- 21 Mar 17
In the early '90s, just as the seeds of the peace process were starting to take root in republican circles, freelance journalist and former IRA member Shane O'Doherty met Martin McGuinness for a frank discussion about terrorism, negotiation and the republican endgame.
Martin McGuinness interviewed by Shane Paul O'Doherty:
Perhaps, in part, encouraged by the diversity of revolutionary changes around the world in recent months, people in various quarters closer to home have begun to talk encouragingly about a possible breakthrough in Northern Ireland that might bring the long-running military conflict to a close.
But what, realistically, are the chances of an IRA ceasefire? And what kind of pre-conditions are required before all sides can get around the table and talk? As one of the most senior figures in Sinn Féin, Martin McGuiness is well placed to articulate the latest position of the Republican movement. Here he is interviewed by Shane Paul O’Doherty, someone who has also had considerable experience of life on the front line in Northern Ireland. A former active service member of the IRA who served time in prison and subsequently renounced the use of physical force, he now studies in Trinity College, Dublin and works as a freelance journalist.
SHANE O’DOHERTY: To your knowledge, has the economic bombing campaign in Derry city centre ended?
MARTIN MCGUINESS: Well for some years now there hasn’t been an economic bombing campaign going on in the Derry area, or for that matter throughout the Six Counties and I think it’s true to say, although I can’t speak for the IRA, that there has obviously been consideration by the IRA of the tactic of bombing. Obviously there would be a recognition by Republicans that a lot of civilians lost their lives in bombings in the early ‘70s, in fairly heavily populated city and town centres. I think that the IRA has dramatically reduced its attacks on targets of that nature for the primary reason of reducing the number of civilian casualties, so I can’t see a situation where the IRA would go back to that kind of tactic.
Are you aware of the pressure from the nationalist community, or the entire community, for a ceasefire?
No. I’m not aware of any pressure. No pressure has been put on me to use whatever influence I have within the Republican Movement to call for a ceasefire, although I do believe that the SDLP leadership quite regularly articulates the demand that there be a ceasefire. I just wonder at times how representative that is of grassroots SDLP thinking, because I honestly believe there would be horror within the nationalist community if, tomorrow morning, the IRA decided to, as Peter Brooke suggests, to surrender its weaponry and give up the armed struggle. I think that most nationalists would accept that if that were to happen that within a very short period of time we would very quickly return to a thinly disguised Unionist rule at Stormont with a few token positions from the SDLP, and I don’t think that would be universally welcomed within the nationalist community.
Are you aware of any specific Sinn Féin cumman, or individuals, pressuring for a permanent ceasefire?
No, I am not aware of it, but I would not be surprised if there were individuals, or possibly one or two cummainn who may hold that opinion.
Would you defend the right of individuals or groups within Sinn Féin to hold the view that there should be a permanent ceasefire?
I would defend the right of any person within Sinn Féin to hold a view about anything, but I think a very important element in people holding opinions about issues of that nature, is that, if they wish to initiate a debate, that that debate must take place within the movement and not in the media. But I would defend the right of anyone in the movement to have an opinion about anything.
But specifically about a permanent ceasefire?
Yes, about anything. I mean I think that if a person is involved in the Republican Movement and is prepared to give of their time and their energy to endure all the hardship that that entails, then that person is entitled to articulate what he or she believes without the fear of there being a witch-hunt or a campaign against them. I would have absolutely no part whatsoever in witch-hunts.
What were you trying to achieve in your statement aimed at Peter Brooke, the Northern Ireland Secretary?
Within the movement we regarded with some significance the statement made by Peter Brooke after his one hundred days in office, where he recognised the hardship endured over the past twenty years by the Republican Movement and by Republicans, and commented that the British Government would be flexible and would be imaginative if there was an end to armed struggle. It was my opinion and the opinion of some other people within the movement that Mr. Brooke was attempting to create – in fact he did create – a mood, or a feeling, that this was a man who had a greater knowledge or understanding of the situation than any previous British Secretary of State. About an hour before I went to Dunloy for the commemoration he was interviewed on the BBC’s “On The Record” programme and he repeated his comments that the British government would be imaginative if the armed struggle was to end. So, I decided, after hearing his repeat of the one hundred days statement that I should ask him what imaginative steps he was talking about, letting him know that we in the Republican Movement were interested in knowing what he was talking about and that there was a responsibility on him to tell us either publicly or privately what he was thinking.
