Has Unionism really changed?
Sinn Féin Chairperson Mitchel McLaughlin MLA speaking at a public meeting in
Balbriggan, County Dublin on 5 December, challenged unionist attitudes to
the Agreement, particularly those who have failed in their responsibility to
bring about change. Mr. McLaughlin said:
`Just over a year ago former British Secretary of State, John Reid devoted
a keynote address to the theme of 'a cold house for unionism'. He directed
his comments towards growing nationalist and republican confidence and the
need to be conscious of unionist sensitivities. But unionist attitudes are
being allowed to pass virtually without scrutiny. I would be interested in
listening to the analysis of political commentators as to just how far
unionist thinking has changed - if at all - over the past thirty years.
Yes, I could name a number of individual unionists that have very
progressive attitudes to the need for change but what about those with the
responsibility to implement that change?
David Trimble's insulting remarks about the 26 counties on at least two
occasions in the last twelve months certainly does not portray any degree of
political maturity or informed progressive thinking. The best example of
resistance to change in unionist thinking is its attitude to power sharing
at Local Government level. In the 26 district councils in the North, those
with an outright unionist majority have no structured system of power
sharing.
While it is undeniable that major change has taken place since the
Agreement and the perception is that the UUP under David Trimble has come a
long way - closer examination would seem to suggest that the movement was
mostly involuntary. Within hours of the announcement that agreement had
been reached on Good Friday 1998, David Trimble began trying to unravel it.
At every important juncture in the process since its inception it has been
the Ulster Unionists, not as you might have expected the DUP, that has led
the charge to prevent the implementation of key aspects of the Agreement -
such as Policing, demilitarisation, Equality legislation, Criminal Justice
Review etc.
At the same time the daily violent onslaught by unionist paramilitaries on
the nationalist community barely elicits a comment unless these same
Unionist leaders are pressed on the matter.
If the unionist attitude to change were to be brought under close scrutiny
I believe it would clearly identify the main threat of violence in
opposition to change as emanating from within unionism. The time has come
for unionist leaders to tell nationalists and republicans if they will
honour the 'Principle of Consent' when, not if, a majority in the North
favours Irish unity. Will they encourage peaceful acceptance of the
democratic wishes of the majority of the people of Ireland or will they
continue to be ambivalent about Unionist paramilitaries or obstructionist
about peaceful and democratic constitutional change? It is not acceptable
that these Unionist leaders, who are so loud in their denunciations of
Republicanism or so dismissive about Irish society, be allowed to avoid
answering these questions. Given the history of unionism, nationalists are
entitled to seek and receive proof of unionist bona fides. When can we
expect a confidence building initiative from within unionism?'
Issued by Sinn Féin International Dept.
51/55 Falls Road,Belfast.
Tel: 02890 223000 · Fax: 02890 223001