Stratfor on Ireland Via NY Transfer News * All the News That Doesn't Fit source - www.stratfor.com Northern Ireland: British Rule Appears Imminent 2050 GMT, 010815 Summary The historic 1998 Good Friday Agreement that brought Protestant, pro-unionists together with Catholic republicans in a joint government is headed for collapse. Paramilitary groups such as the Real IRA will use the breakdown of the agreement as justification for re-arming themselves and increasing organized crime and the illegal arms trade in Northern Ireland. Analysis On Aug. 14, the Irish Republican Army withdrew its week-old arms decommissioning proposal that had spawned international hopes of salvaging the peace process in Northern Ireland. With the power-sharing government on the brink of collapse and hard-liners in both the republican and unionist camps gaining ground, Anglo-Irish efforts to save the historic 1998 Good Friday Agreement are headed for failure. London will likely re-establish direct rule in Northern Ireland before the end of the year. More violence is likely to follow. Paramilitary groups such as the Real IRA will use the breakdown of the Good Friday Agreement as justification for re-arming themselves and increasing organized crime and the illegal arms trade in Northern Ireland. The Real IRA may also ramp up its ongoing terrorism campaign in England. An end to "the Troubles," which have claimed 3,600 lives during the past 28 years and relegated Northern Ireland to an impoverished backwater, seems as far away as ever. The Good Friday Agreement brought Protestant, pro-Britain unionists into an historic power-sharing government with Catholic republicans, who favor a united Ireland. In May 2000, the IRA had pledged for the first time to decommission, or put its weapons "completely and verifiably beyond use," but since has missed two deadlines to physically begin the process. The Good Friday peace process was thrown into chaos on July 1, when Ulster Unionist leader David Trimble resigned as first minister of the home-rule government to protest the lack of progress on arms decommissioning. London and Dublin presented a peace plan in late July that met several republican demands, including reform of the Protestant-dominated police force and a reduction of the British military presence. The IRA appeared to reciprocate with the arms decommissioning proposal, which the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning (IICD) accepted on Aug. 7. Trimble and the unionists, however, dismissed the plan as rhetoric and demanded immediate action on decommissioning. The effort would be extensive. British security forces estimate republicans control three tons of Semtex high explosive; more than 1,000 rifles, 600 handguns and 1 million rounds of ammunition; 40 rocket grenade launchers and an unknown number of ground-to-air missiles, The Guardian reported on Aug. 7. Irish police say most of the IRA's arsenal is hidden underground in the Republic of Ireland, according to the Associated Press. Unionist paramilitary groups are thought to control far fewer weapons, including 80 machine guns, 75 rifles and 675 pistols. The unionist's dismissal of the IICD plan, along with Britain's one-day suspension of government on Aug. 10 to buy more negotiating time, infuriated republicans and led to the withdrawal of the decommissioning proposal. The republican response plays directly into the hands of the hard-line unionists, who believe the IRA never truly intended to disarm and was only trying to coerce concessions from Britain and the unionists. Unionists also point to the emergence of the Real IRA, as well as the apparent continuation of illicit IRA activity, in staking out their negotiating position. The Real IRA is a splinter group formed in 1997 by IRA defectors who opposed the IRA's support of a negotiated settlement. Though its membership is estimated to be only 150 people, many are experienced terrorists and bomb-makers, according to the BBC. Since the IRA agreed to a cease-fire in 1997, the Real IRA has been the primary source of armed resistance to British rule, including the largest single act of terrorist violence in Northern Ireland in 30 years -- the August 1998 bombing in Omagh that killed 29 people. The Real IRA appears to be increasingly active in arms smuggling. The group has stolen weapons from IRA stockpiles and has likely acquired arms from Yugoslavia, The Sunday London Telegraph reported last Sept. 22. British intelligence also infiltrated the group, revealing "shopping trips" to the United States for rifles and bomb-making equipment, London's Sunday Times reported on April 15. The more mainstream IRA also has been implicated in illicit activity since the Good Friday accords. The IRA was linked to an arms-smuggling operation uncovered in the United States in July 1999, the Sunday Times reported. The nonprofit Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) reported last December that there is "compelling evidence that the IRA and its radical offshoot, the Real IRA, are involved in an unholy alliance with the Middle Eastern narcotics industry." Also, three suspected IRA members traveling under false passports were recently detained in Bogota, Colombia, on suspicions of aiding Colombia's primary guerilla organization, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). Though a direct connection to the current IRA hasn't been established, the BBC speculated on Aug. 14 that the IRA could be attracted to the FARC's large arsenal or its drug- and hostage-based financing capabilities. Meanwhile, Protestant paramilitaries are also using drug profits to finance their operations, according to the CSIS report. Failure of unionist demands for immediate progress on decommissioning will mean that Trimble will be unable to gather sufficient