This is an issue I’m not very informed on, but I was intrigued to read in this week’s Economist an article which says that American antipathy towards terrorism will place enormous restraints on any further violent activities by the IRA.
The horror of blowing up stuff for a cause now seems very real to Americans, the article more or less says, and if the IRA refuse to abide by the timetable to disarm, or worse start its campaign again, they can expect financial support in the US to evaporate.
I’m just as cynical about, and shocked by,the IRA decommissioning their weapons as you are Dave. But, then again, I didn’t expect to see the Berlin Wall fall in my lifetime either.
Sometimes, life surprises us. This is one of those “left field” surprises which I welcome.
Folks, please keep in mind that the IRA are only one side of this equation. The loyalist paramilitaries still need to disarm in order for there to be “lasting peace in Northern Ireland”. The current indications are that they have no intention of doing so.
You’re quite right, ruadh that at this point in time the Union has no intention to disarm (hell, if Sinn Fein hadn’t made the statement they did Ireland wouldn’t even have a parliament right now).
From all (reputable) accounts I have read/heard/seen, the Union is mighty pissed off about this. So let them be pissed off. If we can commit troops to ensure peace in East Timor or in Afghanistan, then we can most certainly commit them to ensuring peace in Northern Ireland.
This isn’t an “either/or” issue as far as I’m concerned. You don’t have to rely on the word of any of the parties involved - the very reason that international peace-keeping forces exist is to make sure that both sides honour their promises and keep their commitments.
From where I sit, the Unionists have about as much choice right now as Osama bin Laden - the Western world is just going to enforce that “choice” a little more gently.
I’m STILL stunned that Gerry Adams even made that statement (he was one of the terrorist leaders at the top of my personal shitlist). It’s kind of like Osama saying “well McUS isn’t so bad after all”.
I repeat - I’m glad it happened, even if the first step came from a most unexpected quarter. I hope that it’s the first step of many.
That’s the important bit - decommissioning a couple of arms dumps in the Republic of Ireland that are already known about by the authorities isn’t quite the same as putting all IRA weapons beyond use. For all intents and purposes, these weapons have been beyond use for a long time.
However, I have to admit that going through the motions is a huge step on the part of the IRA, and the Unionists must follow suit if they are to retain credibility.
Now for nitpicks…
The Republic of Ireland has it’s own parliament, independant of the UK, which has nothing to do with the agreement to hand over IRA weapons.
I guess you’re talking about the threat of suspension of the regional assembly in Northern Ireland, which was averted due to the IRA statement. Remember, though, that the assembly was formed as a result of the Good Friday Agreement, in which the British Government agreed to set up the assembly, and the IRA agreed to disarm. The threat of suspension then was a result of the IRA’s failure to disarm, not a random edict from the government in London.
The deal (made in '98) was that the IRA would totally disarm within two years. As a result, the British government would set up a regional assembly in Northern Ireland, free certain IRA members from prison, and so on. Three years later, the government had met it’s obligations, and yet the IRA had failed to hand over a single gun. The deadline has been extended again and again, until the government lost patience and asked for real progress.
The Ulster Unionists have welcomed the move - the lack of decommissioning was the reason the peace process was close to collapse. (cite)
There are already troops in Northern Ireland trying to stop the fighting - they are British Army troops.
Exactly - which is why the UK government was getting fed up with constant “promises” by the IRA to disarm, rather than actual disarmament as agreed.
But apart from that… I’m glad it happened too. Like I say, it’s only one tiny step, and one that was agreed to a LONG time ago - but this symbolic gesture does represent a significant move by the IRA / Sinn Fein. Without doubt, the Unionists are under pressure now.
IIRC, one of the loyalist terrorist organisations was the first to disarm under the GFA, though I forget which one. The LVF?
And there’s more that two sides to the equation. Decommissioning was tied to the early release scheme and troop withdrawl (among other things), both of which have gone ahead even in the absence of decomissioning.
