Madam, - In response to Kevin Myers's accusation (An Irishman's Diary, February 24th) that readers have failed to answer questions central to his analysis of 1916, I shall now endeavour to answer the four questions set by Mr Myers.
First: "What right had the 1916 insurgents to kill anyone?" Notwithstanding Mr Myers's attempt to reduce a complex epoch in Irish history to childish rhetoric, such a question smacks of blind ignorance of the historical context. International law was in its infancy circa 1916; concepts such as state sovereignty and the right of self-determination were viewed in a vastly different light than today. Therefore to talk of "rights" in a 1916 context is meaningless: the law of war (jus ad bellum) in 1916 was too ambiguous to either prohibit or permit armed insurrection.
However, it is interesting to note that exactly 50 years later, the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (to which Ireland is a state party), declared that "all peoples have the right of self-determination". Unfortunately, Pearse and Connolly were not around in 1966 to avail of this right. Nevertheless it is one which they would have invoked had it been enshrined in international law in 1916.
Second: "Why had none of the signatories of the Proclamation ever stood for Parliament?" Quite simply, the Parliament at Westminster was precisely the reason that the insurgents were fighting in the first place. To stand for election as a Westminster MP would lend legitimacy to a body which the men of 1916 sought fervently to oppose. Moreover, Westminster's track record in dealing with Irish affairs was shockingly slow: the first Home Rule Bill was submitted to the House of Commons in 1886 yet in 1916 Ireland still had no measure of autonomy. Were the Irishmen of 1916 expected to wait another 30 years for their objectives to be again stymied by a mulish British parliament?
Third: "How could they call the butchers of Belgium 'gallant allies'?" Again, this issue must again be placed firmly in its historical context. To link the 1916 Proclamation with the atrocities committed in Europe by the Central powers may be a clever rhetorical device, but in reality the link is tenuous. The 1916 leaders were understandably in much need of support. By chance Germany happened to be Great Britain's opponent and consequently some trivial links were cultivated. That such links ultimately amounted to nothing seems to escape Mr Myers's attention.
Fourth: "How could people today 'celebrate' an orgy of violence in which hundreds of innocent Irish people died?" When Irish people commemorate 1916, they are in no way celebrating "a monstrous orgy of violence" any more than French celebration of the storming of the Bastille on July 14th or Independence Day celebrations in the US "celebrate" the murder of innocent civilians. On the contrary, these events serve as a reminder that the lives of few were given for the sake of many in the struggle for a greater measure of freedom.
To accuse those who celebrate the creation of this State of "political blood-worship" may induce guffaws of approval from Mr Myers's colleagues in the Dublin intelligentsia and petit bourgeoisie, but such fiery vitriol only distracts from the real issue: is it appropriate to commemorate those who gave their lives, not for the fleeting imperial interests of King George V or Kaiser Wilhelm II, but for Ireland herself?
Finally, as an aside, let me dispel some of the myths peddled by Mr Myers and his cohorts in the revisionist movement. Ireland in 1916 was quite unquestionably not a democracy. Half of the Irish population had no vote and essential democratic norms that we take for granted today (such as the full separation of powers, religious equality, etc) were non-existent. Irish affairs were controlled by a British parliament, the corollary being that British interests always predominated in the administration of Irish affairs: a quite undemocratic situation likely to rankle with any self-respecting Irishman.
The brave men of 1916 had no imperial pretensions, demonstrated none of the ghastly jingoism and imperialist bombast that characterised the battlegrounds of Europe, and nurtured no vainglorious desire to "civilise" and conquer distant lands. Their objective was one far nobler: to wrest jurisdiction over Ireland, which had for so long lain quiescent in the Palace of Westminster, and root it firmly in Irish soil. Now, surely that's something worth celebrating. - Yours, etc,
PÁDRAIC MAC BHEATHA,
Old Balreask Woods,
Navan,
Co Meath.