Bloody Sunday was a key moment in the rise of the Provisional IRA. Thirty eight years later, The Saville Report is being published following the Provos’ disbandment. It would be unfortunate if the changed political circumstances were to dictate the way parties in the North respond to the findings.

There has been a strangely muted reaction to the outrageous plans of the Northern Ireland Office for publication of the Report. In a separate development, an attack on the Inquiry by the prospective Minister for Justice at Stormont resulted not in clear demands that he stand down but in frantic efforts by Nationalist politicians to rescue him from his own behaviour.

The fact that groups once at war have made their peace with the British establishment should have no bearing on judgments as to what happened in Derry in 1972. The political wing of the Parachute Regiment, the New Labour Government, represented in the North by the former Tory Shaun Woodward, is not an honest broker in relation to the Saville Report but an uncritical supporter of the British Army, a facilitator in the cover-up of crime.

The fact that appalling atrocities were also carried out in the North by both Nationalist and Unionist paramilitary groups cannot be allowed to obscure the ugly role of British forces, exemplified in the Bloody Sunday killings. The main paramilitary groups have either left the stage or say that they are in the process of so doing. Nothing less should be demanded of the perpetrators of the Derry massacre.

If, as many of us are confident will be the case, Lord Saville and his colleagues find that the Bloody Sunday killings were unlawful, the demand of all who have campaigned for the truth should be for the disbandment of the Parachute Regiment.  I believe that that demand should be voiced loudly and insistently at local councils, at Stormont, at Westminster and in every forum where we can find a hearing.

Woodward’s thorough bad faith is clear from his determination that representatives of the British Government, including members of MI5, be given days to pore over the Report before the families or their representatives are allowed sight of it. This is the same MI5 which supplied Army commanders with false information about the Bogside in the days before Bloody Sunday and which has just been denounced by Britain’s top judges for perjury and collusion in torture in the Binyam Mohamed case.  Woodward’s suggestion is that MI5 should be invited to recommend the deletion of lines in the Report which, in its opinion, would put national security at risk. 

This, of course, was the exact reason given by MI5 in the Mohamed case for wanting the suppression of documents relating to torture. The appeal rejected MI5 bona fides with something approaching contempt.

Despite all this, I suspect that some in the audience will have been entirely unaware of the role Woodward intends for MI5 in relation to Saville. There has hardly been a major controversy about the matter. This, in my view, is because Nationalist politicians don’t want a row which might unsettle the institutions which they have become part of.

The same issue is raised even more sharply by the outburst from the prospective Minster for Justice at Stormont, Alliance Party leader David Ford.  A leaked email revealed that Ford - like some Unionist sectarians, right-wing Tories, the Daily Mail etc. - regards the Bloody Sunday Inquiry as “pointless”. He’s entitled to his view. But it is a view which, whatever about other ministries, ought to have disqualified him immediately from the job of supervising the justice system.

But, astonishingly, it was the larger of the two nationalist parties which rushed most quickly to his rescue, arranging a meeting with a number of relatives of the victims at extremely short notice and then issuing Ford with a clean bill of health. The fear was that if their chosen nominee for the position wasn’t rehabilitated pronto, plans for the devolution of policing and justice might be endangered.

Once again, politics trumped truth.

I don’t make it a secret that my own views on these matters are dictated by my politics. I am a socialist, and therefore a firm opponent of both militarism and paramilitarism. I base my hopes for the future not on a system which takes the division between the communities for granted but on the self-activity of the mass of working class people. So I have no stake in the Stormont system. Neither do I believe that the choice before us is between the Stormont deal and a return to all-out violence. These are things we can debate over the coming years.

But we don’t have the luxury of years when it comes to Bloody Sunday. I say that even those who do have a stake in the system should step back, take a hard look and ask themselves whether, in this instance, and perhaps without thinking the issues through, they have not allowed the system to take precedence over all other considerations.

I have discussed Voluntary Coalition previously but briefly to recap:

If we had voluntary coalition and collective responsibility it would then be the responsibility of the governmental parties to bring forward a common agreed programme for government: something which has been far from true thus far. Fudging important issues and ignoring them would become much more difficult, and if they were fudged, the prospect of defeat at a further election would face the governmental parties. Hence, decisions on these issues could not be kicked into the long grass: yet the issues themselves used as sticks to beat the other party in government; as they are now.

