2001/06 and 2001/07, The Sovereign Nation (June/July, 2001)

              vol.4 issue 2 overeim publication n of the 32 county sovereignty movement i mackey slams naive andrews national sovereignty is the only issue to be addressed response from mr francis mackey chairman of the 32 county sovereignty movement to mr david andrews's misrepresentation of our position i on behalf of the 32 county sovereignty movement would like to use the limited space afford ed to us to address some of the points raised by david andrews in his recent column in the irish times saturday may 26th 2000 the timing of this article is signifi cant given the recent attendance at the 57th session of the united nations human rights j^nmmis,s,j^njn geneva by a dele gation of iftc — ?? rnnnty sovereignty movement led by myself as chairperson the remit ol the delegation was two-told to lodge an addendum to our earlier submission lodged at united nations headquarters new york april iwx with the office of the united nations high commissioner of human rights mary robinson and to present an oral intervention before the un assembly condemning both the british and dublin governments lor their human rights violations this was the first time a submis sion was lodged at the united nations demanding an end to britain's illegal occupation in northern ireland and the restora tion of ireland's national sover eignty mr andrews has poured scorn on these attempts by stating speaking at an ngo conference in a un sub-capital needless to say does not constitute putting ones case to the un this is an incredible lack of understanding of the workings of the united nations i < i i iinjj riuiii i piumwi m'niftpir nf foreign affairs the 57th session of the united nations human rights commission can hardly be described as an ngo confer ence any informed person would know that the human rights commission in geneva deals with human rights violations and that is precisely why the sovereignty movement chose this body i can only assume his blustering display of arrogance is an attempt to cover up the failure of successive dublin governments to pursue what was their own constitutional impera tive our submission has obviously sent shock waves through the establishment and this is why mr andrews is attempting to rubbish our valid position his article is based on protecting the dublin government's flawed position as they can only act with in the 26 county constitution and not at a national level they have failed the irish citizens in the northern occupied area and have railed to address the basic rights ol all irish citizens for mr andrews to suggest that to argue correctly the historical strug gle for sovereignt is to give justi fication for violence is inaccurate and misleading it is in fact the inaction by politicians in pur suance of national sovereignty that has prolonged conflict in ireland mr andrews farther asserts that the endorsement of the stormont agreement in separate referenda was an exercise jointly in an expression of self-determination by the irish people for the first time simc 1918 this assertion is flawed on a number of points and indeed is not shared by other signa tories to the agreement firstly the stormont agreement was subject to approval and endorsement by an external power viz britain before being presented to the irish people for ratification , or rejection secondly the parame ters set for the negotiations which determined the outcome of the agreement were clearly designed to copper fasten partition furthermore it was made quite clear that the referendum in the six counties would be the primary determinant and would have the power of veto over the twenty-six counties referendum the unilater al suspension of the so-called sov ereign decision of the irish people by the british government belies the argument that the british rec ognized the agreement as a sover eign binding decision on them the claim that the 1998 referenda replace the 1918 mandate is not a valid point for the aforementioned reasons we are deeply concerned at the claim by david andrews that to quote arguments about britain's denial of our right to self-determi nation no longer apply to the pre sent or future only to the past " this statement in our opinion betrays an alarming level of politi cal naivety on the part of an indi vidual who was foreign minister in the dublin government at a time of high-level negotiations pertaining to the political future of our coun try to imply that britain is an hon est impartial broker in our present situation with no axe to grind dis plays a high degree of ignorance of the british imperialist network psyche and ethos not just in ireland today but throughout its colonies in its imperial heyday how anyone could argue that the british presence on the island of ireland is not a violation of irish national sovereignty begs disbelief furthermore mr andrews argues that a sovereign irish nation " is only obtainable embracing the people of all 32 coun ties in accordance with the constitutional pro visions of the good friday agreement this is at variance with the facts the irish peo ple established a sover eign irish nation in 1918 successive british governments have subjugated this act of national self determination through force and coercion - the latest example being the illegal 1998 refer enda in our submission to the united nations we also challenged the right of the dublin government in putting referenda before the peo ple bringing about a boundary change of the national territory while armed aggression by the british was in force this was a violation of irish sovereignty the issue of protecting irish national sovereignty does not in any way countenance coercion of anyone within a democratic irish settle ment in conclusion we welcome mr andrews's acceptance thai there remain doubts about the agree ment