Thoughts from London

Like a puppet on a string
A Britain beleaguered but unbowed by terrorism had something to crow about last Thursday, exactly three weeks after suicide bombers hit London.

The Irish Republican Army (IRA) that had pursued terrorism and violence as a means to political ends finally renounced both and agreed to disarm.
For Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has been under attack from several quarters for some responsibility in bringing terrorism to London by his unflinching support for President George Bush in his invasion of Iraq, it was indeed a silver lining peeping through London’s overcast skies.

After more than 30 years of violence during which thousands of civilians and security personnel were killed by IRA bombings and shootings, it has publicly announced its renunciation of violence and the acceptance of democratic politics to further its cause for Northern Ireland’s unification with the rest of Ireland.

While the British Government naturally sees last week’s announcement as a major breakthrough after months of procrastination and a stalling of the Northern Ireland political system, there are others naturally sceptical of IRA promises.

The existence of IRA weapons stockpiles that should have been destroyed under the Good Friday Agreement, led to the fall of the Northern Ireland Government in 2003.

The question is how the IRA which has arms and ammunition hidden in bunkers across Ireland would dispose of its armoury and how much supervision would the IRA permit. Without such guarantees to ensure the IRA will not renege on its declared promise some of the other parties opposed to the IRA would not enter into any political process that will resume democratic politics in Northern Ireland. One might recall that under the 1987 accord between India and Sri Lanka, Indian troops were expected to disarm the militant Tamil groups.

Though the LTTE initially surrendered some weapons-mainly outdated arms and ammunition- it refused to hand over the bulk of its armoury which had by then been carefully stashed away in safe houses or buried, packed in grease and polythene. The then Indian High Commissioner Mani Dixit was confident that the Indian army would be able to collect the LTTE weapons and even boasted to me on the second day that 60% of the weapons had been surrendered.

When I disagreed with him saying only unwanted weapons were surrendered he scoffed and said how wrong I was. What happened subsequently is history. Such lessons are not lost on those who hold cynical views of terrorist organisations, despite the positive noises made by those “promoters” of such violent groups within and without Sri Lanka.

Admittedly three batches of IRA weapons have been destroyed since this process began under the supervision of retired Canadian general John de Chastelain. But most knowledgeable persons agree that these decommissioned weapons were small compared to the vast armoury the IRA is believed to have.

It is the IRA’s failure to disarm since the ceasefire that preceded the Good Friday Agreement of 1998 that makes some critics and unionist political groups doubt this latest promise of decommissioning.

If, on the other hand, the IRA has indeed weighed its options carefully and decided that it cannot make any advance through armed struggle and the only way to further its cause is by entering the political mainstream, then it signifies a historic development.

The question is whether the IRA whose slogan at one time was “not an ounce, not a bullet” meaning it will stand firm and not surrender anything, has had a genuine change of heart.

If so what prompted it. Both international pressure and domestic developments were responsible for this outcome. The United States, given its historical links with Ireland and its own history, has been sympathetic to the Irish republicans though not necessarily the IRA. It might be recalled that about 10 years ago Gerry Adams, the leader of the pro-republican Sinn Fein was welcomed in the US despite the British Government’s pressure on Washington not to allow him a visa. London argued that Adams was raising funds for the IRA, Sinn Fein being seen as the IRA’s political wing. Washington ignored the British request and Gerry Adams was welcomed to The White House.

This camaraderie changed this year when President Bush did not invite Gerry Adams to the traditional St. Patrick’s Day party. Instead President Bush invited the family of Robert McCartney, a Belfast catholic who was murdered outside a pub by the IRA. Even Senator Edward Kennedy, a strong supporter of Sinn Fein cancelled a meeting with Adams.
The Sinn Fein leader got the message from across the Atlantic. They were no longer welcome as long as the IRA refused to renounce violence and terrorism. It was the time when President Bush was on his warpath against terrorism.

Domestically, the murder of Robert McCartney and the campaign against the IRA launched by his sisters in Northern Ireland and abroad, caught the imagination of other families in Belfast and elsewhere who had been victims of IRA terror. This open anti-IRA campaigning was unprecedented in IRA territory and it even led to the IRA agreeing to name the killer.

So unprecedented and courageous a campaign right in the heart of the IRA stronghold and abroad, on the one hand, and the toughening of Washington’s stand against the IRA and its terror tactics, have forced the IRA to reconsider the very basis of its politics of violence.

Last April Gerry Adams made a public appeal in which he urged republicans to turn their backs on violence and accept politics as a means to an end. Adams said he used to justify the IRA’s murderous activities in the past because he saw no other way.“That struggle can now be taken forward by other means,” Adams said and asked “Can you take courageous initiatives which will achieve your aims by purely political and democratic activity?”
There is a lesson in this for the international community that claims it wishes to bring peace to Sri Lanka.

It would appear from the developments since the ceasefire agreement in Sri Lanka that international pressure is not on those who employ terror and violence not only against their own people but the country as a whole.

Back to Columns