Thursday, May 21, 2009
Upcoming Debate: “What is the Truth Behind the Hunger Strike?”
Briefly: This Saturday, 7:00 at the Gasyard in Derry, an open meeting organised by Republican Network for Unity is to be held examining the events of the 1981 hunger strike, specifically the contention that the prisoners accepted a deal that was overruled by the outside leadership, after which six further men died on hunger strike. Confirmed speakers include Brendan Duddy, Willie Gallagher, Richard O’Rawe, and Liam Clarke. Danny Morrison refused to participate. Invitations were also issued to Bik McFarlane and Gerry Adams, who have not responded. In a taste of what is to come this weekend, earlier today, Richard O’Rawe and former (1980) hunger striker Raymond McCartney were interviewed by Sarah Brett on Radio Foyle. This interview will be available on the BBC website for a week (it is also archived on YouTube: Part 1 & Part 2), and starts close to the beginning of the programme. In yesterday’s Belfast Telegraph, Brian Rowan quotes Brendan Duddy and an un-named source with “considerable knowledge of the Mountain Climber initiative” who puts forth the Morrison argument in regards to the controversy - the semantical, chimeric word play of the difference between an ‘offer’ and a ‘deal’ and how many angels are dancing on the head of a pin. Duddy, it seems, holds to the view, initially relayed by Eamonn McCann, that the outside leadership was incompetent, and, like Raymond McCartney in the Radio Foyle interview, endorses Sile Darragh’s talking points, which first emerged, in part, in an anonymous comment on Anthony McIntyre’s blog. Sile Darragh, like Morrison, McFarlane and Gibney, is a member of the Bobby Sands Trust and her letter seems to be the newest leadership line, as it is pushed in Rowan’s article and McCartney also followed it in today’s radio discussion. Unfortunately, it doesn’t offer much beyond Morrison’s semantical argument which seems to get destroyed bit by bit as more information continues to come out. Meanwhile, in Rowan’s article, the anonymous source shifts the blame to the prisoners themselves. This shift is interesting as O’Rawe claims that the prisoners accepted the deal, and now a source close to the negotiations claims that the prisoners were naive, inexperienced and incapable of “making a judgment”, which seems to be a backhanded defence of why the outside leadership would have over-ruled them - because they thought they knew better than the prisoners themselves. Inch by inch, are we getting closer to the truth of what happened in July, 1981?
Earlier on Slugger:
When in a hole… Contrasts between Danny Morrison’s position and previously published accounts of the time
What were the hunger strikers told? Questions emerge that cast doubt on what the hunger strikers knew when about what negotiations were being conducted on their behalf by the Adams subcommittee.
“Let’s have the whole truth” - Danny Morrison and Richard O’Rawe statements
Did Thatcher Kill All 10 or Only 4? - contains statements and interview excerpts
Links and background:
1986 excerpt from interview with John Blelloch, Mi5, by Padraig O’Malley (Bobby Sands Trust website)
“The Blelloch Interview”, Anthony McIntyre
Sunday 5 April 09:
‘Adams Complicit Over Hunger Strikers?’
NIO Documents on Sunday Times website
“The Thatcher Intervention”, Anthony McIntyre
- IRSP Statement in response to NIO documents
Monday, 6 April 09:
Irish News: Hunger Strike deal ‘must be disclosed’
Irish Times: SF denies claims on hunger strike deaths
Radio Foyle, The Morning Programme (link lasts a week): Willie Gallagher, IRSP and Danny Morrison, begins @ 8 mins
- Response from Kevin McQuillan to comments made by Danny Morrison in the Radio Foyle interview; scroll down a bit.
Tuesday, 7 April 09:
Irish News: Morrison rubbishes renewed claims of Hunger Strike deal
Bobby Sands Trust: Documents Still Withheld
Previously on Slugger:
O’Rawe’s account confirmed: Hunger Strikers Allowed To Die (28 March 08)
Eamon McCann verifies Richard O’Rawe’s account of the 1981 hunger strike in which he alleges that six of the hunger strikers need not have died as the prisoners had agreed to accept an offer from the Mountainclimber, only to be over-ruled by Gerry Adams.
