MG: My
views about armed struggle are no secret. When I joined Irish Northern Aid,
decades ago, I took a considered decision to join an organization whose guiding
principles included moral support for the armed struggle to end British rule.
For more than fifteen years as INA Publicity Director I gave interviews and
speeches, and also as Editor of the IRISH
PEOPLE weekly newspaper, wrote editorials and columns defending this
viewpoint.
HM: You make reference to emerging support
for alternative/independent Republican representatives in Ireland, say for
example in Derry. Do you see hope of that force building?
MG: The issues are there to be raised. The unionists have Jim Allister as the TUV tail that wags the DUP dog. Could independent Republicans do the same?
Just
last month I spoke in Tyrone at the 25 year commemoration of my closest friend
Liam Ryan. He was a victim of a ‘collusion murder’ arranged by crown forces as
he worked in the Battery Bar. I did not go to demean his life and legacy by any
‘sorry’ initiative, but to remember a patriot with pride. I recounted the British
injustices which drove him and so many others to armed resistance to break
British rule and establish a 32 county Ireland that could belong equally to all
of its citizens without sectarian divisions.
Obviously
anyone who ever believed armed struggle against British rule was justified,
must have been convinced that British rule was wrong, irreformable and could
only be maintained, indeed propped up by deeper injustices. That argument can still be made despite the
reconfiguration of British rule. Today Britain is determined to stay in the
north and confident they nailed the door shut on Irish reunification by
sanctioning the DUP to treat any moves toward justice like toilet paper.
However beyond the injustice of British
rule there must be a reasonable possibility of successfully ending British rule
and achieving a free and united Ireland. This means a reasonable expectation that
the struggle, as part of an array of political and economic forces, can
convince Britain to leave, after negotiations where they are persuaders for
Irish unity with guarantees of equality, instead of guarantors of continued
British rule and persuaders for unionist intransigence.
You
would need a sufficient popular acceptance or acquiescence in the use of force
in nationalist areas, or at minimum in Republican heartlands. You will not get
such support until political alternatives fail and are seen to have failed. You
must have the personnel, resources and support network to sustain a campaign.
There must be a well developed political strategy in which armed struggle is
only one part. Republicans had the capacity to sustain a long campaign across
the north which could not have been done without meeting these conditions.
I have no inside information about any
armed group and do not pretend to have any special knowledge or expertise in
this area. I am making a personal judgment based upon information publicly
available. It does not seem that these conditions exist today.
HM: In your own opinion, do you think those
groups involved in armed action should call off those campaigns?
MG: I would
expect and believe that the leaders of any armed Republican group are
evaluating their own capabilities in relation to these same conditions and
making a pragmatic as well as moral judgment on whether their campaigns are
advancing the objective of ending British rule and uniting Ireland.
HM: Do
you think that a tactical cessation at this time would enable the emergence of
alternative Republican politics?
MG: Clearly there are issues which provide
openings for alternative Republican politics. There is an inherent
contradiction between partnership with the DUP in British ministries and
advancing Republican objectives. Look at justice issues for a start. I accept
that there were people who did not join constabulary boards and partnerships or
back David Ford’s justice ministry intending to become cheerleaders for the
constabulary. Today that constabulary carries out the same policy of undeclared
immunity or impunity gifted to the Bloody Sunday or Ballymurphy Massacre
Troopers or those who arranged hundreds of collusion murders. That constabulary
meanwhile has no difficulty in moving against respected Republicans like Ivor
Bell, Gerry McGeough, Seamus Kearney and others on decade’s old charges.
Are those who took up places on these
boards unwilling or unable to do anything about these injustices? The British
certainly use them as cheerleaders, pointing to them to deflect any Irish-
American pressure about these injustices.
Look
at the Tory cuts bludgeoned through by David Cameron and Theresa Villiers. Why
has so much already been spent on water meters for the north if they are not
going to be used? Where are the peace dividend jobs for West Belfast and across
the north beyond slots for party workers?
The
universal response to these and other potential issues seems to be that if you
raise such inconvenient truths you want a “return to the past.” That is just
code words to scare voters by falsely linking votes for any Independent
Republican with an armed campaign.
I would expect and believe that leaders of
any armed Republican group are taking this on board as they make their own pragmatic
and moral judgments whether their campaigns are advancing the objective of
ending British rule and uniting Ireland.
MG: The issues are there to be raised. The unionists have Jim Allister as the TUV tail that wags the DUP dog. Could independent Republicans do the same?
Suppose an Independent Republican made a
real issue of the crown arresting Ivor
Bell and other Republicans on decades old charges, while drip feeding the
Bloody Sunday families with empty promises of
still more investigations. Could Sinn Fein take up a call to walk away
from its justice ministry compromise or constabulary boards? Could it afford not to do so and be seen as
party to such injustices? Could it still get away with lip-service?
If
issues like the lack of peace dividend jobs or the money spent for water meters
were raised by Republicans such questions could no longer be deflected or
dismissed as unionist point –scoring.
It should be remembered that not so many
years ago the SDLP scoffed at the idea of Sinn Fein ever winning seats and
taunted them with questions about having no support and being afraid to contest
elections.
The openings are there if Independent Republicans
have the political will, commitment and strategy to make proper use of them.
HM: I assume you still hold the position that
the current SF leadership’s policy of being in a British backed power sharing
government is not going to deliver a British withdrawal and a united Ireland?
MG: The British have no such illusions about
any such strategy. David Cameron formulates twenty-five year plans for the six
county economy. His priority in the Stormont House deal was bludgeoning through
cuts on the road to austerity. Theresa Villiers, like a modern Lady Macbeth,
walks around trying to rub away the bloodstains from British hands by denying
inquiries and giving speeches whitewashing the record of British forces in the
six counties.
They would not bother unless Britain
planned to stay. Republicans may have thought they had an agreement which would
open the door to a British withdrawal. Britain sees it as a chance to nail that
door shut.
Britain need no longer answer for its own
injustices. It can simply nod as the DUP treats any move towards justice, much
less a united Ireland like toilet paper. The British then say it is a devolved
matter or the parties will not agree, while denying funds and disclaiming any responsibility.
The British deflect any Irish-American pressure by saying that Sinn Fein supports
their policies and is integral to their administration and constabulary boards.
Where is there any pressure for British
withdrawal? They feel they have consolidated their strategic objectives of
normalization, Ulsterization and criminalization as never before, masked by
Sinn Fein’s visible presence.
HM: Do you think-at present at least-that the
armed Republican groups are being ground down and thwarted in large part
by British forces arguably as never
before?
MG: I have no special knowledge about what is
happening inside of any armed Republican group. I would be hesitant to make any
assessment in those terms. I can still remember one of Villiers’ predecessors,
Roy Mason, boasting of squeezing out Republicans like a tube of toothpaste. I
would not want to risk sounding so foolish.
No comments