LETTERS Dealing with the IRA
Sir: A little while ago Mr Auberon Waugh (Another voice, 10 September) took me to task for writing an article in the Daily Mail suggesting that until such time as there was a political solution to the problems of Northern Ireland, force had to be met with force. I quoted Admiral Fisher's famous dictum that moderation in war is madness. Mr Waugh denied there was a state of war, but I doubt if he could persuade any member of the IRA to agree with him. Other correspondents, some to the right of centre, have written in the same vein, chiding me with betraying a lifelong com- mitment to liberalism.
But why, on their part, this softly, softly approach? Can it be that they all have a sneaking feeling that for all the IRA's often ghastly methods, Sinn Fein's aim of a united Ireland is not an unworthy one; that first the English and then the Scots came to Ireland as occupiers, and that in the north they are now reaping the fruits of years of anti-Catholic discrimination by successive Stormont governments? If that is so, and they have reservations about the British presence in Northern Ireland, why do they not come out boldly with it, use their influence to press for a political solution as a matter of urgency; one moreover which may not be to all Ulstermen's liking?
Unlike Mr Waugh and others, and as a Scot who campaigned for many years for Scottish Home Rule, I see nothing incom- patible in a long-term and short-term view; a long-term view which envisages a united Ireland or independent Ulster or whatever; and a short-term one that says that so long as there is a British presence in Northern Ireland, it is the duty of the security forces there to do all in their power to prevent fur- ther mayhem; to fight with few restraints those who with almost no restraints are fighting and killing them. This would also seem to suit the book of those like Mr Paul Johnson who see us as remaining in Northern Ireland for ever.
Ludovic Kennedy
Brooks's Club, London SW1
Previous page
