Rowan, Duddy, Morrison
The Belfast Telegraph and the Irish News both feature articles on the hunger strike issue – more on those later today or tomorrow, time permitting. A comment by Dixie Elliott in the “and ‘Soon’ would have known this” thread is worth highlighting in regards the debate over Danny Morrison’s new claims that he brought nothing from the British into the prison (As he told Rowan, “At the time of my visit to the prison on the afternoon of Sunday July 5, 1981, the British Government had yet to even formulate its position, never mind proposing a ‘deal’.”). It’s a YouTube of Brian Rowan interviewing Brendan Duddy at a Feile debate in West Belfast in August, 2009. Dixie has transcribed the discussion in the comments, you can watch the video embedded below.
From Dixie’s comment:
In an interview with Barney Rowan at Belfast Feile, Brendan Duddy said “that although a document didn’t exist the RM had the detail of an offer, there’s no argument about that. And at that particular point that offer was available to go into the prison and..and whatever.
And what was not available at that time was the document.”When Rowan asked him did he ‘scribble’ the offer, Duddy replied that he wrote it very carefully.
Earlier Rowan had said to Duddy..‘I think your sort of test which is to get someone into the prison on the Sunday?’
Duddy took a drink of water and pointed to Danny Morrison in the audience and replied…‘Him!’
Duddy went on to say “that the person he wanted to get in with respect to you, Mr Morrison, was Gerry Adams and they said..‘No way is Adams going in’. Right!”
And [he pointed at Danny] “so do not be offended, you were second choice.”
“So I considered a positive way forward to get Danny Morrison in and I was also totally happy that you were well aware of what was being said and what was on offer, so forth. So getting Danny Morrison in was, in my book, a major, major, step forward.”
He went on to say at that particular point of time the real difficulty was that this [meaning a document] particular written piece of paper…[he didn't finish]
He then said he would like to know when the British deposited it.
So Danny sat and listened while Duddy said that he had an offer of which he was well aware what was being said and what was on offer to take into the prison.
Duddy goes on to say, “Danny Morrison went in..”
Rowan: “You outlined the offer?… to the Republican leadership?”
Duddy: “The Republican leadership had the detail of the offer, there’s no argument about that …”
Rowan: “You gave it to Martin McGuinness…”
Duddy: “That doesn’t matter, I’m telling you that the Republican leadership had the detail of that offer and at that particular point, that offer was available to go into the prison…”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy9nh8rsa50
Dixie also points out a quote from Morrison in a BBC Talkback interview in 2009:
‘he explained to them [the hunger strikers] what was on offer’, adding ‘by the way, the offer that we were being offered through the Mountain Climber was a bigger and better offer than what the ICJP thought they had.’ He went on: ‘After I had seen the hunger strikers, we all agreed that this [the M/C offer] could be a resolution, but we wanted it guaranteed.’
Danny Morrison tells Rowan now, however,
“At the time of my visit to the prison on the afternoon of Sunday July 5, 1981, the British Government had yet to even formulate its position, never mind proposing a ‘deal’.”
The identity of ‘Rusty Nail’ is no great secret inside the Northern Republican Community, both herself and her partner have very definite views on what they see as as ‘the betrayal’ of the Movement by the current Sinn Fein leadership.
Like ‘Alias’ the need to ‘have a go’ and use anything that arise as a stick to attempt to batter the Mainstream Republican Leadership often cloud judgement and take over from the merits or otherwise of the issue under discussion.
While I do not agree with ‘Rusty Nail’ I also remember consistent comrades who stood the Barna Baol when need and I still respect them for that, even if, given my expressed support for the mainstream Leadership, that respect is probably nowadays a one way street!
MV
Don’t usually agree, but insightful post. I think it’s hard to conclude anything, at least for someone on the outside looking in.
I have to ask this: Would you still have been willing to risking leaving your family without a breadwinner to go on hunger and strike thirst if you had known the ‘movement’ would surrender its arms, lie to its soldiers, agree to partition, and now administrate British rule from Stormont?
risk*
“The issue here is not what material the notes were scribbled on or what medium was used to write up ‘the scribble’ what matters here is the content and bloody well you know it!” – MV
What are you arguing with? That is what I said.
“What difference does it make if Duddy typed the offer on vellum paper or wrote it in lipstick on the back of [a] napkin?
The authority of his offer came from who he represented, not from how he presented the offer.”
