No. 327 NAI TSCH/3/S9361/E
Memorandum by Conor Cruise O'Brien sent by Seán Nunan
to all Heads of Mission
'Confidential Circular on Partition and Allied Problems'
(305/14/262)
Dublin, 7 February 1955
- The Minister is particularly anxious that Heads of Mission who have opportunities for informational work about partition should exercise initiative in finding such opportunities and availing of them. He considers, however, that Missions, if they are to carry out their duties effectively in relation to the problem of Partition, require much more specific, and more frequent, orientation from Headquarters than they have received in the past. The points set out below are intended as an initial effort in this direction: they will be followed up, as frequently as developments may dictate, by further background explanations and advice. It is expected that the present Circular, and the further advices which will follow, will raise different problems, and suggest different opportunities, for each separate Mission; and Heads of Mission should communicate with the Department about such problems and opportunities and indicate what further help or guidance they may require from Headquarters.
- The line of argument in the Confidential Circular of 21st August, 1951,1 still holds to the following extent:
- The Government will not in any circumstances permit the national territory to be used as a base for attack on England.2
- The offer still stands that, in an eventual settlement of partition, Stormont may, if it so chooses, continue to exercise the powers it at present has, provided the powers now in the hands of the Imperial Parliament are transferred to an All-Ireland Parliament.
The statement that ‘in the event of a war our policy would be the same as in the last war’ seems excessively categorical as relating to a possible future time, and circumstances of which we can know nothing. On this point Heads of Mission should content themselves with stating the well-known reasons for our refusal to join NATO.
The point about the attitude of Mr. Chamberlain and the suggestion of ‘buying out’ Northern Unionists should not be used.
The question discussed in Paragraph 5 of ‘whether if partition were ended, Ireland would join the Allies in a war against Russia’, is unlikely to be raised in precisely that form, but the basic fact that ‘no-one can commit an All-Ireland Parliament ahead of time’ does of course hold good. It may be added that it seems extremely probable, in view of the Christian convictions and anti-Communist opinions of all sections of the country, that such a Parliament would have a majority in favour of joining a western grouping for defensive purposes.
- The Department appreciates that in the widely differing conditions which prevail in the various countries in which we have missions, it is not possible to lay down hard and fast rules, applicable to all missions, as to the approach which will be most useful in interesting official circles, or influential circles of public opinion, in the problem of partition and the desirability of ending it.
- None the less there are certain points — in addition to those set out in Paragraph 2 — which the Department wishes that all Heads of Mission, and their collaborators, should bear in mind in connection with any private discussions they may have on this problem, as well as with the public utterances which some of them may be required to make on the subject from time to time. These points are set out in the paragraphs which follow below. These are points of emphasis and should not be taken as modifications of the basic case against Partition, which is generally set out in the four pamphlets approved by the All-Party Anti-Partition Conference.
- It should always be emphasized that, while successive Governments of Ireland have consistently desired and sought the unification of the country, all of them, — and both the Taoiseach and Mr. de Valera in specific terms — have ruled out the use of force towards this end.
- Realising that it is by a patient long-term effort that the full unity of Ireland will be brought about and that progress towards this end is best made through practical co-operation between the two sections of the country on matters of common concern, the Government have favoured such joint economic projects as co-ownership of the Great Northern Railway, co-operation in hydro-electric development in the Erne Valley, on tourism, etc. These policies are also supported by the Opposition.
- Unfortunately, considerable as has been the progress made in this direction, the success of such a long-term policy tends to be prejudiced by the words and actions of extremists. The roots of extremism are to be found in large areas of the Six Counties — Tyrone, Fermanagh, Derry City, South Down, and South Armagh — where there are nationalist majorities.3 These areas are held by force under a régime which they repudiate, and no principle — least of all the principle of ‘local self-determination’ on which the Six County State was erected — can be invoked to justify their retention.
- In order to disguise the fact that these areas are held against their will, the Six County Government have had recourse, as is well known, in these areas to an elaborate system of gerrymandering and discrimination (see the pamphlets ‘One Vote Equals Two’ and ‘Discrimination’; also the film Housing Discrimination in Fintona).
