The Belfast Agreement had to be made to work and, despite the setbacks, the situation was a great improvement on what went before, Senator Martin Mansergh said last night.
Dr Mansergh, former political adviser to the Taoiseach on Northern Ireland, was speaking in a debate organised by Sinn Féin on The search for the Republic: Visionary or Criminal?
He said the peace process was not based on a common analysis or agreement regarding the legitimacy of the IRA campaign. In fact it was based on disagreement. Successive governments had never regarded it as anything other than criminal of a political character.
The fact was that this State had not regarded the IRA campaign as legitimate but it had recognised that it had a political character, for example on debates on extradition, he said.
"I think with the Good Friday agreement we do have to make that work. Despite all the setbacks, the situation is a great improvement on what went before," he said.
He said he thought the more radical the republican movement could become in shedding what no longer had a purpose today the better the chance of achieving this. He said the criminal and political were not necessarily opposites. The use of the word criminal was not just to be used in the literal sense but also as a value judgment.
Aengus Ó Snodaigh TD, of Sinn Féin, said criminality depended on the context. That was why people were trying to criminalise the struggle now.
Since December slurs had been cast on the party. There had been much media and political attacks on Sinn Féin with increasing vitriol.
"To sum up, the intent of most was to criminalise Sinn Féin,"he said.
The attacks had continued because opponents could not succeed in humiliating Sinn Féin.
"We reached a point in negotiation where it was going to be a very important development in Ireland," he said.
He added: "If we believe in ideals then we should be capable of defending them."
If he was to look at all the criminals that were now heads of state then he was proud to stand against oppression, he said.
Also, there was a concept that the law could be opposed in the common good.
For example, a starving family, whose parents stole food for the children. That concept could be extended upwards in opposing oppression. That was what happened in Ireland for 800 years.
The very terms such as freedom fighters or terrorists depended on perception and political ideology, he said.