Suchergebnisse

'PEACE PROCESS' IS A NEW AND FASHIONABLE CONCEPT. THERE are of course great local differences between the Middle Eastern, the South African and the Irish-British peace processes. But there are some remarkable characteristic similarities between them which form a pattern and especially when, as at present, they are seen in their phases of transition. What I present here are a few remarks on the differences and similarities in the phase of transition of the ongoing peace processes in South Africa and in Northern Ireland — differences which geopolitically, demographically, culturally and economically might seem at first sight in some respects rather difficult to compare.

'Cometh The Hour, Cometh The Man' . . . in This Case two men, in the unlikely figures of the British Prime Minister, John Major, and the Irish Taoiseach, Albert Reynolds. Neither is a charismatic personality and each presides over a government with more than its fair share of problems. Yet with one leap they have agreed on an issue which removes them from the mundane realities of domestic politics and offers them a place in the sun. Already the Irish Council of the European Movement has awarded Mr Reynolds (alongside the SDLP leader, John Hume ) its 'Man of the Year' award. Can a Nobel Peace Prize be far behind? The Prime Minister has not been slow to exploit the huge potential in the peace process. He informed the Commons on the day that the Joint Declaration was signed, 15 December 1993, that when he met the Taoiseach at Downing Street 'two years ago, we both agreed on the need to work together to try to bring about peace in Northern Ireland and in the Republic . . . we both knew that, after 25 years of killing, we had to make it a personal priority both to seek a permanent end to violence and to establish the basis for a comprehensive and lasting political settlement'.

The concerns of both these books are wider than their titles suggest. Professor Akenson's work on the Irish diasporas of New Zealand and South Africa also deals with the historiography of Irish America, Irish Canada, and, either directly or obliquely, Ireland. Given this scope, his work adds up to a shrewd and highly literate analysis of British historiography as well as the Irish diaspora. At the same time, it emphatically addresses and criticizes the "filio-pietistic excesses" of Irish-American historiography—much of which, he informs us, "has become a massive baroque structure built on quicksand" (Occasional Papers 12). Finally, these books contribute to his larger attempt to construct a new concept of Anglo-Celtic culture. These important exploratory exercises in the comparative method are rich in style, method, and detail. In the conclusion to his New Zealand study, he enumerates some of the sources and methods he has employed to illuminate ethnic history: "demographic analysis, institutional history, community studies, biographical sketches, and the reading of works of art for their evidentiary value" (Half the World 196). All are indeed contained within these pages and enhance our understanding of the Irish diaspora since the nineteenth century.

WRITING A LETTER FROM IRELAND TOUCHES ON CERTAIN sensitivities because Ireland is a geographic unit in search of political expression. There has always been some doubt about political ownership. Between 1800 and 1921 it was, of course, part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Let us say for the present that Ireland now belongs to that small group of political entities - like Korea and Cyprus - which 'enjoys' the condition of partition. And that part of Ireland whence this letter is written, Northern Ireland, has been placed in some sort of historical context by a former leader of the Nationalist Party, Eddie McAteer, when he said of it: 'and now we are sadly the last imperial aspidistra in the British window.'