>From MCELROY@zodiac.rutgers.edu Sun May  2 19:38:02 1993

GERRY ADAMS INTERVIEW: SINN FEIN PRESIDENT ARGUES BRITISH MUST
FACE UP TO THE UNIONISTS.

(from the Irish Echo, March 17-23-1993)

Adams was interviewed in Sinn Fein Headquarters in West Belfast by Echo
correspondent Jack Holland.

                                  *****

Q: Do you intend applying for a visa to the U.S. soon?

A: I'm seeking advice about it. But I certainly will be applying for a visa. I
wouldn't be able to go until after the local government elections (in May)
anyway. There is a long list of invitations going back many years to speak at
various venues--from universities through different Irish-American groups to
other institutions. And also there is a U.S. edition of "The Street" (Adam's
collection of short stories) being published by Sheridan Square publishers in
New York. And they're at me to apply for a visa to do some book promotion.

Q: If you do go to the U.S., what would you like to say to Irish Americans?

A: That there is a need to have peace. Most of the commentary is about the
latest tragedy or atrocity and there is no initiative for peace. I echo what
Kevin McNamara (Labour's Northern Ireland spokesperson) has been saying--
that the Dublin government especially needs to be pro-active. That London
needs to be persuaded to sue for peace. And that the good will which Ireland
enjoys needs to be enlisted in support of that.

Q: You don't see the (British Secretary of State for Northern Ireland John)
Mayhew talks as an attempt to establish peace?

A: No--not at all.

Q: Two of his speeches late last year on Irish nationalism were widely seen as
an overture to Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA. Did you see them as such?

A: I read both. I actually think that some of it was quite insulting. It was very
patronizing. There is nothing in the speeches themselves which indicates an
overture. The fact that he made them is probably more important. The ground
has shifted from the Thatcherite position that we won't talk to them. It's now:
"We will talk to them if they do this and do that...". So that's positive. But in
terms of what he actually said, I think he would have to be much more flexible
and a bit more courageous than he has been.

Q: Has there been behind-the-scenes contact between the British government
and the republican movement?

A: No. My view is there will be talks between Sinn Fein and the British
government when they decide that is going to happen...They'll make contact.
But...I don't think (Mayhew was talking to Sinn Fein at all, or even the IRA. I
think he was talking to their supporters. He was saying (the war's) going
nowhere...It's merely part of a psychological approach to the whole issue.
Obviously the British are engaging in public debate with Sinn Fein; obviously
the issue of talks with Sinn Fein is a central part of that debate. We're trying
to work out the very best conditions under which such talks can take place.

Q: If Sinn Fein did engage in talks with the British government, what would
you ask them to deliver?

A: Well, first, I  must say this for the record. If the British want to talk to
Sinn Fein, there is absolutely no reason why they can't do so. Whatever the
reason they feel--and I can understand this--that they can't talk to the IRA,
they don't have that excuse with Sinn Fein. Secondly, to ignore Sinn Fein and
its electoral mandate is only just opening up trouble. It's no way to move
forward. Sinn Fein should be engaged in discussion without any preconditions.
Someone is elected as a member of Sinn Fein, yet that person will not be talked
to unless the IRA--an organization over which that person has no control--
cease its activity for some unspecified period or forever. It makes a whole
nonsense of the only way out of this situation--through a dialogue.
      Now, you asked me, What would Sinn Fein say in negotiations? We'd try
to bring about a situation in which the British would be faced with a pan-
nationalist agreement from the non-Unionist parties, aiming to get London and
Dublin to agree to end partition. If they agree to end partition within a
reasonable time--and I wouldn't even think of suggesting what that time should
be--the, from the Republican viewpoint, certainly from Sinn Fein's viewpoint,
there's no real reason for the continuation of the armed struggle. Then you'll
have to talk about the transitional period, how you deal with the Unionists.

Q: What if the Unionists refuse to take part in such talks?

A: I think the Unionists have to be faced up to. The British here have to say
to the Unionists: "You no longer have a veto." There's no easy way out of it.

Q: Do you think that the British fear of a loyalist backlash is a legitimate one?

A: I think not. I think that all these things can be resolved. If the British
government and the rest of us were sitting down to look at how to tackle this,
then it becomes something that can be resolved--the vast majority of people
here want peace...the process of changing from a partitioned Ireland to a new
Ireland may necessarily have to be a relatively lengthy one.
      We need to be correlating with the Unionists, not just because of the
threat they represent, but also because, if we want to have any sort of stable
Ireland, it has to involve all its citizens. Nationalists would have to be very
flexible.

Q: In August 1991, you made a speech in which you referred to Northern
Ireland's Protestants as "truly our brothers and sisters." A nice sentiment, but
when the IRA kills an RUC (Royal Ulster Constabulary) man, Sinn Fein defends
its actions. Protestants might see it as hypocritical to appeal to them on the one
hand and then, on the other, justify actions which deprive members of their
community of their lives, might they not?

A:  Certainly, the Unionists would see it as hypocritical.

Q: Don't you?

A: First of all, there's an awful lot of politicking around people's deaths. There
was a young fellow killed up here, Pearse Jordan, an IRA member. (Unarmed,
he was shot dead by police in November.) There is no suggestion that he was
killed because he was a Catholic. It's not seen as sectarian. He was killed
because he was in the IRA. Now, if a member of the RUC is killed, he's killed
because he's in the RUC. But no section of this community has a monopoly on
suffering. I can understand Unionists dismissing utterances from me and people
like me, not just over IRA killings of RUC men, but over the very fact that
they see nationalists being a major threat to their Protestant way of life. So,
yes, I can accept that.

Q: You say Irish Americans should work for peace in Ireland. How?

A: Our view would be that people should support Irish Northern Aid Committee
(INAC). But I can accept that isn't absolutely conditional. Nor do they have to
support Sinn Fein of the IRA. First of all, they should push for an end to visa
denial. It's important that U.S. citizens have their rights to hear the
republican point of view...I think they should bring U.S. principles to bear,
even though I would be opposed to much of U.S. foreign policy, but in terms of
the general principles of democracy, civil rights and equality, they should be
arguing that their government should be involved here on that basis. If the
British and Irish governments ar unable for whatever reason to break this
logjam, then it needs a wee push from outside. If anyone in the U.S. takes the
time to examine what has happened here, they would conclude that British rule
has failed, and having said that, then they should be looking at alternatives to
British rule...Whether people support the IRA or not is to me slightly
academic. There are enough people in the U.S. who support the IRA...That's
not the central issue. The central issue is that this conflict has lasted for
decades...But I think that we can have peace and that Irish American opinion
should mobilize for peace in Ireland.

                                  *****
for further information on Ireland in Peacenet, see reg.ireland