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
Ringo
Like you I am mystified, but no matter what way I look at this it doesn’t quite gel. At best somebody made an awful mistake.
Posted by on Dec 22, 2005 @ 04:22 PMCrataegus,
Good post and well thought through therefore much appreciated. Have a good one. I’m looking forward to more in the new year.
Posted by on Dec 22, 2005 @ 07:33 PMBetty Boo
Likewise, let’s hope the weather is good.
Posted by on Dec 23, 2005 @ 01:56 AMCS,
I don’t and haven’t put any great store by what Donaldson has had to say.
I am working on the very real assumption that Donaldson was an agent of some kind for the Special Branch. From what I have read so is every other poster on this site.
Given that accepted ‘fact’ I would have thought that Donaldson would have kept his handlers aware of his activities. This would have included what was in his possession at his office at Stormont. Therefore the PSNI knowing that there wasn’t anything of importance in that office decided to raid it for other reasons.Moloney has a theory that the security agencies were able to guide SF along to where we are now by careful interventions at various stages. I think it is only fair and reaonable to cast a wary eye over the three instances of ‘evidence’ to this theory.
One is Piling, I know little of him, therefore cannot comment at any great length. Suffice to say that I always assumed that the highest ecelons of the NIO were intelligence driven.
Second is Lowry, a SB commander and a person central to the whole saga.
Thirdly is ‘how we saved Adams’, from the axis of Gordon Kerr and Brian Nelson.These people seem to be central to the Moloney theory, personally I believe this weakens and not strengthens the Moloney argument.
Posted by on Dec 23, 2005 @ 10:01 AMHard to admit that Moloney has gotten it more or less right all along, and that those seeking to discredit him over the years were the ones with the real British agenda, isn’t it?
Posted by on Dec 23, 2005 @ 10:59 AMHow is attempting to find a lasting peaceful and democratic solution a Britsh agenda?
Posted by on Dec 23, 2005 @ 11:09 AMWell, for starters, your lot started out for a United Ireland, to secure a British withdrawal, and had very clear goals and ideas regarding such. The British, however, wanted what you articulate, a lasting democratic solution, otherwise known as the principle of consent. So the metamorphis from your starting point to your ending point, however nice it sounds, very much dovetails with the British agenda.
Agents of influence within the republican movement have helped shape this change, and part of that help has been to attempt to discredit those like Moloney who were asking awkward questions about the Emperor’s clothing. Why? Because it would upset the process if the British were exposed too soon. You see what is happening within republicanism now. Had this happened years ago?....
This also leads to the question, could Sinn Fein have become as popular without the support of the British?
It makes one think, or should.
Posted by on Dec 23, 2005 @ 11:27 AM‘Well, for starters, your lot started out for a United Ireland, to secure a British withdrawal, and had very clear goals and ideas regarding such.’
How have these very clear goals and ideas changed? The GFA is recognised by the supporters of SF as an interim solution. A fact recognised by the unionist leadership who keep referring to the it.
‘The British, however, wanted what you articulate, a lasting democratic solution,’
No, the British have moved from an internal solution to the interim 3 stranded approach. This has unsettled unionists who feel unloved and unwanted. The completion of the UI project will be an act of completion and the recognition at last that the British want democracy and peace in Ireland.
‘Agents of influence within the republican movement have helped shape this change,’
An allegation that relies a lot on the belief placed on the writings of Moloney. His attempt to prove ‘evidence’ is dubious to say the least.
‘This also leads to the question, could Sinn Fein have become as popular without the support of the British?’
Sf have become popular on the back of the sacrifices of it’s supporters and membership, a lot of whom died at the hands of the collusion supported by the Security people who Moloney alleges were there to protect them, quite bizarre?
No doubt we will soon be told that the details of the 400 people stolen by the RIR from Castlereagh last year and handed to loyalists (despite the initial lies of the Security Minister and the PSNI) was another plot to protect them and their families, even more bizarre.
Posted by on Dec 23, 2005 @ 12:27 PM
