Provos
The extent of discursive changes in Northern Ireland since the GFA are demonstrated by the direct dialogue between the McCartney family and the PIRA. The PIRA issued numerous statements through the pseudonym ‘P O’Neill’ speaking from the ‘Irish Republican Publicity Bureau’ in Dublin.102 The first statement was released on 16 February, two weeks after the
murder and read simply:
the IRA was not involved in the brutal killing of Robert McCartney. It has been reported that people are being intimidated or prevented from assisting the McCartney family in their search for truth and justice. We wish to make it absolutely clear that no one should hinder or impede the McCartney family in their search for truth and justice. Anyone who can help the family in this should do so. Those who were involved must take responsibility for their own actions which run contrary to republican ideals.103
The PIRA’s second statement clarified their version of events in which it claimed “Brendan Devine, Robert McCartney and another man ended up in Market Street. It is the view of our investigation that these men were leaving the scene. They were followed into Market Street where Robert McCartney and Brendan Devine were attacked and stabbed,” and finally “both men were stabbed by the same man. Robert McCartney died a short time later in hospital”.104
However, the third statement, which examined in greater detail the events of the night, mentioned that the
IRA representatives detailed the outcome of the internal disciplinary proceedings thus far, and stated in clear terms that the IRA was prepared to shoot the people directly
involved in the killing of Robert McCartney. The McCartney family raised their concerns
with the IRA representatives. These included: Firstly, the family made it clear that they did not want physical action taken against those involved. They stated that they wanted those individuals to give a full account of their actions in court. Secondly, they raised concerns about the intimidation of witnesses.105
The offer to kill those involved in McCartney’s murder, nonchalantly added within a large statement about a meeting with the family, was met with ridicule and anger by most
102 McIntyre, Death of Irish Republicanism, 319.
103 “Irish Republican Army (IRA) statement about the killing of Robert McCartney, (16 February 2005),”
CAIN Web Service, comp. Martin Melaugh, last modified February 9, 2016, accessed October 18, 2016, http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/organ/ira/ira160205.htm.
104 “Irish Republican Army (IRA) second statement about the killing of Robert McCartney, (25 February
2005), CAIN Web Service, comp. Brendan Lynn, last modified February 9, 2016, accessed October 16, 2016, http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/organ/ira/ira250205.htm.
105 “Irish Republican Army (IRA) third statement about the killing of Robert McCartney, (8 March 2005),”
CAIN Web Service, comp. Martin Melaugh, last modified February 9, 2016, accessed October 16, 2016, http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/organ/ira/ira080305.htm. Italics added.
142
newspapers in Northern Ireland.106 The entire political spectrum in Northern Ireland
(including republicans) condemned the offer.107 While all politicians and major newspapers
condemned the murder, only the republican Balrog blog offered a defence of the PIRA’s offer to murder McCartney’s killers, asking “most people will find this disgraceful but people have been demanding that the IRA do more for weeks now, so what more do people realistically want the IRA to do?”108
The statement appeared to be at best a public relations misstep by the PIRA, confirming the organisation’s criminal nature and its vigilante mentality. It also made it difficult to argue that the PIRA was incapable of murder, violence, or that it had renounced paramilitary methods. For unionists, it confirmed pre-existing ideas about the nature of the PIRA. It also revealed how far there was to go until the PIRA decommissioned its weapons and the threat the organisation posed to the nationalist community. The statement is comparable to the RIRA’s much criticised statement in the aftermath of the Omagh bombing. As in that case, the media’s response to the PIRA’s was swift. The Sun asked simply “are we supposed to slap them on the backs for this unexpected show of public-spiritedness? … the IRA’s thugs do not rule this part of the United Kingdom. The law does”.109 The Irish
News said that the offer showed “just how out of touch it is” and “Mr McCartney’s death
was down to the same killing machine which … still sees violence as the answer”.110 The
newspaper also reported that the “murder of Robert McCartney was horrific and his family are to be praised for pursuing justice, not revenge. The IRA offer to shoot the murderers of Mr McCartney beggars belief”.111 The overwhelming tone of the media’s responses was
indignation that the PIRA would offer to murder someone and reflects a change in attitude towards paramilitary violence since the GFA: much of the public and the media would no longer accept paramilitary murders as ‘internal housekeeping.’
