Gerry Adams said he strongly believed that republicans and nationalists need to approach northern Protestants in the language of invitation. In contrast, Mitchel McLaughlin tells Sinn Féin activists that Irish unity is inevitable. Confusingly McLaughlin adds that republicans must engage with unionists to work for a united Ireland, suggesting that unity is not inevitable.
The objective of dialogue is not to acquaint people with inevitabilities but to increase understanding and to make new things possible.
The IRA admits that they do not fully understand unionist perceptions‚ but are prepared to listen and to learn. They assure us of their commitment to playing a full part in creating conditions under which we can live together peacefully.
Such a peaceful aspiration conflicts with the concept of inevitability.
No-one disputes anyone's right to advocate unity, although whether it is wise at this time is questionable. When the aspiration is presented as inevitability, this is definitely unhelpful and probably counter-productive. Irish unity and opposition to it was virtually the raison d'être of parties to the conflict, so much so that some have killed or been killed for this false god.
Most people will not acquiesce in a unity that is presented as inevitable or that gun and bullet has failed to achieve. Because of past terrorism, republicans cannot effectively promote true unity, certainly not while retaining a private army in tow.
If republicans genuinely want unity they need to do some radical thinking about the kind of changes that are necessary.
All semblance of inevitably must be obliterated from mindsets because this suggests we have no choice and reflects a victory/defeat frame of mind. There need to be genuine statements of regret for the hurt imposed upon the people of Ireland right back to the 1920s if resistance to unity is to be countered. The anguish caused, even in parts of the Republic, can still smoulder and fuel resentment or apathy and calls out for full acknowledgement and regret.
It is difficult to understand why republicans use the language of inevitability when it is not clear what they really want. They cannot be advocating the 'Agreed Ireland' promoted by SDLP leader John Hume because an agreed Ireland implies consensus and choice.
Gerry Adams seemed to concede this when he claimed the people are sovereign and "there is no way we can foist a particular shape of society, form of government or ethos upon any section". If the people are sovereign there can be no inevitable political configuration.
Perhaps Mitchell McLaughlin misses the point that Peter Emerson keeps reminding us of, majoritarianism cannot be truly democratic because it foists the will of majorities upon minorities.
Adams said: "Republicans would have a preference for an all-Ireland republic", which is reasonable.
He adds that it was "no accident that from the early seventies Sinn Féin have been prepared to look at federal arrangements, confederal arrangements, a whole range of different other arrangements".
I find no inevitability here, unless of course all such arrangements are confined to imposed and isolationist all-Ireland structures. If republicans were to adopt an open and creative approach to the future, unionists might be freed from the siege mentality that has so frequently been reinforced during the years of conflict. Like nationalists, unionists tend to resist coercion however it is dressed up.
Thirty-one years ago Tomás MacGiolla, speaking at a Republican Clubs conference at Carrickmore, Co Tyrone, rejected the PIRA bombing campaign arguing it would lead to federal arrangements between Ireland and Britain. He claimed that Taoiseach Jack Lynch accepted the idea of a regional administration linked to both London and Dublin. From today's perspective MacGiolla appears insightful because this is precisely the direction we appear to be heading, although I cannot see any grounds for regret. MacGiolla knew that Irish unity and independence remained the goal of the Provisionals but was convinced there would be a different outcome – federation of Britain and Ireland.
If we are committed to a peaceful democratic future there can be no inevitable outcome or final solution. Human beings can surprise and defeat all deterministic predictions with a whole range of possibilities.
We must make room for the new and innovative beginnings that can galvanise both traditions. Just because the goal of Irish unity has been 'sanctified' in blood is no good reason to seek to present or impose it as an inevitable and final solution. Today there are only interdependent states and Northern Ireland, like the rest of Ireland, will hopefully face the world, east/west as well as north/south, with confidence. Under some kind of quasi-federal arrangements between the parts of our islands we can all be winners.
