How did the IRA come to be at the peace table?

[JR-]

In reference to this:

Originally Posted by Furunculu5:
"it was never a shooting war between state actors.
we broke their will to continue fighting by utterly infiltrating them via every human and technical means available, to the point where if they planned an assassination there were SAS waiting to slot them, if they went to pick up an arms cache it was possibly booby-trapped, if they went looking for moles we served them up one of their own to execute whilst leaving our spies ever further up in the ranks of the IRA.
they came to the peace table on their knees!"

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost:
"I don't wish to derail the thread, but that's bollox. (If you want to explore it further, please start a new thread and I will discuss with you, subject to the constraints of the Official Secrets Act)."

My understanding was that what i said above is largely the case, given that BG appears to come from Ireland and makes mention of the OSA I believe he has more to add to this, so i will gratefully take up his offer of explanation. :)

thanks.

[KarlXII]

My Irish history is not excellent, but from what I remember, the British did not bring the IRA to the table on their knees, but in fact the British were the ones who offered the peace, and the fighting ended with a mutual truce, right? Hell, the truce let IRA numbers swell to 72,000.

[Banquo's Ghost]

My understanding was that what i said above is largely the case, given that BG appears to come from Ireland and makes mention of the OSA I believe he has more to add to this, so i will gratefully take up his offer of explanation.

You significantly over-stated your case.

Whilst we had a fairly high-level infiltration of the IRA, its long-tested cell structure ensured that intelligence was limited in application - specifically in relation to stopping the mainland bombings. (I say "we" - and should explain. Whilst I am Irish by nationality and birth, I served as a commissioned officer in the British Army through the eighties, including several tours of the Province).

The IRA was compromised, but not toothless. The mainland bombing campaign was a development of this understanding, begun on the understanding that economic damage to the United Kingdom's interests would be much more effective than killing the odd policeman in a province most of the British cared little about. Blowing up the City however, concentrated people's minds wonderfully, as did the attempt on the Cabinet. The economic cost was substantial and the risks negligible; and the campaign eventually bore fruit. Not the desired fruit of British defeat, but the more bitter crop of engagement.

By the end of the decade, feelers were being put out by the British government to understand the basis of possible negotiations (whilst of course, shouting as hard as they could that they would never negotiate with terrorists). One of the reasons for this was that our intelligence agents within the IRA had noted that Gerry Adams and his views on resolving the conflict through political means were gaining more of a foothold as the Army Council began to realise a stalemate was the only end game. Personalities that could "help" facilitate that change were encouraged.

The long resolution of the Northern Ireland conflict began when the hard-liners on both sides realised that they were locked into a no-win conflict. Certainly we "smoothed" that path with the elimination of a couple of fellows who might have stood in Adams' way, but in no way was the IRA a beaten force - unless you, as the terrorist hardliners would, claim that any result bar the utter defeat of the British Army meant they had lost.

[JR-]

cheers. :) i agree i did overstate the position, but i don't believe it was by much.

many thanks.

[LittleGrizzly]

Hearts and minds, would be my answer if i was limited to 3 words....

[Tribesman]

They came to be at the peace table because there was a complimentary buffet laid on and a free bar

[Banquo's Ghost]

They came to be at the peace table because there was a complimentary buffet laid on and a free bar

Tsk. The free bar is the bit covered by the Official Secrets Act.

[rory_20_uk]

I thought that another factor was that post 9/11 Americans found out that terrorism isn't fun, and stopped helping those nice Irish people who came to collect money, as perhaps providing funds to bomb an ally wasn't a good idea.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I thought that another factor was that post 9/11 Americans found out that terrorism isn't fun, and stopped helping those nice Irish people who came to collect money, as perhaps providing funds to bomb an ally wasn't a good idea.

The change in attitudes certainly helped undermine reactionary elements of the Army Council and strengthened the hands of those trying to finalise the decommissioning of arms, but the substantive progress had already happened. The Good Friday Agreement was signed in 1998, remember.

President Clinton's involvement had already holed US tolerance for the romantics well below the waterline.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I think that the nature of British nationalism in general changed. This change effected it's attitudes toward the Catholic Irish and Irish terrorists realized that they wouldn't get sympathy by attacking a benign Britain.

I credit Blair with the change, not Clinton. Blair and his new Britain are the source of the reasonable treatment of Irish Catholics. We had more problems over the last 10 years from Orangement who didn't like the way that London humanized the Irish. This put London and the Irish Catholics in the same boat and the loyalists (who still had power) on the outskirts of talks.

[InsaneApache]

Actually it was John Major that opened the way. Blair just followed in his footsteps.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Ok - so it was a number of people.

[InsaneApache]

It was mainly Major, even Blair admitted it. I know that Blair is seen by some as messianic but even he couldn't undo 800 years of history in 10 months.

[ICantSpellDawg]

It was mainly Major, even Blair admitted it. I know that Blair is seen by some as messianic but even he couldn't undo 800 years of history in 10 months.

But Major could?

[InsaneApache]

By 1997 Major had been PM for 7 years.

[Tribesman]

It was mainly Major

Hold on , your government has been talking to the ***** ever since the ***** learnt to talk


So.....errrr..don't talk bollox

[JR-]

that is a useless post.

[LittleGrizzly]

I was quite young at the time so ill admit i may be wrong.... Major laid some of the groundwork but it is under Blair that the majority of the work was done, this is from watching news over the years mainly and by 97 i was only 12 so i may be missing something...

[Tribesman]

that is a useless post.

Is it ?
The British government have been talking to the provisionals ever since there was provisionals , and before there was provisionals they was talking with the officials .

