Thursday, 16 December, 2004
Friday, 17 December, 2004
By Irish News
Analysis: It's impossible to deliver, so let's move on
By Brian Feeney (for the Irish News)
In practical terms decommissioning was always a nonsense. The arguments are well known. Surrendering weapons doesn't prevent an organisation acquiring new and more modern weaponry as the Real IRA proved. Besides, at the end of the IRA campaign improvised devices knocked up in sheds and garages were causing more devastation than factory-produced military hardware.
Writing in the Irish Times former Irish army commandant Tom Clonan also points out that there could never be full and complete decommissioning because the IRA don't know where all the weapons and explosives are, given the circumstances in which they were hidden. It's always been like that: rusty old revolvers and Mills bombs from the War of Independence and Civil War keep turning up. Clonan predicts that for years ahead the army will be 'decommissioning' wee dumps of Semtex, AK-47s and ammo clips found in hedges and ditches.
We also know that some individuals who defected to the Real IRA pilfered IRA dumps they knew about. Photographic evidence is also a nonsense.
It is notoriously easy to doctor photos, especially digital ones. Why would the DUP believe someone showing photos which could be anyone anywhere, when they won't believe the same person's word that they witnessed weapons being 'put beyond use'? Tom Clonan concluded therefore the DUP demand is a 'political red herring'. Of course he's correct. Anyone with half a brain knows the real reasons behind the demand for decommissioning.
Michael Oatley, the MI6 officer who acted as the British government's contact with the IRA for years, was quite explicit about unionists' motives for demanding weapons surrender. It was, he said in 1999, 'an excuse to avoid the pursuit of peace'. It's an excuse which has worked pretty well now for a decade mainly because both the Irish and British governments have supported each incremental unionist demand to the hilt.
Why did governments lend their support to demands which they know are politically motivated and cannot be realised?
They cannot be realised for the practical reasons mentioned here already, but also for the very good reason that there is no way anyone can ever know if the IRA has decommissioned all its weaponry. We would end with the absurd proposition that, even if the IRA were to consent to photographic evidence, which they won't, the DUP would have to believe the IRA when they said they had completely decommissioned all their arms.
The DUP would have to answer the question, 'How do you know the IRA have decommissioned all their weapons?' with the daft response, 'Because the IRA told us.' Right.
The governments support this pantomime because they adhere to the fallacy that if they cave in to unionists' demands, no matter how stupid, specious or provocative, then unionists will ultimately have no alternative but to be reasonable and see sense and behave like normal political animals. Wrong. They have never in recorded history acted in such a fashion.
In fact all historical evidence points in the opposite direction to them being notoriously unreasonable and senseless.
However, the result of the governments acting as the agents of demands that unionists hoped would prove impossible for republicans to concede is that republicans have made enormous gains as the price for accepting the demands, drip by drip.
If republicans didn't have the decommissioning counter the unionists gave them to play with, would they have got the deal on the men who killed Garda McCabe? Would they have got speaking rights in the Dail and membership of the Seanad so readily?
Yet republicans need to decommission and declare the IRA out of business because they know they won't make electoral progress in the south unless they do. So what's the solution? Simple.
The proposals Ahern and Blair presented last week represent the high water mark for SF with all republican demands addressed. The IRA have their stuff gathered together ready to decommission before Christmas in a couple of big heaps, the locations of which are known only to a few IRA men, the Irish special Branch and MI5.
What the IRA should do is shoot the DUP's fox.
Ring up de Chastelain, decommission it all as planned and he will tell the DUP and the governments it's done. All gone. Sorry lads, nothing to photograph. The IRA have already decommissioned three batches. They're going to have to do the rest some time for southern politics. SF have accepted the political aspects of last week's deal. They've nothing left to gain by hanging on.
What could the DUP do?
In the end they have to believe the IRA anyway. So why not leave the DUP looking stupid sooner rather than later?
Copyright © 2004 Irish News
The challenge for Ian Paisley
Editorial
By Irish News
The idea that full decommissioning on the part of the IRA could be regarded as unacceptable by the DUP seems, even by the standards of politics in Northern Ireland, to be quite incredible.
However, Ian Paisley has made it clear that unless this complete disarmament is accompanied by his precise requirements, in terms of photographic evidence, it will be worthless to him.
While there is no compelling reason to prevent pictures from forming part of a final deal, Mr Paisley is going out of his way to give the impression that nothing republicans can offer will ultimately satisfy him.
He is on the brink of returning to his public demand of a matter of months ago that not just the IRA but Sinn Féin as well should disband before a settlement can be reached.
The faces of his senior colleagues during DUP press conferences betrayed their anxiety about the direction their leader is taking but the ball remains in his court.
Mr Paisley has let it be known that he would like to hold the office of first minister before he retires, which is likely to be when he reaches in 80th birthday in 2006.
If he wants to be regarded as an elder statesman, it is about time he started behaving like one.
An opportunity exists for all our main parties to give their endorsement to a administration which can command overwhelming support on both sides of the political divide.
If one side behaves in an unreasonable way, the new structures will never get off the ground.
Nationalists of all descriptions have a responsibility to put forward their case in a calm and rational fashion.
If others prefer to take a different approach, then the British and Irish governments will have no option other than to continue their present roles for the foreseeable future
Copyright © 2004 Irish News