PACIFISTS

In the month of November we gracefully remember our departed friends.

We also commemorate our many wars.

We can celebrate also in this month the heroes who gave the best time of their lives to convince the world that while wars may involve heroes they are themselves destructive,  a sad and always terrible disaster, whatever their end product.

Here are names of fellow citizens of our world - one for every day of November plus a few more - who tried to prevent war, tried to stop war and its terrible suffering , tried to convince us that in our present state of human evolution survival by destruction is unworthy and always a sign of many failures whatever the outcome.

These fellow citizens of a world that deserves peace endured the pain that pacifism brings. Some of them came to visit us in West Belfast and Derry  (their names are marked here by an asterix *)  and during our recent war time often enriched our many conversations, about the real meaning of war and the real meaning of peace, about a world  really serious about real peace,

 The meaning of Pacifist as understood here : One who aims towards and works for the abolition of war, one who, if war starts, tries to do all possible to lessen its cruelties and to stop it, one who works towards convincing governments and people to get rid of war for any reason and to create a way of life that respects our right to life, our  peaceful enjoyment of  life and the means of enhancing life for everyone.

 

         Dorothy Day                                  1897-1980     American.  FOUNDER OF CATHOLIC WORKER  

                                                                                                               MOVEMENT WITH PETER MAURIN.                                                                                                          

Barbara Deming                            1917 - 1984     American                 

Francis  Sheehy-Skeffington       1878-1916       Irish                 

Hanna Sheehy -Skeffington        1877-1946       Irish                  

Martin Luther King                       1929-1968      American         

*Dan Berrigan                               1921-2002      American                  

Philip Berrigan                              1923-2002      American           

*Mother  Teresa                           1910-1997      Albanian         

                                                                                   FOUNDER  OF MISSIONARIES OF CHARITY                                                                                                                                                           

Dietrich Bonhoeffer                     1906-1945       Polish

Mahatma Gandhi                         1869-1948        Indian                  

Martin Niemoller                         1892 -1984       German            

Fr Franz  Stock                              1904-1948         German                  

*Willa Bickham                           Contemporary  American      FOUNDER OF VIVA HOUSE  BALTIMORE                      

*Brendan Walsh                         Contemporary   American      FOUNDER OF VIVA HOUSE  BALTIMORE  

Nelson Mandela                         1918-2013           African              

Thomas Merton                          1915-1968            French             

*Bruce Kent                                 Contemporary    English              Founder of  Pax Christi.     

*Pax Christi                                 1945 on.                                           Catholic Peace organisation

Franz Jagerstatter                     1907-1943           Austrian             

Gordon Zhan.                              1918-2007           American          

*Brian Kavanagh.                       Contemporary        Irish                     

*Ciaran Mc Keown                     Contemporary        Irish                      

Helder Camara                            1910-1999           Brazilian              

Fr Georges Pire                            1910-1969          Belgian                  

*Fellowship of Reconciliation     1914 on                                              

Society of the Brethren              1708 on                                               

Conscientious  Objectors            297 A.D.  on                                             

*Mennonites                                 from Menno Simons (1496 - 1561)     

*Society of Friends                       1650 

*Steve Pittam                                   Contemporary English

*Jane Pittam                                     Contemporary English                                                      

Simone Weil                                   1909-1943        French                   

Hephzibah Menuhin (Hauser)     1920-1981        American                       

Rosa Parks                                       1913-2005        American                         

Peter  Maurin                                 1877-1949        French    FOUNDER OF CATHOLIC WORKER 

*Will Warren                                  1906-1990        English    SOCIETY OF FRIENDS WORKER IN DERRY

                                                                                                        1971-1977                                                                                     

*Alfred Mc Clung Lee                    1906-1992        USA                                           

*Betty Mc Clung Lee                     1908-1999         USA                                    

*Herman Verbeek                          Contemporary   Belgian     Member of the European Parliament.

Don Lorenzo Milani                        Died 1967           Italian       PARISH PRIEST , EDUCATOR  

*John Dear                                       Contemporary   American 

Gene Sharp                                      1928-2018           American

Robert Ellsberg                                b.1955                  American

Don Lorenzo Milani                        1923 - 1967          Italian           Founded schools with radical and, in their time, revolutionary programmes  for young  people and adults. Brought to court by military chaplains who had said, "Conscientious objectors are cowards...",  accusing him of slandering army chaplains.

