Republican News · Thursday 31 January 2002

New heartlands of struggle

BY JIM GIBNEY

In years to come I wouldn't be surprised to see a question similar to the following one on a third level history paper: 'In terms of the Irish peace process, assess the significance and location of the speech made by the Sinn Féin President Gerry Adams on Sunday 27 April 2003.'

For those prospective students who might face such a question or indeed for others who are currently pondering the significance of what Gerry Adams said, I offer up the following observations.

The first thing the student/observer might reflect on is the fact that for the first time in almost ten years, perhaps ever, Gerry Adams has interpreted a private statement from the leadership of the IRA, which is not in the public domain and which might never be in that domain, and has put his personal views of this out to the public.

Why is this so important? Firstly it is a major departure for Gerry Adams, President of Sinn Féin, to consider and then to do this. He, more than any other republican leader, has resisted interpreting what the IRA has said and has encouraged colleagues to do the same.

IRA statements derive from a specific historical and cultural context. They are crafted and approved by people who inhabit a world and a tradition that operates and functions within a military ethos.

d while the people who script such statements live as the rest of us live in this struggle and are subject to the same political circumstances, they carry a responsibility that is not carried by members or leaders of Sinn Féin.

At times Gerry Adams's attitude has caused much debate and certainly criticism from journalists who are always looking for a steer this way or that on IRA positions from any one of a dozen Sinn Féin spokespersons.

But for Gerry Adams, it is not the responsibility of Sinn Féin to put a gloss on an IRA position. That is a matter for the IRA.

Political opponents of republicanism have a project of constantly linking the IRA and Sinn Féin together as if they were inseparable as if they were precisely, one and the same organisation, from the ground upwards.

This linkage is designed to create problems for the Sinn Féin leadership in developing the party especially in the 26 Counties, where acceptance and understanding of why the IRA exists and had to do what it did, among the people, would not be as acute as in the Six Counties.

The fact that Gerry Adams was moved to break with a personal convention of long standing indicates the gravity of the crisis in the peace process and the attempts by the party leadership to overcome that crisis.

In interpreting the IRA's position, he is bringing his considerable political authority to bear on the issue to hand.

This is of crucial importance to all involved: Tony Blair, Bertie Ahern and David Trimble.

The reality is that in the absence of the IRA's view on their statement, a view from Gerry Adams about the IRA will satisfy the vast majority of people who want to see the peace process succeed.

Although Gerry Adams was not speaking for the IRA last Sunday, his interpretation of what was in the IRA's statement and his view of the intention behind the words should be enough for those who want to break this logjam to do so.

What is also of critical importance is what was said by Gerry Adams in his speech.

I do not intend to interpret Gerry Adams's interpretation. We are still too close to the event itself to fully work out the logic of the speech or appreciate its value in its entirety.

The central element to the speech is clearly Gerry Adams's interpretation of what the IRA said and specifically his answers to the three questions posed by Tony Blair.

But what is also of crucial importance is the context within which these answers are offered up.

This is summed up in the sentence: "The IRA statement is a statement of [completely] peaceful intent", my italics. He went on to say that, "any activities which in any way undermine the peace process and the Good Friday Agreement should not be happening".

He followed this up with the view that the IRA's commitment to putting arms beyond use at the earliest opportunity "is not about putting some arms beyond use. It is about [all] arms". Again, my italics.

He concluded that the "complete and final closure of the conflict" [will], my italics, come about "if the two governments and all the parties fulfil their commitments."

It is inconceivable that any republican leader would have countenanced the content of last week's speech a short while ago.

It is even more remarkable that such a speech would be offered up against the background of a unionist agenda being adopted by Blair, Ahern and Mark Durkan, leader of the SDLP.

But one of the primary lessons of the many that have come out of the peace process is that republicans taking initiatives have led to a strengthening of the peace process and increased republican strength across Ireland, thereby advancing towards freedom and independence.

Equally remarkable, indeed some might say, stunning, was the revelation in the speech that the IRA offered to "authorise a third act of putting arms beyond use to be verified under the agreed scheme by the IICD".

At times, making peace involves helping one's opponents. This offer from the IRA was about helping David Trimble deal with the wreckers in his party who are opposed to the peace process and the Good Friday Agreement.

This was a very practical example of the peace process working, a gesture of extremely good faith.

The fact that the British and Irish governments are still quibbling over words and that David Trimble rejected the IRA's offer tells you more about their inability to meet the challenges of an unfolding peace process.

The primary challenge they face has to do with the growth of Sinn Féin as a party across the island and the potential for further and far reaching change contained in the Good Friday Agreement.

The secondary challenge they face is to let the democratic process take us all unhindered to the next destination, irrespective of its outcome.

The test for the peace process and those involved in it is the ability to positively shape events as they unfold.

This requires leadership and it requires taking risks. The easy thing is to be led by your own people. The more difficult thing to do is to lead from the front.

Gerry Adams could have made the speech in one of many republican venues in the heartland of the freedom struggle. Given its content, that would have been the safe option.

Instead, he chose to make it in the heartland of the northern administration; the seat of one of the new arenas of struggle, a powerful message in itself.

Republicans know where they are going, no matter how difficult the path. Given recent developments, they might have to drag everyone else along that path with them.