…it's pointless demonising the dissidents as gangsters with no politics. There are clear parallels between their campaign and the Provos. The Provos were wrong then and the dissidents are wrong now. Their campaign will bring death and misery to all involved.It is probably only a few who feel that the whole purpose of the Derry attack was to rub Martin McGuinness’s nose in it. But doing so was almost certainly one factor in the Real IRA’s strategic deliberations. While McGuinness was lining up with the British Tories at their annual conference, where they marginalised him to the fringe, the Real IRA was announcing with a bang that the former Provisional IRA chief of staff was a busted flush in terms of his ability to hand the head of republican political violence to the British state on a plate. The timing of the attack led McGuinness into standing shoulder to shoulder with the squires from the shires in a crescendo of condemnation of republican armed activity. In his critique of the bombers the North’s Deputy First Minister referred to them as conflict junkies and Neanderthals. The irony was not lost on observers who have been quick to point out that the Real IRA are branded Neanderthals because they seek to ape McGuinness who in his day blitzed Derry.
After the killing of two British soldiers in Antrim in March of last year Martin McGuinness lambasted the Real IRA as traitors, demonstrating the validity of Tallyrand’s comment that treason is a matter of dates. If the organisation was irritated by the comments it maintained an inscrutable expression. But when the opportunity presented itself to turn the worm the Real IRA did so with rapier like delivery. It issued a statement designed to position McGuinness as far removed from republicanism as Margaret Thatcher. A Real IRA spokesperson told the Sunday Tribune:
It was entirely appropriate that Martin McGuinness's condemnation of the IRA operation came from the Tory conference. The man who once bombed Derry into the ground is now on the side of bankers and big business. His sentiments are in keeping with those of his Tory friends. The contrast between McGuinness and those still committed to the republican struggle couldn't have been greater.It was a stinging rebuke for the former Provisional IRA leader whose political and strategic achievements were shown to be tiny when the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, made it clear that the North of Ireland might as well be Finchley. Perhaps for this reason the Irish Times could comment, ‘… it can hardly be denied that the dissidents are now solidly rooted in the place republicanism was anchored through much of the conflict.’
A really excellent post Anthony,it really does show how far from reality Mc Guinness has drifted,or has he as some suggest been in the pocket of the brit establishment for a good few years,instead of engaging in one line sounbites critising the actions of militant republicans had he been genuine he would as an leader of an armed faction engage those republicans in genuine dialogue instead of mouthing of at the side of conservative,unionst,police leaders and from Stormonts steps, I think you called it right mo cara when you refered to Mc Guinness as a busted flush.
ReplyDeleteanyone know of the parallel between the cop loving real and the PROVOS,
ReplyDeletethe real still use 1970s car bombs
did they never hear of the van or lorry bombs
see that john hume clone eamonn
mcCann said that he would take his seat at westminister and take the oath to tha anti- catholic crown if he was elected, i do not take advice from those who are opposed to equality.
I remember at the funeral of a volunteer mcguinness told the mourners to look into they eyes of the RUC so they could see the face of defeat. What a ballbag.
ReplyDeleteLarry would,nt it be brill to collect the speaches of Adams and Mc Guinness from over they years, and get them to explain the gaol time, deaths, destruction and suffering, they caused,they surely are in no position to lecture anyone about political violence.
ReplyDeleteMarty,
ReplyDeleteI don't believe he has been in the Brit pocket in terms of having worked for them. But he has ended up in a bad place and has taken the republican struggle with him. The arrogance of power prevents him from engaging the republicans in the way he should. Bu could he really say any more to them than the Sticks could say to us? Treaty and anti-Treaty politics tend to be mutually repellant
Michaelhenry,
sometimes it does to listen to more than only those who agree with you. The Real IRA are lethal enough with car bombs without people prompting them to use van and lorry bombs. In the end all the bombs failed to produce anything remotely like a republican outcome.
Larry,
this is one of the reasons that the peace process has been steeped in deceit. There is no logical link between the Provisional IRA's campaign and the outcome they signed up for.
Mackers, I think what is going on here in terms of the continuation of 'republican armed conflict' is the result of all the lies and deceit.
