2001 A Peace Odyssey Essay Research Paper

2001: A Peace Odyssey? Essay, Research Paper

IntroductionWhen I was in Ireland in 1997, I learned one of import thing within few yearss: Do non inquire, talk or enter into treatments about the combative issues of political relations and faith, and so I did non. However, it is impossible to touch Irish land without besides touching the peripheries of what is popular referred to as the? Irish Question? . I noticed armed soldiers guarding the polling topographic point at a bye-election in county Armagh, a lorry driver vehemently expressed his disgust at the Irish tricolor and an aged gentleman passionately told the history of Ireland. Naturally he focused on the events that have caused Irish patriots sorrowing for centuries, e.g. Cromwell? s conquering of Ireland, King William of Orange? s licking of James II, the arrogation of the land of Catholics and their debasement to tenant husbandmans. He did non advert the Rebellion in 1641 or the Siege of Derry.

To foreigners, the logic of this struggle is hard to understand. Although King William? s ictus of the throne was the foundation of democracy and the terminal to monarchal rule over the British Isles, the Glorious Revolution is barely remembered in England. However, ? Orangemen see the triumph [ over James II ] as an historic victory for civil and spiritual liberty. ? This is what they celebrate every twelvemonth in July, and is of class what offends Catholics. Their perceptual experience of the parades is one of Protestants demoing off their ultimate licking of Catholicism. Misinterpretations, deficiency of communicating and refusal to understand the others? point of view seem to be the root of the struggle.

A air current of alteration blew over Northern Ireland in 1998. An overpowering bulk endorsed The Good Friday Agreement go forthing hope for the hereafter. But late the peace procedure has slowed down. The via medias made in the Agreement were evidently easier to compose down than to implement. One side has been accused of non maintaining their promises, and the other has, as a consequence of this, been loath to go on the procedure. The former are Sinn F? in and the IRA, the latter are Protestants and union members. Since the Troubles started in the late sixtiess, Protestants have been split sing the peace procedure. The bulk wants peace. However, there is an highly different perceptual experience of the monetary value at which it should be bought. In the undermentioned subdivisions, the differences between and the grounds for the Protestant attitudes to the peace procedure will be examined.

The Peace Agreements? From Sunningdale to Good FridayThe Early AgreementsFollowing the Troubles in the late sixties and the early 70s, the Sunningdale Agreement, the first push for peace in recent history, was drawn up. The stalwarts in Northern Ireland mostly saw the understanding as a treachery of the British because the understanding was made without their consent? the Irish and the British authoritiess merely ignored any wants unionist may hold had about the hereafter of their state. The chief intent of the understanding was to supply Catholics in Northern Ireland with greater equality and the manner to accomplish this was to set up a cross-community executive and Council of Ireland. Trade unionists felt they had been ignored, although it had been admitted that every bit long as the bulk wished so, Northern Ireland would stay British. Through extended work stoppages and ferocious unionist resistance, the power-sharing executive was brought to a ephemeral terminal and Northern Ireland was once more capable to direct regulation from Westminster. Hereby, Protestants had signalled to the outside universe that they would non accept any understandings without their avowal.

However, that is what happened one time once more in November 1985. Ignoring the population in Northern Ireland wholly, Thatcher and the Irish Prime Minister Fitzgerald signed the Anglo-Irish Agreement. In general it resembled the Sunningdale Agreement but sing the power-sharing executive the Anglo-Irish Agreement went much further. The chief rules were:

Any alteration within the position of Northern Ireland must be with the consent of the bulk.

An constitution of an intergovernmental conference. The legal power of this conference included political, security and legal affairs and cross-border co-operation.

The authorities of the Irish Republic was permitted to set frontward political proposals? where the involvements of the minority community [ the Catholics ] are significantly or particularly affected. ?

It is non hard to understand the tumult of union members. Everything they believed in was coming to an terminal. Most significantly, the union members perceived that their authorities, the British, signalled preparedness to accept a united Irish republic when the demographic alterations called for it, and it besides? gave the Irish authorities influence without duty in the running of Northern Ireland. ? Curiously plenty, Republicans besides disapproved of the Agreement? mostly because it? consolidated the six-county province and provided a unionist veto over alteration. ?

