REBEL WITHIN THE CAUSE

In a movement that reveres its martyrs, the dead can sometimes be more powerful than the living. And in keeping with that worldview, the late Bobby Sands is the most potent icon of modern-day Republicanism. When he died on hunger strike in 1981, more then 100,000 people followed his funeral procession through West Belfast. One month prior to his death, he had been elected as the MP for Fermanagh/South Tyrone, a victory which was the catalyst for greatly increased Republican participation in electoral politics.
A mural of Sands still adorns the gable wall of a building on the Falls Road, together with a quotation: "Everyone, Republican or otherwise, has his/her own part to play." It is the part currently being played by his sister which has created such a stir.
Bernadette Sands-McKevitt, as vice-chairperson of The 32 County Sovereignty Committee, has become the public face of hardline opposition to the Sinn Féin leadership. Media reports have persistently suggested that the Committee is linked to armed dissident groups. This is vehemently denied by its members.
Sands-McKevitt is keen to point out that the Committee is not a political party. It is, she says, "more like a lobby group." Its focus is on the single issue suggested by the name. She has already visited the United Nations to lodge a challenge to the British claim of sovereignty over Northern Ireland.
Hot Press travelled to Dundalk on Friday 22nd May, the day of the referendum, to interview Bernadette Sands-McKevitt [for her later reaction to the outcome of voting see accompanaying panel]. She has lived in the border town since she left her native Belfast 20 years ago. Chatting in a local hotel, she is friendly and articulate. Her amiable manner sits incongruously with the fierce irredentism of her politics.

Niall Stanage: You were previously best known for your family connections. What was your early life like?

