The second source of friction in Northern Ireland is the blatant economic and residential discrimination perpetrated by the Protestant majority against the Catholic minority. Nothing is more indicative of this discrimination than the astonishing case of the government-owned Harlan and Wolfe Shipyard in Belfast, the largest government-operated business in the whole of Northern Ireland. Of its 9,000 employees, 8,700 are Protestant.

As journalist Brian Moore wrote upon his return to Belfast last year, "there is something old and rotten still alive here: there are not enough jobs to go around, and religious issues help to mask the truth, which is, in large part, that this Ulster is the backward fief of a Conservative oligarchy, a group which makes up only 9 percent of the population yet owns 92 percent of the land." Whether religious persecution originally caused economic discrimination or vice versa is for our purposes unimportant; what matters is recognizing that Catholics in Northern Ireland must face economic discrimination of a type which is brutal and pervasive. Such discrimination must be terminated if peace is to be restored.

POLITICAL DOMINANCE BY MAJORITY

The third source of friction in Northern Ireland is the total political dominance of the majority over the minority. Gerrymandered election districts prevent Catholics from achieving local political control even in areas where they are a majority. The 52 members of the Lower Chamber at Stormont are also elected from distorted districts, depriving the Catholic population of the representation to which their numbers entitle them. Compounding this inequity, the Upper Chamber is appointed by the Lower, which only serves to reinforce the injustice of the electoral system.

Proposals for peace in Northern Ireland, therefore, must include among their provisions the abolition of the Stormont government and either direct rule from the British Parliament at Westminster or massive reform of existing constitutional and political arrangements. No government which dedicates itself to the suppression of the Catholic minority, as the Stormont government has, deserves to remain in power in Northern Ireland.

Our efforts at peacemaking, however, must not be limited only to encouraging reform in the foregoing areas. We must also urge immediate implementation of the reforms in housing, employment, law enforcement and voting rights which the government of the United Kingdom has promised for four years. Had those reforms been effected in 1968 when they were originally proposed and passed by Westminster, a great deal of needless bloodshed would have been avoided.

We must urge the withdrawal of British troops from Northern Ireland, to be gradually replaced by local peacekeeping forces or United Nations forces. As the events of "Bloody Sunday" recently made clear, the presence of British troops in Catholic ghettos only serves to focus resentment. After our experience here in America, one can legitimately wonder whether military forces will ever be able to deal successfully with civilian unrest. They certainly have not in Northern Ireland, where their presence is directly responsible for much of the loss of lives.

A very strong case can be made for United Nations intervention. The U.N. has involved itself several times in the internal affairs of nations, the most obvious cases being its investigation of apartheid in South Africa and its action during the Cyprus crisis in 1964.

The intervention in Cyprus, in fact, suggests many parallels with Northern Ireland. Critics of U.N. involvement in Northern Ireland have stated that the Security Council does not have power to intervene unless a crisis poses a definite threat to international peace-which, they argue, the fighting in Northern Ireland does not. But the preamble of the Security Council's resolution in 1964 refers to the situation in Cyprus as "likely to threaten international peace and security," without alluding to any imminent threat.

U.N. CHARTER CITED

Other critics have argued that under Article 2(7) of the United Nations Charter, the U.N. may not properly concern itself with "matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state." Again, the parallel with Cyprus is striking, because in 1964 it was Britain itself which requested U.N. intervention, arguing that:

"Article 56 of the Charter makes it clear that no country can say that the human rights of its citizens are an exclusively domestic matter. A country that denies its citizens the basic human rights is by virtue of Article 56 in breach of an international obligation."

The U.N. could play a positive peace-keeping role in Northern Ireland just as it did in Cyprus, and its reasons for intervening are every bit as good now as they were eight years ago.

And finally, we as Americans must urge the eventual unification of Ireland. The partition of 1920, now more than 50 years old, was designed as a temporary measure. Historically, geographically and economically, Ireland is one nation, and peace ultimately depends upon its being made one nation again. Here, perhaps, is where America can most directly help, by extending any diplomatic aid necessary to bring the interested parties to the conference table and by serving as an impartial mediator as the details of reunification are negotiated.

