The IRA statement of April 13 sounded helpful when claiming to address unionist concerns through "a genuine interest in building an enduring political process". Hopes were dashed, however, when they clarified their rationale as, 'because we want to see the removal of the causes of conflict in our country".
There's the rub. Those words 'our country' seemed to exclude unionists. For republicans the so-called 'causes of conflict' are the British presence and as far as unionists are concerned, they are an intrinsic part of that presence. Many still see the IRA objective as being to drive them from the island or reduce them to impotence. Partition, seen by republicans as a violation of mother Ireland, was for unionists a means of ensuring their survival. Thus an IRA statement purporting to address their concerns can be heard by them as threatening. Republicans insist on their right to pursue Irish unity and get the British establishment out. Unionists might accept this wish-list from a normal political party but not from one still wedded to a militant organisation still stubbornly refusing to say their war is over.
Nor was that war strictly speaking a republican one but rather one inspired by extreme nationalistic ideas that seemed to envisage no place for unionists. For the IRA the orange in the tricolour seemingly could only represent radical Protestants who might have joined a genuinely republican movement in any case. The war seems to have been driven essentially by grievances and aimed at bringing unionists under the aegis of Dail Eireann.
The IRA say they desire "complete and final closure of this conflict". Such closure should be based on concern for the welfare of all and the humiliation of none whereas if traditional republican intentions were met this would entail further humiliation for unionists. Republicans still see the agreement as a transitional one en route to Irish unity and this does nothing to reassure. The statement adds that the "full and irreversible implementation of the agreement" could provide a context in which the IRA can, "set aside arms".
The omission of the word 'all' still reverberates as does the absence of an answer to the question, when? The demand for 'irreversible' implementation would tie the hands of future generations. It is also illogical given the republican insistence on the agreement being transitional, which must entail it being alterable and/or reversible. One thing is certain – if the agreement were to become irreversible this would strengthen the case for insisting that political parties must relinquish all ties with revolutionary armies before participating. After more than a decade of the peace process the IRA statement is too little too late. Republicans have no right in Ireland, north or south, to maintain or be maintained by an illegal army that by its very nature threatens the peace process, whatever its claimed initial justification.
Given this, the attempt by the IRA to 'enhance the climate' for co-operation rings hollow.
The reiteration of an apology to 'non-combatants' is to be welcomed but why should all combatants be excluded? Many of these were ordinary men and women from all walks of life who devoted their energies to protecting life and property while facing a ruthless implacable foe prepared to kill and maim on a daily basis.
I find some hope in the IRA statement that they are prepared "to listen and learn" from unionists and to create conditions in which we can live together peacefully.
I also understand the boasts about "a proud and honourable record of resistance" but there is much for which republicans and unionists alike should hang their heads in shame.
Sorrow might be a more appropriate response and one that does not necessarily entail humiliation but might actually open new doors to mutual respect.
Of course, had unionists engaged fully at an early stage, more might have been forthcoming from republicans but the legacy of bitterness deriving from the pain inflicted upon unionists cannot be easily removed.
Perhaps it is not too late to begin to engage fully and frankly with all parties to uncover what precisely can now be done. Unionists want republicans to be more open about themselves, about their hopes and fears and about what is possible but mindsets that sanctify Irish unity or any another political arrangement as the only possible outcome, are not only unhelpful, they inhibit the very unity that republicans claim to desire.
