News about the Irish & Irish American culture, music, news, sports. This is hosted by the Irish Aires radio show on KPFT-FM 90.1 in Houston, Texas (a Pacifica community radio station)

August 05, 2005

Apprentice Boys Parade Banned

To Index of Monthly Archives
To August 2005 Index

News about Ireland & the Irish

UT 08/05/05 Apprentice Boys Parade Banned From Flashpoint
BB 08/05/05 Loyalist Blamed Over Riot; 40 Police Injured
BT 08/05/05 Police Hold 6 In Loyalist Feud Swoop
IO 08/05/05 Police Accused In Wake Of Loyalist Rioting
UT 08/05/05 Loyalist Feud Victim Laid To Rest
BT 08/05/05 Hillary: IRA Called Ian's Bluff
BT 08/05/05 Blair Plays Broker Role Once Again
IO 08/05/05 Kenny Welcomes Shell Pipeline Work Deferral
NH 08/05/05 Opin: Time Hain Reined In The UDA 'Goon Squads'
ST 08/05/05 Opin: IRA's Renouncing Violence Good Step
BT 08/05/05 Opin: Unionists Should Keep Powder Dry
IT 08/05/05 Opin: Process Of Consulting Loses Sway
GM 08/05/05 Opin: How The IRA Was Tamed
BT 08/05/05 Never, Never Never ... Never?
BT 08/05/05 Never Again? How Iraq Spurred Nuclear Arms Race
PC 08/05/05 Pittsburgh Takes The Pledge

(Poster's Note: For those writing letters re: "the discreet
charm of the terrorist cause" to the Washington Post, you
might want to send a copy to the following pubs that also
ran the article:
Anne Applebaum: The romantic pull of terrorism
Minneapolis Star Tribune
The Discreet Charm Of Terrorism
New York Sun, NY
The subtle appeal of the 'armed struggle'
Fort Worth Star Telegram, TX



Apprentice Boys Parade Banned From Belfast Flashpoint

An Apprentice Boys parade has been banned from passing a
north Belfast flashpoint.

The Ligoniel Walker Club planned to march past the Ardoyne
shops before linking up with the main Apprentice Boys
parade in Derry on August 13.

However, the Parades Commission says that allowing the
parade to pass the interface would have an adverse effect
on fragile community relations and have potential for
public disorder.

However, the Commission insists that it will lend its full
support to any process which genuinely seeks greater
understanding and resolution of these issues.


Loyalist Paramilitaries Blamed Over Riot; 40 Police Injured

Loyalist paramilitaries have been blamed for rioting in
north Belfast in which 40 police officers were injured.

Petrol bombs were thrown and a bus and 10 cars hijacked and
set on fire in disturbances on the Crumlin Road.

The trouble followed the arrests of six men in connection
with a loyalist feud, in which three men have been

Acting Assistant Chief Constable Wesley Wilson said he
believed Thursday's riot was aimed at disrupting
investigations into the feud between the LVF and UVF.

"I think this was an orchestrated attempt, because the
police were in making arrests being pro-active - carrying
out searches to try and stop this murderous feud that's
ongoing," he said.

He said that while he did not have direct evidence he said
that it was reasonable to expect that "loyalist
paramilitaries such as the UVF" were behind the rioting.


Petrol bombs and a blast bomb were thrown and a bus and 10
cars were hijacked and set on fire in the trouble, which
broke out shortly before 1730 BST.

It is understood that none of the injuries sustained by
police are life-threatening. Officers fired 11 plastic
baton rounds during the trouble.

ACC Wilson said so many petrol bombs were thrown at police
that they stopped counting.

He said that any allegations about police behaviour made
about how police acted in the area would be investigated.

"I don't think there was heavy handedness," he said.

"The allegations that we have been made aware of are that
in the face of provocation and unprovoked attacks on our
officers while they're doing searches, eggs being thrown at
them, one officer hit in the head with a brick, they say
our officers were uncivil."

He said that no arrests were made at the time but that
video evidence was being reviewed and he was confident
police would identify rioters.


He said that attempts by community representatives to calm
thing down had not worked, but appealed for them to
continue in their efforts.

Northern Ireland's criminal justice minister David Hanson
condemned the violence.

"Once again it is loyalist paramilitaries who have brought
violence into loyalist areas," he said.

DUP councillor William Humphrey said his party was
concerned that some police officers from the force's
Tactical Support Group had been "heavy handed".

"I am challenging how some officers behaved in this
community yesterday and in the last weeks," he said.

Mr Humphrey said he had complained about what he saw in a
detailed meeting with the police on Thursday and would be
seeking a further meeting with senior officers.

The area's SDLP assembly member, Alban Maginness, said
there was no excuse for the riots or the viciousness of the
hostility and violence directed at the police.

"We cannot have a situation where loyalist criminals
organise and begin a riot just because the police move to
hold them to account under the law," he said.

Meanwhile, the funeral of the latest victim of the loyalist
feud has been taking place in north Belfast.

Stephen Paul, 28, was shot dead as he sat in a car in
Wheatfield Crescent last Saturday night.

Story from BBC NEWS:
Published: 2005/08/05 10:16:56 GMT


Police Hold 6 In Feud Swoop

Cars burnt as trouble flares

By Jonathan McCambridge
05 August 2005

Trouble flared in north Belfast last night after police
arrested six men as they increased the pressure on warring
loyalist terror groups.

A police spokesperson said three cars and a lorry were
hijacked and set on fire close to the Crumlin Road shortly
before 5.30pm with paint and petrol bombs also being

The disturbances forced officers to close a number of
streets, including Tennant Street, Cambrai Street and
Brookfield Mill, just below the Holy Cross Primary School.

Earlier, a senior detective appealed to the public to give
them the assistance to help "end the bloodshed".

The ongoing UVF/LVF feud has so far cost three lives this

The latest victim, 28-year-old father-of-four Stephen Paul
- gunned down in north Belfast last weekend - is due to be
buried today.

Police yesterday carried out 14 searches, mainly in north
Belfast, as the latest part of an ongoing operation against
loyalist organisations.

The searches, all at residential properties, led to six

The suspects are now being questioned at the Serious Crime
Suite at Antrim.

Some of those arrested are being questioned about the
murder of Mr Paul.

This is the latest stage in a long-running police operation
to combat the feud which is costing the PSNI £30,000 every

Detective Superintendent Roy McComb, who is leading the
investigation into the murder of Mr Paul, described the
killing as an "act of brutality".

He said: "This was a young man, the father of four young
children, whose life was taken from him for reasons best
known to those who carried out this act.

