[article] Gerry Adams Addreses the IRA

cdebru

Cork wrote:

The IRA have continued on with kangaroo courts, punishment beatings and criminality for years. This is not acceptable.

It is 7 years since the Good Friday agreement. The Adams speech was an election stunt.

Maybe it might win SF a few votes.

i think it is too early to say it is just an election stunt undoubtly it is timed for maximum effect in relation to the election but if the IRA is stood down and decommissioned at the end of it it is more than just a stunt





[/QUOTE]

bonkey

Lemming wrote:

Hmmm, so where did all that mention of a two year deadline come from by various political sides in N.Ireland after the GFA was settled then? Perhaps you mean that SF/IRA thinks there's no 2 year deadline?

That would most probably from this particular paragraph from the Agreemebt itself, I would imagine.

3. All participants accordingly reaffirm their commitment to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations. They also confirm their intention to continue to work constructively and in good faith with the Independent Commission, and to use any influence they may have, to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years following endorsement in referendums North and South of the agreement and in the context of the implementation of the overall settlement.

Of course, its the last bit (in the context...) that provides the wriggle-room.

jc

bonkey

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

So were arguing over a week!!!

Yes. We are indeed. One week prior, the situation did not merit Adams making a statement. The bank robbery, the McCartney fiasco, the stalled process, the snubs in the US....all combined did not merit a statement.

One week later, all thats significantly changed is the announcement of an election, and a statement of truculence from Paisley. Now a statement is merited.

This statement is made at a time where the maximum impact can be made on the republican community.

Exactly. Its not about the peace process. Its not about the IRA. Its about the political support base.

Whats the IRA without the voilent struggle? Nothing IMO. ie non existant.

But we allegedly don't have a violent struggle today, and the IRA are most certainly not non-existant. Would seem to put a large hole in that perspective....again, unless we accept that the IRA is not fully comitted to a peaceful solution. Your own belief in the 20-year timeframe suggests that as well - that the IRA is comitted to (for lack of a better term) a holding pattern, not a peaceful solution. Now, they'll take a peaceful solution if one comes along while they're holding...I've no doubt...but I seriously question what would be considered a solution. I'll come back to that.

Again Bonkey your not gonna get the "words" the media and unionists have construed here. But its pretty obvious to me what he means.

Sure it might be obvious..but Sinn Fein's standard position on compliance is that they have adhered to the letter with what was agreed. If you are going to insist on only meeting the letter of the agreement, but not the spirit, it would seem somewhat hypocritical to then refuse to be explicit in your own statements because it should be clear what the intent was.

Im not saying that unless the problems of the north are resolved the IRA will return. Im saying that unless clear avanues of political representation are opened to republicans, nationalists, catholics to tackles everything from social rights to a united Ireland, then IMO its innevitable the IRA will return.

Right. So....if in 15-20 years time, we actually get as far as having a functioning democracy, but Northern Ireland remains a part of the United Kingdom....you're saying the IRA will accept this and disappear? End their existence? Fully? I'm not asking that they give guarantees, or that the public believes they're gone or not...you believe that they will do it?

What if in 15 years we have the situation as described above, but for some reason the North democratically decides to rejoin with Westminster? Do you believe that the IRA will also accept this as a peaceful politically-achieved solution and will go away? I admit its unlikely, but what do you think? I admit its unlikely...but would it be accepted, in your opinion?

Because, see, thats what I mean about the abandonment of the notion of a United Ireland - that you accept that it may never happen, and indeed, that the North cold conceivably be reintegrated democratically with the government in Westminster.

where is your ABSOLUTE guarantee that the IRA will never return gonna come from?

Where have ever asked for one? Didn't I concede that the IRA could conceivably return?

What is needed is a reasonable assurance, and to be quite frank, that can only be done in the presence of a certain degree of trust. That trust can only be earned, and it will not be earned by a continuation of the current stance of all of this "if you think SF/IRA will do X to please the Unionists, you're kidding yourself" that gets blown about so often.

Sure, it cuts both ways, but currently, there seems to have been moves made by the other side. Flawed, insufficient as a solution, and slow, I agree entirely, but what has this been met with? A refusal to do anything without being given more...coupled with such
events as the McCartney murder which has done nothing but damage their reputation. The IRA is moving backwards in the credibility stakes, and yet SF is still insisting that its the other players who need to do more to hold up their side.

