration of Ireland's national sovereignty. Mr Andrews has poured scorn on these attempts, stating: "Speaking at an NGO conference in a UN sub-capital, needless to say, does not constitute putting one's case to the UN." This shows an incredible lack of understanding of the workings of the United Nations from a former minister of foreign affairs. The 57th session of the United Nations Human Rights Commission can hardly be described as "an NGO conference".
Any informed person would know the Human Rights Commission deals with human rights violations and that is precisely why the sovereignty movement chose this body. I can only assume his display of arrogance is an attempt to hide the failure of successive Dublin governments to pursue what was their own constitutional imperative. Our submission has obviously sent shock waves through the establishment and this is why Mr Andrews is attempting to rubbish our position.
His article is based on protecting the Government's flawed position, as they can only act within the 26county Constitution and not at a national level. They have failed the Irish citizens in the Northern occupied area and have failed to address the basic rights of all Irish citizens.
For Mr Andrews to suggest that to argue correctly the historical struggle for sovereignty is to give justification for violence is inaccurate and misleading. It is, in fact, the inaction by politicians in pursuance of national sovereignty that has prolonged conflict in Ireland.
Mr Andrews further asserts that the endorsement of the Stormont agreement in separate referendums was "an exercise jointly in an expression of self-determination by the Irish people for the first time since 1918". This assertion is flawed and is not shared by other signatories to the agreement.
Firstly, the Stormont agreement was subject to approval and endorsement by an external power - Britain - before being presented to the Irish people for ratification or rejection. Secondly, the parameters set for the "negotiations", which determined the outcome of the agreement, were clearly designed to copper-fasten Partition. Furthermore, it was made clear that the referendum in the six counties would be the primary determinant and would have the power of veto over the 26-counties referendum.
The unilateral suspension of the so-called sovereign decision of the Irish people by the British government belies the argument that the British recognised the agreement as a sovereign binding decision on them. The claim that the 1998 referendums replace the 1918 mandate is not a valid point for the aforementioned reasons.
We are deeply concerned at the claim by David Andrews that, to quote: "Arguments about Britain's denial of our right to self-determination no longer apply to the present or future, only to the past." This statement betrays an alarming level of political naivetΘ on the part of an individual who was foreign minister in the Dublin government at a time of high-level negotiations on the political future of our country.
To imply that Britain is an honest, impartial broker in our present situation, with no axe to grind, displays a high degree of ignorance of the British imperialist network, psyche and ethos, not just in Ireland today but throughout its colonies in its imperial heyday. How anyone could argue that the British presence on the island of Ireland is not a violation of Irish national sovereignty begs disbelief.
Furthermore, Mr Andrews argues that a sovereign Irish nation "is only obtainable, embracing the people of all 32 counties, in accordance with the constitutional provisions of the Good Friday agreement". This is at variance with the facts. The Irish people established a sovereign Irish nation in 1918. Successive British governments have subjugated this act of national self-determination through force and coercion - the latest example being the illegal 1998 referendums.
In our submission to the United Nations we also challenged the right of the Dublin Government in putting referendums before the people, bringing about a boundary change of the national territory, while armed aggression by the British was in force. This was a violation of Irish sovereignty. The issue of protecting Irish national sovereignty does not in any way countenance coercion of anyone within a democratic Irish settlement.
In conclusion, we welcome Mr Andrews's acceptance that there remain doubts about the "agreement" which requires clarification and discussion at a national level. Irish sovereignty cannot be cherry-picked to suit a particular political philosophy, irrespective of which party espouses it.
Mr Andrews's assertion about my not seeking re-election is nothing other than a red herring, given that I clearly outlined in a comprehensive statement that the 32 County Sovereignty Movement is not a political party and is constitutionally barred from standing for election. Had Mr Andrews taken the time to read my statement, he would not have misrepresented my position.
Francis Mackey is chairman of the 32 County Sovereignty Movement