Irish Author and Journalist - Danny Morrison

The Grand Ploy

On BBC's 'Good Morning Ulster' last Friday morning Michael McGimpsey made a very interesting comment.

He was speaking in the wake in recent days and months of the loyalist killings of Gavin Brett (a Protestant mistaken for a Catholic), Ciaran Cumming (a Catholic youth in Antrim), and Trevor Lowry (a Protestant mistaken for a Catholic); the UDA opening fire on a children's summer school in the New Lodge Road; the UDA throwing two nailbombs at a theatre packed with Catholic kids in Ardoyne; the pipe-bombings of over 140 Catholic homes, and the burning of various Catholic churches and schools.

He said that more dangerous than the attacks claimed by the Red Hand Commandoes (that is, the UDA 'on ceasefire'), more dangerous than the Real IRA (which was responsible for the Omagh bombing and was suspected of planting a car bomb in London the night before) were the guns of the 'Provisional IRA.' Now, listening to Mr McGimpsey over many years, and having seen him perform as a Minister, there is no way does he condone loyalist paramilitary violence. He often comes across as reasonable and as one of those unionists prepared to do business with nationalists, if a bit tardy with Sinn Fein.

Is his view of where the real threat lies genuine or is it perverse?

His statement is only valid if he genuinely believes that the ceasefire that the IRA called in 1994 is part of a grand ploy to prepare the ground for a return to a more ferocious and efficacious armed struggle, a risky, and very bloody armed struggle, which perhaps just might conclude with negotiations and a solution more favourable to republican terms than could be established by political means.

If he is right then we have to believe that the IRA has been lying since 1994 - and lying-in-wait for the right opportunity to launch Armed Struggle, Part II. That Sinn Fein, investing most of its resources in lengthy and frustrating peace talks over many years, was acting completely hypocritically. That the IRA was prepared to risk disillusionment, confusion, splits and a feud. That republicans signed up to the Belfast Agreement in bad faith, and were prepared to carry the deceit right through to dropping their traditional policy of abstentionism towards a Northern Assembly and sitting in an executive under an Ulster Unionist First Minister with a bent for line-dancing whilst draped in his sash, and voting in a referendum for the deletions of Articles Two and Three (which Mr McGimpsey, himself, in his constitutional court case described as the raison d'etre of the IRA). And, finally, that, to fool everyone, the IRA allowed international arms inspectors access to two of its major dumps.

Alternatively, you could conclude that republicans are serious about peace-making and have actually done more in terms of trying to put their arms beyond use, than say, the Ulster Volunteer Force. Its interlocutor with General de Chastelain, the PUP's Billy Hutchinson, has said that even if the IRA were to decommission the UVF might not.

If republicans are making peace then the IRA is not the greater threat and McGimpsey and his colleagues have got it grievously wrong and by their actions they risk creating the political vacuum in which sectarian killers thrive, in which dissident republicanism thrives. Their misjudgement might condemn us to live in a wasteland for several years, which would be tragic. And, ironically, the real fear of another August 1969 would create a substantial role for the IRA in those areas under threat.

One explanation for the unionist obsession with IRA decommissioning is their genuine sense of hurt at the damage the IRA inflicted on their community, and decommissioning, for them, is the only guarantee that that will never be repeated. However, unionists have yet to acknowledge some responsibility in engendering that armed struggle, which was proceeded by fifty years of Stormont misrule. They had to be dragged into the peace process and have never really examined the issue of reconciliation. And by their double standards with regard to loyalist and state violence they have raised nationalist suspicions that it is they who are engaged in a disingenuous stance, aimed at thwarting or minimising nationalists' right to power.

What Mr McGimpsey didn't say in his interview, and should have said were he seriously concerned about a scenario which could give the IRA 'a pretext' for using guns, was that the shooting of Catholic kids is aimed at provoking the IRA. Clearly, the reappearance of the IRA would suit many in the unionist camp, particular those opposed to the Belfast Agreement.

No matter how much I try to sympathise with unionist sensibilities, I remain convinced that the demand for IRA decommissioning is really a demand for a symbolic IRA surrender, something they desperately need to justify their stance over the last thirty years and beyond. Pauline Armitage, whose support David Trimble needs if he is to be re-elected First Minister, has said that nothing less than the actual handover of arms would convince her to support the package produced by the two governments.

It isn't going to happen. Attitudes are hardening, particularly in the wake of the loyalist campaign of terrorism against Catholics to which unionist politicians appear oblivious; and the failure of the two governments, but particularly London, to defend the institutions set up by the Belfast Agreement. Not having read the lengthy appendices to the package it is difficult to reach a definite opinion on its merits, but I note that new legislation which might flesh out the Police Act in the direction of the Patten recommendations is subject to a review by the Oversight Commissioner and he will not be reporting until October 2002.

If that is the case, then maybe General de Chastelain should be told to take a wee break, and to come back around October 2002 when talk about putting guns beyond use can recommence.

< Prev ... Next >

[ back ]