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

INTERNATIONAL AND LOCAL PACIFISTS WELCOMED TO WEST BELFAST.

*Dan Berrigan Jesuit priest, read his Catonsville Nine for us in a makeshift community hall at the top of the Whiterock Road ;

*Mother Teresa  visited  us in West Belfast at the suggestion of a Methodist Minister in London, making an arrangement with church authorities for her Sisters to set up house in Springhill, an arrangement church officials later cancelled forcing them to go away again.

*Alfred Mc Clung Lee wrote a book in 1983 "Terrorism in Northern Ireland"   one of the few books exploring the real meaning of citizens' revolt against bad government in N.Ireland and elsewhere.

*Willa  Bickham and Brendan Walsh are colleagues and frequent  visitors with us in West Belfast.

*Bruce Kent and his colleagues marched to 10 Downing Street protesting against British government activities in N. Ireland. He resigned from his senior church position rather than accept the Catholic  church's acceptance of government nuclear arming for  " deterrence".   Pax Christi, a Catholic organisation he founded for world peace recognised the  work for peace in West Belfast.

*Ciaran Mc Keown, a student of peace and Pacifism since before the nineteen seventies in Belfast and  wrote about them . His father was headmaster of St Thomas' School Whiterock  Road.

* The Society of Friends have an honourable record of quiet service to people in conflict and provided help and comfort to prisoners and their relatives. They cooperated with residents and associations in West Belfast in the most difficult of recent years.

* Herman Verbeek visited , corresponded with and met us in West Belfast, discussed possible changes towards cooperation and peace in the Churches.

* John Dear stayed with us for a time and worked in cooperation with  Springhill Community House in the Centre for Human Rights.   

* Steve and Jane Pittam of the Society of Friends worked with us in West Belfast for many years and are still happily among our many visiting Friends. 

 

 

 

 

 

PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE

On Friday this week voters  will  elect the President of Ireland for a seven year term.

RTÉ, the Irish state broadcasting company, arranged a series of public debates between the six candidates for the Presidency including Michal D Higgins the present holder of the office.

It was not the happiest of arrangements.

Debates on RTÉ are carefully arranged. They  bring into a small  studio space four or five participants and a chairperson. They may allow  one hour for discussion,  but this includes adverts, introduction and  conclusion lasting some eight to ten  minutes altogether.  So each speaker has at most a few minutes of speaking time. In the case of the presidential debates more time was given and a larger space but time was also allowed for interventions from an audience.  This meant six highly vocal candidates struggling for space to speak.  

The format is confrontational, so the speakers, most of whom are very articulate and anxious  to talk, often interrupt each other, speak over each other, sometimes reducing the discussion  to chaos.

Seasoned discussers have  some interesting techniques.  For instance, they can disrupt an opponent not necessarily by talking over a whole sentence but by interrupting just the most important word in a sentence : one of the panel says, " I believe government priority must be....... (interruption of one or more voices )..... and this should become government policy....".  Unfortunately  the loss  of one word has made it impossible for listener or viewer to know what the priority is. That is an economical as well as a frequent  kind of interruption !  

Then there may be two or three - or even four - suddenly talking together, blocking out what everyone is saying. When the descent into chaos begins  the listener or  viewer - who in theory is the most important person involved in the broadcast - seems to have been forgotten. A studio discussion  becomes even more  chaotic when the chairperson  joins in, as often happens.

This  RTÉ format for discussion then is not the happiest arrangement in any case but particularly when selecting  a possible future President. A President is meant to be  a national and international  symbol of a country at ease with itself, quietly persuasive, thoughtful , courteous even when saying things  not every fellow-citizen agrees with. Presidency  is a delicate job and that format of RTÉ discussion programmes cannot reflect this.

Our neighbours "across the water" make quite a good job of presenting their  head of state, their monarch, as a permanent symbol of unity and national self-confidence;  in  face of so much past and present disunity,  public fear and doubt in Britain this  is a notable success, but  it cannot be successful forever.  It  has been achieved at the price  of  having their presidency, the  monarchy, confined to a single family and  this  helps  to reassure  British people they are united even when they are not.  Irish people must have a different solution.