Hunger Strike Controversy Has Not Gone Away, You Know (17 April 08)
Many background links
O’Rawe and the Derry Journal (18 April 08)
Crucial question still unanswered
Blanketmen, by Richard O’Rawe
Danny Morrison
Jim Gibney
O’Rawe response to Gibney
Brendan McFarlane
Brendan Hughes
Interview with Richard O’Rawe
Further reading:
Irish News: Allegations of a rejected deal spark fury among republicans (1 March 2005)
Irish News: Was my father’s death PR exercise? (1 March 2005)
Irish News: Monsignor Faul regrets his ‘late intervention’ (1 March 2005)
Irish News: Hunger strikers’ lives not sacrificed — family (2 March 2005)
Daily Ireland: Hunger Strikers Story Brought to Book, Danny Morrison (2 March 2005)
Irish News: Hunger strikers’ deaths must be fully explained, says author (3 March 2005)
The Guardian: Hunger strike claims rile H-block veterans (4 March 2005)
Daily Ireland: McFarlane denies Hunger Strike deal was struck (4 March 2005)
Irish Times: Hunger strikers wanted more than vague promises, Danny Morrison (5 March 2005)
The Village: H-Block Hypocrisy (12 March 2005)
The Village: For the cause or caucus, Hugh Logue (ICJP) reviews O’Rawe’s Blanketmen (19 March 2005)
Rusty Nail @ 04:19 PM
latcheeco ,
‘The naivete of the young doesn’t excuse or absolve the calculated cynicism of their leaders though. ‘
I did’nt say it did . As for the ‘calculated cynicism ’ of their leaders ? When you look at much of what passes for ‘calculated ’ cynicism is more often in hindsight seen as calculated ‘stupidity’ . Outdated assumptions on military tactics based on the ‘last ’ war or the one before ? Quite often it’s just ethnic or religious hatred based on ‘principles’ of conformism to the established interests of the powers that be .
In retrospect the hunger strikers ‘died ’ because they would not be granted ‘political ’ status by the then British Government of Margaret Thatcher and their subsequent reaction to that decision by Thatcher’s government . The fact that 25 years later the party of the hunger strikers now share power in the government of Northern Ireland tells us as much about the British Government of the time as it does about the sacrifice which the hunger strikers made .
Anybody who knew more than a fart about Irish history or cared an iota would have known where the hunger strike impasse would lead .
There are unfortunately some within the British establishment who would if they could -sit back and watch not 1 or 2 or 20 Irish hunger strikers die in prison but would have applauded if several thousand did likewise or had continued their hunger strike protest for a decade or more.
I think SF and the nationalists /republicans of NI in 1981 misunderestimated the power of that ‘element’ within the British establishment.Thatcher if she were still mentally alert and not suffering from alzheimers/dementia would still maintain that her policy of the time was ‘right ’ and that the hunger strikers were criminals . Dick Cheney still maintains that water boarding was not torture no matter what Senator McCain says or said .
That’s the way it is /was . If you don’t /did’nt like it -you vote them out and if it’s impossible to vote them out then you do what people have always done -you go for your gun or take to the streets.
Such is human nature .
The hunger strikers were brave men who believed in their cause . I don’t necessarily agree with that cause (a UI ) but I do understand why young people on the ‘irish’ side of the NI divide could feel like that at that time . The fact that politicians later built power bases over their graves ? Well that was’nt the first time that has happened in Ireland -but let’s hope it was the last .
But it says much for the nature of the NI problem that even I a southerner would rather trust the British Government with the ‘rule ’ of Northern Ireland than I would the ‘rule’ of a majority ‘Unionist ’ government . The fact that the hunger strikers did not ‘win ’ their UI or a ‘free’ whatever that means 32 county Republic is neither here nor there . The fact is that they helped to make it impossible for any British Government to consider any other form of government for NI other than mandatory power sharing . And if you look around on the ‘Unionist ’ side now at those interests who are still fundamentally opposed to mandatory power sharing - you should see that they are predominantly the ‘traditional unionists’ who have learnt nothing from the past 40 years and who will learn nothing from the next 100 years either . I understand there are sensible ‘unionists’ opposed to mandatory power for the same reasons I am . But then I’m lucky enough to live in a jurisdiction in which the political constitution is strong enough for mandatory power sharing not to be a necessity for political peace.
