THE past fortnight provided one of those rare moments of revelation when the truth of our attitudes to the North emerges in full view. For an instant,
British government was seen as duplicitous, unionists as bigots and nationalists as a community under siege. Even more interesting, people this side of the Border described what they instead of saying what the guilt inspired programme in their heads told them they ought bay.
Even the Taoiseach felt free to state the obvious. In telling the British government that a democratic State could not yield to force, Mr Bruton acknowledged the nature of British actions. One must take at face value his apparent surprise about this, just as we must accept that the SDLP was genuinely "amazed" at David Trimble's "double standard" in talking to a loyalist terrorist while refusing to talk to republicans.
In truth, bigotry and hypocrisy represent the essence of unionism and British support for it. The existence of the Northern state is, and has always been, based on the threat of force. British and unionist politicians have always known this and have always been hypocritical about it. All that was different was that this reality was rendered undeniable by Drumcree.
What was different on this side of the Border was more subtle. Events on the Garvaghy Road allowed us to state what we know to be true. Such moments were common in the early days of the Troubles, when it was axiomatic that Northern nationalists were prisoners of a sectarian statelet. But they became less frequent as the IRA increased its terrorist activities and the Southern state created a consensus based on denial to mask its attitudes and feelings
We adopted an essentially British view of the Northern situation, ascribing the bulk of the responsibility to the IRA's actions. Such was the guilt about IRA atrocities that only events like Bloody Sunday, the hunger strikes, Gibraltar, and the Birmingham and Guildford cases enabled, very briefly, the truth to be stated.
It is small wonder, then, that the British government was so surprised by the ferocity of John Bruton's onslaught. Hypocrisy is not a condition often accompanied by self awareness. The British do not know they are being hypocritical, any more than unionists are aware of their bigotry. Just as bigotry is intrinsic to unionism, hypocrisy is central to the British perception that its role in Ireland is as neutral peace keeper.
For most of the past 25 years, the British government might have been forgiven for its hypocrisy on the grounds that it was being buttressed from this side of the Irish Sea. After all, if the Irish Government did not see fit to criticise Britain, did it not follow that Britain must be doing the right thing? It is not surprising that the British establishment should have been beside itself with rage and confusion. Why should it understand Irish hypocrisy any better than its own?
WHAT we witnessed was the manifestation of Eoghan Harris's "leaky national consensus". This is the condition whereby the willingness to articulate particular perspectives on the situation in the North is predicated on whether republicans or loyalists were responsible for the most recent atrocity, and is directly proportional to the length of time since that atrocity.
Over two decades, because the IRA was the most visible source of conflict, we developed a consensus that republican violence was the problem. We like to fool ourselves that the evolution of this consensus represented a form of "maturity". But we were running scared of the pincer movement of IRA violence and British/unionist double speak, thereby turning our backs on our nationhood and the reality of life in the North.
Such willingness to fall in with the British/unionist analysis pinpoints a key point of stagnation in the channel to peace. It is often said that, as a result of IRA violence, the people of the Republic don't care any more about unity. It isn't true but, in a certain light, might seem a commendably moral position until you consider that it might also be a major stumbling block on the road to a settlement. For it is in part the belief that the rest of us have abandoned the aspiration to unity that gives the IRA hard liners a sense of justification for their barbarous acts.
Listening to Southern discussions about the North, one might imagine that there must be some as yet unthought of solution to the conflict. There is no such solution.
Either things remain as they are, that is they continue getting worse, or moves are put in place to dismantle the status quo and begin a process which will lead inexorably to reunification. The clear articulation of this reality by constitutional nationalist politicians would go a long way towards convincing the hard line republicans that they would not be throwing away their aspirations by laying down their guns.
And has it occurred to anyone that, just as they take it at face value when we agree that Irish republicanism is the problem, the British may actually be taking us seriously when we say that we have no further interest in a united Ireland? Perhaps if we would only admit what we wanted, the fog would begin to disperse. Maybe if we said, "We want a united Ireland", Britain, after a brief outbreak of huffing and puffing, might actually respond, "Oh! We never knew you felt like that. Why didn't you say?"
SEEN like this, our understandable antipathy towards the IRA suggests itself as perhaps one of the chief obstacles on the road to peace. The IRA claims to want unity but serves to delay it by creating the violence which prevents Southern society from demanding it.
We in the Republic, on the other hand, running scared of guilt by association, neglect to make the most useful contribution we can make to issue repeated, firm but respectful demands for our country to be returned to wholeness.
While these processes continue in their negative symbiotic relationship, the nature of unionist fascism and British support for it remains obscured from public view.
What is required is for republicans and the Irish Republic to act in concert. The only time this occurred in 25 years led to an 18 month ceasefire. But as we have seen in the past 23 months, a ceasefire alone is not enough. It is equally important that we in the Republic dispense with our leaky consensus and construct a new vessel to put the truth on display.
Put another way, isn't it time to follow through the logic of our responses in the past fortnight and state clearly that we believe Northern Ireland to be incapable of reform, and that, sooner or later, we will have to begin a process of unification as the only way of permanently resolving the issue?
This rare opportunity for truthfulness will not last. Sooner or later, the IRA will do something stupid, and we will be back to the fog of hypocrisy. Someone has to break the cycle. Why must we wait for the IRA?