Alex Kane with his prediction that physical force republicanism is likely to expand rather than dissipate. This article first featured on EamonnMallie.com on 8 November 2013. It is reproduced with the author's permission. 

The scene in Belfast where a car bomb partially exploded recently
Imagine you came from a republican background: a background in which members of your family had been involved with the IRA; been interned, been injured, been killed, spent years on-the-run or constantly looking over their shoulder. Imagine supporting the IRA’s campaign—either as an active ‘volunteer,’ or providing safe houses and alibis, or somewhere to store weapons. Imagine you put your own personal/family life and career on hold while you dedicated yourself to restoring freedom to Ireland.

Then imagine —twenty or thirty years later— that you hear the news that the IRA is being stood down and the weapons decommissioned and that Sinn Fein will be co-governing Northern Ireland with the Ulster Unionist Party or DUP. In other words, imagine yourself in a position in which everything you believed in and worked for had been snatched from you. What would you feel: how would you respond?

Well, the leadership of the IRA and Sinn Fein made the case that politics was the surest way of delivering the ultimate goal of unity. They argued that the ‘armed struggle’ had gone as far as it could and the next phase (and isn’t there always another phase?) would involve winning an electoral majority for unity, wearing unionism down on issues like flags, parades, symbols, identity etc., and building up a significant presence in the Dail. At some point in the near future, so the argument went, Sinn Fein would be in government on both sides of the border and then a majority vote would deliver unity.

As far back as 1997 (indeed as far back as the 1994 ceasefire) there were republicans who didn’t buy into that argument. They didn’t believe that sitting in Stormont with unionists represented anything resembling victory, let alone ‘a cunning plan.’ They viewed it as a betrayal. They saw it as Adams and McGuinness doing in the mid-1990s what they had rejected in 1969. But they remained a minority within republicanism, such was the grip that Adams/McGuinness had over the political and armed factions. And Adams was also able to argue that the meltdown of the UUP and further divisions within unionism would enable Sinn Fein to leapfrog to the top of the political/electoral pile. Those who dissented from that view—the republican dissidents—seemed to be on the wrong side of the argument and the wrong side of history.

But it didn’t work out like that. Unionism has rallied around the DUP, allowing it to maintain a comfortable lead over Sinn Fein. Martin McGuinness has had to serve as deputy First Minister (and don’t underestimate the psychological significance of that word ‘deputy’) to Paisley and now Robinson. Opinion poll after opinion poll indicates that support for a united Ireland is falling rather than rising among small-n nationalism. There is no appetite south of the border for unity anytime soon. Yes, Sinn Fein may be able to nibble at the heels of unionism/loyalism on some issues, but the Union itself looks stronger than ever. Put bluntly, a united Ireland looks no more likely now than it did in August 1994, or July 1997, or April 1998, or March 2007.

All of which explains why those dissenting from the Adams analysis are growing in number and now seem determined to make the case for a return to the tactics of the ‘armed struggle.’ And it poses a very real problem for Sinn Fein, who are not capable of pointing to much in the way of progress and so have to revert to a strategy which is best summed up as a ‘greatest hits tour’ in which martyrs, prison escapes, key events and ‘victories’ have to be celebrated on an almost weekly basis. And if it annoys the hell out of the unionists, then so much the better.

But again, this is never going to be enough for the dissidents. They get angry when they hear Adams say when he was never in the IRA. They get angry when they hear McGuinness say he left in the mid-1970s. They get angry when they hear ‘apologies’ for actions that didn’t work out as planned. They get angry when they hear themselves described as ‘traitors.’ They get angry when they are described as being a ‘hindrance’ to unity. They get angry when they hear people they know to have been IRA members encouraging people to pass information to the PSNI. They get angry when they see McGuinness and Co rubbing shoulders with Britain’s royal and political establishment. They believe that the Provisionals have been rolled over and emasculated by the British state: and, worse than that, they believe that Adams/McGuinness were suckered into a deal that could never deliver anything for republicanism.

The dissidents are not going to go away. They will grow in number. They will become bolder. They reckon that any attempt by the PSNI or ‘Brits’ to crush them will win them support—precisely as it did when the Provisionals broke away in 1969. They reckon that anything resembling Sinn Fein’s dismissing or disowning them will damage Sinn Fein. And they probably know that there are former IRA members not at all happy with the way things have gone since 1998. They may not have huge numbers, or an arsenal worth speaking of, but they also know that they don’t need that at this point.