Under increasing public pressure, the PIRA continued to defend its response to the McCartney murder in the months after the killing. The case was mentioned again in the PIRA’s 2005 Easter statement, describing the murder as “wrong, it was murder, it was a
106 David McKittrick, “IRA offered to shoot killers of McCartney,” Belfast Telegraph, March 9, 2005, accessed
December 8, 2016, http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/imported/ira-offered-to-shoot-killers-of-mccartney- 28217436.html; Stephen Dempster, “MPs to hit Sinn Fein coffers with £400k sanction,” Belfast News Letter, March 10, 2005, 8; Newton Emerson, “Law onto themselves,” Irish News, March 12, 2005, 16.
107 “Orde says IRA offer 'was to kill',” BBC News, March 9, accessed January 12, 2017, http://news.bbc.
co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/4331819.stm.
108 Chris Gaskin, “IRA Offer,” Balrog, March 8, 2005, accessed January 10, 2017, http://gaskinbalrog.
blogspot.com.au/2005/03/ira-offer.html.
109 “Killers’ spin,” Sun, March 9, 2005, 8.
110 Andy Wood, “The Friday Column – Not only are IRA tactics crazy, they are old news,” Irish News, March
11, 2005, 2.
143
crime. But it was not carried out by the IRA, nor was it carried out on behalf of the IRA. The IRA moved quickly to deal with those involved. We have tried to assist in whatever way we can”. 112 The statement ends with a republican claim of victimhood at the hands of the
media, as “unfortunately, it would appear that no matter what we do it will never be enough for some”.113 Like Adams’ statement denying that those involved in the murder ‘acted as a
republican or on behalf of republicans,’ the PIRA’s Easter statement denying that the murder was ‘carried out on behalf of the IRA’ does not deny that PIRA members were personally involved in the murder. On 20 July 2005, the PIRA issued its ‘Statement on the Ending of the Armed Campaign.’ In this statement, the PIRA pledged that “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”.114 The
organisation confirmed its desire to support the “full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement” along with the “goals of Irish unity and independence and to building the Republic outlined in the 1916 Proclamation”.115 The organisation confirmed on 26
September that all arms had been put beyond use.116
The PIRA’s numerous statements about the McCartney murder facilitated an unprecedented conversation between the PIRA, the public and the McCartney family. A key issue of victims groups was the lack of accountability for paramilitaries; they could murder, maim and injure without having to explain or defend their actions. Now, the PIRA was going to great lengths to explain the murder of one man of the over 2000 people dead as a result of republican violence since the Troubles began. The PIRA appeared to be issuing statements defensively. Discursive power seemed to have shifted to the McCartney family, who gave some 800 interviews in the two years after Robert’s death117 and were supported by a range
of political figures in openly criticising the PIRA. The family’s campaign was used more broadly by the group tasked with influencing paramilitary decommissioning, the IIMC, whose fifth report from 24 May 2005 noted that
112 “Irish Republican Army (IRA) Easter Statement, 23 March 2005,” CAIN Web Service, comp. Brendan
Lynn, last modified February 9, 2016, accessed October 17, 2016, http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/organ/ ira/ira230305.htm.
113 Ibid.
114 “Irish Republican Army (IRA) Statement on the Ending of the Armed Campaign, (28 July 2005),” CAIN
Web Service, comp. Martin Melaugh, last modified February 9, 2016, accessed October 17, 2016, http:// cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/organ/ira/ira280705.htm.
115 Ibid.
116 “Irish Republican Army (IRA) Statement on Putting Arms Beyond Use, (26 September 2005),” CAIN
Web Service, comp. Martin Melaugh, last modified February 9, 2016, accessed October 17, 2016, http://cain. ulst.ac.uk/othelem/organ/ira/ira260905.htm.
144
Robert McCartney’s family have set an example to everybody by their courage and determination. Their demand has always been for justice, never for revenge. Throughout they have recognised that this crime could be properly dealt with only through the working of the justice system. The general acceptance of this principle would get to the root of many of the problems associated with paramilitary crime.118
The IIMC incorporated the McCartney family’s campaign in their statement as it reinforced the spirit of justice advocated by the GFA. This statement projected expectations of the GFA on the McCartney justice campaign, especially a lack of calls for revenge, a key feature of post-GFA reactions to paramilitary violence. The PIRA statements also indicated an organisation that was out of touch with the changes in public discourse relating to violence. After the GFA, paramilitaries became more publicly accountable for their actions and exchanges similar to the one between the McCartney family and the PIRA show that while paramilitaries could intimidate witnesses, they could not silence victims in public.