THE HANDSTAND

JULY 2003

John Hume

I will commence my remarks this evening by thanking all who invited me here, Kevin and Martin and of course everyone involved with the Agreed Ireland Forum for inviting me to participate in this discussion this evening and would also like to thank you Anni for chairing this discussion and to congratulate Shane Cullen.  I couldn’t believe it when I arrived Shane, a historic event, and I hope that it will be recognised as totally historic when that agreement is fully implemented and that it will be the great memory, not only to the people of Northern Ireland and Ireland but to people right across the world because, as I will say later on, no matter where you have conflict in the world its always about the same thing, and when you find an answer, that answer can be sent to other parts of the world. 

IMPLEMENTING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE

At a time also when the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement is obviously again encountering difficulties, it is a useful pointer for us all as to what our duty is with regard to seeing that that Agreement is fully put into practice in all its aspects.

Lets not forget, and this is one of the most important things that happened, and I’m very proud that we proposed this at the talks, that the last word, once agreement was reached, should be with the people and not the politicians.  For the first time in the history of our island, given the centuries of our conflict and division, for the first time the people of Ireland, north and south, have spoken as to how they wish to be together.  Therefore it is the duty of all true democrats to implement the will of the people, and those who are trying to overthrow this agreement are demonstrating very clearly that they are not democrats at all and that they have no respect for the will of the people, they only have respect for their own will.

  And for all of us who believe in that Agreement there are obviously grounds at present for frustration, for anger and for disappointment and as we gather here, in a sense, we are gathering to celebrate the 5^th anniversary of the signing of the Agreement, that document, and you would expect that to be a time of joy and celebration.   However there is no sense of euphoria as you know, it remains a fact that only on one of the anniversaries of that day in 1998 when the agreement was signed, on only one of those anniversaries where all of the institutions that were established by that agreement were fully in place and fully functioning. 

Five years on that is intolerable because as I said the will of the people is not being implemented.  I like so many others have been angered by the inability of certain groups to take the necessary steps to deliver the implementation of the will of the people.  Even at this stage I would call on all those with responsibilities in this regard to live up to them.  The referendum represented the democratic expression as I have said of the will of the people of Ireland and that mandate must be respected and honoured.  Whilst the two governments may and should implement those aspects of the Agreement which are in their gift, the people voted for an Assembly, they voted for an Executive, they voted for a North South Ministerial Council and all the other institutions in expectation of they being operated on in a partnership and power sharing basis.  Nobody with the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland at heart wants to see direct rule remaining in place, they want to see the people, through their representatives, working together to build a new society. 

Similarly it is unacceptable that the people are not afforded the opportunity to give their verdict on those charged with the task of delivering on the Agreement.  The people have the right to judge all their parties in Northern Ireland on their performance in securing its implementation, and so the postponement of the elections doesn’t help the implementation of the Agreement.  Those elections should be held at the earliest opportunity.

There are added difficulties of course with the postponement of elections, that is a danger that it will lead to increased apathy and disillusionment.  It is always so that when the many withdraw from political and civic participation, extremism and violence is given oxygen, if you have no real politics, no real representation, that’s when extremism and violence takes over.  It should be a priority of all of us involved in politics, representatives, activists and voters to encourage continued interest and activity in civic life.  Our will and determination to make progress in policing in social issues, in economic development and other areas shouldn’t be diminished.  Persistence is a political essential, we should redouble our effort  We should all remain focused on the achievement of progress lest we allow our politics to slip once again into stagnation or inertia. 