Bernadette Sands-McKevitt: Very ordinary (smiles). I was born in Abbots Cross, and then we moved to Rathcoole when I was four. We lived there during the early '60s, which I suppose could have been described as a peaceful time, even though it wasn't what I would describe as a normal time.
Later, towards the end of the '60s you had the civil rights movement evolving, and then in the early '70s things really started to get heated up. We became more conscious, because at that stage we would have had the UDA marching in paramilitary-style uniforms around the streets; we would have had gangs which were called KAI gangs. KAI stood for "Kill All Irish". They would assemble and if you were discovered to be Catholic, which happened with Bobby, you were beaten up. He was beaten up by them, and he was stabbed as well.
I have another very vivid memory of sitting in secondary school, and a gang of loyalists gathering around the school, chanting. We had to leave because it was getting too dangerous. The teachers had to escort us out.
I remember going along the road. I was about 13 at the time, and I was crying because I was so terrified. I remember this elderly man standing at a bus-stop as we were walking past. He asked me, "What's wrong love? What's happening?" and I said, "Mister, the Protestants are going to kill us," (laughs). And he said, "Go away, you Fenian wee bastard." That's the truth. I will always remember that.
Would you also have been becoming involved in the political aspect of Republicanism around that period?
Well, I would have to say that I have always held Republican beliefs. I have always supported that.
[NS]: Were you ever a member of the Provisional IRA or Sinn Féin?
[BSM]: No.
[NS]: Why not? Given your beliefs and experiences, it would have seemed logical to join Sinn Féin at least.
[BSM]: Well, I don't know why, but I never really had the inclination, to be quite honest. I would have been very supportive, and I would have worked away in the background, but I never got involved in political parties. I would have been active as well on the issue of prisoners, but there's no real . . . there's no proper answer I could give you to that.
[NS]: At the anti-partition meeting which you spoke at this week, people claimed that members of the Special Branch were watching from a car parked outside the building. What are your experiences of being under surveillance?
[BSM]: Well, with every public meeting that we've been to so far, that has been the case. It's disgraceful. In Cork, for example, we were in a hotel, and the Special Branch parked the car right at the very door's edge, to stop people coming in and out. And some of them were just guests. They weren't even going to the meeting. I mean, it was a public meeting. It was advertised, it was legitimate, it was open, and yet by their presence and by the way they were behaving they were intimidating people. I think that is wrong.
[NS]: Your opponents have suggested that your emotional attachment to Bobby, and to the circumstances of his death, warp your views of the reality of the situation. How do you respond to that?
[BSM]: They mustn't know me. Because anyone who truly knows me, knows that's not the case. That's all I can say really, because I've always been a Republican, since long before Bobby died.
[NS]: Gerry Adams at an earlier point was quite a close friend of Bobby's. (Sands smirks and inclines her head in dissent). Maybe not, then. (Silence) He knew him, anyway . . .
[BSM]: Yes. He would have known him.
[NS]: It must be quite traumatic for you to see those people holding up the Agreement now. How do you feel when you see that?
[BSM]: I can respect them, and I realise they have invested most of their lives in this. I wouldn't dream of taking away from that. But in saying that, it is this particular strategy which I feel is wrong and I feel that I can't agree with.
[NS]: At what point in the process did you become disillusioned with the current strategy?
[BSM]: I was very, very concerned when I read the Framework Document. Basically, it was always the British agenda that was setting this. It contained no mechanisms to bring about the actual resolution of the conflict in our country. It didn't even address the fundamental problem, which is the influence and the illegal claim of sovereignty over part of our country. That's what we're going back to!
[NS]: The current Sinn Féin leadership frequently uses phrases like "a new phase in the struggle". Don't you think there is some credible, tactical plan, which has yet to be made public, that might go a long way to meeting your objectives?
[BSM]: I think that is possibly one of the reasons why so many people have remained very loyal. Because they believe that somewhere along the way, the rabbit is going to be pulled out of the magic hat. And all will be well. But that's not the case. What you see is what you get from that document.
[NS]: But it must seem inconceivable to many republicans that people like Martin McGuinness or Gerry Adams would devote their lives to that cause, and would then settle for something which is as tame as you suggest.
[BSM]: Well, you see, I imagine that people felt exactly the same way when they looked at De Valera. I'm sure that same sense of disbelief was very evident at that time. That' s why this is not new. We have had the stepping stones; we've had transition; we've had all these failed initiatives before. And I have to keep asking the question, why are we making this mistake again? Why do they think that this is some imaginative approach? It is not. We can all have as many stepping stones as we like, but those stepping stones can go from here to eternity. They will never produce the result needed. And we'll come back to this point again.
[NS]: Do you feel betrayed by the Sinn Féin leadership?
[BSM]: (Long pause) I feel very . . . eh . . . I feel very annoyed. I feel very frustrated and I cannot understand why it is that people are sitting down and repeating the same mistakes, when there is so much evidence of what that has brought about.
[NS]: How have your arguments been received in the wider Republican community?
[BSM]: Show me a Republican who doesn't want freedom.
[NS]: There are people who claim that they do want that, but who also claim that the correct way to go about it isn't the way you are suggesting.
[BSM]: I have to say that I have met with numerous Republicans, and they have agreed with us. I have yet to meet a Republican who has put an argument up in support of their [the Sinn Féin leadership's] position. I would genuinely love them to show me where in this Agreement they see it leading to a United Ireland. Where exactly? Maybe I have missed the page.
[NS]: Do you have any sense that you are in physical danger because of stating your beliefs in this fashion?
[BSM]: I genuinely don't know. But whether I am or I'm not, it will not make me think any differently.
[NS]: You wrote in The Irish Times recently, "Let me be quite clear when I say that the conflict in Ireland will be solved by negotiations". You then go on to talk about your belief that there needs to be a certain framework for those negotiations. Is there any framework, other than a British declaration of intent to withdraw, that would be acceptable to you?
[BSM]: Well, you see, how can there be? How can you get negotiations that are going to be proper and productive, that will bring about a smooth transition, and that will allow the nation as one to then develop? You must first get Britain to recognise our right to national sovereignty, and to then set a date for the disengagement of its forces and it's administration out of our country. So that is necessary. It's a logical step if Ireland is to become one and develop as an independent nation.
[NS]: But surely politics is all about marrying idealism and pragmatism, and people would argue that if that is your position, then no-one is going to negotiate with you.
[BSM]: We will never negotiate as long as Britain refuses to recognise [Irish sovereignty over 32 Counties]. At the point where Britain does that, then it's a different ballgame. We're then facing a scenario where it's up to the people of Ireland to determine their own future. And that's democracy. I have never been an advocate for pushing one ideology onto our people. That's entirely up to them. I get to that day, I'm happy. I can retire. (smiles).
[NS]: Do you believe the armed struggle retains legitimacy in the present situation?
[BSM]: Well, why would you think it wouldn't?
[NS]: Because it is coercive. It's saying, 'We will achieve something by physical force which cannot be achieved by popular force."
[BSM]: Well, again that could have been applied back in 1916. It has always been the interference and the denial of sovereignty, the denial of our freedom and independence which has created resistance. All I can say is that, while that problem remains, there will be people who will resist British rule. That resistance will take many forms, and one of those forms will be armed conflict. It's certainly not something that I would like to take a bet on, and say that it wouldn't happen again.
[NS]: At a recent Sinn Féin press conference, Martin McGuinness said that any republicans who take part in armed actions are doing "a disservice to themselves, to their families, to their communities, and to all the people of Ireland." Would you have any comment to make on that?
[BSM]: No, he's entitled to his opinion. But does that apply just now, or is that backdated?
[NS]: Does the 32 County Sovereignty Committee have any connection with any armed group?
[BSM]: No.
[NS]: Bernadette McAliskey said recently: "These are difficult and lonely times for people who struggle for freedom." Would you go along with that?
[BSM]: I would. And I think that has been the case down through our history. It has always been those who have been marginalised and isolated who endured that type of loneliness. It's nothing new to any of us . . . I mean, we're not any more exceptional than any other person. We've just decided that we'll stand up and try to articulate that particular position. Because I do firmly believe that the desire for freedom is inbuilt in every one of us. It's just never been channelled. People have always looked to politicians to do that. I think the politicians have failed them. I think they have failed them miserably.
[NS]: Finally, do you really think "Our day will come"?
[BSM]: (Smiles) Oh, I'm convinced of it. Convinced.

NO PEACE FOR THE VOTE

Just after 3pm on Saturday 23rd May, the official result of the Northern referendum was announced at The Kings Hall, Belfast: 71.12% of voters favoured accepting the Good Friday Agreement, 28./84% were against. A majority of around 95% was later confirmed in the Southern referendum.
Hot Press spoke to Bernadette Sands-McKevitt by phone shortly after the Belfast result was made public. In response to the outcome, she commented: "I don't think it really changes our position at all. I would certainly not see it as the Irish people freely giving their opinion without external influence."
She declined to speculate as to the proportion of the "No" vote which may have been made up of disgruntled Republicans. Asked if she would respect the wish of the people as expressed in both referenda, she replied: "It's not really a question of that. I have always respected people's wishes. But a lot of people I know went in 'voting for peace.' It is our view that there is no way peace is going to be brought about by this Agreement."
She also had a warning for those who believe that the Agreement is now safe: "We are still very actively pursuing our submission to the UN in which we are challenging Britain about its illegal claim to our country. If that is successful, as we would obviously hope it would be, everything in between is null and void."

* Niall Stanage