Most of the  public discourse in either regime  is confrontational.  Our courts are confrontational, one side ranged against another, our sports are confrontational, our radio and television interviews are confrontational. That need not always be the case, it is what we have chosen, or has  been thrust upon us as a modern way of doing things. RTÉ has  the choice:  it can adopt this confrontational  approach, confronting and questioning everything that  interviewed persons  say, or  it can courteously draw out people's  ideas without taking one side or another.   The confrontational approach is often used - not only in RTÉ -  and is open to abuse, with  different treatment for those thought politically, religiously or otherwise desirable and those thought not to be. A presenter or interviewer may be allowed to make the choice, or the radio and television  news departments. A member of staff put it honestly : " It is our job to confront the people we interview".  Actually it isn't.  The job may instead be to  get the interviewed person  to tell the viewer/listener what he or she is thinking or doing, not to argue about it.  

RTÉ used that confrontational model in its discussions between  presidential candidates. The candidates had little possibility of avoiding confrontation with each other whether they liked it or not. So the image of a future President confidently and courteously acting for all the people, whatever their views, soon  disappeared. So a future  President is made to appear, and may continue for years to appear, not as a symbol of a nation at peace with itself but as a symbol  of people arguing with each other at every level, and about every issue, even when their Constitution suggests  that Presidency  should represent a truce among us all. 

That is  a pity. Our  image of a nation at peace with itself  needs  all the courtesies it can muster and is  very precious.

So, will people see  the Irish President during the next seven years as the person who at the debates was rude to So-and-So, interrupted So-and-So, rudely brushed aside a sad attempt by one candidate to be nice to another, as the person who in discussion not only insisted on being the only reasonable choice but slightingly dismissed five out of six  citizens who offered their services as President?  Or as a symbol of national unity in his or her  courteous recognition that  all people, citizens or not, have a Constitutional right to be treated with equal courtesy?

RTÉ presidential discussions  have not been helpful.

Perhaps there is another way. The writers of the Irish Constitution must have seen  the Presidency  as a national family affair in which we rejoice in each others' excellence and say so at home and abroad. We don't appoint judges by arranging such public in-fighting among candidates, or chiefs of police, or members of Aosdána , whatever quiet manoeuvring may take place in appointing any of them. The  Presidency can  be a powerful  symbol of our respect for national excellence and  international differences.   

So is the present way of presenting candidates for Presidency  - and  talking about them - the right way?  Perhaps , next time round, RTÉ could  leave out the confrontational models and just present to listeners and viewers those  willing to be President one by one and  talk to them about  what particular excellence they are  able and willing to foster  - not only to create but to foster  - among their  Irish  fellow  citizens.

Less exciting as a broadcast perhaps.

But probably more worthy of both Constitution and people. 

TROUBLED BY TROUBLES?

Some people refer to the political upheaval  in N Ireland since October 5th. 1968 as "The Troubles".

That is curious.

Some  are even asking if October 5th 1968 was "The Beginning of The Troubles"

That is very curious indeed.

 October  5th. 1968 was a day when police beat  a massive Human Rights march into the ground.

But when my parents talked to us about The Troubles they were talking about events in Belfast during the nineteen twenties and  nineteen thirties when one section of our population was regularly attacked by supporters of the government urged on by street preachers and secret societies.
When people were violently  forced out of  homes  and jobs.

When people like my relatives  sheltered under the stairs because the death squads were out, some emerging from police barracks.

A continuation of our history in which, as the late Andrew Boyd pointed out, there had been an average of one such major government-assisted pogrom  once every twelve years for a hundred years.

A time when the preachers' condemnation of alcohol in East Belfast escalated into pogroms against those who sold it, followed by their premises changing ownership at a low price and returning  to business under new, government approving, management.

That and much else of this same kind is what parents and others were talking about when they talked to us about "The Troubles" .

So .....to refer  to what happened after October 5th 1968 as " the beginning  of  The Troubles " is asking us to wipe out of our memory a  long history of troubles inflicted on my parents ' generation and many before and after them.  That means  fitting one set of Troubles  into a historical cage in order to forget the others.

A march for civil rights was not the beginning of The Troubles.