They have fear in their favour. They have the ability to surprise in their favour. They have the opportunities to cause massive disruption in their favour. They have an already over-stretched, under-resourced PSNI in their favour. They have a fractious unionism/loyalism in their favour. They have a poorly performing government in their favour. They have a huge public disconnect from the Assembly in their favour. They have a general sense of despondency in their favour. They have Sinn Fein’s difficulty in pointing to an end date for unity in their favour.

So it would be very stupid to write them off or pretend that they are incapable of serious traction. They have been rustling in the undergrowth for almost twenty years; and in that time they will have been preparing, recruiting, listening and planning. At this point it seems unlikely that they could mount, let alone sustain a major terrorist campaign; but at this point a decade ago—or even five years ago—did anyone think we’d be facing car bombs in Belfast, or spot check security patrols, or car boots being searched at CastleCourt again?

Dissident republicanism needs to be dealt with. (And before someone starts a predictable outburst of whataboutery, yes, I do know that there are problems with loyalist paramilitarism too—the subject of another essay). And it needs to be dealt with by everyone. But, as Michael Copeland MLA noted in the Assembly a few days ago, our response has to be something more than the usual platitudes. I mean, let’s be honest, what is the point of politicians telling us that they won’t allow us to be ‘dragged back to the past,’ when their own body language and rhetoric suggests that they have never actually left that past?

Also, the usual tactics of intelligence, infiltration, disruption, arrest and imprisonment won’t necessarily work either. It takes a long time to wage that sort of strategy: and even longer when you realise that the intelligence services (many of whose own people are relatively new to the game) don’t yet have tabs on many of the latest generation of armed republicans. It’s worth bearing in mind, too, that those sorts of tactics can just as easily result in an increase of terrorist numbers.

There are two key elements required at this stage. The first is that Sinn Fein—and particularly the IRA element of it—has to make it very clear that they do disown this new generation. They have to say, loudly and unambiguously, that republican violence did not deliver Irish unity and never will be able to deliver Irish unity. They have to say that they themselves backed the wrong strategy. They have to say that violence is an insurmountable barrier to Irish unity. They have to say that unity, if it is to come, will require patience, reconciliation and the genuine desire of more than just a bare majority of votes. It will not come from the barrel of a gun or the thud of a car bomb outside the Victoria shopping centre.

The other element is very clear evidence that the government of Northern Ireland is working for the benefit of everyone. That’s going to mean the DUP and Sinn Fein putting aside the mutual vetoes, petitions-of-concern, hostile language, finger-pointing, score-settling, looking-after-your-own approach to government and replacing it with genuine consensus and cooperation.

It’s going to mean all of the Executive parties agreeing on a proper, costed, joined-up Programme for Government, which has a clear agenda and vision for the future. It’s going to require them to be able to prove to the world that they can work together, by choice and for the good of all. The best way, the very best way of knocking back the dissident elements on both sides of the fence is the evidence that there is stable government and good government here: government that is relevant, government that makes a real and positive difference to the lives of everybody, irrespective of where they come from. A government, in other words, which has made the transition from conflict stalemate to conflict solution.

It all sounds far too simple, doesn’t it? Far too idealistic. Far too unlikely to work. But maybe, just maybe, if we focused on the simple, the idealistic and the unlikely we could end up surprising ourselves!


Alex Kane is a columnist for both the News Letter and the Irish News and a regular contributor to the Belfast Telegraph. He is also a frequent guest across a range of BBC, UTV and RTE programmes--specialising in political commentary.

The Dissidents are not going to go away – They will grow in number

Alex Kane with his prediction that physical force republicanism is likely to expand rather than dissipate. This article first featured on EamonnMallie.com on 8 November 2013. It is reproduced with the author's permission. 

The scene in Belfast where a car bomb partially exploded recently
Imagine you came from a republican background: a background in which members of your family had been involved with the IRA; been interned, been injured, been killed, spent years on-the-run or constantly looking over their shoulder. Imagine supporting the IRA’s campaign—either as an active ‘volunteer,’ or providing safe houses and alibis, or somewhere to store weapons. Imagine you put your own personal/family life and career on hold while you dedicated yourself to restoring freedom to Ireland.

Then imagine —twenty or thirty years later— that you hear the news that the IRA is being stood down and the weapons decommissioned and that Sinn Fein will be co-governing Northern Ireland with the Ulster Unionist Party or DUP. In other words, imagine yourself in a position in which everything you believed in and worked for had been snatched from you. What would you feel: how would you respond?

