Wednesday, October 31, 2007
“While I was of the view that no military solution was possible..”
I don’t intend to comment much on the fulsome apology of Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams, or the PIRA apology for their “mistakes” he referenced, beyond noting that the man it was directed at, Colin Parry, had already dealt with the possibility that such an apology would be proffered
“I don’t want an apology, I don’t expect an apology. That is not on the agenda, if I got one it wouldn’t mean anything.”
Nor do I intend to comment much on the attempt to usurp the consultation of the Eames/Bradley group, beyond noting that a focus on the perpetrators and what they have to say to their own people might be more beneficial than what Adams is suggesting.
However, he also called for a victim-centred truth process to help Northern Ireland deal with its bloody past. That process, he proposed, should involve all people, including those in England and the Republic of Ireland, bereaved or maimed during the Troubles. “A truth process must reach out to these people,” he argued.
But it is worth noting that his actual speech included his own version of his truth about the past..
On the one side there were nationalists and republicans who were denied basic human and civil rights, including the right to vote, access to housing and work. The north existed under a permanent state of emergency, with special laws, special courts and a range of state armed paramilitary organisations to implement its will. The civil rights campaign of the 1960s was an attempt to initiate reform. The demands were simple—the right to vote, an end to discrimination in jobs and housing, and the repeal of the special laws. On the other side was the unionist government, the unionist establishment and the British government.
Adams goes on to argue that
By the mid to late 1970s it was obvious that there was a military stalemate. The British could not defeat the IRA—the IRA could not militarily defeat the British.
And the violence continued with each side seeking to develop new strategies, new tactics, new and more deadly ways of killing each other.
Within republicanism, armed struggle was the dominating tendency. There was a belief that only the IRA could move the British government. There may have been misgivings or serious concerns about particular military operations but there was no real dissent from armed struggle. It was taken for granted that that was the way of things.
While I was of the view that no military solution was possible I also felt armed struggle was a necessary form of struggle and I defended this position without being dogmatic about it.
But how to break the impasse?
The Sinn Fein leadership carefully considered this and concluded that if the impasse was to be broken then republicans needed to go on a political offensive. And we realised very early on that this would require republicans taking initiatives. At its core it would require Sinn Féin constructing a viable political alternative to armed struggle which could deliver republican goals.
In a letter I wrote in the early 1980s to Catholic Bishop Cahal Daly, who was a vocal opponent of republicans I said: ‘Those republicans who engage in armed struggle, or who defend the legitimacy of armed struggle in pursuance of Irish independence, do so, not through any fixation with physical force, but through a necessity. Those who voice a moral condemnation of this tactic have a responsibility to spell out an alternative course by which Irish independence can be secured. I for one would be pleased to consider such an alternative.’
I have to say it became clear very quickly to me and to others in our leadership that if we were to wait on others providing the alternative it would never happen. They were locked in a mindset.
The quote from the letter dated in the 1980s, however, would not seem to be as conclusive as Adams would appear to believe.
And it ignores other elements of the struggle which were deployed - in a “campaign which drew its lessons from previous such periods in Irish history, as well as from contemporary experience around the world.”
And for an alternative analysis of the outworking of that Process™ see this previous post. Or this one.
After all, it might already be too late..
Pete Baker @ 11:19 PM
An Amateur Anthropologist
I agree with you, I am not seeking to justify anything but simply pointing out how things were throughout europe at that time.
The idea of an employer having to justify why he refused to hire one person rather than another or why he sacked someone at a moments notice - or indeed being held to account by anyone other than trade unions for his employment practices - is a fairly recent development.
In those days, the idea that anyone could tell any private employer what he must and must not do re his employees was so alien as to be laughable.
This, as I say, was not unique to NI but the standard system through out europe.
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 12:55 PMGetting back to Adams and his debate, this seems to be a further attempt by Adams to pose as the liberal minded thoughtful intellectual of the Republican movement. He has always fancied himself in this role and I suppose with no other real political function (the Irish Presidency being as likey as him being spontaneously able to fly) he can indulge these fantasies.
The fact that they are fantasies is of course borne out by his own words. Leaving aside the debate about whether or not any discrimination justified the IRA campaign (I clearly argue it did not); Adams thesis is still morally bankcrupt.
He semems to feel that by the mid 1970s the IRA had failed to acheive thier aims and had no realistic prospect of so doing. However, he feels that it was up to someone else to propose an alternative and until that time it was morally correct to carry on killing people. Clearly he feels that murdering people is not of itself wrong and was morally superior to not doing so. This is a spectularly warped version of morality.
