Northern Ireland Archives

March 15, 2022 by Rise to Peace

Sitting Down with the Enemy: The IRA, Good Friday Agreement, and Negotiated Peace

The Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA) was one of the world’s longest lasting terrorist groups. The group came into being in 1969 after a splintering of the IRA leadership; and, the PIRA represented a more militant and extreme approach to the cause of Irish republicanism in Northern Ireland. The PIRA mounted a sustained terror campaign against the British, with the aims of bringing about universal civil rights, as well as a united Ireland, sovereign and independent from the United Kingdom.

The PIRA depicted themselves as the legal voice of the Irish people, which seemingly vindicated the violent course of action they pursued against both foreign occupation and domestic collaborators. The PIRA is a “nationalist” terror group, with similar tactics, but wildly different goals of other terrorist organizations.

The PIRA used bombings, shootings, beatings, assassinations, and kidnappings as a means of coercion. They killed thousands of people and injured countless other. Their victims included members of British, Northern Irish, and Irish security services, politicians, as well as both republican and loyalist paramilitary rivals. However, many of their victims were innocent civilians who had no connection with any paramilitary, political, or security organization.

Hard British Counterterror Responses

As the sectarian violence spreading through Northern Ireland increased, so did the violence and intensity of the British response. In 1969 the U.K. deployed soldiers on the ground in Belfast and other contentious northern areas.

When U.K. soldiers were first deployed, the Catholic and republican minorities initially welcomed the military, as they were viewed as a bulwark against loyalist violence. This perception was soured by three events in the 1970s. The first two events included The Falls Curfew in 1970 and Operation Demetrius in 1971, in which hundreds of Catholics were subjected to internment without trial, and the third event was the Bloody Sunday massacre in 1972. Bloody Sunday, in particular, was viewed as a direct attack on innocents; 14 unarmed civilians, peacefully protesting, were killed in a horrific shooting. This escalation of military presence, and extra-judicial violence, led to an equal and opposite escalation of violence on the republican side.

Each of these British interventions was justified as a method of bringing peace and order to the streets, yet each served to strengthen the perceived legitimacy of the Provisionals, who utilized each as a recruitment tool.

This is a common issue with “hard” counterterror strategies. Like a Hydra, for every head that is severed, multiple heads regrow in its place. It also gave the PIRA the opportunity to portray the nationalist minority of Northern Ireland as the victims of inhumane treatment at the hands of security forces. This, in turn, was used to validate their ongoing terrorist activity.

Soft Response: Peace Process and Politicization

Despite this escalation, softer methods were being implemented behind the scenes. In 1988 John Hume, the leader of the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP), began a series of secret discussions with the Sinn Fein president, Gerry Adams. It was Hume’s belief that peace would only come to Northern Ireland if the PIRA could be persuaded to pursue their agenda solely through their political wing.

An agreement was reached that the responsibility for the future of Northern Ireland should be in the hands of the people who lived there. The British agreed to negotiate from a position of neutrality, and Hume and Adams released a joint statement arguing that self-determination was the right of the Northern Irish people as a whole. This marked a significant steppingstone that moved the conflict away from terrorism and towards political negotiations.

The Good Friday Agreement in 1998 was the culmination of this negotiated peace. Central to the agreement was the statement that all those engaging in talks gave a commitment to “democratic and exclusively peaceful means of resolving political issue.”

After 29 years of violence, the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement was the major political breakthrough that laid the foundation for peace. The PIRA disarmed, and while there are still flashes of sectarian and communal violence, the peace has held for more than two decades. The road to peace has brought the PIRA from the murder of close to 2,000 people to having their political wing in a power-sharing government with their former adversaries.

Lessons for Counterterrorism

When approaching strategies to deal with terrorism, it is critical to remember the adage of Sun-Tzu: to know yourself and know your enemy. The British failure to recognize the legitimacy of the PIRA’s base goals, their unwillingness to fairly treat the Catholic minority, and their aggressive military response did little to mitigate the violence. The very strength of their response invited challenge and resistance, which led to violent calamity and catastrophe. Understanding their own culpability, and moving towards a softer approach, allowed more moderate and reasonable voices to be heard, ultimately leading to a cessation of hostilities and a politicization of the PIRA.