The content is the offer, and the authority is that it represented the working position of the British government in regard to a possible resolution.
Since the public position of the British government was that it would not negotiate with terrorists, there was no possibility of any ‘guarantee’ of what was offered being provided in any format that could have satisfied those not willing to be satisfied with Duddy’s ‘scribbles.’
“‘Alias’ muddying the waters as usual to make anti-Republican propaganda?” – MV
You are confusing Provoism with Republicanism. They’re very different entities. The latter holds national self-determination as its guiding principle, and the former has no principles.
Brian, hindsight vision is always 20/20 vision and hopefully we all learn that extra bit of wisdom with age and grey hair.
The short answer to that is yes I would for the cause of unconditional Irish Freedom is greater than the Republican Movement and I never regarded the Republican Movement as the sole custodian of the ‘Freedom Struggle’ The I.C.A. for instance probably did as much for the social emancipation of Irish Women in their own quite way as the Cuman Na mBan did in their revolutionary day and way.
One I had taken my stand, it was no longer about me as a member of The Republican Movement, it was about all that had gone before in my IRB family and all others making a stand.
In my case I identified myself to the British Authorities on driving ashore in the UK. They had me on a list send from Ireland anyway, as I suspected and as it later transpired. Once the Securocrat’ ‘cleared’ me, I had ‘played the game’ by their rules, we exchanged salutes and I was free to go provided while in the UK I also acted within the parameters as agreed.
I did, I had given my word and they broke theirs, something had happened, as the arresting officer said ” Something big is after happening mate, we need bodies and you are it” While there were personal issues involved, the abiding one was they knew in just what capacity I approached their security and if I as representative of ‘that capacity’ had allowed myself to be pushed around, then I was also giving them an indication that all at my level were a pushover.
These things do register : in the relatively recent past when leaving the UK I was tapped on the shoulder and asked to join some others so selected. Once they ran a personal security check I was invited to come into the monitor room where the senior officer showed me how their ‘screening system’ worked, and that I was indeed a random choice.
“So can I take I take it you do not want another hunger and thirst strike on hands then”? There was a burst of laughter all round ” Yes sir” he said “you can definately take that”
I took the piss and began to plead with him to hold me for at least 24 hours as it would do wonders for my reputation and cultural CV when next attending Northern events. He was equally mock serious that I was getting on the boat even if it meant that he had to travel back with me hand cuffed to himself.
Behind the banter however was the reality of my stand all those years before. ‘Officialdom’ do not pick on ‘cases’ with the capacity to cause the system problems, they prefer their ‘ Hostages for the Nation’ to come from unfortunates such as the Guildford Four and the Bermingham Six.
A lot happened in that intense period, but my primary memory is of two elderly bobbies in the fingerprint section, one of who stood guard at my cell door and faced down a half dozen CID ‘hard boys’ who wanted to give me a ‘going over’ while his companion brought back a senior uniformed Officer.
They too insisted that a doctor be called and I was then scheduled for a hospital watch and the process that led to my release got underway. Had they not conducted themselves in the best traditions of the British Police, my story could have been far different.
The natural dignity and decency of those two elderly bobbies have been one of the biggest impressions of my life experiences. However that is one for the book and who knows, that may come this current year!
( want to place an advance order ? )
Alias : too late for another detailed posting even if I were so inclined, which I am not in your regard.
Your diatribe of condemnation is rich indeed coming from an individual who not so very long ago described the Palestinians as a peoples without a country, a nation, a culture or, the most priceless one of all, ‘a science’!
That post even got up the noses of decent Unionists if I correctly recall.
However I will consider the merits of what you have said as when it comes to matters of ‘no principles’ I bow to your unchallenged expertise in this particular sphere !
I am sure like many, I have been sitting here fascinated by the arguments on these threads. I wasn’t there at the time and its difficult to get your head around the whole chronology of events. The strange thing is that both sides of this argument are getting hung up on whether what the other side has stated in the past and present to the extent that the overall point is gettin lost.
Does it really matter if Richard O’Rawe was accurate in every detail of the allegations he made? I personally dont think so. To get so bogged down on whether O’Rawe’s account exactly matches up to these papers is ludicrous. For he start, he was relaying what he was told by McFarland on the basis of what he was told by Morrision on the basis of what he was told Duddy on the basis of what he in turn was told by the British. And his account was written a considerable time later. Its hardly unlikely that minutae could get chaned a little.
