IRA Cards On The Table : Guns Under It!

Red Action No. 70: Spring 1995.

Much has happened since the IRA declared a cease-fire on August 31st. Republican delegates have, for the first time in 70 years met publicly with British government representatives. Troops have not been seen on the streets of Derry since Christmas, and have recently been removed from the streets of Belfast during daylight hours. A Loyalist cease-fire has been in place since the l3th of October. Two new organisations, the Progressive Unionist Party, and the Unionist Democratic Party representing the interests of the UVF and the UFF respectively have entered the political arena. Neither have any electoral mandate. PUP have one Belfast councillor. "Our mandate" as one put it: "is the silence of the guns." Irish Taoiseach Albert Reynolds, considered at one time vital to the peace process, has resigned. John Hume, the `architect', is the forgotten man. Instead Adams/McGuinness hold centre stage. The Newry robbery used by elements in the media to fan the flames of the `hawks and doves' scenario refused to ignite. Neither did the Semtex probably planted by military intelligence in Enniskillen. Coupled with the suspicion that the government is possibly being misinformed by its own intelligence service; such a hawks and doves scenario might well exist, but possibly a little closer to home. It is against this background that the hesitant backward march toward British withdrawal continues.

Britain finally accepted that the IRA cease-fire, if not permanent, has been `progressively confirmed.' The attempt to exclude Sinn Fein from the economic conference in Belfast in December was overturned following international pressure. The prerequisite for all party talks on the constitutional future of the Six Counties, are according to the British: `the surrender of arms and explosives by the IRA'. Nobody, including the RUC, accepts this demand as realistic. As Martin McGuinness said on Newsnight: "I am not aware of any conflict in history being settled by one side handing aver their weapons." So, if talks are to take place the Republican movement will, metaphorically speaking be bringing its guns to the negotiating table. Or to be more precise, it will be cards on the table - guns under it.

How does any of this square with the assertion trumpeted by the British Left, that the IRA had `surrendered'. "Even Arafat" according to the SWP, "got Gaza, Adams has got nothing!" Given that negotiations had not even begun, and would not do so for another six months, this crowing over the alleged IRA capitulation was to say the least somewhat premature. Stripped to the essentials the argument loses the facade of objectivity and is revealed as merely vindictive and slightly hysterical wishful thinking. Republican capitulation is what the middle class left would have liked to have happened. As a consequence they are loath to accept that the IRA have not only bombed their way to the negotiating table, they have bombed Britain there.

Since probably the early eighties, the war in Ireland had been locked in stalemate. This is a fact acknowledged by all sides. The IRA could not be beaten, but neither could they win. The same applied to the British but they were much happier as long as the situation could be contained "at an acceptable level of violence." So the onus was always on the IRA to break the deadlock. That they recognised that the responsibility lay with them was reflected in a `com' from a leading Provo smuggled out of Crumlin Road jail in 1989. He wrote; "Hoping that this talk of bringing the armed struggle to a conclusion that McGuinness and co. are talking about bears fruit as I've thrown up my hands on at least two occasions. Whether we have the ability to break out of the containment the Brits are imposing on the war I think is crucial to the ultimate success/failure of the conflict."

To break out of the containment the IRA recognised they had no option but to up the ante. This they did, and for the first time since the 1970's more troops needed to be drafted into the region. As a complimentary response; military intelligence helped restructure and refurbish loyalist murder gangs. For years almost dormant, the old leadership, small time gangsters primarily concerned with petty racketeering, were ousted and in their place came `The Joint Loyalist Military Command'. Overnight military intelligence had at their disposal pro-government, efficient but deniable death squads.

The war continued at a brisker pace, with the nationalist population taking the brunt of it. And then the IRA hit the City. Then a year later almost to the day, `the IRA returned'. Having just recovered, the City was once again devastated in more ways than one. The very existence of the financial services offered by the City, which represents about 20% of GNP, almost as much as the manufacturing industry, was undeniably in serious jeopardy. Not surprisingly, all connected were in severe shock. So much so, that after the Baltic Exchange explosion, the media normally so adept at exploiting any propaganda value that might accrue from civilian deaths, were so aghast at the financial loss and its implications, that, for over two days of intensive coverage, they barely mentioned the civilian casualties at all. John Major had to go on television to publicly remind them. Of Bishopsgate, film maker Neil Jordan, who regarded the war in Ireland as futile said, "The one bomb which really shook the heart of the establishment was the one in the City which destroyed the entire fucking area. I think one person died, which is tragic, but maybe that kind of action makes sense."

