Wednesday, December 21, 2005
conspiracy theory suffers from fundamental flaw
In the Belfast Telegraph, Ed Moloney argues that “Not only does the Sinn Fein conspiracy theory not hold water, but the evidence about securocrat behaviour is strongly to the contrary.”
Boiled down to essentials, what the Sinn Fein leadership is saying amounts to this: in an attempt to prevent Sinn Fein staying in government, and as part of an effort to kill off the peace process, MI5 and the PSNI leadership conspired to subvert the policies of their democratically elected Prime Minister, Tony Blair by inventing a spy ring at Stormont, thereby ensuring the collapse of the Executive.
If this is true, and the spooks had managed to get away with it, then Stormontgate would represent one of the most audacious anti-democratic plots in British history - one that dwarfs the allegations of spookish dirty tricks against Harold Wilson in the 1970s.
Common sense suggests that in such circumstances, amounting to a grave constitutional crisis, Tony Blair would have to move quickly to crush such dangerous dissent or see his authority fatally eroded. But he hasn’t. And that is because he knows Adams and McGuinness are playing politics and that what they say is so much eyewash.
The Sinn Fein conspiracy theory - that the spooks are out to destroy the peace process - suffers from a more fundamental flaw. Not only is it rubbish, but the exact opposite is the truth. The peace process represents the wildest fantasies of the security establishment come true and the last thing the spooks want is to see it destroyed.
The peace process has enabled MI5 and the PSNI Special Branch to achieve something that very few if any security forces have ever accomplished: to see their enemy defanged by its own leadership and led out of violent revolutionary ways into constitutional politics and a world where the principle of consent overrides the Armalite.
MI5 and the PSNI know they could never have done this themselves, that they needed people like Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness to do it for them.
Pete Baker @ 11:08 AM
Pat McL writes:
The evidence is provided by an NIO Official, ex Branch man Lowry and a mixture of Brian Nelson and Gordon Kerr. Rock on Ed you’ve really got your finger on the pulse there.
Pat, who is your source ? A self-confessed British tout who will say anything to save his skin. Reliable ? I don’t think so.
Posted by on Dec 21, 2005 @ 05:48 PMCS,
I don’t have a story on this, so in effect I don’t need to back anything up. Moloney has made a quite specific point on the securocrats actually defending SF. I am simply pointing out the calibre of people used to give substance to his allegation.
Posted by on Dec 21, 2005 @ 06:16 PMWould you believe.....
It has all the elements of an episode of Get Smart. The wacky, loveable CIA operatives stage a raid on the nefarious blackguards perverting the very bowels of sacred, elected government. Our heroes storm in accompanied by fearless woman reporter, Lois Lane and boyish cub reporter Jimmy Olsen, cameras blazing ala Mike Wallace. As soon as the smoke from the stun grenades dissipate they find that they all met at the last CIA Christmas party when Max Smart was dancing around with a lampshade over his head and Agent 99 did a strip tease. Oh gosh, Max, the Chief is really going to be steamed about this one.......
All the necessary elements, that is, except for the much needed CONE OF SILENCE to shut out the constant Norn Iron black propaganda and the din of grinding axes.
OK Sluggiepoos, call the bet.
If there really was a republican spy operation at Storemont and if the charges were dropped to protect the Shinner tout, then there is no reason not to reinstate the charges now that the tout is out and the issue is mooted. Proceed with the prosecution. Book ‘em all Dano & throw away the goddamn key. Good riddance.
But first follow Ray Nagin’s advice: Shut up, focus and do something.
Posted by on Dec 21, 2005 @ 06:43 PMRingo
Last week there were no documents in West Belfast - now there are loads of them because the circumstances around the person in possession have changed.
But of course that makes sense. If Sinn Fein knew they weren’t running a spy-ring they would have not believed that one of their members could be in posession of such documents. But if that member turns out to be a British agent then the documents make sense as part of the plot to bring down the institutions.
Posted by on Dec 21, 2005 @ 07:04 PMI don’t have a story on this, so in effect I don’t need to back anything up.
Pat, correct me if I’m wrong, but haven’t you been claiming in other posts that the PSNI must have known what was available in Stormont on the basis that Donaldson would have told them ? Given that you made that point, don’t you think it is inconsistent that you would choose to take Donaldson’s position on face value given your concerns about the sources other people are using ?
