[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 21 (Wednesday, March 2, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: March 2, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
PEACE IN NORTHERN IRELAND?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. Cooper). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of February 11, 1994, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Neal] is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority
leader.
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, tonight we rise again for the
next hour in an attempt to draw attention to and spread some light upon
the longest-standing political dispute in the Western world.
The issue that we put before the American people tonight is the
issue, once again, of Northern Ireland. During the course of the next
hour we will have an opportunity to discuss this issue and to speak
forcefully to the issues that still bedevil those six counties in the
northeast of Ireland. We are reminded tonight that this geographic area
is comprised of similar size to the State of Connecticut and is
inhabited by 1.5 million people.
This week I was fortunate enough to have been invited by the Speaker,
Speaker Foley, to attend a meeting with the prime minister of Great
Britain, John Major. During the course of that meeting we had a free
exchange of ideas, which I hope will be helpful during the course of
this debate.
But I would like at this time to present the gentleman from New York
[Mr. Manton], who is not only a distinguished American in his own right
but this year has the distinct honor of leading the St. Patrick's Day
parade in the city of New York. I can think of no one who is more
deserving of this tribute and honor than the distinguished gentleman
from New York. His interest in this issue goes back many, many years,
and we are, indeed, grateful for his help. I would now like to
acknowledge the gentleman from New York, Mr. Tom Manton, for as much
time as he may consume.
Mr. MANTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend Richard Neal
for organizing this special order on the subject of prospects for a
united Ireland. I also want to commend him for his longstanding efforts
to bring peace to all of Ireland.
Mr. Speaker, I think it's appropriate that we join to discuss
prospects for a united Ireland at this juncture. In the last several
months, those of us concerned about human and civil rights in Northern
Ireland have had reason for hope. This optimism began when the most
important Catholic leaders in Northern Ireland, John Hume, the leader
of the SDLP Party, and Gerry Adams, the leader of the Sinn Fein Party
announced they had joined to craft an historic plan to end civil strife
in Northern Ireland. Later, British Prime Minister John Major and Irish
Prime Minister Albert Reynolds took another step to encourage the peace
process by issuing their joint Declaration of Peace. More recently,
President Clinton's decision to allow Gerry Adams into the United
States last month provided an important opportunity for Mr. Adams, whom
the British have silenced through censorship in his own country, to
share the perspective of a substantial segment of the Catholic
population in Northern Ireland.
While these events have been positive, change in Northern Ireland is
long overdue. We cannot be satisfied by the encouraging gestures we
have received from Mr. Major, Mr. Reynolds, or President Clinton. We
cannot be satisfied because we cannot allow any more young lives to be
sacrificed to the ongoing sectarian strife in Northern Ireland.
Several weeks ago, Amnesty International released a troubling report
entitled, ``Political Killings in Northern Ireland,'' which noted that
more than 350 people have been killed by security forces in Northern
Ireland during the last 20 years. About half of those killed were
unarmed individuals. Most were Catholic. Disturbingly, Amnesty
International expressed the view that there was convincing evidence
that British security forces in Northern Ireland practice a policy of
deliberately killing suspects, rather than arresting them. The gravity
of such a charge cannot be overstated. The idea of the police shooting
suspects, thereby taking upon themselves the role of investigator,
prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner is shocking to me as a former
police officer and as an American. To date, the British have still not
responded to Amnesty's charges.
Unfortunately, these kind of charges against British occupying forces
in Northern Ireland are not new. While international media attention is
often rightly given to the tragedy of IRA terrorism in Ireland, in the
United States we do not often hear of the equally gruesome violence
perpetrated by loyalist paramilitary groups against Catholics there. My
point today is not that one type of murder is worse than another, but
rather that after more than 20 years and the deaths of more than 3,400
people over all, the time has come to stop simply laying blame at one
side or another and bring peace to the whole of Ireland.
Those of us who have joined here today believe that we can no longer
be patient with small steps toward peace. We must offer support to
President Clinton and the Irish and British Prime Ministers for their
efforts up to this point, but we must urge them to do more. The fact is
Northern Ireland is one of the last vestiges of the British colonial
system. British rule in Northern Ireland is enforced today by the
barrel of a gun. To me, it seems the sensible thing from all
standpoints would be to create a government for all of Ireland which
protects the rights of both Protestants and Catholics, encourages
integration rather than reinforces separation, and is determined by the
ballot rather than by bombs and fear. I firmly believe this is an
Ireland that the Irish people fervently desire.
Of course, as Americans we cannot make peace a reality. Although we
can continue to speak out and urge our President to encourage the
British and Irish Governments to support peace, peace must ultimately
come from the Irish people themselves. However, they must be given the
support necessary to achieve this goal. I pledge my support, and ask my
colleagues to join me in continuing to call attention to the suffering
in Northern Ireland, and speak out until the goal of peace for all of
Ireland is realized.
{time} 2020
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished
gentleman from New York [Mr. Manton]. Certainly the theme of this
evening's talks will refer frequently to the issue of a united Ireland,
which brings us to the House this evening.
I now would like to acknowledge a great son of South Boston, an
individual who has had a consistent interest in the issue of the state
of Ireland, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley].
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise here today to say a few words about
the conflict in Northern Ireland. This issue has been important to me
for many years, and I thank my colleague and friend, Richard Neal, for
organizing this special session.
Given the recent developments in the peace process and diplomatic
visits by Prime Minister John Major, Irish President Mary Robinson, and
Irish Prime Minister Albert Reynolds, I think it is especially
important that we call attention to the many questions surrounding this
conflict.
For many years there seemed little reason to hope for a peaceful,
demilitarized Northern Ireland. Efforts toward a united Ireland were
too often associated with violence and fear. Well, that has changed. I
believe we have reached a historic moment in this conflict and believe
it is our responsibility not to let this opportunity slip away.
The joint peace declaration gives all parties a foundation from which
to approach lasting solutions in Northern Ireland. Prime Minister Major
and Secretary of State for Northern Ireland John Mayhew have publicly
reaffirmed their desire to legislate for a united Ireland.
I am encouraged that Prime Minister Major has said repeatedly that
the British Government has no strategic interest in remaining in
Northern Ireland and that the British Government intends to withdraw
its troops from Northern Ireland if the violence stops.
With the Downing Street Declaration we now have a framework under
which a comprehensive political settlement can be achieved. We must
recognize, however, that a lasting solution can only be achieved
through agreement and consent. If we are going to be able to reach this
agreement, all parties must be full participants in the process.
I urge my colleagues and President Clinton to understand the
overwhelming desire of the people in both parts of the island for a
lasting peace. It is our responsibility to push for a peace process
that will allow all the people of Ireland to negotiate the future of
their great nation.
