Gerry Adams says its ‘one of my regrets' that end of IRA armed campaign took so long
He also said he regretted the number of lives lost during the Troubles as he reflected on the upcoming 20th anniversary of the IRA statement.
The IRA formally ended its 35-year paramilitary campaign on July 28, 2005 when former republican prisoner Seanna Walsh read a statement.
While a number of ceasefires had been announced and collapsed since 1994, the 2005 statement saw the start of the decommissioning of weapons.
The statement said that members had been instructed to use exclusively peaceful means, and not to engage in any other activities whatsoever.
Mr Adams described the move as seismic, and an "indication of confidence" by "all the IRA" and not just its leadership.
"The statement came after there had been some sort of internal process, a huge vote of confidence in people," he said.
"It took decades for it to be put together.
"You have to go back to Father Alec Reid, Father Des Wilson, myself, John Hume and the endeavour to put together an alternative to armed struggle.
"It took all that time to do that, but that's what the IRA said in its statement, that they believed there was now a peaceful way to pursue republican and democratic objectives, and ordered its volunteers to not be engaged in any other activity whatsoever, and authorised contact with the International Commission on Decommissioning.
"It took decades and one of my regrets is that it took so long. In my humble opinion it took so long because the two governments, particularly the British government, only sought peace on its terms, which meant defeat the IRA, it meant defeat republicanism and that doesn't work, our people are resolute."
ADVERTISEMENT
Learn more
He added: "The proof of it is that 20 years later the IRA isn't a feature. Some may want to make it a feature, invent, fabricate and so on, but that's the proof of it."
Asked whether he felt the IRA should issue an apology for all the lives lost by their actions, Mr Adam pointed to a statement in 2002 on the anniversary of Bloody Friday, a series of bombs across Belfast which claimed nine lives.
It included an offer of "sincere apologies and condolences" to the families of all "non combatants" killed or injured by IRA actions.
"I think in fairness that the record will show that the IRA leadership have apologised on a number of occasions about specific incidents or operations which it was involved in, particularly around the issue of civilian casualties or fatalities," he said.
"One of the big regrets that I have is that so many people were killed, and particularly people who weren't involved and particularly children, that's a real concern.
"I say that from a community and a family which lost loved ones in the course of all of this."
However, Mr Adams added that while he thinks it is important to look back over the last 20 years, it is also important to look forward to the next 20 years and a referendum on a united Ireland.
"One thing we can say with certainty is there is going to be a referendum on the future, the Irish Government doesn't want it, the British Government doesn't want it, unionists don't want it but there is going to be the day when people will vote for the future," he said.
"Our responsibility, and for everyone who is concerned about the future, need to be part of the conversation well in advance of that vote. Whether it is about public services, health services, the economy, flags, emblems, taking all of those issues and trying to find solutions to them that allows everyone to be comfortable in the new Ireland.
"You rarely get the opportunity to write the future, and we now have that opportunity and its contained in the Good Friday Agreement."
"I do know that there will be a united Ireland so whether it happens the day after I die or a couple of years before then.
"It is not inevitable, the forces against it are quite strong but if we work at it.
"If we continue to do the sensible, intelligent things that we have been trying to do, then - although I would love to live in a united Ireland - it matters little to me whether it happens after I die or before it. To be able to say in my own heart to say, 'I played a part in bringing that about', that'll do me."
Mr Adams was speaking ahead of an Feile An Phobail arts event this weekend to mark the anniversary.
