Renewed terrorism in Northern Ireland calls for negotiations

Renewed terrorism in Northern Ireland calls for negotiations

Experts worry about peace talks’ future in light of bombing

By Michelle Best

Daily Bruin Contributor

The unilateral truce announced by the Irish Republican Army in
August 1994 brought legitimate hope for the possibility of a
peaceful settlement in Northern Ireland’s 25-year-old conflict.

But on Feb. 9, the IRA renewed its terrorist campaign when it
exploded a truck bomb in a London business district. This renewal
of terrorism marked the end of the 17-month cease-fire as IRA
partisans became fed up with the British government’s failure to
include the IRA’s political leaders in its Northern Ireland
negotiations.

Last week, British and Irish leaders announced June 10 as the
start for renewed negotiations. But still, involvement of Sinn
Fein, the IRA’s political wing, in the negotiations is contingent
upon ending Irish terrorism.

UCLA experts were skeptical of the peace talks’ future, largely
because of the British government’s precarious political
position.

Professor Leonard Freedman, an expert on British politics, said
that Prime Minister John Major’s majority in Parliament depended on
support from the Irish Unionist Party – a group that is ambivalent
to Sinn Fein’s role in the peace process.

In addition, Freedman continued, Northern Ireland has been a
constant drain on British resources and it no longer has strategic
significance, with the decline of the British empire. Balancing the
desire for peace with heavy pressures to get out of Ireland has
left Major and his conservative government in a difficult
position.

"Major is engaged in a delicate process," Freedman said. "Like
his father, who was a circus performer, Major is following in his
footsteps as he walks a tightrope in this precarious
situation."

The IRA finds itself in a difficult position, just as Major’s
government does, Freedman continued.

Sinn Fein remains a small party that does not represent the
larger population in Northern Ireland or even those who also
support unification with Ireland’s mostly Catholic majority.
Because of their minority status, they face difficulty in
democratically pushing their agenda through – hence the use of
political violence, experts explained.

IRA resumption of violence has brought large opposition from not
only Protestant Unionists but Irish Catholic Republicans who were
hopeful for a peaceful negotiation process.

UCLA Professor David Rapoport, who teaches a course on terrorism
and edits London’s "Journal of Terrorism and Political Violence,"
said a resumption of violence was merely "intended as a wake-up
call" to the British government.

Neither IRA attack aimed to kill in large numbers, Rapoport
said. But now that these warning calls have been issued to the
British, it will be difficult to turn back from the violence, he
said.

"It was not aimed at a break – it was only to expedite the
process," Rapoport added.

The process has thawed in the wake of these bombings, with Major
and Irish Prime Minister John Bruton agreeing on several
compromises to get negotiations going again.

One of the more difficult points had been a British ultimatum
for IRA disarmament. Bruton and Major abandoned this, but continued
to call for elections in Northern Ireland of peace ambassadors – to
the dismay of Sinn Fein, who have served thus far in that role.

Both Major and Bruton refused to admit that renewed IRA bombing
had anything to do with speeding up the date setting for
negotiation commencement.

"The violence has done nothing but create difficulty," Bruton
said in a press conference after the bombing last week. "It has not
in any way accelerated the process."

Though the process has recently accelerated and become more
violent, it is by no means new. Ireland’s conflict dates back
centuries before the events of the early 1970s.

According to historical accounts in the Economist, the Irish
Catholic minority in Northern Ireland has long suffered from
Unionist policies which haven’t addressed their needs, and British
apathy towards this Unionist rule.

The IRA re-emerged in 1969, as a modern paramilitary version of
its predecessor, historically a hodgepodge group of Irish
nationalists. The report explained that for IRA militant politics,
compromise was unacceptable for it was incapable to represent and
pursue the desires of those in favor of a united Ireland.

The IRA decided that persuasion would only result through
terrorism. This mindset created and now preserves the stalemate
that has existed in Northern Ireland for over two decades.

The past 25 years of violence that has plagued Northern Ireland
gave hope to many that the terrorism would finally cease. But at
least one Irish student at UCLA said the terrorism would cease on
its own, because it didn’t represent the Irish majority’s will.

It has become too commonplace to mistake IRA violence for the
opinion of the majority in Ireland, explained Frank Costelloe, a
third-year student from Waterford in Southern Ireland.

Referring to the march in Dublin last week that drew 100,000
peace process supporters, he said "It symbolizes the Irish people’s
motivation to keep the peace process going."

But however strong that motivation, Rapoport said that peace in
Northern Ireland will exist in the shadow of terror.

"The violence has done nothing but create difficulty. It has not
in any way accelerated the process."

John Bruton

Irish Prime Minister

Comments to [email protected]