I thank all of my colleagues who have done so much good work on this
issue and who have shown their support fore Ireland by being here
tonight.
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley].
Now I would like to acknowledge, in a demonstration of bipartisan
support, the theme that we have enunciated once again this evening, the
distinguished gentleman from the State of Ohio [Mr. Hoke].
Mr. HOKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Neal], and I do not have the time in this Chamber nor the credentials
with this particular issue that, for example, the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] has because I am relatively new to it, and
perhaps I can bring some perspectives of someone who has become
recently involved in the issue that might be a little different.
Mr. Speaker, last summer I was privileged to gain an extraordinary
exposure to Ireland's expansive landscape of political views and
opinions during a visit to Belfast, and with the assistance of the U.S.
State Department and Cleveland City Councilman Pat O'Malley I met with
party leaders representing the entire spectrum of Irish political
parties from Gerry Adams, the leader of Sinn Fein, to Ian Paisley, the
leader of the Democratic Unionist Party, which represents the most
extreme loyalist pro-British element.
Unlike our American political parties, the political parties in
Northern Ireland are not distinguished primarily by their commitment to
economic or social principles. Whereas our political parties debate
ideological differences over the legitimate and appropriate size of
Government, the role of regulation, how much we should tax ourselves,
et cetera, the Irish parties are distinguished first and foremost by
their various commitments to the future geopolitical status of Northern
Ireland.
At one end of the political spectrum are the pure Republicans, the
Catholic faction which demands that Northern Ireland become part of the
Republic of Ireland to the south. This is the position held by the Sinn
Fein Party, which received about 12 percent of the popular vote in the
last election. At the other end of the spectrum is the Protestant
faction, which believes Northern Ireland should always be a part of
Britain. They are represented by the DUP, the Democratic Unionist
Party, which received about 17 percent of the vote in the last
election. In the middle are three other parties which have the majority
of popular support, although none has a majority by itself. The Social
Democratic Labor Party [SDLP], led by John Hume of Derry, is the
pronationalist, prounification party that gathered about 22 percent of
the vote and then the Ulster Unionist Party is a prounion centrist
party with 29 percent of the vote. Finally, there is the appropriately
named Alliance Party which is the only political party with substantial
numbers of both Catholics and Protestants, which predictably is also
the smallest party and received only about 8 percent of the vote.
The problems in Northern Ireland are not simple. They are reflected
by that rather complex array of parties. It is axiomatic that if the
problems of Northern Ireland were simple and lent themselves to easy
solutions, they would have been resolved a long time ago.
{time} 2030
Lending to the confusion is the practice by nearly every political
leader I met in Ireland of using historical events to prove his or her
point, reaching back as far as needed to illustrate it. To put this in
perspective, bear in mind that Saint Patrick converted the Celts to
Christianity in AD 432, and the British came to Northern Ireland nearly
400 years before Columbus sailed for the Americas.
It is not unusual for Americans visiting Northern Ireland to be
struck by the similarities between Ireland's current situation and our
civil rights movement of the 1960's. The primary difference being that
Ireland suffers not from a history of racial discrimination, rather
from a history of religious discrimination, specifically discrimination
against Catholics by Protestants. What is unfortunate is that the Irish
have not yet benefited from the lessons of the politics of inclusion
that we have here in the United States.
Instead of including all political groups with popular support in the
political process, the British Government has, until very recently,
actually aggravated the natural political polarities by excluding those
of dissenting views, specifically the Sinn Fein Party. To the extent
that all groups are brought within the process and thereby made
responsible and accountable for outcomes, society succeeds in pulling
dissenting elements into the social and political mainstream. Certainly
the past 250 years of American history convincingly illustrate this
point.
If I had to single out one flaw in British policy toward Northern
Ireland over the past 20 years, it would be its ignorance of this
political truth. By way of example, I had the privilege of touring the
Conway Mills project, an established community center that was founded
by Father Des Wilson in 1982, a supporter of the reunification of
Ireland. It has applied and been turned down for grants from the
International Fund for Ireland [IFI], a program for commercial
development in Ireland that receives half of its funding from the
United States and the other half from the European Community.
Father Wilson is working in the poorest section of Catholic West
Belfast on a number of initiatives designed to improve peoples' lives
through economic development, education, and hunger relief. The Conway
Mills Community Center includes classrooms and a small business
incubator. Actively involved in special community projects, it also has
a small theater, a day care center, and an inexpensive snack bar.
Frankly, it reminded me of the community center in the Cleveland
neighborhood of Tremont.
But the British Government had indicated to the IFI that it did not
want Conway Mills to be funded in any way because of the politics of
Father Des Wilson. I personally spoke to the Director of the IFI and
requested that the Conway Mills grant request be reconsidered. Bear in
mind that 50 percent of the IFI's funding is appropriated by the U.S.
Congress. I explained that I though it was not only important to
support Conway Mills because of the value of its programs, but equally
important to draw it out of the underground and into the mainstream.
This will profoundly impact not only how the individuals involved with
Conway Mills are viewed by outsiders, but how those individuals view
themselves and their own relation to the larger society in which they
live.
Because of the polarized environment and rigid positions held by
Ireland's parties, I am relatively discouraged regarding the prospects
for near-term reconciliation of these differences. That
notwithstanding, I was tremendously impressed and inspired by one group
with whom I met, the Northern Ireland Commission for Integrated
Education [NICIE]. Led by Fiona Stephens, this is a parent-driven
initiative which has established integrated schools with student bodies
composed of about equal numbers of Protestants and Catholics. It is
tragic that the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland grow up
never meeting or getting to know people of different religious faiths
except in brief commercial transactions, feeding the development of
deep-seated prejudice at a very young age. NICIE has only been around
for a few years, yet it already has over 18 schools with 4,000
students. While this represents only 2 percent of Ireland's student
population, it was the most hopeful indication I saw that these
differences will eventually be worked out.
The untenability of the British position is that during their
colonial period they presided over the building of a political and
economic system which exploited the religious differences and rivalries
between two communities in order to serve and maintain their own
colonial purposes. Now in a vastly changed 1990's European Community.
Northern Ireland finds itself saddled with the rotting remnants of an
unjust foundation. No lasting and equitable solution will be possible
without the full inclusion and participation of all political parties.
The British and Dublin Governments are clearly in the positions of
leadership to initiate a new era of reconciliation and cooperation in
which the politics of pride and paranoia are replaced by the politics
of inclusion and reason.
Britain is to be praised for its recent boldness in initiating talks,
even though clandestinely, with representatives of Sinn Fein. But
Britain should be further encouraged to continue this process, that
when men and women of peace and justice are committed to positive
resolution and reconciliation, if all are included in that process,
then reconciliation will eventually come.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Ohio for his presentation.