For a man with such an amount to say, your sure make funny statements!!! Do you honestly think republicans signed up to drop the ideal of a united Ireland!!

The ideal? Not at all. What I believe they signed up to was an acceptance that it would only ever be achieved through peaceful democratic means, and that as long as proper democracy is established they must accept its decision, even if that means that a United Ireland never occurs.

If they, your, or anyone else won't accept a democratic decision that says No to a United Ireland, or even one that says Yes to reintegrating with Westminster, then you don't believe in a peaceful solution, you believe in nothing but achieving a United Ireland by whatever means necessary.

Are you completely mad! Where does this disneyland notion of a peaceful solution to the north come from.
How you gonna implement it?

I bvelieve they called it the Good Friday Agreement.

At the moment the IRA decides on whether there is a voilent struggle. Without the IRA, people will decide for themselves

That logic will be true no matter when the IRA disband. The IRA have no right to control anything of the public's. You can argue they may have had that right prior to the GFA, but when they came on board, they sacrificed any right or reason they may have had to continue controlling the public in any way.

jc

Cork

cdebru wrote:

i think it is too early to say it is just an election stunt undoubtly it is timed for maximum effect in relation to the election but if the IRA is stood down and decommissioned at the end of it it is more than just a stunt

Make no mistake about it - 7 years after the Good Friday Agreemant & after the British election was called - it was a stunt.

Both governments brought much pressure to the leadership of SF/IRA.

I think the McCartney family also deserve credit for standing up to the provos.

MT

Haven't read the entire thread so I don't know if someone's already posted this. Anyway, the following is from Henry MacDonald in the Observer. A former sympathetic voice for SF in what has always been a fairly pro Republican/nationalist paper, MacDonald takes a cynical line with a speech that's becoming a fairly repetitive pronouncement:

Peace in their time

Friday April 8, 2005


Gerry Adams's appeal to the IRA was opportune for Sinn Féin, but too late for unionists, writes Henry McDonald.

If you input some of the key words of Gerry Adams's statement this week on the IRA's future into Google you end up with interesting results. The Google menu offers you eight similar speeches on the same theme over the last two years. Which begs a question: what, if anything, was new about what the Sinn Féin president had to say on Wednesday?

Among the eight similar speeches was one the West Belfast MP made in October 2003 - just one month before the elections to the Northern Ireland assembly. His latest deliberations on the IRA, the peace process, the future of "armed struggle" are also timed deliberately. It is the first salvo in the propaganda war to harvest nationalist votes in next month's general election. By appearing to wish out of existence the IRA and other armed groups involved in the Irish conflict, Adams puts himself and his party firmly in the public's mind on the side of peace. Moreover, his words yesterday, his challenge to the IRA, holds the tantalising prospect of more good things to come, especially if the electorate reward Sinn Féin with more votes in the meantime.

What more then is there to be expected from the IRA in response? In all probability some kind of ethereal statement indicating that its "war" is over, possibly then backed up by some act of decommissioning albeit without photographs or any other recorded evidence. These two moves were bargaining chips the IRA wanted to use when Sinn Féin and the Democratic Unionists appeared to be inching closer to a deal to restore devolution last December. Now in the post-Northern Bank/post-McCartney murder world, these bargain counters are principally to be offered up in order to win electoral support. But, in addition, any new IRA initative (which will, of course, fall short of unionist demands) will be designed to put unionism under pressure. Stating the "war is over" coupled with decommissioning will paint republicans in a good light and force the British and Irish governments to hold negotiations after the general election. The impression that the IRA is moving will be an irresistible temptation for Tony Blair and his Irish counterpart, Bertie Ahern. Mr Blair and Mr Ahern will then urge unionists to get back into talks with Sinn Féin now that the IRA is moving in the right direction.