Posted by on Dec 21, 2005 @ 09:29 PMUnionists control website. Give Unionnist zeitengeist.
Sinn Feiners respond.
Unionist web site runners despair that their website is not more open and liberal.
A Christmas story of partition.
Norn Iron is great.
No its not.
Yes it it is.
ect ect
Posted by on Dec 21, 2005 @ 11:01 PMPadraig
The problem is we are stuck with the ghost of Christmas past; keeps hogging the show.
Posted by on Dec 22, 2005 @ 02:34 AMWe know that the storming of the SF offices uncovered nothing and was covered right on queue by the nightly television news. We know that it happenned right before David Trimbles sliding timetable for withdrawing from shared governmemt.
We know that it brought down that government and increased the issue of Sinn Fein acceptability to Unionist politicians which became the new excuse for not sharing government.We know that the alleged spy documents recovered all came from the home of a British intelligence operative.
We know that the new police chief of the time, Hugh Orde, apologised to Sinn Fein straight afterwards and was criticised for doing so by Unionist politicians.
We know that the police inspector responsible for the raid was ‘seperated’ from his position soon afterwards not by his choosing.
So it seems that at least, somebody on the British establishment side was playing by their own rules.
That said, i find it amusing that both Sinn Fein and the British government are both wanting us to believe how infiltrated they were.
Sinn fein says that Mr Donaldson was a spy for 20 years and would have compromised their position, the British Government suggests Republicans infiltrated their ranks and had sensitive correspondence between themselves and the US government and other unionist and nationalist Irish parties. If both of their preferred spins shows how infiltrated they both were i can only imagine that what they are both trying to cover up must be ‘off the scale’.Posted by on Dec 22, 2005 @ 06:26 AMWhose interest has been served best in all of this?
Posted by on Dec 22, 2005 @ 09:39 AMMoloney’s central point remains untouched though: ciu bono? What’s the point? What does MI5/the Army/the NIO/Tony Blair/Uncle Tom Cobbley stand to gain from all this? It is in the direct financial, political and security interests of these actors to have a functioning all-party devolved administration.
More broadly, my eyes glaze over at the very mention of the word “securocrat”. It’s an all-purpose evasion. Who shot McCartney? The securocrats. Who’s responsible for falling out with the Unionists in 2002? The securocrats. It’s nice because it delivers irresponsibility, the greatest currency in NI politics. For the (Dis)Loyalists, it’s all themmuns’ fault. Typically, Sinn Fein’s version is more intelligent, but the same principle applies. D’you think, if you say “I do not believe in securocrats” one of them dies, like fairies?
Posted by on Dec 22, 2005 @ 10:41 AMHenry
But of course that makes sense. If Sinn Fein knew they weren’t running a spy-ring they would have not believed that one of their members could be in posession of such documents. But if that member turns out to be a British agent then the documents make sense as part of the plot to bring down the institutions.
Isn’t that a bit too naive? But, if you want to run with it in that direction it still leads you into the same cul-de-sac - that SF are in the dark.
They didn’t believe that one of their members could have sensitive information regarding political opponents or the security services? It is hardly the first time is it?
Surely they have sources that, over the course of 3 years, could have checked the veracity of the claim that the documents were real, and that they did come from his home -Jeffrey Donaldson seemed to see a lot of them? If they had done so and found what appeared to be Dennis Donaldson on a solo run they clearly didn’t take any action to distance themselves from what was a major issue.
If you are suggesting they didn’t know anything for over three years (totally implausible really), then how do you accept any of their denials, considering how murky the waters are now?
Even taking your (extremely) benign theory, one way or another their apparent statements of fact on this cannot be give credence. Either they are lying or, as you suggest, they aren’t/weren’t in possession of enough of the facts to know what is going on. Or most probably, both.
Posted by on Dec 22, 2005 @ 10:56 AMWhose interest has been served best in all of this?
It impossible to answer that unless you know what everyones interest is. And quite clearly, we don’t.
Posted by on Dec 22, 2005 @ 10:58 AMRingo
All good points but my own assumption before Donaldson’s duplicity came to light was that the documents if they existed had either been planted or were old stuff and not really that important.
It is all too murky to know anything for sure but the key question is how this is going to impact on the talks.
Irrespective of who did what the reality is that it all belongs to the era we are leaving behind.