Sitting down with the enemy is an often difficult, sometimes impossible task. Yet providing a less violent means of enacting change was the only strategy which had any measurable effect on the three-decade long cycle of violence in Northern Ireland.

Rory McDonnell, Counter-Terrorism Research Fellow

September 9, 2018October 1, 2018 by Kate Kleinle

How Foreign Critics Led the IRA to Disarm

For more than half of the 20th century, violent conflict between pro-British Unionists and Irish Nationalists – a period referred to as the Troubles – decimated communities across British-controlled Northern Ireland and the self-governing Republic of Ireland.

Violence even occasionally spilled over into England itself. In counties bordering Northern Ireland and the Republic, violence was an everyday phenomenon. Crossing the border often proved a fateful endeavor. Much of the violence was driven by the IRA, or Irish Republican Army, an organization determined to end British rule of Northern Ireland and restore political autonomy to all of Ireland’s 32 counties.

Though their aim was noble, they used violence – including bombings, kneecappings, and violent intimidation – to achieve it.

At the height of IRA violence, their bloody campaign instilled terror in the Irish people, claiming hundreds of innocent lives. Irish people with relatives in Northern Ireland, like my grandparents, were thwarted from communicating with or visiting family across the border. Crossing in the wrong sort of car, or entering the wrong neighborhood would guarantee harm at the hands of violent nationalists. Things carried on this way for half a century.

If the IRA was so powerful, why has it ceased to be a source of violence in the 21st century? After declaring a ceasefire in 2005, the IRA lost its status as a major Irish political player. The IRA’s r reasons for disarming are complex, but they are entwined with events outside of Ireland, surprisingly.

It’s not too much to suggest that Irish-Americans were complicit in the deaths of hundreds of Irish civilians.

Irish-American support buoyed the IRA throughout its history, even as its leadership faltered, and its mission’s clarity flagged. IRA allies across the Atlantic ranged from middle-class Americans of Irish descent to Irish expatriates, and even to high-ranking members of the US Congress. Such ideological and financial support held powerful sway over IRA activities.

Preceding a 1970s crackdown, these were the IRA’s primary sources of funding. As such, Irish-American sentiment had a clear connection to IRA tactics. For decades, this informal Irish American lobby aided and abetted the IRA’s bloody pursuit of independence. It’s not too much to suggest Irish-Americans were complicit in the deaths of hundreds of Irish civilians.

The Belfast Telegraph headline on the day of the IRA ceasefire in 1994

9/11 reminded Irish-Americans how painful terrorism is.

The 1990s and early 2000s brought about an ideological shift. After decades of support, an increasing number of Irish-Americans shunned violence in favor of peaceful, political negotiations. 9/11 reminded Irish-Americans how painful terrorism is.

The US government arrested a number of IRA operatives trafficking weapons on American soil. And three IRA bombers were arrested in Colombia while training FARC rebels to fight US forces. These developments turned Irish-American opinion against the IRA’s use of terrorism and support for the group waned.

As the IRA lost American funding and connections, the pressure to disarm mounted. The loss of the Irish-American street wasn’t the only consideration in the IRA’s disarmament, but it surely factored into the 2005 decision.

These are not bygone days we’re discussing. These shifts occurred in the 21st century, and as such the implications are profound. Foreign support was crucial to the IRA’s survival. Likewise, it is integral to the operations of terrorist organizations like ISIS and Latin American cartels. Foreign support comes from individual donors, government agencies, and front charities. Even Bitcoin has become a means of financing extremism as terrorist organizations increase their reach and diversify their resources. Foreign money and connections are used for weapons, education, outreach. Absent these resources, all these activities would be limited.

Undermining terrorism by cutting off foreign support is demonstrably effective. If we’re serious about ending radicalism, we must penalize overseas supporters as ardently as we oppose terrorists themselves.