He will take part in a discussion alongside Mr Walsh, chaired by Sinn Féin Galway TD Mairead Farrell, at the Balmoral Hotel in Belfast on Saturday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sunday World
17 hours ago
- Sunday World
Ex-Provo says he's proud IRA chiefs asked him to tell world their war was over
Séanna Walsh became the first IRA man for decades to stand in front of a camera and talk on behalf of the organisation without a mask Seanna Walsh, announces that IRA leadership has formally ordered an end to its armed campaign in 2005. The former Provo who told the world the IRA's war was over has revealed it remains one of the proudest moments of his life – but he had to get his daughters' approval first. Séanna Walsh spoke to the Sunday World on the week of the 20th anniversary of the jaw-dropping statement that declared an end to the IRA's violent campaign which saw them murder more than 1,700 people. On July 28, 2005, Séanna became the first IRA man for decades to stand in front of a camera and talk on behalf of the organisation without a mask. In a DVD that was distributed all over the world, he said the terrorist group was laying down its arms and was committing to a new peaceful strategy of achieving its goal of a united Ireland. Not everyone believed them but 20 years on only the most diehard unionist would argue that the IRA still exists as a violent force. Seanna Walsh, announces that IRA leadership has formally ordered an end to its armed campaign in 2005. Séanna (68) reveals this week why he thinks he was chosen to deliver that message, how he had check it was okay with his family first and how he feels about it 20 years later. While a number of ceasefires had been announced and collapsed since 1994, the 2005 statement saw the start of the decommissioning of weapons. The IRA statement delivered by Séanna said that members had been instructed to use exclusively peaceful means and not to engage in any other activities whatsoever. 'I had to be unmasked,' says Séanna – now a Sinn Féin Belfast city councillor – told the Sunday World. 'It had to be that way because we were doing something different. 'It was the defining moment of my life as a republican and I'm very proud of the fact the IRA leadership asked me to be the person to read the statement. 'I wasn't wearing a mask because we had to move away from that but I wasn't worried because I was quite convinced the days of the armed conflict were over. Séanna Walsh reflects on delivering historic IRA statement 20 years on News in 90 Seconds, Friday August 1 'It was made in the grounds of the Roddy's (Roddy McCorley's Club) and there's a museum there today and you can push the button and play the video and actually there's a recording of me reading the statement in English but also in Irish.' Walsh was a 48-year-old father-of-three when he made the statement which lasted just over four minutes and was filmed in the grounds of the west Belfast club. By then he'd already been in jail three times for his role in violent republicanism – in fact by the time he was released in 1998 he'd spent more time behind bars than out – and his track record was one of the reasons he believes he was chosen to read out the statement. 'I didn't ask them why I was chosen,' says Walsh. 'I was approached by an IRA comrade and that's as much as I can say. I suppose it's because I was confident enough to do it. 'I think they asked me because of the fact I'd served time in the Cages (Long Kesh), where I first met Bobby Sands, and where I shared a cell with him and we became very close friends. 'Then during the hunger strike period I was back in the H-Blocks and suffered the abuse of the blanket protest and was then in charge of the H-Blocks after Bik McFarlane stood down. 'On being released I went back to the struggle and was recaptured a third time and sentenced to 22 years the third time and was finally released in 1998. 'When I was asked would I be prepared to be the one to read the statement to camera and this would go out globally, I had to take a step back and I told them I'll have to think about this because I have three daughters, two of which were teens and the other was only a child. 'I needed to sit down and go through it all with my family – my wife is a long-standing republican in her own right and shared a cell in jail in Armagh with Mairéad Farrell for a number of years. 'So my wife was okay with it and the girls were absolutely supportive – the one thing I was most concerned about was the way that stuff like this can impact on their opportunities to travel and them being at that age. 'So I sat down with them and talked it over with them and I came back and said 'yes I'll do it'. I was a bit concerned about putting myself above the parapet and making myself a target of abuse because we were putting it up to the establishment in a way we hadn't really done before.' For the record, Walsh was jailed for terrorist offences including robbing banks, having a rifle and being caught with explosives but he sticks by the controversial claim that there was 'no alternative'. But he says the growth of Sinn Féin in the Republic actually pushed the IRA closer to a ceasefire as they found Dublin a colder house than before. 'Nationalists and certainly republicans felt there was no alternative to armed struggle but when republicans were convinced that there was a viable alternative to ending British government interference in this part of Ireland without recourse to armed struggle, they jumped at it with both hands and grasped it,' he says. 'To talk about 2005 you really have to talk about the statement Gerry Adams made in April where he talks about the time is now right for the IRA to leave the stage. 'That triggered a whole period of consultation across the republican family... it was time for the IRA to leave the stage because it was leading to excuses on the part of other people, the people in opposition to ourselves. 'When you look back in the years when Sinn Féin was a political party and their strength lay in the North, the Dublin government were a lot less hostile after the IRA ceasefire but Sinn Féin's strength was growing in the south and they were becoming, as far as they were concerned, a threat politically to the southern establishment and that's when things started becoming problematic with the Dublin government.' He says the archives will show that neither unionism nor the British government believed his statement was completely genuine. 'If you look back at the archives the British downplayed it, the unionists totally poo-pooed it and even then later in the year when you had the statement from De Chastelain (chairman of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning), that he was satisfied guns had been put beyond use you still had this scepticism in unionism that didn't believe it.' Last weekend, Séanna took part in a discussion about his historic statement along with Gerry Adams, chaired by Mairéad Farrell TD – niece of IRA member Mairéad who was shot dead in Gibraltar – in Belfast's Balmoral Hotel. Speaking before the event, Gerry Adams voiced regret that the statement of 2005 took so long to come, suggesting the UK government was focused on 'defeating republicanism'. He said: 'It took decades and one of my regrets is that it took so long. In my humble opinion it took so long because the two governments, particularly the British government, only sought peace on its terms, which meant defeat the IRA, it meant defeat republicanism and that doesn't work, our people are resolute.' He added: 'The proof of it is that 20 years later the IRA isn't a feature.'