Note: In discussing the question of discrimination which is a key one in relation to the maintenance of Partition, two points may be particularly noted.
- The discrimination, although political in intent, is religious in character, i.e. it is exercised against Catholics as such because of the fact that, in the mass Catholics are likely to be Nationalists. It is applied however against all Catholics, even e.g. those who have served in the British armed forces. The point about the religious character of the discrimination, a point without which the situation is not intelligible, is not made explicit in the pamphlets ‘One Vote Equals Two’, etc.
- It should always be made plain that the discrimination and gerrymandering affects the area, which is described above, in which Nationalists are in a majority and that these practices are not systematically employed in the area in which Unionists are in a majority, nor are the Unionists dependent on these practices for their majority in the area as a whole, which is a genuine majority (since the area was, of course, delimited in order to ensure a permanent Unionist majority). Complete candour on these points is found to be the best means of convincing disinterested persons of the merits of our case.
- In these areas, not merely are discrimination and gerrymandering employed but very often a policy of aggressive provocation is brought into play. The recent case may be cited of Senator Liam Kelly’s return to his native village, Pomeroy, a village which contains 450 Nationalists and 50 Unionists. Villagers who came out to welcome him were clubbed out of the streets by the RUC on the pretext that they were carrying the tricolour which is liable to banning in the Six Counties. Some days later, for additional provocation, a procession of the Royal Black Preceptory, an Orange body, was held through the streets of the town under police protection.
- In these circumstances it is not surprising that a section of the population which is not only deprived of its democratic rights and to some extent of housing and employment but is also subject to deliberate provocation, should provide a good breeding-ground for ideas of violence. The recent recrudescence of physical force activity should be situated against this background. The point should also be made that, since the sympathy of the majority of Irishmen goes out to this oppressed section of their countrymen, that sympathy is likely to persist to a great extent even when these people turn, or are driven, into violent courses.4 This situation, therefore, represents a major danger to the peace of Ireland.
- In the wider context of European and world problems, this troubled zone in the Irish situation represents one of those opportunities which Communists everywhere have shown themselves quick to exploit in order to enlist, for their own ends, the forces of nationalism and the just resentments of ill-treated minorities. It is true that in Ireland, owing to the deeply religious character of the people, Communist propaganda has had little or no success. That the Communists do, however, realise the potentialities of the situation is shown by the activities of the Communist party of Great Britain which controls a so-called Connolly Association which seeks, not without success, to enrol Irish workers in Great Britain. This Association publishes a paper called ‘The Irish Democrat’ which makes great play with the injustices of Partition and taxes the Irish Government with failure to take dynamic action about it. It is significant that this paper has ostentatiously ‘refused to condemn’ those responsible for the Armagh and Omagh raids. It is clear that the more this situation develops in the direction of organised violence — and there are disquieting signs that it may do so, — the more actively and, it is to be feared, efficiently, the Communists will interest themselves in it. At the very least they will be able to exploit — as they do in connection with Cyprus — the propaganda value inherent in the situation, which will become the greater the more repressive force is used, against a body of Irishmen who are held in the United Kingdom against their will. That the potentialities of this situation for making mischief between Britain and the United States have not escaped the Communists may be seen from articles in the ‘New York Daily Worker’ by Elizabeth Gurley Flynn5 and others. It may be that the Communists also attempt to exploit the situation among the Irish populations of the great American cities and in the trade unions.
- The unsettled dispute between Ireland and Britain over partition tends to strain relations between America and Britain also, since there are an estimated 25,000,000 people of Irish origin in America. In their suspicion of British policies — a suspicion based on historical experience, but nourished by the maintenance of partition — this important section of the American population have traditionally supported isolationist policies, and now tend to support those who are critical of America’s allies. A settlement of the partition problem, bringing about cordial relations between Ireland and Britain, would have a powerful effect on this section and would greatly weaken the isolationist and ‘neo-isolationist’ tendencies in America, to the benefit of America’s allies. On the other hand if, as a result of provocation etc., the partition situation should become further inflamed, or turn to open violence, Americans of Irish origin would create a powerful wave of anti-British and generally isolationist sentiment in the United States. In the long run such a development would benefit no-one except the Communist bloc.