Nevertheless while some may be disheartened or dejected, as many are at the rate of progress or the lack of rate, there is still much to celebrate. We need only cast our minds back to 10 years ago; do you remember how much we have moved forward already?  In that year 1993 remember what happened?  The year of the Castle Rock killings, the Shankill Road bombing and the Greysteel massacre among many other awful murders and violent acts.  That violence wasn’t restricted to Ireland; this island suffered too for 1993 was the year of the Warrington bomb and the Bishopsgate bomb here in London.  The atmosphere on our streets has been transformed, the problem at the minute is with political parties, but when you walk our streets now the atmosphere has been transformed.  If you were to walk our streets in 1993 you wouldn’t have walked freely because you’d have been stopped everywhere to be searched and because of the security situation it was so necessary.  Of course we have become a society, not withstanding the ongoing difficulties that we experience, we have come very far as I’ve said in that decade.  The people of Britain, just as they have suffered as a result of the conflict, have also benefited from its transformation so its most appropriate then that groups like the Agreed Ireland Forum here, Beaconsfield Contemporary Arts Group and others contribute to the ongoing effort to build peace.  For if we ever seek to strive to develop our peace we will risk losing the benefits that it has brought and that it has yet to develop and bring. 

THE ART OF POLITICS

This is perhaps one way in which art differs from politics, and lets not forget what we are here for tonight, to talk about the art of politics.  Lets not forget that art differs from politics, it may be argued that the work of an artist comes to an end at a given point, upon the completion of their work.  Once a painting is painted the point of completion is reached. The artist has reached a mark considered by Yeats, "they have created something that will last beyond their passing." 

The context of politics is somewhat different.  If one considers the Good Friday Agreement a work, as it is clear from our current circumstances, the task of the politician, the activist and the voter continues beyond the completion and signing of the physical document.  Political achievements must be continued and continually reaffirmed, buttressed and built upon.  The politician does not have the option of hanging the agreement on a wall and leaving it to the curiosity of the onlooker.  For the great potential of politics is its ability to deliver real change.  Change though depends on real people, and people must be engaged, convinced and challenged.  And change is a never ending dynamic. It is never enough to say that the work is over, that it has been completed because there is always, as you know more to do.

Notwithstanding this essential difference, that art can have a terminus, that cannot exist in the process of politics, there are in fact many similarities as well between art and politics.  Just as the artist may work for a commissioning body or patron, the politician works for the constituent and for the community or others.  Both work for people.  And just as the artist muses over his or her project, as they argue with their associates, as they feel the pressure of a deadline, so to does a politician experience a range of emotions in the course of their work.  Just as an artist creates a work through the aggregating of brush stokes or chisel marks, so too does a politician take many small steps in the pursuit of their political project, be it the fixing of a broken lamppost or negotiating with political leaders.

More generally art can challenge convention, just as politics should challenge the status quo in order to move beyond it  Essentially both art and politics are both concerned with striving forward even while it sometimes appears that the opposite is the case.

The art of politics is essentially reliant on one thing, as I have always argued, dialogue.  Politics is about people communicating with one another and living together.  It is by talking to each other that we have moved forward from a morass of violence and suffering to the situation in which we now find ourselves however unsatisfactory it may be at the moment.  Its through talking that we can exchange ideas, its through ideas that we can progress.

  Where the artist may have a pallet, brush or stone, politicians have words and actions and both the artist and the politician share will and determination.  Where the will of the artist is rendered in materials, the will of the politician is rendered in words and actions.  Indeed this point has been reinforced by the recent contest over words in our political process; words are the manifestation of political will.  It is often said, as you know, that politics is the art of the possible, however I would tend with agreement of a noted practitioner of both art and politics, Vaclav Havel, when he argued that politics is in fact the art of the impossible.  It is a responsibility of politicians to challenge the boundary of experience and of expectation, it is not long since many people in central and Eastern Europe would have seen little hope of liberation from Soviet oppression.  Now those states are on the cusp of becoming full members of the European union and I am very pleased to have come here today because of what I participated in on the way here - ?  Yesterday I spent the day with representatives from the eastern European countries, and this morning with them before I left Brussels to come here because they were all attending the European Parliament this week to meet with us and to join with us.  And just think of the magnificent change that means in the history of the world.

I recall a time, similarly when you look at what they have achieved, I recall a time when many good people in our country could see no end either to the cycle of violence, could see no end to the nightmare with which we were faced.  Just however as the people of Prague are now free, the people of Ireland enjoy the dividend of political progress.  These improvements weren’t delivered by bloodshed, by violent revolution or by monetary might, indeed they have come about in spite of the use of the armalight, they have come about because people and politicians both in name and not engaged the philosophy of ideas to overcome intractable problems of the past.  They engaged the art of politics that we are talking about here now.