Coupled with that, we have been trying for some time to initiate a debate within the Conservative Party about where they are going in relation to the Six Counties. Now obviously I see Margaret Thatcher as a major stumbling block to the initiation of such a debate, but I also recognise that Margaret Thatcher’s days are numbered. It’s quite likely that in the next election the British Electorate will change the Government and, even if they don’t, it’s also quite likely that the Conservative Party will change their leader. So, my comments are pitched at those people – who I believe are the conservative Party, and the present British Government’s approach to the Six Counties.
What would you regard as imaginative steps by the British Government?
Well, I think that some imaginative things have happened in the past twenty years. The British Labour Party has changed its position in relation to the Six Counties – they are now stating that they believe the best long-term prospect for peace is the re-unification of Ireland: that, coupled with the fact that opinion poll after opinion poll held in England clearly shows that the majority of the British public, if given an opportunity to vote in a referendum, would vote for British soldiers to be withdrawn and for the re-unification of Ireland – I think that those are fairly major developments. Now obviously, I would like to see the British Government being as imaginative as the Labour Party have been, recognising that there is no long-term future for a British Government in any part of Ireland.
But can you be more specific?
I would like to see the British Government declare its intention at some time in the future to leave Ireland. Now, I’m not talking about week or next month or the next flight out of Aldergrove Airport. I’m talking about people seriously sitting down, re-examining their whole thinking in relation to the Six Counties and deciding which solution holds the best long-term prospect for a permanent peaceful settlement – I passionately believe that the best long-term prospect for peace in the Six Counties is the removal of the British presence. I believe that the British Government has the responsibility to take the imaginative step of standing up and telling the Unionists that they have taken the decision that, at some time in the future, they are leaving Ireland. They already have declared their intention to leave Hong Kong and I think that the British Government could – and would – get away with telling those people that their days as Kings of the Castle are over, that they have no more right to privileges than anyone else on this island and that they have a responsibility to sit down with Charles Haughey, John Hume, Gerry Adams and anyone else who has a role to play in the building of a new Ireland – those are the imaginative steps I would like to see, and I think, I passionately believe that there is a prospect in the future for that to happen.
Who is going to contain a million irate, frightened Unionists if the British Government declares its intent to withdraw?
Well, I think that if the British Government declares its intention to withdraw from the Six Counties, that the vast majority of Unionists, who are generally sensible and hard-headed people, would accept the British Government was serious and I think that the vast majority of those people would recognise that they would have no other option but to accept that they had to carve out a deal for themselves within a thirty-two country Republic.
What about UDA and UVF?
I don’t doubt that there would be groups of people represented by the likes of the UDA and UVF who would be thrown into a quandary for a start about such a declaration because if the British Government stated their intention to leave Ireland then they would be faced with a situation that the only possible thing that they would be fighting for would be the establishment of a small Six County Orange State, which probably wouldn’t even have support within the Official Unionist Party and I think that, within a very short period of time, the vast majority of opposition would dissipate and would go away. I totally disagree with those people who would try to portray such a development as being unlikely to succeed. I think that the chances of success are very great indeed, but they’re only great if there is a determined approach by the British Government to declare its intention to withdraw and to confront those people within Unionism, who I think would be a minority, who would attempt to pursue some sort of a Six Counties Orange State through Military Force.
If the IRA has been able to maintain a military campaign for the best part of twenty years against the British Army’s efforts and the RUC’s and the UDR’s efforts, how would the UVF and UDA be contained?
I believe politically, once the British declare their intention to leave, the whole reason for the make-up of these groups and the people who involve themselves in these groups, is gone because they exist, as they tell us often, to maintain the link with Britain. If the link is broken by Britain, and if the Official Unionists and Democratic Unionists and Loyalists Paramilitaries are faced with an irreversible march towards Britain leaving the Six Counties, I am absolutely convinced that the vast majority of Unionists will be prepared to sit down with other stands of political opinion on this island and work out a new future in a thirty-two county context. It’s a nonsense for people to suggest that Loyalist Paramilitaries would be a major force within a thirty-two country Irish Republic, or could put up enough resistance to cause major problems for those people who are trying to bring about such an objective.
