THE Manchester bomb did more than devastate a large part of the centre of the city and inflict appalling injuries on many people. It also disorientated the judgments of politicians and commentators. The disorientation could cause even more harm than the bomb itself.
In defiance of almost every other commentary, I want to suggest the following:
The peace faction within the IRA is now absolutely in the ascendant.
There will be another IRA ceasefire by the end of July, subject only to George Mitchell remaining chairman of the overall all-party talks.
The leaderships of the IRA and Sinn Fein will believe such a ceasefire to be permanent.
The Manchester bomb almost certainly came as a shock to the entire IRA leadership, although they had authorised it in different circumstances.
Almost exactly two hours before the warning call concerning the bomb on Saturday morning, a very significant development within the IRA was revealed. This was the statement issued to the RTE newsroom before 8 a.m. on behalf of the Army Council.
That statement said that the shootings which caused the death of Det Garda Jerry McCabe in Adare on Friday, June 6th, "were not, nor cannot be, sanctioned by the IRA leadership". It went on: "We wish to make clear that we disavow these actions and will not tolerate any activity which is damaging to our struggle."
The disavowal by the IRA leadership of an operation conducted by one of its units is almost unknown. That the operation disavowed should be one conducted by a unit so central to the organisation as a whole is extraordinary. The Munster unit has been centrally involved in the storage of the Libyan arms shipments, and some of its members have been crucially involved in the campaign in England.
But it is the assertion that they would not tolerate any activity which is damaging to "our struggle" that is the most revealing. First there is the sheer menacing arrogance of the statement: this is no timid leadership cowering in the face of dissident factions. Secondly, it is evident that by "struggle" is meant the peace process, for what else did the Adare murder damage, in the eyes of the IRA?
Manifestly, the IRA had a self-serving reason to issue such a statement, in view of the public outrage over the murder of Det Garda McCabe. Manifestly also the IRA is capable of hypocrisy and duplicity. But such considerations could not outweigh the demands of solidarity upon which the cohesion of the movement survives. The breach with that tradition of solidarity is therefore all the more significant.
IT shows that the allies of Gerry Adams are in the ascendant within the IRA, so much so that it can afford to break with tradition and condemn the actions of one of the most powerful and significant elements within the organisation. What then to make of the bomb in Manchester that exploded some three hours after that statement was released?
Since Canary Wharf, the IRA has been trying to undertake an operation such as occurred in Manchester last Saturday morning. The attempted blowing up of Hammersmith Bridge in London on April 24th was evidence of such intention. The IRA believes, with some reason, that the British government will respond only to actions such as the bombing of Bishopsgate in April 1993 and of Canary Wharf in February.
Thus, at a time when the British government was raising new obstacles to Sinn Fein's participation in such talks (the demand for a commitment to decommissioning during the course of the talks), some further military pressure on the British seemed appropriate to the IRA.
The problem was that by the time the bomb exploded such pressure was no longer "necessary". By last Saturday morning, George Mitchell has been nominated as overall chairman of the all-party talks and this satisfied Sinn Fein and the IRA that no further obstacles would be raised to Sinn Fein's participation, once a ceasefire had been declared.
The problem appears to have been that the operation was not cancelled, either because of an oversight or because of difficulties in communicating with the unit involved. But it seems inconceivable that the leadership expected the bomb to be placed precisely at the time they were issuing a statement in Dublin warning that they would not tolerate activity damaging to "our struggle".
The evidence that there is to be a ceasefire comes from the mouths of Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness. There is no great mystery in what is going on within the IRA, as is evident from the IRA's own statements and the comments of Adams, McGuinness and Pat Doherty.
For so long as they were signalling the ceasefire was not in danger, following August 31st, 1994, then it was obvious the ceasefire was indeed not in danger. But once they started to signal the reverse, as they did from October last year, then it was clear it was in danger.
For the same reason it is obvious now there is to be another ceasefire. Adams and McGuinness are signalling it. But so, too, is the IRA in its own statements.
ALL these sources have been saying for several months that there have to be substantive, inclusive all-party talks without preconditions. And by preconditions they have meant decommissioning. For as long as it seemed that a commitment to decommissioning during the course of all-party talks was a precondition to substantive negotiations, then it was obvious there would be no ceasefire.
It was precisely for this reason that John Bruton worked so hard to get around British prevarication on this issue. It was the appointment of George Mitchell as chairman of the negotiations as a whole that broke that impasse and convinced Sinn Fein and the IRA that substantive talks would occur.
Adams and McGuinness made it absolutely clear that the appointment of Mitchell was sufficient for them and, if sufficient for them, sufficient for the IRA.
The only things that can now go wrong would be the scuppering of Mitchell's appointment or that new preconditions would be imposed on Sinn Fein's entry to the talks.
A new IRA ceasefire will not be declared to be permanent, and time may show it not to be permanent. But the IRA leadership will expect it to be so, believing that negotiations on a settlement, involving Sinn Fein, will take place. Furthermore, they are prepared to live with whatever the outcome of such talks may be or at least to confine their attempts to change it to democratic and peaceful means. Exclusively.
There is now a chance of enveloping a united republican movement in a settlement of the Irish question for the first time in 100 years. There is so much to gain and so little to lose by trying.