Posted by on Dec 22, 2005 @ 11:09 AMIt is all too murky to know anything for sure but the key question is how this is going to impact on the talks.
Agreed. I might be underestimating it, but I can’t see it having that big an impact - really it has added nothing new to the DUP’s list, or SF’s for that matter. The spying and the political policing allegations were there already.
Posted by on Dec 22, 2005 @ 11:25 AMRephrasing: Who comes out best? Or, who is gaining anything from it?
Posted by on Dec 22, 2005 @ 11:47 AMRingo
The problem for the talks, as I see it, is that republican support for the institutions is now in question.
Why should we go in when the system that brought it all down and pinned the blame on Sinn Fein still exists.
That is a very big problem. For example when the Paisley era passes I expect unionism to go into political convulsions. Will pulling out of Stormont again become an option and will blaming it on republicans be the easy way out.
Posted by on Dec 22, 2005 @ 12:10 PMRingo
It does damage to public perception of everyone’s credibility and coupled with the OTR legislation helps illustrate the seedy nature of politics here. The PSNI, the Government, SF and MI5 come out of this with damage. However this incident caused a democratically elected government to collapse and for that reason alone it cannot simply be swept under the carpet. We do need to know why. Somebody does need to be held to account.
SF uncovered a spy, why if totally innocent did it believe there was a spy involved?
Now that the spy is uncovered why not proceed with the case? Either no evidence or something to hide.
My view of this sorry mess is, SF were collecting some information, now it may be at the behest of the spy, but I think it has been blown out of all proportions and is probably not worth a hill of beans.
I think there was probably some breakdown in communications between the various Government Agencies, but what bothers me is what was the information that initiated the police raid and did nobody in the PSNI realise the likely consequence of what they were doing? I find all this hard to believe.
The fact that the Government is hell bent in burying this (a bit like their subtle drafting of the OTR legislation) they have something to hide. As a result many who may be innocent are damaged. Also it would seem that the Government believes it should have a different code of conduct to everyone else and rather than being a facilitator in helping people here arrive at an agreed way forward it is up to its neck in political engineering. It’s not good enough.
Posted by on Dec 22, 2005 @ 12:18 PMI read it somewhere here just recently, that no one expected Sinn Fein to become the second largest party in NI, never mind in such a short time.
If someone who tries to throw me out would become increasingly stronger then I most likely would do more then worrying.Posted by on Dec 22, 2005 @ 12:31 PMBetty Boo
SF’s rise is due to its very solid support base and its presence on the ground in its core areas. There is no taking away from the dedication of its core support. It has been able to build on this as it has successfully managed the peace process to its own advantage and been given massive press coverage in the process. It has wrung concession after concession out of the process in exchange for incremental progress towards what so many voted for all those years ago. It is a well funded organisation which enables it to compete more effectively than its competition. It seems relevant because it has the resources and supporters to make its presence felt. Its election machine goes beyond mere efficiency. All sorts of claims are made by its opponents.
Can it move beyond 12% in the South? Will it expand its base here? I can only see future progress being less swift and if it fails to deal with the hypocrisy of many of its positions in the long run it will decline. If it does progress it will morph into a different creature than we see today, something along the lines of FF. The real test for SF will be when it is part of a Government in the Republic and that won’t be after the next election. The other problem they will have is political drift. In the long run it has to deliver solid benefits for its supporters.
SF’s rise has been assisted by what could at best be seen as the utterly inept antics of the British Government. Accidental or deliberate, who knows?
By comparison the SDLP were thrown to the wolves by the British government, they went out of their way to made them seem irrelevant. It was disgraceful.
I have no doubt that the British Government has an agenda the question is what exactly is it? What is their priority? Ensuring no bombings on the ‘mainland’, an agreed Ireland or off load?
Posted by on Dec 22, 2005 @ 01:15 PMMoloney’s central point remains untouched though: ciu bono? What’s the point? What does MI5/the Army/the NIO/Tony Blair/Uncle Tom Cobbley stand to gain from all this? It is in the direct financial, political and security interests of these actors to have a functioning all-party devolved administration.
What about Special Branch, which was affected by the Patten Report in a way the other agencies weren’t and would probably face more changes if Sinn Fein had its way?