Irish Examiner
a day ago
- Irish Examiner
Book review: Downfall of last shah of Iran
Written with the galloping pace of a cliff-edge political thriller and the intimacy of a memoir, Scott Anderson's King of Kings is a wonderful, engaging history. It is a tremendous summation of the clichés that can attend the end, benign or otherwise, of a regime that imagined itself loved and secure. It is also a warning to those prepared today to see our own times through the prism offered by a resonating episode from the past. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the last shah of Iran, was, through American and British skullduggery, imposed on Iran in 1953. His ennoblement came after then prime minister Mohammad Mosaddegh had the temerity to champion workers' rights and nationalise the country's huge oil reserves, undermining the Anglo-American exploitation — piracy dressed as international business — established by Winston Churchill on the eve of the First World War. The British and Americans hoped he might be as assertive in protecting their interests as his father was. Hardly a humanitarian, army officer Reza Shah Pahlavi brought a Tehran bakers' strike to an end by roasting the workers' leader alive in one of his ovens. That kind of decisiveness was alien to his son, who was incapable of making any decision unless he could identify someone to blame should his judgement prove inappropriate. Time and time again, as the noose of change tightened, his prevarications lost the day and cost his festering courtiers ground. It would be unfair to blame the King of Kings, a title he generously assumed in 1967, for the challenges facing his utterly corrupt country. He was supported by an American diplomatic service utterly delusional and imperceptive. The US ambassador for a lot of the Shah's reign — William Sullivan — was more interested in sustaining the lucrative circle of buying Iranian oil and encouraging the inept and insecure Shah to use a vast proportion of those revenues to buy arms from America. So detached was the American legation that fewer than a dozen of the hundreds stationed in the country could speak Farsi. This vulnerability was exacerbated by a communications process more like one from 1825. One of the often-universal themes in this wonderful book is how autocracies that outstay their welcome are often replaced by usurpers far worse than they were. Just as Russia's and China's pressure-cooker revolutions unseated rotten dynasties but replaced them with even more malignant administrations, Iran's determination to depose the Shah mixed nationalism and a medieval religious fanaticism in the person of the vile, hateful Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. The legacy of that calamitous intervention remains centre stage in our volatile world. Anderson is a wonderful writer, one who winnows substance from the imagined in a way that must remind all politicians that the opportunity to resolve critical issues is not open-ended. Whether our housing crisis can gather the velocity that turned Iran rogue is an open question but it is also an increasingly pressing one. How reassuring it would be if Anderson's warning had the impact it deserves.
Irish Examiner
a day ago
- Irish Examiner
Daniel O'Connell personified the perpetual importance of an independent Bar
On July 27, 1813, in the Court of King's Bench in Dublin, Daniel O'Connell rose to defend John Magee, publisher of the Dublin Evening Post, against a charge of criminal libel. His speech that day demonstrated how a skilled barrister could transform an oppressive legal system into an instrument of political change. The case of The King v. John Magee remains one of the most memorable examples of O'Connell's extraordinary ability to use his legal expertise in the service of justice and reform. The charge against Magee arose from his publication of a review criticising the departing Lord Lieutenant, the Duke of Richmond. The article condemned Richmond's errors in governing Ireland and compared him to the worst of his predecessors, who were described as 'the profligate unprincipled Westmorland, the cold-hearted and cruel Camden, the artful and treacherous Cornwallis'. More significantly, it challenged the fundamental principle of British rule in Ireland — 'a principle of exclusion, which debars the majority of the people from the enjoyment of those privileges that are possessed by the minority'. This was no ordinary libel case. As O'Connell understood, it was unavoidably a political case, and it demanded a political speech. The prosecution was designed to suppress dissent and maintain the exclusion of Ireland's Catholic majority from political participation. Attorney General William Saurin made this clear in his opening, describing Magee as a 'ruffian' whose purpose was 'to excite [in the minds of the population] hatred against those whom the laws have appointed to rule over them, and prepare them for revolution'. O'Connell faced formidable obstacles. The law of criminal libel was so broad that, as he later observed, 'every letter I ever published could be declared a libel' and the libel law could 'produce a conviction with a proper judge and jury for The Lord's Prayer with due legal inuendoes'. More damaging still