The beating of the march into the ground was not the beginning of The Troubles

The political system within which we lived  and our parents lived had Troubles  deliberately and permanently built into it.
..................................................................................................................................................
Those of us  who  grew up  in the time  of the European dictators can put  into context what was happening in Belfast more easily than those who didn't.  We can understand how and why some people used words about it to soften the effect of their  memories on us. My parents' generation  used the words "The Troubles"  to  soften their story of atrocities so that we and they might demand remedy for them , not retribution. Their memories and the reason they described events  as they did, as "troubles" rather than atrocities,  deserve to  be recognised and not used to pretend  such things did not happen.

..................................................................................................................................................................

TWO  RELEVANT  THOUGHTS

1.  We were invited, two of us, a Church of Ireland friend and I,  to talk to a peace group in Athlone.

On arrival we realised the Peace Group was run by the local military. When talking to them about what was happening on the other side of the border we used the word "war" describing it.

We were rebuked for that by members of the audience who said calling it a war was to give it a dignity it did not deserve. They said it was just criminal activity.

Our reply was simple :  it had all the elements of war and therefore was a war. And the military and we had different ideas about dignity.

Years later I listened to  a British military officer claiming that his job was to bring peace  in N.Ireland. I said, "You cannot bring peace if you don't tell your government the truth and you are not doing that".

He admitted that what he and his troops were fighting was an efficient , highly organised and effective political guerrilla force.....not, as described by his government, a crowd of thugs....

Another person in the conversation said : "You have to remember that what an army tells its government is one thing, what the government tells its people is often something quite different".

The military officer agreed.
 

2.  The words  "The Troubles " may remind us Oldies of stories in magazines and books of our times about the Empire  -  like  :

 " I say , old chap," said the brigadier as we passed the port around in our tent that dusty desert evening,  "Old Fotheringay  tells me the natives are somewhat restless around the hills these days ..... bit of trouble there d'you think .... ?  "Oh I shouldn't think so, always Troubles up that neck of the woods you know........Natives get restless , nothing  the sight of a few chaps with bayonets won't cure.......... ".

This is not a real quote. But it's near enough.

That Imperial mind still endures, even as the empire departs .................

INSULTING COLUMNS?

Some newspaper columnists refer to our politicians in Ireland - and indeed to us voters - as Neanderthals, that is to say, we are living about forty thousand or even ten times that much out of date.   This is one of a number of current  journalist  insults offered to readers, an even more considered insult  than, say, calling someone Rocket-man" or "pinhead".   Some of our newspaper columnists  seem to encourage  this abuse, some  not.   Maybe they insult people out of habit.  But is that  the only reason they do it? And how much insult are  we, the readers and customers, to  take ?

Our fellow citizens  are said to be humans thinking  "tribally" or not thinking at all.  Some columnists say we, whether politicians or voters, are  "idiots", a word which in decent modern journalism should not be used about anyone.  Calling people idiots  is offensive but  writers who would primly and coyly refer to the "n.....   word" and the "f...  word" and the "c...word" as if they would not sully their copy  with them nevertheless use the, let' s call it " the idiot word".   Just when psychologists and other professional health workers wouldn't dare use it.   Abuse  by word seems at times likely to overshadow the work of the majority of our journalists who reflect what is best because they respect it rather than the worst because it is politically or financially useful.    

So we read the opinion columns about political parties with" control freakery" rather than reason, about how one political party campaigns for something but the other "touts the notion....", such and such a political idea is dismissed  as  "a stupid  idea.....", that  in N.  Ireland  people are obsessed with trivial issues in a way that others are not......, about how Stormont "reeked" and if  Stormont (parliament building)  needed decorated it's unlikely the MLAs could agree a colour scheme beyond magnolia.....unionists here are still stuck in a time warp.....Mr.  So and So MP is reliably spluttery......nothing has changed, every year it springs to mind :  Time to give 'the dreary steeples '  their regular dust down and  repointing........"

But people think and vote  for reasons.  Writers and analysts have the wonderful privilege of revealing  reasons to readers who want to know them.   Calling people idiots, incompetents, lazy and gormless is not reasonable, it is as if we were afraid of looking for reasons or unaware that there are any.   Disdain aplenty.  Analysis short. 