The War on Terror tends to focus on terrorist recruitment, disarmament, and direct combat. But it must also address the connections terrorist organizations have to secondary agencies funding them. In the case of the IRA, by cutting off foreign support was demonstrably effective.

If we’re serious about ending radicalism, we must penalize its overseas supporters as ardently as we oppose terrorists themselves. This works, whether the supporters are Saudi officials, European civilians, or members of the Irish-American middle class.

September 3, 2018October 1, 2018 by Keelin Wolfe

Brexit and Northern Ireland, Troubles Afoot?

As the United Kingdom prepares to leave the European Union in March 2019 there remain many who are concerned about what this will mean for the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

Twenty years after the end of the ethno-national Protestant and Catholic paramilitary conflict known as The Troubles, the British Isles once more fear the start of the terrorist violence. In 2016, when the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, one of the most pressing questions regarded what to do with Ireland and Northern Ireland border – and how to keep violence from reemerging there.

The Troubles were a 30 year (1968 – 1998) ethno-conflict over the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. The two sides to this territorial conflict had distinct visions for Northern Ireland: the majority Unionist Protestants fought to keep Northern Ireland a part of the United Kingdom.

While the minority Catholic Unionists fought to unite Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. 3,600 people were killed, thousands more were injured, and an intolerable unease lingered for three decades.

Fears of Troubles-era violence and the paramilitary groups’ reemergence grow daily as Brexit negotiations continue. According to the United Kingdom’s domestic counterintelligence and security agency, MI5, Northern Ireland violence is now classified as severe, indicating the belief that chances of attacks in the region are high. In Britain the threat level is moderate.

Violence in Northern Ireland never ended completely. Despite the Good Friday Agreement, radical Protestants and IRA splinter groups (such as New IRA, formerly known as Real IRA) consistently, violently attack one other.

Examples of such attacks include early July attacks in Derry wherein a group of boys, some as young as eight, fired AK-47 rifles and threw IEDs at police officers. The attacks were claimed by New IRA. On the other side, an office at the Irish Republican party Sinn Fein was targeted in an arson attack. No one was harmed, and no one claimed the attack, but the party publicly stated that the attack was anti-democratic.

There is legitimate concern that Brexit negotiation tensions will exacerbate this unending Troubles Epilogue, provoking broader terror operations and ubiquitous violence. But what is it about these negotiations that they can re-ignite great contention in Ireland?

The reintroduction of a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, a border where citizens from both countries would have to go through customs to enter the other side. Among other things, The Good Friday Agreement stipulated that the Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland border remain open to the point of figurative invisibility. No stopping travelers and traders, in other words, at Customs to awkwardly hand-over paperwork.

Brexit negotiators have borne this in mind, but lately, news outlets, political analysts, and political leaders alike opine that there is a growing possibility of a “No Deal Brexit.” Such a thing would mean the UK and EU agreed to shrug off the unresolved nature of the border problem and proceed regardless, triggering the installation of a hard border – imagine what this will do to trade alone.

According to recently released technical papers, the British government’s publicly stated opinion on trade and travel hardships caused by a prospective hard border boils down to, “…ask Dublin.” The rhetoric exasperates leaders on both sides unsettled by a lack of deference for the seminal Good Friday Agreement.

The looming threat of a No Deal Brexit is not the only cause for concern. A bill passing through Parliament allows for stops and searches within a mile of the Irish border in Northern Ireland for purposes of combating terror. Unsurprisingly, there has been backlash over this bill in Northern Ireland and Ireland.

Fears are based on the growing perception that the British government isn’t even interested in putting a good face on violating the Good Friday Agreement’s spirit which seeks to defuse tension rather than fuel it with hard borders. London must redouble its investment in resolving the border question lest it reignites an old fire. With tensions on the rise and violence already occurring in the area, the scars of the past are opening. A No Deal Brexit could be a straight shot to terrorism’s reappearance on the British Isles.

Picture by Margaret McLaughlin

in EUROPE & CENTRAL ASIA / Rise to Peace blog 1 comments