That is the theory behind Wednesday's statement and the expected IRA response before the polls close but in practice it will not work. For a start, the IRA and Sinn Féin are no longer dealing with a unionist leader willing to take a leap of faith. David Trimble is yesterday's man and may even lose his Westminster seat on May 5. Ian Paisley currently leads unionism and his position will be bolstered after the votes have been cast and counted. The overwhelming majority of unionists (not just Paisleyite fundamentalists but also a large section of the secular Protestant middle class) no longer trust anything Gerry Adams or Sinn Féin say. When they put their Xs in even greater numbers than before for Paisley's DUP they will, in fact, be voting for a continuation of direct rule from London, which unionist voters prefer to devolution, in which Sinn Féin ministers govern important aspects of their lives.

Short of disbanding (a highly unlikely scenario), no IRA statement, no IRA act of decommissioning, will suffice for unionists to re-enter government with Sinn Féin in Belfast. Regardless of whatever slant Tony Blair and his spin masters put on yesterday's statement and the likely IRA response, there will be no deal on the other side of the general election, or for that matter for the next few years.

· Henry McDonald is the Ireland editor of the Observer

MT

Personally, I see this speech by Adam's as nothing more than an election stunt. It again contains no mention of criminality. There's not the slightest indication of any possible timetable for the placement of arms permenantly beyond use. Indeed, decommissioning, disbandment, or anything concrete, aren't mentioned at all. Essentially, this is a continuation of the usual vague 'moving forwards' speech that Adams has been delivering for seven years now. Followed by the predictable - pre-planned? - ethereal statement from the IRA.

Apologists and republican groupies in the media - though far less than in previous years - will no doubt hail this as yet another 'historic moment' (remarkably how certain 'peace process' terms have been repeated so much that they can be rhymed off by all and sundry). But for the weary and beleaguered public still still able to focus on the northern circus for more than five minutes without nodding off Adam's and the Ra's past record on meeting and abiding democratic obligations will ensure this offering is digested with a bucket of salt.

Gerry, we'll get back to you when the murdering and robbing stops and the decommissioning starts in a verifiable way.

Just on that small issue of murdering, if Gerry's credentials as a man of justice are to be treated with anything other than derisory scorn would the great man of peace not be better occupied with aiding - not thwarting - the McCartney family's search for answers and the truth? Given it's now been a number of months - staggering isn't it? - since Robert's murder surely his relatives quest for justice should be by far and away the top priority for SF, not electioneering stunts? Which is the party for - truth and justice or votes and bluster?

Cork

MT wrote:

since Robert's murder surely his relatives quest for justice should be by far and away the top priority for SF, not electioneering stunts? Which is the party for - truth and justice or votes and bluster?

I think winning additional seats in the British parliament is now the focus of the SF.

The people of NI will have their opportunity to judge SF. I fear both the DUP and SF will indeed do very well.

This will be a blow to parties like the SDLP and Official Unionists.

Thats NI for you.

A Dub in Glasgo

Cork wrote:

Thats NI for you.

Thats the democratic will of the people for you (within the confines of the electoral system imposed)

A Dub in Glasgo

MT wrote:

Just on that small issue of murdering, if Gerry's credentials as a man of justice are to be treated with anything other than derisory scorn would the great man of peace not be better occupied with aiding - not thwarting - the McCartney family's search for answers and the truth? Given it's now been a number of months - staggering isn't it? - since Robert's murder surely his relatives quest for justice should be by far and away the top priority for SF, not electioneering stunts? Which is the party for - truth and justice or votes and bluster?

Shock horror, MT wants SF to abandon politics and replace it with an attempt to get the people responsible for a murder to come forward.

Live in the real world, it may help

Mighty_Mouse

One week prior, the situation did not merit Adams making a statement

Are you saying 1 week prior, the speech wouldnt of been taken in the context of an upcoming westminster election? I disagree.

Exactly. Its not about the peace process. Its not about the IRA. Its about the political support base.

The point I made is you need republicans to support the disbandment/disolvement of the IRA. So obviously you need to appeal to republicans to follow the political leadership in good faith. How is this not about the peace process? How is it not about the IRA?

But we allegedly don't have a violent struggle today, and the IRA are most certainly not non-existant.

We have an cease-fire, not an end <officially> which is why the IRA are still active. Big difference to disbandment/official end to voilent campaign.

Would seem to put a large hole in that perspective....again, unless we accept that the IRA is not fully comitted to a peaceful solution.

