On
Thursday 28 July 2005, the Provisional IRA issued
an important statement.
What
does the statement say? The leadership of the Provisional
IRA declares that their war is over. "The leadership
of Óglaigh na hÉireann has formally
ordered an end to the armed campaign. This will
take effect from 4pm this afternoon. All IRA units
have been ordered to dump arms."
For
the first time since 1922, an organisation claiming
to be the IRA has publicly declared that there is
no need for an armed campaign as it believes that
"there is an alternative way" to achieve
its objectives, namely "the full implementation
of the Good Friday Agreement". This goes much
further than a cessation and dumping arms, which
the IRA had done a few times before, in 1922, 1945
and 1962 for instance.
"All
volunteers have been instructed to assist the development
of purely political and democratic programmes through
exclusively peaceful means. Volunteers must not
engage in any other activities whatsoever."
In other words: "Now they promise to be nothing
more than an old boys' club for former volunteers.
As of 4pm yesterday, promised republican Danny Morrison,
the IRA will be about as threatening as the British
Legion." (Jonathan Freedland, A nightmare ends,
another nightmare begins, The Guardian 29
July) Consequently, the statement confirms the Provisional
leadership's intent "to complete the process
to verifiably put its arms beyond use in a way which
will further enhance public confidence and to conclude
this as quickly as possible," and informs that
they "have invited two independent witnesses,
from the Protestant and catholic churches, to testify
to this." It will thus complete the destruction
of its arsenal. (IRA statement, An Phoblacht
Republican News, 28 July 2005)
Prime
Minister Blair welcomed the IRA announcement as
a "step of unparalleled magnitude ... The statement
is of a different order than anything before."
But how significant is the Provisional statement?
"This morning's (Friday) headlines should read
'excitable hacks go orgasmic over IRA statement.'
But such headlines are 'not helpful to the peace
process' and therefore long suffering readerships
will have to endure the guff about seismic shifts,
historic developments and whatever else takes the
fancy of the scribbling class. Yesterday's statement
by the IRA on its future merely formalised what
we have known for quite some time - that the organisation's
armed campaign against Britain ended in failure.
The British are still here, the consent principle
is safely enshrined and partition entrenched. Commentators
can openly speculate on current IRA volunteers eventually
becoming British bobbies. Hardly the heady stuff
of revolutionary success." (Anthony McIntyre,
Nothing has changed, The Daily Mirror, 29
July)
That
is why the 32 County Sovereignty Movement is correct
when remarking the Provisional statement is "neither
surprising nor historic": "If Provisional
Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA, who supported
them at every turn, truly accepted the terms of
the GFA, then today's statement cannot be viewed
by republicans as surrender but rather as the final
act of a surrender that started many years ago.
" (32 County Sovereignty Movement, PIRA
statement 'neither surprising nor historic',
Press Release 28 July 2005) After all, the Provisional
IRA had been on ceasefire since 1997, had accepted
the legitimacy of the institutions it was supposed
to destroy and decomissioned its weaponry. Therefore
it was useless: "An army is an entity licensed
by the State for one purpose: to fight... When it
denies itself the option of force it becomes irrelevant."
(Eric Waugh, How does an illegal army become a 'lawful'
organisation?, Belfast Telegraph, 29 July)
Why
was this statement issued? In the short term, it
is to regain political initiative for the Provisional
movement. In the wake of the Northern Bank robbery
in Belfast, the money-laundering scheme that was
then uncovered in the South, the killing of Robert
McCartney and the subsequent attempt to cover-up
Provisional complicity, Sinn Fein's advance in the
26 counties had stalled. Mr Adams's own personal
rating - the key to their advance - had dropped.
The Provisional leadership hopes that their statement
should contribute to reverse that trend and increase
their electoral appeal.
The
new move is also intended to put pressure on the
Democratic Unionist Party to form a government in
the North with Sinn Fein. (Paul Bew, Regaining Initiative
for the Republican Movement, The Yorkshire Post,
29 July) But more fundamentally, Sinn Fein's aim
of taking part in a power-sharing executive in the
North and of forming a coalition government in Leinster
House made such a statement inevitable.