ReplyDeleteWe never got a solution here, we were sold. We were sold for political clout, high profile jobs and the guarantee that the powers that be would look the other way while those at the top of Sinn Fein and the IRA accumulated vast sums of wealth by any possible means.
Few people could ever have imagined the end goal, just as few people could have ever imagined the price people would pay for speaking out.
Anthony,
ReplyDelete"It is probably only a few who feel that the whole purpose of the Derry attack was to rub Martin McGuinness’s nose in it."
The 'strategic deliberations' of this attack were very clever. While it will elicit no gain the product was substantial and multi faceted. Foremost it highlighted McGuinness' attendance at a Tory conference and goaded him into a condemnation from that venue. Struck me as a political school boy error for such a seasoned player to do so. Moreover the bank is staffed by PSNI relatives who had previously been threatened and received ammunition by post and fulfills a previous threat to target the banking sector and plays to populist sentiment. Thirdly it's design was to punish and intimidate a hotelier by collaterally damaging his hotel structurally and financially on account of his having previously hosted policing board meetings. The icing on the cake was the closure of a main arterial route.
In the words of Blackadder, in this attack like others, the Real IRA,".. have advanced as far as an asthmatic ant with heavy shopping."
How does armed struggle undermine normalisation, when in fact it merely ensures that no matter how useless Peace Processing Sinn Fein are as politicians, the tactic guarantees they will continue to reap electoral benefit from it?
ReplyDeleteJust like the SDLP before them PPSF knows that their support won't decline as long as there are those who continue go against the people's desire for peace. People genuinely believe that if they reject PPSF at the polls it will be seen by those who believe in armed struggle as support for their methods.
I believe the time is ripe for Republicans to unite the various groups and challenge the system using peaceful means.
Not one politician has pointed out that billions are being pumped into two corrupt wars, while the ordinary man and woman on the street are being forced to pay for it through these cuts. Why can't Republicans block roads with placards proclaiming this? Why aren't they standing outside dole offices handing out leaflets informing the unemployed that their benefits are being cut to pay for bombing Iraqis or Afghans?
If they left aside the guns and bombs and got together as one group, then people would surely listen to them. The problem is can they even get together in the first place?
To all,
ReplyDeleteAs an "outsider looking in" I have always seen the Irish cause as divided. Too many chiefs and not enough Indians. The Irish do not vote in a block. To me, there are always "safety in numbers" and until the Irish can come together and vote in that block, you will remain divided. I see it here in the USA. The Irish tend to vote Democrat regardless of whether the person is qualified or not? They tend to vote “party only” (i.e, PSF). Why is that? The Brits know that there is "division among you" and therefore play on it. The bottom line among republicans should first be a re-united Ireland and then take it from there. Maybe I am simplifying it, but until all republicans are on the same page...nothing will ever change.
Marty, i don't think i could suffer all their 'forty-faced' quotes. Mackers i think you are more than lenient on mcguinness. He has surely been in a snug-zone with mi6 for quite some time. Adams on the other hand, as Liam has 'exposed' for us all to see, has been filthy rotten for a very long time.
ReplyDeleteThe political careerists outmanouvered the military. Well done the BBC and the belfast mafia.
The only thing saving them is the general realisation that 'freedom' means political fraud and greed. Pitty those foolish enough to have lost or shed blood or served time for any country only to see fat gobshites rip the place off. NEVER AGAIN should be the universal war-cry.
Anthony,
ReplyDeleteI am uneasy about labelling armed actions as "anything but legitimate"; also I am unsure about Eamonn McCann's linking the dissidents with the PIRA. I suppose this line of thinking reminds me of the revisionist construct of lumping together all past and present armed resistance against the British state and deeming it all illegitimate. For me, each of the various republican armed campaigns has to be viewed in its own context; for example, I think there was a good case for war in 1916, an even better one in 1919, but I am less sure about the PIRA campaign. If I was pushed, I would probably deem it unjustified but understandable.
I think the dissidents’ campaign is futile; they have no popular support and the state they are trying to destroy, though illegitimately established, is over 90 years old and has the backing of the majority of its citizens. Also, there is no state oppression of nationalists/Catholics anymore in Northern Ireland. So there isn’t much of a case for war. Nevertheless, I’m not sure that there are “clear parallels” between the dissidents and the PIRA - if there are, what are they?
