Print

The Clinton Administration on the Linking of the MacBride Principles to the International Fund for Ireland By Fr. Sean McManus, President of the Irish National Caucus October 1999

There has been considerable misunderstanding about the Clinton Administration’s position on linking the MacBride Principles to the International Fund for Ireland (IFI) in Federal legislation.             So to set the record straight, here are the facts.             At a Hearing before the House International Relations Committee, (HIRC) on March 15, 1995, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Canadian Affairs, Richard Holbroke, speaking on behalf of President Clinton and responding to questions submitted by Committee members, said: “            While we support the MacBride Principles, the Administration sees no reason to promote additional legislation in the Congress.  Federal enactment of the MacBride Principles would add reporting requirements on U.S. companies investing and operating in Northern Ireland.  To put the Principles into specific legislation could have an inhibiting effect on the investment goals we seek.  The proposed U.S. legislation is coming at a time when the British Government has strict anti-discriminatory legislation in force and the U.S. Administration is attempting to reduce regulatory and other requirements on U.S. companies.  We must be sensitive to the need not to hobble American business with complicated requirements which business from other countries are not bound by.  The key is actual legislation and practice in Northern Ireland, which we will monitor closely.  In fact, U.S. companies, with considerable experience in equal opportunity employment, are among the best employers in Northern Ireland in terms of meeting the goals of fair employment.”             Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs, Wendy R. Sherman, testified on behalf of the Clinton Administration at the same Hearing. “            We support and strongly prefer Mr. Hamilton’s version of this.  We believe that the amendment that Mr. Hamilton is offering offers a constructive way forward to advance objectives that we all share,             I don’t think there are any among us who disagree about the goals and objectives of the MacBride Principles.  I think the issue is whether they are mandatory.  Mr. Hamilton’s provision makes clear the strongly held U.S. view that the International Fund for Ireland project should support the principles of fair     •Capitol Hill• 413 E. Capitol St. SE Washington, DC 20003-3810 Tel (202) 544-0568  e-mail:  inc@knight-hub.com  Website:  www. knight-hub.com/inc/ employment and that the priority target for IFI assistance must be to increase economic opportunities in minority and disadvantaged areas.             At the same time we don’t want to tie the International Fund into red tape and over regulation, something that I think this Congress has been trying very hard to get rid of.  The approach taken by the amendment avoids the danger of politicizing the U.S. role in the IFI.  What we need in Northern Ireland is not controversy but conciliation.             As Mr. Hamilton has appropriately pointed out, senior levels of the Irish government have told Administration officials that linkage of the basic MacBride Principles to IFI funding will be controversial and could disrupt the White House Conference, which is aimed at increasing economic activity and economic activity toward the disadvantaged and discriminated in Ireland.             As was mentioned, all the parties, Ambassador Jean Kennedy Smith and Ambassador Crowe both do not support the mandatory linkage through the IFI.  We think it is quite important to advance the objectives and goals, but do not think it should be mandatory.             Certainly the President absolutely, positively embraces the MacBride Principles completely, as does Mr. Hamilton’s amendment.  The only difference is whether it should or shall be mandatory.  And I don’t think anyone for a minute would think Ambassador Jean Kennedy Smith does not endorse and completely embrace the MacBride Principles or Ambassador Crowe or this Administration.  They are very important, as the Sullivan principles were.             And as Mr. Hamilton pointed out, the Congress, in its wisdom, made them report language not mandatory and they did help move the goalpost forward.”             On Feb. 28, 1996, Ms. Sherman wrote as follows to Members of the House and Senate Conference giving the “Administration’s Position on Provisions in HR 1561”: Section 3204  International Fund for Ireland             “The Administration opposes this provision.  The International Fund for Ireland Board oversees the allocation of all funds and rigorously promotes fair employment practices and economic development in disadvantaged regions and communities in Northern Ireland and the border counties.  Requiring compliance with the ‘principles of economic justice,’ as defined in this provision would place an undue burden on small business and community development organizations, many of which are located in minority areas and employ a very small staff.  We propose that all reference to the ‘principles of economic justice’ be deleted.”             On April 11, 1996, Tony Lake, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, wrote to Fr. Sean McManus, President of the Irish National Caucus. “Dear Father McManus:             Thank you for your letter about the legislation linking the MacBride Principles of fair employment to the funding for the International Fund for Ireland.             As you know, the Administration supports the goals of fair employment which the MacBride Principles embody.  