The point of my comment above was simply -that it’s time for people to move on. There’s nothing to be gained on the Irish ‘nationalist ’ ‘republican ’ side in NI by dragging down the current SF political leadership . It’s been a 20 year ‘struggle’ for them to get to where they are . They are where no previous party representative of Irish nationalists since the NI State was established could ever have hoped to be i.e sharing in the government of ‘their ’ country.Collins had to accept British Dominion and Empire status . It was either that or nothing . His successors did’nt . For those who aspire to a 32 county Republic that struggle can continue but it can’t be achieved in arms against HMG or burning Orange Order community halls .
The ‘real ‘opponent’ to the ‘republican ’ objectives is Unionist opposition within the present NI State . That is not going away like it or not -not anytime soon anyway and probably not ever . So Irish politicians in NI have to deal with that fact of political life the best way they can . Right now it’s the GFA . Longer term ? Well I’ve predicted it won’t last but for now it’s all that’s possible . And politics is the art of the possible for NI Republicans and for NI Unionists .
Posted by on May 22, 2009 @ 11:18 AMGreenflag, a balanced posting, well put.
Posted by on May 22, 2009 @ 11:57 AMThanks fin .It’s how I see it . Others closer to the ground from all sides will no doubt disagree.
Posted by on May 22, 2009 @ 12:16 PM“BTW when you are all ears it could be a mistake to close your eyes, wear gloves and block up your nose at the same time ;)? .”
A rather cryptic response from “The Commentor Of No Less Than 100 Words”, don’t you think?
Posted by on May 22, 2009 @ 12:26 PM“There are unfortunately some within the British establishment who would if they could -sit back and watch not 1 or 2 or 20 Irish hunger strikers die in prison but would have applauded if several thousand did likewise or had continued their hunger strike protest for a decade or more.
I think SF and the nationalists /republicans of NI in 1981 misunderestimated the power of that ‘element’ within the British establishment”Well there were “many” not “some” within the protestant population who would say amen to that
Posted by on May 22, 2009 @ 01:17 PMThe only thing that got the english attention was the global attention and backlash this brought to them. And I think they still underestimate how much damage it does to them even to this day
Posted by on May 22, 2009 @ 01:42 PMOC ,
‘A rather cryptic response ’
Sorry to disappoint but not on this thread.
barnshee ,‘Well there were “many” not “some” within the protestant population who would say amen to that’
Perhaps but then if you had ‘family ’ members killed or blown to bits by the IRA would you feel any different ? I probably would’nt . But then I don’t pretend to have principles and my morals have never been absolutely absolute either . It’s not a black and white world out there although there are many who would prefer it that way .
Posted by on May 22, 2009 @ 03:34 PMGreenflag, re family members blown to bits by the IRA, but I put money on them having the same attitude propir to that happening and the violence as a convient excuse
Posted by on May 22, 2009 @ 03:43 PMpaul ,
‘The only thing that got the English attention was the global attention and backlash this brought to them.’
True . The ‘hunger strike ’ is or can be a political weapon . And like every other weapon it can be used , abused and miss it’s target . SFAIK it has only ever been used effectively in Ireland and India - the latter the former ‘jewel ’ in the Empire , and the former the mote in the Empire’s eye .
But though the Empire is long gone the ‘imperial ’ vision lingers still . among a few . Mr Cameron is just the latest in a long procession of those who have come -seen what they wanted to see and will leave after the requisite pleasantries have been exchanged but like Maudling and others will be only to glad to get back to the ‘real ‘world .
I see Pete Baker has put up a thread on Potemkin village -
Potemkin Province I think has a better ring to it . That 6 or 7 billion subvention has to cover more than just a village ;)
Posted by on May 22, 2009 @ 03:46 PMFin ,
Not sure what your last point was ? But as I said above it’s move on time . The dead - innocent or guilty -freedom fighter or hunger striker -loyalist or republican -unionist or nationalist are not coming back . I think they’ve all made their point that is if they had a point to make .We do not need to hear it again . Annual commemorations fine .
