Ireland: End of the IRA offered to Unionists in peace deal

The Telegraph (U.K.) ^ | September 19, 2004 | Thomas Harding

[Stoat]

An offer that could lead to the IRA's demise was made by republicans as part of a deal to restore devolution in Northern Ireland, political sources said yesterday.

Talks to find a solution to the province's two-year political impasse continued last night.

	The IRA offered to decommission

Gerry Adams, the Sinn Fein leader, offered to decommission most of the IRA's arsenal and a form of guarantee to end all paramilitary activity was put on the table.

Before the summit at Leeds Castle in Kent started Mr Adams prepared republicans for an end to the IRA by saying that the terrorist group had to be removed as an "excuse" for Unionists refusing to share power with Sinn Fein.

More pressure was put on republicans yesterday after Albert Reynolds, the former Irish premier, told a conference in Belfast that the IRA, which was responsible for more than half of the 3,600 deaths in the Troubles, should become "a commemorative organisation".

Tony Blair tried to put pressure on Ian Paisley's Democratic Unionist Party to accept Sinn Fein's offer and agree to go into power sharing with Mr Adams.

If he succeeds, Mr Blair would have achieved something unthinkable a few months ago because the DUP refused to share government with a party tied to terrorists.

But the DUP might agree to a series of steps towards restoring devolution, which collapsed amid allegations of IRA spying two years ago, at some point next year, possibly after the next general election.

The hardline Unionists are thought to want to wait until the Independent Monitoring Commission, a watchdog of paramilitaries, provides at least two reports, scheduled for next month and in March. If the commission gives the IRA a clean bill of health, the DUP might agree to power sharing.

But Sinn Fein has refused to be "sanctioned" by the commission believing that any minor transgression by elements within the IRA could lead to the party being thrown out of Stormont.

Negotiations continued at a "slow" pace yesterday with offers being made verbally and nothing as yet committed to paper.

Mitchell Reiss, President George W Bush's envoy to Northern Ireland, has also put pressure on both parties to do a deal. DUP politicians hinted that some progress had been made but there were still "significant stone boulders in the way".

Ian Paisley junior said: "It took three years to get something to work that collapsed [the Good Friday Agreement]. So it's going to take more than three days for another deal that will last."

If no deal is struck between the DUP and Sinn Fein it is possible that Mr Blair might still make an announcement on substantial troop reductions in return for an IRA announcement on its future.

 

17 September 2004: 'Moment of decision' for talks on Ulster

14 September 2004: Ulster hardliners hold new talks on power-sharing agreement

2 August 2004: Stormont raid was not political, finds inquiry

15 June 2004: Hardliners make life even more difficult for Ulster

 

[Stoat]

"Mitchell Reiss, President George W Bush's envoy to Northern Ireland, has also put pressure on both parties to do a deal."

I know that there have been endless broken deals and broken promises with this, but I still have hope. Peace in Northern Ireland would be such a Blessing.

[Mikey_1962]

no more Big money coming from the usa after 9/11

a terrorist is a terrorist

[Stoat]

"US Presidents--from Clinton to Bush--should NOT be involved in the internal affairs of the United Kingdom."

My hope is that the United States can provide assistance for our valued, respected and beloved U.K. allies when and where needed without interfering with the U.K.'s sovereignty, national goals or internal concerns . Hopefully leaders on all sides will strike an appropriate balance of involvement that will be most beneficial to all.

"Yes, Envoys have put pressure on the majority community of Northern Ireland to water down its sovereignty. The sad thing is that everyone involved from London, Dublin, to Washington is either trying to be "neutral" or supportive of the Nationalist minority. NO ONE is looking out for the majority British community. "

Of course this is wrong and should not occur. Majority rights need to be respected and protected.

"1. A Terrorist is a terrorist.
Why does US policy support appeasement of Irish Communist terrorists and at the same time take pre-emptive action against Islamist terrorists? "

Of course this is wrong and should not occur. President Bush is no fan of Communists and my hope is that such policies will end under his administration.

"2. Northern Ireland is British.
Northern Ireland is the national homeland of the Ulster-British people. Why should the majority decision to remain in the Union with Great Britain be watered down to placate an unruly minority. "

Of course it shouldn't. The rights of the majority need to be respected and preserved.

"Question: if Mexicans started using political violence in California how would Americans feel about a proposal for Joint Sovereignty with Mexico to bring "peace"? "

This (political violence) is already occurring under the leadership of groups like La Raza and others, although it is not of course quite at the scale of that which has occurred in Northern Ireland, thank God. There is a growing anti-Mexican-Nationalist sentiment brewing in the United States, and this is a very hot political issue. President Bush has alienated many in his own party as a result of his recent proposals pertaining to illegal immigration, which many Americans view as being far too soft toward illegals.
To answer your question directly, if, at this moment in time, a proposal were forwarded to establish joint sovereignty with Mexico, you would see an upheaval in America like none before in it's history. Whoever is President would be instantly impeached and removed from office in total disgrace and there would be violence on the scale of a civil war throughout the Nation.

I would certainly not wish such a "solution" for Northern Ireland either.

"3. Americans in the North East had been raising funds that were used to buy bullets and bombs that killed and maimed British soldiers, policemen, and civilians. The same British soldiers that are side-by-side with the US in Iraq. When will the UK get some payback for being pro-American unlike neutral Dublin (neutral in WW2, neutral today)."

The Americans living in the Northeast are legendary for Liberalism, Socialism, and similarly unclear thinking. (there are exceptions, of course)
Remember, this is the region that keeps re-electing Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, has elected Hillary Clinton, and commonly elects vermin such as Chuck Schumer.
I don't live there, I live in the Northwest. My understanding is that much of the money that you refer to has been collected through dishonest front organizations pretending to be benevolent toward children and other causes.
President Bush has closed many of these organizations down under the war on terror, and there has in recent years been greater understanding by the public at large of these funding scams.

My great hope is that we in the United States can work together with our dear friends and allies in the U.K. to combat terror wherever it is while in every instance our national sovereignty and direction is respected.

[StPatricksBreastplate]

I've got to say I'm with the Nationalists on this one. My reading of Irish history and my frequent visits to both North and South have me supporting the cause for a United Ireland.
It'd be interesting to see if there are other Free Republic posters who share my view. (It reminds me of the Dylan Pool discussion board where you're smashed if you reveal your conservative and/or orthodox Catholic views.)

[Stoat]

Hopefully you won't be "smashed" by anyone :-)

I posted this article because it seemed to show a glimmer of hope in a very sad and complex situation.

Hopefully all Freepers who wish to discuss these issues will use the opportunity to demonstrate the fact that we, unlike the Left, are the ones committed to courteous, open discussion of divergent views.