Yet. I don’t think they can hold out much longer now that the IRA has begun decommissioning.
Anyway, things seem to be looking up in NI, at last.
I’m sorry to be pessimistic, but only the Provisional IRA have started decommisioning. There are several other branches (Official IRA, Real IRA and Continuity IRA) which are still committed to violence.
It is certainly well-intentioned to commit troops to stop violence. Unfortunately I think you are optimistic to think this will ensure peace. There has been fighting in Afghanistan for decades (at least).
It is also depressing to see some of the warlords we are ‘allied’ with.
Daily Telegraph, London 24/10:
General Abdul Rashid Dostum … has fought on all sides during the past decade, gaining a reputation extreme even by Afghan standards for treachery and brutality.
The Uzbeck warlord once killed one of his soldiers by having him tied to the tracks of a tank and driven around his courtyard.
General Dostum is backed by Turkey. …
Despite his reputation for treachery, he was feted by Russia and the West as the last bulwark between the advancing Taliban and Central Asia. …
He returned to Afghanistan this year, rejoining the Northern Alliance, whose leaders he had broken with so often before.
On the basis of the level of knowledge demonstrated twice in this one paragraph I would say your posts on this subject should contain more questions and less assertions.
It is true that a two-year long ceasefire by the LVF ended a fortnight ago - though this was partly due to the fact that the IRA had still not kept the promises it made in the Good Friday Agreement.
We will see what happens now that the IRA have finally moved. In theory, the LVF can re-instate their ceasefire; certainly they will be under a lot of pressure now.
It is important to remember, thought, that hardliners on both sides are holding on to their guns and continuing to terrorise. The Real IRA ended their ceasefire a long time ago.
Trust is without doubt needed on both sides; though now that the IRA have gone some way to meeting their obligations, the peace process can get moving again.
Just a minor nitpick - the Official IRA gave up the armed struggle in the 1970s. Via various name changes and splits, much of their political wing has been absorbed into the respectability of the south’s Labour Party.
On the wider issue of the implications of the beginning of IRA decommissioning for the peace process, it appears to me that, at the moment, success depends more on the reaction of non-violent anti-agreement unionists than it does on the response of loyalist paramilitaries. The support of at least some of the ‘no’ camp is required for David Trimble to effectively operate as First Minister and, in turn, for the institutions to function. Up to now, they have presented the lack of movement on decommissioning as the main reason that they could not support an Executive containing Sinn Fein Ministers. However, there has always been a suspicion that they were fundamentally opposed to sharing power with Nationalists, particularly Republicans, and that decommissioning, while obviously important in the context of an overall settlement, was a useful means of avoiding the central issue.
Also, this removes at least some of the political raison d’etre of the anti-agreement unionists. In some ways, decommissioning is the last thing somebody like Jeffrey Donaldson wants from the point of view of his political career. Maybe, that’s overly cynical but, in any case, I’m eagerly awaiting their reaction.
I know I’m going to sound like a dead-horse-beater, but the IRA did not agree to disarm under the agreement. In fact, the IRA didn’t agree to do anything under the agreement. They weren’t signatories to it.
Now what Sinn Féin agreed to do was to try to persuade the IRA to decommission within two years. It’s certainly arguable whether they did or not. But under the terms of the agreement SF’s participation in the assembly was not preconditioned on their success in this regard.
There is also no provision in the GFA to suspend the Assembly, so in a sense doing so would be a “random edict from the government in London”.
AFAIK the LVF “ceasefire” has not been declared over - are you confusing them with the UDA? (Neither group, of course, has actually been on ceasefire for quite some time.)
In either case, I can’t see how their random sectarian attacks and assassinations can be blamed on the failure of the IRA to decommission.
