Friday, March 07, 2008
On the reconciliation of Two Monsters…
As noted yesterday, Gerry Adams benevolent reading of Ian Paisley’s career on Comment is Free was remarkable in its civility. Simon Jenkins is unimpressed. He recalls his early days as a reporter encountering a younger Paisley in Northern Ireland:
The man was a monster, a fanatic, a hangover from the middle ages. I remember wondering how on earth Britain had allowed Ulster’s constitution so to fester as to have this man roaming the woods and hills of Ulster. One thing Britain does not do well is postcolonial partition. It creates a fertile breeding ground for the likes of Paisley, and his antagonist, Adams.
Speed up some years:
These men eventually eliminated moderate leaders so they could claim moderation for themselves. They smashed power-sharing so they could share power between themselves. They now pretend that change could not have been faster because the people would not let them. The climate of public opinion in the province was not ready.
That is a lie. These men were the climate, and it was one of systematic bigotry and violence. They chose their methods and terrorised all who opposed them. While religious sectarianism elsewhere in Europe was on the wane, lovers of Northern Ireland had to watch in despair as it drifted to ever greater separatism - territorially, politically and psychologically.
The Good Friday agreement did not end this polarisation. It is best described as a moment in a long process, when Tony Blair cleared from the battlefield the moderate clutter of Hume and Trimble so that Adams and Paisley could see the whites of each other’s eyes.
Shades of David McKee’s Two Monsters children’s story. But Jenkins concludes:
A cliche of conflict studies holds that only leaders of extremist factions can deliver closure. Hence Kenyatta of Kenya, Mugabe of Zimbabwe and Begin of Israel. Hence the “feelers” put out to Moqtada al-Sadr in Iraq, the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hamas in Gaza. Eventually we must all “sit down with the men of violence”. To that thesis history can only reply, sometimes yes and sometimes no. When there is a future to be rebuilt, bygones must be bygones. But it is one thing to forgive, quite another to forget.
Mick Fealty @ 11:19 AM
‘A cliche of conflict studies holds that only leaders of extremist factions can deliver closure. Hence Kenyatta of Kenya, Mugabe of Zimbabwe and Begin of Israel.’
if by ‘closure’ he means continued violence and mayhem, then that is a resounding yes. (Kenya just sneaking in there recently, unfortunately)
Posted by on Mar 07, 2008 @ 11:53 AMNot usually that fond of Jenkins but he’s got it about right here. A hangover from the middle ages indeed.
(Moloney’s Paisley arrived this morning btw...loks a little long!)Posted by on Mar 07, 2008 @ 11:59 AMIt seems to me that the subtext of this article is meant to absolve successive British governments of their responsibility in fostering and continuing this conflict and then to frame the troubles as some sort of personal feud between Paisley and Adams.
Secondly, David Trimble is/was hardly a “moderate”, the primary difference between Paisley’s and Trimble’s politics, from what I can tell, is the language in which their politics are/were packaged.
It is truly a disgraceful article.Posted by on Mar 07, 2008 @ 12:15 PMSorry Dewi but Simon Jenkins is an idiot. He may feel himself superior to Ian Paisley and Gerry Adams, but the fact is that Paisley had the backing of over 30% of NI’s voters and Adams over 26%. Those are the electoral results and that is what we have to work with, unless you are prepared to admit that there is no such place as Northern Ireland.
I don’t know what Jenkins proposes: perhaps gassing 56% of Northern Ireland’s population and replacing them by Simon Jenkins clones? If only the Guardian could send this man to Iraq or somewhere where he can wander round on the back of a donkey lecturing the Sunni and Shia on loving each other.
Posted by on Mar 07, 2008 @ 12:22 PMThere is something deeply disqueiting about an Englishman apparently unaware of his country’s role it getting us to where we are in Non Iron, pontificating about the leaders of the 2 rival political camps. It probably doesn’t help his case that due to the deferential nature of the society he grew up in he tends to speak with an accent and a manner which suggests he would fit neatly into a Woodhouseian novel.
Posted by on Mar 07, 2008 @ 12:26 PMSammy says: “There is something deeply disqueiting about an Englishman apparently unaware of his country’s role it getting us to where we are in Non Iron”.