PROBLEMS ARE NOT RESOLVED BY VIOLENCE

There is a message in the success of the velvet revolution in Prague and in the progress that we have made in the conflict of these islands.  Problems are not resolved by violence.  They are exacerbated by them because no matter where you have problems any where in the world it is people that are divided not territory because without people any piece of earth is only a jungle.  And when people are divided what does violence do, deepens the division and makes it much more difficult to be resolved.  As Martin Luther King said, and he was one of my great heroes, ‘you can only fight fire with water’.  When we look around the world we see the horrific effects of violence and the terrible terms of human suffering, look at Iraq last week. We see the horrific effect of violence in terms of that human suffering and in failing to produce real solutions to the problems faced by mankind and humankind be it Iraq, the Middle East, Central Africa or elsewhere, the use of violence leads to suffering and injustice and to the death of human beings.

THE EUROPEAN UNION AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION

The European Union, as I have always said, is the best example in the history of the world of conflict resolution providing as it has a half century of peace and prosperity in Europe that was ravaged by two world wars and which consigned millions of people, 50 million to be exact, to an early grave.  We should be exporting that philosophy of peace, co-operation and respect for difference instead of exporting bombs and soldiers.  Difference can best be celebrated by creating institutions which respect and protect difference.  In a sense politics is the art of instigating change through the implementation of philosophy.  At every stage those involved in politics should seek to improve things.  I am reminded of Caravagio’s work, St Matthew, in which the subject is looked upon and guided by an angel as he sets about his writing.  I would like to think that politics should always be so guided, politicians should be so guided and that in our case the angel of the public good should always be close to our hearts and to our mind. 

Much has changed about how the contest of politics is conducted since I first stood for election for example over 3 decades ago.  Political messages now are relayed around the world in instance by the media.  Polling is carried out to evaluate the view of the electorate on various issues, polls that you read all the time about in newspapers.  Spin and focus groups are by words for political efficacy.  Political messages are now reduced to sound bites.  Necessary or desirable as all of this may be, they are only the tools of political organisation.  The real beauty of politics remains in that view of politics as a means to improve society through the victory of ideas.  Spin or sound bits should never take pre-eminence over ideas.  For ideas are the lifeblood of a healthy society.  Spin and sound bites are valueless indeed without noble ideas behind them.

I should wish to conclude this contribution with the following thoughts.  Politics should not be considered as an end in itself.  As one of the founding fathers of the European Union, Jean Monet mused, ‘its about laying the foundations of the basis for progress’.  When those engaged in politics fulfil their roles there should be no war, no poverty and no injustice.  The art of politics is the interminable effort to provide the fullest degree of those conditions and in that way it is about providing the environment for human happiness to provide space for the work of the artist.   And as we have often said, now move in to the new century, we are living through the biggest revolution in the history of the world.  The telecommunications, transport and technological revolution, the world is a much smaller place.  We are much closer together, therefore we are in a much stronger position to shape that world and our objectives should be that it is a world in which there will always be peace and ever be war. 

DIFFERENCE

Because when you look at all the conflicts and wars of the past, and we’ve been through it, they have all as I said earlier about the same thing, difference.  Whether difference is your nationality, your race or your religion.  And people as I have often said should never fight about difference.  Why?  Difference is an accident of birth.  Did any of you choose to be born into any relation?  Did any of you choose to be born into any nationality?  Did any of you choose to be born into any race?  No, we were all born without this choice..  Therefore we should never fight about our differences, we should respect them.  And when you look across the world today and it is a much smaller world, differences matter, no two human beings are the same; no two people in this room are the same.  Difference is of the essence of humanity therefore it should be fully respected and there should be no conflict.  Given the smaller world we are in a stronger position to create such a world.  And in so doing, as I have said no matter what conflict is about it’s always the same, and therefore the solutions are always the same.  I’ve always said that the best example of conflict resolution in the history of the world is the European Union. 