There had of course been IRA bombing campaigns before but this time the Army Council knew they had found the underbelly of the beast. And Britain knew they knew. So the establishment `cried uncle' and from then, initially in secret, negotiations in earnest began.

Of course the IRA have been to the negotiating table (or nearly there) before. Secret talks between members of the leadership of the IRA, and a number of Protestant clergymen took place in Feakle, Co Clare in 1974. This was to lead to one of the longest and most controversial truces during the IRA's armed struggle. When news of the talks were leaked, a clergymen, Dr Butler, commenting in the Times said: "We were all most impressed with their attitude, with their fair-mindedness, and we were so pleased to find that they were talking seriously and deeply and with great conviction and had listened very carefully to what we had to say." This time the IRA are talking directly to the government, and in public, which allows everyone the opportunity for the first time- to listen very carefully to what they say. Given the history of British duplicity this is important. A point underlined by Martin McGuinness who recently described his first face to face meeting with the British establishment in 1972 as `unreal'. This time the negotiations are very real, but as the republican leadership has stressed again and again: "Negotiations are an area of struggle....not the end of the struggle".

Nor are republicans likely to forget that the last time the IRA met the British over the negotiating table in 1922, the talks ended in partition of their country and civil war.

Whether or not the Irish delegation were overawed by the power of the Empire at it's zenith or bamboozled by Lloyd George is a moot point, but in any case: "this generation of republicans," Martin McGuinness flatly states, "is not going to be fooled by their fancy diplomatic language."

So, the question must be asked, if a solution is to be found, who is going to be fooled by the fancy diplomatic language? Unionism, already divided between the fundamentalism of Paisley and the essential conservatism of Molyneaux, is divided again on class lines, with the emergence from the shadows of the political wings of the loyalist paramilitaries. For too long according to the PUP/UVF, the loyalist working class have been manipulated by the "fur coat brigade." In his Guardian column, Edward Pearce insists that having talked with a group of them at length he was "seriously impressed. These are the men" he gushed, "who as adolescents and young men handled explosives for King Billy and went to jail for it, who treated that jail as a university and learned to think themselves into a highly rational moderation." (If Edward Pearce thinks PUP are moderates then who are the extremists?) Nationalists and republicans are predictably less sanguine. They argue that military intelligence has had a controlling influence over the UFF/UVF during the war and so it is to be expected that they retain a similar influence over the political wings during the peace. "There have been consistent rumours that there is a considerable MI5 involvement with elements within the DUP and PUP" according to Gerry Adams. A pamphlet has circulated in Belfast recently accusing David Irvine leading spokesman for PUP of being an MI5 agent and his party of taking Ulster into a united Ireland `progressively'. Alec Kerr a senior loyalist, and the alleged commander of the UFF reflects the paranoia emanating from within unionist circles. "I still get the feeling that we're going to be dropped like a hot potato somewhere down the line."

Twenty years ago the Ulster Workers Council brought the Stormont Assembly and any illusions about power sharing to an abrupt end. Ulster said NO! Today all shades of loyalist appears willing, even eager to promote power sharing (an example of `rational moderation') and an internal settlement as THE solution. Too little too late. This time round nationalists north and south but above all logic - says no to Ulster.

According to David Irvine any talk of a Dublin dimension; in other words anything other than an internal settlement is "a recipe for civil war". The use of die expression civil war defines a conflict within rather than between countries. So who does Irvine expect to be at war with? London or Dublin. If it was used in relation to the latter (a civil war between the loyal north and the nationalist south) then, is that not in itself a tacit and Freudian acceptance of all that loyalism rejects: the concept of the island of Ireland as a sovereign entity?

In 1922 after negotiations, the Irish people were faced with a British ultimatum, dominion status and peace, or a 32 county republic and - war. They chose peace and got civil war anyway - and partition. Then Britain wanted Ireland within the Commonwealth, now they want the north of Ireland out of the UK. So this time around it is loyalists who will be faced with an ultimatum. In the early part of the century faced with the prospect of a united Ireland the slogan of loyalism ran: `ULSTER WILL FIGHT AND ULSTER WILL BE RIGHT!' It would have then, but will it now? Rumours in Glasgow indicate some have already made up their minds. In the last six months the UVF have bought, or bought into half a dozen Glasgow pubs and clubs. Is paranoia laced with pragmatism the doctrine of an organisation ready to fight to the bitter end? I think not. But either way, the balance of forces indicate that in a replay of 1922 it is far more likely to be loyalists rather than republicans who will be forced to digest the bitter pill of betrayal.