As an example there would have to be a proper compromise over academic selection. That compromise very probably would not be entirely to the liking of Catriona Ruane and she would have to accept the compromise or be replaced. Equally, however, it would be most unlikely to be exactly what Mervyn Storey wants either. Furthermore it would mean that elected politicians would be making the decisions rather than as now, where Boards of Governors and the like are de facto made into the decision makers simply because no one else will organise a proper system.

If a compromise on academic selection would be likely to be more in keeping with the wishes of the unionist parties than the current stated (and completely flouted) Department of Education position there are other areas where nationalism might expect to gain. Nationalists could make progress on the Irish Language Act a precondition of entering into government.

There are of course enormous problems with voluntary coalition and most specifically persuading nationalists and republicans to enter into any such arrangement. Voluntary coalition cannot simply be seen by unionists as a panacea unless nationalists are prepared to play the roll of collective Uncle Tom’s: something which would automatically consign the nationalist party in question to political oblivion at the next election.

Furthermore Sinn Fein have tended to view any and all suggestions regarding voluntary coalition as devices to keep them out of government. Whatever the benefits of voluntary coalition they ring extremely hollow for Sinn Fein as they always sound like a tactic to remove their hands from the levers of power in Northern Ireland.

The TUV have clearly stated that they would not be willing to enter into power sharing with Sinn Fein and as such their view of voluntary coalition does not involve Sinn Fein unless they (the TUV) are outside that government. However, the other two unionist parties have entered into power sharing though mandatory coalition. It might now be time, if the DUP or UUP are serious about trying to change the system, to propose voluntary coalition and explicitly state that they would go into such a voluntary coalition with Sinn Fein for at least a certain period. Such a move might reassure republicans that unionist demands for voluntary coalition are not simply a more sophisticated variation on the “No republicans about the place” or even “No fenians about the place” mantra which unionists are often accused of secretly harbouring.

Such a change might well lead to better government as it might then allow for a proper cabinet government to emerge. In addition it would also likely produce a real opposition with potentially a UUP and SDLP (and after the next election TUV) in genuine opposition rather than their current semi detached status. Such a period of opposition might even help the UUP and SDLP to produce a credible strategy for regaining their previous places as the lead parties in their respective communities or even if (by chance) the CU project works producing a real cross community party which could move beyond the current confines of the designation system.

Since the DUP and UUP have demonstrated by their actions that they are not in principle opposed to Sinn Fein in government it would at least be honest to state publicly that they would accept Sinn Fein as partners in a voluntary coalition. Such a position would then at least potentially allow for a more efficient form of government.

There are clearly potential problems: Sinn Fein might not accept the bone fides of the unionist party(ies) in question. Hence, some sort of system might have to be devised to ensure that at least for a time Sinn Fein could not be involuntarily removed from the executive.

Furthermore if the DUP be willing to enter into voluntary coalition with Sinn Fein would face the wrath of the TUV and probably the UUP for so doing. Whilst the TUV opposition would be legitimate, that of the UUP would seem somewhat more synthetic seeing as they had previously been in mandatory coalition with SF. Sinn Fein might of course be unwilling to play ball with this in view of their oft stated proclamation that Northern Ireland is a failed political entity. However, if a unionist party stated that it demanded voluntary coalition and would share power with Sinn Fein, the lure of power might be too much to resist, coupled as it would be with a further opportunity for Sinn Fein to gain power and respectability which might help it in the Republic of Ireland.

These options are complex and extremely high risk for the unionist party in question. However, in principle the DUP and UUP have accepted the idea of remaining in government themselves with Sinn Fein. Hence, to use the cloak of mandatory coalition as a veneer to hide their willingness to be in power sharing with Sinn Fein is somewhat disingenuous. If they truly believe that voluntary coalition devolution is the way forward for Northern Ireland it is possibly time for one or both of them to at least propose putting their policy where their mouth is. Whilst the TUV would clearly oppose them at least their honesty would have to be noted.

Reports have suggested that the price extracted for their support for Hillsborough is a post-dated letter of resignation from the First Minister, to be cashed-in if the DUP decides at a later date that Sinn Fein has reneged on whatever has been arranged. If we are being asked to back the DUP-Sinn Fein deal, we are surely entitled to know in what circumstances that resignation letter would be put into effect. We also need to know who would make that decision.