Mr. Speaker, I now would like to call upon the cochairman of the ad
hoc committee on Irish affairs, a champion of human rights everywhere,
who has been a leader on the issue of a united Ireland, and an
outspoken critic of a system that in many cases has demonstrated
injustice, the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join with my colleagues in
drawing attention to the turbulent, hostile situation in Northern
Ireland--and the critical role the United States can play in achieving
a just, peaceful and lasting resolution to the tragic conflict there.
I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Neal] for organizing
this special order to permit us to once again, focus our attention on
this important issue.
The United States owes a great deal of gratitude to Americans of
Irish birth and descent. Their significant contributions to the
development and growth of our country are part of the warp and woof of
our history.
Our Nation's history is interwoven with the biographies of Irish men
and women who have helped to provide leadership to our Nation.
No fewer than 11 Presidents, from Andrew Jackson elected in 1828, to
Ronald Reagan elected in 1980, have identified themselves as at least
partially of Irish descent.
A number of Irish-Americans sit in Congress on both sides of the
aisle. It is only appropriate that we do whatever we can to improve the
situation in both parts of Ireland--the north and the south.
The recent visit to New York of Sinn Fein's political leader, Gerry
Adams, with whom London had been meeting secretly for 3 years,
demonstrated the impact of U.S. can have in seeking a resolution to
this conflict. His visit enabled millions of Americans and others to
gain a fresh insight into the conflict and the divisions it has
created.
Mr. Adams' visit to the U.S. came after pressure was put on President
Clinton to fulfill his promise in the 1992 Presidential campaign that a
Clinton administration would issue a visa to the leader of Sinn Fein.
We must all work together to build upon that visit by ensuring that
the American public is informed about all points of view concerning the
north of Ireland.
While Mr. Adams' brief visit was welcome, there needs to be more. The
U.S. provides 7,000,000 visas a year for travel to the U.S.
We have issued visas to political leaders who have been our
adversaries, such as Mikhail Gorbachev, and leaders of organizations,
that we have considered terrorist, such as Yassar Arafat, because we
consider it in our interests to do so.
If the United States is to play a constructive role in seeking a just
and peaceful resolution to the conflict in Northern Ireland--and I
believe it is in our best interest to do so--then it is in our interest
to permit those who hold different viewpoints on this issue to visit
the United States so that the American public can hear those
viewpoints.
Mr. Speaker, in addition to promising a visa for Gerry Adams, Mr.
Clinton make a number of other commitments to the Irish-American
community during his 1992 presidential campaign, including support for
the Mcbride Principles on Fair Employment in Northern Ireland and
appointment of a United States peace envoy to Northern Ireland.
They are described in an article in the April 8-14, 1992 issue of The
Irish Echo which I include for the Record.
[From the Irish Echo, April 8, 1992]
Putting Ireland on the Map
(By Ray O'Hanlon)
Governors Bill Clinton and Jerry Brown, rivals for the
Democratic Party nomination for November's presidential
election, have backed the recent proposal of a U.S. peace
envoy to Northern Ireland.
And at a specially convened forum to discuss issues of
Irish concern. Sunday night in Manhattan, both candidates
said that as president they would support the MacBride
Principles on Fair Employment in Northern Ireland and rescind
the current State Department ban on the entry to this country
of Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams.
The forum, which had previously been scheduled for Saturday
at Mt. St. Vincent College in the Bronx--and which Clinton
was not expected to attend--was rescheduled for Sunday night
at the Sheraton Manhattan Hotel, Clinton's base of operations
in the city.
The meeting, organized by Bronx Assemblyman John Dearie,
featured a panel of journalists and community leaders who
directed a series of questions at both candidates.
bill clinton
In answer to the first question, if as president of the
United States would he appoint a special envoy to Northern
Ireland, delivered by Boston Mayor Ray Flynn. Gov. Clinton
was to the point with his answer.
``The short answer to your question is yes,'' he said.
``I think sometimes we have been a little too reluctant to
engage ourselves in a positive way in pursuit of our clearly
stated interests and values because of our longstanding
special relationship with Great Britain and also because it
(Northern Ireland) seemed such a thorny problem.''
Clinton also said he hoped to see the United Nations become
more involved in helping to solve the North's troubles.
On the question of direct presidential intervention with
the British Government regarding cases of human rights
violations in Northern Ireland, Clinton said that if the U.S.
had a special envoy and was initiating greater activity on
the part of the U.N., ``we would wish to focus on the work of
Amnesty International as well as Helsinki Watch on verifiable
cases, not only by the security forces, but by other forces
of violence, other violators of human rights and other
purveyors of death in Northern Ireland.
``And I don't think you can exempt the security forces from
the actions we ought to take,'' he said.
Clinton said he did not see a more direct approach taken
with London as being a danger to the special relationship
between the U.S. and Britain.
``We have a government in (the Republic of) Ireland and a
president committed to reaching across religious and
geographic borders. This is a propitious opportunity to try
and heal some of the divisions and solve some of the problems
and, yes, I would take it up with the prime minister of Great
Britain.''
Clinton said he would support a visa for Gerry Adams and
would support a visa for ``any other properly elected
official.''
He said he understood the position of the U.S. ``with
regard to Sinn Fein and the advocacy of violence as opposed
to non-violence.'' But as Adams was an elected member of the
British Parliament, Clinton said he felt that it would be
``totally harmless to our national security interest and it
might be enlightening to the political debate in this country
about the issues.''
``I would support a visa for Adams and any other properly
elected official from a government we recognize,'' Clinton
said.
Clinton expressed his concern over the manner of the recent
deportation to Northern Ireland of Joe Doherty.
``What bothers me about this case more than the facts of
the case is the indication that our court system plainly laid
out a process by which he could have been extradited or not
as the case may be and that the process was short-circuited
apparently for political reasons by the administration.
``That's what bothers me about this case. I know that those
who supported the extradition say that if he (Doherty) had
been in Ireland he would have been extradited, but that's not
the point. The point is we have rules, regulations, a
Constitution, court procedures and my strong instinct in all
cases of this kind would be to let the court procedures run
their course.''
Clinton did point out that if Doherty had been granted an
asylum hearing, and if the court had ordered him to be sent
back to Northern Ireland, he would have had to support that
decision.
Clinton said he liked the MacBride Principles and believed
in them and as president would encourage all governors to
embrace them.
And he rejected the argument that the principles discourage
investment in Northern Ireland. Instead, he saw the
principles as a way of encouraging investment and stabilizing
the political and economic climate and the work force by
making them free of discrimination.
``I don't buy that (argument). I don't see it as a
problem,'' he said.