I never forget my first visit to Strasbourg as a Member of the European Parliament.  I went for a walk in 1979, I walked across the bridge from Strasbourg in France to Kale in Germany, because Strasbourg is on the Franco-German boarder, and I meditated, I said, good Lord, if I’d stood on this bridge 30 years ago, 40 million people dead at the end of the Second World War, the worst half century in the history of the world, 50 million people killed, and if I had said, ‘don’t worry, it’s all over we’ll be united in the coming years, and the French will still be French, and the Germans will still be German’.  But it happened and the European Union is the best example in the history of the world of conflict resolution and therefore the principles at the heart of it should be sent all over the world.  And if you look at the principles of our Good Friday Agreement you find they are the exact same principles that are at the heart of the European Union.  Principal number one, respect for difference, no fighting over difference.  Principle number two of the European Union, institutions that respect your differences, the Council of Ministers, all countries are there, a European Commission, all countries are there, a European Parliament, all countries are there.  And then the third principle, the healing process as I call it, they work together in their common interest, they leave aside, they don’t wave flags at one another, they work together in their common interest, their real interests, the living standards of human beings, economics, spilling their sweat, not their blood, and broke down the barriers of centuries and the new Europe has evolved and is still evolving.

  And as I said earlier, it is now being joined by the Easter European peoples.  You look at our wee agreement in Northern Ireland; the same three principles are there.  Number one respect for difference, no victory for either community, total respect for the identities for both sections of people.  Principle number two, institutions which do that, a proportionally elected Assembly which ensures that all sectors of our people are there and a proportionally elected executive government from that Assembly so that all sections of our people are in the government.  And then the third principle which hasn’t even started yet because of the fact that the institutions aren’t in place, will be that we will work together in our common interest, we will no longer be waving flags at one another. 

I never forget my first political lesson, when I was 10 years old.  The Nationalist Party was holding a meeting in the street and waving their flags and we were all getting emotional.  May father was beside me and he was unemployed and he put his hand on my shoulder and he said, ‘never you get involved in that stuff son’, I says, ‘why not da’?’, he says, ‘you cant eat a flag’.  Just think of the wisdom of that, real politics is about the living standards of people, what use is your country to you if you can’t earn a living in it and you have to go somewhere else to earn it?  And as I say, waving flags at one another and painting them on footpaths shows how much real respect those people have for flags because you then walk on them on the footpaths of certain areas and as I say that real politics is about the living standards of our people.  And I hope that soon, in the North of Ireland and in Ireland, our institutions will be in place and we will be spilling our sweat together and working our common ground together because once we start doing that we will build a trust amongst our divided people, we will remove the prejudices and distrust of the past and the healing process will begin and the new Ireland will evolve in a generation or two based on agreement and respect, with full respect for Catholic, Protestant and all denominations and differences.


Beaconsfield Gallery

How to make the Convention a success
"People want to have a simple answer to the following question: who runs Europe?"
FRANCK BIANCHERI

EUOBSERVER / SALT&PEPPER - The Convention has delivered a Constitution proposal. The IGC will then decide upon a final version. In most EU countries, this version will be submitted to their citizens for ratification.

Therefore the question now is: how to get a successful end result? That is to say a constitution adopted by EU citizens.

The answer can be summarised in a 3-2-1 argument:
- Three reasons to support it
- Two threats to prevent in the IGC
- One reform to add.

Three reasons to support it
The three reasons are a matter of democracy: simplicity and citizens involvement.People want to have a simple answer to the following question: who runs Europe?

By electing a stable European President (reason 1) and a European Foreign Affairs Minister (reason 2), the Constitution proposal allows citizens, for the first time, to answer these questions.

The Petition Clause
Then, by allowing direct citizen involvement, provided they are one million sharing the same concern, the Constitution proposal put them, again for the first time, as possible players of the EU political system. Even if not perfect, this is a starting point.

