“They kept faith with the republican past..”
Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams speaking at his party’s commemoration of five men who died when a bomb they had been preparing exploded prematurely at a farm house at Edentubber in 1957 during the IRA’s Border campaign.
“They kept faith with the republican past and they ensured the future of our struggle.”
Ah, but did they have popular support and a “strategy to achieve a united Ireland”? And, btw, weren’t you always “of the view that no military solution was possible”? Just checking.. Or rather, checking..
DJK
Many thanks for your inspiring post – one that I think all republicans should read carefully and think long and hard about.
I think FF organising in the north would create the possibility of a new conversation between the two tribes here. Indeed I think that backing FF, getting it organised and voting FF would be a great way for northern nationalists to speak simultaneously to the two other communities on this island. To the people of the 26 we’d be saying: “We are with you.” To unionists we’d be saying: “Let’s start again.” I happen to believe that many from the unionist tradition would be interested to hear what FF have to say.
FF would also have the advantage of being able to talk about policy – unlike SF, who are easily manoeuvred into a corner over the IRA’s past and present – meanwhile the vital issues affecting the people they represent are kicked into touch.
“Certainly I would want my British identity protected and respected. I don’t see that as even close to a contensious issue for FF and most of nationalist Ireland.”
I think you’re certainly right that it’s not contentious. Indeed I think FF and nationalist Ireland generally has come around, to a great extent, to the idea that your British identity must be positively cherished. And that includes in the north. I know it mightn’t always seem that way, but then we’re poorly served by our political parties.
I think that the PUL community has more friends across this island, including within republican circles, than it realises – understandably, given the madness of recent decades. But we’re coming into a quieter time now.
I think we northern nationalists should think strategically about where we go from here. The fact that FF (a party vastly experienced and sophisticated in government, in economic management, in security issues, in international affairs, in party political organisation, in the creation of enterprise – and they’re republicans too!) has expressed an interest in organising here represents the biggest opportunity we nordies have known in generations. As well as all of the above, there’s the fact that unionists don’t hate Fianna Fáil, and that most unionists are happy to admit they’re impressed by what they see south of the border these days. (A situation which FF has been instrumental in creating.)
We’d be mad not to see the opportunity this represents. We might also see it as a chance to transform our relations with our unionist neighbours – as I say, a chance to start over. We might think about creating for ourselves a new role as something like ambassadors for Irish unity to those who are presently against it (and who therefore hold the keys to that goal), rather than as antagonists to them. As part of Fianna Fáil, northern nationalism would be strong enough to show such generosity of spirit.
In comparison, SF can offer only permanent underdog status and an eternal chip on the shoulder.
Reader
Eh?
Billy,
I agree one hundred per-cent.
FF will also challenge the Provo stranglehold on many areas of the north. It will be interesting to see how the PRM respond. I wonder if FF canvassers in west Belfast etc. will be told to eff off back to the Free State!
Bring it on Bertie!
the Provo stranglehold.
??????
are all these PEOPLE who VOTE for sf, are they made to so with a gun??
they have the choice to vote
sf
sdlp
etc
the people opted to vote for SF, because the SDLP are a shower of shit, egotiscal self serving careerists.
what makes you think that they would vote FF?
but SF would need to watch, for they have gone soft like the stoops.
Picador
“FF will also challenge the Provo stranglehold on many areas of the north.”
I can’t acquiesce in your SF-bashing, I’m sorry. I’m not someone who thinks SF are somehow unclean or morally unworthy or incompetent. They are in fact our friends, family, neighbours. In many cases they are some of our most talented people, who joined SF as SF was the best choice available.
I’d vote for FF because FF are better, not because I hate SF. I think SF have a future, longer term. But in terms of pursuing their fundamental goals, they are utterly crippled by their past, and since they are the largest pro-unity party here, that means northern nationalists generally are crippled by SF’s past. That’s an enormous strategic cost for northern nationalist aspirations, and SF just aren’t worth that price.