Clinton, who addressed the forum for about 30 minutes, from
about 8:30 p.m., also welcomed recent changes in U.S.
immigration law and the introduction of the Morrison Visa
Program. He also paid tribute to Irish-Americans and their
contribution to the building of the United States. ``The
character, the strength of family and community, the old
fashioned passion for politics that the Irish have brought to
this country are very much needed today, ``Clinton said in a
concluding statement.
jerry brown
Because of his schedule, Gov. Brown did not speak until
some time after his rival left the forum. Indeed, it was
something of a dramatic entrance for Brown almost at the
stroke of midnight following a flight from upstate New York.
He lost no time in warming to and warming up those who had
lasted the three hours spanning the Clinton and Brown
interviews.
``It would be quite appropriate to appoint a special envoy
and peace envoy and take a real personal interest,'' Brown
said.
``Ireland and the violence in Northern Ireland doesn't get
the same presidential attention that other areas in the world
do. And yes, I would appoint a special envoy; more than that
I would make an effort to go to Northern Ireland myself or
send the secretary of State.''
Brown was emphatic that, as president, he would raise human
rights issues directly with the British Government.
``Great Britain needs to be reminded in the most forceful
way that this is a country whose premise is due process and
rights and respect for each individual person.''
On the Gerry Adams visa denial issue, he prefaced his
support for the admission to the U.S. of the Sinn Fein leader
by saying that it was without giving ``any particular support
to the advocacy of violence, terrorism or killing.''
He added that he believed that elected officials should be
invited to the United States particularly if Americans wanted
to hear them.
``This country,'' Brown said, ``is governed not by
politicians but by the people, we the people, and the first
principle of we the people running things is to have
information.''
Brown said that if the U.S. was going to have a national
policy with regard to Northern Ireland, then people would
have to be allowed to hear different points of view and to
that end he would allow ``legitimate political leadership,''
including Gerry Adams, to enter the country.
In expressing his support for the MacBride Principles and
disagreement with the decision of current California
governor, Pete Wilson, to veto the state's MacBride Bill,
Brown said it was necessary to take an active role in public
pension funds as a way of having an impact on the direction
of investment.
As to arguments that MacBride was a disincentive to
investment, Brown replied: ``I don't believe the market
should be the closet dictator.''
``We should introduce a moral principle into the social and
economic order,'' he said to loud applause.
In addition to promising a visa to Mr. Adams, Mr. Clinton also
pledged to encourage all State governors to embrace and enact the
MacBride Principals.
These moral guidelines call on foreign business to invest only in
those enterprises in Northern Ireland which do not practice religious
discrimination. So far, the President has not pushed State governors in
that direction, and I urge him to do so.
During the 1992 campaign, then Boston Mayor Ray Flynn, now U.S.
Ambassador to the Vatican, asked then Governor Clinton if he would
appoint a special peace envoy to Northern Ireland.
After saying that the short answer to Mr. Flynn's question was yes,
Mr. Clinton said he would use the special envoy to:
Focus on the work of Amnesty International as well as
Helsinki Watch on verifiable cases, not only by the security
forces, but by other forces of violence, other violators of
human rights and other purveyors of death in Northern
Ireland.
Appointment of a Special U.S. Representative who would focus on peace
efforts would be an important and visible symbol that the United States
is truly committed to helping all the parties to the conflict achieve a
just and lasting settlement. Former President Jimmy Carter comes to
mind as just one potential candidate as a special envoy.
Those of us in this Congress who want peace in Ireland must ensure
that President Clinton lives up to his promise to appoint a special
envoy, as well as his other campaign promises regarding Northern
Ireland.
The American Irish Political Education Committee is among many groups
in the United States that are working diligently to realize this goal.
Founded in 1975 and based in West Haverstraw, NY, its national
president is John Finucane, a retired, 20-year decorated firefighter.
The American Irish Political Committee realizes that now is the time to
work for a peaceful, united, democratic Ireland.
In addition to pressing President Clinton on key issues, the Congress
can keep up pressure on other fronts. Earlier today our Irish Caucus
met with Martin Finucane, no relation to the previously mentioned John
Finucane, who is president of the Patrick Finucane Centre for Human
Rights and Social Change in Derry. Derry was the location of the tragic
1972 massacre of 13 unarmed people known as Bloody Sunday.
Martin's brother Patrick Finucane, a well respected human rights
lawyer who had successfully taken the British Government to court, was
murdered by the loyalist Ulster Defense Association in 1989. Mr.
Finucane shed light on the state of the judicial system in the north of
Ireland by stating, ``Where I come from the people who write the laws
are the ones who break them.'' Martin also noted that the opportunities
for peace have never been greater.
I also met this week with British Prime Minister John Major. He
assured us that he would continue the current peace talks. While the
Downing Street Declaration requires further clarification in certain
areas, such as amnesty of political prisoners on all sides and a
timetable for complete demilitarization, this new dialog stands in
stark contrast to the posturing of years past.
We must also continue our economic support of the Anglo-Irish Fund
and continue the work of the Congressional Ad-Hoc Committee on Northern
Ireland. The ad-hoc committee now has more than 100 members.
The United States, as a world leader, must play its rightful role in
bringing about that peace. Today's special order clearly underscores
the need and reviews the historical basis for that role. I thank the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Neal] for his leadership in this
evening's effort.
{time} 2040
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. We thank the distinguished gentleman from
New York [Mr. Gilman] for his longstanding interest in human rights
issues.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. King], an
individual who has had a long history of interest in this issue.
Indeed, he has been courageous and forceful on this issue for many,
many years.
Mr. KING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
At the very outset I want to begin my remarks on a bipartisan tone by
first commending the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Neal] for the
outstanding leadership that he has shown on this issue. He has been in
the forefront. He has waged the fight, waged the struggle, and he is
always there when needed. I just want to thank him for the truly
outstanding work that he has done in alerting the Members of this House
on both sides of the aisle to the terrible injustices which exist in
the north of Ireland.
I also, on a further bipartisan note, want to extend my
congratulations to my colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Manton] on being designated as the grand marshal of the New York City
St. Patrick's Day parade. Tom Manton has been a friend of mine for many
years before I came to this House. In fact, Tom represents my old
neighborhood in Sunnyside, Queens, and no one is more deserving of the
honor of grand marshal than Tom Manton. Hundreds of thousands of Irish-
Americans will be very proud to march behind him as he leads us up
Fifth Avenue on St. Patrick's Day.
Also, on another bipartisan note, I want to commend President Clinton
for resisting the pressure of the British Government, the British
Ambassador, the British Prime Minister, and granting a visa to Mr.
Gerry Adams, the president of Sinn Fein, to enter this country. For 20
years, the American Government allowed its policy toward Mr. Adams to
be guided and controlled by the British Government. President Clinton,
honoring a campaign pledge, allowed Mr. Adams into this country and
gave the American people the opportunity to see for themselves exactly
who Gerry Adams was and what he stood for.