Alfie, the IRA campaign was essentially about getting the Brits out of Ireland, in that context it is as relevant now as it was at any previous stage.
ReplyDeleteIn 1916, those captured after the Rising were spat at and heckled by their own people.
IRA campaigns have never generated mass support, 69 was different because the IRA were initially embraced as defenders, few people cared about the republican ideal.
Today, people want peace and they will accept it at any price.
Ireland is probably more British today than at any other time in our history. Debating whether or not the IRA campaign is legitimate is also part of our history.
Nuala,
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure that IRA campaigns have never generated mass support. Firstlym the historian Joe Lee claims that initial reactions against the Rising were perhaps due to erroneous newspapers reports and rumours that the rebels were part of a German plot to invade the country. Furthermore, he writes:
"It is possible that public opinion... was not so much reversed as simply crystallised by a combination of the executions and better information."
Secondly, historians such as John A Murphy and Diarmuid Ferriter have acknowledged that the IRA's guerrilla war in 1919-21 could not have been successfully waged without significant popular support.
The IRA was at its height during the War of Independence.
ReplyDeleteSinn Fein were also at their most popular around that time.
That does not suggest however, that IRA campaigns enjoyed mass support.
I never heard the German Plot, theory, no doubt it is totally credible.
I do know however, that 26 years later they were able to hang a young republican in the Crumlin Prison for treason! And only a handfull of people stood outside the prison in protest.
I know that, around this time my maternal grandmother placed a Connolly poster in her window in the heart of the Lower Falls and they got smashed!
In relation to the legitimacy of the recent campaign, I merely gave the opinion that, paramount to IRA thinking has been the ideal, that a panacea for Irish ills is the total removal of the British.
Given the fact, that such an ideal apparently still remains, then the people who claim their end goal is the removal of the Brits are as justified as anyone who made the before.
Nual listen to Luke Kelly recite For what died the sons of Roisin,
ReplyDeleteNuala,
ReplyDeleteI think it goes without question that there are people who feel cheated rather than defeated
Robert,
If your analysis is right it suggests some clever thinking – reinforced by stupid thinking on the part of McGuinness – by the Real IRA. But ultimately, it is leading to nothing.
Dixie,
If you saw Spotlight on the republicans you can see how bleak the future is. Kelly made the case for the Catholics but in many ways showed how little the process had delivered
Helen,
The problem is they disagree so vehemently on how to get a united Ireland.
Larry,
There is nothing new in my position here as has been documented elsewhere. It is a question of evidence. His relationship with MI6 does not mean he was working for them; working with them, yes, and in a manner that secured the defeat of the IRA. But that does not amount to him being an agent. Some of his biggest critics maintain that had he been a tout things would have been very different.
Nuala,
ReplyDeleteI think that the 1916 Rising was justified because three attempts had been made to obtain Home Rule over the previous thirty years and all had failed. The British offer in 1914 was partition. Force (or the threath of it) had worked for the unionists in scuppering all-Ireland Home Rule, so there was reason to believe that force might work for republicans.
In 1918, Sinn Fein's election manifesto promised that it would use "any and every means available" to achieve a 32-county republic. It won 73 out of 105 seats. Though its percentage of the vote was technically 46.9%, this was not a true reflection of its support because it ran unopposed in 25 constituencies where it enjoyed mass support; analysts estimate that at minimum Sinn Fein would have had 53% of the vote, though, realistically, its vote share would more likely have been in the order of 65%. This, to me, was a mandate to fight for an Irish republic. I don't think it could have been an effective fight if Sinn Fein and the IRA hadn't enjoyed mass support. What makes you think they did not? By the way, Sinn Fein's manifesto also invoked the Easter Rising volunteers and their proclamation, so the electorate effectively endorsed the Rising as well.
I suppose my point is that later IRA campaigns did not generate mass popular support throughout the island of Ireland, so I don't think they were justified to the same extent as earlier ones. Of course, one wouldn't need a mandate to fight British state forces in Northern Ireland if they were oppressing people to the degree that, say, the Nazis oppressed the Jews, but, as bad as things were for Catholics/nationalists in the North, they were never like that. Indeed, most if not all of the civil rights that Catholics/nationalists demanded in the late 60's and early 70's have been granted. Also, I think that the state of Northern Ireland is firmly established and won't join the Republic without the consent of the majority of its citizens. There was a chance to create an all-Ireland republic by military means in 1916 and again in 1919-21, but it wasn't realised, and the chance no longer exists today. So for all these reasons, I think that the dissidents' campaign is futile and unjustified.