Even following his own analysis, he must surely have trouble justifying the extremely frequent murders of people utterly uninvolved in the troubles. But of course they were actually responsible in his world view because did not provide an alternative to the IRA killing them and as such although it was unfortunate the IRA had to kill them it is actually the victims fault.
It just shows the complete moral vacuum in which this man lives. A moral vaccum in which he has declared himself not to have been in the IRA and now to have not wanted people to die in the troubles but found himself forced to support their deaths because they (the victims) would not accept his world view.
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 01:15 PMTurgon,
Adams has admitted that in his own opinion ‘he did evil so that good might triumph’. The same might be said of many people, not least the pilots who bombed Dresden or the only country which has actually used nuclear bombs.
The world isn’t simply black and white. There are infinite shades of grey.
The acceptance by our leading politicans that working together is the best way forward should be celebrated and their lead followed. If it doesn’t work out you can always have your hate back.
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 01:33 PMI know, I know Lib - poor old Turgon, *so* consumed with hate, what with his horror at murder. Thank God we have love filled, Adams-loving types like you to show us what hate isn’t.
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 01:45 PM‘he did evil so that good might triumph’
Exactly the kind of argument Stalin or Hitler might have used.
The fact is that peaceful nationalism had acheived everything that was required by about 1973.Turgon, I agree entirely with all that you say.
But this is also about retrospective justification. It’s about saying that really the prods brought all the killing and mayhem upon themselves.
It’s also about continuing the SF project of completely disheartening the prods and trying to encourage, among other things, a self-hatred within that community.
It’s also part of a “paint them as untermenschen to the wider audience” project.
You see it on here every day from the SF apparachiks, “they have no culture”, “they’re stupid”, “they’re more racist than anyone else”, “they’re all bigots”.
In short, it’s pure fascism, nothing more or less.
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 01:51 PMThe Penguin,
Every state needs a foundation myth and there is little doubt about which myth and which state will survive the present political struggles.Anyone who actually wants to know the truth can look it up in CAIN - just type ‘Discrimination’ into the search engine and prepare yourself for a good read.
Your attempt to portray the SF leadership (whatever about some of the foot solders) as anti-Prod is simply wrong. They are modern politicans and a Prod vote is just as good as a Teague one or even my own atheist one. We are moving into a post-Christian Ireland and most of us recognise that fact.
Unionism’s problem is that modern Prods don’t believe in all that political protestantism and are even embarrassed by it.
No-one doubts that Northern unionists face difficulties in adapting to the end of the British identity but it is happening. Whether unionists can rise to the challenge is their own choice.
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 02:30 PM*No-one doubts that Northern unionists face difficulties in adapting to the end of the British identity but it is happening.*
Lib, are ye a betting man?
Which of these two outcomes is more likely:-
a) 2016 will see the centenary of the Easter Rising with a united Irish Republic
or
b) 2021 will see the centenary of the founding of Northern Ireland with that state still part of the United Kingdom?
Twenty years ago I would have said it was an odds on, dead cert option ‘a’, but now thanks to the activities of Mr G Adams esq over the past quarter century I’d put my money on ‘b’.
Care for a wager?
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 02:41 PM1/Northern Ireland isn’t a state but you knew that.
2/Whatever the legal position is I firmly believe that the actual situation will be that control over the North will be in Dublin hands by 2016. In fact we are well on the way towards achieving that already.
Not sure whether there will still be a UK in 2021 but you may know better.
I’m afraid I don’t gamble, drink or smoke so must decline your kind invitation to share your vices.
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 03:00 PM“Anyone who actually wants to know the truth can look it up in CAIN - just type ‘Discrimination’ into the search engine and prepare yourself for a good read.”
Some of us don’t have to look it up anywhere. When Adams said that nationalists and republicans were denied votes and jobs he was lying, simple as that.
As for the non-sectarianism of the provos, don’t make me laugh FFS.
It is a deeply fascist organisation you are a cheerleader for, which is entirely up to you.
But just don’t expect the rest of us to buy the propoganda it spouts through people like you and others.
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 03:02 PM“some of us don’t have to look it up anywhere”
How very Irish! De Valera believed he just had to look within himself. Didn’t work for him either.
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 03:06 PM*I’m afraid I don’t gamble, drink or smoke*
Christ of almighty!
That explains your posts then. Have you tried fornicating? You’d be surprised how therapeutic it is.
