Re-read the last sentence of my last post.
Have a look at the first sentence of my last post.
OK, here is an annotated version of the last sentence of my last post:
Oh Ooh - I know this one… Irony?
Apologies - I am being a dolt. I was so busy disagreeing, I didn’t actually see what you were getting at.
Erm, ahem. I will blame it on my hangover. Hmmmmm.
Is Martin McGuinness the IRA Chief of Staff?
That depends on who you believe. It was reported a couple weeks ago in the Observer that he had just been appointed Chief of Staff. PIRA and Sinn Féin sources deny this. However, the relevant point here is that it was reported that he had just been appointed Chief of Staff. So what bearing it’s supposed to have on the IRA’s refusal to decommission by 18 months ago, I dunno.
sirjamesp:
I’m sure the IRA did agree that Sinn Féin could sign on to the GFA. And I doubt they would have done so if it had required them to do anything more than let Sinn Féin try to persuade them to disarm. The IRA statement issued just after the signing of the GFA explicitly said that they would not decommission until they were bloody well ready to, so it’s difficult to see how SF’s signing the agreement can rationally be interpreted as an IRA promise to disarm within two years.
(And Tom, put the straw man to bed. Nobody’s claiming SF and PIRA are totally separate.)
Interestingly enough Adams said yesterday that he wasn’t particularly concerned with the loyalists giving up their weapons - the important thing is just that they stop using them. This is, of course, what republicans have said about their own weapons all along - and if Trimble had taken the same attitude the whole peace process might have gone much more smoothly than it has.
I don’t think it’s a straw man. The wording in the GFA about participants using “any influence they may have” needs to be seen in the light of the fact that the same people who signed the Agreement on behalf of Sinn Fein are members of the IRA leadership.
Now I recognise that when the same people run two organisations, for them to make a commitment on behalf of one organisation does not imply that the other organisation is bound by that commitment. Clearly, on a strict construction, the IRA has nothing to do with the GFA other than as the object of SF’s “influence”. However, looking at the real situation, it is just as difficult to sustain the argument that the IRA is not involved in the GFA as it is to sustain the argument that it is somehow bound by it. The real position is somewhere between the two: the paramilitaries on both sides are close enough to the Agreement to claim benefits such as early relase on licence (and, in the case of the Republicans, the withdrawal of British troops) but distant enough to claim, when it suits them, that they have no obligations under it.
As for McGuinness, you’re right in saying that it has been reported that he has been appointed Chief of Staff only in recent weeks and that those reports have been contested (though I don’t imagine he’d admit it if it were true). But he was a member of the Army Council long before that and my point, which is that the people who negotiated the GFA on behalf of Sinn Fein are among the leaders of the IRA, still stands.
Maybe, but you can’t say that Trimble is wholly at fault for focusing on decommissioning when it is provided for in the Agreement.
Which is another argument nobody here has made.
Well, those are the consequences of formulating an agreement with inconclusive terms (and, as I think you’ve acknowledged in an earlier thread, without such vagueness no agreement could have been reached to begin with). What I take issue with is the unionists’ insistence that the republicans were in breech of the agreement by not living up to their interpretation of those terms.
Yes, it’s provided for, but not as a precondition of Sinn Féin’s participation in government, and not as a precondition of a functioning Executive. Trimble made decommissioning into the be-all and end-all of the agreement and I maintain that he did it more to appease the hardliners in the unionist camp than because it really merited such focus.
Oh Ooh - I know this one… Irony?