Well, the leadership of the IRA and Sinn Fein made the case that politics was the surest way of delivering the ultimate goal of unity. They argued that the ‘armed struggle’ had gone as far as it could and the next phase (and isn’t there always another phase?) would involve winning an electoral majority for unity, wearing unionism down on issues like flags, parades, symbols, identity etc., and building up a significant presence in the Dail. At some point in the near future, so the argument went, Sinn Fein would be in government on both sides of the border and then a majority vote would deliver unity.

As far back as 1997 (indeed as far back as the 1994 ceasefire) there were republicans who didn’t buy into that argument. They didn’t believe that sitting in Stormont with unionists represented anything resembling victory, let alone ‘a cunning plan.’ They viewed it as a betrayal. They saw it as Adams and McGuinness doing in the mid-1990s what they had rejected in 1969. But they remained a minority within republicanism, such was the grip that Adams/McGuinness had over the political and armed factions. And Adams was also able to argue that the meltdown of the UUP and further divisions within unionism would enable Sinn Fein to leapfrog to the top of the political/electoral pile. Those who dissented from that view—the republican dissidents—seemed to be on the wrong side of the argument and the wrong side of history.

But it didn’t work out like that. Unionism has rallied around the DUP, allowing it to maintain a comfortable lead over Sinn Fein. Martin McGuinness has had to serve as deputy First Minister (and don’t underestimate the psychological significance of that word ‘deputy’) to Paisley and now Robinson. Opinion poll after opinion poll indicates that support for a united Ireland is falling rather than rising among small-n nationalism. There is no appetite south of the border for unity anytime soon. Yes, Sinn Fein may be able to nibble at the heels of unionism/loyalism on some issues, but the Union itself looks stronger than ever. Put bluntly, a united Ireland looks no more likely now than it did in August 1994, or July 1997, or April 1998, or March 2007.

All of which explains why those dissenting from the Adams analysis are growing in number and now seem determined to make the case for a return to the tactics of the ‘armed struggle.’ And it poses a very real problem for Sinn Fein, who are not capable of pointing to much in the way of progress and so have to revert to a strategy which is best summed up as a ‘greatest hits tour’ in which martyrs, prison escapes, key events and ‘victories’ have to be celebrated on an almost weekly basis. And if it annoys the hell out of the unionists, then so much the better.

But again, this is never going to be enough for the dissidents. They get angry when they hear Adams say when he was never in the IRA. They get angry when they hear McGuinness say he left in the mid-1970s. They get angry when they hear ‘apologies’ for actions that didn’t work out as planned. They get angry when they hear themselves described as ‘traitors.’ They get angry when they are described as being a ‘hindrance’ to unity. They get angry when they hear people they know to have been IRA members encouraging people to pass information to the PSNI. They get angry when they see McGuinness and Co rubbing shoulders with Britain’s royal and political establishment. They believe that the Provisionals have been rolled over and emasculated by the British state: and, worse than that, they believe that Adams/McGuinness were suckered into a deal that could never deliver anything for republicanism.

The dissidents are not going to go away. They will grow in number. They will become bolder. They reckon that any attempt by the PSNI or ‘Brits’ to crush them will win them support—precisely as it did when the Provisionals broke away in 1969. They reckon that anything resembling Sinn Fein’s dismissing or disowning them will damage Sinn Fein. And they probably know that there are former IRA members not at all happy with the way things have gone since 1998. They may not have huge numbers, or an arsenal worth speaking of, but they also know that they don’t need that at this point.

They have fear in their favour. They have the ability to surprise in their favour. They have the opportunities to cause massive disruption in their favour. They have an already over-stretched, under-resourced PSNI in their favour. They have a fractious unionism/loyalism in their favour. They have a poorly performing government in their favour. They have a huge public disconnect from the Assembly in their favour. They have a general sense of despondency in their favour. They have Sinn Fein’s difficulty in pointing to an end date for unity in their favour.

So it would be very stupid to write them off or pretend that they are incapable of serious traction. They have been rustling in the undergrowth for almost twenty years; and in that time they will have been preparing, recruiting, listening and planning. At this point it seems unlikely that they could mount, let alone sustain a major terrorist campaign; but at this point a decade ago—or even five years ago—did anyone think we’d be facing car bombs in Belfast, or spot check security patrols, or car boots being searched at CastleCourt again?

Dissident republicanism needs to be dealt with. (And before someone starts a predictable outburst of whataboutery, yes, I do know that there are problems with loyalist paramilitarism too—the subject of another essay). And it needs to be dealt with by everyone. But, as Michael Copeland MLA noted in the Assembly a few days ago, our response has to be something more than the usual platitudes. I mean, let’s be honest, what is the point of politicians telling us that they won’t allow us to be ‘dragged back to the past,’ when their own body language and rhetoric suggests that they have never actually left that past?