And at this stage of EU construction, we do not need a constitution describing the future in detail (it cannot as nobody knows what the EU will be like in even 10 years); but a text bridging yesterday and tomorrow.

Two threats to prevent
Two forces will try to rewrite the proposal: on one side,(a) the federalist block (Commission/Parliament); on the other side (b)the confederalist coalition (some Member-States).

Both of them will just lead to a text which will be impossible to sell to people:

(a) the federalist block because it would bet on two institutions which have absolutely no public support or credibility; therefore easy targets for any opponents when ratification time comes.

(b) the confederalist coalition because it will not act with a common purpose in mind, but just a coalition of single interests of national elites. Not only will they make the final text, if they succeed, unable to raise support throughout the EU when ratification comes; but even in their own countries, they will not be able to get support from their citizens as they will defend so-called "national" positions, which none of their citizens ever debated.

One crucial issue still to tackle
The Constitution will represent a major shift of power to the European institutions, which means, first of all, the European administrations. EU civil servants will become direct players in most European citizens activities.

Therefore, in order to preserve a basic condition of democracy which ensures that every citizen is equal before law, it is vital to suppress all judicial immunities of EU civil servants, granted by EU treaties in the 60s when the EU was still a kind of "international organization".

Beyond principles, this suppression is a political requirement if the Constitution has to be ratified. Indeed, not to do it would offer a deadly argument to all those who will oppose the Constitution.

Is it a too simplistic vision of the coming challenge? Well, get out into European towns and villages, and you'll see.

FRANCK BIANCHERI - is the Director of Strategy and Studies of Europe 2020, a trans-European think-tank based in Paris. He is currently completing a democratic premiere, the "Newropeans Democratic Marathon", touring, until July 2003, 100 cities in 25 European countries, in order to debate the future of Europe directly with the citizens. He is also president of the only EU/US civil societies web portal, TIESWEB.

EU puzzled over GMO consultations The US says the Unio n's "de facto ban" represents a barrier to trade.
20.06.2003 - 18:19 CET Press Release
The EU held consultations on Thursday (19 June) with the US and Argentina over its
authorisation system for genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

The US, last month lead a request for WTO consultations with the EU over there regulatory system.
The EU has said it is puzzled by the request for consultations and stressed the legitimate right to establish a regulatory regime to ensure that GMOs are only put on the market on the basis of a careful assessment of risks.

It has been added that all GMOs applications are assessed on the basis of the new EU regulatory framework, which entered into place in October 2002 and treats each application on its merits.

The GMOs EU legislation is highly controversial and there is a WTO case launched against the EU on this very subject.

The case is based on allegations on the existence of a ‘moratorium’ on GMO approvals and in May US asked the World Trade Organisation to rule on whether they think the EU’s "de facto ban" represents a barrier to trade.

But the EU has rebutted the challenge, which it described as "legally misguided, economically unfounded and politically unhelpful".

There are other ongoing efforts at the international level to lay down common principles on GMOs, which the EU is prepared to consider. This is the case of The Cartagena Protocol on Bio safety, which establishes the international principles that will govern the transfer, handling and use of GMOs.
European Commission  European Commission
  Written by Mihaela Gherghisan

EU aiming to rival US as world power in war on terrorism
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in Porto Carras
Excerpt -Telegraph UK
20/06/2003
 

The European Union embraced a new doctrine of hard-nosed military interventionaround the world yesterday.The EU laid out its ambition to match the United States as a full economicand military superpower ; European leaders meeting in Greece ditched their strategy of "soft power" in favour of a more muscular mix, including pre-emptive strikes against dangerous regimes if necessary.
 
"Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.............
 
"A union of 25 members, spending a total of 160 billion euros on defence, should be able to sustain several operations at the same time. We must develop a strategic culture that fosters early, rapid, and when necessary, robust intervention."
 
............... hints at future rivalry. "No single country is able to tackle today's complex problems entirely on its own."As a union of 25 states with more than 450 million people producing a quarter of the world's GNP, the EU is, like it or not, a global actor; it should be ready to share in the responsibility for global security."