Not all black and white as TDs back new laws

The death of 28 innocent civilians in Omagh set the tone for yesterday's Dail debate on the toughest antiterrorist legislation…

The death of 28 innocent civilians in Omagh set the tone for yesterday's Dail debate on the toughest antiterrorist legislation in decades. And, with the Belfast Agreement at risk, the Government and opposition parties pulled out all the stops.

Party leaders justified the legislation as a necessary political reaction to an appalling atrocity. But they differed in tone and content where their approach to Sinn Fein, the IRA and their various republican splinter groups was concerned.

Implementation of the Belfast Agreement and the participation of Sinn Fein in a shadow Northern Ireland executive also generated stark disagreement.

John Bruton went for broke and offered comfort and support to David Trimble and to the unionist parties by demanding the prior decommissioning of IRA weapons. It was unthinkable, he said, that "a politician associated with a private army that exists in defiance of the State's laws should simultaneously sit at a cabinet table in this or in any other jurisdiction".

READ MORE

A "deeply disappointed" Jim McDaid wondered, in response, if the former Taoiseach had the full support of his party for that demand. The Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation believed Sinn Fein had made a "clear and unambiguous statement that the war is over", and he advised journalists and politicians that "provocative questioning on issues like decommissioning" served no positive purpose.

"The answer to the decommissioning question," he suggested, "is `Ask me that in two years' time'."

Signals of dissent emerged from Fine Gael when Alan Dukes devoted five pages to attacking the "bad legislation" that had earlier been accepted by his party leader. A clear lack of appetite for Mr Bruton's critical analysis of Sinn Fein's strategy and behaviour was also evident in other contributions.

Ruairi Quinn and Proinsias De Rossa avoided the decommissioning issue in the context of Sinn Fein taking seats in the shadow Northern executive. But they held to the terms of the Belfast Agreement and insisted that, in the broader picture, Sinn Fein and the IRA had to abandon violence and the threat of violence for good.

Caoimhghin O Caolain of Sinn Fein was opposed to the Bill in its entirety. He declared that the political blunders and legal injustices of the past were being repeated. Invoking the repressive record of the RUC, he deplored the fact that an Irish Government was facilitating the introduction of similar measures in the North. And he insisted the legislation ran counter to undertakings in the Belfast Agreement.

Earlier, speakers for the Green Party and a number of Independent TDs expressed concern at the damage that could be done to civil liberties and sought time limits and safeguards. Their concerns were shared by TDs from across the political spectrum.

But attempts by Mr O Caolain, Tony Gregory and Joe Higgins to force a vote on the Bill failed. The bottom line was articulated by Mary Hanafin of Fianna Fail: "The legislation is not desirable, but it is necessary."

While the Government machine rolled on - and in contrast to Mr Dukes's strictures - still harsher measures were advocated by Jim Higgins and Charlie Flanagan.

Des O'Malley of the Progressive Democrats took a similar hard line. The architect of tough anti-terrorist legislation in 1972 had no time for bleeding-heart liberals. And he argued that the measures in the new Bill should be made permanent.

Through it all, Bertie Ahern glided like a grey computing machine. There were no histrionics; just a cold and wintry determination. The Taoiseach would "crush" the `Real IRA' and any other militant splinter groups that threatened the Belfast Agreement.

Even with Fianna Fail solidly behind him, however, he displayed his famous reluctance to strike the crippling blow. And he appeared to offer IRA dissidents the option of disbandment as an alternative to incarceration by the State.

Referring to Omagh, he said those who organised and carried out the act had a stark choice. "They can heed the will of the Irish people now and tell us - and convince us - that their violence is at an end for good. Or they can defy us to put them out of business. If they do, they should not be in any doubt about this Government's determination to crush and dismantle any organisations that still engage in violence . . . We are determined that the victims of Omagh will have justice."

He had a word of warning for those young people who might be involved, or were thinking of becoming involved, in violence. They should ignore the siren voices of the depraved few who would ruin their lives. They had a chance to cut free. They should take it before it was too late.

The Belfast Agreement had changed everything. The legislation before the Dail would protect the decision of the Irish people to choose their own destiny. It would stay in force only so long as it was required and would apply to all those who engaged in violence.

As Martin McGuinness became Sinn Fein's formal nominee to the International Decommissioning Body and Mr Trimble welcomed the development in London, another piece of the political jigsaw fell into place. In the Dail Seamus Brennan hoped President Clinton's visit would add further momentum that would later allow the shadow executive to be established and Mr Trimble and Mr Adams to meet face to face.

Of such difficult, incremental steps is history made.