Northern Ireland: What happens now?

To watch coverage of the forum, select the link below:

  56k  

---

The IRA has announced that it has decommissioned part of its arsenal of weapons, as it agreed under the Northern Ireland peace process.

The de Chastelain commission described it as a "significant event" and confirmed that the IRA had put a quantity of arms, ammunition and explosives beyond use.

Is this the move that Northern Ireland has been waiting for after decades of sectarian violence? Can a move on arms by the IRA renew the path to a lasting peace in the province?

To discuss this issue, we brought together the BBC's Shane Harrison in Dublin, Mark Simpson and Kevin Conolly in Belfast,Tim Franks in Washington and Mark Mardell in London.

---

Highlights of the interview

Newshost:
B. Ali, Pakistan: What is the guarantee that the IRA will go ahead and destroy all their weapons soon considering that according to the Good Friday Agreement all paramilitary groups had to turn in their weapons by early 2000? Won't the IRA use this symbolic act as a basis to extract some concessions?

Kevin Connolly:
There is no doubt that the IRA has set a high political price for what it's done on the weapons question. The short answer to the question - what guarantee is there - is that there is no guarantee - this is all a matter of trust. It is a matter of trust which has been evolving very, very slowly between people who are old enemies and not just political adversaries. It is not like politics in the rest of Europe. It is not a matter of parties negotiating with each other and trading with each other - there are real historical enmities here.

So the IRA will see the decommissioning gesture that they have made - in the jargon of the peace process - as something you should see in the context of the fact that Britain has been living with the threat of some kind of armed insurrection, some sort of rebellion in Ireland, for centuries now. So they would argue the best guarantee of their good faith is that they have taken this step in that political context. The hope has to be that the whole political process will now evolve in such a way that the IRA is persuaded to keep on with this process. But there are no guarantees - it's all a matter of trust and trust is a matter which has been in very short supply throughout the peace process.

Newshost:
Andrew Thornton, Cambridge: I'd love to be able to trust this "significant" move, but how can we be sure that the IRA haven't been stockpiling for the past two years, only to throw away all their old arms in such a way as to gain political power?

Shane Harrison:
Well we don't know whether or not the IRA have been importing new weapons. We do know that the real IRA - the dissident group that evolved from the IRA - after the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, have been importing some weapons - indeed, some of their weapons is more modern than what the IRA has had.

As Kevin has been saying, this really is all a matter of trust and there are reasons why the IRA and the Republican movement might want to decommission at the moment in terms of the Irish Republic. That's because here on this side of the border, the southern side of the border, they have been, in many ways, badly damaged by the events of September 11th, by the arrests of three suspects in Colombia. If they want to improve and increase their representation in the Irish Republic and at some future stage be a member of the Irish Government, then in a sense not only do they have to decommission their weapons but they also have to stand down. They have to cease to be if they want to get into government here. So for all of those reasons there are grounds for hoping, as far as the Irish Government is concerned, that the IRA is saying goodbye to its paramilitary past.

Newshost:
Jonathan Ferguson, Manchester, UK: Has Tony Blair not just given into the IRA by immediately taking down the military posts?

Mark Mardell:
Well that's not the way they would see it in Downing Street, indeed they would throw up their hands in horror, I think, at that sort of language because they don't want this to be seen as a question of anybody giving in and the language they try to use is - we must all move forward together. Now as to the actual taking down of the towers - it was agreed at a conference called Western Park, in the summer that if there was some sort of move of this nature then the British Government would actually do this. The actual towers were specifically named - they said they would take them down once this had happened - so they had to do it.

It is important to stress that there is a feeling in Downing Street that they realise the enormity of what the IRA are doing. After all it stands for Irish Republican Army - there aren't many armies throughout the world that don't have any weapons - they are, if you like, voting themselves out of existence and Downing Street realises that's a very big step and needs quite big steps from the British Government as well.

Newshost:
Sarah Murray, London, UK: Do you think that September 11th influenced the IRA's decision to destroy their weapons this week?

Tim Franks:
I think it is difficult to examine exactly what was the psychology behind the IRA's decision. But certainly as far as far as America is concerned, September 11th was important because it did help to change a climate that was already changing as a result of the arrests back in August of three IRA suspects in Colombia who were suspected of helping the Left-Wing guerrillas, the drug-running militia there to maybe make some bombs - certainly to co-operate on bomb-making technology. That didn't play well here in the States.

Then following September 11th there was a sense that although George Bush proclaimed a global war on terrorism wasn't necessarily going to extend to the IRA - that the climate at the very least had changed and that what perhaps for some long-term veteran supporters of Irish Republicanism had been a rather romantic notion of what the IRA stood for, had gone. Certainly as far as supporters on Capitol Hill and indeed inside the White House - there was a sense of impatience that the IRA wasn't moving on the issue of decommissioning. So those three things together: the stumbling block over disarmament, September 11th and the arrest of the three IRA suspects in Colombia all created a mood here which I think helped to exert to some pressure on Irish Republicans.

