(by Bob McCartney, News Letter)

Gerry Adams' natural reluctance to appear before the United States International Relations Committee is understandable, bearing in mind that the subject of its inquiry is the link between the Provisional IRA and the Colombian terrorist organization, FARC. Doubtless, the Committee's chairman, Henry Hyde has been briefed with reports from a variety of intelligence sources, which could seriously damage Mr. Adams' political health unless, of course, he chose to plead the Fifth Amendment that his answers might possibly incriminate Sinn Féin/IRA.

The New York and Washington atrocities of September 11th have focused the attention of the western democracies on the nature of international terrorism and the degree to which disparate terrorist groups such as the IRA and FARC exchange their respective assets whether financial, technical, or strategic know how.

In the past, the democracies have scarcely been consistent in their criteria for determining who is a political terrorist and who is a freedom fighter. Too often the test applied was "the enemy of my country's enemy is my country's friend". If by this definition they constituted a friend they qualified very often as a freedom fighter rather than a terrorist regardless of the methods they employed or the objectives they sought to achieve. This simplistic litmus is of little benefit when events reveal that a group which appeared, upon an ostensible basis, to be one's friend is actively involved with those whose activities are highly detrimental to the national and security interests of one's country. This is exactly the dilemma of the United States with regard to the relations between Sinn Féin/IRA and the anti-democratic and terrorist organization FARC. In the post 11th September focus on international terrorism a clearer and more objective definition of political terrorism is needed not only to determine which groups are per se terrorist in nature but also to examine their connections internationally with other groups so defined.

Apologists for the exponents of terror, and they are to be found in every society and in every country, produce the simplistic mantra "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist". This politically naïve argument ignores the essential distinction in both their methods and their objectives. The aim of the freedom fighter is to obtain recognition and admittance to a democratic process, access to which is denied. The purpose of the terrorist is to first distort and, if necessary, destroy a democracy to which he may already have access but within which he is unable by lawful persuasion to gain acceptance of his political objectives.

The same simplistic mantra confuses the methods of the terrorist with the cause he claims to support. The cause may be a good one or a bad one. No-one disputes the rights of Irish nationalists or republicans to pursue the cause of Irish Unity through the democratic process - a process which British governments have made available in a form which Unionists believe is specifically designed to facilitate Irish Unity. Yet, despite a policy wrongly based on the appeasement of terror, Sinn Féin/IRA has continued to condone and encourage murder, mutilation, and intimidation of those it claims to represent. The British people and their governments are not totalitarian or repressive tyrants, but rather democrats whose history in the defence of freedom and as brothers in arms with the United States in its defence bears comparison with any state; yet Sinn Féin/IRA has managed to deceive and, in some bases, corrupt many citizens of the United States as to the nature and objectives of its organization.

The horrors of September 11th have, however, brought a new perception of reality to the American people as to the true character of political terrorism. Yet, even now, powerful lobbies within the United States work to divert the Congressional Committee from its investigation into the real nature of Sinn Féin/IRA. Such lobbyists are, in many cases, sincere but, for the most part, misguided by the deceptive strategies of the skilled propagandists within Sinn Féin/IRA who have absorbed all the fundamental principles of Marxist thought. Acting upon the text of Comrade Mao that "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun", they have married it with Friedrich Engel's axiom that the institutions of liberal democracy can be utilized to bring about its destruction or, as their propagandist, Danny Morrison, once put it "Who will object if we come to power with an armalite rifle in one hand and the ballot box in the other".

The brutality of gun barrel power is so repellent to the average citizen in a democracy that it must be camouflaged by some acceptable legality, such as a claim to social justice or, in the case of Sinn Féin/IRA, the aspiration for Irish unity. By this means, terror is afforded the disguise of political legitimacy, the unwary deceived, and the sympathy of the misinformed obtained. In the United States, this formula has been highly successful when mixed with the post-colonial antipathy to Britain of some Irish/Americans, an emotion which Gerry Adams and company have assiduously massaged. Until recently, this strategy was even successful in deceiving many politicians in the Republic of Ireland but now the Republic is faced with an election which may see sufficient Sinn Féin/IRA candidates elected as to make them effective power brokers in government. Ireland's democratic parties now recoil from the prospect of coalitions with Sinn Féin to form a government, though the same parties happily endorsed Sinn Féin ministers in Northern Ireland's Executive.

The British government's response to Sinn Féin/IRA terrorism on the UK's mainland was to appease it by putting in place institutions to achieve its aspirations, releasing those of its members convicted of the most horrendous crimes and demoralizing, under the guise of reform, one of the world's most effective anti-terrorist forces. In return, Sinn Féin/IRA has continued to retain the overwhelming proportion of its arsenals, while allegedly putting beyond use an unquantified number of arms, by an unspecified method in entirely secret circumstances. Each of these events is deliberately timed to achieve a concession or obtain a political benefit - the most recent being fixed in anticipation of a general election in the Irish Republic.

By any definition of "terror", Sinn Féin/IRA qualify to be so described. As an organization it has bequeathed to International Terrorism both strategic and tactical innovation. Except in terms of scale, the strategy of terrorizing a major democratic and economic country by attacking its financial heart in London was entirely similar to that employed by Osama bin Laden in New York and Washington. At a tactical level, the IRA contribution to world terrorism has been the car bomb, used by terrorists with such devastating effect against American citizens, civil and military, throughout the world.

Is it a mere coincidence that FARC should have so recently demonstrated its capacity to induce terror in Colombia exploiting a technology which Sinn Féin/IRA has perfected in the past. Sinn Féin/IRA continues to murder, mutilate, and intimidate in the areas of Northern Ireland over which it operates a de facto control, while ostensibly pursuing the democratic process in public. Sinn Féin's political leaders continue to play an equally prominent role in the councils of the IRA. The policy of the gun and the ballot paper remains effective in misleading the politically naïve. Meanwhile, ongoing contacts and association with their "terrorist" friends in Colombia, Spain, Libya, the Middle East, and Turkey, demonstrate their commitment in the roll call of international terrorism.

The different political objectives of the United States and the United Kingdom must not permit any different criteria for defining terrorism. International terrorism requires a definitive criteria which is supra national and is based on principle rather than expediency. President Bush and the American people must not be persuaded that the methods of appeasement adopted by Prime Minister Blair in Northern Ireland will produce the security for the United States which they are alleged to have provided for mainland Britain. It is often only the methodology of terror that separates the terrorist from the moderate supporter of his cause. British policy in Northern Ireland has provided only one lesson for international terrorism - it is that, if the threat is big enough, and a democratic government weak enough - terror will succeed.

Bob McCartney is a member of the Northern Ireland Legislative Assembly, the leader of the UK Unionist Party and author of Reflections on Liberty, Democracy & the Union. This article appeared in the April 29, 2002 edition of the News Letter.

HOME