We  criticise the policies of  our newspapers, politicians and churches, of course we do, we make and re-make our decisions, certainly we do .   But we do things for reasons.  It is for our writers to look for reasons and treat the people who have them with courtesy.  A prominent academic said about us in West Belfast, where I live, that we are solipsistic.  We are neither solipsistic ( always inward looking) nor selfish any more than other people, or if we are, let someone prove it, not just say it.    Nor are we, as one of our bishops has said of us, that we are  "opposed to authority and law and everything..." .    We may not, in the words of the Bible, have turned swords into ploughshares but we turned Bonfires into Festivals while many others built their  bonfires bigger and that was no mean feat. 

Publicly describing any of our neighbours as Neanderthal  or  stupid, as leeches sucking blood out of the treasury  or worshippers of  stale ideas because they are old ones does  not reflect us in our many views and choices.  It cannot represent  our opponents either.   

Years ago at a meeting in Dublin I listened to  people around a table saying again and again  that we in the North of Ireland voted "tribally".   When  my time came to speak I objected to this and said it  was a denial of the fact that we thought a great deal about why and how we should vote.  Accusing us of  simply being "tribal" is an easy way out, a refusal, perhaps an inability, to analyse our real thoughts and actions.  As we left  the meeting I was approached by one of the speakers who then accused me of being a racist because I objected to the term "tribal" being used to describe our thinking. 

I believe we are among the most aware of people regarding politics, having had plenty to think and talk about, and thinking and talking plenty .  Among my voting neighbours during my lifetime there have been nationalists, socialists, unionists, republicans and others ; our political choices  changed from time to time, otherwise there would be little point in canvassing at election time because canvassing  is based upon the idea that voters  can and do think, can and do change.  There was a time in N Ireland - I am old enough to remember such things  - when many local council seats went "unopposed"  in elections - this was not  because people did not think rationally about it, they did but  the electoral system was so rigged that it was  pointless to express  new choices or encourage observers to believe there could be any.  Changing possession of many of the council seats had been systematically rendered impossible.  This was not the voters'  fault, it was the fault of a system imposed by  government.    

Anyway, we don't necessarily do what our parents or our ancestors did.  My Father and Mother were Nationalists.   They were among the early buyers of a few  shares in a newspaper and this showed what side of the Nationalists they were on.   I inherited the shares, changed my political - and religious - views as I got older and sold the shares  because I wanted the cash more than the newspaper's  politics.   

Growing up we learned about the importance of difference.   In a dozen  neighbouring houses in the mixed area  where I grew up there lived Professor Savoury who spent many weekends preaching against Catholics - he was of Huguenot stock, a couple of doors from him lived a Nationalist family, divided between both nationalist sides following the Treaty, but  one of whom was arrested  "for wearing the Easter Lily of the Republic".  In a neighbouring parish people were advised from the pulpit - I remember this too - to vote unionist rather than for  a socialist republican.  My Father who came from Cavan favoured Mr De Valera, listened happily to  broadcasts during  elections down South when Fianna Fail won in 1932, but disapproved of some of De Valera's followers .  Friends urged him to enter the political arena  in Belfast on the Nationalist  side but my Mother persuaded him not to - it was a time when Catholics were targets and we were a growing-up family, so minds had to be made up not always between the good and the bad but  between the good and the better.   In adulthood one of my brothers joined the Anti-Partition League and became its Treasurer but resigned when they insisted on having a picture of the Pope on the wall of their Belfast Office.   He admired the Indian medical Service and those who joined it but he read more books critical of  the British Empire than the rest of us put together while my Father and his friends on their days off would take the  tram to Glengormley and walk and talk together about Labour in Irish History.   When the Orangemen marched down the Ormeau Road  my Father would ask us to come out and watch "the brethren" as he always called them.  Most of the time we said No.  We made choices, we did not always "follow my leader".  He was satisfied either way.