But the IRA is fully committed to a peaceful solution. Why even bother with a ceasefire if they werent?

Your own belief in the 20-year timeframe suggests that as well - that the IRA is comitted to (for lack of a better term) a holding pattern, not a peaceful solution

Wow this is getting surprisingly frustrating!!! Now stay with me here Bonkey as I spell it out for you: My own belief is that if in say a generation or two (say 20-30 yrs) republicans/nationalists/catholics find themselves in a pre1970's position....then the IRA will return.

What I mean here is that IMO if people are not provided with an option to voilence in representing themselves, they will choose voilence/revolution.

I am saying you cannot guarantee the permanent absence of the IRA in a future N.Ireland where people are not provided with a political path to pursue their goals democratically.

You can only guarantee that the current leadership and members of the IRA will not return to armed-struggle.

Sure it might be obvious..but Sinn Fein's standard position on compliance is that they have adhered to the letter with what was agreed.

And you accuse SF of wriggling!! SF have stuck by what was signed up to. You know full well that the IRA would of disappeared years ago if the GFA had been implemented on all sides as agreed.

So....if in 15-20 years time, we actually get as far as having a functioning democracy, but Northern Ireland remains a part of the United Kingdom....you're saying the IRA will accept this and disappear? End their existence?

Yes. As long as people have a right to vote for the party which represents their own personal view of the north then an armend struggle will never get support.I dont believe any normal man wants spend his time killing people. Its only when they feel there is no other option.

What if in 15 years we have the situation as described above, but for some reason the North democratically decides to rejoin with Westminster?

In this case im not sure, but we would have to see. Again under the above circumstances, who today can give you a guarantee that the IRA will not be restarted by republicans at some stage in the future. Anyways, not that it will happen but I do think that as long as the argmuent to join westminster is reasonable, catholics rights are assured, its democratic decision etc I think the IRA wouldnt get necessary supported to become anything more that a couple of dozen radicals.

Because, see, thats what I mean about the abandonment of the notion of a United Ireland - that you accept that it may never happen,

but you dont have to abandon the notion of a United Ireland to accept that it may never join. You still have the right to pursue a united ireland by whatever political avenues are available to you. (same for unionists). Remember the reason the IRA got such support was because catholics in the north were/are a completely oppressed segment of society.

What I believe they signed up to was an acceptance that it would only ever be achieved through peaceful democratic means, and that as long as proper democracy is established they must accept its decision, even if that means that a United Ireland never occurs.

agreed. still means the right to pursue it though.

The IRA have no right to control anything of the public's.

I didnt say they do. See above. Im tired of repeating myself.

Mighty_Mouse

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

Are you saying 1 week prior, the speech wouldnt of been taken in the context of an upcoming westminster election? I disagree.

No I don't think Bonkey is saying that.
I think he's saying its aimed at the election and that as such it wouldnt have appeared at this time only for that.
The implication being a wonderment as to whether if the election was in 2006 instead, would such a statement have come at this stage...

mike65

I still waiting for a response more substantial than "er, we'll get back to you" from P O'Neill - I'd hate the think my trust in Gerry was misplaced...'hem.

Mike.

cdebru

mike65 wrote:

I still waiting for a response more substantial than "er, we'll get back to you" from P O'Neill - I'd hate the think my trust in Gerry was misplaced...'hem.

Mike.

what did you think you were going to get an answer back in a week


it is not like they can just rent a room and discuss it

patients

mike65

cdebru wrote:

patients

Spelling Police!

Mike.

Cork

cdebru wrote:

what did you think you were going to get an answer back in a week


it is not like they can just rent a room and discuss it

patients

A room with a few big mirrors?

Adams gave no timetables or gaurentees of any nature.


It is about time both governments started demanding action from Adams and co.

Sand

what did you think you were going to get an answer back in a week

Cdebru do you really, honestly now, really, really think Adams made that speech without knowing full well what the prepared answer was going to be?
Thats not a way of saying Adams will be drafting the response - though he will.

Lets say we go with the typical SF/IRA view - Adams isnt on the Army Council and the inner workings of its leadership is as much a mystery to him as it is to us.