Simon says: “I remember wondering how on earth Britain had allowed Ulster’s constitution so to fester as to have this man roaming the woods and hills of Ulster.”.
Posted by on Mar 07, 2008 @ 12:47 PMThere is something deeply disqueiting about an Englishman apparently aware of his country’s role it getting us to where we are in Non Iron, pontificating about the leaders of the 2 rival political camps. It probably doesn’t help his case that due to the deferential nature of the society he grew up in he tends to speak with an accent and a manner which suggests he would fit neatly into a Woodhouseian novel.
JoeCanuck: The facts can always be bent to fit the arguement
Posted by on Mar 07, 2008 @ 01:06 PMHehehe
Posted by on Mar 07, 2008 @ 01:09 PMAdams and his collaborator, Martin McGuinness, destroyed Hume’s SDLP
Total rubbish. SF has, whether permanently or temporarily we cannot say, managed to obtain more votes than the SDLP. However the SDLP still hold firm in Hume’s Derry constitutency and elsewhere. SF’s campaign was nothing like Paisley’s attack on O’Neill, Faulkner, Trimble.
What caused this relative decline in the popularity of the SDLP was not Gerry Adams parading up and down shouting whatever is the Republican equivalent of ‘Lundy’, but the sheer ineffectiveness of the SDLP in obtaining the slightest bit of acknowledgement within the six county entity. For this we can blame the Ulster Workers Strike as much as anything. It was Paisley and his like who pushed the SDLP into second position.
Posted by on Mar 07, 2008 @ 01:25 PMIs the nationality of the columnist relevant or has the man / ball rule gone out the window? It is a strong article in some respects deapite sweeping generalisations about some of the more distant history. I’ve blogged on those in more detail myself.
Posted by on Mar 07, 2008 @ 01:27 PMAye. Just like it was unionists who made nationalists join the IRA. The old republican reluctance to take responsibility for anything.
Posted by on Mar 07, 2008 @ 01:29 PMI orignally thought from the title of this post that EOS was going to play both John Hayes and Tony Buckley against the Taffs.
Posted by on Mar 07, 2008 @ 01:32 PMJust like it was unionists who made nationalists join the IRA. The old republican reluctance to take responsibility for anything.
Trite, and stupid. No one escapes personal responsibility. But Unionism did create conditions whereby people would view that option in a more favourable light. And they can’t escape responsibility for that either, no matter how much you want to spin.
Posted by on Mar 07, 2008 @ 01:36 PM“They chose their methods and terrorised all who opposed them.”
Not like me to be controversial but I think their methods were different and that only one of them has blood on his hands. Readers can decide which.
Posted by on Mar 07, 2008 @ 01:43 PMIf you shake hands with someone with blood on theirs, don’t you get some blood on your own?
Posted by on Mar 07, 2008 @ 01:46 PMPaddyReilly
Sorry Dewi but Simon Jenkins is an idiot. He may feel himself superior to Ian Paisley and Gerry Adams, but the fact is that Paisley had the backing of over 30% of NI’s voters and Adams over 26%. Those are the electoral results and that is what we have to work with, unless you are prepared to admit that there is no such place as Northern Ireland.
I think his point is that Paisley and Adams were leaders of public opinion and not followers (or as well as being followers). They led their supporters down certain paths; and were irresponsible in doing so. They had the facility to choose other, more responsible and constructive paths, but elected not to. Obviously, the electorate chose of its own free will to vote for Paisley and Adams, and for that they are responsible, but, as leaders, Paisley and Adams had a public responsibility not to adopt irresponsible positions: they could instead have led their supporters towards more responsible positions.
Sammy McNally
There is something deeply disqueiting about an Englishman apparently unaware of his country’s role it getting us to where we are in Non Iron, pontificating about the leaders of the 2 rival political camps.
Er, if you read the blog, it refers to Jenkins acknowledging Britain’s inability to deal with a “postcolonial” situation.
Posted by on Mar 07, 2008 @ 01:53 PMQuite a nice thread below the Guardian piece also.
