Latest:

22:12 Three-sy does it for Cottagers
22:02 Dindane claims dramatic equaliser
22:02 Tuncay snatches point for Potters
22:02 Tevez and Adebayor on target for City
21:22 Ex-Beatle Macca visits the Commons
20:02 Dublin mayoral election 'this year'
19:32 I feared for my future - Jones
19:32 Afghanistan deaths soldiers named

Opinion: How the Provos 'sold out'

By Henry McDonald
Wednesday, 19 November 2008

51% majority not enough for Irish unity: Ahern

Bookmark & Share

What are these?

There were many actors in the tragedy played out in Northern Ireland between 1969 and 1994.

Each of them contributed to the carnage that pushed this society right to the edge of civil war.

They included the pre ’69 unionist establishment which resisted civil right reforms until it was too late. There was the rising evangelical wing of unionism led by Ian Paisley that, falsely, portrayed the civil rights struggle as an existential threat to the Northern Ireland state.

And there was British security policy that in the early part of the Troubles drove thousands of young men (and some women too) into the ranks of the emerging Provisional IRA. The Falls Curfew, Internment, Bloody Sunday, the torture of the ‘hooded men', the intransigence of the Thatcher government during the hunger strikes all contributed to the maelstrom the north of Ireland endured for three and a half decades. All bear some responsibility for the wasted lives and the spent opportunities for peace and progress. Then there was the Provisional movement itself emerging not only from the burnt out streets of the Falls and the Bogside but also from a plot to split republicanism and launch back into the ‘unfinished business' of re-claiming the Fourth Green Field. This would be done through a reckless and ruthless campaign of economic vandalism (the car bombs destroying Belfast and Derry's commercial centres for example) and targeted killings of the security forces.

Contrary to current orthodoxy the Provisionals were not just fired with a thirst for revenge against the loyalist assaults of late summer in 1969.

For the older men, many of them southern based, who tapped into this raw anger this was their heaven sent chance to achieve Irish unity by force of arms and finally realise the goals of physical force republicanism.

The purpose of my latest book, Gunsmoke and Mirrors, was and is to challenge recent attempts to re-write the history of the Troubles, to re-cast the ‘armed struggle' as somehow the logical extension of the civil rights movement, to create a new myth, namely that the campaign of sabotage and assassination would somehow lead to Catholic equality within the Northern Ireland state. Nor should this political and social turmoil be seen as the inevitable consequence of the atmosphere of those times, as inexorable as air turbulence in bad weather. Those that launched and directed the ‘war' were free agents who had alternative peaceful paths to choose, which they ignored and ridiculed.

The idea that thousands would have to die and thousands more go to jail or themselves lose their lives so we could have an Irish Language Act or the control of policing and justice powers WITHIN the Northern Ireland state is a gross, deliberate distortion of history.

The book highlights the ideological gear changes Sinn Fein went through to reach the current political accommodation with unionism. These major shifts in ideology have gone relatively unnoticed or reported in the mainstream Irish media, most notably in broadcasting. This is because in these times of dull, managerial politics, where elections are akin to consumers choosing which of two or three banks they should lodge their money with, the importance of ideology is lost upon those in the 24/7 media.

Of all the ideological flip flops the republican movement has undergone the most important is its attitude to unionism. For almost three decades the Provisionals dismissed unionism as a real political entity preferring to portray it (using an old Marxist phrase) as ‘false consciousness.' During this period the ‘British presence' was portrayed simply as the British soldiers from across the Irish Sea who patrolled the streets and the mandarins at Stormont who directed UK policy. Since the signing of the Belfast Agreement 10 years ago that analysis has altered radically — by signing up to an accord which enshrined the principle of consent, that is that there would be no constitutional change in Northern Ireland without a majority within that state saying so.

Therefore, those old republican mantras about breaking unionist vetoes, refusing to accept the legitimacy of what they regarded as an artificial state, the begrudging recognition that the ‘British presence' is those that see themselves as British; all this adds up to a 360 degree turn in mainstream republican ideology.

In essence the Good Friday agreement and latterly the St Andrews Agreement represent the victory for constitutional politics over revolutionary armed action. The outcome of the Troubles thus resembles a modern day political version of Aesop's fable of the Tortoise and the Hare.

For in the end, if ever there is to be Irish unity, it will be achieved through a slow, drawn out long term process of social and economic fusion rather than through an instant revolution imposed through the barrel of the gun and the far leftist simplicity of the ‘Troops Out' solution advocated by the likes of Tony Benn and Ken Livingstone. The two accords mark the victory of the Tortoise and the defeat of the Hare.