So in  West Belfast which has been my home now for many years, I have been able to  appreciate with great respect  the breadth of choices and decisions my neighbours make.   Somewhere in my cupboards there  is a beautiful banner in green and gold announcing, "Long Live Our Member for West Belfast ".   It must have been  for Joe Devlin, Hibernian and conservative Nationalist, certainly too early  for Gerry Adams the republican to whom so many voters turned in later years.  The banner  is a reminder of how people  adjust to changing times, adjust their genius for knowing what should come next rather than repeat what went before;  different choices people in West Belfast have made as they thought about what they should do to make politics different in a world different from that of their forebears. 

People change.  Some writers don't notice the change, perhaps imagining or pretending there is none.  They say their fellow citizens struggling to adjust their ideas to the  times and the times to their ideals are simply humans thinking  tribally or humans not thinking at all.  Some of our newspapers are reflecting this verbal abuse.   But since people think and do things for a reason a  wonderful  privilege journalist  writers and analysts have is to reveal and discuss reasons.  Calling people idiots and incompetents, lazy and gormless is a useful backstop only when we are afraid of reasons or ignorant of them .      

A new generation of journalists is emerging  now.  Our newspapers at best reflect this and  are helping young new journalists  to emerge.  It is a delicate and rewarding thing to do.  The new generation  need not  copy the style of those who for good or ill went before them.   But the depth and frequency of abusive journalism seems to cast a shadow on their future.   So can all of us, readers and writers, cooperate in refreshing and renewing our present and future conversation between neighbours, avoiding the worst of the past and encouraging the best in it? The  young ones emerging deserve the best, the best skills of analysis, expression, attracting  those who want to know and who enjoy  the excitement of knowing.  In my last years at school I wanted to become either a journalist or a scientist.   When circumstances changed  I changed my mind and did something else.   That's the kind of people we are.  We think.  We go ahead.  We change.   So often we find to our surprise that we love the things and people we criticise, so our criticism needs to have a culture, even a language of special quality that says what we need to say but does not damage our neighbours  and is so precious. 

Through the years we Oldies  changed our judgements on our once favoured writers.  Chesterton and Belloc and Wells were often laid aside and replaced by Connolly and lots of writers whom some of our betters despised because they appeared in Penguin editions.   There was sometimes disdain in the choice of literature  as well as in voting - but a  Penguin or a Pelican or a foreign  volume with uncut pages meant we no longer judged a sausage by its overcoat or a book by its cover ; of course at times we felt superior and amused at what otherwise sensible people had written abusively or flippantly about each others' religion  or politics  -  for instance  that Catholicism was better than Protestantism, or vice versa, because there were  less Catholic  prostitutes in London than Protestants - or vice versa.  Even  the greatly admired  Chesterton and Belloc  whom we  admired in days of youth were not above such stuff.  And  in Belfast our local  abusive preachers were not soloists, they belonged to an inglorious and permanent ensemble.  Read the things the reformer Martin Luther said about people ! We stopped being amused by them when we realised that  in the end the abusive  word, like crime, doesn't pay. 

Can we get rid of insulting  descriptions, accusations, labels in journalism, or should we ? Since I wrote a first newspaper column in 1952 and  made a first broadcast in 1954 many journalistic courtesies  have disappeared from  air and paper and  internet  communication.   Can we insist on  fresh ways of criticism that reflect  our own dignity and that of our friends and opponents ?  Or is there any need to try ? To recognise we are making a new world for ourselves, all of us ?

If my Mother, Father, Uncles and Aunts who  discussed politics and books about politics and changes in politics and desires in politics when we were growing up  were to come back to life on earth they could hardly have agreed  that nothing has changed when they saw Rabbi and Priest in the grounds of  Belfast City Hall praying for the city in Irish and Hebrew, people visiting their own City Hall for the first time because now they felt at home in it, when a republican shook  hands with a queen and you could publish books about Irish culture and unity without risking arrest ......  they would  remember but  forgive the days when Nationalists made a conciliatory gesture and became an official Stormont opposition  only to find they would never be allowed to do more than support an amendment to a bill for the protection of wild birds.  ......protection not for their civilised  voters but for wild birds. 

They might look on with wonder at a republican or a nationalist presiding over such change..............

At  very least they would quite rationally - not tribally, not unthinkingly or stupidly, conclude that some things have changed and some things are changeable, that our generosity has been and can be a catalyst for more to come, enriching  our lives, enhancing our ability to write and talk reasonably about it all. 

