No. 523 NAI DFA/10/P/338
Memorandum by Eoin MacWhite
(Confidential)
Dublin, 12 January 1957
- On the 3rd January Mr. E. McAteer, MP for Derry, called on the Secretary1 and on the 10th he called on the Minister in connection with the present situation in the Six Counties. Mr. McAteer, who is Chairman of the Anti-Partition League stated that he was anxious that some positive gain should be obtained from the present situation. He stated that despite the apparently unpropitious climate hints made by certain important Unionists to his colleague, Mr. P.J. Gormley, MP for mid-Derry, suggested that some Unionist leaders now felt that much of the present violence had its origin in what Mr. McAteer described as ‘the secondary aspects of Partition’, namely the various forms of anti-Catholic discrimination coupled with the total frustration of all the normal constitutional political activities of the Northern Nationalists both at Stormont and on local Government bodies. The fact that the activities of the ‘constitutionalists’ were rendered futile created simple despair and it was not surprising that young men turned from the constitutional leaders to the gun. While the present outbreak of violence would be quelled for a time, violence would only break out again with ‘another IRA’ in five or ten years. Mr. McAteer said that since certain Unionist leaders now realised this, he felt that the Government should capitalise on the present situation by making direct high level but ‘off the record’ representations to the British Government. He considered that Stormont would have to listen and act on any suggestions made to it by the British Government.
- Both the Secretary and the Minister told Mr. McAteer that his suggestion would receive serious consideration but no commitments were entered into. Mr. McAteer stressed that any representations made to be effective would have to be made at Cabinet rather than official level.
- While Mr. McAteer’s optimism that representations made at the moment would be effective is based solely on his knowledge of Six County politics, there are other factors which also suggest that the time is opportune for some approach to the British Government. Firstly, the cross border raids have focussed the attention of the British Government on the question of Partition. Secondly Britain’s international position after the Suez debacle and with the Cyprus question on her hands is such that anything that would lead to respite from trouble at her back door would be welcome. It is felt that the new Macmillan Government, even if the significant personnel were unchanged, have so much to live down that it might find it difficult to reject representations on behalf of the Nationalist minority. It will be recalled that the Manchester Guardian recently stated that Brookeborough would have to treat the Catholics a bit better.
- Even a failure to treat our representations seriously or a complete refusal would not be altogether useless. On a suitable occasion the Minister could announce publicly that he had brought these matters to the attention of the British Government and urged that they do something positive but without avail, etc.
- Since the Government has abjured force as a solution to Partition it follows that apart from totally unforeseen circumstances the only positive action that can be taken is the strengthening of the position of the Nationalist minority in the Six Counties and any action leading to more effective representation whether in Westminster, Stormont or local bodies and improving the social and economic position of the Nationalists, through their own constituency efforts is a positive gain on the road to the end of Partition. Mr. McAteer’s suggestion is therefore very much in the national interest and having regard to the points made above should be
carefullyfavourably considered. - The formation of a new British Government could be used as an opportunity for the Minister to call on the Commonwealth Relations Secretary and if possible on Mr. Macmillan. It would obviously be undesirable to publish details of the representations made and some excuse such as ‘economic matters’ or ‘European co-operation’ would have to be used for Press purposes.
The general line of argument to be used would approximate closely to those suggested by Mr. McAteer namely that it is realised that at the moment it is useless entering into discussion on the basic facts of Partition and the merits of each other’s case but that recent events have given rise to serious concern. While every step is being taken to prevent violent actions and these will probably have definite effect for some time the same situation will inevitably arise again and again as long as constitutional activity is rendered futile for Six County nationalists by discrimination in regard to the franchise on the Parliamentary level and in housing and employment on the local government level. These are matters which we may yet be forced to raise in the United Nations, and which can only embarrass the British Government. Reference should be made to certain aspects of British opinion on this point as represented by the Manchester Guardian, etc. The British sense of fair play and the democratic concepts of the Mother of Parliaments receive little attention in Stormont. While we are doing our best to restrain our citizens on this side of the Border and to exercise a moderating influence on Nationalists in the Six Counties we can understand that our efforts are futile when our encouragement to constitutional behaviour is shown to be useless and when religious discrimination is carried out with the full approval and encouragement of the Stormont Government. Any approach by us to Stormont would only lead to useless debate and therefore we ask the British Government to use its influence and moral force with Stormont to take some positive steps towards ending discrimination.
- The British reaction to this could take four lines: (i) agreement – which would be a very positive gain for us; (ii) total rejection – which could be used as a weapon either on a national plane or even in the United Nations; (iii) a request for definite examples of discrimination – to which the reply would be that Mr. Cremin would supply a detailed memorandum (which could easily be prepared in consultation with Six County Nationalists) or (iv) a request for a quid pro quo. (iv) might be either general or particular. If general, the best reply would be simply our confidence that the ending of the atmosphere of despair created by discriminatory practices would be the best step towards an end of violence and in their own interests. In the meanwhile we would refrain from making a definite issue of it in the United Nations, although we might have to refer to the situation in the course of debates. The most likely particular quid pro quo that would be sought would be an extradition agreement. Here the reply is (i) the policy of the Government against such a treaty which would cover political offenders has been defined publicly in the Dáil by the Taoiseach2 and (ii) as politicians they should understand that any Irish Government that tried to put this forward would be out immediately. No such treaty could possibly get the approval of the Dáil. If the request is watered down to criminal offenders we could undertake to give it consideration but it should be pointed out that when this matter was under consideration before, responsible Nationalist leaders in the North made known their fear to us that such an agreement would only be another field for discriminatory action.
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 ....