- It is therefore in the interests of Britain and the United States, and of all the nations who are associated with them, to favour measures which will prevent this dangerous situation from developing. Basically, of course, this means that it is in the general interest that Partition should be ended, and this is our ultimate goal. In the immediate future, however, the problem is one of preventing the situation from becoming exacerbated by the discriminatory practices and the provocative actions of the Stormont Government.
- There is some evidence to show that the Stormont Government is sensitive to outside public opinion on these matters and that the more such opinion is made clear, as condemning these evil practices, the more a restraining influence is placed on Stormont. There is some evidence to suggest also that the Stormont Government took the provocative actions which it did at Pomeroy and elsewhere against the better judgment of its own most experienced leaders and in deference to the clamour of extremists mainly from the rural ‘mixed’ areas. This clamour is of course highly dangerous since extremism on one side feeds extremism on the other and develops an atmosphere of potential violence. The pressure of the Orange extremists inside the Six Counties can only be set off by the counterpressure of outside public opinion which should indicate formally that it condemns anti-democratic practices wherever they occur. Those writers, for example, who condemn such practices in, say, Spain or South Africa and are silent on the subject of the Six Counties are acting inconsistently. Naturally this argument will have to be somewhat differently presented, according to the local conditions of particular missions.
- In many cases it will be found that persons who are not prepared to accept the whole case for Irish unity will none the less be open to conviction on the score of discrimination etc. and may even take the view that the parts in the Six Counties with a nationalist majority should be permitted to join the rest of Ireland. Support even to this limited extent is of considerable value in keeping the matter alive, as well as in exercising a salutary restraint on the Stormont régime. It should be borne in mind — though it need not be emphasized in discussion — that in so far as the pressure of outside public opinion is brought to bear on Stormont and in so far as Stormont, in consequence, must try to restrain violence, divisions tend to develop in the Unionist Camp between more ‘liberal’ and less ‘liberal’ elements. To win greater influence and freedom for the nationalists of the Border areas while at the same time stimulating the divisive tendencies among the Unionists would mean a long step forward towards the ending of Partition. The more we can fix attention on discriminatory practices etc. in the Six Counties, the more we are facilitating these favourable tendencies.
- The Department — in addition to supplying regular background material, as indicated in Paragraph 1 — will, from time to time, supply Missions with new material, films, etc. bearing on these problems and Missions should endeavour to make such use of this material as local conditions may permit. It is considered that one of the most effective means of developing a favourable public opinion on this matter is by private conversation with influential people. Missions in their contact with newspaper editors or political columnists, radio commentators, etc. should see that these contacts are enlightened as regards the real nature of the problem in the Six Counties at present. The aim should be to ensure that when the problem comes into the news, as it will do from time to time, the editor or commentator etc. should be able to place it in correct perspective. In suitable cases, friends of the Mission should also be encouraged to write letters to the newspapers correcting unfriendly comment or congratulating the writers of favourable comment. Care should be taken — through such friends or otherwise — to see that copies of newspapers or periodicals carrying material favourable to our point of view are sent to the British Mission in the country concerned, as it is, of course, mainly through Britain that the necessary pressure can be brought to bear on the Stormont régime. Care should also be taken to ensure that any comment of this nature is forwarded to the Department separately and not merely included with other news clipping material. It will be appreciated if any Missions which have suggestions for effective action on the above lines will communicate with the Department. All Missions should, as indicated in Paragraph 1, communicate with the Department about the problems and opportunities arising in the implementation of the principles set out in this Circular. It is desirable that each Mission should report on every single contact where Partition is mentioned.
Purchase Volumes Online
ebooks
The Royal Irish Academy's Documents on Irish Foreign Policy series has published an eBook of confidential correspondence on the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty negotiations.
International Counterparts
The international network of Editors of Diplomatic Documents was founded in 1988. Delegations from different parts of the world met for the first time in London in 1989.
Read more ....