What about those Loyalist paramilitaries, many of whom i know, who want to see the establishment of an Israeli-style state across three counties or two counties?
I think there would be very little support for such a demand. I think its a totally unrealistic prospect. I mean its easy for these people to produce all sorts of different scenarios about a three-county state or an Independent Republic of East Belfast when the British have not declared their intention to leave. A British Government declaring their intention to leave strikes a major psychological blow at the heart of Unionism in the Six Counties and such a statement, I believe, would change the whole complexion of the Six County political scene.
A Sinn Féin person at the recent Ard Fheis made a reference to talks with Protestant/Unionists. Would you give me some information on these talks?
There have, on a number of occasions in the past twenty years, been discussions between people who describe themselves as being Protestants or Unionists and members of the Republican Movement. I cannot give you their names, because to do so would put their lives in danger but I personally have met Unionist Councillors. I’ve met Protestant Clergymen. I’ve met people who, it’s probably wrong to say it, but, off the record, I’ve met (deleted) here in Derry, right? We are prepared to meet anyone, at anytime, about anything, without preconditions.
Has Sinn Féin, or members of the Republican Movement, met any of these Unionists in the past three or four months?
Would you speak to the UDA and the UVF?
We would speak to anyone.
Would you offer talks to the UDA and the UVF?
No, we wouldn't really ‘offer’ talks — but what we are saying is that if people are genuinely willing to meet us to discuss what we think and what we’re about, then we are quite prepared to meet them at any time. and that we would not refuse an offer of talks from any political party or grouping which has on influence on this island.
So, you would be prepared to talk to the UDA, UVF?
And you would be prepared to talk to the DUP and the OUP?
Yes. We will talk to anyone, at anytime, about anything, without preconditions.
Would you guarantee the security of persons from the UDA or UVF, give a guarantee of their personal safety?
I personally have been part of a Republican delegation which has met Loyalist Paramilitaries, and they put themselves at our disposal, with a guarantee, which they knew would be honoured, that no harm would come to them, and they met us in Ireland and there was no difficulty whatsoever about it.
So, could the Republican Movement, in talks with the UDA or UVF, or DUP or OUP, give a guarantee of their personal safety?
I don’t think that Loyalists would be in any doubt whatsoever, once the Republican Movement gives its word. Under no circumstances would the Republican movement be involved in any underhand dealings to jeopardise the lives of anyone who wished to talk to them, and it wouldn’t matter who that person was.
Even Brigade Staff UDA or UVF?
It doesn't matter who they are. It doesn't matter who they are.
The Republican Movement would be prepared to offer a White Flag…
Our position is that we are prepared to talk to anyone, at anytime, about anything, and that means anyone, and that means anytime, and that means about anything. And that includes everybody who is interested in talking to us; should that be a Protestant Clergyman, a Unionist Councillor, a member of the DUP, the Hierarchy of the DUP, Official Unionist Councillor, Official Unionist M.P., Hierarchy of the Official Unionists, UDA, UVF, Red Hand Commandos, British Government, British Army, UDR, whatever…
Gerry Adams made a comment in relation to it being necessary to form a Pan-Nationalist Front, which is presumed by people to mean a coalition of Sinn Féin, The Roman Catholic Church and Charles Haughey’s Government, whereas a lot of Socialists and radical politicos throughout Ireland would regard this Pan-Nationalist Front as a sell-out of radical reforms in politics in a New Ireland.
Well, I don't think Gerry Adams could be accused of becoming involved in any Front which would prevent radical reforms of the social inequalities which are presently in existence in the twenty-six counties. I think what Gerry Adams is talking about is people within the Nationalist Community acknowledging that partition is wrong, and asserting that the best possible solution for peace in Ireland is the eventual re-unification of Ireland. and I think that what he is doing is urging all the influential elements within the Nationalist community, namely the political parties in the twenty six counties, the SDLP and the Catholic Church that they have a responsibility to put pressure on the British Government to withdraw from the Six Counties. We believe that the only hope for peace in Ireland is to try the only solution which has not yet been tried. Everything else has been tried and has failed and, short-term measures like establishing a thinly-disguised Unionist Government at Stormont, with a few token SDLP people thrown in, I also going to fail. What we are saying is that the problem must be tackled fundamentally, that people take pragmatic and radical decisions in relation to how the problem can be solved, and I am absolutely satisfied in my mind that when a British Government takes that decision, that there will be peace in Ireland within a very short period of time indeed.