There
is a fundamental contradiction between accepting
the legitimacy of a state, of its laws and institutions,
the constitutional system and the rules of parliamentarism
and agreeing to operate within their framework;
and armed insurrectionary politics dedicated to
overthrow them. One cannot accept that the state
has the monopoly of legitimate force and at the
same time have links to an illegal army refusing
to recognise the legitimacy of two Governments and
ready to kill the servants of both. There is no
chance that Fianna Fail or the Unionist would ever
consider having Sinn Fein in government as long
as they retain links to an illegal organisation
carrying unlawful activities. That is why sooner
or later the Provisionals would have to issue such
a statement.
Back
in 1986, Ruairi O Bradaigh had issued a blunt warning:
'The armed struggle and sitting in parliament are
mutually exclusive', O Bradaigh said as he forecast
that those who followed the Adams strategy would
be 'signing their own extinction as revolutionaries'.
"The O Bradaigh prediction finally came true
last week", concluded the Sunday Tribune.
(Kevin Rafter, Where to now for 'former revolutionaries'?,
Sunday Tribune 31 July)
Incidently,
there is consensus amongst allies and critics, that
the statement was the logical outcome of the Provisional's
gradual transition into parliamentarism and constitutional
nationalism. "How Adams, the president of Sinn
Fein, and McGuinness, his chief negotiator, succeeded
in taking an armed revolutionary movement and placing
it on a road to peaceful political activism is an
extraordinary story." writes Niall O Dowd,
the Provisional's main ally in the US. "The
IRA decision to abandon its armed campaign was an
inevitable outgrowth of the long-held plans of Adams
and McGuinness." (Niall O Dowd, The Men who
tamed the IRA, Los Angeles Times, 29 July
2005) This is the same conclusion reached by former
IRA Chief of Staff and President of Sinn Fein Phoblachtach,
Ruairi O Bradaigh, for whom the Provisional's statement
"is the logical outcome of the change of direction
they made in 1986 when they deserted the revolutionary
road and started out on the constitutional path
through the partitionist institutions north and
south. As Republican Sinn Fein has forecast they
are being slowly and steadily absorbed into the
English system in Ireland... Eventually they will
be unrecognisable. The Provisionals should discard
the trappings of the Republicanism they once served.
Like Cumann na nGaedheal\Fine Gael, Fianna Fail
and the Workers Party they have betrayed it. They
are no longer Republicans." (Ruairi O Bradaigh,
Provisional IRA should
disband completely, Statement 28 July)
Interestingly,
historians not just agree with Kevin Bean that 'the
soldiers of the legion of the rearguard follow the
soldiers of destiny', but point out that Adams actually
outdid De Valera. (cfr. Brian Feeney, Adams succeeded
where Dev failed, The Irish News, 29 July).
Eamon Phoenix writes that the Provisional movement
"has opted for the de Valera path of purely
constitutional means but crucially, it has surpassed
the Fianna Fail founder by carrying the IRA with
it." (Eamon Phoenix, Modern movement surpasses
de Valera by taking IRA with it, The Irish News,
29 July)
What
now? Logically, once the Provisionals agree not
to oppose the armed forces of the state, they will
have to explicitly accept the state's monopoly of
armed force and agree to observe its laws. In practice,
this means supporting the police forces North and
South of the border. There is a contradiction between
Sinn Fein involved in a Stormont Executive and making
laws for Northern Ireland, but withholding support
for the police service which enforces those laws.
"It would be a massive step. It's even bigger
than going into Stormont. Policing is what it's
all about -it's what we fought a war against,"
declared a former high-ranking member of the IRA
to the Irish Times. (Dan Keenan, 'It's what
we fought a war against', The Irish Times
30 July) The question of the Provisionals backing
the Northern police service is not a question of
"if" but of "when". This is
a necessary preliminary to Sinn Fein going into
power sharing executive and going into coalition
government.