Yet, the Agreement was passed through both Westminster and the Irish Parliament, and, in short, brought Forth these alterations: ? First, any lingering chance of a return to a pre-1972 unionist veto over internal alteration in Northern Ireland was ended ; secondly, Britain had declared herself loosely impersonal on the hereafter of the Union ; thirdly, the Irish Government was the new keeper of the rights of patriots in Northern Ireland. ?

A hebdomad after the Agreement had been signed, a quarter-of-a-million Belfast citizens went to the streets but the presentation was ignored. This contradiction? Protestants in Northern Ireland, who regard themselves as the most loyal people of the United Kingdom, at times taking a base against their ain authorities? is explained by Edwards:

They [ Protestants ] will set up with unfairness, even persecution, and remain grimly loyal until some event makes them experience that treachery is at hand and it is clip to take a base. In the 20th century, flash-points have been created by the Home Rule Bill, by the Anglo-Irish Agreement and by prohibitions on the Drumcree church parade.

Over the following few old ages, force continued with renewed strength. William Bingham, an Orange clergyman chaplain, explains his brethren? s defeat:

We? d been continually holding things forced upon us as a community: the Anglo-Irish Agreement [ et Al. ] ? ? and all, we felt, were gnawing our constitutional place within Northern Ireland. And we? ve ever said if our constitutional place is eroded, so our rights would get down to be tampered with every bit good, and here we were in that state of affairs? precisely as people had said. It was another measure down the line to the eroding of people? s civil autonomies and to the devastation of the Orange [ and Protestant ] civilization in Northern Ireland.

No affair how much the population disliked the agreement, the peace train went on. Peace negotiations continued and in 1994 the IRA called a long awaited armistice which was followed by a loyalist armistice shortly after. This meant that Sinn F? in could be included in the dialogues about the hereafter of Northern Ireland. Talks commenced and the direct result was the Framework paperss of 1995? a direct followup of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

The Peace Process IntensifiesThe Frameworks for the Future paperss were preceded by the Downing Street Declaration in 1993. It was a study sketching some of the advancement that had to be made in order to stop the struggle. It resounded the Sunningdale Agreement and the Anglo-Irish Agreement in that the British and Irish authoritiess, severally, stated the usual issues of? consent of bulk? and? nationalist regard for Northern Ireland? s particular relation with the UK. ? Jonathan Tonge argues that it was a papers of ambiguities: ? The Downing Street Declaration had to appeal to both communities in Northern Ireland. It was designed to give hope to patriots and reassurance to union members. ?

The Frameworks for the Future paperss carried on the peace procedure. The first papers was a statement by the British Government, and the second was a joint papers created by the British and Irish authoritiess. Britain displayed preparedness to devolve her legal power over Northern Ireland by making an assembly. There was besides a proposal to make a new North-South organic structure with extended countries of influence. This was the freshness of the paperss. Another article to pacify the union members was the Irish authorities exposing willingness to amend their fundamental law claiming domination over Northern Ireland. This reflected the? consent of the bulk? issue.

However, stalwarts still showed reluctance. The Ulster Unionist Party ( UUP ) with its new leader, David Trimble, took a base against the understanding. They felt that their wants were being ignored one time once more in that they saw power being transferred from? their? authorities to a foreign? attacker? . For the union members it was a via media in order to? hold some internal power returned within Northern Ireland, provided that they were besides prepared to profess power to an external force. ? Old ages passed, nevertheless, before absolute execution occurred. And it required two new Prime Ministers and American intercession.

The Good Friday AgreementThe background to the Good Friday Agreement commenced with the aforesaid Framework paperss. In the undermentioned old ages, the procedure inched frontward. The interesting portion of the Agreement was the engagement of a 3rd party? George Mitchell, a US Senator. He became the president of an international organic structure analyzing the decommissioning of paramilitary weaponries. Combined with the progressive New Labour and Tony Blair, who in contrast to his predecessor agreed that Sinn F? in could fall in in all-party negotiations despite IRA? s breach of its armistice, and the moderate Bertie Ahern, they were the breath of fresh air that convinced the population that there was a serious hope of peace in a close hereafter.

In short, the Agreement provided for:

An assembly for Northern Ireland and a power-sharing executive taking the 108 delegates.

A North-South Ministerial Council ( Executive ) allowing Ireland influence in Northern Ireland personal businesss.