"We are determined to clear this murder for the family but
we need the assistance of the public to end this bloodshed.

"Over a number of days we have carried out a series of
searches and made a number of arrests connected to this
murder and the loyalist feud.

"I would say to the people of Belfast, we want you to live
a peaceful existence but we need you to co-operate with us.
We need your help to bring the murderers to justice so you
can get on with leading ordinary lives."

Police are seeking information about a blue Vauxhall Astra
- registration RDZ 5600 - which the two gunmen drove from
Wheatfield Crescent onto the Crumlin Road before it was
found abandoned in the Forthriver estate.

DS McComb said: "We want information about this vehicle in
the days before the murder, Where was it left? Where was it

"The two men drove up the Crumlin Road at speed. Did this
vehicle cause you to stop or swerve? Did you see it being


Police Accused In Wake Of Rioting
2005-08-05 09:20:02+01

Police were probing allegations that officers acted in a
heavy-handed manner during raids on loyalist homes in
Belfast prior to serious rioting, a senior officer
confirmed today.

Forty police officers were injured during clashes with
angry loyalists in the Crumlin Road and Woodvale areas
which resulted in 11 plastic baton rounds being fired.

None of the police officers' injuries were life-

Residents blamed police behaviour during raids earlier in
the day connected to a probe into a loyalist paramilitary
feud, claiming officers used abusive language towards

The disturbances flared around 5.30pm yesterday with three
cars and a lorry being hijacked and set alight.

A blast bomb was thrown at police lines at around 10pm,
while a bus was completely destroyed and other vehicles
were damaged. A HGV cab was also driven at police lines.
Officers also came under fire from petrol and paint bombs
as well as fireworks.

Earlier six people were arrested as officers raided a total
of 15 homes in connection with their probe into a feud
between the Ulster Volunteer Force and its rival, the
Loyalist Volunteer Force which has claimed the lives of
three people.

Democratic Unionist councillor William Humphrey expressed
concern about police conduct during yesterday's raids.

"We have raised the behaviour of some officers which I
witnessed yesterday with senior officers," he said. "We
want to see community relations being built in this
community and not destroyed."

Acting Assistant Chief Constable Wesley Wilson said any
allegations against officers would be investigated.

"I know that there have been allegations of heavy-
handedness by people," he said. "The allegations made to
the District Commander of North Belfast will be
investigated and there are procedures for doing that."

However he said the allegations still did not justify last
night's rioting.

Although there was no direct evidence that loyalist
paramilitaries were directing the violence, the acting ACC
said it was reasonable to suspect the Ulster Volunteer
Force orchestrated last night's disturbances.

"These people had wheelie bins full of bricks and bottles,
they had so many petrol bombs that we actually stopped
counting how many were thrown at our officers and blast
bombs," he said.

While no arrests were made, he confirmed police would be
reviewing video evidence to identify those involved.

Northern Ireland Office minister David Hanson condemned
last night's rioting.

"Once again it is loyalist paramilitaries who have brought
violence into loyalist areas," he said.

"The Police Service of Northern Ireland will protect the
whole community and must have the support of the whole
community. Those with influence must use to bring an end to
this self-destructive violence."


Loyalist Feud Victim Laid To Rest

The funeral has taken place of one of the victims of the
loyalist feud in Belfast.

Twenty-eight-year-old Stephen Paul was shot as he sat in a
van outside a house in Wheatfield Crescent, off the Crumlin
Road, in north Belfast on Saturday evening.

The UVF has been blamed for his killing.

His cortege left his parents`s house in Wheatfield Gardens
this morning for burial at Roselawn cemetery.


Hillary: IRA Called Ian's Bluff

By Sean O'Driscoll in New York
05 August 2005

The IRA "called Ian Paisley's bluff" by announcing the end
of its campaign of violence, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
has told Irish-American community leaders in New York.

During the discussion on Ulster's future after the recent
IRA announcement, Senator Clinton was asked about her
description of Mr Paisley in her memoirs as being "stuck in
a time warp".

Senator Clinton replied: "In effect, I think that the IRA
has called his bluff. The constant demands about what the
IRA needed to do have been met and now it really is up to
the DUP, of which he continues to be the principle
spokesperson but is not the only leader.

"There's a younger generation of leadership in the DUP,
whom I've met along with my husband, and they're evaluating
now what is in their long term best interests.

"I believe that, as they conduct this examination, they
will determine that it is in their best interest to be in
government and that's what we have to hope for," she said.

Senator Clinton also said that while President Bush did not
appear interested in sending a special envoy to Northern
Ireland, she believed he should.

"He can signal the personal interest he has in ensuring
that this process comes to fruition.

"We believe that sending someone who has the confidence of
the President, as well as the confidence of the parties, to
be special envoy would send that signal," she said.


Blair Plays Broker Role Once Again

Parties at loggerheads on Assembly

By Deborah McAleese
05 August 2005

Tony Blair last night found himself once again trying to
appease both unionists and republicans as he stepped in to
act as mediator between the DUP and Sinn Fein.

The Prime Minister said he wanted to see devolution as soon
as possible but added that Sinn Fein can only return to
power sharing government if it remains committed to
exclusively peaceful means.

He said: "You cannot have the institutions in Northern
Ireland back up and running except on the basis that it is
clear in word and in deed that exclusively peaceful means
are the only way to achieve progress."

Following a meeting with both parties yesterday, Mr Blair
also defended the Government's decision to dismantle border
watchtowers and disband three NI battalions of the Royal
Irish Regiment.

He said the moves were "justified" in security terms and
had been for a time.

He added: "With the IRA's statement we can implement that
but that has not been forced politically against the
security wishes of the police or the Army.

"Obviously you have to mark carefully what happens. You had
the IRA's statement but you then have got to make sure that
what has been said in theory is carried through in

While Sinn Fein's Gerry Adams said he saw no reason the
devolved institutions could not be brought back
immediately, the DUP's Peter Robinson said his party will
take time to decide if the IRA has gone for good.

Mr Adams said: "While we have a very clear view of what
needs to happen we do think that everyone has to have the
opportunity to absorb the importance of last week's
momentous decisions and announcements by the IRA."

Sinn Fein's chief negotiator Martin McGuinness said: "I
think that the DUP need to regain their nerve. They need to
recognise that they have a mighty contribution to make
towards bringing peace to the island of Ireland and they
have to play their part."

However, Ian Paisley said: "We are not going to have any
discussion about devolution until the requirements Mr Blair
himself set out are fulfilled by the IRA."

Mr Robinson added: "We will take a prolonged period of time
to make assessment that they have gone and gone for good."