Newshost:
Peter Bolton, UK in US: Haven't the IRA lied to us before? What makes this different?

Mark Simpson:
I think Peter makes a valid point. We do have no television pictures of this decommissioning, there was no live web cast of the decommissioning. After all the IRA is a terrorist organisation which has killed hundreds of people over the course of the last 30 years. So should we take their word for it? I think the difference is that this time General John de Chastelain, the head of the international decommissioning body - a very well respected Canadian general, says he was there and it's really his word that people are being to asked take and not the word of the IRA.

Newshost:
C. Ming, Arizona, USA: Is there any evidence that Sinn Fein fundraising has fallen following the recent events in the United States?

Tim Franks:
Well Sinn Fein doesn't publish its accounts from the fundraising that it does here in the United States. Also it is a pretty short period of time since September 11th . But I think the question points to what would have been the trend, which is that certainly the mood here was that perhaps it wasn't the sort of cause that should be supported. People after all only have a certain amount of money to give and indeed other charities - other good causes - here in the States are saying that they are actually suffering a downturn because people have been giving money, for example, to the American Red Cross and the families of those who have been bereaved out of New York and the Pentagon.

So I don't think that we can draw any conclusions that Sinn Fein necessarily lost money but that they were likely perhaps to lose support and lose funding in the longer term. Certainly the senators I have spoken to on Capital Hill were saying that in the wake of September 11th and in the wake of the arrest of those three suspects in Colombia, there was a real feeling that Sinn Fein and the IRA had to do something. There was a sense of impatience here and there was a sense that the side had been let down a bit and it was time for Irish Republicans to show good faith.

Newshost:
Marcus Youngs, Netherlands: Is there any evidence that the US administration actually put pressure on the IRA after the 11th September to decommission their weapons?

Tim Franks:
Well again I don't there is any direct evidence of that and certainly George Bush has been less involved up to now in Northern Ireland than his predecessor, Bill Clinton - who of course gave Gerry Adams, the leader of Sinn Fein, a visa to come to the States for the first time in 20 years back in 1994 - that was seen as very significant - just before the first IRA ceasefire. He of course then went to Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic in 1995 to great acclaim and also got very involved in the run up to the Good Friday Agreement back in April 1998 in terms of telephone calls to the main protagonists.

We didn't see that sort of direct involvement but it was all of the sense of the mood here and certainly in the wake of September 11th there was a feeling here that things had to move in Northern Ireland. There is a sense of great relief here that the political process seems to have worked, especially in the context of the Middle East where the administration here is banging its head against a brick wall, feeling that the peace process means absolutely nothing and if only people can take some succour and inspiration from what's going on in Northern Ireland perhaps things could move there.

Newshost:
Pat White, Sheffield, UK: Did the IRA story make any impact in the US media, given that they have their own terrorist story in their headlines?

Tim Franks:
It's a very good question and I have to say the answer is really it had very little impact here. It did have some coverage in the broadsheet newspapers but really as far as the television networks were concerned - very, very little coverage. As far as most people's perceptions, it really didn't impinge at all. The reason is because - it's not just a matter of September 11th it's also a matter that America is obsessed at the moment with anthrax.

But even the day that it happened - that we had the announcement from the IRA and from John de Chastelain that decommissioning had begun - Ari Fleischer, who is the White House Press Secretary, gave a very long briefing to the large White House press corps and I watched it from beginning to end and I wondered if somebody would ask him about Northern Ireland. There were dozens of questions about anthrax, some questions about the Middle East but not one single question about whether the President welcomes what the IRA has done. So really I have to say as far as most Americans are concerned, it is just not on the radar.

Newshost:
Anthony, Belfast, N. Ireland: It seems the IRA have completed a joke gesture of goodwill and fair play to them. I have noticed today on the news that British soldiers dismantling observation towers etc. How come, when we still have "Real IRA", "Provisional IRA", "Dissident Republicans" etc.. are they just "Mickey Mouse" groups and do we need to worry about them?

Kevin Connolly:
Well I think we do. But if you look at the headline-making pictures today and yesterday of the British Army taking down observation towers - what you are looking at there is a very carefully ratcheted process, whereas as Mark was saying earlier on, this was all agreed at a summit at Western Park in England in the summer that in return for movement on decommissioning there would be a shopping list of Republican demands about certain watchtowers, certain security bases - that would be met and they would be dismantled.

