BECAUSE of the confusion created by years of censorship and disinformation concerning the true nature of the Northern conflict, it is sometimes difficult to perceive clearly what is going on with the peace process. Why does the ground keep shifting all the time? Why does hope so frequently turn to despair? Are we naive in thinking that any kind of lasting reconciliation is possible?
At the core of the conflict, it is true, there appears to be an irreconcilability so hard it is almost understandable that some of the players appear reluctant to progress to the point of reaching it. Two diametrically opposing viewpoints have adherents who are prepared to kill and die to defend their outlooks. Both sides have elements of right on their side. Both sides have done wrong.
And yet, in another light, there is no right and wrong. Or, at least, attempting to see things in those terms does not get us anywhere. The widespread tendency to look at the situation through a moral viewfinder has perhaps been the least helpful aspect over 25 years. Only when a different approach was adopted did progress seem possible.
One of the central causes of stagnation has had to do with the deliberately created confusion about whether the conflict amounts to a war or a terrorist situation. The IRA and the loyalist paramilitaries regard it as a war. The constitutional unionist parties regard it as a straight forward problem of terrorism, to be dealt with by the security forces. The British government tends to talk about it in public as simple terrorism, but behind the scenes appears sometimes to deal with it as war. (Except sometimes it doesn't.) Irish governments, with the exception of the Albert Reynolds administration, have tended to follow the British line.
We, the public, swing between one position and another, depending on who has been responsible for the most recent atrocity.
The confusion about whether this is war or terrorism is the main reason the British government has been able to get away with what Gerry Adams described in his recent Sinn Fein ardfheis speech as "delaying, obstruction, convolution, contortion, dilution and dishonesty" in its approach to the peace process. Curiously, it is actually the confusion about the question, rather than the question itself, which presents the problem. If it were clearly and unambiguously one thing or the other, there would not be a difficulty.
OF COURSE, it might reasonably be asked why have a peace process if there is no war? But let us assume, for a moment, that it is merely terrorism. Imagine that the conflict were a hostage taking situation, in which innocent lives were at risk as the result of the actions of terrorists. The terrorists have already killed a number of people and are threatening to go on killing unless certain conditions are met. Imagine then that, through the intervention of an intermediary, negotiations have been initiated between the authorities and the hostage takers.
The terrorists have a set of requests, which they wish to be given the opportunity of discussing with the authorities. Their only actual demand is that these discussions be entered into in good faith, without preconditions. The authorities appear to go along with these arrangements for a while. The terrorists agree not to shoot anyone for the moment.
Would the authorities, in such a situation, be able to get away with procrastination and goal post shifting? I don't think so. Would the public he tolerant of the authorities dragging their heels in the hope that the terrorists would surrender? I doubt it very much. And if, after a period of inactivity, the terrorists started to shoot people once more, isn't it likely that the authorities would have some questions to answer about their handling of the situation?
The tactics of the British government since the inception of the ceasefire have been classically in the mode of hostage negotiation. It has played for time so as to undermine the resolve of its opponents by opening up divisions in their ranks. It has tried to conduct minimal negotiations using officials of the lowest possible rank, so as to dis-abuse its opponents of the notion of an impending breakthrough. Whenever these tactics began to wear thin, it has introduced new preconditions so as to return the game to square one.
Its procrastination during the 18 months of the IRA ceasefire showed quite clearly that the British government regards the IRA not as a terrorist organisation but as a military foe: if it truly regarded republicans as ruthless killers, it would surely not have risked antagonising them with preconditions and delays. Terrorists, not being concerned with public perceptions, could not have been expected to wait 18 months.
Paradoxically, by taking the risk of pushing the IRA back towards violence, the British government has acknowledged that the paramilitaries are not the mindless thugs official propaganda would have had us believe, implicitly accepting that the ceasefire was genuine, and potentially permanent.
BUT, conversely, the fact that it is able also to present the situation as simple terrorism enables the British government to pass off gamesmanship as principle. The old cliche that "we cannot do deals with terrorists" is brought into play whenever the realities of peace making prove to much for the politicians. In reality what they fear is not doing deals with terrorists, but having to deal with the hard centre of irreconcilability, or the moral content of republican demands.
It is the widespread ambiguity about whether this situation is terrorism or war that allows the British government to play games with the lives of persons unknown. In reality, it doesn't matter which it is - the victims are just as maimed, or just as dead. But while it remains possible to cast it in both lights, the confusion will continue. It is therefore imperative that the British government be persuaded to deal with the conflict, in a clean and straightforward manner, as one thing or the other. If it is a war, then they should be urged to take up where they left off with their secret negotiations with paramilitaries of two years ago, to reenter dialogue in good faith so as to bring the conflict to an end.
If it is simply terrorism, then they must be persuaded to deal with it in a pragmatic manner so as to save lives. In other words, even if we swallow whole the British position as expressed in political rhetoric, there is still a huge onus on it to grasp the opportunity to bring the killing to an end. The fact that we are unable to put names or faces on future victims does not lessen the responsibility.
This is the main message with which the Dublin government needs to bombard London make your minds up whether or not you are at war. Either approach has its own logic, but each points to a different form of engagement. Having it both ways imposes a death sentence on innocent people.