As far as I am aware, I never heard of this whole controversy, certainly nothing specific, until he made his allegations in his book. The underlying factual basis of the allegations is clear and that in itself would suggest to me that O’Rawe is basically being honest even if there are details that may be wrong. There was clearly a flurry of activity that weekend following the prisoner’s statement of the 4th July 1981.
To argue over whether Morrison or O’Rawe’s account of the 5th of July is accurate is besides the point.
There was an offer by the 6th of July at the latest. That much is very clear. It was rejected by the Provo’s. The Provo’s didn’t like the tone and so they rejected it. This is even though the fifth hunger striker didn’t die until the 8th July. The Provo’s let him die because they didn’t like the tone – not the substance. End of Story surely
Lionel Hutz said, “To argue over whether Morrison or O’Rawe’s account of the 5th of July is accurate is besides the point.”
No it’s not, the accuracy of this particular point is of the most important. From O’Rawe’s(and others) point of view an offer was delivered to the prisoners on July 5th by Morrison and the jail leadership accepted it. Morrison is now claiming the opposite as to what he wrote on his blog and his other previous public statements and now claims that no offer went in on July 5th, which if true means the jail leadership couldn’t have accepted an offer on that date as none existed and therefore Adams couldn’t have overruled the prisoners. Morrison’s volte face comes on the back of the latest British documents which stated that the British were still waiting to formulate their position on July 6th but needed the provisional view before doing so. Provisional view of what? It doesn’t take an Einstein to work out the British were waiting for the provisionals view on the July 5th offer relayed to the prisoners by Morrison in order to formulate their position in writing to be released as a press statement. Morrison/Adams have once again jumped the gun and have misinterpretated that particular line in the released documents in a desperate attempt to cover up their lies.
Terry B,
Thats fair enough. I accept it is relevant.
However, I dont think that these papers provide clarity on that point. The papers can be read in two ways:
1. Your reading that Morrison was sent in to see if the hunger strikers would accept an offer from the British.
2. That everyone was reading the 4th July statement as an indication that the hunger strikers were ready to end the fast with a compromise and Morrison was sent in to clarify this after which the British would draw up an offer.
I dont think its conclusive but it does appear to me to suggest that the British and the Provo’s knew what the offer was, particularly as the drafted document of the 6th July does differ from the statement of the 30th of June with no prompting other than the meetings of that weekend.
Having not be there, its difficult to know. But what is clear is that a deal was offered by the 6th aat the latest and this was rejected by the provos due to its tone
Lionel,
perhaps reading the papers in isolation prevents the clarity you seek. However, placing these recent documents alongside Duddy’s notes, other FOI documents, as well as the previous public positions of those on either side of the debate, does provide the clarity regarding the July 5th offer relayed to the prisoners on that date. Even Morrison on his own blog in 2009 clarifies that despite his current retraction as well as the removed YouTube clipping.
Lionel,
sorry, here’s the link to what Morrison said on his blog.
“It has been known for decades that the Republican Movement and the British were in contact in July 1981 during the hunger strike. As a result of that contact I went into the prison hospital on Sunday, July 5th, and told Joe McDonnell, Kevin Lynch, Kieran Doherty, Tom McElwee and Micky Devine, and told Brendan McFarlane, the leader of the prisoners, separately, that we were in contact and the details of what the British appeared to be offering in terms of the prisoners’ five demands.
Because the prisoners at the end of the first hunger strike had experience of the British reneging on promised offers, and this reneging had led to the second hunger strike, the hunger strikers told me that they wanted a representative of the British government to come in and stand over what was on offer. Now, what the British were offering fell short of the five demands but whether it would have been enough to end the hunger strike was never put to the test because the British refused to meet the hunger strikers and stand over their offer. So there was never a deal.”
http://www.dannymorrison.com/index.php?s=Hunger+strike+July+5th+offer
Thats certainly true Terry,
Actually I have been trying to download the papers from pre July 3rd but the download from the National Archives is so big that it keeps crashing – which is frustrating.
The problem is that its very hard to find a source that isn’t compiled by a website with a very obvious bias. Althouh, I’m sure that many will point out the bias with the National Archives, I would still like to work of the contemporaneous notes
“Among the documents still being withheld by the British are the one whose contents were delivered verbally through an intermediary on July 5th and which I delivered verbally to the hunger strikers and Brendan McFarlane; and the one which the British rewrote hours before Joe McDonnell died on July 8th but which neither we nor the hunger strikers were given. They rewrote it, according to the newly released material, to alter its tone in response to a request, they say, by the Republican Movement. Crucially, if we accept this document then it indicates a Republican Movement anxious to settle, not prolong the hunger strike.”
