An Irish Times report on political reactions to the recent killing of two British soldiers in County Antrim, Northern Ireland (and the attempted killing of two more soldiers and two pizza delivery men in same attack, by members of “the Real IRA“) featured some choice quotes from Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams.
Whatever one may think of Adams*, or believe about his background, or feel about his cause, the language he uses is worth noting, because it serves as a template for the kind of hedging one should expect from political leaders who claim to represent armed factions that have been won over to a peace process.
Here are Adams’ quoted statements regarding the attacks according to the Irish Times:
Mr Adams said Sinn Féin supported the efforts of the police to catch the killers—believed to be dissident republicans—and urged anyone with information to pass it on.
“It is the logic of our position and we do have a responsibility to be consistent,” he said.
“The popular will in this island is for peaceful and democratic change and that means an end to actions like the killings in Antrim on Saturday night.
“The logic of all of that is that we support the police in the apprehension of those involved.”
[...]
“Whoever was involved, they have no support and no strategy and no popular will to back up their actions,” he said.
“Despite all of the dark history and despite everything that has occurred, people of the republican and nationalist persuasion overwhelmingly support Sinn Féin’s peace strategy.”
Adams couches his support for police investigations in the context of “the logic of our position,” as far as I can tell, reserving the right to kill British soldiers stationed in Northern Ireland, and those that bring them pizza, but saying that now is not the time, since popular will is not with those actions.
He also doesn’t speak of ”peace,” but of “the peace strategy,” positioning the idea of peace not as a desirable end in itslef, but as a strategic means to an end.
Many people will look at those words and only see half-hearted condemnation of cold-blooded murder, and will seethe at the idea that Adams might be involved in any kind of peace process.
One of Adams’ jobs right now is to make sure all Irish nationalists stay engaged exclusively in political action—and that includes those republican supporters who would have been indifferent to, supported and/or engaged in attacks like these in the past; the very people whose support for his “peace strategy” prevents more attacks from occuring.
Even if one were to imagine that Adams personally despises these killings, this is about as much as he can say. Whether one considers conflicts in Colombia, Central Asia, the Middle East, this kind of weak tea is the most that we might dare to hope for from any political leader that might lead an armed insurgent or terrorist group into a purely political process.
The short version of this story is a very old story in itself: that it doesn’t matter what politicians say, so much as what affect those words will have.
[*This article was written in the face of this writer's deep personal loathing for Mr. Adams.]