Kenny Welcomes Shell Pipeline Work Deferral

05/08/2005 - 11:46:11

Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny has welcomed Shell's decision
to defer work on the controversial Corrib gas pipeline in
his native Mayo.

The company said yesterday the move was designed to
encourage dialogue with local residents concerned about the
pipeline project.

The residents, who want an offshore terminal built instead
of an onshore pipeline, have responded with scepticism to
the announcement.

Spokeswoman Maura Harrington claimed it was a ploy by Shell
to make the five men jailed for obstructing work on the
pipeline look unreasonable.

However, Mr Kenny said the decision would allow for a "full
examination of all of the legitimate health and safety
concerns about the pipeline".


It's Time Hain Reined In The UDA 'Goon Squads'

(Newton Emerson, Irish News)

This weekend I had great difficulty obtaining a copy of the
Sunday World. "The UDA told us not to sell it," the young
girl behind one till informed me with a matter-of-fact
shrug. In other newsagents the owners were less talkative –
and no wonder.

These are hard-working people, proud of their independence,
and they have been humiliated by thugs who operate above
the law. But nobody cares about that, just as nobody seems
too bothered by this latest paramilitary campaign to close
down an independent newspaper.

Perhaps too much else has been happening this week for it
to make the headlines.

On the other hand, when state-sanctioned goon squads menace
the free press in Belarus, Turkey or Zimbabwe that
generally leads the BBC evening news – although there is
plenty else happening in those countries as well.

There is also no point denying that the UDA is a state-
sanctioned goon squad while its 'ceasefire' remains
officially recognised despite widespread crime,
intimidation and violence. So thank God then that our new
secretary of state is Peter Hain, international friend of
the oppressed and freedom-loving hero of the veldt.

In his previous role as Foreign Office minister for Africa,
Mr Hain was a particularly outspoken champion of the press.
"One of the major tenets of democracy is freedom of the
media," he wrote in The Namibian newspaper in August 2000.

"Governments must continue to show a commitment to freedom
of speech, however, uncomfortable it can be at times."

That same month, when Liberian authorities arrested four
journalists on trumped-up spying charges, Peter Hain said:
"This is an attack on international press freedom and
against the whole international climate which favours press
freedom." Following the illegal detention of the editor of
the Independent newspaper in Ghana in January 2000, Peter
Hain said: "The press must be responsible in their
reporting but they must also be able to operate, free from
fear and persecution."

Most of all though, Peter Hain worried about press freedom
in Zimbabwe.

As President Mugabe's state-sanctioned goon squads attacked
journalists at The Nation, for example, Peter Hain said:
"The violence and disrespect for the rule of law in
Zimbabwe should be a matter of concern to the whole
international community."

In response, Mugabe's party-controlled tabloid The Mail
described Peter Hain as "the wife" of British gay rights
campaigner Peter Tatchell.

This accusation was of course ridiculous – Peter Tatchell
is far too class-conscious to fancy a man who owns a

In fact it is Peter Hain's relationship with Robert Mugabe
himself which resembles a bad marriage – and which also
increasingly resembles his attitude towards the UDA. Peter
Hain was a strong supporter of Mugabe in the initially
successful years after Zimbabwe's own peace process.

The happy couple only fell out in March 2001 when Mugabe
ordered the search of UK diplomatic bags at Harare airport.

This, Peter Hain declared at the time, "was not the action
of a civilised country". Which is odd, because if a UDA
brigadier walks into a Royal Mail sorting office in Mallusk
and demands that the post be opened and searched for his
passport, that apparently doesn't threaten civilisation at
all. When Mugabe's goons subsequently began occupying
white-owned farms, Peter Hain strongly criticised these
"pistol to the head seizures". Which is also odd, because
if a UDA 'brigadier' seizes a family business by holding a
pistol to the owner's head, Peter Hain won't take any
action at all.

When Mugabe began deporting his political opponents in
2002, Peter Hain said: "The government will do its best to
give practical advice and support to any British nationals
who face eviction." Which is really odd, because if a UDA
brigadier orders a British person out of their home in
Northern Ireland, the secretary of state won't even
consider reviewing its ceasefire. Perhaps Peter Hain
doesn't want to publicly admit that "constructive
engagement seems to have failed" – as he did with Robert
Mugabe in January 2001 – because shortly after he admitted
this Tony Blair sacked him. Or perhaps he is simply
confused by the African origins of the UDA's most Mugabe-
like 'brigadier'.

Either way, as the secretary of state clearly won't put the
rule of law above his own anti-colonial delusions, then the
fact that the UDA is openly transforming Northern Ireland
into Southern Rhodesia should be enough to get him off his
perfectly tanned behind. Well – shouldn't it?

August 5, 2005

Newton Emerson is editor of the satirical website Portadown

This article appeared first in the August 4, 2005 edition
of the Irish News.


Opin: IRA's Renouncing Violence A Good Step Toward Peace

August 5, 2005

Even though a truce had been in place, the Irish Republican
Army's recent announcement that it was ending its decades-
old war against Britain and devoting itself to "exclusively
peaceful means" made for a powerful moment. So much blood
has been shed in Northern Ireland, for so many years,
claiming the lives of so many innocents, the fear was there
would never be an end to the terrorism, the violence and an
ever-rising death toll -- at least not in the lifetime of
those who have lived with the threat on a daily basis.

After so many of the "false dawns" British Prime Minister
Tony Blair alluded to in embracing the announcement, there
are reasons to be skeptical that the elusive peace will
finally be a done deal. The IRA has yet to acknowledge its
cold-blooded killings were wrong. (It continues to protect
the members who stabbed to death a Roman Catholic man in a
Belfast bar in January.) And while the guerrillas have made
a show of disposing of some of the arms they have hidden in
bunkers across Ireland, they have dragged their feet in
completing the job -- a failure that contributed to the
breaking down of previous peace efforts and the collapse of
the Northern Ireland government.

Seven years after the signing of the Good Friday Agreement,
which also was greeted with hope but proved maddeningly
unable to bring nationalists, unionists and the British
into accord, it will take considerable work to bring the
sides together. Responding to the promise of nonviolence,
the British encouragingly said they would withdraw more
than half their forces from Northern Ireland within two
years. While the move drew the support of Roman Catholic
politicians, it was called a "scandalous betrayal" by the
Rev. Ian Paisley, head of the Democratic Unionists, the
majority party among Protestants, which is threatening to
boycott negotiations with British authorities. For peace to
go forward and the parties to share power, the Unionists
and Sinn Fein, the majority party among Roman Catholics and
the political arm of the IRA, will have to find a way to
get on the same page -- or at the same table -- to restart
the legislature.