Again, according to reports, the decision would be taken by the DUP executive, which would mean that the First Minister could be dumped even if the DUP Assembly party wanted him to remain in office for the sake of their jobs. In any walk of life prudent people like to know who they are doing business with and it is a legitimate point of public and cross-party interest to ask where the power of decision now lies in the DUP.

In clarifying this, the DUP can also end the confusion about what they think happens, or what they intend should happen, after the devolution vote next month.

Against this background what will the DUP have to show for all Peter Robinson’s negotiating skills? Herein hangs the tale. The DUP has majored “on getting parading right.” The question is what does this mean ?

The existing Parades Commission is a creature of government to remove responsibility from it for having to take charge at Executive level every year regarding where people can or cannot march. In other words the Parades Commission does the government’s dirty work for it.

The government is reluctant to undo this edifice because Sinn Fein/The SDLP/the PSNI/the Police Federation/and the Policing Board all want to retain the parades commission. The DUP is pressing to put an alternative structure or structures in place.

This is a rather difficult area in which to bring comfort to the DUP apart from being awkward. It is the rock however upon which everything could perish. About one third of the DUP’s elected members want visible ‘product’ up and running to coincide with Sinn Fein’s ‘goodies’ in May.

No deal is yet complete.

The DUP is hard-balling. That party wants Sinn Fein to make a concession not stated publicly yet. Sinn Fein is no mood for reopening negotiations. They believe they have been closed. Gerry Adams is adamant that no matter what emerges Republicans will not live with Orange parades marching in catholic/nationalist areas where they are not welcome.

The Orange Order historically marched where it wanted along what it saw as ’ the Queen’s highway.’ We are all prisoners of folk memory.

One wag said of Irish history: “It is just one f…....thing after another.” Crude but accurate.

She continued:

“It exposes the inherent problems in the system of governance in the North of Ireland, the D’Hondt system, in that it rewards people from the extremes and does not reward people who bring together communities and serve all of the people within their communities. While we continue to prop up a dysfunctional system, frankly it will never work and there will be crisis after crisis.”

Collins:

That is the nub of the problem. The Belfast Agreement enshrined a dysfunctional society’s sectarian divisions into governmental institutions. To be fair, there wasn’t any obvious alternative around at the time and the hope was that normal political activity would gradually evolve as the political representatives of unionism and nationalism shared power and developed some basis of trust in each other.

Instead, however, the opposite happened as suspicions grew and festered in the years after 1998. For that, Bertie Ahern and Tony Blair must take a large share of the blame. Having put an enormous amount of work into constructing the hugely complex agreement, they then proceeded to abandon the SDLP and the Ulster Unionists to appease their more extreme rivals.

Although, I think, this account exaggerates the importance of the switch in external patronage to the misfortunes of the two centre parties (they were eaten by other more internal contradictions, not least in the case of the SDLP its possibly erroneous sense of ownership of the Belfast Agreement), the addiction to it is clear enough from the way this dumb show (all picture and no sound) farce at Hillsborough played out.

As I pointed out in the Comment is Free piece yesterday, this is a piece of business OFMdFM were given extra resources to deal with. Having consumed those resources to zero effect (rent seeking behaviour par excellence), the two have drawn in Gordon Brown and the Taoiseach who has more pressing matters of national interest to attend to, after Sinn Fein insisted on externalising their domestic problems.

Judging by the lack of content in the briefings being given to the mainstream media, this has been less a matter of formal rounds of negotiation with their attendant paper trails (which at least create some cohesive sense on what has been achieved and what has not), and more in the nature of relationship management, with the main purpose of the rounds being more allowing tempers to cool rather than creating space for progress.

Collins makes this observation:

In the years after 1998, Sinn Féin perfected the art of spinning out the process time after time in order to get what it wanted, while marginalising the SDLP. It succeeded magnificently in those two objectives but the tinkering with the process became an end in itself. The party has not been nearly as successful in exercising power as it was in art of peace-processing. A byproduct of its interminable negotiating strategy was that the electorate in the Republic simply lost interest in its activities.

