Madam, - Dick Keane's letter of October 17th is simply a regurgitation of his letter in the of October 10th. The only addition is his unfair criticism of Dr Martin Mansergh, a most balanced man for whom I have immense respect, as I have for his late father Nicholas.
The theme of Mr Keane's letters is self-determination. One can no more argue with this principle than with the principle of motherhood. The problem with Mr Keane's thesis is that he seems to reserve this right for Northern unionists.
Unfortunately, he makes no attempt to explain or clarify what he means by self-determination. If one were to ask a large group of people how each one interprets the term, there would be a myriad of percentages offered to determine when that right should be invoked.
I get the impression that Mr. Keane would have very different percentages in mind when considering the nationalist right or the unionist right. He says that unity ought to require an overwhelming majority for unionist consent. I wonder if he would regard 75 per cent as an overwhelming majority. In the 1918 general election there was an effective 75 per cent majority in favour of Home Rule.
Indications are that the current unionist majority in Northern Ireland is 55 per cent. That would suggest that the unionist population in the entire island, allowing for some unionists in the Republic, is about 16 to 17 per cent given the current population.
It is not possible to consider self-determination for unionists in Ireland without having regard to the crude and arbitrary partition of the country. When James Craig sold this notion to Lloyd George there was no negotiation with nationalists. The Government of Ireland Act 1920 effectively replaced a 25 per cent minority in the whole island with a 35 per cent minority in what was termed Northern Ireland. Furthermore, there were nationalist majorities in Fermanagh and Tyrone at the time.
There is another factor which bare percentages do not reveal and that is that the 25 per cent unionist minority in the entire island was a very powerful minority in terms of its wealth and influence in the professions and business. Compare that with the position of the 35 per cent minority in Northern Ireland at the time of partition and how they were treated by the controlling unionists until the British Government took an interest in what was going on following the campaign by the Civil Rights Movement in 1968.
Mr Keane writes about how "we nationalists" used a lot of force to bring about a united Ireland over the years, citing the formation of the IRB in 1913, the 1916 rising and the War of Independence; but he doesn't mention the formation in 1912 of the UVF, the first terrorist movement to import arms (to prevent the 75 per cent majority from exercising its right to self-determination). What a pity that Mr. Keane cannot attain the balance evident in Dr Mansergh's writings.
I think that Mr Keane and I might agree on one point: the 1916 Easter Rising and the War of Independence were mistakes and created the conditions which facilitated James Craig's dirty deal with Lloyd George.
I am totally opposed to violence to achieve political ends and I detest the Sinn Féin/IRA campaign which has only recently ended. But we must not forget the 1969 attack on Bombay Street, which was the loyalist response to the Northern minority's peaceful demand for their civil rights; and that was before the IRA got involved.
My view of IRA/Sinn Féin accords with that of our Minister for Justice and it is utterly disingenuous and crass nonsense for Dick Keane to couple Michael McDowell's name with that of Gerry Adams.
The unionist view is just as valid as the nationalist view. The important thing is that both those views are expressed through politics and not in bombs and bullets. Unfortunately, as long as the face of unionism is the bitter and sectarian Ian Paisley, I see no resolution to the conflict.
I only hope it stays off the streets. - Yours, etc,
PATRICK A. McDONALD, Glenageary, Co. Dublin.