Talk of IRA ceasefire has real substance

THE Sinn Fein president, Gerry Adams, yesterday - professed to object strongly to the speculation about a new IRA ceasefire. It will quickly become "yesterday's story", he said. He's wrong, though. This story will run for quite a while.

In the year before the IRA ceasefire of August 1994 there was a mood in the North of something imminent. The IRA and Sinn Fein, gave little away, but every statement and comment from Mr Adams and Martin McGuinness were parsed and analysed for clues.

Not many were apparent, but still the view prevailed that a ceasefire was on the cards, notwithstanding all the Sinn Fein dismissals of such a development. This weekend saw the beginning of a similar momentum. And this time there seems to be more basis for the speculation, despite what Mr Adams asserts.

Much of the speculation is based on information being fed by British security sources based in Northern Ireland, and on information from well placed Garda sources. Republicans have pointed out that these sources have been wrong in the past.

For instance, they did not predict the end of the IRA ceasefire this year. So, republicans asked, why should they be right about prospects of a new IRA ceasefire?

But, in addition to these sources, the Taoiseach, Mr Bruton, has also been quite optimistic about a renewed ceasefire. Whether he was basing this on Garda intelligence, or whether his view was strengthened by further information gleaned from those in the US administration who have the ear of Mr Adams is unclear.

What now seems clear is that Mr Bruton was not merely speculating on the basis of a hunch.

AN informed source told The Irish homes there was considerable merit in the speculation. And even to engage in objective analysis offered grounds for hope, he said.

"For two years now the IRA has been operating a de facto ceasefire in the North. Now that's a statement in itself: it indicates there is a strong body of opinion within the IRA which at the very least wants to maintain that ceasefire", the source said.

"Objectively, that should create confidence that a debate is going on within the republican movement about calling a permanent ceasefire," the source said. It should also create confidence about who is winning that debate, he added.

The hard men won the argument and caused Canary Wharf, and the end of the ceasefire, but now the hard men are in the minority within the greater republican movement, he suggested.

And this source, it must be stressed, is not just making this point on the basis of detached analysis. He has his own information from leading republicans to support the different British and Irish feeds to journalists that the IRA leadership is seriously considering calling a ceasefire.

Now cut to Gerry Adams standing in the sunlight outside Conway Mill in west Belfast yesterday afternoon denying to reporters that an IRA convention or a ceasefire is on the cards. "Do you believe me, Richard?" he jokes, a big smile on his face. The question is directed at his senior aide Richard McAuley, who only smiles in return.

That was a couple of minutes after the informal press conference, and after Mr Adams had been asked why should people believe him when, prior to the IRA ceasefire of August 1994, reporters were being spoonfed the exact same lines by senior Sinn Fein figures.

IN apparent, but possibly feigned exasperation, Mr Adams scolded the assembled sceptical reporters. "Run your story. Disinform people, lead people to distractions. Lead them up garden paths," he said.

Journalists don't want to do that, but neither can they ignore information coming from a variety of sources. So correctly or incorrectly the focus will remain on the prospects of a ceasefire for the foreseeable future.

There will also be a focus on whether unionists this time will treat with Sinn Fein in the event of a ceasefire. It's predictable that the DUP and the UK Unionists won't. The Ulster Unionist Party, however, says Sinn Fein can come to talks if there is a "credible ceasefire". It would have some difficulty in denying the existence of such a ceasefire if it was called by an IRA "army convention".

Embarking on another road to a ceasefire is entering a minefield for the greater republican movement. It could provoke a split. There are still enough hawkish elements within the movement to make life difficult for Mr Adams, Mr McGuinness and those others who favour following the peace strategy.

There was speculation last night that the IRA was responsible for yesterday's brutal murder in the Markets area of Belfast. This could be interpreted as an IRA statement that it is still hardline. Equally though it could be a cynical signal to any doubters that whatever about a convention or a possible ceasefire, the IRA is not in the business of "surrender".

The IRA, under the cover of a group calling itself Direct Action Against Drugs (DAAD), equally cynically was responsible for several murders of alleged drug dealers during the ceasefire, and at a time when it was under some pressure to assert its strength.

Now DAAD has admitted killing Mr Sean Devlin, claiming he was involved in drugs. This could be another "reassurance" that whatever decision the IRA takes in the months ahead will be taken from a position of strength - the republican version of "no surrender".

It won't be easy selling a new ceasefire. Republicans in areas like south Armagh, west Tyrone and parts of Belfast will be very wary of abandoning the "armed struggle". There are also IRA members in the South who oppose such a move. Nonetheless, the belief is that the majority of republicans in the North favour an initiative to bring Sinn Fein into the talks process proper.

One Tyrone republican contacted yesterday had no problems with a new ceasefire. "Certainly at present there is nobody in republican circles debating about getting back to full scale war. I would not have said this 20 years ago, but you will never get enough people into the IRA to get the Brits out of Ireland," he said.

"But there are enough people on the island of Ireland who could bring about major changes that could eventually see the end of British involvement in the six counties."