11 March 1999 Edition
Resolving a conflict
It should not be a surprise to anyone that the Unionist political leadership is demanding the surrender of IRA weapons before political progress is made. They have never seen the peace process as being about the removal of the causes of conflict. Not for them an acknowledgement of inequality or that nationalist rights have been denied. Nor the slightest acceptance that Unionism, backed by the force of arms through the RUC, UDR/RIR and the British Army had any active role in bringing about and sustaining the conflict. Nor indeed that Unionism and their state forces engaged in sectarian slaughter in order to sustain their rotten regime.
Unionists never accepted that the reason negotiations were needed was because there was a genuine conflict with deep-rooted causes.
Instead, the Unionist political leadership have all along approached the peace process with the tactical necessity of maintaining as much of the status quo as they could. At every stage they have been dragged kicking and screaming to the table, never once acknowledging that republicans had a right to be there or that their voters counted for anything.
That tactical necessity led some Unionists to finally negotiate the Good Friday Agreement. However much they tried to deny it, that Agreement's very clear terms emerged with such difficulty because it was an attempt to resolve a real conflict. It wasn't a case of Unionist powermasters dealing with a criminal conspiracy of republicans. Its very clear terms reflected the fact that a war was waged and no side had been victorious.
The Good Friday Agreement was a genuine attempt to assert the primacy of politics. It laid out the steps to be taken to put in place the necessary political institutions. Those steps should already have been taken. After all, how can you assert the primacy of politics without political institutions?
Those who, like the Unionists, have never accepted that there was a genuine conflict also now demand an IRA surrender as the next step (however mildly they dress it up). This is also no surprise. That they couch it in terms of democracy is merely nonsense.
But what would be surprising is if the two governments step outside the Agreement and back the Unionists' wrecking tactics. It would then be fair to ask why so late in the day they doubt Republicans' commitment to resolving this conflict. It would also be fair to ask what their alternative is.
Unionists never accepted that the reason negotiations were needed was because there was a genuine conflict with deep-rooted causes.
Instead, the Unionist political leadership have all along approached the peace process with the tactical necessity of maintaining as much of the status quo as they could. At every stage they have been dragged kicking and screaming to the table, never once acknowledging that republicans had a right to be there or that their voters counted for anything.
That tactical necessity led some Unionists to finally negotiate the Good Friday Agreement. However much they tried to deny it, that Agreement's very clear terms emerged with such difficulty because it was an attempt to resolve a real conflict. It wasn't a case of Unionist powermasters dealing with a criminal conspiracy of republicans. Its very clear terms reflected the fact that a war was waged and no side had been victorious.
The Good Friday Agreement was a genuine attempt to assert the primacy of politics. It laid out the steps to be taken to put in place the necessary political institutions. Those steps should already have been taken. After all, how can you assert the primacy of politics without political institutions?
Those who, like the Unionists, have never accepted that there was a genuine conflict also now demand an IRA surrender as the next step (however mildly they dress it up). This is also no surprise. That they couch it in terms of democracy is merely nonsense.
But what would be surprising is if the two governments step outside the Agreement and back the Unionists' wrecking tactics. It would then be fair to ask why so late in the day they doubt Republicans' commitment to resolving this conflict. It would also be fair to ask what their alternative is.