As for excuses ? The lion will always find an excuse to eat the lamb. So if you’re a lamb you had better learn to defend yourself as best you can.
Posted by on May 22, 2009 @ 04:05 PM“Sorry to disappoint but not on this thread.”
Oh, I see: One rule-book for GF, and another for anyone else.
You should ask Mick to delete your original statement then, as Attempted Thread Hijacking.
Posted by on May 22, 2009 @ 04:34 PM“The only thing that got the english attention was the global attention and backlash this brought to them. And I think they still underestimate how much damage it does to them even to this day”
Balderdash.
Margaret Thatcher was largely regarded as an unknown quantity in 1981, there was no indication that she would be anything more than a one term failed political footnote in the pages of Britain’s seeming terminal global decline, the Hunger Strikes were the first real test of her political mettle and she passed it (in her terms) with first class honours.
It might be some form of help in an otherwise unremittingly bleak period to believe that vast amounts of political goodwill were accumulated around the world for the Republican cause and against Britain but that is I’m afraid wishful thinking. Certainly Tehran streetsign makers might have cause to thank Bobby Sands and the great unwashed masses of the unelectable hard left might have looked on with admiration but in the real world where things actually matter Thatcher was seen as a rising international phenomenon that she was later to consolidate with her victory in the Falklands.
Indeed I remember seeing Alex Haig being interviewed about his attempts to broker a peace deal before the shooting war started for real in the Falklands. He wanted to emphasise to the Argentine government not to be deluded into believing that Britain was nothing more than a busted flush and that Thatcher was bluffing with her task force. Haig said he told the Junta in no uncertain terms that Thatcher would fight and as an example of this he told them that the woman had coldly allowed ten of her own citizens to starve to death rather than concede a mere principal to them and that the world must recognise what a tough woman she was, the Junta didn’t listen, to their cost.
I remember reading that Bobby Sand’s death was on the front page of the New York Times for a week, Raymond McCreesh’s death merited a couple of paragraphs at the bottom of page 11 a few weeks later. It is Thatcher who came out of the Hunger Strike indisputably the winner with her reputation massively enhanced and the Hunger Strikers are now barely remembered except among ageing Irish Republicans in the wee six counties of Ireland.
Posted by on May 23, 2009 @ 03:56 AMOC ,
‘Oh, I see: One rule-book for GF, and another for anyone else.’No idea what you mean by this . I don’t make the rules and I’m sure if I’m out of order I’ll be told .
‘It is Thatcher who came out of the Hunger Strike indisputably the winner with her reputation massively enhanced and the Hunger Strikers are now barely remembered except among ageing Irish Republicans in the wee six counties of Ireland.’Nonsense the hunger striker’s party may top the poll in NI in this election . SF were very much the junior party on the Irish nationalist side prior to the hunger strikes .
Without the hunger strikes or more specifically without Thatcher’s ignorant response to them -the UUP might be sharing power with the SDLP and not the DUP with SF .
When your ears are not hearing what your eyes are showing you Harry, then it’s time to see your GP if not a specialist .
They (hunger strikers) changed the course of political direction in NI whether you like to believe it or not .
This is not to justify or excuse their actions or even to state it was worth the lives lost - but they did matter and will continue to matter.
Posted by on May 23, 2009 @ 04:53 PMHarry
If you mean Thatchers reputation was enhanced with the general public in England due to her stance on the hunger strikes, then I think you are mistaken.
Whilst the English people had no time for the PIRA, why would they when the Provos were deliberately targeting them. Nevertheless the link between the Irish and English is very complex, not least because so many English people have a drop of Irish blood in them and vice versa.
You have to remember for the average English man/woman the hunger strike were of little interest to them. (this goes too for those on the political Left, right and centre) Those who understood what was going on had some sympathy for the hunger strikers plight, but most thought it was a hopeless cause no matter which government was in power in Whitehall. We know the LP, if in power would have dealt with the Hunger Strikes in much the same way as Thatcher did, as Concannon went over to Ireland and told Bobby Sands this.