For all that, there is reason to believe a breakthrough is
at hand. This was the first time since the founding of the
Irish state that the IRA renounced violence. If there was a
time when it had the support, however limited, of American
Catholics, that support has evaporated at a time when
terrorism is viewed as an abhorrent thing, no matter what
the cause. And the economic prosperity Ulster enjoys is a
powerful catalyst for peace.

Now there is an opportunity in Northern Ireland to chase
the dark clouds that have long hovered over it. There is
also an opportunity to give hope to the rest of the world
by showing that even the most dire conflict can be resolved
through politics and diplomacy. Friendship is not required
here; reasonability will suffice.


Viewpoint: Unionists Should Keep Powder Dry

Blair meeting: It is too soon to jump to conclusions

05 August 2005

Meetings between Tony Blair and Ian Paisley have never been
cosy, but yesterday's must have been particularly blunt.
The speed with which the government has responded to the
IRA's "dump arms" statement has taken unionists by
surprise, showing how security will be drastically scaled
down in a peaceful province.

The DUP has always emphasised that it needs action rather
than words from the IRA, so its angry scepticism is
understandable. No actual decommissioning has taken place,
yet the past week has been punctuated by announcements of
watchtowers being demolished, the RIR home battalions being
disbanded and possible speaking rights for Sinn Fein in the

So far all the benefits are flowing to the republicans,
presented in a one-sided way that was sure to annoy
unionists, but the government has been anxious to
consolidate what it regards as a ground-breaking statement.
On past performance, an elaborate choreography has been set
in place, with early concessions to republicans soon to be
matched by decisions intended to lure unionists into
devolution talks.

If this is so - and the government must not ignore unionist
resentment - then the DUP will be faced with some difficult
challenges. Already it is warning that agreement on
devolution could be delayed by two years, as a result of
what has happened, and is threatening further "sanctions"
against future concessions to Sinn Fein.

There is a long history of protests against government by
unionists in general and the DUP in particular, but are
they effective and do they win any sympathy for their
cause, nationally or internationally? The unpalatable truth
is that, because of Sinn Fein's public relations
techniques, the world thinks that the IRA's war is over,
for good, and that all its weapons will verifiably be

This may be right or wrong, depending on the reports of the
decommissioning body and the Independent Monitoring
Commission, but it is too soon for unionists to jump to
conclusions. They should keep their powder dry, hoping that
all non-political IRA activity is over but preparing their
alternative strategy if it is not. If they protest too
soon, too obstructively, they, rather than republicans,
will be blamed for any breakdown.

The goal of all governments, as well as the political
parties, is to restore devolution broadly along Good Friday
Agreement lines. Minor changes may be made, as they were
last December, but power-sharing between DUP and Sinn Fein
is unavoidable. The alternative, as we are seeing, could be
dictatorial direct rule, taking decisions on rates, water
charges and education that will be unpopular with both


Opin: Process Of Consulting Loses Sway

It is becoming clearer by the day that the British
government believes the political institutions in Northern
Ireland cannot be revived. Whether the judgment is that
neither Sinn Féin nor the DUP is genuinely committed to
reaching an agreement on power-sharing or, more charitably,
that the gulf between them is so wide as to be unbridgeable
is largely irrelevant, writes David Adams

With far more pressing matters than Northern Ireland
demanding their full attention, the most obvious being the
ongoing threat of terrorist attacks in Britain, it seems
Tony Blair and his government are no longer prepared to
waste precious time, energy and resources on the political
equivalence of an irresistible force arm-wrestling with an
immovable object.

Besides, from a British perspective the peace process, even
as it stands, can only be considered a success. In the
absence of a devolved Assembly it hasn't been as successful
as it might have been, but with thousands of troops no
longer bogged down here and peace of a sort established the
situation is light years beyond what it once was. The
"armed struggle" is at an end and the activities of
militant republicanism now confined to a tiny, hermetically
sealed, corner of the UK. With Sinn Féin continuing to
expand its political base in the Republic it could even be
argued that, in many respects, the problem of how to deal
with "a vast criminal and political conspiracy" now rests
with the Dublin administration.

Regardless of whether or not the political process can be
put back on track, the peace process will be enhanced
further still if the IRA lives up to last week's promises.
So for the foreseeable future British attention will be
focused almost exclusively on ensuring the IRA does indeed

To that end and within reason, the government will
determinedly press ahead with whatever measures it deems
necessary, irrespective of who it offends. This means that
unionists are set to suffer frequent offence in the months
ahead. A distinct change in emphasis has already been
apparent from the speed and manner of the government's
reaction to last week's IRA statement.

It is clear that consulting (never mind trying to reach
agreement) with nationalists and unionists before taking
decisions on sensitive or volatile issues is no longer of
any great concern.

To pave the way for the IRA statement, the Secretary of
State for Northern Ireland, Peter Hain, ordered the release
from prison of Shankill bomber Seán Kelly. He didn't bother
giving advance notice of his decision to the relatives of
Kelly's victims - arguably, something he was legally
obliged to do - never mind to unionist politicians.

Like the relatives, the first they heard of it was on local
television and radio news reports. Likewise, it was a BBC
Radio Ulster current affairs programme, Talk Back, rather
than army chiefs or government ministers that first
informed members of the home-based battalions of the Royal
Irish Regiment (some 3,100 people in total) that they would
be made redundant in 2007. Neither the soldiers nor
unionist politicians had been given any prior notice that
such a decision was imminent. On Tuesday of this week,
Peter Hain decided to extend by up to a year the terms of
office of serving members of the Northern Ireland Policing
Board. Established in 2001, the board was due its first
revamp this coming October when, in line with the most
recent Assembly election results of 2003, the DUP would
have been entitled to claim a further two seats currently
occupied by the Ulster Unionist Party.

As a result of Hain's decision, political membership will,
instead, continue to reflect the results of the Assembly
elections of 1998.

The DUP will still hold a minority share of the unionist
seats even though it now represents a clear majority of the
unionist electorate.

Peter Hain simply ignored strong protests from the DUP and
went ahead with his decision.

Despite what they may say, neither Sinn Féin nor the DUP
will be too discomfited by the prospect of the Assembly not
being reinstated. Not least because the government
assessment is right: for completely different reasons
neither is interested in sharing power with the other.

With or without a working Assembly, Sinn Féin will continue
its twin-track policy of creating instability in Northern
Ireland while expanding its electoral base in the Republic.

