Sir, - Why has decommissioning, normally a product of successful peace negotiations, become a prerequisite to peace negotiations?
In "normal" wars the process towards peace follows a broad pattern. A truce is called, usually following informal talks, and the protagonists stand down to allow negotiations to ensue. When agreement is reached (and history tells us that all wars end sometime), decommissioning, demobilisation and the exchange of prisoners of war follow. Why should it be so different in our case? Why this insistence on decommissioning prior to negotiations taking place?
In the first place, it has never been acknowledged, by either the UK or the Irish governments, that a state of war exists in Northern Ireland. To have done so would have meant acknowledging that a state of civil war exists: which in turn would have left both the UK and the Irish Republic open to the world wide accusation that they were parties, albeit one stage removed from that civil war. Far better, from their point of view, to portray the conflict as a local affair between two belligerent tribes, with each government having its own slant on which is the more to blame.
In passing, it must be said that there are sound propaganda advantages in adopting the "no war" stance. If there is no war then there are no warriors, only perpetrators of criminal acts. Thus both governments attempt to counter the protagonists justification for acting the way they do: "As a government you may not be prepared to fight for the Constitution Union, but we are".
In the second place, a truce was called, and the protagonists did stand down. However, talks between the protagonists did not take place, but were put on hold while the two governments tried unsuccessfully to resolve their problems about Northern Ireland The result has been, not just a complete breakdown in trust all round, but the engendering of feelings of betrayal: followed by, with all the predictability of a Greek tragedy, the lifting of the truce, and the resumption of violence, albeit on a limited scale.
One asks why decommissioning has assumed such importance? One need look no further. Once again Northern Irish problems within Northern Ireland were subordinated to British and Irish problems about Northern Ireland. Once again the British and Irish governments were unable to resolve their differences about Northern Ireland. Once again the cry goes out: "If only we had ingredient X the problem would be solved". This time ingredient X is decommissioning, a real showstopper, in the sense that there is more chance of finding Holy Water in an Orange Lodge, if you will forgive the analogy, than getting the protagonists to give up their arms prior to any settlement. And the two governments know this full well.
At best, this is an example of wishful thinking. At worst, it is just another attempt by each government to cover up political failure: and at the same time perpetuate the image of "honest broker" for themselves, and the image of two warring tribes on the Northern Irish people. - Yours, etc.,
Northern Ireland Party,
Bingham Street,
Bangor,
Co. Down.