Caoimhin O’Muraile ☭ According to Michelle O’Neill, deputy President of Sinn Fein, leader of the party in the six counties, and First Minister in waiting in the Legislative Assembly at Stormont there was “no alternative” to the military campaign conducted by the IRA. 

Is she correct in her conclusion? Let us take a very brief look at events leading up to that campaign, including the north's very own Kristallnacht.

In 1969 before the split in the republican movement the IRA was led by Cathal Goulding and Sean Garland. The Republican Movement of the day had taken a Marxist path – which was/is open to interpretation, a very questionable variant of this ideology – based very much on the Soviet model. It did not take into account the defence of beleaguered nationalist areas in the six-counties should they come under attack from loyalist/fascist mobs, something which had occurred periodically since partition of the island of Ireland in 1922. 

This policy was very much against orthodox republican tradition, partly based on the 18th century rural agrarian nationalist organisations like the “Defenders”. These were agrarian organisations formed to, as the name suggests, defend Catholics and Catholic land against Protestant groups like the aggressive Peep-o Day-Boys and, after 1795, an offshoot called the Orange Boys. This led to a split in the Republican Movement in 1969 with Goulding maintaining command over what became known as the “Official IRA” and a group styling themselves the “Provisional IRA” which split from the Goulding camp. 

The Provisionals saw the Goulding camp as betraying traditional republican principles in favour of a “foreign” Marxism. Whether it was or not is open to question, something which has been apparent in Irish Republicanism in its generic sense for many years. Orthodox Republicanism compared to Republican Socialism, Socialist Republicanism dating back to James Connolly’s time and possibly before produced obvious cleavages. Those who followed the socialist path were often accused, wrongly, of betraying the republican principles and leaving the nationalist areas defenceless. This may have been the case in the early days of the pogroms but back in 1916 it was the Socialist Republicans, todays Republican Socialists, who forced the issue of a rising. James Connolly was prepared to lead the Irish Citizen Army, republican socialists, with or without the Irish Volunteers who were generally, though perhaps not exclusively, orthodox, sometimes called traditional republicans in its Irish sense.

Between the 14th and 16th August 1969 loyalist/fascist gangs allegedly supported by the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) attacked nationalist areas. A nine-year-old boy, Patrick Rooney, was killed in his bedroom when the RUC opened fire on Divis Tower with machine guns. Bombay Street was burned to the ground as hundreds of nationalists fled their homes in fear for their lives. Many crossed the border into the 26 counties never to return as refugees from their beleaguered homes in West Belfast. Today we would describe these actions by loyalists as “ethnic cleansing”. As casualties mounted, eight Catholics lost their lives at the hands of the loyalists and RUC, arose a situation which had to be addressed. With Bombay Street in ruins and other streets faring not much better the north had its own Kristallnacht. For the offended community, predominantly Roman Catholic, going to the police for help was not an option and could be equated with a Jewish person approaching the SS for help after the Nazi Kristallnacht of 1938.

The IRA of the day, 1969, due to incompetent leadership in Dublin, far removed from the realities in the six counties, were ill equipped to deal with this crisis. Small IRA units did their best with very limited resources to defend the areas. Residents of the affected areas began to daub on the walls, in my view a little unfairly to those volunteers who tried to help, IRA=I Ran Away which was not the case. They tried their best to defend the beleaguered population, I cannot overemphasise that fact, with no tools to do the job. It was against this background that the split in the republican movement occurred.

Since 1922 the Ulster Unionist Party had dominated politics in the six county statelet. They had constantly turned a blind eye to loyalist violence and pogroms against nationalists. The events of 1969 were to alter the landscape in the six counties forever, and not in the way the loyalist/fascist thugs backed by the RUC wanted. With the unwillingness and perhaps inability of the Goulding led IRA to defend the areas in any meaningful way something had to be done. 

A group of traditional republicans, people like Daithi O’Connell, Seamus Twomey, Ruiari O’Bradaigh, and Sean Mac Stiofain (John Stephenson) formed the Provisional IRA. They began recruiting into their ranks much to the anger of the now termed “Official IRA” led by Goulding. The Provisionals calculated, rightly in my view, that the unionist misrule of the six counties which allowed these pogroms to periodically happen, was only possible because the parent Government in London allowed it to. They were, in the eyes of the Provisionals, to blame ultimately for what had happened. Westminster could have, had they wanted to, intervened and overruled the unionist administration. It was in Westminster that governance of the whole United Kingdom, including the six counties, operated. 