Now clearly the authorities here in Britain still have a huge security machine in place - there are still thousands of troops and police officers. This is still one of the most heavily policed societies on earth and the RUC chief constable, Sir Ronnie Flanagan, has said repeatedly that the level of security here was in response to the perceived level of threat. Which is a long-winded way of saying, that as long as there is seen to be a threat from dissident Republican groups, for example, then the security profile, while it may be lowered - because the main threat came from the Provisional IRA in the past - will still be relatively high compared to anywhere else and that is going to be the case, I think, for the foreseeable future.

Newshost:
Tony, Australia: While I consider this a great step forward for the greater good - what do you say to the many Republicans who see this as a form of surrender or a weakening of our hand in the bid for a united Ireland?

Shane Harrison:
Clearly the Republican movement has decided that if they are to get a united Ireland, it has to now be with the consent of the Ulster Unionist population in Northern Ireland. That's a break with the past, I suppose. There is now a realisation that you cannot bomb a million people into a united Ireland.

With regard to the whole surrender point - certainly that is a point that has been made by those dissidents who split from the IRA after an IRA convention in 1997. But they say that decommissioning is the logical outworking of the fact that the IRA decided then - and Sinn Fein and the Republican movement decided then - to accept the Mitchell principles of non-violence.So decommissioning has been three to four years in the coming but it was inevitable and they say that the IRA have engaged in treachery, they have shown treason to their past and indeed to the cause because no other Republican movement has decommissioned its weapons.

Now as far as the Irish Government, the British Government and the Unionists are concerned, this is not an act of surrender, it is decommissioning of weapons - it is in many ways symbolic - it is to create trust so that the whole Good Friday Agreement - this new piece of political architecture designed for the new Ireland in the 21st century - has a chance of working.

Newshost:
Sam, UK: If the decommissioning is not a huge step forward and Ulster falls back into terrorist conflict, can we expect the war on terrorism to be extended to Northern Ireland as it is in Afghanistan at the moment?

Mark Mardell:
I suppose that Britain has been waging a war against terrorism in Northern Ireland for some considerable decades now. Yes, if Northern Ireland was to erupt again then obviously things would go back to the way they were in the past. Over the past few days, the Downing Street briefings have been making it clear that Britain has no interest in having a greater military presence in Northern Ireland or in any other part of Britain in any other normal cities and towns. The British Government at least would quite like everything to be just normal - it can't be yet but they hope step by step that will be reduced.

It does raise an important and difficult point that maybe the government here is looking at it from aloft - looking at the political process and is very pleased that the political process is working. The senior Republicans are going forward with the senior Unionists and yet what would worry me is the situation on the streets - it is still very, very volatile. You must remember where the whole troubles came from - the reason that the IRA came to the prominence again was because of what was happening on the streets and because people were saying - attack for us, defend us. That would be a concern of mine that the situation on the street doesn't inflame new groups to take up arms in the way that the Provos did 20 or 30 years ago.

Newshost:
Ciaran Carey, Glasgow, Scotland Given that certain Loyalist para-militaries have already stated that they are not ready to give up arms, should steps not be taken to force their political representatives out of Stormont as I understand it that was the case with the Sinn Fein ministers not so long ago?

Mark Simpson:
Well if Ciaran dusts down his copy of the 1998 Northern Ireland Act he will see that there is no impediment at all on the Loyalist politicians at Stormont actually staying in the chamber - that's David Irvine and Billy Hutchinson of the Progressive Unionist Party. There is nothing at all - even if the Ulster Volunteer Force, which they are linked to, started up a huge new campaign under the terms of the legislation - those two assembly members can stay in their seats. What they couldn't do would be hold ministerial positions and that's the big distinction because Sinn Fein have enough assembly members that they actually have two ministers at Stormont.

Newshost:
Jason Sullivan Flynn, USA: How soon can we expect reform of the RUC so that it's more closely representative of the population of Northern Ireland?

Kevin Connolly:
The answer is next week because there's been a huge on-going process of reform and consultation which has taken place under the supervision of Chris Patten a former Northern Ireland Minister whose gone on to hold several jobs around the world including the governorship of Hong Kong. He was responsible for a huge inquiry into how the RUC was perceived by different communities. As to how it might be reformed - he's made a huge number of proposals, many of which have been incorporated into new laws, into new policing practices and new recruitment procedures which are designed to ensure that a future police service of Northern Ireland, as the Royal Ulster Constabulary will be renamed from the end of the next week, that that future police service will recruit equally from both Catholic and Protestant communities here so that over time the accurate perception of the RUC of as an overwhelmingly Protestant force will begin to change. So reform of that has been underway for some time.