House Resolution 803 and the other resolutions which resemble it express the United States Government's deep concern over the present situation in Northern Ireland. These resolutions do not urge American intervention, nor do they embroil the United States in the internal affairs of another nation. They express our moral concern over the violence and bloodshed in Northern Ireland. As Subcommittee Chairman Rosenthal so eloquently said in his opening remarks:

"The burden of finding solutions to these problems rests primarily on the countries involved. Yet no man of conscience can rest easy with that assertion. And no country can subsist any longer behind the fiction that the nation-state system allows or demands that injustices can continue simply because they occur wholly within national borders."

I am particularly disturbed by the Administration's attitude expressed by Assistant Secretary of State Martin Hillenbrand that "we should (not) make declarations which in effect substitute our judgment for that of other democratic countries as to whether they do or do not face conditions of civil conflict which cannot be controlled by ordinary judicial processes." I submit that we should indeed make such declarations and that we are morally committed to do so when blatant civil injustices are being committed on such a scale as this.

William Butler Yeats once wrote of men under crisis that "The best lack all conviction, while the worst/ Are full of passionate intensity." Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with one of the oldest, most persistent struggles in the western world, and we delude ourselves if we think the solution is easy or apparent. However, we must strike a balance between doing too much and doing nothing. We must express our outrage and do everything within our power to help; but we must retain the dispassion which we as outsiders can contribute to a possible solution.

STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL J. FLOOD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

Many millions of Americans claim Irish heritage. Many of them are fully conscious of the origin of their families and the reasons for their presence in America. Some, however, may not fully appreciate that the strength of Americs has been bought to substantial degree as a by-product of colony policies. Our Nation in fact grew at the expense of Ireland which is the only nation in Europe with fewer people than a century ago.

It is not just a question of the 1840's but a question of a political and economic policy which was designed to prevent the native Irish achieving their full potential within the island of their birth.

The Fenian revolution of which many citizens of Pennsylvania partook waS designed in 1867 to overthrow this immoral grip. It failed then but its spirit did not die and again in 1916, we saw the Irish people prepared to die to fulfill their national aspiration.

It is not entirely to our credit that having entered the First World War on behalf of little nations, we chose to ignore the pleas of the new Irish Republic in 1919. However, that nation struggled into existence and was then dismembered under the threat of war in order to preserve the British Imperial interest and to pay the price for the support of the Unionist Party to the governments of the day. That act and its consequences are now before the House today when once again Irishmen and Irishwomen are dying in order to seek self fulfillment within their own country. We have heard much of the so-called loyalist and their service to the Crown of England. I think it worth mentioning that in the last great war. there were 8 Victoria Crosses awarded to men of Irish origin. This decoration is the highest award that can be bestowed by Britain and was awarded to these 8 Irishmen, 7 from the 26 counties of the Republic and one from the Falls Road in Belfast. And yet today veterans of the British Army are being arrested, detained without trial and placed in what can only be described as a concentration camp because they dare to express their desire to be free.

It has been said that we in America have no right to intervene in the internal affairs of a friendly foreign country but Ireland is and always has been the breaker of rules and the maker of precedents. It is our common duty, indeed our obligation, to come to the assistance of the Irish people and I can only pledge my support for the Carey Resolution with the final suggestion that the term "unification" be amended to read "re-unification."

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM J. GREEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. Chairman: I would like to congratulate this Committee for having full hearings in this most perplexing subject. I also thank you for permitting me to express my feelings along with the other distinguished Members who have expressed views. Hopefully, they will aid you in your deliberations on the resolutions dealing with Northern Ireland.

When John Kennedy departed Ireland at the end of his 1963 trip there, he made the following statement:

"This is not the land of my birth, but it is the land for which I hold the greatest affection. . .”

This statement is true for many Americans. According to the last census, there are over 13,200,000 persons of Irish descent in the United States, and this figure probably does not take into account second, third, and fourth generation Irish. There are many Irishmen in my own Congressional District. I am of Irish descent myself.

Many of these Americans have very strong ties to people in their homeland. Because of these ties, they are heartsick at the situation there.

They see that the struggle in Northern Ireland is a struggle for human rights. They see that it is a fight by an oppressed people to eliminate the effects of a law-The Special Powers Act which permits arrest without warrant, imprisonment without charge, bail, trial, or recourse to habeas corpus, forcible entry and search of homes, punishment by flogging, and arrest for criticism of the government, and which prohibits peaceful assembly and the printing of newspapers offensive to the Stormont Government.

