did the Provisionals accepted an agreement based on
a declaration that the occupied six counties area,
in its entirety, stays under British sovereignty.
the answer lies in the revelation that the late Belfast
solicitor, Paddy McGrory although unsupportive
of armed struggle was an adviser to Adams and
Mr McGrory in correspondence with the Provisional
leadership, after an analysis of the Downing Street
declaration advised them that although the
declaration could hardly be described as nationalist
or republican nevertheless it concedes
that the Irish have a right to self-determination,
without external interference.
the gist of the argument is as follows:
pledge to the unionists that they never will be coerced
into a united Ireland changes its character depending
on whether that pledge comes from a British or an
it comes from a British source, that is external interference
with the Irish right to self-determination and constitutes
the pledge comes from an Irish source, however, that
is merely the Irish exercising their right to self-determination
in the way they have freely chosen, and without an
Irish, as they are entitled to do, are by their wish
conferring a concession on a section of the nation.
the Provisional leadership to accept such an analysis
pertaining to the important and critical subject of
national freedom and self-determination shows a depth
of ineptitude that boggles the mind.
Mr McGrory went on to state that he believed that
peace now will garner a rich harvest for the republican
movement, such as it has not known for decades. Conversely,
I think failure of the movement to seize this hour
will in all probability mean a virtual collapse of
Sinn Fein electoral support, and a rejection of the
republican position all over Ireland and in America.
perhaps, the Provisional movement may garner a rich
harvest by taking the reformist road but surely from
a republican stance the primary concern must be national
unity and self-determination, not the welfare of any
surely the rich harvest would have been a full loaf
in the attainment of national freedom rather than
the half loaf they are now left with.
is it merely a few crumbs?
fact, in taking the direction which they have, they
are dissenters from the authentic and traditional
position of Irish republicanism.
have we heard that word - dissenters - before?
well as the influence of Mr McGrory, the reformist
development within the Provisional movement apparently
arises from an aging leadership not necessarily
in chronological terms (although there are a few)
but in time given to the struggle.
desiring to hold unto power and/or still wanting to
be involved, some sought a way out of armed struggle
by hooking on to Mr McGrorys alarm-setting advice.
may appear harsh to the need or the requirement of
power, but after giving years of youth and
early manhood to revolutionary struggle, sometimes
in leadership positions with the slow awareness
that normal life has passed (maybe, for example, children
reared by wives, etc), who could blame (as some would
say) certain temperaments if they turned from the
history has confirmed many of the latter, including
Michael Collins, whereas there are few ODonovan
Rossas or Tom Clarkes about.
trying to understand the psychology of those who have
abandoned the traditional republican position, however,
may I state that I continue to believe their position
to be flawed.
could have called an indefinite ceasefire without
copperfastening partition ... parallel with an extra
parliamentary non-violent campaign.
is their acceptance of the consent principle copperfastening
partition which is a bigger act of betrayal within
republicanism than that of decommissioning weapons
then, for some that might have excluded the lucrative
path of electoral success ...
Index: Current Articles + Latest News and Views + Book Reviews +
Letters + Archives