Unionists walk out on Clinton's Northern Ireland speech

Mon, 10/12/2009 - 12:41pm

It wasn't exactly a Joe Wilson moment, but some Protestant lawmakers don't seem to have appreciated Hillary Clinton's speech to parliament in Northern Ireland today:

Mrs Clinton addressed the Northern Ireland Assembly, telling a hushed, packed chamber that Republican dissidents were looking to seize any opportunity to destabilise the coalition government.

"Now they are watching this assembly for signs of uncertainty or internal disagreement," warned Mrs Clinton. "They want to derail your confidence. And though they are small in number, their thuggish tactics and destructive ambitions threaten the security of every family in Northern Ireland. Moving ahead together with the process will leave them stranded on the wrong side of history."

Almost all of the 108 members of the assembly applauded, but a few Democratic Unionist backbenchers folded their arms instead, and two senior figures, William McCrea and Gregory Campbell, left the chamber during the ovation.

Democratic Unionist officials said the walkout reflected Protestant irritation at being told what to do by 'outsiders', a point they said they had made earlier in private to Mrs Clinton.

Mrs Clinton conceded this sensitivity in her speech, ad libbing: "We know what it means to be supportive. And we also know what it means to meddle." She said that the US sought to do the former, not the latter.

These speeches are a little awkward to give since they are, by definition, meddling in another country's affairs. (See also: Joe Biden's speech in Bosnia in May.) Given the role the United Sates has played as a mediator, it's hardly a disinterested party in Northern Irish (or Bosnian) politics. But I still wonder if these public admonishments are the best way to tell a country's leaders to get their act together.

Joshua Keating | Permalink | | Comments? Login or register
( filed under: )


Advertisement

 

The whole "North Ireland"

by Brett on Mon, 10/12/2009 - 4:04pm

The whole "North Ireland" thing strikes me as kind of weird (in the way only an outsider can think, I suppose). Are the Catholics actually being treated badly in North Ireland? Are the Protestants afraid that the Irish government would ethnically cleanse them or something? Does the Irish government even want the territory in question?

The last thing the Irish

by JPWREL on Tue, 10/13/2009 - 9:25am

The last thing the Irish government in Dublin desires is to unleash a violent revolt among Ulster unionist by a coerced unification. Economically and politically Ireland has made much progress in the past twenty years and Dublin has no interest in jeopardizing that by fomenting civil war. It would drive needed capital and development right out of the country.

The only thing that the IRA/Republicans hate more than the Unionism in Ulster is the government in Dublin. Open civil war across the whole of Ireland would be an opportunity for them to destabilize the Irish government with an outside chance of bringing in rule by Republican gunmen.

One does not have to go to Africa, Iraq or Afghanistan to witness the most senseless elements of tribalism. It lives in Ireland right under the surface.

Thanks for the response.

by Brett on Tue, 10/13/2009 - 9:54pm

Thanks for the response. That's definitely a view I've never heard before - the effect of the IRA on the government in Dublin.

U.S. role exaggerated

by Grayghost on Tue, 10/13/2009 - 4:10pm

JPWREL is quite right to point to something that some Irish Americans have never understood - the IRA has always been more of a threat to Dublin than to London.

And by the way, the U.S. role as a mediator in Northern (not "North") Ireland has always been vastly exaggerated. You can't justify American interference in the domestic affairs of a sovereign state (the UK), by saying that the United States is "hardly a disinterested party in Northern Irish politics."

Britain was hardly a disinterested party when ignorant Irish Americans in Boston and other North-East cities were channelling funds to the IRA. Would that have justified British intervention (again)?