If leading Unionists and if Loyalist Paramilitaries wished to talk seriously to Sinn Féin in the near future, wouldn’t it be very difficult for them to talk while violence was still going on?
They have talked in the past while the armed struggle was going on.
Can you give years, or some instances?
On a number of occasions over the past eighteen years, representatives of the Protestant Tradition, representatives of the Unionists — whether as representatives of their party or not — met with the Republican Movement.
Did any members or representatives of the UVF of UDA talk to the IRA while there was violence still going on?
Yes, yes. Both Loyalists Paramilitaries, members of the Unionist parties and the Protestant Clergymen have all, while the armed struggle continued, met with representatives of the Republican Movement.
Have there been any recent contacts between the Republican Movement and the British Government?
No there haven’t.
Would you like to see contact between the Republican Movement and the British Government?
Yes, I would.
Official, even unofficial, to begin with?
I don’t care what way it’s done, I just know that there needs to be contact between all the Parties to the conflict in an attempt to resolve the conflict. If people are not communicating with one another and discussing what they believe and there they’ve been and where they’re at now and where they’re going in the future, then it makes the prospect of resolving the conflict all that much harder. I do believe that a debate will start within the Conservative Party in relation to the North and if Mr. Brooke is going to be party to such debate, I think he would be much better equipped going in to such a debate knowing exactly what people like me think.
Would you like to see some contacts between the Republican Movement and the Irish Government?
Yes, I would. I actually think that’s the next stage of my statements in relation to what Brooke said, I think that there is a responsibility on all the parties to the conflict, and I include in that the Dublin Government and the political parties in the twenty six counties, to get off this moral high ground that they think they’re on in relation to their attitude to violence because they’re meeting, every day of the week, with people who support violence: they meet regularly with British Ministers who have 30,000 armed troops on our streets, people who have had our children killed with plastic bullets, people who raid our estates street by street. and who impose the most unbelievable misery and hardship on the Nationalist people of the six counties — they have a responsibility to meet with us, of course they have.
In the past, Churchmen and perhaps Quakers or others, were go-betweens who helped to set up these talks. Do you think that there’s a role for these people at the moment?
Well, I don’t honestly know about the mechanism — all I know is that it needs to happen. I haven’t given a great deal of consideration to how you can actually bring that about. I think what’s needed before we even consider going in to that stage of it is that people need to indicate their willingness to enter into discussions. I think that’s important.
What about the fact that groups are breaking away from the IRA within the prisons, that large numbers of lifers are leaving the paramilitary wings within the prisons, and that there has been huge release of lifers for the first time in many years, - do these factors, and the sort of war-weariness that seems to be affecting many prisoners, put pressure on the Republican Movement to talk or seek talks?
Well, obviously we welcome the release of prisoners at all times. I mean, the people who have been at the forefront of the struggle for freedom for national rights have been the prisoners, and they probably more than any other group have suffered unbelievable hardships and their families along with them, and we have no difficulty in welcoming the release of any prisoner. Obviously, there are people within the political scene who believe that the release of prisoners is a weapon to be used against the Republican Movement. Fr. Paul has openly admitted that he sees the release of prisoners and the use of prisoners’ families as being a major weapon to be used by the British government against the Republican struggle. But, I mean, the majority of prisoners who are released, even though they have served very long periods in prison, the vast majority of these people have come out and still have the same desire for freedom, still believe that the situation politically is still so bad in 1990 that there has to be radical change in relation to how the problems are resolved so that there won;t be any more prisoners… I mean that’s what we are trying to bring about. I want to bring about a situation where there are no more prisoners, where there are no more British Soldiers killed, where there are no more RUC men, UDR men, IRA men or women, killed in this conflict, because despite what is said about the Republican movement we are not untouched by the suffering of all those people. We recognise and understand the tears of a British Soldier’s mother — I mean, i saw one on Sunday on an ITV programme whose son was killed at Mayo-bridge — I am touched by the fact that that woman has suffered in relation to her son being killed in my country. I don’t want her son or anybody else’s son to be killed in my country.
Martin, you see yourself as a justice seeker, or in some sense a freedom seeker. How do you personally feel about the fact that the movement you are associated with has a list of Human Rights Violations behind it? Do you not think that the tactic of violence, which has caused these Human Rights’ violations, is a wrong tactic or a failed tactic?