But a police service is a very difficult institution to reform - not just for the practical reason that it is a large body of men and women - but also because the culture of a police force takes a long time change. But the process is well in hand and some important symbolic steps will take place within a few days. After that, very thorny symbolic issues - like what sort of uniforms the police wear, what sort of badge the police service has, what sort of flags fly at police stations - they remain to be decided but both the practical issue of how the police service will run and the political question of how it will controlled and who it will be accountable to - that is already well in hand.

Newshost:
Liam, USA: What is the attitude of the British military establishment to the latest move by the IRA?

Mark Mardell:
As far as I know they are perfectly happy with it - I think they have got their minds on other things at the moment. They are quite happy to have their numbers in Northern Ireland reduced to normal levels as would be in the rest Britain. So I don't think that there is any problem. One does hear about the "securitat" and how the British Army and the intelligence service wants to stay in Northern Ireland. It is certainly true that they have had a lot of experience there - one of the reasons they're being valued in certain operations that they might be going to Afghanistan, as somebody has said, it is because of the sort of action they have seen in Northern Ireland makes them more valuable to the Americans. That's true, but I don't think there is any reluctance at all from the British military about seeing the IRA disarm - I think they are pretty pleased they'll be under less threat.

Newshost:
Colin Finney, London, United Kingdom Is the Provisional IRA's move on arms just a one off gesture or will it herald the beginning of further decommissioning? Because surely the Ulster Unionists would not be satisfied if this is just tokenism.

Shane Harrison:
It certainly is the case that the Ulster Unionist Party wouldn't be satisfied with a one-off and indeed I think they have made that perfectly clear. Nor indeed would the Irish Government be satisfied with a one off nor General de Chastelain . In his statement he makes it clear that part of the reason that there is such a lack of detail as to what exactly was decommissioned and where and when is because it's because it is part of a process. He says that if he were to give those sorts of details then it would endanger the whole process. So I think it's perfectly clear from that that as far as he is concerned he is expecting more than a one of f as indeed are the Irish Government, the British Government and the Unionists.

Newshost:
Alan Jenkins, North Wales: I think Mr Trimble has done very well in all of this. Do you think he will get enough support to be the First Minister again?

Mark Simpson:
Well that's the question that I don't think anybody at this stage knows the answer to. Before coming back into Belfast here to do this web cast, I was speaking to two rebel Ulster Unionist members - Pauline Armitage and Peter Weir - who both told me they have not decided yet which way they were going to vote next week. But both of them are inclined not to vote for David Trimble and he needs both of them to vote for him next week in the Assembly to be returned as First Minister. It's a horrible cliché - but a week is a long time in politics - and David Trimble has about a week to try and change their minds. But David Trimble can take nothing for granted at the moment.

Newshost:
But he survived before - do you think he is going to survive this time?

Mark Simpson:
I think that's the key point. If you stand back and look at what has happened this week, David Trimble had a policy of no guns, no government. He now has guns and government and it would be a bit of surprise if he didn't squeeze through this.

Newshost:
Margaret Frost, Wiltshire, UK: Tony Blair is clearly going to come out a hero in this but was is not John Major who was the real hero starting the process by talking to them in the first place?

Mark Mardell:
I think that is an extremely fair point and I think Tony Blair has acknowledged that in the House of Commons and elsewhere. But yes, it was John Major's government that had the courage to go ahead with this process and I would also say people like the Northern Ireland Secretaries, Paddy Mayhew and Peter Brooke, made a great contribution of trying to see this as more than just a security issue. It seemed extraordinary that both the IRA and the British Government came to a similar time - that this wasn't something that could be won by either side militarily and that there had to be some sort of political solution. So I would very much agree with the questioner - there was very much credit for John Major there.

Newshost:
Mark Robinson, Eindhoven, The Netherlands: Do you have any idea what percentage of the IRA weapons have been destroyed?

Kevin Connolly:
No and I don't think anybody else does either - probably only General John de Chastelain and perhaps one or two people in the governments to which he reports - the British and the Irish governments. The whole point of this decommissioning process - the whole language of the process - was evolved to remove from it any suggestion that in giving up weapons the IRA would be surrendering. So the way it's done, the way it's spoken about and the way it's shrouded in secrecy - they are all designed to protect the integrity of the process. The IRA wouldn't be involved if this smacked of surrender.

It's been hard, I think, for Gerry Adams and Martin MacGuinness to sell the idea of decommissioning within the Republican movement anyway. It would be impossible if it looked in any way as though they were an army laying down their weapons or worse still handing over their weapons. So the short answer is, we simply don't know and that secrecy is an essential part of the process. All we know is that the word "substantial" has been used. The IRA had an enormous weapon stockpile - actually far bigger than it could have ever have practically used in the kind of operations in which it used to engage. We know that a substantial proportion of it is said to have been put beyond use - we don't even know what really happened to it.