(by Suzanne Breen, News Letter)

When is an apology welcomed and deemed worthy of respect and when is it dismissed as contemptible?

In Northern Ireland, it depends on whether the political agenda of those expressing remorse fits that of the establishment.

The great and the good are ecstatic about the Provisional IRA's apology. Anybody not over the moon - whether anti-Agreement unionists, cynical republicans, or just realists who don't like bull**** - are demonised.

They are branded ungrateful. It is said they will never be satisfied. During the Troubles, it is estimated the Provos killed 650 civilians.

Their apology has been accepted by many church and political leaders on both sides of the Border and in Britain. Such people haven't always been so ready to accept apologies.

Three days after the Omagh bomb, which killed 29 civilians, the Real IRA apologised to the injured and bereaved. It said the bomb had been aimed at a commercial target and was never intended to kill civilians. Unsurprisingly, the statement was rejected.

The then Secretary of State Mo Mowlam was scathing: ``It is a pathetic attempt to excuse mass murder. It is contemptible and an insult to the people of Omagh.'' The British government would do everything possible to ''hunt down'' those responsible.

But the current Secretary of State hasn't denounced the Provos' statement as pathetic and an insult to the dead. Nor is Dr Reid intent on keeping the perpetrators of such deeds behind bars.

The British government isn't alone in its double standards. The SDLP described the Real IRA statement as ``callous and pathetic''. Seamus Mallon said: ''The people of Northern Ireland will treat the statement and its authors with the contempt they deserve.''

Mark Durkan was more generous to the Provos. Violence had never been justified but the statement was welcome even if long overdue, he said. In the Republic, the then Tanaiste Mary Harney, had said the Real IRA's statement was ''not going to change the government's determination to put this organisation down''.

The Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, was equally determined. This week, Ms Harney welcomed the Provo statement as ''constructive'' and the Taoiseach said it was an important step in the healing process. There was no talk of destroying the Provos.

The contrasting reactions would be understandable if one organisation was still engaged in violence while the other wasn't. That isn't the case. Both are technically on ceasefire but both remain militarily active.

One difference is the Real IRA hasn't killed anyone since 1998 while the Provos have been killing every year. Another difference is while the Real IRA is engaged in many illegal activities, it has not - as far as we are aware - been in South America training others in exchange for drugs' money.

The reason the Provos' apology has been so widely accepted - in comparison to the Real IRA's - is because the Provos have effectively reached an accommodation with the political establishment.

Pre-1994, Provo apologies were dismissed with contempt. But the Provos no longer pursue British military or state targets and they are pro-Agreement. With those objectives secured, the authorities don't really care what they do.

Only a fool would believe the apology wasn't carefully choreographed in order to ease growing pressure on Tony Blair to act against Sinn Fein. The Provos can't sell another round of decommissioning to their base so this was the next best thing.

Many of their militant supporters will feel the apology was another humiliation. Unionists will continue to view it as totally insincere. But everyone should recognise it's just the latest move in a highly disturbing and cynical game.

This article appeared in the July 18, 2002 edition of the News Letter.

HOME