The Administration also actively supports efforts to promote trade and investment in Northern Ireland and the border counties as the best way to underpin a lasting peace.  The President does not believe it would be useful to place conditions on the funding we provide to the International Fund for Ireland, which has an excellent record of attention to and effectiveness on fair employment issues.  U.S. companies, with considerable experience in equal opportunity employment, are among the employers in Northern Ireland in terms of meeting the goals of fair employment.”             On April 12, 1996, President Clinton vetoed HR 1561.             On April 19, 1996, the 11 major Irish-American groups which support the MacBride Principles signed a letter to President Clinton: “Because of our great gratitude for your crucial support of the Irish peace-process we’ve been reluctant to say anything up to now.  But you cannot expect us to be silent as you continues to oppose one of our very top legislative issues.  Furthermore, it would be unfair for us to criticize  Democratic Senators, and not yourself, when they are simply following your lead in obstructing passage of the MacBride Principles.             No self-respecting community in the U.S. would be expected to remain silent while one of their basic concerns is being opposed -- and I’m sure that you would not have much respect for such a community.             It is ironic that Senator Dole, the entire Republican leadership and the Republican National Committee are all supporting Congressional legislation on the MacBride Principles and you are opposing it.             We conclude by urging you to re-instate your previous policy of support for the MacBride Principles and thus avoid being in conflict with a united Irish-American community on an issue of fundamental importance.  The peace-process in Ireland cannot be separated from non-discrimination.  We are totally committed to both.”             The letter was signed by the following organizations (in alphabetical order): (1) Kathleen Holmes, Chairwoman, American Irish Congress; (2) John Finucane, President, American Ireland Education Fund (PEC); (3) Edward J. Wallace, National President, Ancient Order of Hibernians; (4) Larry Downes, Chairman Brehon Law Society; (5) Mike Moroney, Secretary, Clan na Gael; (6) John D. Worral, President, Federation of Irish-American Societies of the Delaware Valley; (7) James V. Mullin, Coordinator, Irish-Action Coalition; (8) Fr. Sean McManus, President, Irish National Caucus; (9) Paul Doris, Chairman, Irish Northern Aid Committee; (10) Edmund Lynch, Chairman, Lawyers Alliance for Justice in Ireland; (11) Jean Forest, U.S. Coordinator, Voice of the Innocent.  (The Irish American Unity Conference was the only organization that refused to sign on).             The letter from the Irish American leaders caused considerable attention and put considerable pressure on President Clinton in the middle of an election.             Because of my deep gratitude for President Clinton’s role in the Irish peace-process, initiating that letter was one of the most difficult decision I’ve ever made.  I did not want to do it, yet I knew it would be a dereliction of duty not to.  Behind the scenes I had privately talked to White House officials and other key players in an effort to get the Administration to stop opposing the MacBride legislation.  But I met with no success, and so I was forced reluctantly to go public.  Some Irish-Americans condemned me for criticizing President Clinton.  Maybe they did so because they lacked political self-confidence, or maybe it was because they did not have the experience of sitting for hours at Hearings and listening to Clinton Administration officials opposing the MacBride legislation, or maybe it was a case of Irish-Democrats putting party before the cause of Ireland.             But whatever their reasons, those Irish-Americans were ignoring a fundamental principle in political campaigning:  When a political leader does the right thing on your issue, you praise him; when he does the wrong thing on your issue, you criticize him.             Just look at what the President’s two most loyal constituencies-- African-Americans and the Labor Movement-- do.  When the President goes against them on basic issues they do not hesitate to publicly criticize him.             Indeed, when one very prominent Labor leader chastised me on the phone for criticizing President Clinton, I pointed to how Labor criticized him over NAFTA.  He objected by saying, “But that was about jobs for our people.”  I replied, “And what do you think the MacBride Principles are about, but jobs for our people.”  He had no answer to that.             There is another hard political reality in all of this.  How could I go back to Members of Congress and campaign again for the MacBride Principles if I let the President roll us over without a murmur of protest.  How could I expect Members of Congress-- both Republican and Democrat-- to fight for the MacBride Principles if I was not prepared to fight for them?  By my silence I would be, “taking a dive” and jeopardizing the integrity of the MacBride campaign.             But our strategy worked because on August 24, 1996, President Clinton  -- in a move widely regarded as an attempt to defuse the MacBride controversy -- issued a directive to United States for the International Fund for Ireland, James Lyons: “In the 1996 Foreign Affairs Authorization Act (HR 1561) as passed by Congress, Section 1615 stated that U.S. contributions to the Fund ‘should be used in a manner that effectively increases employment opportunities in communities with rates of unemployment  opportunities in communities with rates of unemployment higher than the local or urban average of unemployment in Northern Ireland.  