Bomb ends US euphoria over peace process

FOR those in the White House involved in Northern Ireland policy, the London IRA bombing signalled the end of euphoria.

FOR those in the White House involved in Northern Ireland policy, the London IRA bombing signalled the end of euphoria.

From President Clinton down, there had been a genuine belief that the risks the administration took, and the President's triumphant visit to Northern Ireland, had made it practically impossible for violence to break out again.

Members of the President's party in Belfast and Derry were told by people whom they met there on November 30th that the outpouring of emotions meant there could be no going back to the bad old days.

Since then, there has been a feel good atmosphere about Northern Ireland in the White House. The President spoke enthusiastically to visitors about the success of his Northern Ireland policy. He called the Irish experience the best two days of his presidency.

READ MORE

His anger at the violent deed which shattered the euphoria showed on his face when he made a special statement to reporters on the White House lawn on Saturday.

"We hope that those responsible for this terrible and cowardly act will be quickly brought to justice," he said. "There can be no doubt about the purpose of this attack. This attack was aimed at the growing prospects for peace, a just and lasting peace in Northern Ireland."

Since the ceasefire went into effect, he went on, "people of all faiths have been able to go about their daily lives without the disruption of searches and roadblocks and especially without fear of the bullet and the bomb."

He had been able to see for himself that the demand for peace was lasting, and "no one and no organisation has the right to deny the people of Northern Ireland a peaceful future ... they do not deserve to have a small group choose bloodshed and violence, who wreck the peaceful lives they long for. The people of Great Britain do not deserve to have this violence wreaked upon them".

Mr Clinton's anger was all the greater because it laid him open to charges that he had made a mistake in trusting Mr Gerry Adams, which could be damaging domestically. However the weight of informed criticism in the US is directed against Britain, not the White House, which is seen to have run justifiable risks for peace.

The New York Times, for example, called yesterday on Mr John Major to reconsider his approach to all party talks, saying he had been playing a dangerous game of brinkmanship with the paramilitary groups.

"I found the President well informed and optimistic about the situation," said Mr Brian O'Dwyer, a New York lawyer and chairman of the Emerald Isle Immigration Centre, who met Mr Clinton last week as part of a Democratic Party ethnic communities delegation.

Mr O'Dwyer said that within the Irish American community he did not think that Mr Adams had been damaged by the IRA act. On the contrary, "it bolsters the viewpoint among Irish American activists that Gerry Adams is the voice of moderation," he said.

The Irish American mediators in the peace process who pressed the White House to give a visa to the Sinn Fein leader and allow him to raise funds in the US, insisted yesterday that the blame be placed on the IRA and not Sinn Fein.

"Gerry Adams made this peace process happen more than any one person, said publisher Mr Niall O'Dowd of New York.

"He is also the man who made it possible for the US to play such a huge role. Without Gerry Adams it is very difficult to see any progress being made in the foreseeable future on peace in Ireland."

The bombing was a "regrettable moment", brought about by the British government's refusal to grasp the many opportunities presented to it for peace over the past 17 months, said Mr Paul Doris, chairman of Irish Northern Aid. He emphasised that the IRA prisoner support group "totally supports the peace process and self determination for the people of Ireland".

"We all need to redouble our efforts to make lasting peace happen in spite of Britain's negativity and will continue our primary function in support of the hundreds of Irish political prisoners of war and their families," Mr Doris said.

Mr Dan O'Kennedy, president of the Irish American Unity Conference, which promotes the peaceful reunification of Ireland, said reports of the end of the ceasefire "are deeply disappointing to all who strive for a peaceful solution to the Anglo Irish conflict".

He blamed the British for placing one obstacle after another to all party negotiations and for "squandering a golden opportunity", and hoped that "wiser heads will emerge from the British establishment before it is too late".

Mr Martin Galvin, former spokesman for Irish Northern Aid said blame must fall on the British government for the "tragic end to the ceasefire".

The reaction of people who attended a fund raising breakfast for Mr Adams in Pittsburgh on February 4th and who contributed some $20,000 for Friends of Sinn Fein, was ambivalent towards the Sinn Fein leader in the immediate aftermath of the bombing.

"It's kind of like we were duped," said councillor Alan Hertzberg, who had been persuaded to make up a full council attendance. Councillor Bob O'Connor asked local reporter Denis Roddy, "Was our boy involved? If he doesn't condemn this bombing he certainly won't get my support."

Local activist, Mr Terry Griffith, who helped organise the Sinn Fein leader's visit, blamed the British government for failing to organise all party talks. He told the reporter: "It's important for people to know that the money raised here stays in the country."

Pittsburgh councillor Mr Dan Cohen, who in a speech had compared Mr Adams to Gandhi, said he believed the Sinn Fein leader had opposed the IRA action, and that the bombing "absolutely should not undermine the efforts for peace there, though this is clearly a setback: I would have to believe that this is a radical wing of the IRA - people that are more concerned with violence than constructive ideas".