So at this moment in our history, SF simply can’t offer people across the wee six what FF can.
The SDLP have no future.
“I wonder if FF canvassers in west Belfast etc. will be told to eff off back to the Free State!”
I think the only candidate FF will stand in West Belfast will be from West Belfast. There’s no way on earth they’ll parachute people in. More likely they’ll seek a pool of potential candidates from well-known people in the community. Can’t think of too many in WB who aren’t SF, but in most other constituencies I can think of plenty of big names from the worlds of business, trade unions, sport, civic society, academia, education, the professions etc that they’d be likely to size up.
Harry
“What makes you think that they would vote FF?”
Because FF would be better at representing their interests than any other party. Seems to me like a good reason.
Billy Pilgrim,
I rarely agree with your political positions but frequntly your analysis is interesting.
I suspect you over play the extent to which unionists might support FF but I would agree that there would be those who might be interested; you will forgive me that I am not that keen though we have discussed these sorts of things before.
Your analysis of the effect of SF on unionists is of course very accurate. I often find it surprising that nationalists and republicans are themselves surprised by the sheer level of contempt which SF are held in by many (?most) unionists. They still regard them as linked to the IRA; they still regard Martin McGuiness as having been an IRA commander and murderer (funny that isn’t it). Funny how a thirty plus year campaign of sectarian murder makes people suspicious of the leaders of and cheerleaders for that campaign. I must admit one of the few reasons which make me slightly less anti a united Ireland is the thought that those killers would not be in power.
Turning to Adams and the “martyrs”.
Of course there is a very simple reason why the would be killers who died at Edentubber in 1957 are heroes to Adams. That is because they can safely be co-opted into the SF narrative of Republican history. They along with the hunger strikers et al. can safely be raised up; the “saints” to approve the great leader and the new “project” without fear of contradiction. They having the good taste to be dead so Adams need not fear their criticism. That Adams now claims he believed that an IRA military victory was impossible by the mid 1970s but thought it was right to continue it should come as no surprise. He has always shown disregard and contmept for human life so to have contempt for all the dead including the Hunger strikers and to have used them in his own power games is natural. At least the hunger strikers and other dead IRA members had a choice regarding joining a terrorist organisation and so bringing about their deaths. Choices denyed to the terrorists other victims.
These commerations and the like are about creating the narrative that the Republican movement is a single seamless movement always heading in one direction. Previously violence was necessary to produce progress for them. Now for a time violence can be turned off; its fear still lingering. These commerations show the hard line that Gerry has not forgotten the “martyrs” and imply that they support the current direction.
I do wonder, however, if even the dissident republicans may serve a certain purpose for Adams. He can pretend to be reasonable when he condemns them. This pleases the outside world and be used as a pretended vehicle for “unionist engagement”. That of course will anony unionists who remember a bit more about Adams than some of the international community. Then when unionists reject the great “peacemaker” they can be presented as evil bogots yet again, stuck in the past etc. What else could the IRA have done than kill them and it was all their own fault for being evil bigots or some such is the line to be peddled.
Also of course the dissident terrorists can be used as an implied threat that if unionists stopped playing ball with SF then terrorism might start again; and that of course would be all the fault of the bad unionists and not of the saintly Gerry, Martin and co.
So the republican movement ploughs on through lies and blood, overwhelming amounts of blood. To quote Macbeth:
“I am in blood / Stepped in so far that, should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o’er†(III.iv.135–137).
At least Macbeth sounds as if he partially regrets the blood. Adams seems to glory in it.
Turgon
1. I think the capacity for FF to make inroads into the soft Unionist vote depends largely on their capacity to avoid getting sucked into our squabbles. I fancy that to be difficult, and their base will be Nationalist. It’ll be interesting, anyway.
2. Simplistic analysis on the Republican narrative. Adams did not co-opt the Border Campaign into the Republican there: that was accomplished before the PIRA was even in existence. Similarly with the Hunger Strikers – they were almost instantly woven in. What Adams has done is recast the narrative to support his policies. In the first instance, all shrewd leaders do this; Blair recast Labour history to support the New Labour movement; Cameroon is attempting to play up the elements of Conservative past that suit his agenda. [And if we extend the comparison, his attacks on those who are still using violence is equivalent to either of those leaders picking fights with their backwoodsmen]. Bluntly, would you prefer those events to be used to support a narrative that supports violence, or supports peace?
Second, I reckon that by “mid to late seventies”, what Adams actually means is “late seventies” and is trying to spin a little. Adams didn’t have the power to stop the campaign unilaterally, and you miss the significance of the Hunger Strikes in prolonging the campaign by a good 5-10 years.
Third, SF cannot be blamed for what the dissidents do – they have made an Agreement, disarmed, and supported the police. They have condemned the violence in strong terms, and more important they squeeze the political air for those groups in Nationalist areas. That the danger of dissident groups and political vacuum is not their fault and cannot be read as implied threat: any suggestion that is your projection and not the reality.
kensei,
Your thesis that Adams is recasting the hunger strikers in the same way as Blair did New Labour etc is fallacious. Adams and McGuiness were major republican leaders before the hunger strikes began; that is quite different from someone like Blair, a new leader, casting the past in a revisionist light. Adams now claims he knew that a “military” victory was not possible by the 1970s. The hunger strikes were 1981. As such it is quite clear that Adams and other republican leaders cynically used the hunger strikers as a vehicle to launch the SF political participtation project. Since I am actually sad that those young men died whatever their crimes I am appalled (though unsurprised) at Adams’s cynical use of their lives just as I am even more appaled by the other deaths he was complicit in in one way or another.
You suggest that the hunger strikes prolonged the violence by 5 to 10 years. I do not know but if you are right that is further condemnation of the behaviour of the republican leadership. Not content with murdering Protestants, Roman Catholics and so many others Adams was even happy to sacrifice his own “volunteers” for the greater good of his own political self advancement.
I am pleased to see that you say SF made an agreement and disarmed. I of course suggest they were forced into it as they stared if not complete defeat, total irrelevance in the face had they tried to continue. I do personally question how completely they actually disarmed. Also of course the IRA do not seem to need guns to murder people as Mr. Quinn’s death demonstrates. Still I guess I should note with gratitude that you personally do not continue the fiction that SF had no guns and were indeed separate from the IRA.
In terms of supporting the police: I have not heard from Gildernew recently, what is her position at the moment pray tell?
It is a matter of record that the Provos systematically demonised, intimidated and on occasions murdered their political opponents within the nationalist community. Incovenient to admit but true. I doubt they will be able to intimidate FF.
Yes, a lot of people vote for them: a minority backed the Provos during the ‘war’ and a greater number backed them after the ceasefire because they so desperately wanted a negociated peace. But the legacy of the Provos is a bitter division that cannot be overcome if SF continue to be the main representatives of the nationalist community in the north.
Turgon
1. The fact that Adams was involved at the time does not negate the point. Gordon Brown was intimately involved in the New Labour project but is busy recasting history in the best light to suit his current agenda.
2. I don’t believe Adams actually planned to go down the electoral path. I think Republicans started looking for an out, but I think they saw the out as some form of negotiation with the British government – I think the electoral success during the Hunger Strikes changed that.
3. It took years to get from Hume-Adams talks to ceasefire. In the late seventies there was no history of electoral success. There was no dialog with Hume, and there were the Blanket men and the dirty protests rumbling in the background. And I don’t believe you understand the anger the Hunger Strikes caused; people didn’t join the IRA to help SF. And you assume that there were only doves in the IRA Army Council during the period. That is most certainly not the case.
4. Public statement to dump arms – no good. International verification – no good. Ongoing IMC reports – no good. Turgon knows better. For what it is worth, it matters only as a symbollic gesture. People can get guns and make bombs if they want them, even if there is not a bullet left anywhere. The important point is that no one in the movement is going back, talking about going back or wanting to back, instead actively condemning. And if they did, they’d run into a load of Catholics in the PSNI because Nationalists and Republicans signed up to the structures. You can miss the spectacular significance of all that if you want, but I don’t think paranoia will help you.
5. Is Gerry Adams responsible for people in an organisation that has disarmed, told their followers to disarm, doesn’t target and doesn’t plan anything? People which he has condemned outright? I don’t see how it can hold.
Somme good cheerleading there kensei, usually you do a bit better.
“I don’t believe Adams actually planned to go down the electoral path. I think Republicans started looking for an out, but I think they saw the out as some form of negotiation with the British government”
Quite clearly Adams did not initially plan electoral politics, he simply fancied power, like his friends in communist (or fascist) terrorist groups the world over. Then whilst looking for an “out” it was clearly fine to murder people in their droves. Indeed Adams has told us it was the responsibility of anyone who wanted the IRA to stop murdering people to find a way for the IRA to do so. Spectularly warped morality and logic.
“In the late seventies there was no history of electoral success.”
Exactly. Adams could not countenance stopping violence unless and until he had some other way to get himself the power, money and influence he craved.
“The important point is that no one in the movement is going back, talking about going back or wanting to back”
Well they are not saying it publicly oh yes except of course the MP for FST and agriculture minister who has said republicans might “have” to go back to violence.
Sorry kensei, maybe you should try again
“Somme good cheerleading there kensei, usually you do a bit better.”
It isn’t about cheerleading. I don’t believe the people involved in either side were animals, and I don’t believe it’s a good view. I obviously have my own biases that maybe assign more good faith than was always there but you assign absolutely none, which cannot be right.
“Quite clearly Adams did not initially plan electoral politics, he simply fancied power, like his friends in communist (or fascist) terrorist groups the world over.”
Assigning the entire Provisional campaign to megalomania by the leadership ignores the context of the time, the previous history of republicanism and the fact that neither Adams or MMG joined as instant Republican leaders. It could never have sustained on that basis. Maybe it is more comforting to believe that the war was only perpetrated by animals but it is simply untrue.
“Then whilst looking for an “out†it was clearly fine to murder people in their droves. Indeed Adams has told us it was the responsibility of anyone who wanted the IRA to stop murdering people to find a way for the IRA to do so. Spectularly warped morality and logic.”
I believe by the late 1970′s the IRA was organised as cells capable of independent operation. Moreover, SF is only the visible part of the Republican leadership. There were plenty of others behind the scenes who wanted to keep fighting. Adams could have split the movement, but that would have been fuck all use to anyone.
“Exactly. Adams could not countenance stopping violence unless and until he had some other way to get himself the power, money and influence he craved.”
No Turgon. People in any organisation want to see progress toward their goals. Adams had no where to point to say that this offered a better way to an organisation where many thought the better way was to attack the Brits harder.
“Well they are not saying it publicly oh yes except of course the MP for FST and agriculture minister who has said republicans might “have†to go back to violence.”
I don’t believe I saw a quote anything like that, but I stand to be corrected. She made some cool comments on whether to report dissident republicans just after the policing move; but then I’m not particularly surprised some Republicans are deeply uncomfortable with that and it’ll take time to adjust. Regardless: it isn’t a position with popular support, it isn’t an option talked about in any real sense and it would be very unpopular even with people that previously supported the campaign. And you might notice SF have taken a few personnel hits now they’ve signed up to policing closed off that option.
You want some cast iron guarantee that there will never be more violence. There isn’t one, any more than you can give me one that loyalists won’t go and shoot some more Catholics for sport. Events in the last week are a potent reminder of that. All we got is trying to make this work in some fashion, and the Provisional movement is so invested in this that they cannot go back.
I respect your right to your “Prodiban” views, but basing them off the possibility of the PIRA dramatically returning to violence is a complete waste of your energy and incurs an opportunity cost in preventing you from achieving other goals you may have elsewhere.