Do you think a political rat like Adams is going to set himself up for an almighty fall if the (totally seperate) IRA reject his call? Even if we assume hes not on the Army Council hed be an absolute moron not to have gone to the IRA privately ahead of time and agreed the deal before announcing it to the media. Its not credible that he doesnt know what the answer will be whatever way you want to view his relationship to the Army Council.

The IRA already have the statement agreed and drafted and ready to be mailed to the press when Adams and McGuinness deem it to be suitable. It will arty and farty and say not much than has been said before. It might even be accompanied by some token decommissioning. SF/IRA will point at it and go "Ooooh look, an IRA statement promising utopia - is there no pleasing you!!!" and everyone else will remember the hundred and one other IRA statements promising utopia that added up to jack ****.

Its bad enough having journalists who should know better indulging this ****e of anticipating the already prepared response. You dont have to try and sell it as well. We get it, its a big ****ing mystery and really tense buildup to a historic, momentous, hope filled occassion. Oooooh will the IRA use words like "commitment", "securecrats", "rejectionist" or even "sit-yee-ah-shun" - though the proof readers have been good at preventing that last one slipping through unedited.

cdebru

Sand wrote:

Cdebru do you really, honestly now, really, really think Adams made that speech without knowing full well what the prepared answer was going to be?
Thats not a way of saying Adams will be drafting the response - though he will.

Lets say we go with the typical SF/IRA view - Adams isnt on the Army Council and the inner workings of its leadership is as much a mystery to him as it is to us.

Do you think a political rat like Adams is going to set himself up for an almighty fall if the (totally seperate) IRA reject his call? Even if we assume hes not on the Army Council hed be an absolute moron not to have gone to the IRA privately ahead of time and agreed the deal before announcing it to the media. Its not credible that he doesnt know what the answer will be whatever way you want to view his relationship to the Army Council.

The IRA already have the statement agreed and drafted and ready to be mailed to the press when Adams and McGuinness deem it to be suitable. It will arty and farty and say not much than has been said before. It might even be accompanied by some token decommissioning. SF/IRA will point at it and go "Ooooh look, an IRA statement promising utopia - is there no pleasing you!!!" and everyone else will remember the hundred and one other IRA statements promising utopia that added up to jack ****.

Its bad enough having journalists who should know better indulging this ****e of anticipating the already prepared response. You dont have to try and sell it as well. We get it, its a big ****ing mystery and really tense buildup to a historic, momentous, hope filled occassion. Oooooh will the IRA use words like "commitment", "securecrats", "rejectionist" or even "sit-yee-ah-shun" - though the proof readers have been good at preventing that last one slipping through unedited.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2580824&postcount=12

cdebru

mike65 wrote:

Spelling Police!

Mike.

lol


sorry mike i knew it was wrong when i wrote it but was too damn lazy to correct it

must be listening to joe duffy has the health service on my mind

Mighty_Mouse

No I don't think Bonkey is saying that.
I think he's saying its aimed at the election and that as such it wouldnt have appeared at this time only for that.
.

Again as I've already said, I dont have a problem with SF putting its best foot forward into an election. I also dont have a problem the IRA make their reponse at a time which is most beneficial to the republican movement poltically.

It wouldnt make sense not too. BUT it doesnt take away from the significance of these current moves within republicanism.

If the Unionists want to make pro-active/pro-agreement political statements like republicans have been doing over the course of the last few months, well then I also dont have a problem if they do it at the most opportune poltical time for them.

Cork

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

It wouldnt make sense not too. BUT it doesnt take away from the significance of these current moves within republicanism.

Bank robberies, rackets, punishment beating and the cold blooded murder of Robert McCartney have nothing to do with republicisim.

It is but for the continued pressure that has been put on the Provos after the aftermath of the McCarney murder and the NI bank raid that has lead to their demise.

Mighty_Mouse

Bank robberies, rackets, punishment beating and the cold blooded murder of Robert McCartney have nothing to do with republicisim.

Um! I agree. Now explain to me in detail why that is a response to "significance of the current moves within republicanism", your hardly just trotting out the SF are scum line at every possible chance?

It is but for the continued pressure that has been put on the Provos after the aftermath of the McCarney murder and the NI bank raid that has lead to their demise.

So its not about republicans, IRA, SF being proactive and supporting the agreement. unlike every other government/party associated with it.