OK anyway, the thing about loyalist decommissioning is that there really isn’t any obvious reason (from their POV) why they should decommission - nor any clear means of punishing them if they don’t. They couldn’t be threatened with the collapse of the Assembly, not only because they have no aligned members in the Assembly but because they’d be just as happy to see it collapse. They won’t risk a loss of grassroots support because their grassroots doesn’t trust the IRA to really disarm anyway. And the ongoing public relations disaster which is the Holy Cross “protest” makes it apparent they aren’t concerned about condemnation from the sensible 99% of the world. So how exactly are they to be persuaded to give up their guns? I’m stumped, I really am.
just wanted to correct myself before anyone else does about the LVF ceasefire ending. I think I even linked to a news story about it the day after it was announced but somehow I managed to forget all about it.
The exact wording says that the participants “confirm their intention” to achieve total disarmament within two years. As you say, the semantics game could be played: “Oh dear, we intended to disarm, but we haven’t. Never mind, carry on.”
The problem is, this game could be played by the British and Irish governments too. For example, in relation to the release of terrorist prisoners from jail:
The British government could of course have chosen not to release terrorists from prison: “Well, we seeked to get the Bill through parliament, but unfortunately the Queen couldn’t find a pen to sign it and make it law.”
The document relies on trust from both sides. The British government made good on its side of the deal, and as a result expected the terrorists (from both Unionist and Republican sides) to fulfil their part of the deal.
I would go further and say that trust shouldn’t even be an issue here. The document is binding: by stating an intention to use influence or introduce legislation, the parties have in effect made a firm commitment to carry out the plan. There is no reason why Parliament should fail to introduce the laws it promised; in fact, the promises were met. Similarly, there is no reason that the IRA could not put all of its weapons (not just a couple of arms dumps) beyond use. To suggest that Sinn Fein cannot force them to do so is ridiculous. Sinn Fein negotiated the agreement on behalf of the IRA: Gerry Adams could not sign the paper without the express approval of the IRA, as it would have made the agreement worthless.
Moving on to the other part of the equation:
Whilst Republican paramilitaries are still armed, then clearly the loyalists will never give up their weapons. Note that I am not coming down on one side here; I recognise that this is a vicious circle. One party needs to make the first move to put weapons beyond use, which then present the other side with an obvious reason why they can decommission.
Let’s remember that the Holy Cross debacle does not represent all Unionists; the thugs lining the street were condemned from all quarters. A few people flying in the face of public opinion does not mean that all Unionists don’t give a damn.
I’ll give you my take.
Lets look at it objectively (perhaps not very well aligned with paramilitary thinking, but hey). The IRA are fighting for independance from Britain. They have now signed a paper recognising that this is not going to happen in the foreseeable future, since the majority of people in Northern Ireland want to remain as a part of the UK. Another grievance was apparant poor treatment of Catholics in the province, so the government agreed to an overhaul of the police force, a review of institutions in Northern Ireland, and so on. So, as agreed, the IRA disarm. The Unionists fighting against intimidation from the IRA now have no reason to fear them, and so they disarm too. Hardliners on both sides who do not recognise the peace process have lost support of the Northern Irish people, and continue to be rounded up as in the old days; the difference now is that there are less of them.
Happy ending, David Trimble and Gerry Adams kiss and make up.
That of course could only happen in JamesWorld. Real life doesn’t happen quite so neatly. The point is, though, that once the process of decommissiong starts properly, the circle is broken and we can move slowly to total decommissioning. You may not be able to force the Unionists to disarm, but you can remove the need for them to be armed.
Whilst I cannot repeat enough that the IRA’s gesture is a small one, and is in fact still a long way from what they promised to do, I can’t deny that it is a significant move. They have taken the first step, and now it is up to the other side to follow suit. “Well done” to Gerry Adams.
But the IRA were not and are not participants in the GFA. The participants are the two Governments and various political parties. As ruadh pointed out, Sinn Fein was committed to trying to persuade the IRA to disarm within two years. The IRA was committed to nothing at all.