Bill Lowry’s own statements after his removal seem to me to be the elephant in the room here?Posted by on Dec 22, 2005 @ 01:30 PMThe SDLP will learn as Denis Donaldson has that when you have served your purpose you are expendable.
Posted by on Dec 22, 2005 @ 01:35 PMJudging by the comments made by Gerry and martin, who both seem almost obscenely keen to give Tony Blair a clean bill of health in this affair, it wont affect any upcoming talks one bit.
Now, since we are on the subject of conspiracies, this leads me to conclude that a deal has already been struck, with just the facade of consulting their respective electorates to be gone through.
Sinn Fein to make encouraging noises about proposed changes to policing in the next couple of weeks......
Any takers?
Posted by on Dec 22, 2005 @ 02:28 PMCrataegus ,
Thanks for that. Although I’m not sure that the SDLP has been willingly sacrificed by the British Government. I remember 10 years ago, no one saw the rise of Sinn Fein coming, not even Sinn Fein themselves. And I am quite certain that any British Government would have preferred to negotiate with SDLP as spokesperson for the catholic/nationalist/republican (this is getting silly) community with Sinn Fein being just a little more then audience. That Sinn Fein would be in such strong position was not intentional.
Whatever one’s opinion is about Sinn Fein and you are right, they are mind boggling efficient as you are properly right about its future, at the moment they are seen as unwanted players and treated as such.
If you look back what has been thrown at Sinn Fein just over the last year and I’m not saying that the blame lies exclusively with securocrats, but you have to give them credit that they still keep doing rather well.Posted by on Dec 22, 2005 @ 02:35 PMHenry
Why should we go in when the system that brought it all down and pinned the blame on Sinn Fein still exists.
That doesn’t sound very different from the sort of mistrust that the pro-agreement unionists have been expressing for a few years. Why should they go into a system where SF are involved in activities like as spying/information gathering that bring the devolved administration into disrepute? You might disagree with the basis for the mistrust, but you have to acknowledge that it is not contrived.
I take your point that this is a new issue for republicans. The only answer is for everyone, as you said earlier, to leave that stuff in the past. Between this and decommissioning, it may be that both sides are going into the talks on a much more level playing field than would have been possible a few months back.
Crataegus
On the whole I agree with you - no one came out clean. But I think that is no bad thing. These things need to be sorted out. I doubt very much that Tony Blair was behind a plot to bring down the very institutions that Tony Blair invested so much time in setting up. Beyond that I don’t know whether this all occured because of a conflict within British political and security services, or if it is exactly what they wanted for some reason that isn’t clear to us mere mortals.
Posted by on Dec 22, 2005 @ 03:41 PMBetty Boo
More than ten years ago I warned some SDLP types that John Hume’s strategy would be at the eventual expense of the SDLP. Anyone with any contact in strong Republican areas could plainly see that SF had a very solid base on which to build and in many ways their ‘hold’ on these areas was much stronger than that of the SDLP. Their election machine then could be seen to have the potential to be brutally efficient.
I readily acknowledge that SF has played its cards with consummate skill, non better, but in so doing and enforcing a their painfully slow timetable they have hindered overall progress and helped to collapse a very fragile trust. What cards has it left to play?
A lot has been thrown at them and much of it ill considered and counter productive. Much has simply kept them in the lime light and all publicity is good publicity. Before attacking people should first check the substance and facts and ensure they have the ability to wound otherwise it is counter productive.
Another reason for SF’s growth is the presence on the ground and whilst its supporters continue to help organise on a local basis it will be difficult to eat into that base. SF’s biggest problem in the years to come will be itself and the potential for disillusionment and possible division.
Soap box and victim politics is easy. Reaching the compromises needed to be in government much more difficult and inevitability with power the street politics will be left behind. Also the more successful a political party the more it attracts career politicians those motivated more by self interest and less by idealism.
Common sense would say that the British Government would prefer to negotiate with the SDLP and UUP as the prime parties, but the past actions of HM Gov on occasions had the opposite result. It could be that imported advice simply does not grasp the psyche of this place and the nuances. Perception is everything and to understand how actions may be perceived requires very sound impartial local advice. More worryingly is the attempt by the British Government to portray itself as a neutral broker when plainly it is not. You can’t be referee and player at the same time.
Who knows what the future will bring, let’s hope we have a good Christmas and next year surprises us.
Posted by on Dec 22, 2005 @ 04:18 PM
