THE NEW IMPERATIVE
The new imperative
THERE will be some in the unionist family who will say this morning that the statement issued by Gerry Adams yesterday is not worth the paper it was printed on.
This newspaper is not going to do that. We would rightly be accused of being churlish in the extreme if we did.
HOW COULD WE?
Since the Omagh bombing, we have consistently called on Mr Adams and Sinn Fein to make a definitive statement about where they stand in relation to the use of violence for political ends.
In a special edition of the News Letter, published on the Sunday after the Omagh atrocity, we challenged the republican party: "Despite their condemnation ... Sinn Fein has not yet convinced the people of Northern Ireland that they have put their old ways behind them". They could do that, we said, by making their rejection of violence clear.
On the following day, we said that such a statement would "put clear water between Sinn Fein and the bombers, and in turn allow Sinn Fein to test unionist goodwill.
On Saturday past we said that Sinn Fein could be welcomed into the democratic process only when it took the necessary steps to convince the people that they have turned their backs on actively or tacitly supporting violence for political ends.
We commented: "The republican party is unlikely to use language as concise and conciliatory as that used by INLA (in their ceasefire announcement). But there are many unionists who are astute enough to read the signals and who must be ready to reciprocate if Sinn Fein, however stealthily, crosses the Rubicon from militant republicanism to genuine democracy".
Just yesterday morning we said: "If the Agreement is to work, the people of Northern Ireland need convincing evidence of PIRA and Sinn Fein's long-term commitment to peace. If that cannot be done by declaring that the war is over, then it could be offered in the form of arms disposal and unequivocal reassurances".
Sinn Fein's reaction to the Omagh bombing offered some evidence that the party no longer had the heart for supporting the continued use of violence.
Their unequivocal condemnation marked a significant departure from normal party policy, and while it cut no ice with many unionists, its importance in the general scheme of things could not be ignored.
Now comes what is indeed a concise and conciliatory statement from Gerry Adams. He says: "the violence we have seen must be for all of us now a thing of the past, over done with and gone".
True, he does not say that the war is over. Nor is there any mention of decommissioning, as there ought to be. He has been unable to bring himself to apologise for the enormous hurt caused by militant republicanism in the last 30 years.
Had unionists been writing the script for Sinn Fein, they would have put it differently. The hoped-for words, The War Is Over, would have been written large. Proposals for decommissioning would have been offered. Abject remorse for the IRA's atrocities would have been explicit.
But the language of politics is seldom so precise as we would like it to be, no matter what side of the fence we are on. And in situations like these, the real art of politics is to recognise the signs, to decipher the enemy's message, to read the smoke signals coming from the other camp.
What we understand is that Sinn Fein has sent out a signal. If. does not say that the war is over, but it comes as close to it as the party is ever likely to get.
It will be argued that the statement is mere window dressing, designed to impress President Bill Clinton who because of it will seek to exert pressure on the governments and the unionists to include Sinn Fein in the Assembly Executive.
The timing of the statement, may not, be accidental, but it will be nothing short of a tragedy if unionists fail, despite its flaws, to recognise its significance.
First Minister David Trimble's reaction must be both statesmanlike and astute. The proper response is to bring the party leaders together at Stormont, including Mr Adams, to discuss this important development. He must, of course, apply pressure on Sinn Fein to follow up the statement by involving themselves in the decommissioning process set out in the Good Friday Agreement.
But, Sinn Fein have made a statement which at the very least is worth consideration and Mr Trimble must now take up the challenge of beginning face-to-face contacts. His mission in life must be to try to lead a unified executive, working together for the good of all the people of Northern Ireland.
If it can be established that Sinn Fein is now working in good faith for peace and progress, that objective, far from being an impossible dream, could become an invigorating reality which would change the political landscape forever and vastly increase the chances of a genuine, lasting peace.
Unionists must be ready to acknowledge that republicans will be included in a democratic government provided there is a permanent cessation of violence. That is now the imperative if things are to move forward.