Another unintended consequence of its strategy has been that the DUP learned the lessons only too well and proceeded to copy the Sinn Féin tactic of putting process before real politics. Each party has got what it deserved in the other but the people who live in Northern Ireland have to put up with the consequences.

Collins, rather too darkly IHMO, concludes that cutting the whole system off might give the politicians pause for thought, and give the British and Irish governments moment to to listen to the Northern Irish people. But no democratic institution can afford to drift this far from the concerns of its people…

At some point, there may be a need to rip it up and start again…

Previously unionists have been threatened with Joint Authority, effectively co-rule by London and Dublin. It’s extremely unlikely that Gordon Brown would pursue such a strategy so close to a general election. If it happened David “Call-me-prime-minister” Cameron would make a lot of Labour-destroyed-the-union hay and the SNP would, presumably, be cook-a-hoop. Still, it’s worth talking about, isn’t it?

And what about repartition? That’s been suggested a few times but never got terribly far up the political agenda as it doesn’t really suit either republicans or unionists. But it may, at some point, suit the British government to get the scissors our along the Bann (and Newry as well as, presumably, turning West Belfast into West Berlin - or perhaps east Berlin if you’re a unionist).

This is all aimless musing. Anyone care to join me?

Here’s that video clip. Sadly no audio…

Video courtesy of UTV

And as a subsequent report in Irish Times added

A federal minister in Islamabad echoed Pakistan’s fears that a fresh influx of 30,000 US troops might drive more Taliban fighters into Pakistan. “We know they are not a popular force,” he said. “The Afghans will probably never give them a majority in parliament.

But with Pakistan’s help and only with Pakistan’s help, the return of the Taliban to the political high table will be a far more stabilising development for Afghanistan than . . . [a US] surge.” Renewed discussion of the possibility of a negotiated settlement presents an opportunity for Pakistan’s intelligence services, which were instrumental in the creation of the Afghan Taliban in the mid-1990s, to reassert their potential for US foreign policy objectives in the region.

But, as with the creative ambiguity used here, there is the risk of unintended consequences.

As I said in a previous related post

“Whether they can identify, and enlist, suitably inclined capos warlords to be politicians remains to be seen.”

And from an earlier related post [*cuckoo* cuckoo* - Ed]

Interestingly, [Brendan] Simms places the “liberal interventionism” of Mitchell Reiss here amidst a US strategy of “the export of democracy” - a theme which was explored by Adam Curtis in part three of his documentary series The Trap. [added links]

If you can find it Curtis’ programme is worth watching, in particular, as one of his criticisms of that US strategy in the past was that it, more often than not, resulted in incomplete, or partial, versions of the democracy intended.

In an official statement the Conservative party confirmed: “Private talks with a number of senior Unionists took place, the purpose of which was to help promote greater political stability.”

News of the surprise meeting has energised the broad Unionist base according to one senior party insider. Conservatives in London are coy on their real motive for becoming centrally involved with the two main Unionist parties. The Tories are already in a relationship with Ulster Unionists and had been working on a Westminster electoral strategy. There has been no agreement on the choice of candidates.

Any suggestion to the Conservative party that its motive for securing support of DUP and Ulster Unionist MPS in advance of an election, being linked to worries of a hung parliament, is treated with the same contempt as an indiscretion at supper in Hatfield House!

Talk of Unionist unity has already put a pep in the step of Unionists back in Belfast. “This would be the desire. All candidates would be willing to take the Tory whip. The Tories are after hung parliament support. Once the polls came through they did their head counts.” said one well placed source.

Unionist unity has been thematically gathering momentum in the past three weeks as the prospect of Sinn Fein becoming the biggest political party came into view in the driver’s rear mirror.

Sinn Fein’s emergence as the largest party has been anticipated against a backdrop of a three way split in Unionism. “No Unionist would serve in an administration under Martin McGuinness.” said a DUP spokesman.

Another Unionist said: “The big prize is Unionist unity. People are looking for stability in a settled Unionist society.”

Peter Robinson’s inclusion in the DUP team going to Hatfield House last Sunday was something of a surprise. He had already stepped aside from some of his first minister’s duties making it known he wanted to attend to ‘domestic responsibilities.’

Not everybody is totally wedded to being in bed with the Conservatives. One individual, who is sympathetic, sounded this warning: “I am not keen on the Tories manipulating parties here. I do believe in maximising unionist strength however.”