which requires clarification and discussion at a national level the issue o irish sovereignty can not he cherry picked to suit a par ticular political philosophy irre spective of which parly espouses it mr andrews assertion about my not seeking re-election is nothing but a icd herring given that i clear ly outlined in a comprehensive statement that the 32 county sovereignty movement is not a political party and is constitution ally barred from standing for elec tion had mr andrews taken the time to read my statement he would not have misrepresented my position scout's the path watch to unite the brit-pack republicanism page 4 foot in mouth is spreading still page 5 june / july 2001 plastic bullets britain deploys lethal weapon on june 1st the british ministry of defence mod deployed a new variant plastic bullet round which accord ing to recently released reports is by far a more lethal variation of the previous plastic bullet the british mod is deploying this lethal weapon in the face of recommenda tions from the reformist patten report which stated that plastic bullet rounds should be discontinued as soon as possible and that an alternative form of population control should be sought urgently the deployment of the new lethal plastic bullet is support ed by the british secretary of state john reid who is on record as stating that the new plastic bullet is a round that independent experts have concluded is on balance a great deal safer than the existing one these comments by mr reid represent nothing more than a grotesque political lie to illustrate mr reid's appalling dishonesty and deception in relation to the new plastic bullet round we have to look no further than a recently released report by the british defence scientific advisory council bdsac the report states that the new plastic bullet is lighter faster more aerodynamically shaped and manufactured from a stiffer material1 than the previous round the bdsac report goes on to state that if the new plastic bullet does contact the head and it strikes it perpendicular to the skull there is a risk that the projectile will be retained in the head the report concludes by stating that it may be difficult to main tain the accepted incidence of injury at the low level cur rently envisaged that a british secretary of state should lie in relation to the actual lethal potential of a plastic bullet round will come as no surprise to many irish people since 1970 seventeen people have died as a result of plastic bullets fired by the british army many more have been blinded maimed and seriously injured not one british soldier politician or mil itary manufacturer has ever been brought to justice for the seventeen people who have died as a result of plastic bul lets one must ask the urgent question how many irish people will be killed or maimed by this new lethal round before any member of the british establishment is brought to justice and what of the so-called nationalists and i pulilii hi ¦ ho mi • jiiiiiiiilsiim l.inlish hilt ill licl.iild their silence surrounding this issue has been deafening ai •¦ the to n main \ bated in stormont administei ing l.4iiti:;li mile a mhmiiih-is nl id nn'yii inn m;iim iiui kill irish people thai lush people are to ii.1 ih.1 sole tan tic bullel was svideni during the hrsi wi i i la in pon to questions surrounding the policing methods to be used in containing i ondon'j may day demonstrations john stevens the head ol london mcliopuliun pulu:ij i ilijuoiiuilly si iluil lh;"it lit '¦ ould nul give permission to his officers to fire plastic bullet rounds on the streets of london this sfc mdi in stark irttlsh policy in ireland readers will recall ihal in 1996 between july 7-14 six thousand plastic bullet rounds were fired 89 of them at members of the nation ausi i wnmunjty another glaring example ol british double standards the dublin government's response to the new plastic bul let has been particularly woolly to say the least mr ahem is on record as expressing grave concerns about the new bullet to date the most vociferous critic of the new plastic bullet has been kevin mcnamara lab mp mr mcnamara castigated the british mod for defying the recommenda tions of patten and pushing ahead with a secret plan to re equip the army and police in northern ireland with a new generation of deadly plastic bullets mr mcnamara went on to state that he was dismayed by the apparent duplici ty whereby one wing of the government the northern ireland office claims to be implementing patten by investi gating an alternative to plastic bullets and another wing the mod is waiting to announce the deployment of its new version of the same weapon the blatant disregard shown by the british government towards the minimalist and reformist patten report is symptomatic of british policy towards ireland the stormont agreement was sold to the people of ireland as a panacea for political conflict an agreement capable of delivering lasting political change yet upon close and pre cise examination political change amounts to no more than the reform of an artificial sectarian british statelet what will it take for the republican proponents of the stormont agreement to begin to accept that the agreement itself is incapable of delivering the radical and genuine political change that this island so urgently requires and finally how will sinn fein respond to the introduction of the new lethal plastic bullet round will they continue to hold british ministerial portfolios if irish people are maimed and killed by british army plastic bullets during the summer marching season or thereafter time will answer that question for us all however what we can say is that by taking their seats in the stormont assembly and by administering british rule in ireland sinn fein displays all the symptoms of the political cancer that is counter rev olution