You don't need the IRA or its weaponry to foment trouble
around issues such as flags, parades or policing.

In the wake of Seán Kelly's release and the disbanding of
the RIR battalions, the DUP, in line with a majority of the
unionist electorate, will now be even less inclined, if
that is possible, to share executive office with Sinn Féin.

They will content themselves, instead, with politics at
Westminster and in Europe.

Unfortunately, the rest of us will just have to await the
long overdue reorganisation of local government in Northern
Ireland, with its promise of far fewer but much more
powerful local councils, to deliver locally based,
representative and accountable, democratic institutions.

© The Irish Times


Opin: How The IRA Was Tamed

Some say the war on terror brought the IRA to heel, but in
fact it laid down arms for canny tactical reasons, says
political scientist JOHN McGARRY


Thursday, August 4, 2005

Last week, the Irish Republican Army announced that it
would formally end its armed campaign, destroy its
weaponry, and pursue its aims through exclusively peaceful
means. The organization has been on ceasefire since 1997,
but it has never forsworn the right to renew hostilities,
or deprived itself of the means to do so. Why has it done
so now?

Some have linked the IRA climbdown to the war on terror
waged both by the Bush administration and by Tony Blair's
U.K. government. After last week's historic statement,
several commentators pointed out that it followed the July
bombings on the London transport system; the IRA, it
seemed, had acted to avoid being tarred with the al-Qaeda
brush. (The IRA first opted to destroy some of its weaponry
shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. This
first act of decommissioning also followed the arrest in
Colombia of three IRA operatives, who were charged with
aiding FARC rebels in bomb-making techniques.)

In recent months, much has been made of the Bush
administration's cold-shoulder treatment since 9/11 toward
the leaders of Sinn Fein, the IRA's political wing.
Relations worsened this year, after IRA members were
involved in the brutal death of a young Catholic man,
Robert McCartney, after a bar-room brawl in January. For
the first time in recent years, Sinn Fein's leadership was
denied access to the White House on St. Patrick's Day. In
their place were the eloquent McCartney sisters, there to
put pressure on the IRA.

From this perspective, the IRA capitulated to cold-shoulder
treatment, and perhaps to the fear that this could develop
into something worse: collaboration between the United
States and the United Kingdom in removing the IRA threat
through military means.

There is something to this story. Sinn Fein leaders prize
their access to America and are much concerned about
alienating key supporters in Congress and among the U.S.
business elite and public. Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams no
doubt told the IRA that they risk losing this support by
holding on to their weapons, particularly given American
sensitivities post 9/11.

However, this is not the most important part of the story.
The IRA move can be attributed more directly, albeit
belatedly, to the Good Friday Agreement of 1998 and the way
in which it accommodated the political aspirations of Irish
republicans. It created a process for reuniting Ireland,
after separate referendums in Northern Ireland and the
Irish Republic. It established cross-border political
institutions, linking both parts of Ireland, and capable of
extending their jurisdiction by consensus.

Alongside this was a new power-sharing government in
Northern Ireland in which all of its major parties,
including Sinn Fein, were given the right to seats,
proportionate to their electoral support. Once these
institutions were conceded, it became increasingly
difficult for the IRA to claim to its supporters that
progress was possible only through violence. The
demographic growth of the Catholic electorate further
suggested that politics could deliver change in Northern
Ireland, and perhaps even a united Ireland.

The Irish Republic's booming economy pointed in the same
direction, opening up the possibility that a united Ireland
might be achieved with the consent of Protestant unionists,
not just Catholic numbers. Increasing its support in every
Northern Ireland election, Sinn Fein became, by 2001, the
largest nationalist party there, meanwhile dramatically
expanding its electoral support in the Irish Republic (it
is now spoken of as a potential partner in a Dublin
coalition government).

In this context, the IRA's refusal to declare that its
armed campaign was over had become a major obstacle to Sinn
Fein's political ambitions. It allowed unionists to refuse
to share power with it, while holding onto the moral high
ground. It resulted in all of Ireland's political parties
ruling out a place for Sinn Fein in the Republic's
government. It imposed limits on Sinn Fein's capacity to
expand electorally in both parts of Ireland.

The IRA's decision to end its campaign was held up by
British mismanagement of postagreement Northern Ireland.
London initially dragged its feet on security-related
reforms considered central by republicans, including
proposals to reform the police and scale down the British
military presence. The British government also suspended
Northern Ireland's assembly on four occasions, against the
wishes of republicans. Within the past two years, London
has gradually come round to addressing these concerns.

The backdrop to the IRA statement, therefore, involves far
more than cold-shoulder treatment from George Bush in the
context of the war on terror. In fact, arguably more
important was the Clinton administration's warm-shoulder
treatment in the early days of Northern Ireland's peace
process in the mid-1990s. Bill Clinton's open door
encouraged Sinn Fein moderates, allowing them to argue to
IRA hawks that they had a powerful ally in Washington who
could help deliver political concessions from London.

The IRA statement would also not have been possible without
the political compromises delivered in the Good Friday
Agreement. This story has significance in places beyond
Northern Ireland, including Israel/Palestine and Spain's
Basque country. It suggests that erstwhile radicals can be
persuaded to become moderates if they are engaged
politically, and if their legitimate aspirations are
accommodated. Relying exclusively on the "war on terror"
would not have worked in Northern Ireland, and is unlikely
to be successful elsewhere.

John McGarry is Canada Research Chair in Nationalism and
Democracy at Queen's University, co-author of Policing
Northern Ireland: Proposals for a New Start and editor of
Northern Ireland and the Divided World.

This article appeared in the August 4, 2005 edition of the
Toronto Globe and Mail.


Never, Never Never ... Never?

The DUP is demanding delays to devolution talks. But how
long can a waiting game go on? Political Correspondent Noel
McAdam examines the tough calls facing the party

05 August 2005

No montage of Ian Paisley seems complete without his famous
thundering of the mantra: "NEVER... NEVER... NEVER". But
there was another 'never' that day which fell quite far
down the DUP leader's yelling scale.

As hundreds of thousands stood outside Belfast City Hall to
oppose the dreaded Anglo-Irish Agreement, Mr Paisley was
riding the wave of a rising crowd roar which reached a
crescendo just after his third 'never' and before the

Strict rules of rhetoric might have advised the great
Ulster orator against going ahead with 'never' number four
- for it has also resonated down the years.

And despite the threats and anger of recent days, it seems
to be closer to the kind of note being struck by the party
in recent days - that 'never' that may not be quite forever
any longer.