They see also that it is a struggle for decent housing, educational and employment opportunities.

They were encouraged when Great Britain first appeared to seek a solution to the situation in August of 1969.

However, their hopes have been thwarted. The violence has not stopped. Since the arrival of British troops, over two hundred and fifty people have been killed or injured in Northern Ireland, including the thirteen deaths that resulted from the onslaught by British troops on January 30-"Bloody Sunday.'

There are now 15,000 British troops in Northern Ireland, and yet the violence continues daily. Just this past Monday, two buildings used by Catholics in Belfast as community relations and social centers were destroyed by fire. Bomb explosions destroyed two Catholic owned pubs.

Thus, the British troops have not been useful in stopping the violence. The reason for this is quite simple. The British Government has steadfastly refused to take control and seek a solution to the situation. The British troops have been taking their orders from the Stormont Government, the same government that, in the past, prolonged the weighted voting system for property owners and recruited the hated B-Specials on a sectarian basis to ruthlessly enforce the Special Powers Act.

Nor has the injustice ceased. The British Army has interned over seven hundred and forty Irishmen since its arrival, despite Britain's own time honored principle of habeas corpus.

LOOKING ELSEWHERE FOR SOLUTIONS

And so the Irish people have begun to look elsewhere for a solution. One of the places they have looked is the United States. Many Americans are also looking to the United States for a solution to the problems in this troubled land. It is quite natural that they should look to this country for help, since this country has always promoted struggles for freedom all around the world.

It has been almost two years now since 104 Members of Congress, including myself, sent a letter to President Nixon urging him to use the moral powers of the United States to persuade Great Britain to guarantee the rights of all Irishmen. It has been a month since the Honorable Patrick Hillery, Irish Foreign Minister, met with Secretary of State Rogers and urged that this government provide its "good offices" and "good advice" to England.

Unfortunately, this Administration has apparently failed to grasp the gravity of the situation in Northern Ireland, the extent of injustice prevalent there, and the extent to which this country can have an influence, and it has, therefore, taken the position that an attempt to do so would be "counterproductive." It is ironic that this Administration is, in the name of political freedom, so anxious to continue its destructive involvement in the disaster in South Vietnam, yet so reluctant to get constructively involved in the human rights cause in Northern Ireland. The American people are concerned. They are concerned because they are concerned for human rights and justice.

Because of the Administration's failure, it has been left to the Congress to reflect the concern of the American people, and that can be done by passing this Resolution, H. Res. 653, expressing the House's deepest concern and calling upon the Executive to urge the following measures to eliminate the violence, injustice, and terror in Northern Ireland:

(1) Elimination of internment.

(2) Full respect for civil rights.

(3) Implementation of the reforms promised by England in 1968.

(4) Dissolution of the Stormont Parliament.

(5) Withdrawal of British forces.

(6) Convening of all parties for the purpose of reunification.

That the United States can have this influence and bring about this result is evidenced by the fact that England, Ireland and America have been the closest of allies for many centuries. We have solved many difficult situations together. We can solve this one together, too.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

STATEMENT OF HON. SEYMOUR HALPERN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

PEACE IN NORTHERN IRELAND

Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to lend my support to the proposals made by many of my colleagues for an end to the violence and terror now plaguing Northern Ireland. As friends of both Great Britain and Ireland, we cannot remain indifferent to the tragic events which have taken place in Ulster, and are still occurring with seemingly no end in sight. These matters are of grave concern to us and merit our careful attention.

The resolutions introduced both in the Senate and House on this issue represent a beginning approach to the problem. They call for the withdrawal of British troops from Northern Ireland, an end to internment without trial of suspected terrorists, the dissolution of Stormont (the Northern Ireland parliament), and the eventual unification of Northern Ireland with the Republic of Ireland. In light of the present situation, these proposals would appear to offer the best hope for a peaceful settlement to the dispute which is tearing apart the Catholic and Protestant communities in Ulster, and are not to be construed as contrary to British interests.

When British troops were sent to Northern Ireland in 1969, they were welcomed as protectors by the Catholic minority. Indeed, the inhabitants of the Catholic ghettoes of Derry and Belfast had been subjected to vicious raids and attacks, not only by the Protestant militants, but by members of the police force-the hated B-Specials-whose role should have been to put an end to the fighting. Protestant furor had been aroused by non-violent, peaceful Civil Rights groups, which had staged marches to protest widespread discrimination against Catholics in housing and employment, and the lack of fair representation in local city councils as well as in Stormont. These well-justified grievances were never given a proper hearing in Stormont, where the Protestant Unionists have ruled steadily since the creation of Northern Ireland in 1920.