The armed struggle — or if you want to use other terminology, violence — is a symptom of a greater problem. the problem is the fact that Ireland has been partitioned against the overwhelming wishes of the people of Ireland and also the people of Britain and, I don’t think anything is gained by people getting into the politics of the last atrocity which has been discussed so many times — you done this, and you done that, but sure you done the other thing. I mean, that doesn’t resolve the problem although if I was being honest, and I am being honest, I would have to say that it does sadden me that young Irish men and women, feel forced to involve themselves in something which I believe is alien to us all, the killing of another human being. I think that the vast majority of Republicans that I know are sincerely and honestly saddened by the fate of a young Englishman or an RUC man or UDR man who loses his life and the family is left to grieve that person. I do think that the use of armed struggle, the use of violence to achieve a political end, in the back of everybody’s mind creates problems for you own sensibilities and your own feelings of peace in your life. I mean, everybody wants peace in their life, I want peace in my life. But the problem is that what is preventing me, and I believe the vast majority of Irish people from having peace in their lives os the fact that there is an unnatural division of the country which has brought about an unnatural decision of the people along the lines of Protestant and Catholic. And I passionately believe that the dickens which are there can and will be broken down in a post-British withdrawal situation. I am absolutely and totally convinced of that.
But how do you, from a Civil Rights background, cope with the Human Rights violations of, specifically, the Republican Movement, the IRA?
Well, I mean everybody in their own mind has to work out the reasons why they support certain things. My position is that I believe the armed struggle can be justified, even though I don’t like it. I don’t like the fact that Irishmen and women have to resort to force of arms. But I believe that strategy holds out the hope of a British Government at some time in the future being so embarrassed and so ridiculed throughout the world by their inability to resolve a problem — which should be more resolvable than the problems which are now being resolved in Eastern Europe, and which will hopefully in the coming months and years will be resolved in South Africa — that they have to take positive radical action. What I am appealing to the British public for, and appealing to the British Conservative Party for, is to modernise their thinking in relation to Ireland, to look at the attempts which are being made throughout the world to resolve the world’s hotspots. And I am also saying that we in the Republican Movement are making a sincere offer now that we are prepared to play our part in the peace process.
How do you feel about Yasser Arafat’s Public pronouncement on terrorism?
One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. I don’t believe that what is happing in Ireland is a terrorist war. I believe that what is happing in Ireland — even though elements of it are totally unnatural — it is a natural consequence of an occupying army walking through the streets of the Bogside, and the Creggan and Ballymurphy, denying the rights of Irish People to have their freedom and upholding so much injustice. I mean the injustice that abounds in the six county state is just unbelievable and, if this is being published. In Hot Press, I think that there is grave responsibility on the people of Dublin and on the people of the rest of the twenty-six counties to shake themselves in relation to the six counties and have a look at what is going on here — because I believe that a united Ireland, a thirty-two county Irish Republic would be a far more prosperous, peaceful place for people to live in. I think that the Irish people would be far better equipped to tackle the problems of poverty and homelessness which are all around this country from Cork to Limerick to Galway to Derry to Belfast, right back down to Wexford.
Which about the many Irish people who cannot relate to the Republican Movement primarily because of the Human Rights violations of the IRA?
I think that that is understandable, I can understand that. But what puzzles me about those people is that they are not even more annoyed about the reason why that violence is taking place, why they don’t get annoyed about partition, why they don’t stand up and demand that the British Government remove itself from this Part of Ireland and I actually think that’s a major flaw in their case — the likes of David Norris and others who beat their breasts in a holier-than-thou approach, as if we’re the untouchables, and they’ve the God-given right to pronounce on everything . I don’t think they even have any comprehension of what life is like in Ballymurphy, in West Belfast, or in the Bogside or in Creggan, or of the suffering that those people have endured.
Do you think the Republican Movement is mature enough to deliver a permanent ceasefire if one is called for?