Thatchers reputation was built on the Falklands war and it was this that enabled her to defeat the trade unions and privatize the crown jewels and set in motion the type of me, me, society we have ended up with.
As far as Ireland was concerned in almost every opinion poll taken during Thatchers period in office, a majority were in favor of the political reunification of the island of Ireland and British withdrawal. Although it has to be said this was not because of the Provos insurgency but because it was the right thing to do. (if you get my drift) If anything the Provo attacks on England made withdrawal an impossibility for any British government.
Looking back, it seems pretty clear the Provo leadership had a shockingly lack of knowledge about what made the English working classes and the progressive section of the middle classes tick.(to rewire a quote of Danny Morrison’s) Or they just did not give a dam.
Posted by on May 23, 2009 @ 05:14 PMGerrnflag: SF were very much the junior party on the Irish nationalist side prior to the hunger strikes .
And they stayed the junior party until the ceasefire. Their recent behaviour shows that was the lesson they really remember.
Posted by on May 23, 2009 @ 07:32 PM[Text removed - Paul, are you an idiot? If you can only play the man, then you have no argument. And no call to commenting on the story - Mods]
Disgraceful!!
[Indeed - Mods]Posted by on May 23, 2009 @ 08:40 PM“If you mean Thatchers reputation was enhanced with the general public in England”
No Mick, I was responding to the silly post that seemed to indicate that internationally the Hunger Strikers are still remembered and that Britain’s reputation to this day is besmirched around the world because of them. I was pointing out that this is ridiculous wishful thinking and that 98% of the world’s population wouldn’t have a clue who the Hunger Strikers were.
I have to say Mick you also display fantasy tendencies if you believe for one moment there was the least shred of sympathy in Britain for the Hunger Strikers, the British people may have an ambivalent attitude towards Mrs Thatcher but letting IRA men kill themselves if they wanted to is not something that the average English person feels is in any way as a blot in her copybook.
Posted by on May 24, 2009 @ 12:04 AMThe simple proof of that absence of sympathy is the absence of any shift from what was on offer at the Sunningdale Agreement which predates the Hunger Strike. Sympathy means constitutional progress, and there wasn’t any of that.
What the Shinners mean by political progress is party political progress. They could have had that anytime they stopped their sectarian murder campaign.
Posted by on May 24, 2009 @ 03:59 AM“You have to remember for the average English man/woman the hunger strike were of little interest to them. (this goes too for those on the political Left, right and centre) Those who understood what was going on had some sympathy for the hunger strikers plight, but most thought it was a hopeless cause no matter which government was in power in Whitehall.”
Harry,
Just as I misunderstood your post you now seem determined to pay me back in kind ;) As I wrote in the paragraph above the majority were not interested in the hunger strikes.
The English despite what some Irish people might think, are well able to tip their hat to a man who does his duty as he see’s it. I remember a former para I spoke to on a railway station, who had served a tour in Ireland telling me in 81 he admired Sands steadfastness. That does not mean he thought Thatcher should concede the five demands and nor did the majority of his countrymen.
Nevertheless, the outcome of the opinion polls I mentioned are there all the same and in truth I am surprised SF does not make more of the fact that given the right situation, the majority of people in England have time and again supported withdrawal.
If you look back in history when the British left the 26 counties it was welcomed within England Scotland and Wales, there was no political backlash against this withdrawal, indeed most thought Lloyd-George should have gone the whole hog. If only ah?
Without meaning to be arrogant, I suppose the question for republicans is this, can they drive the British back across the sea by force of arms, if not, those who continue the armed struggle have some questions to answers, not least exactly what is their strategy to achieve the 32.
The right to resist occupation is an important and defendable position, but it does not mean one has to implement it gun in hand, the more so if there is no realistic likelihood that it will achieve ones political aims.
Posted by on May 24, 2009 @ 09:45 AMUp the rebels
Posted by on May 24, 2009 @ 10:09 AMMickhall,
‘it was welcomed within England Scotland and Wales, there was no political backlash against this withdrawal, indeed most thought Lloyd-George should have gone the whole hog.’