Ireland revoking its constitutional claim over Northern Ireland and recognizing? a shared district? where the people choose its hereafter.

Questions of security, most significantly the hereafter of the RUC, the disarming of paramilitary groups and the release of paramilitary captives. These were to be addressed at a ulterior phase.

The Agreement received tremendous indorsement at the election in? 98. It was the first all-Ireland referendum in 80 old ages and the first relating to the peace procedure, and it showed a pro-peace sentiment in the whole of Ireland: 95 % in Ireland and 71 % in Northern Ireland supported the Agreement. However, an sentiment canvass conducted late indicated that now merely 33 % of the Protestants and merely little more than half of the Catholics are confident of a long-run peace. Furthermore, 90 % of the Protestants back up the Union and merely 59 % of the Catholics support a united Ireland. Obviously, it is Protestants who have the hardest clip coming to footings with the peace procedure. The jobs of the Agreement seen from the unionist/Protestant point of position resemble those of all old Agreements. The hardline Protestants see any degeneration of the Union with Britain as treachery? and in general, the population North of the boundary line resents any engagement of the Irish Republic in the personal businesss of Northern Ireland. However, three old ages after the Agreement the issue of weaponries decommissioning and Sinn F? in? s subsequent entry into authorities is the greatest obstruction to peace.

Weaponries Decommissioning and TerroristsThe Unionist PerspectiveIn her book, Ruth Dudley Edwards describes the reaction to the Agreement in Orange circles this manner:

The Good Friday Agreement hardened attitudes among? Orangemen even further. Denis Watson [ Grand Master of County Armagh Orange ] ? was so aghast at what he regarded as the immorality of allowing captives out early for matter-of-fact grounds, and so fearful that union members might be expected to sit in an executive with Sinn F? in while the IRA still kept their arms, that he had determined non merely to oppose it but to stand against David Trimble in the assembly election.

Although the Orange Order intended to be impersonal on the affairs of the Agreement and in political relations in general, there were elements within the order that attempted to associate political relations and? Orangeism? closely together. Denis Watson was one of these. He took the measure and became a Trade unionist assembly member opposed to the Agreement. He became the prototype of the? political? Orange Order. ? The leading was split. While Grand Lodge intentionally did non state no to the Agreement, on the evidences that it was a affair of scruples, its statement that it could non urge it because it was? fatally equivocal, morally obnoxious and constitutionally flawed? gave everyone the feeling that the Orange Order was stating an univocal? No? . ? The administration had taken a measure which branded it as sectarian and really much a political establishment.

The split between moderate Orangemen and the likes of Watson resembles what happened in the UUP. Six of its nine Westminster MPs opposed the Agreement and Trimble had to gain that he and his party had ventured into evidences that did non stand for his components? position: ? The UPP [ sic ] found itself on the defensive, seeking to sell a trade which many of its natural components regarded as resignation. ?

The Democratic Unionist Party ( DUP ) profited from this split and Ian Paisley had no job pulling frightened stalwarts with his anti-Irish rhetorics. By touching to the emotions of those who felt that Trimble and the UUP had betrayed them, the DUP rapidly gained protagonists. O? Neill elucidates the grounds for the unionist division and the agnosticism that Paisley and other hardline Protestants used to their advantage:

The evidences for a retreat are many. They include widespread agnosticism about Blair? s pledges on the decommissioning of arms, allow entirely doubts over his committedness to the Union, the evident unfairness of the captive release strategy, Sinn F? in? s inclusion in the new executive and intuition over the IRA? s headlong transition to democratic political relations.

Opinion polls conducted merely prior to the referendum illustrate the split:

% UUPTrimbleDUPPaisleyTOTALUNIONIST SDLPHumeSINN F? INAdamsTOTALNATIONALIST YES59940969796 NO1985433-3 REST22617131Source: The Irish Times/MRBI, 21 May 1998

A bulk of the UUP electors endorsed the Agreement

; this canvass, though, does non bespeak how many electors the UUP had lost to the DUP. However, a canvass conducted in The Sunday Times two yearss after the referendum indicated that 27 % of the entire unionist electorate now backed Paisley, an tremendous support for an radical party.

Apparently, the issues that the DUP put frontward were truly of import for union members and Protestants likewise, and as clip has shown, stalwarts were right to be doubting.

