THE IRA appears certain to call a ceasefire after an open plea by Sinn Fein leaders.
In an unexpected and dramatic statement in Dublin yesterday afternoon, Sinn Fein urged the IRA to renew the truce it had abandoned in February last year with the Docklands bombing in London.
Although everyone, from politicians to the public, waited nervously to hear the IRA response, there were high hopes on both sides of the Irish Sea since it seemed inconceivable Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams and strategist Martin McGuinness would raise expectations only to lose face later.
Mr Adams indicated as much when he said: ''I have made it clear over the 18 months since the collapse of the peace process that I would only approach the IRA to restore their cessation if I was confident that their response would be positive.''
The remarkable change of climate in the peace process seemed to have come about because Sinn Fein appeared to be convinced that the peace talks scheduled to go ahead on September 15 would be ''inclusive and meaningful''.
Mr Adams said: ''If the political will exists there is the potential to resolve the conflict on the basis of an agreed and democratic settlement among all the Irish people.
''There is an onus on the two governments and in particular on the British Government to demonstrate the political will necessary. This also presents an historic challenge to the Unionist leaders because a political settlement will of necessity involve fundamental thorough going political and constitutional change.
''There will be no return to Unionist domination.''
However, the Unionists last night appeared unwilling to welcome the latest move, claiming the statement calling for restoration of the IRA ceasefire proved the Government had made serious concessions to Sinn Fein.
The deputy leader of the Democratic Unionists, Mr Peter Robinson, said: ''Why would the IRA not declare a ceasefire - they have got everything they have asked for,'' he said.
''The British Government have made it very clear that Sinn Fein-IRA could enter the talks without giving up their violence, without giving up any weapons. Why on earth would the IRA not call a ceasefire in those circumstances?''
He said any cessation would merely be tactical and extract further concessions from the Government.
Asked on BBC Radio 4's PM programme whether he would shun talks if Sinn Fein were allowed in on the basis of a new ceasefire in these circumstances, Mr Robinson said: ''Absolutely.''
Ulster Unionist security spokesman Ken Maginnis said: ''I don't expect anyone to take a declaration at face value. There will have to be a definite commitment to a permanent, complete and universal ceasefire with an indication that disarmament and the dis- bandment of the terrorist organisation can take place and that the INLA will not be licensed by the IRA to act in its stead over the eight months of the talks process.''
However, Mr Billy Hutchinson of the Progressive Unionist Party, which has close links to the UVF paramilitary group, welcomed the development. ''If the IRA are going to call a ceasefire it can only be good for this country.''
Welcoming the Sinn Fein move, Irish prime minister Bertie Ahern said he trusted and hoped the IRA response would be positive. Mr Ahern revealed that over the past weeks much detailed clarification had been provided to Sinn Fein by both governments.
''If an IRA ceasefire now follows, I look forward to the
Continued on Page 2
Continued from Page 1
opening of inclusive and substantive all-party talks in September,'' he said. ''We must all unite to consolidate peace and to ensure that the gun in Irish politics is silenced for the last time.''
The statement which took political parties and pundits by surprise came after months of intensive negotiations behind the scenes which centred on a time frame for the talks and the pace of decommissioning.
Sinn Fein was determined not to respond to any pre-conditions to join the talks and it appeared last night that the joint stance adopted by Ms Mo Mowlam, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and Ireland's Foreign Minister, Mr Ray Burke, in the face of Unionist opposition was enough to win the trust of the Sinn Fein politicians.
Although both the British and Irish governments have insisted on the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons and were last night still insisting on an unequivocal ceasefire they have not specified a timescale for weapons to be laid down.
Sinn Fein insisted on removing preconditions to ensure decommissioning would not be an issue in the talks and could not be used as a pretext to get them kicked out of the talks or to derail them at a later date.
Earlier this week the Unionists were furious to learn that Downing Street had agreed to Dublin's acceptance of Sinn Fein's position that no IRA weapons should be handed over until a peace settlement was signed, but yesterday after three hours of talks in London Ms Mowlam and Mr Burke stuck by their joint document.
Mr Burke with the Unionists obviously in his sights said that nobody would be allowed to come between the two governments over their support for the document.
Ulster Unionist leader David Trimble was disappointed and angered by the tone of language used by Mr Tony Blair on Thursday afternoon when he went to Downing Street to warn the Prime Minister that the future of the peace talks was in jeopardy unless the Government hardened its intentions to disarm the nationalist paramilitaries.
However, Mr Trimble is now learning, like the nationalists already have, that Mr Blair and Ms Mowlam are determined to do their utmost to get the peace process off the ground.
Last night obviously somewhat taken aback by the turn of events, Mr Trimble was urging patience and calling for ''a complete, universal and permanent ceasefire''.
Mr Trimble's earlier comments were in contrast to a joint statement issued by Mr Adams and SDLP leader John Hume.
''It is our view that the peace process can be restored and that, with political will on all sides, we can move towards a new political agreement.''
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article