Thursday, July 13, 2006
Governments continuing to court UDA approval..
It’s being reported that what had been billed as a meeting between Taoiseach Bertie Ahern and the UPRG will also include the leadership of the UDA - or, rather, up to four of them. It follows the report of last weekend’s secret discussion between the NIO and a go-between for the North Belfast UDA whose erstwhile leader will, presumably, not be attending today’s meeting.. being otherwise engaged.. btw how are those charges of membership of the UDA against Ihab Shoukri coming along? and are the UDA, in the words of Lord Justice Nicholson, still “notorious for criminal activity of all sorts”? I know it’s probably not even worth asking again.. but is this basis for the future really the best we can hope for?
Updated Worthwhile, I think, noting the details from the BBC’s Vincent Kearney:
However, it is now expected that up to four of the UDA’s so-called brigadiers and a number of other senior figures within the organisation will attend the talks at Castle Buildings.
“They will meet Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, Irish Foreign Affairs minister Dermot Ahern and senior government officials,” Mr Kearney said.
“Irish government sources say they will brief the delegation on the initiative to restore devolution - and will also discuss loyalist concerns about the constitutional position of Northern Ireland.
“The UDA representatives are expected to warn that talk of increased co-operation between the British and Irish governments in the affairs of Northern Ireland if the Stormont Assembly is not restored by 24 November is causing alarm in loyalist circles.”
Pete Baker @ 05:10 PM
Pete, perhaps you should add the jigging at the crossroads to this ‘something of the night’ scenario. It gives a new meaning to PPP - Public Paramilitary Partnership.
Posted by on Jul 13, 2006 @ 06:06 PMIt’s in there among the whole damn mess [of links] already, Nevin.
Posted by on Jul 13, 2006 @ 06:08 PMI wonder if the pub doorman beaten half to death at the weekend by a 25 strong UDA contingent from south Belfast will get a mention. With the golfer there and seeing as he runs south Belfast it might be an opportunity to air it with him. Though I suppose it’s unlikely, might spoil the ambiance.
Posted by on Jul 13, 2006 @ 06:15 PMPerhaps a three-pronged approach to terrorists/insurgents/paramilitaries is necessary. I realize that this approach does not follow the usual line of “a criminal is a criminal is a criminal” (feel free to insert your own labels) but it does reflect the fact that we’re dealing with multiple motives and relationships.
1. Offer to buy off the paramilitaries, and give them long-term employment (maybe as ‘community workers’) that might help the communities. This may sort the peacemakers from the gangsters and militants.
2. If the militants persist, fight them with police, military, and intelligence resources. This might get ugly, but it might force militants and gangsters alike to reconsider.
3. Collect evidence on the gangsters, arrest them, and have them stand trial.
Again, this approach might sort out the various elements within the paramilitaries, as well as provide a way to play them against each other.
Posted by on Jul 13, 2006 @ 06:37 PMJim
That’s the basis for the future, and the apparent policy that the governments are following [as advised by Jonathan Powell], that I’ve questioned in the original post.
The point you’re missing, and the point Powell et al don’t particularly seem concerned about - although, from their public comments, the judiciary would appear to disagree - is that the policy they are following actively undermines the criminal and judicial system.
Posted by on Jul 13, 2006 @ 06:46 PMI think Loyalist decommissioning is an important part of the closure of the peace process. Hopefully something can be done to bring the loyalist paramilitaries on board with decommissioning before the resumption of devolution.
Posted by on Jul 13, 2006 @ 06:47 PMJust to be clear, the comments by the judiciary I referred to would appear to disagree with the chosen policy of the governments - via the NIO, as advised by etc..
Posted by on Jul 13, 2006 @ 06:54 PMThanks, Pete. I looked but didn’t see!! Never mind, the extra mention does no harm.
According to the Grapevine the police were directed in the ‘cessation’ era not to ruffle paramilitary feathers without political clearance; they could observe but not intervene without permission. Is it any wonder that the godfathers have grown in confidence?
I’ve pointed out in other threads that civil servants in London and Dublin appear to be divided on the issue of how to deal with the godfathers. Those in the justice department have to handle the detritus whereas those in foreign affairs and the cabinet office try to sweep it under the carpet with the help of, er, bribes.
The Oversight Commissioner for policing has also rung alarm bells about policing and the IMC timidly refers to the need for a culture of lawfulness. I intend to be a little less timid than the IMC ;)
Posted by on Jul 13, 2006 @ 07:02 PMIt’s addressed in the second half of this linked post, Nevin [rather appropriately labelled in the text above]:
“.. being otherwise engaged..”
Posted by on Jul 13, 2006 @ 07:10 PMLoyalist decommissioning is an important part of the closure of the peace proces but the people currnetly causing the problems are the dissidants. These people are out of control and sinn fein have lost any influence they had.
Posted by on Jul 13, 2006 @ 08:00 PMThis turns my ruddy stomach!
Posted by on Jul 13, 2006 @ 08:01 PM‘I think Loyalist decommissioning is an important part of the closure of the peace process.’
slug
Pity that it wasn’t included in the peace deal then, isn’t it? You can think that all you want, but as I see it there is no logical scenario whereby the loyalists are going to give up any weaponry.
‘Hopefully something can be done to bring the loyalist paramilitaries on board with decommissioning before the resumption of devolution.’
That’s like saying ‘I hope something is done to bring about world peace, or an end to world hunger’. It’s just a forlorn hope.
What are you advocating this something to be? Or is it just general wishful thinking that someone is going to come along and solve the problem?