In fact 'never' now appears to amount to around two years,
the minimum time the DUP reckons it might take to restore
acceptable devolution, knowing that in this process so far
no one ever lost out by under-estimating the length of time
things tend to take.

It has also warned, though, that even that two years could
be extended if, for example, the Government moves ahead
with legislation allowing IRA fugitives to return or
revitalises the work of the north-south bodies.

But time penalties can be traded, too - in return, perhaps,
for advancing your own agenda or thwarting other people's
wish-lists. If the IRA moves decisively to dormancy,
unionists might not need so long to become convinced.

Certainly Mr Paisley, his deputy Peter Robinson and their
able team realise the massive challenge facing the party
and the huge risks involved in the months ahead.

The Government's rapid response rate of announcements and
on-the-ground activity following the IRA statement had a
number of aims - not all directed at the DUP.

While providing ostensible cover for the success of Gerry
Adams' initiative with his 'armed wing' - demonstrating the
effectiveness of a direct mechanism with London - it was
also designed to firmly lock the Provisionals into the
making good on their 'we're standing down' statement.

But Tony Blair also seems to be telling the DUP it can
choose whether it wants to sign up for power-sharing
government with republicans.

If the answer though, turns out to be 'never', the process
will still move on, under the only available blueprint of
the Good Friday Agreement.

The party cannot set the terms for disarmament. By the time
meaningful talks are finally under way - probably sometime
next year - the decommissioning process will most likely be
over. Yet the degree of transparency - the credibility of
the church witnesses and whether, for example, an inventory
is given - will help determine the impact the arms-dumping
has on the unionist community.

Like a latter-day political version of the cowboy hole-in-
the-wall gang, 'Butch' Paisley and 'Sundance' Robinson can
attempt to force Tony Blair's peace train into a siding -
but the clear British message is 'you would be better
getting on board'.

It is not that the firm 'plan B' to a Stormont Executive
and Assembly is joint Dublin-London rule, but that whatever
alternative emerges might be much less to the liking of
unionists than even the greenest aspects of the Agreement.

Peter Robinson has gone so far as to mention even the
prospect of face-to-face meetings with Sinn Fein, albeit
couched within the language of outrage and dismay.

He has outlined three phases in which the seemingly
impossible could, eventually, take place - and, given the
scale and speed of the Government's actions, the party
knows that, when it comes to the hard bargaining, it can
only trust itself.

First will come the period when the "genuine intent" of the
republican movement will become clear - underpinned with
the combined authority of the decommissioning body and the
Independent Monitoring body - followed by a whole raft of
equalising 'quid pro quo' Government moves designed to
boost the unionist community.

The DUP has presented an extensive 'wish-list' in this
regard, not all of which may even yet be in the public
domain - but which could help create the climate in which
direct DUP-Sinn Fein contact become possible.

"It is all about getting people to do what they don't
really want to do. The IRA didn't want to have to stand
down its units. We need to be enticed over the line too," a
senior party source said.

Robinson argues the only real pressure a political party
can come under is from its own supporters - and many DUP
voters appear sanguine enough about Direct Rule. That could
change, however, as water charges, rates increases, or
moves on policing, begin.

Yet the Government knows, too, that the DUP may have to be
supplied with reasons to be cheerful - and imperatives for
giving co-government a go.


Never Again? How The War In Iraq Spurred A New Nuclear Arms

As the world prepares to mark the anniversary of Hiroshima,
Iran is poised to go nuclear amid a new global arms race

By Anne Penketh
05 August 2005

Tomorrow at 8.15am, a minute's silence will reverberate
around the world. The people of Japan will commemorate the
victims of the first atomic bomb, which was dropped by an
American B-29 on Hiroshima on 6 August 1945.

Half a world away, in Tehran, the new hard man of Iranian
politics, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, will take the oath
of office before the country's parliament. His presidency
heralds a new era of uncertainty in Iran's fraught
relations with the West over its nuclear ambitions.

In Beijing, urgent talks on curbing North Korea's nuclear
weapons programme are close to collapse. And in Pakistan,
efforts are still being made to roll up the world's biggest
nuclear proliferation scandal. Sixty years after Hiroshima,
whose single bomb killed 237,062 people, a new nuclear arms
race has begun.

A crisis is deepening with Iran over its suspected nuclear
weapons activities. Tehran is threatening to resume uranium
conversion next week, prompting an emergency meeting of the
International Atomic Energy Agency which could result in
Iran being referred to the UN Security Council for possible

At the six-party talks in Beijing, North Korea is refusing
to abandon a nuclear weapons programme that could lead to
another mushroom cloud over Asia.

International investigators are struggling to wrap up the
lucrative black market that spread a web of proliferation
across at least two continents thanks to the greed of one
man: the father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb.

The scientist A Q Khan, who sold nuclear secrets to Iran,
Libya, and possibly others, is now under house arrest.

Al-Qa'ida has still not been vanquished in its hideouts,
while there are still fears that the terrorists could be
working on the production of a " dirty" bomb that would
spread radiation and panic in major cities.

In the light of the war on Iraq, which did not have nuclear
weapons, second-tier nations have judged that North Korea
was spared invasion because of its nuclear deterrent, and
drawn their own strategic conclusions.

International attempts to renew a global pact banning the
proliferation of nuclear weapons have foundered. In short,
the system of safeguards aimed at preventing a repeat of
the horrors of Hiroshima is in disarray.

The review of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) by
189 states collapsed two months ago amid recriminations and
accusations that the nuclear five had no intention of
living up to their treaty commitments to pursue nuclear

All signs are that the treaty intended to protect the world
from nuclear peril is dead. Pyongyang has pulled out,
boasting that it now has nuclear weapons, and other members
such as Iran, Egypt and South Korea have been caught

But the regime had already been seriously undermined by
states that remained outside the NPT and became nuclear
powers: Israel, India and Pakistan. The NPT review at the
UN in the spring provided a timely opportunity to tighten
nuclear safeguards. Instead, the month-long conference
turned into a bitter slanging match in which the US
administration ignored its own record and turned up the
heat on Iran and North Korea.

At the heart of the four-decades-old NPT is a "grand
bargain". The five nuclear powers - US, Britain, France,
Russia and China - agreed to work towards nuclear
disarmament. In return, the non-nuclear states gave up any
ambition to develop nuclear weapons; they agreed to open up
all their facilities to inspection; and in return they were
guaranteed the benefits of peaceful nuclear technology.

The big five have always been open to the charge of
hypocrisy. Behind the rhetoric of disarmament, they have
tried everything in their power to prevent second-tier
powers from obtaining nuclear arms, while clinging on to
their own nuclear arsenals despite strategic cuts. Both the
US and Britain are upgrading: the Bush administration is
developing nuclear "bunker busters" that can strike deep
underground, while Britain has ordered a new generation of
Trident missiles.

