"The charges were dropped" said her mother, Bernadette Devlin McAliskey, "as a direct result of the international pressure that was brought to bear which made it impossible for them[the British authorities.] What they had intended to do, I think, was basically use her as a bargining chip in the peace process. She was just there as a kind of Ace of Spades, and if the Unionists needed to be placated she was probably going to be sent to Germany, and if the Republicans needed to be placated she may have been sent home. We will never be able truly to thank people either at a collective or individual level for the work that they did."

In an interview with the G21, conducted earlier, the veteran Irish civil rights campaigner outlined her criticisms of the deal and called for a "No Vote" in the forthcoming May 22nd referendum on the "Agreement," which will be held simultaneously in the six counties[of northern Ireland,] and in the 26 counties.

"There is an attempt to say", Ms. McAliskey said, "that anybody who has a criticism of this peace agreement is in fact a warmonger.

"Now I, personally, as somebody who has campaigned within the human rights and non-violent movement for thirty years, find that offensive. Especially from people who are not four years out of the war."

Mc Aliskey's analysis of the Sinn Fein position concludes that the leadership of the Republican movement have bought into the theories of Fianna Fail's (Ireland's largest political party, and the major party in Ireland's coalition government) point-man on northern policy, Martin Mansergh.

"His solution," McAliskey told the G21, "is essentially a 25-year strategy to release the situation in the north from the tension of the past 25 years, in hope that --- by not addressing the problem over the period of the next 25 years --- at the end of [that time] we might be able to engage in a rational discussion with the Unionists, and as Martin Mansergh [himself] has said, `that discussion in 25 years time may or may not lead to an United Ireland'.

"Now that is a perfectly valid position for Martin Mansergh, it is not a valid position for the leadership of the Republican movement."

"The Republican leadership," she said, "faced with the dilemma of Unionism, has retreated back again to the issue of accepting partition and working to attempt to democratize Ulster. Now if Gerry Adams believes that works then we are entitled to an explanation of why he believes it, because he didn't believe it in '72.

"They consistently argue that they don't believe it now. So, the rest of us are entitled to ask: What are you doing?

And if we ask, What are you doing? we are entitled to a better answer than `You are too old, too rural, too bitter, to unsophisticated, to comprehend what we are doing.' Because, I am entitled to say, I don't think so!

"Try me and see. Set it out there and see if `old, rural, bad tempered, bitter Bernadette--'" (A reference to an attack on McAliskey's position by Irish Voice editor Neil O'Dowd) "---could figure it out."

Despite her criticism of the Republican leadership, McAliskey calls for dialogue to resolve differences between pro and anti-agreement factions.

"I don't think", she said, "we should allow ourselves to be cornered into a futile debate over issues like sell-out, betrayal, who did what, at what point.

"Let's argue the issues, because that is the only way that we are going to make any kind of breakthrough into rational political discussion. I think we should be calling the broad Republican family together to see how we got into this mess and how best we can get out of it as a political strategy."

As the initial response of relief that an "Agreement" was signed at all gives way to a sense of analysis and examination of what exactly was agreed to, in the opinion of This Writer, voices within the Republican family have begun to emerge to question and caution against acceptance of the "Agreement."

The former publicity director and Editor of the Irish People (the weekly newspaper of Irish Northern Aid in the U.S.,) Martin Galvin, expressed his concerns. He said: "I have great personal respect for some of the people who have represented the Republican leadership and who have negotiated this document, but at the same time, I have deep moral and political reservations about what has been agreed to. Does this document not give away the basic core principles of Republicanism, that is, the claim of the Irish people to national soverngnity over all of Ireland? Would not an Assembly or an agreement of which the cornerstone is a new Stormont Assembly be something that simply results in David Trimble and Ian Paisley acting as they and their predecessors in loyalism have always done, simply just not cooperating with any movement towards change, not any cooperation with any cross-border body, and thus frustrate any real progress, locking us into a new Stormont without accompanying progress towards an all Ireland dimension?"

A story by Ed Moloney in Ireland's Sunday Tribune, on April 26, has reported that IRA units in Munster have defied an order from the Provisional leadership to hand over arms dumps. According to the report the revolt was sparked after Republicans in south Tipperary invited Bernadette Sands-McKevitt, sister of hunger striker Bobby Sands, to give an Easter commemoration address. The leadership dispatched a member of the Army Council to stand the units down and have them hand over their weapons. McKevitt, who is currently touring the east coast of the United States, is spokesperson for the 32 County Sovereignty Committee which opposes the "Agreement". Gavlin is one of several Irish-American activists who invited McKevitt to the U.S. to explain the committees opposition.

In Belfast, two Sinn Fein cumann, one in the markets area, and one in north Belfast, have rejected the agreement.

Leading Irish civil rights campaigner, Oliver Kearney, who has testified in support of the MacBride Principles of fair employment before numerous state houses and city councils in the U.S., including Sacramento and San Francisco, has also voiced his opposition to the "Agreement."

"This `Agreement'" said Kearney, "does not constitute a peace settlement. It does not even represent an agreement leading to a peace settlement. It clearly entrenches the Unionist veto and underpins the partition settlement. The `Agreement' does represent a framework within which peaceful evolution may be possible if it is not frustrated by the British government or prevented by the Unionist veto.

"In 1918, the Irish nation attempted to engage in peaceful evolution through the democratic process and where denied the right to do so --- by force of arms --- by the British government, and by the exercise of the Unionist veto, both politically and militarily.

"In 1968, the northern nationalist population attempted to engage in peaceful evolution and were denied the right to do so --- by force of arms --- on the part of the Unionist population, and the exercise of the political veto.

"Those who are examining the options today", cautioned Kearney, "should bear in mind the dictum of John F. Kennedy," 'Where peaceful evolution is prevented, violent revolution is inevitable.'

"We now, once again, have arrived at a point at which Irish nationalism in general, and Irish republicanism in particular, has declared its willingness to engage in peaceful evolution," Kearney continued. "The question must be asked whether we will, again, for the third time in this century, be denied the right to do so by force of British arms and by the exercise of military and political veto by Unionists in the North of Ireland. It is now incumbent upon the international community and the British government to insure that on this occasion, peaceful evolution does occur, and that the Irish nation is permitted to finally fulfill its destiny of national reunification."