Gunsmoke and Mirrors: how Sinn Fein dressed up defeat as victory, by Henry McDonald, Gill and Macmillan, £16.99, www.gilland macmillan.ie

Comments

First |
Previous
1
2
Next
| Last

30 Comments

Reality – Referendum will involve both parts of the island. If there was substantial support in SI and a fair majority in NI then unification would likely proceed. However, the current reality is that subjecting us to a head counts would be counter productive. This may change in the future.
Current approach of harmonizing is the sensible approach to take. Unionists had to learn to share power with republicans before anyone could expect them to be ready to engage about the possibility of a united Ireland. This was once unpalatable to them but now they rush out of Stormont together with SF to announce government initiatives! Ahern states: “I believe that the sooner we engage in the process of addressing Irish unity, in all its complexities, with all of its challenges the many opportunities it will present, the sooner the reality will occur" It would be naive for anyone to think the IRA have stopped their campaign if their political objectives were rendered unachievable.

Posted by Observer | 21.11.08, 13:08 GMT

Alex, you have clearly no idea what a bigot is if you presume to label me one simply because I don't agree folk should press ahead with their futile endeavours for a UI and like Jake below, believe that their inherent republicanism should not prevent them from making NI work .

However Jake, if unionism and republicanism are "equally valid aspirations that should not prevent either side uniting together to make NI work", then how does a republican go about making NI work, when they have NO DESIRE for this to happen. Duh?

Posted by mickey | 21.11.08, 10:15 GMT

Alex's comments are rather amusing. You tell Mickey that he has "no respect for the beliefs of others", that he "trumpets his own view" and then you suggest he should "try looking at an arguement from both sides", because he might "learn something".

Over the last four decades, whilst the IRA was murdering over 1700 people, did they look at both sides of the argument? Respect the religious or political beliefs of others? No. They did however "trumpet" their own views, whilst trying to justify murder, maiming and destruction. So don't be too surprised if people are somewhat less than respectful of militant Irish Republicanism and are unwilling to buy into the ongoing attempt to rewrite history in order to sanitise their past.

Posted by Reality Check | 21.11.08, 01:08 GMT

This book and Bertie Ahern's comments regarding a majority of 51% wanting a united Ireland, being an insufficient and unworkable amount, should act as reality checks for Republicans. Alas, the true believers will probably continue to live in denial and wallow in the myths propagated by Sinn Fein.

Of course, to accept reality, simply opens the door to a lot of awkward questions about the last four wasted decades of IRA violence. It's much more comforting to rewrite history, believe the myths and indulge in dreams of Irish unity occurring in two or three decades.

Posted by Reality Check | 21.11.08, 00:51 GMT

Again Mickey you show yourself up for what you are, a bigot.
You dismiss the republican aspiration by comparing it to Santa, the tooth fairy etc.
You have no respect for the beliefs of others.
You trumpet your point of view, and if people don't accept it then they're delusional or mad.
Try looking at an argument from both sides, you might learn something.

Posted by Alex | 20.11.08, 16:01 GMT

Mickey, you make a fair point that people in NI should concentrate on Northern Irish unity and in making the place work. That should be the number one priority. However, despite your protestations to Alex your notion that "Folk here should give up on the notion of Irish unity...." is ridiculous

Nationalists have every right to aspire to a united Ireland and unionists like you to the continence of the union. Both equally valid aspirations that should not prevent either side uniting together to make NI work.

Posted by Jake M | 20.11.08, 15:38 GMT

Alex, republicans can believe in what they want. Santa, a United Ireland, the Tooth Fairy etc etc.

The offer will still be there - but the chances are that they would rebuke my offer of saying, "hey, come on for goodness sake, get a grip and let's together help make NI work". Just look how inspite of having their all-Ireland mandate, SF are now at the helm of a 'Northern Ireland' Executive with Unionists. Much to the annoyance of the uber-republicans.

The appeal is to less hardened republicans or nationalists, those edging towards sitting on the fence. And believe me when I say their number is increasing.

Posted by mickey | 20.11.08, 14:00 GMT

Hi

Mr. McDonald's view of politics in the north is sophomoric. As an Irishman, I find it embarrasing and annoying.

His book is likewise very silly.

Is mise le meas,
Liam Forde

Posted by Liam Forde | 20.11.08, 11:24 GMT

Niall, your ignorance knows no bounds. England this, England that. Try BRITAIN which amongst others includes Scots & the Welsh. Do you even know the nationality of the British PM??

Anyway, aren't you supposed to want to "unite" with me? Are you supposed to be romancing the notion of a united Ireland to me?

No, in fact you're telling me to sling my hook off to England. That's hardly illustrating your desire to "unite" with me!

If I was of similar mentality, I would suggest that if you desire the Irish Republic so much, go live there....

Posted by mickey | 20.11.08, 10:10 GMT

Mickey

You still don't get it! You still can't see things from another persons point of view! The very idea and notion of NI is abhorent to Republicans. Now, why would they want to forget their century-old desire for a United Ireland and suddenly claim allegiance to our little nation? They wouldn't, and the fact you think its a simple process and that their dreams are foolish, shows how fickle you are my friend.