Originally, British policy in Northern Ireland was designed to maintain the peace between the two communities, while bringing pressure to bear on Stormont to carry out badly-needed political reforms. This policy has obviously failed. British troops, wittingly or unwittingly, have become an instrument of the repressive Stormont government, and have completely alienated the Catholic community. The presence of the British troops, in itself, has become an obstacle to a political solution. Today, Northern Ireland is closer to the brink of civil war than it was three years ago, when these troops first arrived.

The British government, blinded by fear of a Protestant backlash, has made many concessions to the Northern Ireland government, which in turn, has granted

only token concessions to the Catholic population. In the process, it has identified itself with the Protestant cause, and has discredited itself as an impartial force. The authorization to allow British troops to conduct arms searches in Catholic homes and neighborhoods was a capitulation to the demands of the Northern Ireland government. British troops have conducted raids in Catholic homes, and yet have left undisturbed those groups of Protestant vigilantes who are armed to the teeth.

ULSTER DEFENSE REGIMENT

The Northern Ireland government did accede to the British demand that the B-Specials be disbanded, but these heavily armed citizens immediately regrouped in a unit now called the Ulster Defense Regiment. The policy of internment without trial, another request of the Northern Ireland government, initiated last August, was directed almost exclusively against Catholics, while Protestant terrorists were ignored. The repression of Catholics culminated in the tragic shooting, January 30, of thirteen unarmed civilians who had gathered peacefully to protest the policy of internment, and to seek an immediate end to it—a massacre which should have been avoided at all costs.

The abolition of Stormont may at first glance appear to be an extreme demand, but given the present situation, it is not. Political reform within the context of Northern Ireland may have been a possibility three years ago, but offers little hope of a viable solution today. Only a truly reformist government could have redeemed the institution of Protestant rule in Northern Ireland. Three years of chaos and turmoil have revealed Stormont for what it is: an institution bent on preserving the supremacy and privileges of the Protestants. It no longer has any claim to representing anyone but itself. The Catholic Opposition members have boycotted Stormont since the British refusal to conduct an inquiry into the fatal shooting of two young Derry Catholics by British soldiers last July. The Army claimed that the two men were armed, but no weapons were found on either of them. They have set up an "alternative assembly" and have refused to take their seats in Stormont until the policy of internment is ended. They have recently stiffened their demands, and have announced that they will refuse to join in any talks until Stormont itself is abolished. Many Catholic government officials have resigned their government posts, having found themselves unable to participate in the Northern Ireland government in any way. The Catholic community has joined in widespread sit-ins, rent strikes, disruptions of public utilities, to voice their opposition to Stormont.

It would appear that the British themselves recognize the failure of Stormont as a politically representative institution, and that the only viable solution today appears to be within the context of a united Ireland. Former Prime Minister Harold Wilson has put forth a 15-point plan which calls for the creation of a commission which would represent the major parties from the Parliaments of London, Dublin and Belfast to draw up a constitution for a united Ireland, to be ratified by those three parliaments and to go into effect in fifteen years. Other proposals for a political solution have been put forth, yet to date, nothing has been done. No talks have begun, nor have any been scheduled. The sooner efforts are made to find a political solution, the sooner peace will be restored in Northern Ireland. The present policy of military repression can only lead to further tragedy.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. HANLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. Chairman, it was the immortal Dante who wrote: "The hottest place in hell should be reserved for those who do not take a stand." The words of this great Italian, I regret to say, can sadly be applied to the United States in regard to the situation in Northern Ireland.

No man has the right to turn his back on human suffering. No nation, then, can claim that right. Mr. Chairman, I do not advocate international entanglements; nor do I plea for intervention. I support a resolution which would keep the United States from turning its back on the people of Ireland.

I need not review for you the tragic conditions that exist today in the land of my forebearers. Everyday news of more violence reaches us; violence that could be avoided.

Mr. Chairman, the cruel facts point the blame at our long standing allyEngland. This resolution urges England to move toward an end to the partition of Ireland and stop the internment policies invoked last year. I support this resolution.