I’ve was always a bit of a determinist about hitoric development - untill Walesa in Gdansk showed how individual leadership has a role in determining events. Paisley from 1958 onwards personally instrumental in creating a situation where violence was inevitable.
If Paisley wasn’t there could things have been different? Discuss....
..and Sammy - with that bloke Donnacha in your second row u don’t need any more monsters. My niece starts crying when she sees him on the tele!Posted by on Mar 07, 2008 @ 02:04 PM“Not like me to be controversial but I think their methods were different and that only one of them has blood on his hands. Readers can decide which. “
Surely you jest. Paisley certainly has blood on his hands. Anyone who has ever voted for the DUP cannot moan about them sharing power with terrorists when Paisley, Robinson, McRea associated with loyalist paras when it suited them. When comparing Paisley and Adams you are, as Churchill might say “merely haggling over price.”
Posted by on Mar 07, 2008 @ 02:05 PMI think there is a wide gulf between Adams and Paisley in terms of the degree to which they “associated with” terrorists.
Adams, for example, actually was a terrorist and led a terrorist movement!
Posted by on Mar 07, 2008 @ 02:07 PMWillow
proof?As far as I know there exists no proof that Adams was ever a PIra
And the difference3 betwwen paisley and Marty?
Paisley lacked the bollocks to face anyone over a gun so he chose to kill with words and direct actions of others
Marty was more pragmatic
Posted by on Mar 07, 2008 @ 02:11 PMwell the article pretty well sums up my general viewpoint. In brief - what were the last 30 years all about?? If only these 2 ******s and their ****ing parties and their ****ing supporters had all “seen the light” years ago. Well at least my son shouldnt have to go through it all so i should at least be thankful that the year of the Chuckle Brothers has hopefully bedded down the Agreement. We will see.
Posted by on Mar 07, 2008 @ 02:12 PMAye. Just like it was unionists who made nationalists join the IRA. The old republican reluctance to take responsibility for anything.
I’m not certain if this is aimed at me, but if so I can oblige by taking responsibility here. There always was a small Republican Clubs vote, but it has increased exponentially of late. Why this has happened I have attempted to explain: others may come up with different theories: you may wish to posit an increase in wickedness among the Nationalist people.
But as for the vote in general, surely people can vote for who they damn well like? Each voter, moreover, is responsible for his own vote, not for anyone else’s.
And I was never registered to vote in Northern Ireland when Sinn Féin was standing.
Posted by on Mar 07, 2008 @ 02:17 PMI think we maybe all should take a breath now that Dr No is retiring to his Bond villain island in the caribean (or perhaps to Rathlin).
In some of the posts on this thread some are more than willing to throw down their responsibilites. Suddenly it was ALL Paisley and Adams fault - those two filthy miscreants.
The fact is we lived and do still live in a deeply disfunctional society. Both Paisley and Adams are as much products of this as anybody else - symptoms of a deeper illness.
This is where for me Jenkins head disappears up his own backside. He gives way too much power and influence to two individuals and ignores the psychotic nature of society.Posted by on Mar 07, 2008 @ 02:26 PMThey led their supporters down certain paths; and were irresponsible in doing so. They had the facility to choose other, more responsible and constructive paths, but elected not to.
But Jenkins goes on to say As anyone who walks the Falls will know, the Real IRA is still a menace to Adams. Consequently Gerry Adams, at least, does not have the freedom to manoeuvre that you ascribe to him. He has performed more than one miracle of reconcilation: if he had taken the path recommended him by Simon Jenkins he would have not been able to. Think of Gerry Fitt in the House of Lords, another moaning Minnie parroting the line, sure if everyone was as wonderful as me, there wouldn’t be all this trouble. A great help.
Posted by on Mar 07, 2008 @ 02:40 PM‘One thing Britain does not do well is postcolonial partition.’
Sums it up perfectly. Of course we will have some posters who will argue the ‘It wasn’t a colony’ line, which is head in the sand stuff.
But the simple fact remains, that it is only when the two extremes of any conflict settle differences, that success can begin to flourish. You make peace with your enemies, not your friends. I am sceptical as to whether this has occurred in Ireland yet.Posted by on Mar 07, 2008 @ 02:42 PM
