No grief, no anger as 14 hours after attack Sinn Féin has its say
David Sharrock
Times (UK), Mar. 9
It took Gerry Adams and Sinn Féin 14 hours to respond to the murders of the two young British soldiers, long after the rest of Northern Ireland's political parties and the British and Irish governments had condemned the terrorists' bloody attack. When it finally arrived, the statement looked like an almost clinical string of sentences over which a committee had agonised. The lack of a sense of grief or anger is striking—chilling, perhaps, to the majority of people in Ireland and Britain—and entirely consistent with the mindset of the movement's leadership.
In the not-so-distant past Sinn Féin approvingly published details of the latest attacks by the IRA on “Crown Forces” in the “War News” section of its newspaper, An Phoblacht/Republican News. So, while the police described the attack as “an attempt at mass murder”, Sinn Féin called it an “attack on the peace process”. The “peace process” has been an elastic concept over which Sinn Féin has fought to maintain copyright. When talking to its supporters, it primarily refers to the means with which to remove the British from Ireland. Like any good advertising agency, the party has worked hard to fuse its “peace process” brand with the idea of British withdrawal. The brand looked past its sell-by date as Sinn Féin signed up to the consent principle for Irish unity, took ministerial posts in Stormont and gave support to British law enforcement agencies, including the construction of MI5's largest headquarters outside London in the Province.
The attack was “wrong and counter-productive”, Sinn Féin said—a phrase that errs on the side of caution in regard to its more traditionally minded supporters but one that will also be enough, just, to give cover and comfort to Sinn Féin's partner in government, the Democratic Unionist Party. The DUP will be able to argue that Sinn Féin has crossed the Rubicon by condemning an attack on British soldiers. Five years ago it would have been unthinkable.
Once that condemnation is succinctly made, Mr Adams returns to the theme closest to the hearts and minds of his republican constituency. “Those responsible have no support, no strategy to achieve a united Ireland.” “Unlike us,” the party is saying. “Do not be seduced into thinking that these people, who now practise what the Provisional IRA once practised, will lead you to a united Ireland. We alone have the support and strategy.” The duty, therefore, to “defend the peace process” involves defending British soldiers from attack by dissident republicans who disagree with Sinn Féin over the path to a united Ireland.
The most indigestible phrase is: “Sinn Féin has a responsibility to be consistent. The logic of this is that we support the police in the apprehension of those involved in last night's attack.” While this means the party wants the police to bring the killers to justice, the tortuous construction suggests it is having difficulty saying so. And then Sinn Féin reminds the police and British Government of their responsibilities. This is, if not transparently so, a reference to the row 36 hours earlier over the Chief Constable's decision to call in special forces soldiers to counter the activities of republican dissidents.
The final four paragraphs have nothing to do with the deaths and injuries caused by the attack, but are another appeal to republicans to continue to believe in the Sinn Féin strategy. Such appeals are invariably accompanied by a reminder that some “Brits” (Unionists are not British but misguided Irish people, in Sinn Féin's view) are working to undermine the peace process, which is all about reuniting Ireland.
It is a while since Mr Adams gave such a fine example of “Sinn Féin-speak”, recalling the days when every press statement had to be parsed for its true meaning.