Nice to see a little good news splash on the page today.

From the NYT:

Link to the released announcement.

While this announcement seems to be well received overall, it has also been met with skepticism. From the BBC:

The language in the statement was certainly unequivocal, but the common theme to the reaction seems to be: "We've heard/seen the words, now lets witness the deeds to follow."

Questions for debate:

1. Can the IRA succeed long term in stopping all of its soldiers and volunteers from resorting to violence to pursue political ends?

2. If successful, how soon do you think it will be before Northern Ireland finally reunites with the rest of Ireland? Or will it?

3. What influence, if any, do you think the London bombings may have had on the timing of this decision?

1. No. There are those in the IRA for whom either violence has become a way of life or harbor resentments that they can't just drop overnight. Some members will conform, disarm and join a political movement, others will join or form IRA splinter groups like the Provisionals or Real IRA. The IRA has also engaged in organized crime to finance its operation, and I'm sure a few will keep that little sideline going.

2. Won't happen. The protestant majority of the population of the North do not want to unite with the predominantly Catholic Republic. It could happen a generation or two in the future but not in our lifetimes.

3. The bombings are probably the major factor, they just aren't going to get the support they once did for terrorist acts. They need to be seen as having a legitimate political cause, not be lumped in with religious extremists.

1. Can the IRA succeed long term in stopping all of its soldiers and volunteers from resorting to violence to pursue political ends?
It's instructive that you added "to pursue political ends" to this question. In effect, the IRA will succeed rather easily at doing that, as it has already done so for the past several years - at least since 1997, anyway.
What they haven't done - which they themselves committed to doing as part of the peace process - is completely disarm (this has been the main Unionist sticking point).
Nor have they abandoned the so-called "low grade violence" of punishment beatings, intimidation, and the odd murder here and there that is not for political ends, but which has more to do with the organised crime activities that all the Northern Irish paramilitaries use to keep other people off their turf, and to make themselves money.
Even in their heyday in the 1970s and 80s, the main source of funds for Irish terrorism was not foreign sponsorship from Libya, or even Noraid in the USA - it was organised crime.
The "punishment beatings" of pimps, drug dealers and armed robbers were not carried out because the paramilitaries (of which the IRA has always been the biggest) intrinsically disapprove of prostitution, drugs or other crimes. They were mostly carried out because they disapprove of such crimes where some or all of the proceeds do not go into their own coffers.
In other words, while their start point was their political goals, their fundraising methods have been little different from any other type of organised crime. They have decided to abondon violence in their political struggle, and have not used it politically for some years anyway. However, they are just not used to being completely peaceful - most of their people on the ground make their living the same way Tony Soprano does. It will be much harder for the leadership to stop this remaining level of violence.

2. If successful, how soon do you think it will be before Northern Ireland finally reunites with the rest of Ireland? Or will it?
I'm not sure it will be "reunited" any time soon - Ireland has a long history, but a single united political entity free from a British presence and influence has never really existed. You can't reunite something that has never been properly joined together.
Perhaps in 50 or 100 years time, if the demographics change to give a nationalist and/or Catholic majority, a peaceful union may be acheived, if the people on the island of Ireland still want that.
Even then, there may still be significant loyalist populations in the North, and if they are not treated with care and consideration in the new united Ireland, they may decide to use violence against the Irish state with the political goal of rejoining the United Kingdom.
The problem might then reappear in a different guise - the bombs would be in Dublin rather than London, but the blood would be the same colour.
To my mind, Unionism is an odd concept. Unionists think of themselves as British, for sure. But I'm not sure very many people on the mainland think of them that way. The vote on the Anglo-Irish agreement polled everyone on the Island of Ireland, so we could be fairly certain that all people involved who thought of themselves as Irish had their say. What was missing was the involvement of all people who think of themselves as British - the mainland didn't get to say what they wanted to happen. As such, the only "British" voice expressed was that of Ulster Unionism.
Frankly, I think that was a mistake, and I have a strong hunch that if the Unionists realised how little they have in common with mainland Britain - whose cherished ideas of tolerance and fair play seem alien from the Unionist culture of Orange parades and sectarianism - they might have been more amenable to compromise and we could have got to where we are now rather more quickly.

(Here I could also go into a semantic discussion about how the Irish are actually more entitled to call themselves British than the English are, but that's beside the point. )

3. What influence, if any, do you think the London bombings may have had on the timing of this decision?
Other than maybe a disinclination to be tarred with the same brush as the new breed of Islamic extremist terrorists, I honestly don't think the two are connected at all. This announcement was always likely, even inevitable, after the ceasefire and the Anglo-Irish agreement kicked off the peace process.
Besides which, British intelligence had penetrated the IRA - it took 20-25 years, but they got there in the end. The war was lost, so all that remained was to withdraw, either with or without dignity. The arguments of decomissioning and disarmament since then have been rooted in a Unionist desire to see republicanism humiliated. (Again, this is not a characteristically British sentiment, I think.)

Highly doubtful. A group like the IRA does not simply vanish because peace has been called for. There shall always be one person or group who are unhappy and will continue to use violence and discord to reach their political aims. To stop their soldiers would be a miracle, however this miracle is premature. Give it time and promise them what they want, or close to, and true a true IRA cease fire will be born.




As Julian has pointed out, Ireland has always been separate political bodies. To reunite it must be a slow process and gradually done. I'd say within the next fifteen to twenty years we shall see one Ireland.