Also, the usual tactics of intelligence, infiltration, disruption, arrest and imprisonment won’t necessarily work either. It takes a long time to wage that sort of strategy: and even longer when you realise that the intelligence services (many of whose own people are relatively new to the game) don’t yet have tabs on many of the latest generation of armed republicans. It’s worth bearing in mind, too, that those sorts of tactics can just as easily result in an increase of terrorist numbers.

There are two key elements required at this stage. The first is that Sinn Fein—and particularly the IRA element of it—has to make it very clear that they do disown this new generation. They have to say, loudly and unambiguously, that republican violence did not deliver Irish unity and never will be able to deliver Irish unity. They have to say that they themselves backed the wrong strategy. They have to say that violence is an insurmountable barrier to Irish unity. They have to say that unity, if it is to come, will require patience, reconciliation and the genuine desire of more than just a bare majority of votes. It will not come from the barrel of a gun or the thud of a car bomb outside the Victoria shopping centre.

The other element is very clear evidence that the government of Northern Ireland is working for the benefit of everyone. That’s going to mean the DUP and Sinn Fein putting aside the mutual vetoes, petitions-of-concern, hostile language, finger-pointing, score-settling, looking-after-your-own approach to government and replacing it with genuine consensus and cooperation.

It’s going to mean all of the Executive parties agreeing on a proper, costed, joined-up Programme for Government, which has a clear agenda and vision for the future. It’s going to require them to be able to prove to the world that they can work together, by choice and for the good of all. The best way, the very best way of knocking back the dissident elements on both sides of the fence is the evidence that there is stable government and good government here: government that is relevant, government that makes a real and positive difference to the lives of everybody, irrespective of where they come from. A government, in other words, which has made the transition from conflict stalemate to conflict solution.

It all sounds far too simple, doesn’t it? Far too idealistic. Far too unlikely to work. But maybe, just maybe, if we focused on the simple, the idealistic and the unlikely we could end up surprising ourselves!


Alex Kane is a columnist for both the News Letter and the Irish News and a regular contributor to the Belfast Telegraph. He is also a frequent guest across a range of BBC, UTV and RTE programmes--specialising in political commentary.

10 comments:

  1. It seems the reason why Adams felt it appropriate to call for the end of armed struggle was because he viewed its main objective in narrow sectarian terms and Irish unity as a means to creating social equality. In this respect it wasnt the IRA that hijacked the civil rights movement, where we are today we can see it was the other way around. It was the Belfast part of Northern command that became the engine of growth after the border campaign (mainly due to the relative size of the city), but its quite clear that their objectives were subtly different to those in the South. It seems it was these eloquent speakers , together with British propaganda (e.g. The Times : Irish Unity Closer Than Ever!) and the predictable loyalist outrage at this, that convinced the republicans that something better was on offer than was really there.The passing years have just confirmed it, and this latest sellout is something not uncommon in Irish history. The partition should of been the sole condition that the struggle was predicated on, as such the conditions for conflict do remain. To paraphrase your article : Sinn Fein have to say, loudly and unambiguously, that power sharing did not deliver Irish unity and never will be able to deliver Irish unity. They have to say that they themselves backed the wrong strategy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Excellent article from Alex,not someone whom I would agree with on a regular basis, his observation on the state of play here is imo correct, the quisling $inn £eind leadership have brought their follower,s up a cul de sac,they negotiated absolutely nothing of substance for the republican /nationalist community,and their willingness to line their pockets with well paid quango and community jobs with large private homes both here in the republic and abroad is indeed a wonderment of how far the "average industrial wage" can be stretched. but perhaps its the fact that the lying bastards are now being seen for exactly what they are ,it is sickening to see that they as Ernie O Malley quoted "it is easy to lie on another mans wounds"the grand old duke of York attitude of leading the people up the republican hills on weekends then back to subsidised dinners in Stormont and administering austerity cuts on behalf of a conservative government is even to big a lie for their defector president for life,he has got himself far away from austerity and its impact on "the people he loves most" ie, West Belfast, it is indeed a wonderment that it has taken "dissidents" this long to make any impact,my advice is to concentrate on exposing those quisling micro brit ministers as the useless greedy bastards that they are, and that their grip on power is like their counterparts the bigoted Dup solely reliant upon a sectarian carveup and the peoples fear of a return to the dark old days."dissident "republicanism must not go down the failed road that the PRM took it needs a new direction not another round of same old same old,that is the challenge "dissidents" face but no matter what unless they are honest with their constituents they will fare no better than what went before,

    ReplyDelete
  3. Kane says,

    "As far back as 1997 (indeed as far back as the 1994 ceasefire) there were republicans who didn't buy into that argument. They didn’t believe that sitting in Stormont with unionists represented anything resembling victory, let alone ‘a cunning plan.’ They viewed it as a betrayal."

