Even though most republicans and nationalists accept that the tactic of armed struggle can no longer achieve the primary republican objective of Irish unity, many would argue, quite convincingly, that there might be a basis for armed defence. Therefore the argument of decommissioning (leaving to one side the Unionist and British agenda on this issue) becomes defunct.

Much debate, particularly in the past number of years, which seems to be gaining a momentum of its own in political and media circles is that of decommissioning. This present debate rarely if ever touches on the core problems that have existed on this is land for centuries. The decommissioning issue is not being put in its proper context and seems to be focused totally on republican weapons. Is it any wonder that many republican and nationalists question the political and media bombardment on them on decommissioning? Many look on this issue as one created by both Unionists and the British in a crude attempt to achieve total victory over republicans, something they could not achieve during time of war. For republicans to seriously discuss the issue of decommissioning in the present ongoing debate, which is in the context of the Belfast Agreement, would be an act of gross folly. Decommissioning at this present juncture should not be seriously discussed, never mind contemplated on.

How can any republican or nationalist seriously contemplate decommissioning particularly in light of recent loyalist attacks, which has been ongoing for centuries? A cursory glance at Irish history would suggest that there will be no let-up in loyalist attacks, which down throughout history has been supported by mainstream unionist parties who in turn were supported by successive British governments. Every time the question of basic human rights for nationalists came to the fore we would witness an upsurge in loyalist attacks coupled with threats of a terrible war if nationalists did not accept less than they were entitled to.

Is it any wonder that nationalists remain skeptical and unconvinced when listening to the demands of the Unionist parties on decommissioning? The Unionist parties may like to conveniently forget their sordid involvement in loyalist terrorism over centuries of Unionist and British misrule. Nationalists are, however, unlikely to ever forget the pogroms that have been inflicted upon them by unionists, particularly since the late 18th century when the "Peep-o-Day Boys" formed the Orange Order. Nothing, it appears, has changed since! Except continuity!

The UUP, DUP, Vanguard, Ulster Resistance, UDA, UFF, UVF, PAF, UDP, PUP, LVF, OV, B Specials, RUC, RIC and an endless list of other loyalist initials can all trace their roots back to the Orange Order and remain to this day inextricably linked. David Trimble, leader of the UUP, conveniently forgets when waffling about decommissioning that it was the UUP who brought in the largest consignments (35,000 weapons and 2,000,000 rounds of ammunition) of weapons for the UVF on the MV Clyde Valley in April 1914. An operation backed by a cabal of Ulster Unionist business leaders as well as British army officers. Similar importation of loyalist weapons (e.g. South African arms shipment) with links to the so-called mainstream Unionist parties are still ongoing during this current phase of the conflict. He may also conveniently forget that it was the Ulster Unionist Council in June 1920 who decided to revive the UVF.

How, too, can nationalists ever forget the roots of the so-called domestic security forces when listening to demands for republican decommissioning? In October 1920 the Ulster Special Constabulary was formed. The USC had three categories - the "A", "B" and "C" Specials - and were structured along similar lines as the UVF and whole units of the UVF enlisted together. The government in effect had legalised the UVF and other militant loyalists by changing one set of initials for another. What has changed? One wonders if the Patten Commission will travel the same path as those in 1920. The specials went on to become the UDR and later because of embarrassment to the British, were disbanded in name only to become the RIR. Collusion between all the initials of Unionist, loyalist and the so-called security forces is nothing new and can be traced back over the centuries.

The RUC was formed in April 1922 and were set up to replace the RIC. The RUC can trace their collusion with loyalist butchers (many who had been members of a multitude of various Unionist, loyalist and so-called security force initials) right in the beginning of its formation. One of the most notorious cases was that of District Inspector John William Nixon, who was stationed in the Shankill area, who engaged in a campaign of sectarian murders with other policemen of the day. Nixon is credited with, amongst scores of other murders, the murders of Owen McMahon and his four sons -- their only crime being that they were Catholics.

How, too, can Nationalists forget the sixties when they protested for basic human rights, abolishing gerrymandering, fair housing allocation, equal voting rights and abolishing sectarian discrimination? The IRA existed in name only and was no threat to anyone. Yet unionists and loyalist parties worked hand in hand to whip up fears in the Protestant community, both politically and violently, by planting bombs on both sides of the border and successfully blaming republicans for those actions by claiming it was the work of the IRA.

Some of the most notable successes of both the UVF, Paisley, and an alliance of other sectarian unionist politicians like Craig and Faulkner, was that of bringing down Captain Terence O'Neill on April 28th 1969 and ensuring the safe passage of the Offences Against the State Act through the Dail in December 1972. The crucial blow to O'Neill came on March 30th 1969 when a number of UVF explosions occurred on the evening before a crucial meeting of the Unionist Party Standing Committee to discuss the leadership. The explosions were passed of at that time as the work of republicans and ensured O Neill's resignation. The UVF ensured the safe passage of the Offences Against the State Act, which had been in danger of defeat, by causing a number of explosions in Dublin, on the day the Dail was debating the act, killing two civilians and again passing it off as the work of republicans.

Loyalists have always claimed that their violence has been reactive but only a cursory glance at Irish history tells us a completely different story. Also, nationalists must bear in mind that the loyalist cease-fire is conditional. When loyalists called their cease-fire on October 13 1994 under the banner of the Combined Loyalist Military Command they did so on condition that the Union was safe. The CLMC cease-fire led to the deterioration of relationships between the PUP/UVF and the DUP who were totally opposed to the loyalist cease-fires, the latter advising the UVF to carry on with their sectarian campaign. This pattern of collusion between the vast majority of unionist parties, loyalist groups and the so-called security forces, has always existed and will always continue to exist in some shape or form. No doubt Nationalists will put the present bombardment on decommissioning in its proper context and reject such calls and demand that republicans do not contemplate giving over even one bullet. I accept that there are no absolutes in life and one can never say never but for now and the foreseeable future I would be totally against any form of decommissioning! Never again can republicans leave the nationalist community defenseless and at the mercy of Unionist politicians and loyalist bigots. The retention of arms will serve, to a certain degree, as a deterrent against the pogroms of the past even though no doubt loyalist violence will continue.