was the composition of the jury — hand-picked to ensure conviction. With characteristic boldness, O'Connell confronted this unfairness head-on, telling the jurors: 'Gentlemen, he [the Attorney General] thinks he knows his men; he knows you; many of you signed the no-popery petition... you would not have been summoned on this jury if you had entertained liberal sentiments'. Rather than being cowed by these disadvantages, O'Connell turned them into weapons. He began by meeting Saurin's personal attacks, describing the Attorney General's speech as a 'farrago of helpless absurdity'. When Saurin had stooped to calling Magee a ruffian and comparing him to 'the keeper of a house of ill fame', O'Connell lamented how far Saurin fell below the standards of the great Irish barristers such as Curran and Ponsonby: 'Devoid of taste and of genius, how can he have had memory enough to preserve this original vulgarity — he is, indeed, an object of compassion; and, from my inmost soul, I bestow on him my forgiveness and my bounteous pity'. O'Connell was even able to use Saurin's own words against him. When the Attorney General accused Magee of Jacobinism, O'Connell recalled Saurin's defence of himself against the same charge in 1800, when Saurin, then anti-union, had declared that 'agitation is ... the price necessarily paid for liberty'. O'Connell's response was devastating: 'We have paid the price, gentlemen, and the honest man refuses to give us the goods'. What made O'Connell's defence truly remarkable was how he transformed a hopeless legal case into a powerful platform for political reform. His bold claim: 'the Catholic cause is on its majestic march — its progress is rapid and obvious... We will, we must, be soon emancipated' is electrifying even now. What must it have sounded like in his voice, in that court, in that trial, in those times? His confidence in his legal position was equally striking. When Saurin threatened to crush the Catholic Board, O'Connell declared: 'I am, if not a lawyer, at least a barrister. On this subject, I ought to know something; and I do not hesitate to contradict the Attorney General ... the Catholic Board is perfectly a legal assembly — that it not only does not violate the law, but that it is entitled to the protection of the law' Perhaps the most significant moment came not during the trial itself, but at the sentencing hearing on November 27, 1813. When Saurin attempted to use Magee's publication of O'Connell's defence speech as grounds for increasing Magee's sentence, O'Connell delivered what may be his most important statement on the role of the legal profession. In the face of personal threats of contempt and possible imprisonment following his denunciation of the Attorney General, O'Connell stood firm, delivering an impassioned defence of the importance of an independent Bar: 'It is the first interest of the public that the Bar shall be left free... the public are deeply interested in our independence; their properties, their lives, their honours, are entrusted to us; and if we, in whom such a guardianship is confided, be degraded, how can we afford protection to others?'. This was not merely professional self-interest, but a profound understanding of the Bar's constitutional role. In a system designed to exclude the majority from political participation, an independent legal profession became the last protection of individual rights. O'Connell grasped the fact that, without fearless advocates willing to challenge authority, the law would become merely an instrument of oppression. That is why, as the Taoiseach, Micheál Martin, put it when addressing the O'Connell 250 Symposium in Trinity College Dublin on Tuesday last, The Bar of Ireland has always been rightly proud of the fact that O'Connell was such a distinguished member of the Bar. Two hundred years later, the existence of a fearless independent Bar, practising advocacy and giving legal advice to the highest professional standards, remains an essential guarantee of the rule of law and the protection of individual rights. The many, often insidious, efforts that exist, whether prompted by powerful commercial, bureaucratic or political interests, to degrade or diminish the Bar are always, above all else, an attack on the rights of citizens and on the rule of law. O'Connell's performance in The King v. John Magee exemplifies the best traditions of forensic advocacy at The Bar of Ireland. Faced with a corrupt system, a biased tribunal, and impossible odds, he refused to bow his head or moderate his principles. Instead, he turned the forms and processes of an unjust and oppressive system against itself, using a political prosecution against dissenting speech as the means to condemn the oppressor and amplify the dissent. In an age when legal systems worldwide face challenges to their integrity and especially to the independence of barristers and advocates, O'Connell's example reminds us that the law's highest purpose is not merely to maintain order, but to secure justice. His defence of John Magee shows the difference a single barrister, armed with skill, courage, and unwavering principle, can make. Seán Guerin SC. Picture: Conor McCabe Photography. Seán Guerin SC is Chair of the Council of The Bar of Ireland