unionist support within the assembly to return to power. This gives Britain two choices: call for new elections, which analysts consider highly unlikely considering the polarized electorate, or suspend home rule indefinitely and re-impose direct rule from London. Such a move would play into the hands of hard-liners on both sides, who could blame the other side for the breakdown while using the impasse to attract more support and -- when needed -- to justify more terrorism. Background: Basque and Irish Separatists Ruffle EU's Future 2200 GMT, 0100716 By George Friedman Summary The European experiment of the new century cannot be declared a success until it has weathered a massive economic downturn. Individual European states today are prepared to subsume their national aspirations for economic gain. But with recent economic decline in Europe, the question of what or who can hold the European Union together remains unaddressed. Analysis Over the weekend, Basque nationalists of the Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA) separatist movement killed two officials in a well-planned strike at separate targets 12 miles apart. At the same time, Britain's MI-5 broke up an operation of the Real Irish Republican Army (RIRA) to secure weapons and sponsorship from Iraq. These two incidents, part of persistent Basque and Irish insurgencies, are in many ways more significant to the long-term prospects of European unification than the disintegration of southeastern Europe into feuding ethnic states. They challenge a widely held view that long-term economic growth will end nationalist friction and marginalize the internal dissidents who could create future conflict. The creation of a trans-European entity after the massive European bloodletting in the first half of the 20th century has been an extraordinary event. The founders of the European Community, later the European Union, explained it as a rational response to that bloodletting, based on two assumptions: First, leaders on the Continent agreed that another round of fighting could annihilate European civilization. Second, they assumed Europe is an inherently prosperous region. If the Europeans succeeded in building institutions to exploit their resources, they could create unprecedented and lasting affluence. As the European Community demonstrated the success of the trans-national experiment, more and more states would wish to join in the prosperity and the relationship would deepen. More important, as the price for membership required that minor nationality issues, both internal and external, be set aside, it was assumed that nationality issues plaguing individual states would subside. Whether this theory has been confirmed or not is more than a theoretical question. It goes to the heart of the European question and in turn to the future of the world. Recent signs of economic downturn in the economies of Western Europe indicate the long-term viability of the EU will be tested sooner rather than later. The ongoing nationalist insurgencies such as the Irish RIRA and Basque ETA stem from internal ethnic and political struggles more than from the economic prosperity that has defined most of the past decade. But the indirect connection is still relevant: If it was the prosperity facilitated by EU membership that helped marginalize these groups, a significant economic downturn could lead to their resurgence. Indeed, recent events in Italy, a member nation, and in Ireland and Austria, EU observer nations, suggest that both economic and political pressures are building against the EU goals of monetary and political integration. In Italy, the election of the conservative "Home of Freedom" coalition added a partner to the group of EU nations (particularly the United Kingdom, Spain and Ireland) who oppose the German-Franco move toward a formal, federalized Europe. It is also increasing the likelihood of continued challenges to the euro as a common currency. Likewise, Ireland and Austria have come under EU criticism for budgetary and political decisions that challenge the concept of European federalism. Individual European states today are prepared to subsume their national aspirations for economic benefit. But if those benefits cease to exist, what will hold the union together? When the monetary policy being pursued by the European Central Bank imposes austerity, as likely will happen sometime, that austerity will not be equally distributed. A monetary policy that benefits one European nation need not benefit others, and it is unlikely that it would. That will be the point at which European nationalism - currently limited to policy disagreements between national governments and the EU headquarters in Brussels - will become significant again. History shows that secession is the natural tendency during times of economic stringency. It will be at that moment that the ETAs and RIRAs of Europe will blossom again, combining primordial national sentiment with economic policy. The European Union is unprepared to deal with a system in crisis. Indeed, there is no institution on the Continent capable of preventing secession by current members, nor has this potential problem been addressed or even debated. When the North American Union faced the same issue in the late 1850s, the question of secession was not settled until the Army of the Potomac seized the strategic initiative at the Battle of Gettysburg. Within the European Union, who will raise and command a force to protect the European Union? An Army of the - Rhine? George Friedman is the founder and chairman of STRATFOR. ---------------------------------------------- Related Analysis: British Anti-terrorism Act May Backfire -14 February 2001 British Anti-terrorism Act May Backfire 2100 GMT, 010214 Summary A new anti-terrorism law