The drive for Unionist unity and the tie in with the Tories are quite advanced in thinking. One source said:

“The mood in Unionism has already transformed on news of this development. This is a clear cut situation where once again the Unionist people are a bit ahead of their politicians and Unionist unity would protect us from the situation where Sinn Fein could hold the post of First Minister.”

Interestingly any Unionist coalition would want to retain the current method, the D’hondt system for election to the Executive. The Ulster Unionist spokesperson source said:

“We have to work hard to establish that: the last thing we can do, is be triumphant. Sinn Fein is in to stay.  We have to show good faith to our opponents. We have a chance to stabilise Unionism, to send a signal that sectarian politics is something of the past.  Any unity will be built on policies not on personalities.”

One of those familiar with the Unionist unity philosophy spoke of “an opportunity to shift those with baggage in both parties. There has always been ‘never say die militant Unionists’ in our parties.”

The same source, mindful of the turmoil in the DUP said: “Peter Robinson is cute enough to see how the wind is blowing. He has thirty six members in the Assembly. We have sixteen. Jim Allister will take some of these.  The DUP and the Ulster Unionists could end up with twenty four each.  This would mean that a coalition of Unionists could have forty eight seats guaranteeing the post of First Minister.”

All of this back-room discussion within Unionism and in conjunction with the Conservatives in England is taking place at a time of turbulence in the political environs of Parliament Buildings with pressure on Gordon Brown and Brian Cowen to become centrally involved in hot house talks to iron out differences between the Democratic Unionist Party and Sinn Fein.

The two Prime Ministers are meeting in London to take stock.

This new alliance within Unionism and with the party in waiting which could form the next government at Westminster has the capacity to revolutionise politics in Northern Ireland. Many nationalists and the Alliance party fear Unionism is opting for a sectarian head count.

In politics there is normally cause and effect. That is what is potentially worrying.

And some quotes from the UTV report

“The sort of deadline that has been given by Sinn Fein is very, very unhelpful and we may have reached the point where we need government facilitation in relation to move matters on.”

“We’ve had a team of negotiators sitting around all day waiting to talk to Sinn Fein about the outstanding issues and they have not been here,” she said.

“Sinn Fein’s position seems to be that they expect us to move to them. That’s simply not how negotiations work,” Mrs [Foster] told UTV.

“There’s been a certain element of stone-walling going on.

“What we want to see is a real resolution of the outstanding issues. 

“We’re up to do this deal.  We want to see it happen.

“But I have to say, I question Sinn Féin’s bona fides in all of this.”

By Margaret Ritchie MLA

Four decades ago, people from across the north united and marched in support of civil rights to end discrimination and build a fairer society. They were beaten off the streets, interned and harassed. Many of those brave people went on to form the SDLP.
While in many ways things have moved on a great deal, in 2010 the principles upon which our party was founded are as important and relevant as ever.
The DUP/ Sinn Fein axis stumbles from crisis to crisis. They are now trying to do a deal which will deny the nationalist people a seat in government to which they are democratically entitled. The truth is that a nationalist vote will be worth less than a unionist or Alliance one if the two largest parties set aside the Good Friday Agreement during these talks about Policing and Justice.
If the Good Friday Agreement is set aside by the DUP and Sinn Fein to deny the SDLP its seat, we will have lurched backwards, and the hard-won safeguards put in place to protect the rights of both sides of our community will have been abandoned.
That a nationalist MLA could be denied the Justice Ministry because Sinn Fein negotiated away this right is not just a denial of the SDLP’s mandate, it is an act of outstanding political and social discrimination- the epitome of inequality.
I fully support the devolution of Policing and Justice. However, efforts by the two biggest parties to hand the Alliance Party a seat at the Executive for which the have no mandate, is an echo of the discriminatory politics of the old Stormont regime. That’s why the SDLP wants d’Hondt to be run again in the new 11-seat Executive, which will include a Justice Minister, so nationalists and unionists can have confidence that this is an Executive which is fair and truly representative of both communities.
I want to send out a warning to the DUP and Sinn Fein. As a prospective Leader of the SDLP, I simply cannot accept nationalists being under-represented in the Executive. There is no possible justification for the current 6-4 unionist advantage being extended to 7-4 when by any democratic standards, it should close to 6-5. The SDLP will not tolerate such discrimination and we will not support any party, nationalist or unionist, who seeks to introduce it.
In addition the SDLP will not stay silent on a U-turn on Parading. Again the hard-earned progress on parading must not be lost to political expediency. The Parades Commission itself must not be sacrificed just so that the DUP can be seen to deliver a head on a plate to the hard-liners.
It is a fact that the DUP and Sinn Fein are increasingly shackled together in an atmosphere of shame and political dishonesty. Yet for all their cynicism we are actually at a juncture where the parties have the opportunity to move politics out of the mire.
But to do so they must do what is clearly right and just. They must say yes to the principle of respecting democratic party mandates and they must say no to any return to coat-trailing parades.
If they do so, under my leadership, they shall have the support and co-operation of the SDLP.
If the parties go the other direction, another cynical carve-up, further corrupting our democracy and ultimately undermining devolution, then they will pay a heavy price. The political tide is turning, so utterly fed-up are people with the failure of the DUP/Sinn Fein at the Centre.
If the parties go the cynical route they will also face determined opposition from the SDLP. We will not support a deal on just any terms.
As prospective Leader of the SDLP, I am, in consultation with the party membership, prepared to consider all options in the period ahead.
The SDLP is instinctively committed to partnership and progress and that will not change. But if the DUP and Sinn Fein continue to poison the Executive with cynicism and selfishness, then the question arises– can SDLP supporters accept a government that treats them like second-class citizens again?