Not until 1972 due in no small part to the IRA military actions, chiefly, though not exclusively Provisional, did the British Government intervene. They introduced direct rule from London taking power out of the unionist’s hands. The Official IRA called a ceasefire in 1972 which has held to this day. London’s intervention was too little too late for the Provisionals. The Provisional IRA's blueprint plan was, firstly defence against loyalist mobs. Later they would move into offensive mode against the British. In 1970 both factions of the IRA, chiefly the Officials at the time, were in action against British forces on the Lower Falls area of West Belfast. Here a gun battle lasting over four hours ensued between the British Army and the IRA. 

On the night of the 27th - 28th June 1970 the Provisional IRA were in action independently for the first time. The Battle of St. Mathews or the Battle of Short Strand the PIRA defended 6,000 nationalist who were surrounded by 60,000 loyalists many of who were trying to attack St. Mathews Church. The Provisionals had successfully defended the area led by the legendary IRA Belfast commander, Billy McKee. The Provisionals had given a good account of themselves and the residents for the first time in this vulnerable area felt much safer, as recruitment began to rise into the Provisionals ranks. Young men and women who were pissed off with being treated as shit, second class citizens, and arson targets by loyalists and fascists decided the Provisional wing was for them. The Provisional IRA was born and would become the larger wing of the two groups, as the Officials called a ceasefire in 1972.

In the early years of the war the question of was there an “alternative” to the IRA’s actions can be answered in one word, No! There really was “no alternative” to the IRA campaign, certainly in its defensive role. It was the actions of the IRA, chiefly Provisional, which put an end to the loyalist pogroms, though the loyalist paramilitaries still managed to shoot individual Catholics or people they deemed as Catholic, but the mass burnings and ethnic cleansing stopped thanks in no small part to the IRA. Others may differ with my analysis, which is their right, but if gangs of undesirables were trying to burn me and my family out of house and home and an organisation came along who could do something about it, then that organisation gets my vote.

What may be more questionable, and others more qualified than me could answer this one, were the events and actions by the IRA which happened later on in the conflict justified? I was never a member of the Provisional Movement (the IRSP were more in line with my own politics) so am not privy to their decision-making process and rationale. Neither was I around in Belfast at the time - 1986 was my first experience. The early defences by the Provisional IRA would certainly justify their actions. Their first role of defending had been a success and they had brought down the unionist domination of the political scene in the six counties. In 1972 Stormont fell and victory could justifiably have been claimed. The Provisionals had by then embarked on their offensive campaign against the British Army and Government. Their military actions – joined after 1974 by the INLA, which had a different political agenda, who had also split from the Officials – was in many ways successful. It forced the British to do what they vowed never to do; talk to terrorists as the British viewed the IRA. That said, many argue with much justification that most which was offered in 1998 was also on the table in the seventies and could have been taken up then without further loss of life. Could this have been the case?

In April 1998 the political representatives of orthodox republicanism (not to be confused with Republican Socialism) entered into talks with the unionist parties and the moderately nationalist SDLP and neutral Alliance Party – the Multi-Party Talks – which led to the Multi-Party Agreement. Annex this with the British/Irish Agreement and we have the Good Friday Agreement, recognised in international law. This agreement may have been a good deal from the point of view of the SDLP and Alliance parties but it was/is not what republicans of any shade had fought for.

So, was there “no alternative” to the IRA actions. Were they justified? In my view, for what it is worth and taking the whole picture into account, especially the early days, then I would go along with Michelle O’Neill’s assessment, there was “no alternative.” The loyalists made it that way, as did actions like the Ballymurphy Massacre of August 1971 and Bloody Sunday in Derry January 1972 carried out by the British Army add much weight to this justification. The loyalists and the British created a situation and did not like the response!

A point of observation and noteworthiness, and despite their early inabilities to protect the nationalist areas one thing comes to mind. Of the three major republican military organisations, Official IRA, Provisional IRA and INLA only the Officials have not decommissioned. They called a ceasefire back in 1972, forty years ago and have maintained it. They have not handed over one piece of weaponry. There is a notion about the Officials giving their weapons, or some of them, to the Free Wales Army who subsequently lost them in a lake. How much truth there is in this tale, if any, I do not know. Others may be more conversant with the subject?
 
Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent 
Socialist Republican and Marxist

No Alternative?

Caoimhin O’Muraile ☭ According to Michelle O’Neill, deputy President of Sinn Fein, leader of the party in the six counties, and First Minister in waiting in the Legislative Assembly at Stormont there was “no alternative” to the military campaign conducted by the IRA. 

Is she correct in her conclusion? Let us take a very brief look at events leading up to that campaign, including the north's very own Kristallnacht.

In 1969 before the split in the republican movement the IRA was led by Cathal Goulding and Sean Garland. The Republican Movement of the day had taken a Marxist path – which was/is open to interpretation, a very questionable variant of this ideology – based very much on the Soviet model. It did not take into account the defence of beleaguered nationalist areas in the six-counties should they come under attack from loyalist/fascist mobs, something which had occurred periodically since partition of the island of Ireland in 1922. 

This policy was very much against orthodox republican tradition, partly based on the 18th century rural agrarian nationalist organisations like the “Defenders”. These were agrarian organisations formed to, as the name suggests, defend Catholics and Catholic land against Protestant groups like the aggressive Peep-o Day-Boys and, after 1795, an offshoot called the Orange Boys. This led to a split in the Republican Movement in 1969 with Goulding maintaining command over what became known as the “Official IRA” and a group styling themselves the “Provisional IRA” which split from the Goulding camp. 

The Provisionals saw the Goulding camp as betraying traditional republican principles in favour of a “foreign” Marxism. Whether it was or not is open to question, something which has been apparent in Irish Republicanism in its generic sense for many years. Orthodox Republicanism compared to Republican Socialism, Socialist Republicanism dating back to James Connolly’s time and possibly before produced obvious cleavages. Those who followed the socialist path were often accused, wrongly, of betraying the republican principles and leaving the nationalist areas defenceless. This may have been the case in the early days of the pogroms but back in 1916 it was the Socialist Republicans, todays Republican Socialists, who forced the issue of a rising. James Connolly was prepared to lead the Irish Citizen Army, republican socialists, with or without the Irish Volunteers who were generally, though perhaps not exclusively, orthodox, sometimes called traditional republicans in its Irish sense.

Between the 14th and 16th August 1969 loyalist/fascist gangs allegedly supported by the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) attacked nationalist areas. A nine-year-old boy, Patrick Rooney, was killed in his bedroom when the RUC opened fire on Divis Tower with machine guns. Bombay Street was burned to the ground as hundreds of nationalists fled their homes in fear for their lives. Many crossed the border into the 26 counties never to return as refugees from their beleaguered homes in West Belfast. Today we would describe these actions by loyalists as “ethnic cleansing”. As casualties mounted, eight Catholics lost their lives at the hands of the loyalists and RUC, arose a situation which had to be addressed. With Bombay Street in ruins and other streets faring not much better the north had its own Kristallnacht. For the offended community, predominantly Roman Catholic, going to the police for help was not an option and could be equated with a Jewish person approaching the SS for help after the Nazi Kristallnacht of 1938.

The IRA of the day, 1969, due to incompetent leadership in Dublin, far removed from the realities in the six counties, were ill equipped to deal with this crisis. Small IRA units did their best with very limited resources to defend the areas. Residents of the affected areas began to daub on the walls, in my view a little unfairly to those volunteers who tried to help, IRA=I Ran Away which was not the case. They tried their best to defend the beleaguered population, I cannot overemphasise that fact, with no tools to do the job. It was against this background that the split in the republican movement occurred.

Since 1922 the Ulster Unionist Party had dominated politics in the six county statelet. They had constantly turned a blind eye to loyalist violence and pogroms against nationalists. The events of 1969 were to alter the landscape in the six counties forever, and not in the way the loyalist/fascist thugs backed by the RUC wanted. With the unwillingness and perhaps inability of the Goulding led IRA to defend the areas in any meaningful way something had to be done. 

A group of traditional republicans, people like Daithi O’Connell, Seamus Twomey, Ruiari O’Bradaigh, and Sean Mac Stiofain (John Stephenson) formed the Provisional IRA. They began recruiting into their ranks much to the anger of the now termed “Official IRA” led by Goulding. The Provisionals calculated, rightly in my view, that the unionist misrule of the six counties which allowed these pogroms to periodically happen, was only possible because the parent Government in London allowed it to. They were, in the eyes of the Provisionals, to blame ultimately for what had happened. Westminster could have, had they wanted to, intervened and overruled the unionist administration. It was in Westminster that governance of the whole United Kingdom, including the six counties, operated. 