Also, Mr. Speaker, I should, and I would be remiss if I did not,
point to those Irish-Americans, those of Irish ancestry, who have risen
to high positions of power, but unfortunately have chosen not to
advance the cause of Irish freedom, instead following in the ignoble
tradition of Judas Iscariot and Gypo Nolan and turned their backs on
their own people. Thank God that we had people in this House and in
this Chamber and in this Government who were willing to stand up for
what was right, and people not just of Irish descent, people such as
the gentlemen from New York, Mr. Gilman and Mr. Fish, people who
understand that justice is not something that is defined by religious
or ethnic lines.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note that we are at a
crossroads in Irish history. We are at a moment in Irish history where,
for the first time, there is a real opportunity for all the parties to
come together, and yet there is still more that has to be done.
Yes, the Downing Street Declaration was certainly a very, very
significant step in the right direction. Indeed, it was a historic step
in the right direction. I commend the prime ministers for going as far
as they have. However, we have to realize that these talks were
initiated in the first instance by Sinn Fein, with the British
Government, between Gerry Adams and John Hume and with the British
Government. That is where the pressure continues to come from.
We cannot reach a lasting peace unless the legitimate aspirations of
all the people in the north of Ireland are acknowledged. That is the
flaw which still remains in the Downing Street Declaration. As
progressive as it is, as advanced as it is, the bottom line is it still
does retain a loyalist veto.
I would join with those who call upon the British Government to
further clarify what that Declaration is about, to go the extra mile,
to go the extra step, and too, now that we are so close to the
possibility of peace, not to let anything stand in the way, not to let
a certain intransigent or historical bigotry or bias or blindness
towards the north of Ireland prevent the British from going that extra
step.
Also, that involves our Government. It is important for our
Government, just because Mr. Adams came once, not to feel that our
commitment to free speech has been satisfied. I believe that Mr. Adams
should be allowed to reenter this country, to once again meet with
Members of Congress, to come to Washington, to not just be confined to
a narrow 15-mile zone in New York City.
Let the Members of this body see what Mr. Adams stands for and what
he has to say. Let him answer questions we may have for him. I think it
is absolutely vital that we do that.
In saying that, let us not focus all of the attention on Mr. Adams.
People have spoken about a person who was alleged to be a terrorist
entering this country, a person who perhaps has been involved with
paramilitary organizations entering this country, yet no one says a
word when Ian Paisley enters this country. Ian Paisley is the head of
the Democratic Unity Party. He is a notoriously open anti-Catholic
bigot who still gives speeches against the Pope and denounces Rome, and
carries on in some sort of 19th century tradition, and his chief
deputy, Peter Robinson, is openly allied with paramilitaries in
Northern Ireland. He was involved in the Ulster resistance movement
several years ago, yet he will be able to come to this country in
several weeks and no one will comment on why the President let him in.
It will be looked on as just the ordinary course of business.
I say if it is just the ordinary course of business for Ian Paisley
and Peter Robinson to come to this country, then it should be the
ordinary course of business for people such as Gerry Adams and Martin
McGinnis of Sinn Fein to come to this country.
Mr. Speaker, sitting in this Chamber tonight in the gallery is a
gentleman who was referred to by the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Gilman] Martin Finucane. I was privileged to know Martin's brother,
Patrick Finucane, very well. Patrick Finucane was one of the leading
solicitors in the north of Ireland. He took on the cases that other
lawyers were afraid to take on.
Patrick Finucane was in the forefront of exposing the injustices of
the British criminal justice system, and in 1989, after a member of the
British Parliament stood on the floor of the House of Commons, and by
his words, called for the death of Patrick Finucane, within weeks of
that speech Patrick Finucane was shot dead in his home in front of his
wife, in front of his children, and he was only shot dead after the
British security forces cleared that neighborhood to make sure there
was no one there to defend Patrick Finucane.
When we talk about terrorism, and all of us must denounce terrorism,
but let us never forget the state terrorism of the British security
forces, the state terrorism of the British security forces which
brought about the murder of outstanding people such as Patrick
Finucane.
When those who talk of Gerry Adams, a man who, by the way, and I
think this should also be put in the Record, Mr. Adams represents a
political party which has had more of its members assassinated in the
last 1\1/2\ than any other political party in Western Europe. They have
been assassinated. His office was rocket-bombed just several days ago.
He has been, himself, shot, shot in the back.
In spite of all of that, in spite of the fact that he is not allowed
to speak on television in the north of Ireland, the people cannot hear
his words, they are dubbed in by an actor, in spite of all of that, in
the last elections Mr. Adams' party, Sinn Fein, received more first
preference votes than any other political party in Belfast, and that is
very, very important to note.
Mr. Speaker, what can be done? We can go on all night denouncing the
record of the British Government in the north of Ireland, and the fact
that it is the British Government which is the source and the cause of
the violence in the north of Ireland, but I also want to take a step
forward.
{time} 2050
I say let us put all of that behind us and let us let all people come
to the negotiating table. Let us all follow the admonition of the
President of Sinn Fein who called for a complete demilitarization in
the north of Ireland, yes, the IRA should lay down their arms, yes, the
British Army should lay down there arms, yes, the Royal Ulster
Constabulary should lay down their arms, yes, the discredited UDR, now
going under the pseudonym of the Royal Irish Rangers, yes, the Ulster
Defense Association should lay down their arms, and the Ulster Freedom
Fighters, and the Ulster Volunteer Force, and all of the paramilitaries
on the loyalist side.
You will notice that I just went through a list of seven, or eight,
or nine armed organizations in the north of Ireland. Only one of them
was the Irish Republican Army.
Yet when people call for a cease-fire, when people call for a laying
down of arms, all they talk about is the IRA. What about all the
others?
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I just emphasize again the crossroads
that we are at, the fact if John Major will just come forward and say
that the loyalists no longer have their veto in the occupied six
counties, if he would say that the solution to the problems of Ireland
is to have all the people on the island of Ireland speak, let them all
come together and let us create a 32-county island where all
denominations and all traditions and all peoples receive full civil
rights, civil liberties, and human rights, so no longer will we have an
occupied six counties where the British are condemned more for their
human rights violations than any other country in Western Europe. Let
us have, after 835 years of occupation, let us finally have an island
that is free, an island that is united, and an island where the
counties from Antrim, Down, Armagh, Fermanagh, and Tyrone are part of a
free, united, and peaceful 32-county republic.
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, we thank the gentleman for
articulating that point of view as well as he always does.
