eurealist.co.uk

Yesterday the IRA announced that ‘The leadership of Óglaigh na hÉireann has formally ordered an end to the armed campaign. All IRA units have been ordered to dump arms. All Volunteers have been instructed to assist the development of purely political and democratic programmes through exclusively peaceful means. Volunteers must not engage in any other activities whatsoever.’

This is to be applauded but if we continue to read the announcement some questions need addressing.

Notwithstanding these difficulties our decisions have been taken to advance our republican and democratic objectives, including our goal of a united Ireland. We believe there is now an alternative way to achieve this and to end British rule in our country.’
‘The IRA is fully committed to the goals of Irish unity and independence and to building the Republic outlined in the 1916 Proclamation.

We call for maximum unity and effort by Irish republicans everywhere.

We are confident that by working together Irish republicans can achieve our objectives.

Every Volunteer is aware of the import of the decisions we have taken and all Óglaigh are compelled to fully comply with these orders.

There is now an unprecedented opportunity to utilise the considerable energy and goodwill which there is for the peace process. This comprehensive series of unparalleled initiatives is our contribution to this and to the continued endeavours to bring about independence and unity for the people of Ireland.

The goals of the IRA has not changed, they have not for instance accepted that the people of Northern Ireland wish to be part of, and wish to remain part of the UK, They have not given up their fight for a united Ireland, they have instead won the political power and political climate to continue their fight and now feel that their ambitions can best be met on the political front. They will be serving as part of the government of Northern Ireland, yet they are intent upon its destruction. So what exactly have the British government achieved.

Telegraph | Opinion: “Army allegiance

Sir - Those who serve our Commander-in-Chief - Her Majesty the Queen - will never understand why her government has subjected them to legislation based upon treaty obligations between her first minister and many foreign governments to whom they owe no allegiance, and whose armed forces they may one day be called upon to fight (Letters, July 26).

Lt Col J. Swabey (rtd), Chalfont St Giles, Bucks”

The Daily Telegraph Letters

26 July 2005

Sir - One thing worse than terrorism is a police state.

Anthony Plunkett, Loughborough, Leics
back to top

Soldiers rewarded with prosecution

Sir - I don’t think I have ever felt so angry as over the politically motivated persecution of our active Servicemen by the present administration (Opinion, July 23). Could you not name those government officials and lawyers behind the prosecutions so that they can be subject to public approbation?

Lord Vinson, Alnwick, Northumberland

Sir - The treatment being meted out to Col Jorge Mendonca and other soldiers who have served under extremely difficult circumstances, in a conflict of which many of them may disapprove, but which none the less they have prosecuted with decency, honour and courage, sits strangely with a Government where the principles of ministerial responsibility seems a far-distant memory.

Ministers seem oblivious to their own mistakes and shortcomings and seldom accept that they may have erred. They have been rewarded with further preferment, in some cases redundancy pay and re-instatement, continued use of grace-and-favour houses by a Prime Minister who has relied heavily on the commitment and loyalty of the Armed Forces to prosecute a foreign policy which a large proportion of the electorate finds distasteful.

Christopher Suter, Dorchester, Dorset

Sir - The soldiers in Iraq have endured for two years the tensions that the Metropolitan Police chiefs have been under for approximately three weeks.

Should the marksman who fired the shots be prosecuted? If not, shouldn’t Sir Ian Blair be prosecuted? Isn’t he more culpable than Col Mendonca? Sir Ian approved the policy and the garb under which the marksman operated.

Col Mendonca in making decisions had to bear in mind that scores of his men had been badly wounded by gunfire. Sir Ian, thankfully, had no such burden in respect of his men.

R. Carty, Wallasey, Wirral