In addition, such contributions should be used to benefit individuals or entities which employ practices consistent with the principles of economic justice’ as defined by the Act.             I vetoed HR 1561 for reason entirely unrelated to the language in Section 1615.  I am committed to equal opportunity and fair employment as necessary foundations for a just, peaceful, and prosperous future for all the people of both jurisdictions in Ireland.  I therefore ask you, in discharging your duties under the Anglo-Irish Agreement Support Act of 1986, to ensure that the intent of Section 1651 of HR 1561 is carried out to the greatest extent possible.”             Ray O’Hanlon of the Irish Echo summed it up this way, “Against the backdrop of the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, President Clinton has moved to mend damaged fences with Irish-American backers of the MacBride Principles.” (August 28-September 3, 1996).             The Irish National Caucus put out a Press Release:  “Caucus Welcomes President Back to MacBride Fold.”  (August 28, 1996)             But things weren’t as rosy as they appeared.  Because after the 1996 election, the Clinton Administration would again oppose the MacBride Principles being attached to the International Fund for Ireland in Federal legislation             In 1997 Congressman Ben Gilman (R N.Y.) again attached the same MacBride language to the Foreign Policy Reform Act (HR 1486).             On Wednesday, April 30, 1997, HR 1486 was in Markup.  I spoke with Rep. Lee Hamilton, former HIRC Chairman, at his seat in the Committee Room and asked him if he was still opposed to the MacBride legislation.  He emphatically said he was.  I asked him what form his opposition would take.  He said he wasn’t sure yet.  He then asked me if the language was the same as last year.  I told him it was.  Then he said, “You know that it will never become law?”  I asked why.  “Because the President is opposed to it,” he replied, with great emphasis.             I then lobbied the other Democrats on the Committee and expressed concern that Hamilton was still opposing the MacBride legislation.             I then spoke to Barbara Larkin, Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs, in the Committee Room.  She confirmed the Administration’s continued opposition to linking the MacBride Principles to the IFI in the legislation.             Later that day, I called Steve Kashkett, at the Irish desk of the State Department.   He said the President’s letter to Lyons did not represent a softening of the President’s opposition to legislation linking the MacBride Principles to the IFI.              I told him that Mary Ann Peterson, Director for European Affairs, at the White House, was supposed to have said that President Clinton was no longer opposed to linking MacBride to the IFI.  He expressed surprise and disbelief at that and told me he would check it out and call me back.             On Thursday May 1, 1997, the Markup continued.  I spoke to Barbara Larkin in the Committee Room.  She said, “This is the man who knows all about Ireland,” and introduced me to Michael Klosson, her assistant for legislative affairs.  He told me that the Administration was opposed to legislation linking MacBride to the IFI for a two-fold reason: Because the British Fair Employment laws made MacBride unnecessary; and because MacBride would place onerous burdens on recipients of the Fund.             The following day I spoke in person to Mike Van Dusen, Hamilton’s Minority Staff Director, in the Committee Room.  He was most irate I was lobbying Democrats to put pressure on Hamilton.  (But that’s my job.)  Van Dusen told me that Hamilton was not going to introduce an Amendment to take out the MacBride legislation. In 1996 we had beaten Hamilton’s Amendment, in a Committee vote 32 to 8, so I guess when he saw that he was going to be beaten again he decided not to bother.             On Friday, May 2, 1997, at 4:40 Steve Kashkett called me back and told me he could find no indication that the President had changed his position, nor that Mary Anne Peterson had ever said the President was no longer opposed to Congressional legislation linking the MacBride Principles to the IFI.  The President, he said, was opposed to Congressional legislation linking MacBride to the IFI for the reasons stated last year.  Those reasons still stand, and that is the position of President Clinton, Kashkett emphasized.                 On March 27, 1998, the House passed HR 1486.             Because the MacBride language was not contained in the Senate version of the Bill, the House and Senate Conference had to reconcile the two versions, (and not, of course, only on MacBride).             The reconciled Bill-- now called the Omnibus Appropriations and Authorization Bill-- was passed by the House on Tuesday evening, October 20, 1998, and by the Senate on Wednesday morning October 21, 1998.              Because the Omnibus Appropriations and Authorization Bill had bi-partisan support-- and because the Administration wanted it-- President Clinton signed it into law.  He did not have the option of removing the MacBride section.  It was either accept the whole Bill, or veto the whole Bill.             Although the Administration was adamantly opposed to the MacBride Principles being linked to the International Fund for Ireland, the Administration was forced to accept that linkage.  President Clinton signed the Bill into to law.             Thus because of the determined leadership of Congressman Ben Gilman, Chairman of the House International Relations Committee, and the Irish National Caucus, the MacBride Principles became U.S. law.