Saying all this may seem  airy, unnecessary and out of kilter with  modern ideas of freedom of speech.   But there is a new generation arising  for whom everything is possible and everything is for them and us and all the rest as well.    Journalists  are privileged to enrich the atmosphere, the discourse, the political air they breathe, the  things they  offer each other, our  conversations about what  we all have that are so richly ours ......honourable change, truth, courtesy, generosity, understanding  being among the most precious of the gifts we all in turn  give to friends and opponents  alike by what we say. 

And do. 

And write.

 

ALL FALL DOWN ?

Going from left to right - in more ways than one - the political world seems falling apart :  The USA is discussing not whether their president is the best ever but whether their president is just self-seeking and intellectually unfit for the job ; in Ireland most politicians  are resisting the logical advance of democratic  representation,  coalition of all parties and go on dividing in the hope of conquering each other; in the North of Ireland the DUP is pulling itself apart, in Britain many Scots want to secede, the Conservative government is  unsure whether its rudder is  guiding them to the right direction and even whether it has one;  the European Union instead of creating unity and the certainty of a better future for Europeans  is wondering if there is, or ever will be, such a thing as European Unity ; the Middle East is rocked and blasted again and again with disastrous wars whose origin goes back to what European Nations have greedily done to it for centuries.

And the Catholic church, still believing in its destiny to be the Rock on which a new World would be solidly built is in bitter conflict inside, under attack from outside and wondering how  it can keep its certainties about anything in face of so many believers now becoming uncertain of nearly everything.

There is even more than that, but why continue such a litany of woe?

There is plenty of criticism about all this , plenty of a verbal and other abuse about it. But there seems a  remarkable absence of reasonable analysis of what is happening and why it is happening. Maybe too many people are afraid of being held  responsible, too few believing we humans can do any better.

So why not ask just one question that might help lighten the dark : What would have happened if.........?

What would have happened if our Unionist friends in Ireland , having got control  - against their wishes because  they wanted all of it  - of six Irish counties had decided to treat  everyone in that carved off area  with justice, decency and even generosity? There were some of them who did want it and even the British King George the Fifth  ( it was George V wasn't it ?) made a speech at the opening of Stormont  (in 1932 wasn't it ?) saying he hoped "both sides in Ireland would eventually come together". What would have happened if the Unionist fair play people, few as they were, had taken courage and succeeded? Of course they were  thinking of fair play inside the Empire, which would not be easy but no matter, that might well have been remedied in time.

Or if in the USA they really did become the Land of the Free for the black people, the immigrants, for all to whom their Constitution promised  a new life brightened by  the American Dream come true?

Or if the European Governments who colonised the world for profit had listened honourably to those who demanded  justice for those whose riches and resources they plundered , and the idea of creating a "shared history" with them  had been real, not a sham  created after so much abuse?

So many ifs and an even greater number of buts. It did not happen - that was not because it could  not happen, but because so many people refused even to think of it happening. These weren't only the  powerful and ruthless ones.  Some of them believed they were the great defenders of human dignity in the world - the church and other religious leaders among them. What would have happened to Apartheid in South Africa if the Dutch Reformed and other Churches  had not tolerated or encouraged it ? 

Is our "What if..?"  then a fantasy question about an  impossible dream ?

We human beings have an immense capacity to do what is right. Some of us have died rather than refuse  their fellow citizens the dignity and justice they deserve.  We celebrate their lives and deaths. Surely then we have proved we have something better to live and die  for than an economic system, or for making ourselves great again by blocking other peoples' trade, fingers poised over a bigger destructive button of misery  than our fellow human beings  whom we should be promising to   cherish, not threatening to destroy ? Asking "What would have happened if.....? " is not a useless question. Not only  political and religious unions but even our social and homestead unities are dissolving, our empires crumbling , our artificial greedy divisions of people and countries proving to be the  accursed disaster they really are, yet somewhere there must be  -  an individual here, a handful of people there - the seeds of a human intelligence that understands what is really good for the human race, seeds that never really died and may still be ready to grow no matter how the ruthless, the greedy, and worse, the ungenerous, have  poured the worst of their destructive profit-making seed- destroyers on them.

Or to put it another way :  What if your small persistent shouts for justice were at last to  shake down  our avalanche ?

