Could this be the first ideological victory in the war on terror?
On Thursday, The Irish Republican Army (IRA) has formally ordered an end to its armed campaign and says it will pursue exclusively peaceful means. The IRA is, of course, the terrorist organization responsible for the murder of over 1,700 people in its quest for full independence from Great Britain.
I am well aware that IRA violence has been trailing off over the past few decades, exemplified by its 1997 ceasefire and continuing in its 2001 decision to quietly start the disarmament process. Nevertheless, although it is far too early to be “crediting” any one thing or event, I would like to believe that part of their decision has been the increasing de-legitimization of terrorism throughout Europe in general, and within Britain in particular over the past 4 years. Of course, terrorism has always been met with denunciation and rejection, but the disdain for the tactic, the outrage, the sheer intolerance of it independent from any cause or issue, is a relatively new development in that area of the world from what I can observe.
I would like to believe that the IRA realized that its preferred method of resistance, while once tolerated if not accepted, has become THE faux pas of modern resistance politics.
Of course, it is possible (indeed, probable) that the IRA’s decision was entirely independent of the new international consciousness that took root after 9/11 and the US-led war on terror. However, if the IRA based its decision in some small way on the changing perception of terrorism, then it may quite possibly be the first major ideological victory in the war on terror, insomuch as the ultimate objective of the war is not just to punish individual perpetrators, but also to create an environment in which alternative forms of resistance and expression are encouraged.
This is a big step for the IRA in a decades old political battle, and the announcement should be seen as another chapter in that long saga, not as the conclusion or the pivotal climax in their history. Nevertheless, the timing is instructive and will hopefully send a message to other violent nationalist organizations throughout the region (ETA, CCC, Action Directe, Brigate Rosse). Of course, that is only what I would like to believe.
I am well aware that IRA violence has been trailing off over the past few decades, exemplified by its 1997 ceasefire and continuing in its 2001 decision to quietly start the disarmament process. Nevertheless, although it is far too early to be “crediting” any one thing or event, I would like to believe that part of their decision has been the increasing de-legitimization of terrorism throughout Europe in general, and within Britain in particular over the past 4 years. Of course, terrorism has always been met with denunciation and rejection, but the disdain for the tactic, the outrage, the sheer intolerance of it independent from any cause or issue, is a relatively new development in that area of the world from what I can observe.
I would like to believe that the IRA realized that its preferred method of resistance, while once tolerated if not accepted, has become THE faux pas of modern resistance politics.
Of course, it is possible (indeed, probable) that the IRA’s decision was entirely independent of the new international consciousness that took root after 9/11 and the US-led war on terror. However, if the IRA based its decision in some small way on the changing perception of terrorism, then it may quite possibly be the first major ideological victory in the war on terror, insomuch as the ultimate objective of the war is not just to punish individual perpetrators, but also to create an environment in which alternative forms of resistance and expression are encouraged.
This is a big step for the IRA in a decades old political battle, and the announcement should be seen as another chapter in that long saga, not as the conclusion or the pivotal climax in their history. Nevertheless, the timing is instructive and will hopefully send a message to other violent nationalist organizations throughout the region (ETA, CCC, Action Directe, Brigate Rosse). Of course, that is only what I would like to believe.
IRA
I'm not certain I wouldgo this far. For one thing, if there was a first victory, it probably came when Libya promised to stop developing wmds and made other concessions in 2003. But beyond that, while we condemn and oppose all terrorism, I wonder if the IRA was not a separate situation that was already well on its way to being solved well before 9/11. I think Northern ireland has to stand as Clinton's greatest foreign policy accomplishment. In many ways, the IRA was moving in this direction for a while.
I'm slowly working on a project on terrorism, looking at specific events from a number of different places, and one of the chapters is on the Enniskillen bombing, an awful, horrible tragedy and by any stretch a loathsome act of terrorism, so i am not apologizing for or excusing the IRA (or the Protestant paramilitaries, which unlike the IRA never even made a pretense of doing anything but attacking civilians and yet almost always gets overlooked) but rather pointing out that itmight not be best to categorize the IRA's actions yesterday as being too closely connected with what went on in the last few days over here.
dc
Re: IRA
I would not disagree with you on this one. What happened with the IRA probably is unconnected with any kind of shift in public attitudes on terrorism. Still, like Libya's decision (which can be traced back to well before Iraq, I might add) the disarming of the IRA is significant for its timing, if nothing else, illustrating (even if not caused by) the increasing attention terrorism has been recieveing.
Re: IRA
Surely the IRA could read the tea leaves and the shift, especially in light of what has gone on here in England the last month or so, in attitudes, and realized that their violence, however they choose to call it, will never be a winner for them again if it ever was. They may just be making a virtue out of necessity. And there may be correlation if not causality with what is going on in the rest of the world.
dc