    Now, now Mr Kane!
    Had not Republicans, as far back as 1986, cautioned against participation in partitionist assemblies and rightly predicted as to where the path would lead? (Exactly in fact as to what your essay describes)!

    Are those that followed the Northern Free Staters down that path worthy to be called republicans at all?

    Is it any wonder people are frustrated and disappointed?
    Is it any surprise that some are angry?

    ReplyDelete
  4. a chara, always when I read these columns I get the impression that republicans should be somehow ashamed of physical force. Republicans who resided in the six counties after partition where faced with an apartheid, sectarian state and had no realistic option but armed struggle. Most people agree that armed struggle is over however the problem is republicans didn't seem to get much out of the gfa. Concession after concession and no closer to the ultimate objective and as long as this continues there will always be those who believe armed struggle is the only moral road for republicans.

    ReplyDelete
  5. a chara When I read this columns I get the impression that republicans should somehow be ashamed of physical force. The apartheid, sectarian state that existed after partition ensued that armed struggle was not only inevitable but morally justified. Since then we have entered the gfa process however republicans didn't get much out of this agreement, if anything, amendments of article two and three mean we are further away from our ultimate objective than ever. As long as these situations exists there will always be those who will resort to armed struggle and how can any among us take the moral high ground when the alternative offers so little.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Alex Kane was forced out / left
    the UUP after Sinn Fein made idiots out of his Trimble and his party for years- now Alex says he
    does / does not support the GFA-I wish he could make his mind up-

    " They will grow in number "-yes-
    both the dissos and anti-GFA loyalists will grow in number's-the more barracks that come down the more their numbers will rise-but the new dissos cant make a dent in the peace process-God loves a trier so he must hate that lot-

    Alex is just one more reporter who is to yellow to report that no brits or cops were killed in our year of peace in the six-[ 2013-]-just like last year-wish that the odd reporter could change the record-their old one has been spinning for years-

    ReplyDelete
  7. David Higgins seems to express traditional Repubicanism well, as I understand it:
    'Republicans who resided in the six counties after partition where faced with an apartheid, sectarian state and had no realistic option but armed struggle.'

    That they were caught in a state that guarded it's majority's rights and neglected its minority is perfectly true. Just as the Free State and later Republic did.

    But was armed struggle - the murder of neighbours, the answer? Aside from the morality, was it ever likely to succeed in doing other than lead to a civil war?

    Yes, I read, the problem was the British state's presence in N.I., not the Protestants who regraded themselves as British. Just force the British state out and the Prods would fall into line.

    That was the fatal error in Republican thinking. The Brits they needed to remove are the Prods. If they had no desire to remove them, an Irish takeover would never happen. The Prods would resist any attempt to take over - and that became increasingly clear as the Troubles progressed.

    I like to think that Gerry & Co. saw that fact of life and adjusted their strategy accordingly. They may hope that the Prods can be worn down by cultural attrition on the one hand and kindness on the other, but that's a long term hope at best. They'll settle for a successful N.I. in the meantime. And so too will the Prods.

    How can the dissidents hope to do better? Maybe they have the hope of the crazy - that doing the thing that has always failed will succeed next time. Or maybe they just want the immediate sense of purpose that being a gunman gives: a short-cut to power, no need to study and sweat to achieve status in life. I don't know any personally, so I can't comment.

    ReplyDelete
  8. So we now have nationalists who love Stormont, abhor violence, and republicans who abhor Stormont, love violence. Been there, done that.

    But hold on...doesn't that mean that Sinn Fein are now the SDLP?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yes, ST
    We have some nationalists who love Stormont and abhor violence, some republicans who abhor Stormont and love violence.

    Do you reject the possibility that there are republicans who abhor Stormont and all it's neo-colonialism trappings and yet abhor violence?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Mr JoY:

    Of course there are such people, but mentioning them not only ruins the attempted symmetry of my opening line, but ruins the whole setup to what is obviously a jokey jibe at the expense of SF.

    Sure aren't SF now just the SDLP, but with more Armani and less Arran?

    Jeez, and 'neo-colonialism trappings'? I'd make some sixth-form debating society ernest socialist joke, but really, this stuff writes itself...

    ReplyDelete