While
reading some reviews in The Blanket relating
to Ed Moloney's 'A
Secret History Of The IRA', it came to my
notice that Gerry Adams had met British representatives
for the first time in 1986. I contest the truth
of this for John Hume informed me in my own home
that Gerry Adams via a Fr. Reid first made contact
with (Hume) seeking discussion about an end to the
war in 1982. Thus acknowledgeing that a series of
meetings had been set in motion by John Hume's response
to a request for dialogue from Adams, I cannot believe
that the first contact with the British representatives
took 4 years to materalise. Obviously the treachery
of Adams must be condemned i. e. an approach based
without consulting the Provisional membership as
a whole until much later. Of course Adams would
have found no better collaborator for the implementation
of his ideas than Hume. Now John Hume is a likeable
person and a man who has done much good but his
ideas are a danger to the republican objective.
They are a danger because he is not a nationalist
— he is a European Regionalist — and he
looks forward to the day that Europe becomes one
based upon a regional carve-up.
A
close scrutiny of the Belfast Agreement, and Hume's
contribution to the latter is revealing. Although
Hume's ideas may have been filtered through other
agencies such as the Dublin and British Governments,
they still provide an insight into the structural
developments which he has in mind for Europe. In
fact, the Belfast Agreement is a possible prototype
for what Hume envisages for the government of the
continent.
Of
course John Hume should not be seen as the sole
originator of the implied ideas, for their source
is the Social Democrats of the European Parliament
of which the British Labour Party and the SDLP are
affiliated. It is indeed interesting that a European
Union (EU) document pertaining to regional structure
in Europe envisages that the island of Ireland will
be divided into two regions: the 6 counties will
be known as Ulster and the 26 counties will be known
as Ireland. This does not bode well for our future
and implies that the EU bureaucrats recognise Britain's
illegal claim to part of our national territory.
It
would be naïve to believe that the powers that
be in Brussels paid scant attention to the struggle
that was taking place in Ireland. In fact, they
would have insisted to the British and the Dublin
Governments that as they were trying to build 'a
united Europe', the former had better get their
houses in order and bring an end to the conflict.
The type of unity envisaged by Brussels however
is not one to which an Irish republican could subscribe,
for its eventual reality is anti-nationalist. Whereas
what constitutes authentic continental unity is
a Europe of Free Nations, a Europe with a Republican
heart — 'government of the people, by the people,
for the people' — not a bureaucratic sweat
shop for international capitalism.
John
Hume shares the vision of those bureaucrats which
is: the unity of people, not land, in the interests
of capitalism. Whereas the concern should be for
the unity of people on the land, that is, Ireland
— a basic definition of our nationality, which,
like Pearse, I believe is a spirituality. Both governments
support the vision of the Social Democrats via Hume,
and I'm afraid in its realisation there is no place
for Tone's imperative of breaking the connection
with England and self-determining our future as
a nation.
