Forum Fizzle

A call for Irish unity is rebuffed

Overhead, one of the 18th century frescoes on the ceiling of St. Patrick's Hall depicted King Henry II receiving the surrender of Irish chieftains in 1171. Beneath the figures, in the gilded hall of Dublin Castle, which was once the seat of British rule in Ireland, politicians from the North and South gathered last week to sign the long-awaited report of the New Ireland Forum, a promised blueprint for the future of the troubled land. Unfortunately, the forum's call for new solutions had already evoked a curt dismissal. Early that morning, Dublin residents awoke to find posters slapped on the city's central post office, the scene of the 1916 Easter rebellion against British rule. The uncompromising message: ULSTER IS BRITISH.

For eleven months, the leaders of three main political parties in the Irish Republic and one overwhelmingly Catholic party in the North had sought fresh alternatives that might lead to Irish unity. The final result of their deliberations, a 42-page, 14,000-word report, is a searching investigation into the island's social, cultural, economic and political relationships. After 41 formal sessions, 56 meetings of party leaders and more than 300 submissions from interested outsiders, the forum condemned the "failed British solutions" to bring stability to Northern Ireland.

Instead, it suggested three alternative options. One would absorb Ulster into a "unitary state" independent of Britain and governed from Dublin, with constitutional guarantees safeguarding both Protestants and Catholics. Another envisioned a federal arrangement in which North and South would retain some autonomy, but would be ruled by a central, confederal government. Last, an agreement would be reached by which the North would be jointly administered by Dublin and London.

While John Hume, head of Ulster's moderate Social Democratic and Labor Party, did his best to mediate, Irish Prime Minister Garret FitzGerald and former Irish Prime Minister Charles Haughey disagreed sharply over the options. Not surprisingly, the most formidable opposition to the forum's report was from Ulster's majority Protestants. Led by the militant Rev. Ian Paisley, they have staunchly resisted any link with the predominantly Catholic republic, effectively foredooming the forum. Indeed, Paisley and his supporters traveled to the Irish capital under cover of darkness to demonstrate their contemptuous response to the report at the Dublin post office.

For his part, British Secretary for Northern Ireland James Prior expressed doubt that "any dramatic initiative" was possible and scolded the forum for its "nationalist interpretation of past events." Other senior British officials dismissed the options for Irish unification as "shallow" and "naive."