I now would like to yield to the distinguished gentleman from the
Third Congressional District of Massachusetts. We are reminded tonight,
Mr. Speaker, that not only have we utilized the talents of many
individuals who frequently have spoken out on this issue, but just as
importantly, there are a lot of new faces who have joined us in this
effort. I would like now to acknowledge the distinguished gentleman
from the Third Congressional District of Massachusetts [Mr. Blute].
Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Neal], for his leadership on this
issue which is well known in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and
across the country. I would also like to commend my freshman colleague,
the gentleman from New York [Mr. King], who has brought a passion to
this issue that I do not think has been seen for some time.
Tonight we are speaking about Ireland.
Unfortunately, as we have heard tonight, Ireland today stands
divided. It stands divided at a time when the rest of the world seems
to be moving together. The Iron Curtain has fallen, as has the Berlin
Wall. Jews and Arabs in the Middle East are coming together, and whites
and blacks in South Africa are moving toward peace and democracy,
although as we have heard in recent weeks, there will be setbacks along
the way.
But even with the efforts for peace and reunification, these are
turbulent times in Germany, in Eastern Europe, in Israel, and in South
Africa. But it is also a time when there is new hope and thoughts of
what can be and will be, rather than the dark thoughts of hopelessness.
Peace is not easy. Reunification is not an easy way. But it is, in
the end, the only way.
Just a few short months ago prospects for peace in Ireland were not
strong. But today after the issuance of the joint Declaration of Peace
by Prime Ministers Reynolds and Major in December and developments over
the last few months, I think most observers find themselves thinking
positively about the situation in Northern Ireland. We have a chance
now to move forward toward a united Ireland.
Prime Minister Major said yesterday in referring to the violence in
Northern Ireland that, ``Strong support for peace coming from America
can play a part in this.'' I guess we should add tonight that strong
support for unity coming from Britain can also play a major part in
this.
I, for one, pledge my support for the principle of peace in Northern
Ireland and for making, at long last, Ireland a free and united 32-
county Ireland.
Clearly, the Irish people overwhelmingly support efforts for peace.
They are tired of the violence. The American people and the American
political leadership here in the Congress and in the administration
should be as well.
It is time for all parties to the dispute to sit down and work out an
accord, and whatever steps we can take as Americans to accomplish this
noble goal should be taken just as we have across the globe.
Eight hundred years of conflict, 25 years of increasing violence.
More than 3,500 lives lost; women, children, infants, the frail, and
elderly, countless innocent bystanders have been brutally and violently
murdered. It is time to make it stop.
There is no easy solution, but the first steps toward unity are a
willingness to negotiate whether you are from Britain or Northern
Ireland or the Republic, whether you are a unionist, a republican, or a
nationalist; put aside your differences, clear your minds, and make a
good-faith effort to arbitrate this dispute. Now is the time for peace
and unity in Northern Ireland.
I urge other Members of this House to join me and many of the
speakers here tonight in standing up for unity and standing up for an
end to the violence in Ireland.
I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Neal], my neighbor, for arranging this discussion and for allowing the
American people to hear the great prospects for peace and unity that
have developed over the last few months.
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. We thank the distinguished gentleman from
the Third District of Massachusetts for offering those encouraging
words.
I now would like to acknowledge a familiar face in the Congress on
the issue of Northern Ireland, indeed, a united Ireland, an individual
who has time and again articulated a strong point of view as it relates
to this issue, the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh].
Mr. WALSH. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
I very much appreciate his organizing this special order at a very
historic moment in the history of Ireland and its relationship with our
country and with England. I would also like to give credit to the
gentleman from New York [Mr. King] who I joined last night watching the
movie ``In the Name of the Father,'' a movie about the Guildford Four,
which shows that tyranny and bigotry and injustice still exist in the
north of Ireland, and its relationship with England.
Since first coming to this Chamber as a Representative from center
New York, I have had the honor of witnessing internationally historical
events unfold. Many of them have been positive, the results of
compromise and understanding. I want the same to happen in Northern
Ireland.
Lech Walesa was here in this Chamber and told us what it is finally
like to live in a free Poland. Nelson Mandela gave his personal and
important views as to what freedom means in South Africa. The wheels
are turning in the Middle East. We are working to bring a permanent end
to the fighting in Yugoslavia. The Berlin Wall is down. The U.S.S.R.
has dissolved. Eastern Europe and Asia are still writhing in chains of
totalitarianism.
But in Northern Ireland the same class struggle exists as if it were
excerpted from a 1950's documentary or an early 1900's newsreel or a
late 19th century letter to relatives in America from the old country.
I have to tell you a story. Most of our great Irish traditions are
oral, and a story that my grandfather related to me when I was a young
boy about when he was a young boy around the turn of the century, just
before the turn of the century in Ireland, and things were hard, and
wherever you could find food you found it. He used to go down to a
river near his house on the west coast in the northern part of Ireland
and try to hook a salmon. He had a gaff hook, which some of you may be
familiar with, and he would go down and lay along the side of the river
and wait until a salmon swam by and hook it and pull it out. One day he
was doing this, and he got one, and he was only about 13 or 14 years
old at the time.
He told me the salmon was about as big as him, and he pulled it out
of the water, and he started walking back home, and a game warden saw
him and started chasing him. My grandfather started running, and he
said that that salmon got heavier and heavier as he ran, and the man
behind him kept yelling, ``That fish belongs to the King. That fish
belongs to the Crown of England.'' And the faster he ran, the heavier
the fish got until they were almost nose to nose, he and that game
warden. They got so close that my grandfather had to finally drop the
fish in order to escape.
A long time later when he left Ireland to go to a country where he
could fish where he pleased, he met that man again in an elevator shaft
going down into a coal mine in Pennsylvania, and they recognized each
other. They did not say anything on the way down, but on the way back
up they passed the time of day, and he said, ``You were that little boy
I saw trying to steal that salmon out of the river?'' And my
grandfather acknowledged him, and they became close friends. They were
now in a country where they could go and take a fish from a river and
not have to worry about it belonging to someone who lived in a foreign
land. It was their fish.
I asked my colleagues today to join me in giving Ireland a turn on
center stage. It is Ireland's turn. All parties involved need our help.
We either act positively or risk being judged negatively by our
inaction. But just what can we do? It is a fair enough question, given
the fact that our historic ally, Great Britain, struggles with this
question every day.
{time} 2100
There are nettle some issues involved. How indeed can they extricate
themselves militarily and every other way if the majority of the
northern Provinces desire to remain part of the United Kingdom?
There are no easy answers. Step-by-step negotiations, finding common
ground, appealing to the desire for peace and security, men and women
of peace trying to unravel the strands of mistrust and animosities
centuries old; it can be done. We know it can.
We have seen it happen right here. Religious prejudice does exist in
the north of Ireland as it exists in many countries. The difference in
Northern Ireland is the government sanctions it, de facto, favoring one
side. This is historic and undeniable.