Alfie, British occupation is British occupation whether it be in 1916 or 2010.
ReplyDeleteRepublicians have always rightly claimed that, had Ireland been able to free herself from the drudegery of occupation, then in all probability we could and would have had a better chance of advancing ourselves on a global stage.
I did not say that the campaign in 1918 did not enjoy mass support. I said in general IRA campaigns did not. Even in areas identified as so called IRA strongholds few people would have offered actual hands on support.
Most IRA campaigns were fought almost exclusively on the tenets of a warfare, which meant support had to translate into something a lot more meaningful than a tick on an electoral paper.
To say, that most of the Civil Rights demands were sorted late 60s early 70s is a nonsense.
Blatant discrimination in housing and jobs was still very much on the go well into the 90s.
Discrimination althought almost exclusively covert is still alive today. Republicans are been stitched up in manufactured show trails. Orange drums are still forced through districts where they are not wanted.
Republicans are still kept out of certain jobs, ex-prisoners cannot avail of certain types of insurance. Republicans cannot holiday in certain countries and their families also suffer from the legacy.
You say, it might have been understandable had we suffered like the Jews. Irish people have been robbed, starved, murdered and incarcerated for hundreds of years and you think fighting back was unjustified!
Wanting to free ourselves from England, 'futile and unjustified' sounds a very good idea from where I'm standing.
Alfie,
ReplyDelete‘I am uneasy about labelling armed actions as "anything but legitimate".’
I am uneasy too about it given where I come from. But it is better to start out from that position so that armed actions become a last resort rather than a first one.
McCann is right to link the republicans of today with the Provos of yesterday. You state that:
‘this line of thinking reminds me of the revisionist construct of lumping together all past and present armed resistance against the British state and deeming it all illegitimate.’
This works both ways. The Provos tried linking them all in a bid to legitimise their own armed actions. There are continuities and discontinuities in these matters and teasing them out helps to create the context. Context is not a given.
1916 and 1919 can both be challenged from a nationalist perspective. Kee is both interesting and accessible on this. As republicans we may not accept his critique but rejection does not amount to invalidation. The case has always to be made.
The republican campaign is futile. There is less popular support for it than there was for the Provos. But the substantive issue is that the minority who backed the Provos was bigger than the minority who back the republicans. That hardly suggests a qualitative distinction.
‘I’m not sure that there are “clear parallels” between the dissidents and the PIRA - if there are, what are they?
Ideology – republicans give the exact same reasons for fighting as the Provos did.
Minority support – The most honest thing the Provos can say to the republicans is ‘our minority was bigger than yours.’
Bombing Derry
ReplyDeleteNuala,
I think there is a tendency to exaggerate the extent of support for the IRA during some previous campaigns. Even in the War Of Independence the endorsement of Sinn Fein electorally did not translate as easily into support for armed struggle. The killing of the two RIC at Soloheadbeg, which effectively launched the campaign was carried out autonomously and without the approval of the elected Sinn Fein reps. That they later came to endorse the war is the type of logic the republicans are operating with today: their actions will at some point be endorsed.
Certainly pose 1923 the IRA campaigns in the North or in England were always based on minority support. There is no difference between today’s republicans and those who killed the RUC man for whom Tom Williams was executed. They were dismissed in terms equivalent to micro groups.
The Provos have to pretend that they got a victory when they achieved anything but and they cannot have the mirror of the republicans thrust in their faces to remind them of what the campaign was really about. So they need to pretend that the image is something else entirely, bearing no resemblance to themselves. But it is fooling fewer and fewer people.
Alfie,
ReplyDeleteAll Joe Lee allows for is the possibility. He offers nothing substantive.
Significance is in the eye of the beholder.
Today we have the English academic Professor Jon Tonge arguing that support for armed republicans sits at around 14% of nationalists in the North.
