*Written for the Oxford Union Society magazine in the late 1980s* The visit of Gerry Adams to the Union last term focussed the question: is violence ever justified in the pursuance of political aims? Opinions vary, and emotions are easily and understandably aroused, the closer to home the incidence of violence occurs. There are questions however which receive less attention and which might touch many of us more directly. Why do some groups of people feel that violence is their only resort? Could injustice be tackled and eradicated so that political violence becomes obsolete? For violence is an admission of failure not merely by those who perpetrate it but also on the part of those who have allowed a situation to reach a point where many see violence as the only option left open to them. Terrorism is not a phenomenon new to this century, even if it has seemingly increased in its frequency and barbarism. Examples of the use of terror as a means of subjecting enemies can be found in the pages of many an ancient historical volume - including the Old Testament. The Romans in turn employed methods which would make even twentieth century hair stand on end. Right down the ages the instilment of fear has been used with great success to dominate opponents. The last couple of centuries have seen two key developments. Firstly, there has been a multiplication of minority interests - groups which have become increasingly vocal and active. Secondly, the spread of democracy as an ideal, however imperfect it has often been in practice, has sharpened the aspirations of those who feel themselves victims of injustice - be they minorities or majorities. New challenges have therefore come to those in power who were accustomed to expect acquiescence from those under them. This has largely taken the form of increased political activity by new and often small political groupings. But more and more over the past couple of decades, groups have resorted to violence and terror in pursuit of their ends. The PLO, the ANC and the IRA are but some of the best known. Injustice naturally tends to be felt more keenly - and seen more clearly - by those who suffer from it than by those who do not feel its touch. The bottom remembers longer than the boot, so the saying goes. What is needed is greater sensitivity towards those who consider themselves oppressed. This does not imply the surrender of principle. But it does imply that we open our minds to the likelihood that where injustice is felt, it does - in some measure at least - exist. One of the most important realities - though often unrecognised - is that feelings are facts. Many people would like to draw a line through the middle of this century and ignore the historical events that have come before. What has the Irish Potato Famine got to do with the violent 1980's, some might ask? What relevance has the Balfour Declaration to current Middle East conflict? All we have to consider in formulating our approach to individual issues, so the argument goes, are the present circumstances. But this ignores the depth of feeling engendered by historical events and passed down from one generation to the next - feeling which is just as tangible, just as pertinent, as any other 'fact'. It is possible to disagree fundamentally with someone's - or some group's - methods, and yet to open one's mind and heart to the strength of feeling which lies behind them. It is possible to abhor someone's actions, yet at the same time not to write off his longings - which may be legitimate. It is possible to listen to what a person has to say, without implicitly condoning his activities. Behind the terrorism of the most significant groups today lie aspirations which we will ignore at our peril. A new approach is needed - not only by 'them' but also by 'us'. It has been said that he who changes hate changes history. One might add that it is the indifference and smugness of many which has often driven others to hatred and violence. It is easy enough to use another group's wrongdoing to excuse that of my own. But a new type of twenty-first century history is not, I would suggest, going to be written by those who pass the blame to someone else. No, the future depends on those who have the insight and the courage to accept their own part in what has gone wrong. The ability to inspire forgiveness is one of the skills most needed by those who would bring solutions to the crisis spots of our world. That skill may only be acquired by those who allow their hearts to carry equal weight with their intellects. For many of us this may involve a deeper recognition of the part that our race and nation have played in the events which have borne fruit in current turbulence. To identify ourselves with the wrongs of our forbears is a costly - and, to some, irrational - thing to do. But experience suggests that it gives a sensitivity which can do much to build trust in place of fear and hate - a sensitivity which is intolerant of injustice wherever it is found. Let us have the humility to accept that reason has failed to secure answer to many of our problems. Many of the most difficult (and most violent) situations in the world today defy reasonable solution; no human brain can think up an adequate blueprint. John Austin Baker has said about the Ulster impasse, "it bears the distinguishing mark of true evil, namely that there is no right answer to the problem it poses. There is no rational step forward which is not open to fatal objections, not least because of the element of moral justification for the hard line taken by each side." The same could be said of many other situations. No, a wholly fresh dimension is required if ways forward are to be found in Ireland, in the Middle East, in South Africa, and in countless other large and small conflicts. It is the dimension of human change. It is the dynamic that enters a situation when a person or group has the courage to say, "We have been wrong." It involves not a false submission nor a self-centred grovelling but a courageous willingness to start the process of change by a change in oneself where needed. This dynamic has been tried and tested in many situations around the world. It has contributed to the post-war reconciliation of France and Germany, and of Japan and her neighbours. It has helped nations such as Tunisia to achieve independence without bloodshed. It has worked between people at the human individual level. Not to put too fine a point on it, it has saved many a marriage from divorce! A change in people's attitudes and lives will not solve every problem. But without it, we are not likely to get much further in our quest to build a world of justice for all.