Prime Minister John Major inherited this, just as many before him. He
asks seemingly reasonable questions of Sinn Fein leader Jerry Adams,
``Say you will lay down your arms, and we will include you in the peace
talks.'' At arms length, so to speak, across the ocean, so many of our
ancestors traveled to get away from the persecution and famine, and we
can see things clearly. That does not mean we see an easy solution, but
we see that common sense can prevail if certain steps are taken.
The Prime Minister must answer Sinn Fein's request for clarification
of the joint declaration. Mr. Adams must be given information with
which to approach the Irish Republican Army.
The problem can be very generally stated as this: If Mr. Adams did
have the power over all Irish Republican Army actions, he would be
hard-pressed to get all the elements to agree to abandon the armed
struggle. No reasonable person can deny the hardship inflicted by the
Loyalists over the years, just as one cannot condone revenge by the
IRA. Mr. Adams needs our understanding of his political position, and
our support. We need to convey this commitment to our ally, Great
Britain.
Now, I am not an expert in this area. I do know that the history of
Ireland's struggle documents clear hardship for the minority in the
north. Those identified as Catholics are living in desperate physical
conditions while Protestants have been prosperous since Great Britain
divided Ireland 74 years ago.
This fits neatly into headlines as a religious war, but these are two
groups who would be seen in many areas of the world as quite similar.
They are Christian, they speak the same language, they use the same
currency. They are separated profoundly by economics. This is part of
how we can help. President Clinton should undertake the appointment of
a special envoy. Ireland needs our attention. It would be
unconscionable to let this historic opportunity fade. We must become
active. It is Ireland's turn.
We can easily take fundamental steps toward strengthening the economy
of Northern Ireland. This strength--that is, creating jobs--will soothe
fears, create cross-cultural associations and friendships. As we know,
security for one's family often translates into toleration for others,
all of which precedes egalitarianism.
No matter what action we take, the troubles are a long way from over.
I think we are at an important juncture. The United States cannot
stand by. We can make a difference. I saw a difference. I saw us make a
difference. I was a Peace Corps volunteer in Nepal. When I came here to
this body, I was joined by a number of Members who wrote to the king
when they went through the transition from monarchy to democracy. We
asked that he honor the legitimate rights of his people for democracy,
and he did. There was a peaceful transition there. People pay attention
to what is done in this Chamber.
This year the Project Children Program, which brings Northern Ireland
kids to the United States for a summer vacation with host families,
celebrates 20 years in business.
My family and I hosted a boy from Belfast, Michael Lyons. I tried to
call him recently but was reminded that his family does not have a
phone. If you have been through the Catholic neighborhoods in Belfast,
you will know the level of poverty that suffocates the dreams of young
people there. Michael is now 14. It makes me sad to think that he could
grow into adulthood surrounded by the same fear and hatred that has
existed throughout not only his life but those of his parents,
grandparents, and great-grandparents.
But I remind myself that there is hope. I think of the other historic
agreements we have seen in recent years. I am excited by the prospect
of peace in Northern Ireland, too. It is Ireland's turn. We can make a
difference. They must act in unison with our ally, but we must do
everything we can to make them act now.
No more bloodshed, no more tyranny; the time has come for peace,
Justice, and a unified Ireland.
Mr. Speaker, I again thank the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for a very
clear presentation.
I would like to close, for the next few minutes. Tonight we heard two
themes: No. 1, the unification of Northern Ireland; and, No. 2, at long
last that peace be brought to this tiny island that has given so much
to the rest of the world. At that meeting that I had this past week
with Prime Minister Major, I asked him to set a date for the withdrawal
of British soldiers from Northern Ireland. Tonight, even as I speak
here, there are 17,000 British soldiers, at an annual cost of $3
billion, to occupy Northern Ireland.
During the course of our conversation, which was always respectful, I
reminded the Prime Minister that the 800-year history of Great Britain
in Ireland has not always been high-minded. He has acknowledged that
himself in recent days.
I am also encouraged that the secretary of state for the north of
Ireland, Sir Patrick Mayhew, has stated that you could make a good
argument that the partition of Ireland was wrong.
Northern Ireland was artificially contrived. It was offered as a
prospect to those who did not want to join the Republic of Ireland.
The truth is it has outlived its usefulness. As we watch the British
set a date in Hong Kong for withdrawal, we are reminded that why, after
800 years and at least 300 years of direct antagonism, the same model
cannot be applied to those six counties in the northeast of Ireland.
Indeed, overwhelming British public opinions favors the withdrawal of
British troops from the north of Ireland. Why should the small segment
in the north of Ireland be given veto power over unification? Why
should a small segment be allowed to practice ascendancy when that
model is now dead in South Africa?
This issue draws more attention as time moves on, and I am encouraged
that John Major has never, like his predecessor, ruled out the prospect
of a united Ireland.
Mr. Speaker, I want to assure you and the viewers this evening that
we will be back again next month in another in this series of special
orders. I would encourage all to view the movie ``In the Name of the
Father'' if they wonder why many of us are so worked up about the
repeated injustices that exist in the north of Ireland. It indeed is a
great lesson for all.
I would just close on this note as many of the speakers before me
tonight have: When I met with John Major, he noted, in speaking of
Boris Yeltsin, that Boris Yeltsin needed to be supported because of the
extraordinary changes that have swept the world in the last 4 years. I
asked him, ``Mr. Prime Minister, how can you contrast that progress
with the current stalemate of eight centuries in Ireland?
In but the last 4 years, the Berlin Wall has come down, Eastern
Europe has been freed, the Soviet Union dissolved, Russian troops have
left Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania; majority rule has come to South
Africa and free elections have taken place in El Salvador and
Nicaragua. Yet the one place where the sunshine of freedom continues to
be blacked out by the clouds of injustice is on the island of Ireland.
{time} 2110
The gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] said it well:
``It's Ireland's turn, and fair-minded people everywhere agree with
our position.''
I want to close simply by saying, Mr. Speaker, that there is one
ireland on one island, and, if there is to be a referendum, it should
include all the people of the Island of Ireland.
Once again I want to acknowledge, as well, Bill Tranghese and
Margaret Albrecht from my office who helped to put together this
special order.
Mr. MACHTLEY. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank my
colleague from Massachusetts for organizing this special order session
with regard to the advancement of the peace process in Northern
Ireland.
The timing of this session is particularly good, in light of this
month's release of Amnesty International's report on human rights in
Northern Ireland.
The report warns that there will be no peace without respect for
human rights in Northern Ireland. I maintain that no negotiated
settlement will take place until the cycle of sectarian murders is put
to an end and until the British Government's atrocious human rights
record is drastically improved.