Nuala,
I read somewhere in recent years that the spitting never actually occurred but was a figment of the British imagination, an urban myth that became embedded in popular belief but without any substance to it. But the Rising was by no means popular. It became so later. I suppose a bit like the Provos. If you look at all the Johnnys today who weren’t in it when it was happening, you would be led into believing that all doors were open. The amount of mouths open in clubs never matched open doors.
Anthony,
ReplyDeleteYou are right that the Provos and the dissidents share the same ideology and that both enjoy only minority support. Those indeed are clear parallels. But I think another substantive issue is that the Provos had more cause to fight the British state: people marching for civil rights in Northern Ireland were being beaten off the streets by police officers who also turned a blind eye to loyalist mobs burning Catholics out of their homes. Whether this level of oppression justified an armed campaign against Britain I cannot say for sure; I am more inclined to think that defensive actions alone were justified since a majority of people on the island of Ireland had accepted a two-state solution. Anyway, there is no significant oppression of nationalists/republicans/Catholics in Northern Ireland today, so the dissidents have no real justification for going to war, given that only a minority support them.
"1916 and 1919 can both be challenged from a nationalist perspective. Kee is both interesting and accessible on this. As republicans we may not accept his critique but rejection does not amount to invalidation. The case has always to be made."
I'd be interested in reading Kee's critique - could you tell me which book(s)?
"The killing of the two RIC at Soloheadbeg, which effectively launched the campaign was carried out autonomously and without the approval of the elected Sinn Fein reps."
I think the start of the campaign ought to have had the imprimatur of the Dail. Nevertheless, I believe those who fought the British state in 1919-21 were justified given that a majority of people in the country supported the creation of a 32-county republic.
"All Joe Lee allows for is the possibility. He offers nothing substantive."
Joe Lee's main point is that the historical consensus on the public reaction to the Rising, which is that an initially hostile reception was transformed into retrospective support by the executions of its leaders, is not based on a scholarly review of the evidence. He demonstrates that the newspapers of the day initially deemed the Rising a German or socialist plot. He then suggests that better information allowed people to make a more informed judgment of the Rising in the weeks and months following it. Yes, what he offers is just a possibility, but, to me, it is equally as plausible as the historical consensus, if not more so.
Do you think that physical force republicanism ought to be rejected altogether? That is, do you think we must disown the Easter Rising and the War of Independence if we opposed the PIRA campaign or now oppose the dissidents' campaign ?
Mackers, I think Brendan Hughes's analysis was on the money. Brendan was able to distinguish between those who provided actual support and the flag wavers.
ReplyDeleteHe was also able to distinguish between 'coat trailers' and operators.
It is quite fashionable now to have been 'connected' or connected to someone who had been 'connected'
What is less fashionable is to be connected to someone who is 'connected' right now.
Support on the ground was minimal in the 40s, the only person who ever called to my paternal granny during the trial was a peeler, what an irony, a cop.
Now, they will all sit in the PD, Felons and spout about their deeds.
If as many doors had of been open as mouths the war would have been over in six months.
Nuala,
ReplyDelete"Discrimination althought almost exclusively covert is still alive today."
I don't doubt that some discrimination in Northern Irish society remains today, but I believe that significant discrimination by the state has been eliminated.
"You say, it might have been understandable had we suffered like the Jews. Irish people have been robbed, starved, murdered and incarcerated for hundreds of years and you think fighting back was unjustified!"
No, I think it is completely understandable that nationalists/Catholics resorted to violence in the North in the late 60's. But what I'm saying is that the level of oppression in Northern Ireland may not have justified an offensive campaign. I admit that I'm ambivalent about the PIRA's war: on the one hand, I admire the courage and idealism of people like Bobby Sands, Brendan Hughes, Anthony and yourself who fought against a repressive state; on the other, I see the war as unwinnable from the start and ultimately futile.
The moral philosophy of wars (or what little I know of it) is a hornet's nest and I'm less sure of it than I am about almost anything else.
Alfie,
ReplyDeleteI don't think the balance of political forces in 1916, 1921 or 1970-now allowed for a united Ireland
Anthony,
ReplyDelete"I don't think the balance of political forces in 1916, 1921 or 1970-now allowed for a united Ireland."
I'm not sure what you mean exactly. Are you saying that to secure a united Ireland by military means or otherwise would have been unlikely if not impossible? If so, do you think it was a mistake or even wrong to go to war?