THERE will be some in the unionist family who will say this morning that the statement issued by Gerry Adams yesterday is not worth the paper it was printed on.
This newspaper is not going to do that. We would rightly be accused of being churlish in the extreme if we did.
HOW COULD WE?
Since the Omagh bombing, we have consistently called on Mr Adams and Sinn Fein to make a definitive statement about where they stand in relation to the use of violence for political ends.
In a special edition of the News Letter, published on the Sunday after the Omagh atrocity, we challenged the republican party: "Despite their condemnation ... Sinn Fein has not yet convinced the people of Northern Ireland that they have put their old ways behind them". They could do that, we said, by making their rejection of violence clear.
On the following day, we said that such a statement would "put clear water between Sinn Fein and the bombers, and in turn allow Sinn Fein to test unionist goodwill.
On Saturday past we said that Sinn Fein could be welcomed into the democratic process only when it took the necessary steps to convince the people that they have turned their backs on actively or tacitly supporting violence for political ends.
We commented: "The republican party is unlikely to use language as concise and conciliatory as that used by INLA (in their ceasefire announcement). But there are many unionists who are astute enough to read the signals and who must be ready to reciprocate if Sinn Fein, however stealthily, crosses the Rubicon from militant republicanism to genuine democracy".
Just yesterday morning we said: "If the Agreement is to work, the people of Northern Ireland need convincing evidence of PIRA and Sinn Fein's long-term commitment to peace. If that cannot be done by declaring that the war is over, then it could be offered in the form of arms disposal and unequivocal reassurances".
Sinn Fein's reaction to the Omagh bombing offered some evidence that the party no longer had the heart for supporting the continued use of violence.
Their unequivocal condemnation marked a significant departure from normal party policy, and while it cut no ice with many unionists, its importance in the general scheme of things could not be ignored.
Now comes what is indeed a concise and conciliatory statement from Gerry Adams. He says: "the violence we have seen must be for all of us now a thing of the past, over done with and gone".
True, he does not say that the war is over. Nor is there any mention of decommissioning, as there ought to be. He has been unable to bring himself to apologise for the enormous hurt caused by militant republicanism in the last 30 years.
Had unionists been writing the script for Sinn Fein, they would have put it differently. The hoped-for words, The War Is Over, would have been written large. Proposals for decommissioning would have been offered. Abject remorse for the IRA's atrocities would have been explicit.
But the language of politics is seldom so precise as we would like it to be, no matter what side of the fence we are on. And in situations like these, the real art of politics is to recognise the signs, to decipher the enemy's message, to read the smoke signals coming from the other camp.
What we understand is that Sinn Fein has sent out a signal. If. does not say that the war is over, but it comes as close to it as the party is ever likely to get.
It will be argued that the statement is mere window dressing, designed to impress President Bill Clinton who because of it will seek to exert pressure on the governments and the unionists to include Sinn Fein in the Assembly Executive.
The timing of the statement, may not, be accidental, but it will be nothing short of a tragedy if unionists fail, despite its flaws, to recognise its significance.
First Minister David Trimble's reaction must be both statesmanlike and astute. The proper response is to bring the party leaders together at Stormont, including Mr Adams, to discuss this important development. He must, of course, apply pressure on Sinn Fein to follow up the statement by involving themselves in the decommissioning process set out in the Good Friday Agreement.
But, Sinn Fein have made a statement which at the very least is worth consideration and Mr Trimble must now take up the challenge of beginning face-to-face contacts. His mission in life must be to try to lead a unified executive, working together for the good of all the people of Northern Ireland.
If it can be established that Sinn Fein is now working in good faith for peace and progress, that objective, far from being an impossible dream, could become an invigorating reality which would change the political landscape forever and vastly increase the chances of a genuine, lasting peace.
Unionists must be ready to acknowledge that republicans will be included in a democratic government provided there is a permanent cessation of violence. That is now the imperative if things are to move forward.
Further Information
Publisher: NEWS LETTER
Ref: NL/254
Published Date: 02-Sep-98
Related Images
There have been no images archived for this article.