With the NPT seriously weakened, the challenge now is to
keep the genie in the bottle, as regional rivalries in the
Middle East and Asia risk going nuclear.

For the Bush administration, openly hostile to a UN
solution, the answer has been talk or bomb: negotiate with
states that already have a weapon (such as North Korea), or
to take preemptive strikes against those that do not (such
as Iraq). US officials say acting outside the treaty has
produced results: it brought Libya back into the fold in
2003, when Colonel Muammar Gaddafi decided to scrap his
weapons of mass destruction.

Yet this approach contains the risk of opening the path to
nuclear blackmail, which is how North Korea has coaxed the
West into compensating the hermit state in return for
concessions on its nuclear programme.

As with Iran, negotiations have stalled on the North Korean
insistence that it has the right to a civilian programme,
if it renounces nuclear weapons.

Iran, an NPT member which insists on its treaty right to
pursue nuclear power, has been infuriated by US co-
operation with India, a non-member of the NPT, which
blasted its way into the nuclear "club" in tit-for-tat
tests with Pakistan in 1998.

In a world no longer guided by a universally accepted
regime, countries are weighing the nuclear option. Arab
states consider nuclear-armed Israel, and are drawing their
own conclusions. Iran is hemmed in by hostile neighbours
such as Israel and Pakistan. A nuclear test by North Korea
could prompt Taiwan and Japan to follow down that road.

Preoccupied with Iraq, the US has decided to follow a
diplomatic route in dealing with Iran. But if the Security
Council fails to reach agreement on punishment for Tehran's
infringement, the military option would loom again.

Israel has made no secret of its intention to halt
militarily the Iranian nuclear weapons programme, as it did
when it struck Iraq's Osiraq reactor in 1981, delaying but
not ending Saddam Hussein's nuclear quest. But if Israel
did strike, the Iranians could hit back anywhere in the
region. Its nuclear programme would go underground, and the
hand of the hardliners in Tehran would be reinforced. As
one expert put it, an Israeli attack would be " a free pass
for the mullahs".

The question now is whether nuclear deterrence works. The
threat of American nuclear attack, albeit veiled, did not
deter Saddam Hussein from invading Kuwait. On the other
hand, North Korea's boasting of a nuclear arsenal saved it
from invasion. And nuclear weapons have not - yet - been
used on the battlefield.

Today, the "official" nuclear powers could annihilate the
world many times over. And 40 other countries have the
know-how to join their club. Sixty years after Hiroshima,
who can say with confidence: "Never again"?

Never again?

60 years since the first use of a nuclear weapon in war.
160,000 people died when the bomb was dropped at 8.15am on
Hiroshima, with another 77,062 dying later.

$27bn is spent each year by the US on nuclear weapons and
related programmes

11, 000 active, deliverable nuclear weapons in the world.
The US has 6,390, Russia 3,242 and Britain 200

15,654 sq miles, total land area used by US nuclear weapons
bases and facilities

4 other states known or thought to have nuclear weapons:
India, Israel, Pakistan, North Korea

5 acknowledged nuclear states: China, France, Russia,
United Kingdom, United States

1 number of islands vaporised by nuclear testing: Elugelab,
Micronesia, 1952

16 in length of 'Davy Crockett', the smallest nuclear
weapon ever produced

40 states with technical ability to make nuclear weapons,
including Egypt and South Korea

30,000 Kazakh conscripts served at Semipalatinsk, the
Soviet test site. There were 456 tests conducted between
1945 and 1991 at the site

100 maximum number of those Kazakh conscripts still alive

200 estimated number of nuclear weapons possessed by Israel

0 estimated number of nuclear weapons possessed by all the
Arab states

100,000 people were members of the Campaign for Nuclear
Disarmament in 1984

150 estimated number of nuclear weapons possessed by India

75 estimated number of nuclear weapons possessed by

40, 000 people are currently members of CND

900 years is the time it will take for radioactive elements
in Pripyat, near Chernobyl, to decay to safe levels
following the disaster 19 years ago


Pittsburgh Takes The Pledge

by: Mike Aquilina
First of two parts

He was Ireland's "apostle of temperance" at the midpoint of
the 19th century. Father Theobald Mathew was a temperance
crusader who got Ireland to take "the pledge." His every
appearance drew enormous crowds and saturation coverage
from the media. He was a sensation.

And he was coming to Pittsburgh. It was reported as news in
Pittsburgh even before Father Mathew stepped off the boat
in New York in 1849. The Pittsburgh Catholic tracked the
preacher's progress as he made his way through the eastern
states and territories, then through the South and Midwest,
before landing in Pittsburgh.

Father Mathew's reputation had preceded him to America. He
was singlehandedly responsible for accomplishing what the
Irish patriot Daniel O'Connell called "that astonishing
moral miracle" — that is, the sudden sobering-up of an
island that had long suffered from a colossal drinking

In the 1830s, per-capita annual consumption of beer and
whiskey hovered around 3.5 gallons of each. Various
temperance movements arose and vanished, for a variety of
reasons. Often, their founders and promoters were
evangelical Protestants otherwise known for their anti-
Catholicism, and so were viewed with suspicion or even
hostility by the fiercely Catholic Irish people.

Other early promoters were ethical humanists — or
Unitarians, or liberal Protestants, especially Quakers —
who, for dogmatic reasons, were just as suspect in the eyes
of Catholic Ireland.

Taking up the cause

In the mid-1830s, a Quaker temperance leader named William
Martin decided to approach his friend, Father Theobald
Mathew. Father Mathew was a Capuchin friar in Cork renowned
as a confessor and a pastor and for his work with the poor,
but he had no association whatsoever with the total-
abstinence movement. In fact, two of his brothers and one
of his brothers-in-law owned distilleries, and Father
Mathew himself enjoyed wine, brandy and even spirits,
though never to excess.

Martin did not succeed immediately. But over time he seems
to have shown Father Mathew that many of the poor families
they encountered were poor precisely because of their
alcohol abuse. Confronted with this evidence, Father Mathew
felt conscience bound, "as a minister of the Gospel, to
throw all personal considerations aside" and take up the
cause. Famously declaring, "Here goes, in the name of God!"
he signed the book of the newly formed Cork Total
Abstinence Society.

