Republican News · Thursday 21 February 2002

Debating Empire

I'm a Brit. A weird Brit, an Irish Brit, but still a Brit and there is nothing more Nazi than someone else telling me what I - David Ervine

David Ervine of the Progressive Unionist Party, Eamon Nolan of Sinn Féin and SDLP politician turned journalist Brian Feeney debated last week before an appreciative crowd in Dublin.

Coiste na n-Iarchimí's second seminar of three on the subject of Empire drew a crowd of almost 150 people to the New Theatre in Connolly Books in Dublin on Wednesday night, 13 February. Ella O'Dwyer, 26-County education officer for the republican ex-prisoners' group, has organised the series as part of Coiste's 'What is the Journey?' educational project.

Describing Ireland as 'the British Empire's last colony', Sinn Féin national organiser Eamon Nolan put forward the argument that we live in a time when we are witnessing the end of one form of Empire in Ireland, with the inevitability of a united Ireland. He warned, however, that people should "be careful we are not swapping one empire for another.

"The future Ireland we live in will be the one that we build," he said. "We can build it based on the power and privilege of the past or we can build it based on equality. It is our choice. Those who oppose change seek to limit that choice. They seek to delay change and to resist the emerging future. They seek to defend the Empire. And Empire here can mean the power structure in any country.

"Are we witnessing the growth of a US empire, with President Bush setting them up as the world's policeman? What about the emerging EU Empire? At the launch of the euro, I read a quote in one of the newspapers, which said that it was the first time since the fall of the Roman Empire that people across Europe would use one currency. Some years ago, the head of the European commission stated that Europe needed an army 'to fight the resource wars of the 21st century'. At the last of these seminars, Eoghan Harris spoke of Globalisation being the development of a worldwide capitalist empire. He went on to say we should support that development, which is another story. All of these structures are power structures."

David Ervine of the PUP agreed that Empire was a mechanism of control before launching into a dogged defence of the Union.

"We can function as a society but I don't know if it will be on the terms Eamon wants," he said. "Scratch that, I do know it won't be on the terms Eamon wants, but I also know it won't be on the terms that I want either. No Empire is going to expel me from my own country. Nowhere in history has any nation expelled its own people. In the end what you have to realise is that I'm a Brit. A weird Brit, an Irish Brit, but still a Brit and there is nothing more Nazi than someone else telling me what I am."

He want on to praise the role of ex-prisoners in creating the peace process. "A bravery emanated from the Kesh," he said. "A bravery that recognised that it is significantly harder to make peace than it is to make war. Had we waited for constitutional politicians to create the Peace Process, with few exceptions, we would have waited a very long time."

The final speaker for the evening was Brian Feeney of the Irish News. He defined Empire as being based on inequality, beginning his speech by quoting the American politician Wendell Wilkie, to the effect that 'The Constitution does not provide for first and second class citizens'.

"Empires have always existed and are based on inequality" he said. "Even when the notion of being a citizen of the Empire developed in the Ottoman and Hapsburg Empires, inequality remained. The theory was that despite different languages and culture one could be a citizen but in order to become such he or she had to become like the Empire race. You were never quite the same as the people running the Empire. Colour, language, religion all made you different. There was always a distinguishing mark that makes you a servant, and Empire needs servants to exploit resources."

There followed a lively question and answer session, with Ervine coming in for the lion's share of questions from the audience, taking advantage of the rare opportunity to engage with a spokesperson for loyalism. The debate broadened out from the theory of Empire into more practical issues such as policing, the Good Friday Agreement and sectarianism. There was a general feeling that the success in bringing to the debate representatives of the republican, nationalist and loyalist traditions made for a stimulating discussion.

The final seminar in the series is due to take place in June.