THE British government should save itself the embarrassment of being caught again in secret negotiation with Sinn Fein at a time when it was pretending to be otherwise directed. It could do so simply by reading IRA statements.
From these it could glean the answers to the two questions that it is most keen to have answered whether there will be a reinstatement of the IRA ceasefire in the near future and whether the IRA is now reconciled, in the longer term, to pursuing its objectives through exclusively peaceful means.
The answer to both questions is "yes" there will be a reinstatement of the IRA ceasefire in the near future and the IRA has concluded that in the long term its objectives will be pursued solely through democratic means. There is just one qualification to the first of these answers there will be an IRA ceasefire in the near future if it is clear there will be all party talks on all the substantive issues, unconditional on agreement on parallel decommissioning.
The last statement to be issued by the IRA was its Easter message published in full in An Phoblacht on April 4th. The final paragraph of this statement asserted "There remains only one place for all the representatives of the Irish people to go and that is to the negotiating table. It is our desire and resolve that they will go there in circumstances which will allow the core issues at the heart of this conflict to be addressed and resolved. All who seek a genuine and lasting peace in Ireland should work for that same end. We stand ready to meet our responsibilities. Others, not least the British, must do likewise."
It seems perfectly plain the IRA intends there to be a ceasefire, for the phrase "we stand ready to meet our responsibilities" means just that.
THAT phrase is one used frequently by the IRA, obviously in the context of a cease fire. For instance in its statement on September 1st 1995, on the first anniversary of the ceasefire, it stated in the context of the calling of a ceasefire "We faced up to our responsibilities." The IRA statement of last February 29th issued after the meeting with Gerry Adams and John Hume stated, again clearly in the context of another possible ceasefire "We repeat that we are prepared to face up to our responsibilities."
More significantly perhaps there was an echo of that phrase in the statement of August 31st 1994, announcing the "complete cessation of military operations", which stated "It is our desire to significantly contribute to the creation of a climate which will encourage the search for a solution to the Irish problem through inclusive negotiations.
In the last week Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness have been hinting that there might not be a ceasefire by June 10th. McGuinness has said there is nothing with which the Sinn Fein leadership can go back to the IRA and seek a renewal of the ceasefire. Adams implied in Dublin on Sunday there would not be an IRA ceasefire by June 10th in saying that he and company would show up at Stormont anyway and demand entry.
So what are Adams and McGuinness up to? They are keeping the pressure on the British government to ensure that, for instance, agreement on decommissioning will not become a precondition to progress on the substantive agenda for the talks. It is evident that this is precisely what David Trimble has in mind and, it seemed that Michael Ancram was supporting this view on RTE radio last Sunday. Dick Spring is rightly worried that the British have changed tack on this issue once more.
It remains the only obstacle now to the reinstatement of the ceasefire. But of course it is always possible that the IRA could create new obstacles to its involvement in talks by, for instance, the commission of another major atrocity. Were that to happen all bets would be off.
So what is the basis for the belief that the IRA has decided to abandon "the armed struggle", short of the realisation of republican objectives and to pursue those solely through democratic means?
THE key change occurred on September 25th 1993, when Gerry Adams and John Hume issued their joint statement, which included the following "We are convinced from our discussions that a process can be designed to lead to agreement among the divided people of this island, which will provide a solid basis for peace. Such a process would obviously also be designed to ensure that any new agreement that might emerge respects the diversity of our different traditions and earns their allegiance and agreement."
The recognition that any agreement would have to secure the allegiance and agreement of the differing traditions represents a major change from traditional republican philosophy which insisted previously that, whereas any new arrangement on the island would have to "respect" the differing traditions, such arrangements themselves required only the exercise by the Irish people as a whole of the right to self determination.
Eight days after the Hume Adams statement, the IRA issued a statement. It stated that the leadership of the IRA welcomed the Hume Adams initiative, which "could become the basis for peace".
In that "interview" with the IRA published in An Phoblacht last February 15th, the IRA made it clear the announcement of the ceasefire on August 31st 1994 was not on the basis of any arrangement with the British government or on the basis of any expectation of concession by the British government. It was on the basis of the emergence of a "nationalist consensus", which could be the basis for the pursuit of republican objectives through an "unarmed struggle
The IRA spokesperson said "Trusting the British government played no part in our decision of 31 August 1994 . . . It was the Irish peace initiative [the Hume Adams peace initiative] put together by Irish nationalist parties, that we responded to... It was in fact the nationalist parties who persuaded us that the potential existed, within the nationalist consensus, for a viable alternative dynamic for change.
This change in republican strategy began with the concession by Gerry Adams in 1985 that the conflict in Northern Ireland could not be won by "military means". The corollary of that acknowledgement was progression towards other means, i.e. political means. And political means could be successful only through alliances and that, in turn, could happen only if there was no longer an "armed struggle
It has been coming for some time and those of us who failed to see it coming failed to pay due regard to what the IRA and Sinn Fein leaderships were saying. We don't need Michael Mates to help us do so now.