Fortnight Publications Ltd.

The Shamrock SkirmishAuthor(s): Kevin CullenSource: Fortnight, No. 338 (Apr., 1995), p. 14Published by: Fortnight Publications Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25558369 .

Accessed: 28/06/2014 15:36

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Fortnight Publications Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Fortnight.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.220.202.141 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 15:36:35 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The shamrock skirmish

Right-KEVIN CULLEN assesses the fall-out

from the Adams-in America spat. Below

RUTH TAILLON has some advice for the

US administration on the economic conference in Washington

next month.

Bir Clinton's decision to lift the fundraising ban on

Sinn Fein and shake hands with GerryAdams cooled

relations between the White House and Downing

Street like no other time since the creation of Israel.

Aides to John Major said he was livid at what he

perceived as a cavalier attitude toward British objec tions to the SF president receiving red-carpet treat

ment in Washington. They said Mr Clinton's embrace

of Mr Adams was too much too soon, and risked

alienating unionists when they needed reassurance.

Aides to Mr Clinton, meanwhile, thought the

British were over-reacting, saying they knew the

fundraising ban was destined to go. Administration

officials had suggested as much last December, when

the president invited Mr Adams to the White House

to meet his national security adviser, Anthony Lake,

who, with his deputy, Nancy Soderberg, are his top

Northern Ireland advisers. Given that SF can raise

funds in Britain and Ireland, the Americans had

warned they couldn't justify the ban much longer.

Inviting Mr Adams to the White House for St

Patrick's Day dinner, however, caught the British off

guard. It even surprised some of the president's

aides who had advised against, fearing unionists

would be unduly antagonised. But, as on the Adams

visa issue a year ago, and as in almost every decision

on Northern Ireland, Mr Clinton followed his gut.

Privately, the British appeared to be as upset about

the style as the substance-they found out about the

president's decision several hours after SF. "People

in west Belfast knew about this before the British

embassy did," said one Washington source.

White House officials said Mr Clinton understood

the sensitivities in Belfast and London, saying he did

not provide a public photo-opportunity with Mr

Adams-which would have given SF an even bigger

propaganda coup and, the administration agreed,

gratuitously inflamed unionist opinion. Still, some

in the White House are beginning to view Mr Major

as the little boy who cried wolf.

Each time Mr Clinton has ignored British re

quests, London has predicted doom. But the cease

fire holds. Mr Clinton, Mr Lake and Ms Soderberg

believe SF should be steered quickly and deeply into

the mainstream, their instincts influenced and sup

ported by Dublin. The last-minute decision by the

loyalist Gary McMichael to fly to Washington, to

counter Mr Adams' presence, was especially wel

comed by the White House: Mr Clinton believes his

open-door policy can nudge the unionists to engage.

The president was pleased with the dinner. Mr

Adams and the SDLP leader, John Hume, warbling

a few bars of The Town ILoved So Wellinside the White

House-not to mention Mr Adams quietly perusing

a book in the presidential library-joined the ranks

of the did-you-ever-think-you'd-see-the-day? events

since August 31st last year.

Some, particularly in the British news media, sug

gested Mr Clinton was merely courting the Irish

American vote for 1996. His aides scoffed, noting

that 40 million Irish-Americans do not vote as an

ethnic bloc and are largely apathetic about the land

of their forebears. Still, if the ceasefire is holding

next year, you can be sure Mr Clinton will be touting

it as one of his foreign-policy successes.

The animosity between Mr Clinton and Mr Major

didn't begin with Mr Adams: some Clintonistas still

resent the Conservative leader's backing for George

Bush in 1992. The animosity won't end with Mr

Adams either. A week after the president shook Mr

Adams' hand, he declined the prime minister's

invitation to be in London on VE Day.

Capital must engage with community

Community groups in west Belfast have been heartened by the positive

approach by the Clinton administration to involving the community sector

in the economic conference to be held in Washington at the end of May.

In contrast to the investment forum organised by the Industrial

Development Board in Belfast last December, the Washington organisers

have consulted the community sector about the format and have committed

themselves to ensuring the invitation list will be as inclusive as possible.

Community organisations in west Belfast have told White House representatives the conference should encompass a range of economic

development issues, rather than focusing narrowly on industrial investment promotion. Its purpose is 'economic' rather than 'political', but it is taking

place in the context of the peace process, and must remain linked to it.

Inward investment has a positive, indeed vital, role in the economic

development of the country as a whole. It must, however, be targeted at

those areas which have suffered most from neglect and discrimination. The

priority must be meaningful employment in marginalised communities. To do this most effectively, investors and the agencies responsible need

to engage with the people living in those communities. In fact, this will

maximise the benefits to both industry and the community. Companies

working in tandem with community representatives can ensure their

requirements for skilled workers (and, in many cases, goods and services)

are satisfied locally and costeffectively. The community can benefit

through secure job opportunities with incoming firms and other linkages. Local businesses can become suppliers to these companies and benefit

from the increased local expenditure of their employees. Community

organisations can benefit not only from increased opportunities for

sponsorship but also from non-monetary co-operation, such as business or

technical advice or the use of facilities. The possibilities, assuming there is

a genuine commitment to consultation and mutual respect, are infinite.

The West Belfast Economic Forum therefore intends to use the

Washington conference to explain to potential investors that, through their

investment choices, they can either make a significant contribution to the

peace process, or exacerbate existing problems and undermine it.

14 FORTNIGHT APRIL 1995

This content downloaded from 91.220.202.141 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 15:36:35 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions