There are clearly some individuals and organisations that are not particularly happy about the settlement of the Republican Movement’s war with the UK. And in the Strabane area, there is even sufficient organisation to have mounted an attack on an off duty PSNI man out by Castlederg. Yet the prospects of prosecuting a successful ‘revolutionary struggle‘ are remote to say the least.
Short answer: very little, other than he enjoyed the environs of Hillsborough Castle, enjoyed working with the local politicians, and has Gerry Adams to thank for Bobby his dog. Peter Mandelson’s book The Third Man has captured media headlines in recent weeks as the Times serialised the most juicy bits. But what did he have [...] read our review »
With perhaps the longest title of any book I’ve read this year, The Media Relations Department of Hizbollah Wishes You a Happy Birthday: Unexpected Encounters in the Changing Middle East gives an insight into the lives of people living in Middle East through the eyes of journalist Neil MacFarquhar. MacFarquhar’s father was a chemical engineer [...] read our review »
World by Storm has a nice piece up on the IRA’s role in helping MK, the armed wing of the ANC, in the 1980s. In particular he sees a strange alchemy at work there: …if one can think of a clearly legitimate contemporary struggle it was that against apartheid and it is to the credit [...] read our review »
The republican dissidesnts are a threat that all our MLAs can unite against and in this sense they provide a source of common ground for our politicians. They are, in this sense, helpful to the cohesiveness of the new dispensation.
Mick,
As you’ve decided to label éirígí as ‘dissident’ in your CiF blog, can you explain what you mean by the term in this instance. As I’m sure you are well aware the word is heavily loaded and most people will have certain assumptions about those to whom it is applied and given your readership at the Guardian most will be unaware of éirígí’s positions.
Indeed Mark. As slug’s reference somewhat proves. Perhaps ‘dissenting’ would have been a better choice of terms, since my intent was to indicate dissent from the Belfast Agreement not a predisposition to use violence, as slug seems to have interpreted it.
This is water that I know the Blanket has been trying to bring some clarity to for years. I’d welcome some direction on this though.
Can I apologise for the wording in my first post. I don’t regard them helpful. But it is notable that all our elected MLA politicians do not support these violent groups.
A good simple, clear analysis, Mick, in which (surprisingly perhaps) I find nothing to take issue with.
Mark McGregor asks with some justification that éirígí not be lumped in with those dissident groups that take their dissatisfaction at their political failings into murderous avenues of petty cowardice. There is no indication whatsoever that éirígí follows or supports such a course. Not yet anyway.
Mark McGregor – “can you explain what you mean by the term [dissident] in this instance .. the word is heavily loaded and most people will have certain assumptions about those to whom it is applied”
You refused to make any comment about the policeman seriously injured in Spamount village when invited to do so. And indeed you posted the following (Cathy Jackson’s reply to Liam Duggan in the Irish News):
“For those of use who believe there is nothing normal about partition … the only action open to us is revolutionary action.”
The label of ‘dissident Republicans’ does seem to apply to eirigi. But here is yet another chance to say you don’t support violence such as the attack on the policeman in Spamount village.