An end to the 'imperfect peace'?

Bertie Ahern gives the impression that an IRA statement is imminent. As discussed here recently this seems largely a matter for the IRA, more than at any time since the peace process began. The question is can the peace be kept after the statement and any unilateral act of decommissioning for long enough to suit the DUP. It would seem a political gamble. As ever, we wait to see if the IRA is willing to play.

  • Snapper

    Unfortunately it keeps coming back to the same point – is there a will on the DUP side to do a deal?

  • Keith M

    snapper, no it comes back to the same point as it did with the first SF/IRA “ceasefire” over a decade ago, are the provos seriously willing to give up the activity of its “army”. Back then Albert Reynolds was telling us that “complete” was the same as “permanent”. He was a fool, as later events proved, and the debate hasn’t moved on since then.

  • Snapper

    You are assuming that if the IRA delivered everything demanded of them then unionism would have kept to it’s side of the bargain.

    With the greatest respect to your analysis, I remain unconvinced. In the aftermath of the failed Christmas negotiations I have been left more cynical than ever before.

    I feel that it may be time the DUP give public assurances that if the IRA actually leave the stage without any question marks, then they will commit to powersharing with no strings attached.

  • Snapper

    Also – at the risk of sounding condescending, unionists need to learn the language of conflict resolution. By that I mean not making hysterical comments about sack cloth and ashes, dirty hands, come up to the mark etc.

    If you wish to make peace with your enemy, you shouldn’t say or do anything which makes an already difficult business any harder.

    This of course takes me back to my original thought on willingness to make peace.

    However, I am not naive enough to believe that unionists should be falling over themselves to deal with republicans