Re: IRA and decommissioninng

[David Bruce <dave_bruce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 04/02/00, George Pennefeather wrote:

>Can anybody furnish a comprehensive answer as to the IRA will not
>surrender their
>munitions?


First of all, at least as far as I can see, they have no mandate to do so
from their constituency, i.e. working-class Catholics/nationalists. Are
there any mass demonstrations, 24-hour peace vigils, pickets, petitions,
etc etc? True, there were calls for an end to violence but I do not
remember calls by nationalists for nationalists to be left defenceless. As
a moderate-minded Catholic friend of mine from Armagh said to me last
month, 'Whatever happens now, they can never ever put us back to where we
were in the 1960s'. A limited analysis perhaps but not demoralised, for
sure. But if the IRA disarms, he could be proven wrong.

It was the IRA who first called the cease-fire some years ago. The
Americans put, and have continued to put, moderate pressure on the British
and the Orange establishment to do a deal (by an odd coincidence, the 26
Counties are a bastion of US-owned industry right in the heart of the EU).
This deal was almost done, though with the Loyalsists kicking and screaming
all the way.

Now it seems that sections of the Orange lobby want to pull out, whatever
concessions the Blairites make, such as the dumping of the popular Mo
Mowlem in favour of deal-with-the-devil Peter Mandelson. Mowlem, BTW, had a
Catholic upbringing - the very idea! She had outlived her usefulness and,
besides, dear old Peter was lonely on the back benches.

The IRA was revived in the late 1960s precisely to defend nationalist
sections of the population first from Loyalist and then British army
terror. (Remember the slogan aired during the IRA's collapse in the early
days of the oppression of the Civil Rights movement: "IRA  = I Ran Away" -
during the period when it was last dominated by 'political' elements.)

For all its rhetoric, the IRA has always been a mainly defensive
organisation against Orange/British oppression and, as such, has answered a
real social need with inspiring courage and determination, whatever
political weaknesses we may perceive.

Remember that Britain was, apart from the slightly special case of
Switzerland, the last place in Europe to have a universal one-adult-one
vote political system (in the 1960s!) and, after Gorbachev abolished them
in the USSR, the only country in Europe to have a system of internal
passports. Under the PTA and its successor, it still has one and
Nationalists *still* cannot have a serving MP of their choice.

The principal instrument of the Loyalist terror was originally the
B-Specials and now it is the RUC, even if it has seemed more even-handed of
late. My guess (and that is all it is) is that Loyalist pressure to pull
out of the deal is a response to the half-hearted efforts of the Blairites
to reform the RUC. This is the *real* armed-wing of the Loyalists, as
opposed to the various groups of Protestant thugs, whose disarmament was in
any case only token. They could re-arm in weeks, if not days. (I would lay
a bet there are several cellars or sheds here in the West of Scotland
hiding packages wrapped in oily brown paper.) It is not the first
near-mutiny in Ulster's history by any means. In any case, even the most
casual observer of the Six Counties can see that the Loyalist  'compromise'
wing is becoming increasingly isolated and that its anti-agreement lobby is
reviving.

The RUC will remain, armed to the teeth. So will the British army, which
still has 20,000-odd troops in the province - about as many as NATO has in
Kosova. Corporal Clegg, the assassin of a young Catholic, has just this
week been finally acquitted of the murder. Perhaps trivial - but certainly
symbolic.

The call for the IRA to disarm was the establishment's primary response to
the cease-fire and it was eventually codified in the Good Friday Agreement.
The IRA was not a signatory to the GFA and it is under no obligation to
anyone to abide by its accords.

George Pennefeather's earlier assertion on this list that Sinn Fein=IRA
seems to me to be, at best, a gross over-simplification. There are real
differences there, just as there are real differences between sections of
the Loyalist movement. That is what we call 'politics'.

Although the IRA may have reached a political stalemate and called a
cease-fire, it remains militarily undefeated. As Gery Adams himself said
earlier this week, when in history has an undefeated army laid down its
weapons? Especially, one might add, when the very same history suggests
that they would be unwise to do so.

In summary, the military wing of the Loyalists (the RUC) is still armed and
intends to stay that way. The military wing of the Tory Party (the British
army) is still armed and intends to stay in place. The Orange movements
have made political compromises but few, if any, major concessions. If the
IRA is indeed the military wing of Sinn Fein, George, what do *you* think
they should do?

Best

Dave