That is pretty much conclusive I suppose
Terry B
Your reply to Lionel Hutz a few posts above is the heart of the matter ref your statement :-
It doesn’t take an Einstein to work out the British were waiting for the provisionals view on the July 5th offer relayed to the prisoners by Morrison in order to formulate their position in writing to be released as a press statement.
Why is this not obvious to everyone else?
SteadyEddie
“Why is this not obvious to everyone else?”
Because everytime it is pointed out, certain people go off in a different direction just like Danny and Gerry so as not to allow us to dwell on it.
Danny Morrison on Talkback 2009 said that:
“he explained to them [the hunger strikers] what was on offer’, adding ‘by the way, the offer that we were being offered through the Mountain Climber was a bigger and better offer than what the ICJP thought they had.’ He went on: ‘After I had seen the hunger strikers, we all agreed that this [the M/C offer] could be a resolution, but we wanted it guaranteed.”
Now I count 4 uses of the word ‘offer’ in that one statement and 1 use of ‘offered’…Thats 5!!
Danny was the man who went into the prison yet now he is saying, “the British Government had yet to even formulate its position, never mind proposing a ‘deal’.”
Did this slip not only his, but Gerry and Marty’s mind, all these years when they spoke of offers and was it that one phonecall in a the document that induced total recall. ‘jeepers that’s right now I remember, the Brits hadn’t even formulated it’s position what were we talking about for Petes sake?’
PS; SteadyEddie I hope you’re not a loyalist, bad Unionist, anti-Republican journalist etc? Because according to some I’m not supposed to [get into bed] agree with you.
MV
Thanks for your response.
SteadyEddie said,
“Your reply to Lionel Hutz a few posts above is the heart of the matter ref your statement :-
It doesn’t take an Einstein to work out the British were waiting for the provisionals view on the July 5th offer relayed to the prisoners by Morrison in order to formulate their position in writing to be released as a press statement.
Why is this not obvious to everyone else?”
Is it not obvious to you Ed? What do you think was meant by waiting for the provisional view so that the British could formulate their position in writing? Provisional view of what? Perhaps it may be clearer to you if you examine the debate in its totality, thus far, rather that on one particular document in isolation.
it appears there is no end to the effort being applied in having people believe there was actually a deal reneged on from the first HS. Derry journal today carries a story with the heading “prison to politics” in which Raymond Mc Cartney tells us that the second hunger strike was a result of bad faith from the brits in relation to promises made. Even though all now with any relevance including his own party admitt this not to be the case. But rather a face saving exercise.
Obviously another foolish attempt at swaying the opinion in favour of the myth that an offer isn`t an offer till this that or the other.
Just a pity the consequences of this application to the second HS had an outcome at the expense of six addittional brave republicans lives.
“There was an offer by the 6th of July at the latest. That much is very clear. It was rejected by the Provo’s. The Provo’s didn’t like the tone and so they rejected it. This is even though the fifth hunger striker didn’t die until the 8th July. The Provo’s let him die because they didn’t like the tone – not the substance. End of Story surely”
There’s a bit more to the story.
A hunger strike is first and foremost a tool in a propaganda war. Since these prisoners were prevented from causing mayhem outside of the prison by their preferred means, the only means left to them was whatever mayhem they could cause inside of the prison, calculating that it would lead to mayhem and murder outside of it – which, of course, it did.
The death of Bobby Sands was a propaganda ‘spectacular’ for the Provos, leading to a huge increase in financial and political support and recruitment for them. It allowed them to present themselves as being willing to die for a cause rather than to just murder for it – even if the ’cause’ was actually a trivial one involving clothing and a refusal to work.
The Provos propaganda department played a central role in the affair, and were well aware that it was a great ‘victory’ for them (if not for the Sands family and the families of others murdered in the resultant, Provo-organised ‘spontaneous’ riots).
Just as the Provos were aware that the hunger strikes were a propaganda victory for them, the British government were aware that such victory could only come at society’s expense. That placed the British government in the position where they wanted an end to the strikes, and the Provos in a position where they wanted them to continue.
