Sir, - The refusal of Sinn Fein to condemn the recent atrocities by the IRA reflect an inherent flawed judgment on the part of the Republican leadership. Sinn Fein insist that it is committed to the peace process and it furthers asserts that it is not in the politics of condemnation. Sinn Fein offers the hand of friendship to the unionist community, but refuses to recognise the abject distrust for the Republican cause. Sinn Fein's blatant refusal to underpin the peace process by totally renouncing violence may indicate the difficulty and pressure the leadership face.
In the resolution of any conflict, it is well known that the hawks and doves posture for positions. However, true leadership offers a vision whereby no position is threatened by the prospect of peace. Sinn Fein's refusal to condemn the Adare murder and the Manchester bomb suggests an unwillingness or intransigence or both in committing to peaceful methods. Consequently, its insistent rhetoric that it will not be deflected from the peace process does little to assure the people on this island of its commitment to non violence.
To build a lasting peace requires not only a commitment to peaceful methods but a commitment to each other, whatever the perception or impression is of the other being a friend or foe. Abraham Lincoln was once berated by a very irate woman for not destroying and obliterating the enemy, to which Lincoln replied; "Madame - I have made them my friends. What do you think I have done?" But, in order to develop friendship, it is necessary to develop trust. Neither side, including Sinn Fein, has offered any movements towards developing this trust and, in light of the recent events, Sinn Fein may wish to take the lead in this regard.
Being committed to non violence is not a demonstration of weakness or surrender. Rather it is a demonstration of immense courage, character, integrity, justice and hope. It is a demonstration of determination to rid existing systems of bigotry, hatred and bitterness. In his speech at the Lincoln Memorial in 1963, Dr. Martin Luther King shared his dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, sweltering with the heat of injustice and oppression, would be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. The dream was out of commitment to non violence and over a period of years things changed. While there are still major problems, it is better than the situation and area where Dr King's people came from where their quest for freedom left them battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality.
On March lath 1930, Mahatma Gandhi left Sabarmati to go on the "Salt March". He proposed to march to the sea, there make salt, which was a government monopoly, and thus precipitate a crisis. He said he would not return until he had gained independence for India. It seemed absurd. A little man in a loin cloth and with a bamboo walking stick going out to do battle with the greatest empire the world had ever known. But 17 years later the little man had won.
Gandhi's power lay in the fact that his life was committed to non violence, as he perceived it and understood it. All of the difficulties in between were met with a firm resolve and commitment to non violence. Thus committed, he was without fear, and his freedom from fear struck fear into the heart of the British Empire and India became independent.
Towards the end of his life, Napoleon lamented that his empire was always doomed to failure because it was built on destruction and violence. Commitment to non violence is where the real power is, not only because of the character, strength and courage it builds and nurtures in the lace of intense hostility and oppression, but because it draws on the commitment of those who can shape the future - the people. When the people have spoken, for a fair and just system, everything else is incidental. - Yours, etc.,
Sea Park,
Malahide,
Co. Dublin.