Government Before GunsSince the referendum in 1998, stalwarts had considered the decommissioning of IRA? s weaponries every bit good every bit disarming as the most of import issues of the peace procedure. Despite go oning promises, nevertheless, the IRA had failed to present what unionists regarded the standard for accepting Sinn F? in in the Northern Ireland Executive.

In June 1999, Tony Blair was to a great extent criticised by union members for his soft line. In his hebdomadal column, Bruce Anderson accused Tony Blair for undermining the Agreement. Anderson argued that the union members slightly misunderstood Blair when they? believed that Mr Blair gave them a warrant that Sinn F? in would non be allowed into authorities unless the IRA had started to decommission? in semantic footings, they are incorrect ; Mr Blair? s existent words will non bear that building? [ but it ] was the feeling [ he ] gave? However, they had the moral right to impeach Blair since he ne’er reneged on the significance that union members had perceived. And moreover, ? Mr Blair did do five specific pledges about Sinn F? in and authorities. [ They ] would hold to declare that the war was over? no more whippings or violent deaths? [ and ] the IRA must get down to level its paramilitary constructions, and by May 2000 there would hold be significant advancement in decommissioning. ?

None of these pledges had been honoured. Loyalists had good ground? no longer [ to ] believe [ Tony Blair was ] a adult male of his word. ? Either manner one looks at it, Sinn F? in profited from Blair? s soft line. If union members accepted to come in an executive including Sinn F? in analogue with a demand about decommissioning, union members had two options: Exclusion of Sinn F? in if they did non follow, or merely suspend the executive wholly. Trade unionists believed in none of these as it would be hard to rally a sufficient bulk required to except Sinn F? in. And to allow a minority party ruin a democratic executive because it does non follow with its norms seemed absurd. Indeed, stalwarts had good ground to experience run over by patriots.

Then, in July, the peace procedure took a positive bend. US Senator George Mitchell was asked to reexamine the peace procedure and it resulted in two statements from the UUP and Sinn F? in, severally, demoing their committedness to the execution of the peace procedure. Among other things, the UUP stated that:

It is our belief that the constitution of the new political establishments and the disarming of all paramilitary administration will announce a new beginning for subdivision of our people? a new, peaceable, and democratic society, free from the usage or menace of force? the constitution of inclusive political establishments and the beginning of the procedure of decommissioning are the first stairss in this procedure? the UUP recognises and accepts that it is legitimate for patriots to prosecute their political aim of a united Ireland by consent through entirely peaceable and democratic methods.

Sinn F? in joined in:

The IRA surcease? has now been in topographic point for a sum of about four old ages? IRA guns are soundless and the Sinn F? in leading is confident that the IRA remains committed to the aim of a lasting peace? There has been a peculiar focal point on weaponries? Sinn F? in accepts that decommissioning is an indispensable portion of the peace procedure? Decommissioning can merely come approximately on a voluntary footing? In the executive the two Sinn F? in Ministers will do and honor the pledge of office which includes a committedness to non-violence and entirely peaceable and democratic agencies? We reiterate our entire committedness to making everything in our power? to take the gun everlastingly from the political relations of our state.

The result of the Mitchell reappraisal was the constitution of the Northern Ireland Executive, and later it put an terminal to direct regulation Westminster in December 1999. The policy-making organic structure of the UUP, the Ulster Unionist Council, narrowly accepted the reappraisal? by 480 ballots to 349? and Sinn F? in entered the Executive committed to decommissioning. In other words, it meant that the stalwarts had to gain that their sound-bite? no guns, no authorities? no longer had any significance ; now it was? authorities before guns? . From the vantage point of the Apprentice Boys? one-year Lundy Day parade in Derry, Edwards sums up Protestant defeats:

To foreigners, [ the parade ] is a unusual, throwback and tribal matter. Yet its symbolism is intriguing, for it is non sectarian, it is political. At a clip when the Protestant community was riven over the Agreement? when David Trimble had managed to carry the Ulster Unionist Council to hold to come in authorities without IRA decommissioning holding occurred, and when the Protestant community were still staggering after the assignment of McGuinness ( whom they knew to hold been the IRA Chief of Staff ) as Minister for Education? it was extraordinary to watch the combustion of an tremendous image of Lundy? a representative of the British authorities who, three centuries earlier, had been accused of being on the point of selling out the people of Derry.