Ireland apparently was ready for Father Mathew. He traveled
the length and breadth of the island, and was seen by
hundreds of thousands. At each appearance, he stood for
hours while the men, women and children came before him,
one at a time, knelt and recited the words of the pledge:
"I promise, while I belong to the Teetotal Abstinence
Society, to abstain from all kinds of intoxicating drinks,
unless used medicinally, and that I will discountenance, by
advice and example, the cause of intemperance in others."

A little over two years after he joined the movement, he
had brought 2.5 million into it — 30 percent of the total
population of Ireland. By the time of the Potato Famine, in
1845, that number had more than doubled to 6 million, and
teetotalers held a clear majority.

Criticism and suspicion

Father Mathew's success was incontestable. But like any
great success it was also the subject of some heated and
persistent controversy. Father Mathew had his detractors
among the clergy and hierarchy.

Some claimed he was ecumenical to a fault, compromising the
clarity of Catholic faith so that he might attract
Protestants to his movement. More theological controversies
swirled around the nature of the pledge. Was it a vow? An
oath? Or a mere resolution? How binding was the pledge? Was
a violation a mortal sin, a venial sin or just a fault?

Another serious theological objection came from those who
called teetotalism a heresy. Some were Catholics, and some
were Protestant. But all alike pointed out that Jesus
himself took wine, used wine in the institution of his most
blessed sacrament, and even turned water into wine for a
wedding feast. Therefore, alcohol consumption was not
intrinsically evil, and could indeed be considered a great

All those controversies were serious, but none would impede
Father Mathew so much as the accusation that he was
unpatriotic. To quote his most recent biographer, Father
Mathew "was an ecumenist and anglophile at a time when most
of his Catholic brethren were militantly Catholic and

Father Mathew looked upon British rule as a fact of life.
The best way to improve Ireland's lot, he believed, was by
a program of assimilation and accommodation. To that end,
he worked toward more peaceful coexistence between Irish
and English, Catholic and Protestant, rich and poor. Much
of this was unobjectionable, and even ardent nationalists
chose to overlook Father Mathew's soft spot for Ireland's
oppressor. But in 1847, the apostle of temperance made a
fateful decision.

Looking to America

He had funded his movement largely out of his own pocket,
and now he was facing imminent bankruptcy. In near
desperation, he accepted a pension from the British crown.
It was a pittance, really; still, for many people in
Ireland a paycheck from the crown made one an accomplice of
the crown, and necessarily an apologist for the crown.

The decision haunted him, not only in Ireland but in the
Irish diaspora. For Ireland's poverty, which reached new
lows with the famine of 1845-47, had driven many to
emigrate, to find a better life elsewhere — in America,
Australia and even in England. To these Irish, Father
Mathew also felt a tender concern, and in 1843 he made a
tour of England, appealing especially to Irish and Catholic

By 1848, Father Mathew began planning a temperance tour of
the United States. But the intervening years had been
difficult. His temperance work was all-consuming. In
addition, the Potato Famine placed even greater demands on
him as a pastor. He opened a soup kitchen that fed 3,000 to
4,000 people each day. And every day, he gave 60 to 70 more
paupers a decent burial in his cemetery.

Father Mathew worked himself to exhaustion, and then he
kept working. In April 1848, when he was 57 years old, he
suffered a stroke that left him partially paralyzed, but he
recovered sufficiently to continue his plans for a voyage
to America the following year.

He was, however, a much diminished man. He wrote to his
American benefactor a letter that the Pittsburgh Catholic
published at length: "From illness and excessive toil," he
said, "my friends in the States will find in me but a mere
wreck of what I was, and I must throw myself on their
kindness and forbearance, whilst I shall be amongst them. I
fear that I will not be able to exert myself, as I have
hitherto; nor can it be expected that I will address public

Still, America — and certainly Pittsburgh — was eager to
welcome him on those terms. On this side of the Atlantic,
he was, quite literally, an icon of the temperance
movement. The Irish-American newspapers, the Catholic
newspapers and the temperance newspapers served as eager
heralds of his U.S. tour.

The American hierarchy, however, was less enthusiastic.
Some, like Bishop Hughes in New York, were Irish
nationalists who resented Father Mathew's pension from
Queen Victoria. Others, like Francis Kenrick in
Philadelphia, were teetotalers who quibbled with his
methods and suspected him of fanaticism. In Pittsburgh,
Bishop Michael O'Connor was a special case.

Change of heart in Pittsburgh

As a young priest, Irish-born Father O'Connor had served
Bishop Kenrick in the Philadelphia Diocese, and there he
imbibed his mentor's views on the subject of strong drink.
Father O'Connor promoted, for example, a petition to the
Holy See requesting an indulgence for those who joined
temperance societies.

But, while still in Philadelphia, he wrote a letter
contrasting American methods with those of Father Mathew in
Ireland. "Our success (in temperance) has hitherto been
great," he wrote to Father Paul Cullen, rector of the Irish
College in Rome. "We have established it on a more
religious basis than it is in Ireland. The pledge is
administered before the altar. We profess to regard it as a
religious act, and though we cannot refuse to give it to
Protestants who come publicly for it in the crowd, we have
declined all official connection with Protestant

Like most of the American hierarchy in 1842, Father
O'Connor was not in an ecumenical mood, and he shared the
U.S. bishops' distrust of Father Mathew's easy fraternizing
with Protestants.

But the ensuing years were as eventful for Father O'Connor
as they were for Father Mathew. In 1843, the Vatican
announced the creation of the new Diocese of Pittsburgh,
and in 1844 Michael O'Connor was named its first bishop.
From his earliest days, he encouraged the establishment of
parish temperance societies, and a larger Catholic total-
abstinence organization arose as well, the Brotherhood of
St. Joseph.

In 1845, Bishop O'Connor traveled to Europe to gather
priests, sisters and monetary assistance for his new see.
While in Ireland, he accepted an invitation to speak at one
of Father Mathew's rallies. There, "During the course of
his remarks, O'Connor expressed his pleasure of being in
the presence of Father Mathew and thanked him publicly for
the influence his labors in Ireland had (had) in the
American temperance movement."

It was probably that personal encounter with Father Mathew
and the eyewitness experience of his work that changed
Bishop O'Connor's attitude toward the man. Afterward, there
is not a trace of suspicion in his discussion of Father
Mathew's movement and methods.

This article is adapted from the author's 2005 Lambing
Lecture for the Catholic Historical Society of Western
Pennsylvania. For more on the subject, read "Father
Mathew's Crusade: Temperance in Nineteenth-Century Ireland
and Irish America," by John F. Quinn (Amherst, Mass.:
University of Massachusetts, 2002).

To August 2005 Index
To Index of Monthly Archives
Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?