[InsaneApache]

Tribes is correct. HM government was in contact with the IRA since the early 80s. Although in an attempt to asphyxiate them, they kept it quiet.

[JR-]

"It was mainly Major"

Hold on , your government has been talking to the ***** ever since the ***** learnt to talk

So.....errrr..don't talk bollox

yes, we know there have been eternal talks behind the scenes, but it was Major's Gov't that actually achieved something, the OP is correct and Tribesman is just splashing fiery rhetoric around the walls like so much manure in hopes that enough sticks to drown out the value of the comment he is trying to oppose.

[Banquo's Ghost]

"It was mainly Major"

yes, we know there have been eternal talks behind the scenes, but it was Major's Gov't that actually achieved something, the OP is correct and Tribesman is just splashing fiery rhetoric around the walls like so much manure in hopes that enough sticks to drown out the value of the comment he is trying to oppose.

Now, now.

Tribesman is making a very valid point that British governments have engaged to a greater or lesser extent with the "rebels" and that those contacts had the advantage of humanising (to a degree) both sides.

One might argue (as IA alluded) that the substantive groundwork for John Major's initiatives was done by the Thatcher government - and perhaps astonishingly, right after the 1984 Grand Hotel bombing. That shocked the government into realising that the IRA could pull off something that dangerous - whilst Mrs Thatcher's stoic response immediately after got through to some die-hard republicans that the British were never going to be bombed into submission - even through such spectaculars. One of the responses was to encourage the very low-level, deniable talks that were ongoing with some real direction - another was to increase the "stick" with rather nastier measures.

[gaelic cowboy]

Well my two cents would be they arrived at the table at the right time and in a position of power. The starting of the strand talks probably laid the groundwork in embryonic form. These were I suppose only really talks about talks but they did have a significance in that talk occured. Naturally nothing came of them until the SDLP started to engage with Sinn Fein along with the Reynolds Fianna Fail Government. John Major and Albert Reynolds input in those early stages cannot be overstated however there were misssteps on both sides. The breaking of the IRA ceasefire in 1996 was felt here to be the British governments fault but that bump on the road so to speak probably laid the groundwork for the Good Friday Agreement. In fact everytime there has been a breakdown in relations Sinn Fein has benefitted by way of increasing public sympathy and voter turnout etc etc. As a result we now have the extremist element on both sides running the North. The question was how did they arrive at the table that is answerable in two parts one the goverments left open the door and two an increasing catholic middle class in the North wanted some kind of input to create a solution to the problems. Also increasing wealth and confidence in the South allowed not just our voice to count but eventually to matter. Once the IRA was at the table the job became not peace talks but rather a talks process no one ever said peace table as that implies a winner and looser or a draw. In a real sense the idea was keep em talking at least there not bombing thats why Clinton had a huge influence. Thankfully the North is now really just an unimportant piece of the world again where two sides can row over differant colour flags and EU subsidies. Really those statements of unnamed origin about the IRA being on their knees etc etc are laughable and only could be possible in some hardline unionist wet dream.

[InsaneApache]

Good post.

[gaelic cowboy]

Well my two cents would be they arrived at the table at the right time and in a position of power. The starting of the strand talks probably laid the groundwork in embryonic form. These were I suppose only really talks about talks but they did have a significance in that talk occured. Naturally nothing came of them until the SDLP started to engage with Sinn Fein along with the Reynolds Fianna Fail Government. John Major and Albert Reynolds input in those early stages cannot be overstated however there were misssteps on both sides. The breaking of the IRA ceasefire in 1996 was felt here to be the British governments fault but that bump on the road so to speak probably laid the groundwork for the Good Friday Agreement. In fact everytime there has been a breakdown in relations Sinn Fein has benefitted by way of increasing public sympathy and voter turnout etc etc. As a result we now have the extremist element on both sides running the North. The question was how did they arrive at the table that is answerable in two parts one the goverments left open the door and two an increasing catholic middle class in the North wanted some kind of input to create a solution to the problems. Also increasing wealth and confidence in the South allowed not just our voice to count but eventually to matter. Once the IRA was at the table the job became not peace talks but rather a talks process no one ever said peace table as that implies a winner and looser or a draw. In a real sense the idea was keep em talking at least there not bombing thats why Clinton had a huge influence. Thankfully the North is now really just an unimportant piece of the world again where two sides can row over differant colour flags and EU subsidies. Really those statements of unnamed origin about the IRA being on their knees etc etc are laughable and only could be possible in some hardline unionist wet dream.

[Viking]

Good post.

He appears to concur.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[InsaneApache]

Appeal to Admin. Any chance of a 'Boo-Gerroff' smillie?

[JR-]

Really those statements of unnamed origin about the IRA being on their knees etc etc are laughable and only could be possible in some hardline unionist wet dream.

this is little doubt that militarily the ira were getting their collective behinds thoroughly kicked by the eighties, they were utterly infiltrated and less and less militarily effective, if that came at a time when a political solution was more acceptable in london and more appreciated in ireland then all the better.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200604/ira-spy

[Papewaio]

So the lesson is that to deter terrorism, keep up communications and create a middle class with a vested interest and venue for voting.

[Banquo's Ghost]

this is little doubt that militarily the ira were getting their collective behinds thoroughly kicked by the eighties, they were utterly infiltrated and less and less militarily effective, if that came at a time when a political solution was more acceptable in london and more appreciated in ireland then all the better.

Again, substantially overstated.

If you want to believe that the IRA was beaten, feel free - but then you have to ask yourself why successive British governments spent so much time and resource trying to engage a vanquished and thus irrelevant force into a peace process.