What Edwards believes is that one time once more? as though history moves in circles? the British authorities was selling out the Protestants of Northern Ireland. True, if it were meant to be in conformity with the Agreement, the impossible became world. Edwards besides argues that? from the unionist position it seemed as though the British, Irish and US authoritiess ever reacted to republican intransigency by supercharging David Trimble into farther via medias, ? i.e. by giving grants to patriots.

However, on the twenty-four hours the UUC voted on the Mitchell reappraisal, Bruce Anderson? as usual ready to chastise the political landscape? criticised union members for being obstinate and argued that they would non acquire a better trade. He recognised the defects in the peace procedure, though, but at the same clip he believed union members should admit the advantages they could acquire from an executive. He does non, nevertheless, present any concrete illustrations. Furthermore, Anderson believed that? union members are entitled to reassure themselves that there will be a binding timetable for decommissioning, and that Saturday? s grants will be the last grants. Government before guns? but the guns must follow in short order. ?

Soon, a twelvemonth and a half subsequently, there has non been any important advancement on IRA? s decommissioning.

Trimble? s Ultimatum Revisited? Guns go or I go, ? David Trimble threatened late. It resembled events in early 2000, when Peter Mandelson, so Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, had to suspend the Northern Ireland Assembly in order to forestall Trimble from vacating. The background at that clip was the ever-recurrent issue of weaponries decommissioning. Despite the promises Sinn F? in had made after the Mitchell reappraisal, IRA still failed to do any advancement. A few months after the suspension, ? the IRA released a statement stating that it was ready to get down a procedure that would? wholly and verifiably? set its weaponries beyond usage, ? and this lead to the reinstatement of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Shortly after, two independent arm inspectors, Martti Ahtisaari and Cyril Ramaphosa, reported that they had been to IRA arm bunks and secured that the arms could non be used without their cognition. Apparently, this was the greatest advancement the peace procedure had made for old ages, but of class it was non plenty.

The fact that IRA is determined to maintain its weaponries in shop confirms loyalist intuition of IRA? s end of unifying Ireland with force. Although Ireland revoked its constitutional claim over Northern Ireland in 1999, there still is a deep-seated misgiving of what is believed to be the patriot? s existent docket. Michael O? Neill explains:

The spectacle of paroled terrorists f? ted as heroes at Sinn F? in? s party convention about derailed the Agreement. A seasoned observer observed that? many union members got a glance of the hereafter? or what they feared might be the hereafter? and did non like what they saw. ? Above all, there is concern? that one time inside the policy procedure republicanism will utilize that foothold as Trojan Horse for its? existent? docket.

Traveling a small farther back in clip, Gerry Adams, leader of Sinn F? in, stated on a conference in 1986 that? our chief aim, our finish, is the reconquest of Ireland by the Irish people. This means the ejection of imperialism in all its signifiers, political, economic, military and civilization. [ The concluding aim was ] an Ireland, free, united, socialist and Gaelic. ? Protestants in Northern Ireland are known to hold an elephant? s memory, and it is apprehensible that they interpret Sinn F? in? s and IRA? s thorough attempts to decelerate down the peace procedure as a saving of the old radical line.

The DUP harps on this deep-rooted fright and rejects any farther grants to the republicans. Loyalists, who see nil but Sinn F? in? s? marionette show? of the peace procedure, are attracted to Paisley and his statement to wholly trash the understanding ; to? travel right back to the pulling board, negociating merely with parties which are non associated with armed paramilitaries. ? In a scholarly flawlessness of the? sound-bite? , Paisley declared that? our option is trust opposed to treachery, democracy as in the remainder of the UK opposed to fascist absolutism, truth non lies, pledges kept non broken, no veto for any party except the people of Ulster. ?

The Future? As the marching season stopping points in with increased force? Portadown has already experienced a forecaste of what to come? every bit good as a general election in June, 2001 could turn out to be an highly dramatic twelvemonth for the peace procedure. As already mentioned, Trimble vowed to vacate if there is no important advancement of weaponries decommissioning before July. It is curious, but strategic so, that the day of the month lies so close to the twelfth parades. There will be an tremendous focal point? non least from the outside universe? on the nationalist force. It is a media stunt by Trimble, awarded the Nobel Prize in 1998. If he resigns, and if it leads to the ruin of the peace procedure, as some political observers believe, it ensures that patriots will endure a major reverse in the outside universe? s perceptual experience of them. Trimble is good cognizant that the outside universe will see them as the chief obstructor on the route to peace.