Posted by on Jul 13, 2006 @ 08:16 PMThe point you’re missing, and the point Powell et al don’t particularly seem concerned about - although, from their public comments, the judiciary would appear to disagree - is that the policy they are following actively undermines the criminal and judicial system.
Pete, would this oversight/calculated manoeuvre by curly bonce Jonathon Powell be because we are entering the last days of Tony Blair’s premiorship?
Tony Blair will soon become a “here today, gone tomorrow politician” to quote Robin Day, and for that reason the alternative will not see a quick fix, for Tony’s legacy.
When politicians leave office the judiciary are still there, picking up the pieces of a failed attempt to quick fix a problem for short term gain.
I am also sure that some offers will be made to Republican godfathers in the run up to Nov, a back tax payment, etc.
It is a very dangerous game to play politics with the criminal justice system.
Posted by on Jul 13, 2006 @ 08:21 PM“Pete, would this oversight/calculated manoeuvre by curly bonce Jonathon Powell be because we are entering the last days of Tony Blair’s premiorship?”
TP
Hardly likely. It seems, at least to me, to have been a long-standing policy - and not necessarily limited to the current focus on loyalist paramilitaries.
The problem - as in the damage being done to the criminal and judicial system - will be exacerbated by the length of time this policy is, and has been, followed.
Posted by on Jul 13, 2006 @ 08:33 PMSurely any sweetners for Godfathers must be given with a dealine so that after, criminals must take their chance as other criminals, employing lawyers to represent them.
I am surprised that there seems to be no mention of deadlines for criminality to be regarded as just that, criminality plain and simple, no hiding behind a political cloak.
I do believe there is an element, even a small one, of hurry up before Tony leaves, in the logic of this policy right now, even if it started back in the 90’s.
So we are treating Godfathers with kid gloves at the moment, but this has to stop, deadline or not, before there can be real society created in Northern Ireland.
Posted by on Jul 13, 2006 @ 08:43 PMLook folks:
Murder is murder and those reponsible for it should be rooted out and held responsible.
But realpolitik (yes, I’m holding my nose) will always come up.
The British Authorities were spectacularly unsuccessful in wiping out the IRA.
Do you really think they would be any more successful in waging a low grade war against the loyalists?
They have to be brought in from the cold, no matter how much it might disgust some of us.Posted by on Jul 13, 2006 @ 08:47 PMTP
The only deadline being mentioned is the 24 November [btw that is, I think, due to the political imperative of forthcoming elections/Blair standing down]
Think about. A sovereign government is not going to come out and admit that they are allowing criminality to continue up to a certain date.. despite the clear message in the IMC reports that that is exactly what they are allowing to happen.
But the policy noted here was well underway some time ago.
Posted by on Jul 13, 2006 @ 08:49 PMHarpo
“Pity that it wasn’t included in the peace deal then, isn’t it? You can think that all you want, but as I see it there is no logical scenario whereby the loyalists are going to give up any weaponry.”
Government-run all-party talks including the loyalists to bring about simultaneous UVF decommissioning, Sinn Fein support for PSNI, and restoration of the Executive.
Posted by on Jul 13, 2006 @ 08:53 PMThey have to be brought in from the cold, no matter how much it might disgust some of us.
Bravo Joe, I know it will be a bitter pill to swallow, but there have been so many bitterpills swallowed over the years and this is just the latest.
Personaly there should a period of time given for all engaged to either withdraw from criminality, or take their chances with other criminals against the lawful authorities.
Any monies declared within this period can be allowed to work in the legitimate world and that may be the spur to some current criminals to try legit business.
There should also be a warning that after any amnesty period there will be a crackdown on criminality and those caught will face the full force of the law, no matter what their connections are to the Unionists or Republicans.
Posted by on Jul 13, 2006 @ 08:56 PMHarpo:
Further to my last post Turbo Pauls suggestion of 09:43PM - namely “deadlines for criminality to be regarded as just that, criminality plain and simple, no hiding behind a political cloak” - could be part of those negotiations.
Posted by on Jul 13, 2006 @ 08:59 PMTurbo Paul
“They have to be brought in from the cold, no matter how much it might disgust some of us.”
Indeed, and if that ends the rule of the paramilitaries in the loyalist areas then doing so would be very good for the health of loyalist working class communities.
It must be seen as part of the closure of the peace process.
Posted by on Jul 13, 2006 @ 09:01 PMFurther on this: the SDLP and Sinn Fein should insist on loyalist decommissioning before entering a powersharing executive. They too have a veto on its formation. Use it like the Unionists did.
Posted by on Jul 13, 2006 @ 09:12 PMgood point slug.
And given that SF would probably prefer de facto Joint Authority, that would put the DUP in a serious bind.
Posted by on Jul 13, 2006 @ 09:20 PM#
Further on this: the SDLP and Sinn Fein should insist on loyalist decommissioning before entering a powersharing executive. They too have a veto on its formation. Use it like the Unionists did.
Posted by slug on Jul 13, 2006 @ 10:12 PMAlthough this is a legit request it is not helpful.
I would rather allow this to happen without pre-condition, as with Sinn Fein joining the PSNI board.
I think both things are easier to achieve if they are presented as concessions rather than requirments to their respecive rank and file.
Posted by on Jul 13, 2006 @ 09:23 PM‘But realpolitik (yes, I’m holding my nose) will always come up. ‘
Talks between the Irish Government and the UDA might actually achieve something (and yes we can all hold our noses )
No talks between the DUP and SF will achieve what ?
Another generation of political and economic instability with the strong possibility of a renewal of widespread communal conflict .
Is that what the DUP want ? It certainly seems so .
Posted by on Jul 13, 2006 @ 09:38 PM