For the record Dublin had a hell of a lot more influence over Northern Ireland after the signing of the 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement by arch-unionist Margaret Thatcher but renounced that influence along with Articles 2 & 3 of the Irish Constitution following the Good Friday Agreement.
Good man Gerry, you played a blinder there old son!
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 03:12 PMRemind me how that influence was manifested again?
I think we had this discussion before. The end result was they may have influenced the timing of one marchPosted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 03:26 PM“How very Irish! De Valera believed he just had to look within himself. Didn’t work for him either.”
Christ, how thick do you have to be not to realise that there are still an awful lot of people about who actually lived through that period.
Not everyone relies on the dubious Wiki, Cain or, worse still, Gerry’s Room 101 to find out what has gone on before.
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 03:33 PMThe Penguin,
I marched on a few of the marches and had acess to the pamphlets put out by the Dungannon Civil Rights groups from about 1966.
Some at least of those pamphlets are on CAIN and the originals are available in the Linenhall Library.
I found it chastening to have a read recently and realise just how different that world was. My memory had indeed failed me for the hopelessness of the situation then was much worse than I remembered.
Maybe you should try a little research. Your memory also seems to be playing tricks.
Harry & andy,
If you imagine that British troops will ever again be used to police NI then you are very mistaken. Most of NI is now de facto republican and will remain so. The rest will follow.
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 04:16 PMlib2016
This type of debate has been running for years and to tell the truth I am bored with it .
Hibernation is perhaps more attractive than reading some of this nonsense but please waken me up when the Queens Writ no longer runs throughout the six counties which forms NI.
For our American friends they should think that the local franchise which operated in NI was exactly like the arrangements in many large American cities such as NY but I don’t think the disenfranchised Irish went out seeking civil rights.Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 04:51 PMlib2016
If you are claiming like your leader that “...nationalists and republicans who were denied basic human and civil rights, including the right to vote, access to housing and work”, and were around at that time, then you are as much a liar as he is.
And while we’re at it, let’s cut the crap altogether, Adams had no involvement at all in the Civil Rights Association.
No one from those times can ever remember him playing any part.The disruption was used as an excuse by adams and his cohorts to launch a violent campaign to force unionists into a unitary state.
The civil rights demands were achieved by about 1973, but Adams and his accomplicies continued with their deeply sectarian campaign for almost another 30 years.Similar violent methods are now being used to suppress people in nationalist areas.
You are a cheerleader for a deeply fascist organisation.
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 04:53 PMTurgon, spot on, rather worrying that no one else picked up on that rather fantastic piece of justification by Adams. Quite simply staggering.
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 04:58 PMWell - we’re all satisfied then?
Adams and the vast majority of Irish people go on winning friends and influencing people and Irish unionists persist in justifying their own refusal to do so.
Remember that it was by your own choice and spare us the inevitable MOPEism ;-)
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 05:11 PM“Remember that it was by your own choice and spare us the inevitable MOPEism”
The barely concealed threats cut no ice, this isn’t the Jews in Nazi Germany you’re dealing with.
Your leader is a barefaced liar is where we started on this and you have be unable to mount any coherent argument to prove otherwise.
For the simple reason it is true.Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 05:18 PMWhen Civil Rights Association founder Gerry Fitt was bombed out of his home by the IRA, was that because of the unionist reaction to the Civil Rights Association?
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 05:20 PMBoth the nationalist and unionist mainstreams have decided that peaceful coexistence is the only way forward. Clearly you don’t want to be part of that consensus but what is your alternative?
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 05:29 PMMine is peaceful coexistence, with Adams relegated to a national laughing stock - which means I’m quids in, because it increasingly looks as though relegating Adams to a national laughing stock aids peaceful coexistence. You can tell he’s noticed it too. He’s got the haunted look about him lately.
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 05:36 PMlib2016
Oh, but I do.
But surely by peaceful coexistence you don’t mean unionists, or anybody else for that matter, having to sit mute while your leader spouts barefaced lies to try and retrospectively justify a sectarian murder campaign.
Or maybe you do.
But then that wouldn’t so much be peaceful coexistence as a forced orthodoxy.Sorry, peaceful coexistence, yes.
Pretending barefaced lies are truth, no.There is no contradiction in my position, perhaps you should examine your own.
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 05:45 PMAccept all Unionist views - it’s too historically close for objective analysis from your perspective. From afar, however, he stopped the war - a good thing - and largely stopped others pursuing it - another good thing.
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 05:51 PMdewi
Did he and the IRA Army Council really have any other choice?Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 05:55 PM