It should come as no surprise that the majority of human rights
violations detailed in Amnesty's report have occurred to the detriment
of the Catholic community in Northern Ireland. There has long been an
appearance of collusion between the security forces in the north and
illegal loyalist paramilitary organizations. This apparent collusion
has had the understandable effect of polarizing the Catholic population
from the security forces in Northern Ireland.
On this note, I believe the time has come for an independent tribunal
to be appointed to carry out independent investigations into shooting
incidents involving members of the public where lethal force has been
used. I also believe it necessary to tighten up on the operational
rules with regard to lethal force used by the security forces in
Northern Ireland.
There have been many allegations that the Royal Ulster Constabulary
[RUC] has been uncooperative with regard to gathering evidence about
loyalist attacks on Catholics, and the continued failure to provide
adequate levels of protection to the Catholic community from loyalist
attacks. How can years of hatred between these two divided communities
be expected to subside if biases are allowed to thrive, judicial
injustices are left unchecked and the weight of the law seems balanced
in favor of one community over the other?
Besides the obvious and more publicized inequities in Northern
Ireland, there exists a need for effective and fair antidiscrmination
laws to ensure that new and existing jobs are distributed fairly
between Protestants and Catholics. There also needs to be a more
vigorous enforcement of the 1989 Fair Employment Act in an effort to
reach out to the underrepresented in both communities. Much good has
been achieved in this area, but more needs to be done.
The road to the peace talks has come a long way, but before it
reaches its destination, the British Government, in my opinion, must
come to the realization that for negotiations to succeed, all involved
parties, including the Irish Republican Army, must participate. How can
a resolution be achieved with the absence of the very groups upon which
the success of the talks hinge? In my opinion, it can't.
The British and Irish Governments have achieved much in the past few
months and we have all been encouraged by the momentum for change in
South Africa and in the Middle East. However, the comparisons with the
strife in Northern Ireland are few. In South Africa and in the Middle
East, unconditional negotiations between all parties have resulted in
real progress. If peace in Northern Ireland is to be achieved,
preconditions for any negotiation must be cast aside and details of any
proposed negotiating settlement should be disclosed at the outset for
all parties to see. Attaching preconditions to negotiations in Northern
Ireland serves no positive purpose, and so far, has only alienated
those whose accordance is critical if there is to be agreement.
There will be no lasting settlement in Northern Ireland unless the
Catholic community truly believes they are entering into talks as equal
negotiators, and not as unequal subjects whose interests are
subservient to those of the unionist majority.
Evenhandedness must prevail for a settlement to be reached and a
lasting peace to be maintained.
Mr. FISH. Mr. Speaker, as many of you know, my first contact with
Ireland came in the early 1950's when I served as a vice consul of the
U.S. Foreign Service in Dublin. I then returned in 1978, as the ranking
minority member of the Immigration Subcommittee, to investigate reports
of visa denials to British subjects of Irish descent by United States
consular posts in London, Dublin, and Belfast.
That Judiciary Committee trip forever changed my outlook on Northern
Ireland. Despite the thorough briefings we had on the situation prior
to our departure, we were totally unprepared for what we saw during our
4 days there. We were especially struck by the violation of human
rights the people of Northern Ireland are subjected to day in and day
out and the glaring inadequacies of the justice system there.
Since that time, I have worked with my colleagues as one of the
cochairmen of the Ad Hoc Committee on Irish Affairs, to realize the
goals of peace, justice, freedom, and an end to all discrimination in
Northern Ireland. We are closer than ever to achieving those goals.
The Joint Declaration of Peace issued by British Prime Minister John
Major and Irish Prime Minister Albert Reynolds on December 15,
acknowledges the urgency of the situation in Northern Ireland and
indicates a willingness to take steps toward resolving the crisis
there. This plan, however, is just a first step.
While it contains many positive statements, the plan outlines no
definite proposals for bringing about peace and no specific timeframe
for initiating negotiations. All affected parties must have their
questions answered and be allowed to participate in the debate. It is
vital that the Governments of Ireland and Great Britain follow through
on their commitment to consider the wide spectrum of political views in
Northern Ireland.
Certainly a solution which has eluded men not just for decades, but
for centuries, will not be easy. But peace, justice, and unity in
Ireland are possible if leadership is exhibited, policies are developed
to end the great economic injustices there, and all violence is ended.
Ms. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, in recent years, world attention and
pressure have brought about an end to apartheid in South Africa, a
dialog between Israel and the PLO, and the collapse of communism in
Eastern Europe and Russia. These incredible changes, unthinkable just a
few years ago, make the continuing conflict in Northern Ireland all the
more tragic, and the world's silence all the more puzzling.
This is one reason why I strongly supported congressional efforts to
grant Gerry Adams a visa, and why I applauded President Clinton's
decision to do just that. I believe that Mr. Adam's visit has enhanced
the process of Irish peace and reconciliation by focusing public
attention on the issue and generating a healthy public debate.
The joint declaration by Prime Ministers Major and Hume was initially
greeted by many with great optimism. It is unfortunate that the peace
process seems to have stalled since then. Mr. Adams has requested
clarification from the British Government on certain points so that
Sinn Fein may then approach the Irish Republican Army for a cease fire.
I hope Mr. Major will provide that clarification to promote resumption
of the peace process.
There are other issues in which I believe that Congress can play a
positive role to help improve the situation in Northern Ireland.
Concerned Members of Congress have repeatedly urged the President to
fulfill his campaign promise and appoint a special envoy to Northern
Ireland. I continue to believe that a special envoy would help to
facilitate negotiations and I again ask the President to appoint one.
The human rights violations in Northern Ireland continue to be an
issue of great concern, as the Amnesty International report released
last month points out. The people of Northern Ireland have endured
human rights violations for far too long. They need and deserve the
protection which a bill of rights would provide. I commend my colleague
from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], for his resolution calling for such a
bill of rights and urge all Members of this House to support it.
Working to end anti-Catholic discrimination in Northern Ireland is
also a legitimate concern for this House. Unfortunately, religious
discrimination is still pervasive in Northern Ireland; that is why I
hope Congress will adopt the same MacBride principles legislation that
I authored and brought to passage while on the New York City Council.
By passing the MacBride principles, as outlined in H.R. 672, Congress
would go a long way to help end corporate discrimination against anyone
in Northern Ireland on the basis of religion.
As with other conflicts around the world, Congress has an important
role to play in demonstrating the support of the people of the United
States for the preservation of basic human rights and self-
determination. By keeping attention focused on Northern Ireland, it is
my hope that we in the House can help to bring about peace with justice
in that long-troubled part of the world.
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and
extend their remarks on the subject of Ireland.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cooper). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
February 11, 1994, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. McInnis] is
recognized for 30 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
____________________