 

THE PRESIDENT'S SPEECH.

The President of Ireland Michael  D. Higgins recently made a powerful speech in which he laid bare the central problem of our world at war and the central reason why the United Nations is a large part of our problem with no  desire to be anything else.

President Higgins said that: " The five permanent members ( of the United Nations security council )   China, France, Russia, the UK and the USA, are embarking on a ' new arms race' and  the arms industry was exporting  'weapons of death and destruction' for use in Syria, Yemen, and the Democratic Republic of Congo".

President Higgins  is one of the few international figures who have the courage and the desire to make  such a statement and talk about the consequences. .

The United Nations organisation is based upon the principle of arming the  most militarily powerful and wealthy nations and giving them the responsibility to keep world peace!

This  is a sure recipe for war - not occasional war  but permanent war for profit. In the least violent  of times we may hope these five best armed and wealthiest nations - whose leaders are becoming every year more unstable - will agree enough  among themselves to enforce stability - not create peace but enforce stability -  on the rest of the world with the help of the armies of the smaller countries like Ireland.  If the five fall out among themselves then the stage is set for the most appalling of all the United Nations  principles to come into full action - the principle of "you get peace by threatening to beat down the rest of the world", the rest being  chosen for this fate by the United Nations and its highest  paying members. At present the USA and China are threatening each other with  a trade war which could turn into something much worse.

This principle  and our  acceptance of it is one of the worst of the deceptions played by the United Nations on a world that was so hopeful for peace that it accepted the United Nations as a peacemaker. The UN was not and is not a peace maker, it is  a facilitator and stabiliser of war between factions  and nations competing in our permanent wars  for profit.

President Higgins pointed out that " these five members of the Permanent Security  Council of the United Nations who are entrusted with the maintenance of international peace and security  account for three quarters of global arms exports".

He might have coloured this picture of evil with a homely illustration - if you produce eggs you will encourage  the whole world to get healthy by eating eggs. For the arms makers every war is a welcome opportunity to demonstrate the latest and freshest in their range of deadly eggs. Every war stimulates their trade and if there is a lull in their permanent wars, they  make new ones. The five "peace-keepers" of the United Nations cannot do without arms sales on a massive and ever increasing scale to feed  their economies. For them death solves problems, their economic problems.

It all may seem far away as we read what President Higgins or any other analyst says so let's bring it nearer  to home. When we were in the last stages of ending the thirty years  war in Ireland's northeast a few years ago a conference was held in  Washington to discuss our future. Imagine the scene, tired people hoping to make peace, waiting for encouragement and help from the leaders of the world. In this conference held in the  premises of one of the UN Security Council, there were plenty of  speeches about peace. So what did the speech-makers say to us in this atmosphere of hope?

There was one speech I shall never forget .

We were emerging from a thirty years war . We had worked and  hoped for peace not only for ourselves but  for the world. In the midst of the various clichés, a speaker  took to  the platform - I think he was from the now deceased Northern Ireland Office -  to tell us how we could best make progress in our future peace.

The best thing, he told us ,  was to encourage industry.   And the best industry to encourage, he said, was the Belfast-based firm making arms for export,  which he said had excellent prospects..................excellent prospects   ..... ......for peace ?

After a thirty years war......................?

From the audience of politicians, social workers,  clergy and many others present  there were only two people who cried out and protested  with  dismay and indignation. One of them was Inez Mc Cormack, a fearless trade union  leader who demanded what the workers wanted, not  what the war-for-profit merchants wanted.  

From the army of professional peacemakers about to leave the meeting for a meal  not another word was said about our peace.

 For some reason we go on  believing  in this  United Nations fiction.

What a recipe for peace it is, " Your best way to proceed in your peace is to manufacture arms to encourage others to make war ".

President Higgins in his speech also said ; " The self- defeating rhetoric of the arms race, the immorality of the arms trade, can only serve  as infrastructure to fuel current and future wars" .

We might think that such a speech in this  time of  Wars-For-Policy-and-Profit would encourage most Irish people to bring Michael D. Higgins into Presidency for a second term. Unfortunately it may do nothing of the sort.  We may  have bought into the United Nations and arms trade untruth  that peace means preserving for the few the ability to beat down the rest us. For profit.