aimed at undercutting an emerging trend of terrorist activity in Great Britain and by British nationals in Asia and the Middle East takes effect Feb. 19. While intended to emphasize security, the measure may undermine the country's barely tolerated presence in some Islamic countries and could provoke acts of terrorism against British interests and nationals abroad. Analysis The Terrorism Act of 2000 will give the British government sweeping powers to curb an emerging trend of terrorist activity. The law will empower London to ban groups designated as terrorist organizations and criminalize fund-raising and other political activity associated with those groups. The new anti-terrorism legislation, which takes effect Feb. 19, is intended to undercut growing levels of terrorist activity by British nationals both inside and outside the country. But the law may undermine the security of Britain's interests abroad, especially in Islamic countries in Asia and the Middle East. Until now, Britain had been recognized as one of Europe's most liberal societies, allowing foreign dissidents, political opposition groups and even outlawed terrorist organizations to engage in political activity. While the new law deals specifically with terrorism in Northern Ireland, its broad scope suggests it is more importantly aimed at limiting the growing threat of domestic terrorism from political and ideological groups outside of Ireland. Britain has been plagued by more than 10 terrorist attacks against the animal research and agricultural industries, with the most recent Feb.12, when bomb experts diffused a letter bomb sent to an agriculture firm in North Yorkshire, according to the Guardian. The British-based Animal Liberation Front, an animal rights activist organization, even has been linked to a series of arson attacks against fast-food restaurants in Belgium, BBC reported in November 1998. The bill also covers international acts of terrorism, an element that has caused an outcry from many foreign opposition groups operating in Britain. Several groups cited in the U.S. State Department's list of foreign terrorist organizations have offices or fund-raising departments in London, including Gama'a al-Islamiyya, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Kurdistan Workers' Party, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam and Shining Path. Religious or ideologically motivated acts of violence will be included in the government's definition of terrorism. The bill also criminalizes fund-raising for designated terrorist groups, the interference with or disruption of electronic systems, the possession or dissemination of information facilitating terrorist activity and meetings of three or more persons with the purpose of encouraging support for a proscribed organization or furthering its activities. The inclusion of religion is likely aimed at curbing another domestic problem - namely the growing number of British nationals involved in acts of terrorism abroad. For example, a British citizen was arrested Jan. 5 on suspicion of plotting a terrorist attack against Israel. Last December, a young British Muslim from Birmingham allegedly conducted a suicide attack on an Indian army barracks in Srinagar, the London daily The Independent reported Dec. 29. These incidents underscore rumors that British Muslims, who comprise 2.5 percent of the United Kingdom's 59.1 million citizens, are being recruited to fight in "holy wars" in the Middle East and Asia. Because of the Terrorism Act of 2000's broad definition of terrorism and the government's plans to create a list of outlawed terrorist groups similar to the U.S. State Department's document, the measure also may be perceived by terrorist groups as a move toward emulating Washington's foreign policies. American interests and U.S. nationals already are global targets for terrorist organizations. Washington's close alliance with Israel and U.S. military intervention in the Middle East have resulted in widespread animosity among Islamic groups, which so far has not transferred over to Britain despite its status as Washington's closest ally. Part of this is due to Britain's minor role in the Middle East peace process, as well as its willingness to act pragmatically instead of politically - unlike the United States - when dealing with other nations. But instituting the far-reaching anti-terrorism law could incite anger from many foreign terrorist organizations reliant upon funding and technical aid from their compatriots in Britain. This, in turn, could prompt heightened political opposition to British foreign policies, especially those concerning London's relationships with unpopular governments in Saudi Arabia or Yemen. The government will likely see an increase in opposition rallies and boycotts, and possibly even low-level acts of terrorism, by Islamic groups against British interests and British nationals abroad. London has yet to designate any groups that will be affected by the new law. But the fear of being outlawed already has soured relations between the government and radical groups based in London. The militant Islamic group Al-Mahajiroun, led by Syrian-born Sheik Omar Bakri Mohammed, issued a warning to the British government that a new growth of underground Islamic movements almost certainly will arise in order to avoid prosecution. While the government hopes the new law will excise Britain's growing terrorism problem, the effort is more likely to backfire and exacerbate the threat. ================================================================= NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us 339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org e-mail: nyt@blythe.org ================================================================= nytire-08.19.01-19:02:56-24845