However. the stalwarts in Northern Ireland are divided more than of all time. Representatives of the two largest unionist parties, UUP and DUP, have been traveling vilely at each others cervixs, impeaching each other fiercely. The DUP has accused the UUP that Trimble? s menace to vacate is a? hapless and misanthropic election stunt. ? The UUP has accused the DUP of their lip service of sitting in an assembly with Sinn F? in, a party it [ the DUP ] has vowed that it would non portion power with.

Therefore, the general election in June has turned into a referendum on the peace procedure. For Catholics, there are no complications, but for Protestants it matters greatly where they put their ballot: UUP or DUP, pro-agreement or non, Paisley or Trimble? ? So far, Trimble? s maneuver has been a success, in the immediate sense that [ protagonists of ] the Ulster Unionist Party has united behind him, ? but the inquiry is how long his protagonists will accept grants after grants. That is what they have been served the past seven old ages since the beginning of the present peace procedure? seven old ages of adding fuel to Paisley? s fire. For Protestants, the peace procedure has ne’er been in such a critical status. Indeed, 2001 will see the peace train venture far beyond known district.

BibliographyAnderson, Bruce. ? Can the Faithful Tribe Trust Mr. Blair? s Tightrope-walking Skills? ? in The Spectator, July 3, 1999 ; found via ProQuest

Anderson, Bruce. ? It may be Repugnant, but the Trade unionists are non traveling to acquire a better trade? in The Spectator, November 27, 1999 ; found via ProQuest

Anderson, Bruce. ? The Shinners are on the Pig? s Back? and look Who put Them There? in The Spectator, June 26, 1999 ; found via ProQuest

Anonymous. ? A Guide to Northern Ireland? on the home page of The Belfast Telegraph ( www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/niguide/trouble.html and? /peacepro.html )

Anonymous. ? Timeline: Good Friday to Devolution? ; found via BBC? s home page hypertext transfer protocol: //news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/northern_ireland/newsid_53900/539391.stm

Nathan birnbaums, Mike. ? The Agreement: Will it Work? in Europe, May 1998, issue 376, pp.28-29 ; found via ProQuest

Cowan, Rosie. ? Clinton Flies in to Boost Irish Peace? in The Guardian, May 21, 2001 ; found via The Guardian? s home page

Cowan, Rosie. ? No Unity among Trade unionists in Battle for Province? in The Guardian, May 22, 2001 ; found via The Guardian? s home page

Cowan, Rosie. ? Trimble? s Opener: Guns go or I go? in The Guardian, May 9, 2001 ; found via The Guardian? s home page

Edwards, Ruth Dudley. ? The Colour Orange? in The Guardian, June 21, 1999 ; found via The Guardian? s Home page

Edwards, Ruth Dudley. The Faithful Tribe ( London: HarperCollins Publishers, 1999,2000 )

Howe, Stephen. ? Marching Boys? in The New Statesman, June 28, 1999, pp. 47-48

Independent/Belfast Telegraph Poll, ? Fewer Confident of a Long Term Peace? in The Belfast Telegraph 26 May 2001

Kennedy-Pipe, Caroline. The Origins of the Present Troubles in Northern Ireland ( New York: Longman, 1997 )

Lloyd, John. ? A Awful Viciousness is Born? in New Statesman, May 21, 2001

Lloyd, John. ? Between Peace and War, merely Words? in New Statesman, October 16, 2000 pp. 31-32 ; found via ProQuest

O? Neill, Michael. ? Peace Droping Slow: Answering the Iris Question? ? in The Round Table, October 1998, issue 348, pp. 349-51 ; found via ProQuest

Sevaldsen, J? rgen and Ole Vadmand. Contemporary British Society ( Copenhagen: 1987,2000 )

Tonge, Jonathan. Northern Ireland? Conflict and Change ( London: Prentice Hall Europe, 1998 )

Toolis, Kevin. ? The Fluter is Orange? ? in The Observer, July 11, 1999

Tran, Mark. ? Northern Ireland Rivals take Peace Gamble? in The Guardian, November 16, 1999 ; found via The Guardian? s home page