Alfie,
ReplyDeleteAided by hindsight, the unionists were not going to go voluntarily into a United Ireland, the IRA could not have forced them and the British opted out of self interest to go for the least damaging option to themselves. There were a number of policy strains at play within the British state at the time. Strong elements favoured a united Ireland under Cumann na Gael.
Was it wrong to go to war? I think in history there are, as the historian Alan Bullock point out, always alternatives. Those who insist on their being none in most cases want the field free to themselves. 1916 was largely driven by a secret society, never a good thing. 1919 was driven by popular sentiment, but not overwhelming. I think a better case – although by no means conclusive - can be made for going to war then rather than in 1916.
I think the first question always to be asked in these matters is how can war be averted rather than started.
‘The moral philosophy of wars (or what little I know of it) is a hornet's nest and I'm less sure of it than I am about almost anything else.’
A very problematic area. I m reviewing a book on moral philosophy applied to the IRA’s campaign. Not an easy task.
Anthony,
ReplyDelete"Aided by hindsight, the unionists were not going to go voluntarily into a United Ireland, the IRA could not have forced them and the British opted out of self interest to go for the least damaging option to themselves."
Perhaps that is true, but the British could have (and should have, in my view) forced the unionists to accept all-Ireland Home Rule. When they did not, it made the case for a military attempt to secure independence stronger, even if that attempt was not to be successful.
"I think in history there are, as the historian Alan Bullock point out, always alternatives. Those who insist on their being none in most cases want the field free to themselves."
I agree that there are always alternatives. Indeed, Kevin Myers argues in today's Irish Independent that a political avenue to independence was open and that conditions in Ireland circa 1916-21 were not sufficiently repressive to justify an armed campaign against British forces. I would disagree though, given that political activity secured only partition in 1914 and that partial autonomy in a partitioned Ireland was still all that was on offer by 1919. Furthermore, I think that the principle of national self-determination is a fundamental right and is worth fighting for.
Do you think that we should still commemorate 1916? Do you think there should be a state celebration in 2016?
Alfie
ReplyDelete‘ the British could have (and should have, in
my view) forced the unionists to accept all-Ireland Home Rule.’
That is the same sort of argument we expounded during the Provo campaign. In terms of realpolitik I wonder how practical it was.
‘ I think that the principle of national self-determination is a fundamental
right and is worth fighting for.’
But nations are artificial products created by politics more often than by geography. Sinn Fein’s Father Flanagan made this point brilliantly in the 40s I think.
‘Do you think that we should still commemorate 1916? Do you think there
should be a state celebration in 2016?’
I do. But I think the government should do more to permit debate and discussion on the issue rather than celebrating it as a triumphalist assertion of nationhood. There is nothing wrong with the nation reaching a conclusion that the Rising was wrong, even if we think the nation is wrong in reaching that conclusion. That is where a nation’s real freedom lies – in being able to decide for itself rather than being a prisoner of its history.
Anthony,
ReplyDelete"That is the same sort of argument we expounded during the Provo campaign. In terms of realpolitik I wonder how practical it was."
To my mind, forcing the nationalist majority to accept partition was a lot less practical than forcing the unionist minority to accept the decision of the British parliament and the will of the majority of people in Ireland.
"But nations are artificial products created by politics more often than by geography. Sinn Fein’s Father Flanagan made this point brilliantly in the 40s I think."
To a certain extent, I agree. However, there were several reasons up until the partition of Ireland to treat the island of Ireland as a multi-ethnic whole; for example, the lack of a credible border between nationalists and unionists and the implicit recognition of Ireland as a nation by the British government before the Home Rule crisis, in particular in the Act of Union itself.
If you think nations are artificial and created by politics, I can't see why you'd object to the state of Northern Ireland and its police force. I mean, what reason is there to object to them if one believes that the idea of national self-determination on the island as a whole is artificial?
Alfie,
ReplyDelete‘To my mind, forcing the nationalist majority to accept partition was a lot less practical than forcing the unionist minority to accept the decision of the British parliament and the will of the majority of people in Ireland.’
But the vast majority of nationalists in the country opted for it. Those who did not over the year were for the most part in the North and they were outnumbered by the unionists. For most of the period post-partition until circa 1970 it was a largely pacified country. And from then on it was not partition that destabilised it but the inequality and repression.