Posted by Alex | 20.11.08, 08:13 GMT

The fascinating part of the whole sorry story of Northern Ireland can be demonstrated with 2 examples. First Paisleys amazing turn round and 2nd how easily it was for SF to become part of the establishment and the system. Conor Murphy........ "we are in Government now and hard decisions have to be made made, everyone will have to pay water rates".
Is there nothing that people wont do when an illusion of power is waved in front of them............ shame.

Posted by Patrick | 20.11.08, 02:00 GMT

the bottom line is there will never be unity.saying londonderry/derry offends people.ieland/northern ireland offends.this will always be the case and nothing we do will stop this.its a fact of life.the people in this country will always have their thoughts and beliefs which vary

Posted by chris | 19.11.08, 19:15 GMT

Alex, if you cared to read my original post, you will see no mention of aspirations to remain part of the UK, nor my denying that people aspire to a UI.

I was suggesting people embrace the notion of Northern Irishness rather than (implied) Britishness or Irish Republicanism.

I know its hard but please put your brain in gear before writing on these messageboards.

Posted by mickey | 19.11.08, 17:15 GMT

For the likes of Henry, relative peace comes at a price. There's not much to write about, is there. Income must be maintained, so here's a book. A book to warm the cockles of unionists in Britain and Ireland over xmas, and to pay for Henry's turkey. I wonder if Henry's assertion that republicans did a 360 degree turn reflects a lack of logic throughout the work, because, if they had performed this turn, surely they'd be occupying precisely the same postition as before. I think he meant a 180 degree turn, which would move them into the unionist camp. There appear's to be a need amongst the commentariat to summarise the end of the violence in the context of republican submission to a unionist wish list. Is it not the case that unrepentant former IRA commanders as equal partners in govt is far from what unionists wished for. In the subtle and finely calibrated mechanisms for power-sharing there's an admission that NI is a post-colonial mess in need of an almost unique settlement.

Posted by RedundantJournalist, Dublin | 19.11.08, 17:11 GMT

mickey, if you are so in favour of the union with england, why don't you go and live there.

the provos started out to break the connection with england, but what they have done in the past 10 years has sickened me, they have actually strengthened england's hold over us, so they have actually taken 2 steps back from '69, rather than small steps forward

Posted by Niall | 19.11.08, 16:57 GMT

Tom, I hacve posted this before - can you answer it cos nobody else has.
'Tell me why if the Republic is so good, over the last 80 years, the vast majority of people both protestant and catholic, leaving N.ireland, go east and not South. Tell me how you will replace tens of thousands of public sector jobs, lost when the Brits go. Add to that the large numbers of pro-Union people of both prod and catholic, who may well just take their wealth and jobs and go if we ever voted for a united Ireland - perhaps even leaving a scorched-earth policy. Then there's the paramilitaries who will always be opposed, even to a negotiated setllement - how will you deal with them, let them peddle drugs in your Dublin/Cork housing estates or maybe they'll make life hell for your Gards when they walk into Belfast. Who knows, they may even be joined by the unemployed nationalists left behind by the Brits. ' So what has Irish unity to offer anyone?

Posted by Paulo | 19.11.08, 16:28 GMT

Laird Shingleton - you say we should stop all inquests in to the death of the people over the troubles? Would you not like to know why a RUC landrover sat and watched a member of your family (Robert Hamill) get kicked to death? I know I would... or like the families of the Omagh bombing who want justice for their deaths...

Posted by Phat Tony | 19.11.08, 15:43 GMT

Mickey

You just don't get it, do you? Just as much as you aspire to stay within the UK, there is another section of the community who aspire to join a United Ireland. For you to dismiss those aspirations shows how politically inept you are. You can't make a bold statement asking for those people to give up on their dreams.

The term Northern Irish doesn't alienate me at all. I'm proud to say I am Northern Irish, but I can recognise and understand another persons aspirations, even if they are different to my own.
That concept must seem alien to you.

Posted by Alex | 19.11.08, 15:35 GMT

laird I know Peter Robinson has a criminal past (convicted in 1986 of a criminal offence by Irish courts) and (2002 found guilty of obstructing a public road by a court in Belfast) but he is in office because he stood for election and the way it works is if more people vote for you or your party then you get elected to office. It is called democracy and there are books etc about it, you should look it up.

Posted by Tom | 19.11.08, 15:27 GMT

The Troubles started in Northern Ireland over human equality -----same as the states in the 60's-----It turned into something religious to justify those killing people that god was on there side-but both are christian --------The troubles truned into Gangsters by the late 80's and by the early 90's The older ones that started it hadnt the stomach or the control to keep fighting -to many mistates by both sides on the streets brought them to the Table---First of all i am a proud Ulsterman of the old Province of Ireland -where different than the rest by alot because of our differances-----------And a point ot the future -Stop wasting Money on inquests to the past or do we put up Plakes all over Northern Ireland for each victam so we all remeber what happen and posin another generation with hate--------Use the Money for reabilitaion for victims and families------Last Point i dont understand how a person with a criminal past from any side of the troubles is in public office- unbelievable

Posted by Laird Shingleton | 19.11.08, 15:06 GMT