Why would’nt it have been ? The House of Commons had already passed the Home Rule Act . The Conservative/Unionist dominated Lords voted it down of course . Not for the first or last time such interests at Westminster ‘decided’ Ireland’s political fate. And it’s the same today though circumstances are radically different.
’ I suppose the question for republicans is this, can they drive the British back across the sea by force of arms, if not, those who continue the armed struggle have some questions to answers, not least exactly what is their strategy to achieve the 32.’
Having a strategy to achieve an objective does not necessarily mean that the stated objective will or can be reached . Of course not having any strategy or using one that has repeatedly failed, is indicative of a failure to communicate and is a sure path to political marginalisation on the extremes .The above assumes of course the objective is actually worth achieving and is, even in a remote horizon sense potentially achievable ?I know little about the strategising powers of the 1916 revolutionaries but their ‘timing’ even if bungled on the day itself was nevertheless in hindsight ‘brilliant ‘.
Of course it had no immediate chance of success and it could all have gone badly and the men of 1916 might now be seen as a bunch of poetic dreamers and failed revolutionaries instead of as the ‘brave ’ founders of our State . This was achieved not only by the men themselves but by the fortunate ‘reaction’ to events in the midst of a World War . Captain Blackadder (I kid you not )the man in charge of the firing squad said he had never seen braver men face execution but it was General Maxwells summary trials and quick executions which turned the tables of history in favour of the rebels .
Had Maxwell tarried a few months ? But of course he could’nt . Not in the midst of world war.
2009 is not 1916 nor is it 1969 or 1981 . But NI ‘unionist ’ opposition to a UI remains as strong now as it was in 1920 or 1949 or 2007 even if the numerical balance of power has shifted dramatically towards the nationalist side within NI .
The present ‘economic ’ crisis will of course drive any few ‘doubting ’ unionists further into the arms of the Union and may even dampen the enthusiasm of a large number of nationalists for a UI. It is within those circumstances that those Republicans particularly within NI have to operate .
I can’t see any combination of circumstances in which another ‘armed’ campaign could achieve their stated objective at this time .
Posted by on May 24, 2009 @ 11:30 AMAccording to Liam Clarke (on Facebook):
It (last night’s event) was pretty interesting. Ricky O’Rawe account was confirmed by another prisoner who overheard his conversation with Bik McFarland and Brendan Duddy, the link between the IRA and the British revealed a lot more.
Anyone else there?
Posted by on May 24, 2009 @ 12:44 PMActually GF the idea that it was the executions of the 1916 leaders that caused the rise of Sinn Fein is a bit of a myth. FSL Lyons many years ago analysed by-election results following the Rising and found no discernible advantage for Sinn Fein in the aftermath of the Rising; the old Nationalist party continued to win elections. It was not until mid-1917 when it was mooted that the British government would introduce conscription in Ireland that suddenly Sinn Fein’s popularity rose astronomically.
It is, like I say, a nice convenient myth that the Irish people were outraged by the executions of men they judged as deeply sincere if misguided martyrs that caused them to vote SF, it’s certainly a lot more romantic than the real reason that Catholic farmers and the middle classes were horrified that their sons might be sent off to fight in a war that so far had been a nice little money earner for them whilst the stupid protestants and the urban knackers of Dublin, Cork and Limerick went off to fight for King and Empire.
Anyway once they saw how things would be under an IRA ruled Ireland the Catholic farmers and middle classes soon returned to their senses, kicked the shite out of the IRA in 1922/23 and never let them within an asses’ roar of ever getting into power again in Ireland.
Ireland is fundamentally a conservative nation, they actually don’t like revolutionaries one wee bit.
Posted by on May 24, 2009 @ 12:53 PMHarry,
SF didn’t stand in all (or possibly any, I can’t remember) of those by-elections won by the home rulers, so those results are not necssarily reflective of any absence of a swing to SF.
Having said that, I would agree with the thrust of your post.
Posted by on May 24, 2009 @ 03:25 PM
