THE resumption of a full scale IRA campaign, the "armed struggle", with all the horrors it will cause and the horrors of the reaction it will cause, seems now a virtual certainty. It is because the "unarmed struggle" seems now a hopeless option for the IRA. Hopeless in terms of advancing its objectives, hopeless even in terms of being able to negotiate for its objectives in all party talks, without what seems to it a final and humiliating surrender.
As I argued in this column last Wednesday, in spite of John Bruton's confident assurance that there is now agreement on all party talks without preconditions starting on June 10th, there is no such assurance. Sure, it is possible that all party talks will begin on that date, but only technically. Once they do begin and before substantive negotiations on a settlement could start, Sinn Fein would be required to comply with three preconditions. These are acceptance of the six principles of the Mitchell Commission to the satisfaction of the other parties; the satisfaction of the other parties on its commitment to exclusively peaceful and democratic means; and agreement with the other parties on a process of decommissioning of IRA arms during the course of the negotiations.
Even if Sinn Fein was disposed to meet these three preconditions, almost certainly the first two could not be met because the Ulster Unionist Party and the Democratic Unionist Party are not open to being satisfied about anything concerning Sinn Fein and the IRA other than the total dismemberment of the latter, if not both.
Irish Government officials protest that this is not what the communique of February 28th states. No, the communique does not state this but it is open to this interpretation and this is precisely how John Major interpreted the communique within a few minutes of it being agreed at Downing Street with John Bruton. And certainly, it is precisely how the unionist parties interpret the communique.
EVEN if you disagree with this analysis the fact is that the IRA accepts it. The IRA believes that if it reinstates the ceasefire on the current basis, these impossible demands will be made of Sinn Fein immediately talks begin and there will be no start to substantive negotiations on a settlement. It would then be far more difficult for the IRA to revert to the "armed struggle". The organisation would be gravely weakened by a new ceasefire which would have to be couched in terms of permanence, even if that word was to be avoided.
Given these present realities what option does the IRA see for itself, other than a reversion to full scale violence?
There is no point in proclaiming the immorality of violence or in castigating the undemocratic character of an "armed struggle" taking place in circumstances in which the vast majority of all relevant communities deplore violence (the relevant communities being the people of Ireland as a whole, the people of Northern Ireland as a whole and the nationalist people of the "Six Counties"). There is no point because a small minority of people believes that violence is a legitimate tactic in pursuit of the "right" to national self determination and because, for them, the issue of a popular mandate does not arise. Let me explain.
We agree to be bound by majority decisions only where we give our tacit or open consent to the context in which such decisions are made. It is on this principle that the legitimacy of states is founded, that is the legitimacy to enforce majority decisions in certain circumstances.
The problem with Northern Ireland has been that there is not widespread consent to the legitimacy of the state, and the problem with republicans is that they have withheld consent not just from the Northern State, but from the Southern State as well. Republicans recognise no entity which has the legitimacy to bind them to majority decisions, not even now the people of the island as a whole for, they claim, the people of the island cannot take a truly free decision while the British remain involved in Irish affairs. It is for this reason that John Hume's proposed all Ireland referendum would have no force as far as they are concerned and is therefore a waste of time, since it is directed solely at republicans.
Daft, contradictory, unreasonable, whatever, that is the way it is. And part of what was so hopeful about the peace process was that it offered a way of drawing republicans into an arrangement to which they would give consent, thereby ending forever the enduring and chilling threat from an alienated tiny but menacing minority.
But back to where the peace process stands or languishes now.
It still seems possible to rescue this and to avert a return to full scale violence. Were the US government now to become actively involved in seeking "clarification" of the February 28th communique, it might be possible to convince the IRA that substantive negotiations on a settlement would indeed begin on June 10th among those parties which secured an electoral mandate and subscribed to the Mitchell Commission six principles.
IT would have to be established that while the issue of "parallel decommissioning" would be "considered" - as suggested by the Mitchell Commission - failure to reach agreement on that issue would not be an obstacle to going on to discuss all other issues that the parties wanted to raise. The question of Sinn Fein "satisfying" other parties on its acceptance of the Mitchell Commission principles and of its commitment to exclusively peaceful and democratic means would also have to be disposed of a simple affirmation of "total and absolute commitment" (as required by the Mitchell report) to the six principles would have to suffice on both counts.
And there is a further point were either or both of the main unionist parties to refuse to take part in negotiations on such a basis, it would have to be clear that the negotiations would take place anyway between the two governments and the eligible parties willing to attend - this can hardly cause a problem for either government at this stage given the repeated assertion that the negotiations will start on June 10th come what may.
Maybe, even in such circumstances the IRA would refuse to reinstate the ceasefire on the basis that acceptance of the Mitchell Commission principles represented a "precondition" to progress towards substantive negotiations. If so, so be it.
But I have reason to believe that it is not so or would not be so after a bit of haggling. Especially after a bit of haggling involving the Americans and after President Clinton had lent his authority to the assurance that genuine, substantive negotiations would begin on June 10th among those parties which had secured an electoral mandate, which accepted the Mitchell principles and turned up.
We need the Americans back into the process now. It would be a nice St Patrick's Day present.