“We do not propose, however, to go into any kind of detail in relation to that [the talks] except to say we considered both the short-term, medium-term and long-term interests of all of the people of Northern Ireland,” he said. He also indicated that “further or enhanced” talks would take place.

Jeff’s view: “Politics is a dirty game…”

If ‘Confidence’ has slipped out of the house without telling Nigel Dodds and Arlene Foster, her behaviour could cost the DUP ten or twelve seats in an Assembly election. 

The DUP’s elusive ‘Confidence’ may well have been lurking about the place all the time but like the little French milliner in Richard Brinsley Sheridan’s play ‘A School for Scandal’ Sir Peter Teazle always ran the risk of being exposed.  The DUP’s little milliner ‘Confidence’ has been caught on.

She was there all the time but was being cynically hidden by the DUP, just like Sir Peter. And Sinn Fein has spotted that the last thing the DUP needs is an election against a background of scandal.

One senior DUP source summed the party’s dilemma up in these words: “The Shinners are pushing us up against the wall. They are bullish now. In an Assembly election we could go down to twenty one/twenty two seats in this climate.”

Enter another of Sheridan’s character’s, Mrs Candour, and ‘Confidence’ is now being unmasked for what she was all the time - a sham.  Like Sheridan’s play the confidence issue was just a ruse and a farce.

One DUP source said: “If you have leverage on your political enemy why not use it.” The DUP had that leverage on Sinn Fein but now the emperor has no clothes.

In conclusion, despite the Gregorian chant in the background the DUP will probably not adhere to a Gregorian time-table.

This Saturday Sinn Fein is holding an Ard-chomhairle meeting to take an attitude towards the merits or demerits of being in an administration with the DUP. The deputy First Minister has spelled out that the institutions of the Assembly are not “sustainable” in the absence of a date for movement on policing and justice.

The Robinsons’ personal problems will be factored into any Sinn Fein evaluation, conditional on this matter being handled in a mature and professional manner by Peter Robinson, according to an enlightened Republican source. Shaun Woodward is fooling nobody as of now in saying “success is within grasp” on the issue of policing and justice.

The principals involved, Martin McGuinness and Peter Robinson hadn’t spoken for weeks up to twenty four hours ago. In the meantime Iris Robinson has left the stage. It is reported that it is virtually impossible right now to reach the First Minister on his phone.

Against this political inertia how can Shaun Woodward speak of possible success being just around the corner? Journalists at Parliaments are being habitually asked by very senior DUP members who are all at sea, to second guess what exactly is going on in their own ranks.

Contributors on websites are starting to put some pointed questions about the entire political edifice. A very different atmosphere is now obtaining in Parliament Buildings with so much uncertainty over the very existence of the place.

One insider said: “We don’t know what to be doing. Should we be examining plan B?”