Obviously, the Provos couldn’t tell the prisoners that they would rather like a few more of them to die as their propaganda war was progressing splendidly with funding, recruitment, popular support, etc, on the up as some of the prisoners might have felt that those issues had nothing to do with their demands and would mean that they were no longer in control of whether they lived or died.
That meant that the Provos would have to prolong the hunger strikes without being seen to do so – and that is exactly what they did. Just the right number died: any less and popular support could not have been fully exploited, any more and popular support would seriously question if it is unwittingly prolonging the event (which, of course, it did).
The odd aspect is why any of these prisoners trusted an organisation that regarded human life as utterly worthless – presumably they thought it only regarded the lives of non-Provos as worthless.
seamus60 said…
“Derry journal today carries a story with the heading “prison to politics” in which Raymond Mc Cartney tells us that the second hunger strike was a result of bad faith from the brits in relation to promises made. Even though all now with any relevance including his own party admitt this not to be the case. But rather a face saving exercise.”
Raymond seems not to know that Dannys now saying different regarding the 1st Hunger Strike. Thats the SF problem, they aren’t being updated on the next spin.
Late 2010, on RTE’s Miriam O’Callaghan programme Raymond sat beside Pat Sheenan and listened while he gave a list of the initiatives that attempted to end the Hunger Strike.
Pat mentioned, The Red Cross, the Popes envoy, Cardinal O’Fiaich, the ICJP…
Yet somehow Pat left out the most important one of the lot…The Mountain Climber Contact.
How could he forget The Mountain Climber? I thought to myself…
Terry b
I have been following the debate and for a long time. I read and reread DM’s claims that there was an offer and then there was no offer etc etc Most things in life have a kernal and your point about Morrison being allowed in to and and actually going into the jail is the kernal of this story if I could call it that. Morrison had to be going into the jail with something and if so, it had to be with the view of obtaining the views of the HS’s and Bik in turn. Whether it was a verbal message or a physical message as in the form of a document can come later. First we could ask Morrison or some of supporters what actually was the purpose of his visit to the prison on July 5th and what he actually said to the HS’s and Bik and what they said in response
I`m sure its in there deliberately Dixie.
For all those faithfull who depend on that paper as their main source of whats actually going on in the world.
Surely the journo would have notified him of the well publisiced discrepency before going to press.
Its not like you get a chance to highlight mistakes of this nature, with the expectation of it being put right in the interests of truth.
Not in their paper anyway.
Steady eddie it was Duddy who got Danny access to the prison in the first place so he is well aware why.
If it wasn`t as Duddy claimed to be taking in an offer what was the urgency.
The PSF tactics on this issue have been fairly predictable given their previous experience on the Liam Adams scandal. Basically they fire out loads of conflicting information combined with attacks on the people who are pointing out their lies. This creates confusion on the part of their supporters who, when in doubt, will inevitably side with them.
Throw in a few accusations of dissidents, unionists and MI5 involvement in denigrating their leadership, with all the implications that can be grouped with them, and the confusion is complete. Then simply sit back and hope to ride it out.
Above all never allow the facts to get in the way of the myth.
Back on air after more than a few exchanges with ‘the powers that be’
I have a fundmental disagreement with Mick regarding how issues are dealt with here on slugger, but the bottom line is that it is Mik’s site and his rules apply.
In rebuttal of an argument or openion, be it in law, in politics or in any other walk of life, there are, in my view, two principle issues, first the facts of the rebuttal per se and sencond, the credibility and status of the characters making the claims and counter claims so an impartial observer can asses for themselvers the quality and authority of the rubutting source.
Under Micks rules only the first can be detailed and engaged with, any referal to the second is regarded as ‘man play’
This is a very restricted form of debate and while I will operate within the parameters of the first response, it is as far as I am concerned very much a case of ‘half a loaf being better than no bread’
Separating issues and policies from collective, individual and personal beliefs cannot but give a very incomplete picture of events, especially in dealing with spheres of activity, as in The Six Counties, where such information as is in the public domain about the conflict, is already severly curtailed.
Anyway ‘them’s the rules’ so all parties as may be interested, please note, if my ongoing engagements are less than ‘full and frank’ with punches pulled, it is not because I am attempting to avoid a robust engagement with the issues raised but rather I will be attempting to avoid red cards !
Munsterview,
I trust this will not prevent you from regaling us with your tales of derring do?
Under Micks rules only the first can be detailed and engaged with, any referal to the second is regarded as ‘man play’
Truth be told it’s a rule that probably protects you more than anyone.
Pass !