So while it might have been more ethical for the British state to do as you say it might not have been more practical.
‘there were several reasons up until the partition of Ireland to treat the island of Ireland as a multi-ethnic whole.’
I agree and think the argument can still be made. But again realpolitik at state level marches to the beat of a different drum. Decisions have to be made about the consequences of action that will arouse the hostility of a large number of recalcitrant people.
How else are nations in general created other than by politics? There is the historical, cultural, economic and geographical factors but I think all of this becomes subsumed within politics – a matter of who has the power to impose their definition of the nation onto others with a different view. Nations are not eternal entities. What is the history of the German nation other than a history that was created and which conjured a historical German nation into being? Anderson argued that nations are imagined communities. Nation states in the historical context are a relatively modern phenomenon.
I don’t support the NI state or its police because of my republican odyssey. It is a matter of conscientious objection. I could never in all conscience advocate that people who are just like me when I was at it, should be informed on and placed in the hands of the Continuity RUC. Again conscientious objection.
National self determination is a valid and noble objective but it is equally important for people to be free to determine that they not be subject to obligatory nationalism.
Overall, Alfie, I think self determination is a good idea but it cannot be reduced to the national dimension.
Anthony,
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of what you've written, but I just want to say a few more things.
"But the vast majority of nationalists in the country opted for it. Those who did not over the year were for the most part in the North and they were outnumbered by the unionists."
What I meant was that the preference for nationalists was initially for 32-county Home Rule and, from 1918, for a 32-county republic. They did indeed opt for partition after 2 years of war, but I don't believe that that was the outcome preferred by people in the South.
"For most of the period post-partition until circa 1970 it was a largely pacified country. And from then on it was not partition that destabilised it but the inequality and repression."
I agree. The majority of people on the island accepted partition from 1921 onwards; that is one reason why I don't think continued armed resistance was/is justified. Was the repression of nationalists in Northern Ireland severe enough to merit an offensive armed campaign against the British state? I cannot say for sure, for I didn't experience it, but from what I've read, I'm inclined to think that defensive actions alone were justified.
Your comments on the idea of nationhood are persuasive though unsettling.
"I don’t support the NI state or its police because of my republican odyssey. It is a matter of conscientious objection."
But what's your chief objection?
"I could never in all conscience advocate that people who are just like me when I was at it, should be informed on and placed in the hands of the Continuity RUC."
But if you now believe that what the Provos did was wrong and what the dissidents are now doing is wrong also, then don't you think those still waging war should be arrested and imprisoned? I'm unsure about this issue myself because, though I oppose the NI state, I don't want to see another Omagh.
Alfie
ReplyDelete'What I meant was that the preference for nationalists was initially for
32-county Home Rule and, from 1918, for a 32-county republic. They did
indeed opt for partition after 2 years of war, but I don't believe that
that was the outcome preferred by people in the South.'
I think that is right. But the Brit state operated on the principle of
following the line of least resistance. Raison d'etat has guided it's
actions from early on. Which places a different hue on your comment
about it being easier for the Brits to coerce the unionists into a united
Ireland than it was to coerce the nationalists to accept partition.
'I'm inclined to think that defensive actions alone were justified.'
This is a strategic-cum ethical argument and is easier to apply with
hindsight than at the time. But I think there is much to be said for it.
But what's your chief objection?
There is no one chief objection but I don't want to be governed by a British state with the history that it has.
'But if you now believe that what the Provos did was wrong and what the
dissidents are now doing is wrong also, then don't you think those
still waging war should be arrested and imprisoned? I'm unsure about
this issue myself because, though I oppose the NI state, I don't want
to see another Omagh.'
But I don't think that the Provos were entirely wrong. Nor do I blame them for making an armed response. I just wish we had have tried another way given what we know now. It is a bit like the question 'are you for or against France?'
There is no straightforward answer.
'I don't want to see another Omagh'
Nor I. Nor another Enniskillen or Shankill. Would I tout to prevent it?
No. Would I make public information that I had if that was the only way to prevent it?
Yes. There are ways to protect life without becoming a tout. Sinn Fein don’t advocate touting to protect life but to grab power.