And as we all know, the IRA and Sinn Fein are two totally separate organisations. It’s just unfortunate the Leader of Sinn Fein and its Chief Negotiator were not able to use their powers of persuasion successfully on the IRA’s Army Council or its Chief of Staff within the two-year deadline.
For what it’s worth, my view would be that the strict legalities of the Agreement are becoming less relevant. The situation has moved on significantly. The Irish Government and the SDLP had moved to a position of pressuring Sinn Fein and the IRA to secure decommissioning whereas previously they did not see it as a priority. It would appear that the IRA have intended to decommission for some time now but were holding out for further concessions (and possibly to time the move to boost Sinn Fein’s prospects in the upcoming elections in the south). 11 September and Columbia has probably resulted in earlier action.
However, I agree with Ruadh’s analysis on the question of loyalist (not Unionist, sirjamesp) decommissioning. Loyalism does appear to have become less sensitive to public opinion and Holy Cross is a demonstration of this. This is partly to do with their lack of representation in the institutions, which is particularly the case with the UDA and LVF who have been at the forefront of the recent wave of sectarian attacks. It is also related to a redefinition on the part of loyalists of their role in the conflict. They traditionally claimed to be ‘defensive’ organisations, only in existence to counteract the threat posed by the Republicans to their communities. This no longer seems to be the case. The IRA have been on ceasefire for some time now and loyalist attacks have continued. They now see themselves as more proactive, fighting on behalf of marginalised and disenfranchised working class Protestants. For this reason, I’m not sure that loyalists will automatically decommission in response to the IRA. This is compounded by the lack of centralised leadership amongst loyalist paramilitaries.
On a final note, sirjamesp, I don’t think anyone was suggesting that the vast majority of Unionists are anything other than horrified by the events at Holy Cross. Ruadh, if I may be so presumptuous, I think you were saying that Holy Cross represents a growing lack of sensitivity by loyalists to public opinion, precisely because the great bulk of the Protestant community are so opposed to it.
In theory, they are two separate organisations - but with very strong links. This was of course why the breakdown of the IRA’s ceasefire in 1996 resulted in Sinn Fein being suspended from peace negotiations for a short while.
Have a look at PBS’s history of Sinn Fein (it’s the most impartial I’ve come across).
It is the links between Sinn Fein and the IRA that allowed the GFA to be agreed to and signed. It is naive to suggest that the IRA had not agreed to the terms; without IRA approval, Gerry Adams could not have signed the accord, as the signature would have been meaningless. I don’t think many people seriously believe that the basis of the negotiations between the British government and Sinn Fein was based on “We’ll set IRA members free from prison, you can help run the regional assembly, and we’ll just wait and see what the IRA decide to do.”
But anyway, that’s straying well off the point. No matter what the hidden agendas are or are not, the fact is that some guns HAVE been handed in at last. Now the peace process can move forward.
Side notes due to manwithaplan’s sneaky posting whilst I was typing…
Holy Cross protests. Sorry Ruadh, I misunderstood what you were saying there. If manwithaplan’s interpretation is right, then I agree fully with you.
Loyalist (not Unionist - d’oh) decommissioning. I agree that automatic decommissioning is incredibly unlikely (like I said, this would only happen in JamesWorld). However, before the IRA actually decommissions some of its weapons, loyalist decommissioning is unthinkable. When disarmament begins, at least loyalist decommissioning is possible which is some improvement. Any refusal to make a gesture will result in condemnation from both sides. I would imagine that David Trimble (yes, I know he’s an Ulster Unionist) would feel under the same kind of pressure that Gerry Adams has been under during Republican intransigence.
“the strict legalities of the Agreement are becoming less relevant.” Couldn’t agree more. Before the IRA’s statement, the legalities were everything - it appeared that the IRA were not willing to demonstrate any committment to the peace process. Now that they have shown that they are coming round to the spirit of the agreement, things can move on. That, clearly, is the only important thing now.
