Republican News · Thursday 8 May 2003

[An Phoblacht]

Sinn Féin calls for elections as IRA publishes statements

BY LAURA FRIEL

"Hold the elections now and let the electorate have their say," Sinn Féin's Mitchel McLaughlin told a Belfast press conference on Wednesday.

The Sinn Féin chairperson was speaking after the IRA released two statements. "I think people, given the history of politics and conflict in this region, will study very carefully indeed the statements by the IRA and all the other protagonists and make a judgement," said McLaughlin. Calling for the reversal of the British government's decision to cancel this month's election, McLaughlin asked "who is afraid of politics and peace?"

The publication of the IRA statement of 13 April, "now overtaken by events", put on public record the army's statement to the British and Irish governments, intended as part of an overall initiative towards full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. In a second statement dated 6 May, the IRA commented on subsequent events.

After receiving the 13 April statement, in what most republicans see as an act that was both a breach of trust and of protocol, the British Prime Minister Tony Blair publicly called for clarification. According to McLaughlin, Sinn Féin responded to an invitation from the two governments, who said they would accept clarifications by Gerry Adams. "Tony Blair went further and said he did not care what form of words were used," said McLaughlin.

Adams responded with specific reassurances but once again the British government called for further clarification in relation to alleged IRA activities. Adams gave a comprehensive response in which he said that the IRA leadership "is determined that there will be no activities which will undermine in any way the peace process and the Good Friday Agreement".

When Tony Blair rejected the statement and called for further clarification, Adams responded curtly: "What part of 'no activities' doesn't he understand," said Adams as republicans declared the paper chase over. Last week, the British, acting outside the Good Friday Agreement and against the wishes of the Dublin government, cancelled the election and published the two government's joint document.

"The IRA last night, as you are aware, made clear that Gerry Adams' answers to Tony Blair's questions accurately reflected their position and I think public opinion will share the view that there is absolutely no lack of clarity in the IRA position or its intentions," Mitchel McLaughlin told the media.

"The real problem, as disclosed by Jeffery Donaldson's very honest and unambiguous answer, is that the joint document would be rejected by the Ulster Unionist Council and from that flows the rest, the cancellation of the election and the removal of the franchise," said McLaughlin.

Indeed, when announcing his decision to suspend elections, the British Prime Minister acknowledged the real reason behind the decision was a fear of anti-Agreement unionism and a desire to save David Trimble from the ravages of his own party.

"The issue of the full implementation of the GFA goes to the core of how we successfully bring forward conflict resolution processes and embed the primacy of politics as well as the practice of politics," said McLaughlin.

"And those that are retreating from that are quite clearly the Ulster Unionist Party, the Ulster Unionist Council and unfortunately they have been supported in this by the two governments. I think the issue of how we can establish what the electorate make of all of this would begin with the reversal of the decision not to hold the election," he said.

What the IRA said

Clearly, the statement of 13 April represented a major initiative by the IRA, despite the obvious conditionality of the two governments' Joint Document. Paragraph six makes clear the IRA's support for the peace process and the following paragraph expresses their desire to see the complete and final closure of the conflict.

The statement spells out the IRA's view that the full and irreversible implementation of the Good Friday Agreement and other commitments such as addressing the issue of OTRs [on the runs] and representation for Northern nationalists in Leinster House would provide a context in which the IRA can proceed to definitively set aside arms.

According to the 6 May statement, the IRA was in the final stages of carrying out a third act of decommissioning when the British government rejected the initial statement, together with the subsequent clarification.

"In the event of agreement we were prepared to act immediately and our preparations were at an advanced stage," said the IRA.

The 13 April statement repeats IRA reassurances to the unionist community to whom they offer no threat and goes further by recognising that the IRA does not fully understand unionist perceptions and by making a commitment to "listen and learn". The statement also includes an apology to the friends and families of non-combatants killed by the IRA.

Describing the 13 April statement as "overtaken by events" in the May 6 statement, the IRA reiterated the leadership's commitment to making the peace process work.

According to the IRA, after the initial statement was given to the two governments on 13 April, they described it as positive and welcomed the obvious progress and said the statement showed a clear desire to make the peace process work.

But ten days later, the British prime minister, "in a clear breach of protocol", publicly misquoted aspects of the IRA statement and went on to pose three questions.

According to the IRA, Sinn Féin President Gerry Adams responded in a clear and unambiguous way and "his answers accurately reflected our own position". The statement rejects the British allegation of a lack of clarity and points out that the subsequent "word game" caused justifiable anger and annoyance amongst republicans.

The Joint Document

Republicans have been further angered by the fact that despite the clear flaws and limitations of the joint document offered by the two governments, they had been prepared to accept it as part of a process to move forward and on that basis had responded positively.

Last weekend's Sunday Business Post outlined many of the failings of the document that are of concern to republicans and nationalists. The SBP described the document as a "shoddy piece of draftmanship, riddled with holes and ambiguities".

The document retrospectively legitimises Britain's four suspensions of the North's institutions, all of which were probably illegal under international law and were definitely outside the Good Friday Agreement.

It makes no provision for removing Britain's power to 'postpone' elections and permits 'Irishness' to continue to be treated as a second-class form of citizenship by the North's institutions.

It provides no protection for Irish citizens, their political representatives or even the Dublin government from British securocrats and their continuing covert war. The document contains no mechanisms to bring the British government to account if it fails to meet its obligations or timetables. And it contains no default procedure for full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement in the event of further unionist intransigence.

"The British government is ducking the central issue," said McLaughlin on Wednesday. "The issue is, are we going to embed politics or not, are we going to allow people to vote or not, are we going to get on with the political process or not."

"The evidence of last week, which is indisputable, is that they will put questions, they will be answered and then they will hit you with another range of questions. Because they don't want to knuckle down to the core issue, which is we are entitled to elections, it is time for an election, the electorate are entitled to have their say. We are back to a 1969 scenario of demanding the right to vote. They've taken away the right to vote and republicans are justifiably angry with that," said McLaughlin.

 
"The issue is, are we going to embed politics or not, are we going to allow people to vote or not, are we going to get on with the political process or not." - Mitchel McLaughlin


Contents Page for this Issue
Reply to: Republican News