[Via Newshound] Noted author [A Secret History of the IRA] and journalist Ed Moloney warned of the dangers of a contrived divorce between Sinn Féin and the IRA back in April. He’s read yesterday’s statement.. and argues that the cautious optimism expressed by both governments disguises “the failure of the governments to achieve its main stated goal: the beginning of the withering away of the IRA.”I’ll excerpt part of Ed Moloney’s article – but go read the whole thing
Evidence that ambiguity lives on and that this is probably deliberate comes in the apparent fact that there has been no IRA Convention, no attempt by the leadership to refashion republicanism for a new order. No Convention means no changes to the IRA constitution. The IRA’s legally binding commitment to “wage revolutionary armed struggle” when possible thus survives and sits uneasily besides P O’Neill’s new, non-binding public pledge to use only political methods in the future.
The fact that there has been no Convention also means that legally speaking the IRA has not ended its war, no matter what yesterday’s statement said. Only a Convention can end the war with Britain and that has not happened. Ending the armed campaign – notice the statement did not say “armed struggle” – means this move is similar to the ending of the 1956-62 campaign. An important event for sure, even historic but the option of returning to armed struggle survives, as it did in 1962.[emphasis added]
More from Ed Moloney’s article –
But in place of disbandment we now have a development that is bad news for the peace process no matter how it pans out. According to Justice Minister Michael McDowell, the three Sinn Féin members of the Army Council, Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness and Martin Ferris have all quit, leaving the IRA leadership solely in the hands of ‘soldiers’.
Sceptics will be entitled to suspect that this is the beginning of a fraudulent divorce of Sinn Féin from the IRA in which Sinn Féin continues to benefit from the leverage that IRA activity or potential IRA activity brings while being able to deny any responsibility for it. The IRA meanwhile, led by an Army Council that more closely resembles a Mafia Commission these days, will carry on robbing, forging and smuggling – and anyone who thinks they won’t is living in cloud-cuckoo land – while thanks to yesterday’s statement those involved will be able to deny culpability.[emphasis added again]
A point, noted here at the time, which Vincent Browne in the Irish Times on Wednesday agrees with but interprets in a benign way.
Ed Moloney goes on to argue that this was a missed opportunity for the two governments to achieve their previously stated goal –
There was a way to address the disbandment of the IRA which would have been persuasive and effective but, crucially, none of the Provo leadership suggested it nor, as far as is known, did the two governments ask for it.
With the minimum of risk and cost to itself while at the same time signalling its intentions to Unionists and the world in a compelling way, the IRA could have stood down its units in Britain, in North America, in Australia and New Zealand and elsewhere. Thus a disbandment process would have started which could be accelerated if conditions improved or easily reversed if they worsened. At the same time neither the hegemony of the Provos’ within republicanism nor the confidence of their rank and file in their leaders would be threatened.
The fact that not even this most minimal move has been made can only strengthen the conviction that the Adams/McGuinness leadership wishes to keep the IRA intact, albeit now at a distance from themselves, both as a way of injecting instability into Irish politics when it suits and to trade it for greater prizes in the future. The Taoiseach may be correct, that this is the start of the IRA morphing into a commemorative body. But who would bet the mortgage on it? The Unionists certainly won’t.[emphasis added]
And he argues that the reason for that failure of government lies in their misreading of Adams’ position –
The real problem is that they mistake Gerry Adams’ caution for weakness. When he manoeuvres and manipulates the IRA into concessions they see that as an admission of his own vulnerability and that if a wrong, hasty move is made then he could end up in a ditch and the rest of us could be pitched back into conflict.
That was certainly true when the peace process began in the 1980’s and when the IRA ceasefire was called in 1994. There may even have been validity to that view five years ago. But not now. Too many things have changed for that to be credible any longer. The truth is that Gerry Adams and his allies now have, and have had for some time, complete control over the IRA and can take it in whichever direction they wish. And not only does the IRA not want to go back to war, it cannot. If Adams continues to manipulate the IRA it is not because he has to but because it convinces the governments he is weaker than he actually is.
For reasons known only to themselves neither Bertie Ahern and Tony Blair nor any of their advisers can or wish to see that. Until they do, this peace process will drag on forever.