In reply to the question "are Orangemen of one mind
on the Belfast Agreement?" this has to be said: spokesmen
for the Orange Institution have been speaking out with those
who say No to it. They are expressing a majority view with
the consent in session of the Grand Lodge of Ireland. If they
gave the impression that the Orange Order has but one mind
on the subject they were not being accurate on the thinking
of every Orangeman. Among those who voted Yes were Orangemen.
Anyone taking a poll on where Orangemen stand on the Agreement,
Assembly Executive and Devolved Government will find that
to divide them into Yes and No camps is not right either.
The different opinions among them mean that there are those
who while favouring one or other position are not totally
convinced of the arguments, submissions and attitudes of either
group on what is best for the Province. They see good reasons
for both positions, not in whole but in part. They want devolved
government which they regard as essential for the future well-being
of Northern Ireland. Direct rule has been a most unsatisfactory
way to govern the country. There is no need to spell out its
weaknesses, the primary one is that successive Northern Ireland
secretaries and ministers have been unable to understand,
much less to meet the needs of people over whom they have
power but from whom they have no mandate to speak or act for
them. There are Orangemen who are angry that the inclusiveness
of the Agreement has allowed Sinn Fein/I.R.A. to hold Executive
posts while keeping their arms intact - a continuous threat
and a refusal to honour their obligations under the Agreement
to destroy their weaponry and to pursue only peaceful means
that allow them to share in government. How to get Sinn Fein/I.R.A.,
and other paramilitaries, to destroy or to surrender their
arms for destruction, is the problem facing unionists and
over which they are expending so much thought and time. This
is at second hand for the responsibility to force decommissioning
is that of the British and Irish governments and the arms
decommissioning body. Unionist pressures on the paramilitaries
are to require them and the governments to move the business
on. The UK government, by the release of prisoners and the
setting up of bodies to ensure that in law, policing and people-care,
the highest standards of behaviour will be attained and maintained
and on progressive demilitarisation, has moved without adequate
response from the others. Orangemen are angry with the goverments,
paramilitaries and whoever else allows a fearful scenario
to persist. They fear that decisions made by unionists could
cause them to lose out again to protagonists who are unrestrained
by the limitations of honesty and decency. There are unionists,
Orangemen among them, who want to abandon this Agreement and
to replace it with shared government for those parties and
politicians provedly committed to peaceful co-operation. It
would mean sharing with nationalists and others but not with
unredeemed republicans and loyalists. But that is no new proposal.
Originally mooted it was refused by the S.D.L.P. for it would
not be in a shared government which is not representative
of all the people. They argue that every party mandate must
be respected as it is in the Belfast Agreement. This has to
mean that were the Assembly to fall the possibility of a replacement
by something different in devolved government is unattainable.
We are left wondering about the best way forward. As we contemplate
the past, live in the present and visualise the future we
are convinced of one thing Unionists must work together for
what is the common cause. The maintenance of the Union. It
remains the unionist weakness that personal attacks, name
calling and character abuse are regarded as legitimate in
winning arguments or changing attitudes. When we have a society
of which to be proud we shall have learned to speak and act
respectfully to one another. We have to respect differences
of opinion, emphasis and attitudes for that has been the way
of Unionism and Orangeism at their best. We are the better
for shared views, knowledge and experience. We repeat that
whatever happens to the Belfast Agreement it should be clear
that the republican charge against Unionists that we willl
not have a Roman Catholic about the place is a gross slander.
The efforts unionists have made to share power with others
regardless of creed or different and opposite aims and aspirations
makes nonsense of such an assertion. We have expressed our
doubts that this unique form of devolved government could
succeed with it irreconcilable, political and philosophical
emphasis. It would seem, though, that the experiment in dealing
with "ordinary bread and butter politics" has been
reasonably successful. There can be no permanent settlement
of the Northern Ireland problem until people are assured that
those who govern us are unarmed, without access to arms and
can no longer threaten us with their arms.
|
