|
The
announcement by the Provisional IRA, shortly after
British security minister Jane Kennedy called upon
it to make a substantive peace gesture, that it was
to withdraw its interlocutor from discussions with
John de Chastelain’s IICD was not without significance.
But it lay less in what the IRA had to say than in
the palpably nonchalant response that it prompted.
The Independent dismissed it as something that ‘changes
nothing.’ The Dublin Government was scarcely
more concerned when it described the move as ‘unhelpful
but hardly fatal.’ According to the Irish Times
both Dublin and London take the view that 'they'll
be back ... it's a ritual gesture, a comfort blanket
for Provo hard men, an exercise in cold war huffing.'
The Boston Herald depicted an indifferent reflex from
throughout this country - 'the IRA's statement generally
evoked a large yawn from both parts of Ireland'.
Since
the hardly ground breaking measure, there has been
some public debate aimed at teasing out the IRA’s
motive. Featuring prominently in the discussion have
been two competing although not mutually exclusive
views. The first is that the IRA move is meant to
appease republican grassroots who it is feared in
some quarters - hoped for in others - may just be
discerning that the final destination for republican
strategy from the outset of the peace process has
not been all that different from what the SDLP achieved
in 1974 and which earned it the pejorative put-down
from Gerry Adams of being the first Catholic partitionist
party. The second view is that the IRA move is a bargaining
chip which Sinn Fein will attempt to use to its advantage
in whatever upcoming negotiations take place prior
to the British once again setting up their centre-right
government at Stormont.
Both
perspectives are not entirely without something to
recommend them. But each is also characterised by
certain blemishes. Firstly, how much do the grassroots
actually need appeased? The Irish News reported that
one senior republican spoke of a growing sense of
anger within the republican constituency. And what?
At each step of the process there were those who either
swore or predicted mutiny if their line in the sand
was crossed. But when the leadership kicked the sand
in their faces they merely put down new lines just
to have the sand kicking process repeated only more
contemptuously. Once their bluff had been called …
Their
role in all major decisions up to now has been as
recipients of the news that the leadership had made
such decisions. And they appear happy to go along
with that. They cannot fail to see that every time
the leadership has recoiled from following through
on yet another ‘never’ the heartbeat of
republicanism registers as one more flat line. Yet
none seemed moved to resuscitate it.
The second view of the IRA move doing the rounds seems
to have even less merit than the first. As a bargaining
chip, it has all the relevance of last years snow
- its strength long since melted away.
An
alternative way to look at the IRA statement is to
view it as leadership semaphore signalling to those
it needs to appease in the centres of establishment
power just how marginal the IRA actually is to long
term Sinn Fein strategic planning. Subliminally, the
message is ‘why push an open door too hard?’
Six
years ago when the British Prime minister was perceived
by republicans to be putting it up to the IRA the
republican leadership ordered the bombing of London’s
Canary Wharf to devastating effect. Now that a Tony
Blair/Hugh Orde combination is posturing in the manner
of Merlyn Rees and Kenneth Newman by telling republicans
that they are criminal and no different from the 78
gangs referred to by Billy Mitchell in his article
Addressing Organised Crime,
the IRA response is to engage in a bout of reverse
diplomacy where it walks toughly but carries a very
small stick - ably measured by Maurice Hayes as possessing
all the potency of a ‘hiccup rather than a heart
attack.’
Such
a frail act will be interpreted in London, Dublin
and Washington as a sign of just how dissolved IRA
military purpose is if not the IRA as a body. It will
be regarded as an oblique declaration of intent by
the republican leadership to do exactly what Blair
has commanded. The leadership will become ever more
engaged in managing a process of having the IRA form
ranks so that it may more easily be marched off into
the sunset, proudly braying martial dulcets proclaiming
that it will never be marched off into the sunset.
Those
of us who remain tone deaf to tunes that make no sense
will fail to understand a word of it. And as we watch
them disappear over the horizon in green coats and
dark glasses - a poor return for their considerable
investment - and observe their leaders retiring to
their second homes, we shall understand that the real
business will be done by prosperous men in Armani
suits marching to the beat of a very different drum.
Index: Current Articles + Latest News and Views + Book Reviews +
Letters + Archives
|