Well, it’s important to stress that the Republicans are only interested in an honourable settlement of the problem. The overwhelming majority of Republicans who suffer war-weariness, who suffer unbelievably heavy trip in relation to this whole struggle — I mean, mothers have lost their sons, and we have walked behind their coffins and many of our friends have gone to their graves and no doubt, before this is all over some of us may go to our graves as well — this movement, this struggle, does lay a very heavy trip on people, but I think that people, by the same token, can stand back and say, “well, it would need to be worth it in the end”. Or probably a better way to describe it is that we in this movement — and out opponents should realise this — have reached a point of no return. We cannot return to what existed here in the past. Our own dignity won’t allow us, It’s as simple as that. This movement has reached the point of no return, and in spite of all that is laid in front of me in a personal sense, in terms of the possibility of assassination by Loyalists or by British undercover squads, that’s a road I have to go down, because I know at the end of the day lies freedom for our people.
How would you respond, Martin, to the view that the Republican movement can’t deliver on a permanent ceasefire because of the allegation that it’s making huge money from rackets, that it’s gone legitimate, and owns many businesses in Derry and Belfast – that it is in the words of a Churchman or two or of an SDLP person or two, a major Mafia organisation now that it needs to continue because of the huge amount of money which is involved?
Well, the only way I could answer that is to invite them to my home. I live in a Council house owned by the housing executive in the Brandywell area of Derry. The people, who have supported my involvement in the struggle for many years namely ordinary people on the streets of Derry, I think, can work out for themselves whether or not I personally am involved in racketeering. When I stood in the assembly elections, the people overwhelmingly supported my election and people don’t vote for Mafia bosses or Godfathers or gangsters. I would also point out that of the many cases that have been taken in the six counties by the RUC against racketeers, they’ve all been involved UDA, UVF people, the Official IRA, the INLA, IPLO people. I would challenge anybody to mention the name of one member of this movement, which I am part of, who has been even charged or convicted with anything remotely to do with racketeering or gangstersism. I live a very humble life. The vast majority of the people I associate with also lead a very humble life, finding it extremely difficult on occasions to put shoes on their children’s feet or clothes on their backs, just like anybody else. What I would say to the ordinary people is, come to Derry, come to the Bogside, come to the Creegan and ask people am I racketeer. Ask them to go to Belfast and tell them to talk to the people of West Belfast who voted for Gerry Adams. Ask them do they believe Gerry Adams. Ask them do they believe Gerry Adams is a racketeer, and the answer they will get is ‘no’.
What about allegations that surrounded the assassination of Jim Craig, that he had met and dealt with the IRA people over rackets in Belfast?
I don’t believe that at all, to be quite honest. I would not accept that. What evidence is there to even suggest that that was the case? I would be very surprised if that was the case, and quite honestly, I don’t believe it.
Finally, if you had the opportunity to speak privately to Peter Brooke now what would you say to him?
I would say the same thing that the republican delegation which met William Whitelaw in 1972 said, that the partition of Ireland is wrong, that the presence of large numbers of British troops in our country is an abomination, that it’s the primary source of all the trouble which exists here and that they are living in the past if they believe Margaret Thatcher is a major stumbling block to progress in the North because she is so virulently anti-Republican and has so much hatred for the Republican movement. I would say that I believe that there are people in Conservative Party, whether they care to admit it or not, who would be prepared to adopt a less hysterical approach than previous British administrations and that they should sit back and analyse everything that we are saying, and that they should remember that we are prepared to be part of a peace process in the six counties, that we are not the mindless headcases that they sometimes portray us as being, that we are capable of playing our part in a scenario which would also say, more importantly than anything else, that we believe that Britain should declare its intention to leave the six counties.
But people who are interested in seeing talks which would resolve the conflict permanently, to everyone’s satisfaction – could these people not be given a signal by the IRA offering an imaginative gift to the British people, say, a temporary cessation for three or six months of ‘mainland’ bombings or European operations. Surely a cessation of attacks on part-time UDR men would be a very important signal that the IRA was genuine in its willingness to deal?
But the IRA have done that. The IRA did that in 1972. The IRA did that in 1975. And in 1976. And the British Government used that situation for its own military purposes so I think that there would be a major opposition within the Republican Movement towards such a step. It’s an unrealistic request, to be quite honest — because if we are prepared to go into discussions with the British Government and with anyone else, in effect we are saying quite openly to Government which has thirty thousand troops in our country, which is responsible for the use of plastic bullets, for raiding houses, interrogating people, beating them up in interrogation centres — we are not saying to them to stop house-searches in Creggan, even though we would like it to happen. If we’re not setting those preconditions, why should they?