Not until 1972 due in no small part to the IRA military actions, chiefly, though not exclusively Provisional, did the British Government intervene. They introduced direct rule from London taking power out of the unionist’s hands. The Official IRA called a ceasefire in 1972 which has held to this day. London’s intervention was too little too late for the Provisionals. The Provisional IRA's blueprint plan was, firstly defence against loyalist mobs. Later they would move into offensive mode against the British. In 1970 both factions of the IRA, chiefly the Officials at the time, were in action against British forces on the Lower Falls area of West Belfast. Here a gun battle lasting over four hours ensued between the British Army and the IRA. 

On the night of the 27th - 28th June 1970 the Provisional IRA were in action independently for the first time. The Battle of St. Mathews or the Battle of Short Strand the PIRA defended 6,000 nationalist who were surrounded by 60,000 loyalists many of who were trying to attack St. Mathews Church. The Provisionals had successfully defended the area led by the legendary IRA Belfast commander, Billy McKee. The Provisionals had given a good account of themselves and the residents for the first time in this vulnerable area felt much safer, as recruitment began to rise into the Provisionals ranks. Young men and women who were pissed off with being treated as shit, second class citizens, and arson targets by loyalists and fascists decided the Provisional wing was for them. The Provisional IRA was born and would become the larger wing of the two groups, as the Officials called a ceasefire in 1972.

In the early years of the war the question of was there an “alternative” to the IRA’s actions can be answered in one word, No! There really was “no alternative” to the IRA campaign, certainly in its defensive role. It was the actions of the IRA, chiefly Provisional, which put an end to the loyalist pogroms, though the loyalist paramilitaries still managed to shoot individual Catholics or people they deemed as Catholic, but the mass burnings and ethnic cleansing stopped thanks in no small part to the IRA. Others may differ with my analysis, which is their right, but if gangs of undesirables were trying to burn me and my family out of house and home and an organisation came along who could do something about it, then that organisation gets my vote.

What may be more questionable, and others more qualified than me could answer this one, were the events and actions by the IRA which happened later on in the conflict justified? I was never a member of the Provisional Movement (the IRSP were more in line with my own politics) so am not privy to their decision-making process and rationale. Neither was I around in Belfast at the time - 1986 was my first experience. The early defences by the Provisional IRA would certainly justify their actions. Their first role of defending had been a success and they had brought down the unionist domination of the political scene in the six counties. In 1972 Stormont fell and victory could justifiably have been claimed. The Provisionals had by then embarked on their offensive campaign against the British Army and Government. Their military actions – joined after 1974 by the INLA, which had a different political agenda, who had also split from the Officials – was in many ways successful. It forced the British to do what they vowed never to do; talk to terrorists as the British viewed the IRA. That said, many argue with much justification that most which was offered in 1998 was also on the table in the seventies and could have been taken up then without further loss of life. Could this have been the case?

In April 1998 the political representatives of orthodox republicanism (not to be confused with Republican Socialism) entered into talks with the unionist parties and the moderately nationalist SDLP and neutral Alliance Party – the Multi-Party Talks – which led to the Multi-Party Agreement. Annex this with the British/Irish Agreement and we have the Good Friday Agreement, recognised in international law. This agreement may have been a good deal from the point of view of the SDLP and Alliance parties but it was/is not what republicans of any shade had fought for.

So, was there “no alternative” to the IRA actions. Were they justified? In my view, for what it is worth and taking the whole picture into account, especially the early days, then I would go along with Michelle O’Neill’s assessment, there was “no alternative.” The loyalists made it that way, as did actions like the Ballymurphy Massacre of August 1971 and Bloody Sunday in Derry January 1972 carried out by the British Army add much weight to this justification. The loyalists and the British created a situation and did not like the response!

A point of observation and noteworthiness, and despite their early inabilities to protect the nationalist areas one thing comes to mind. Of the three major republican military organisations, Official IRA, Provisional IRA and INLA only the Officials have not decommissioned. They called a ceasefire back in 1972, forty years ago and have maintained it. They have not handed over one piece of weaponry. There is a notion about the Officials giving their weapons, or some of them, to the Free Wales Army who subsequently lost them in a lake. How much truth there is in this tale, if any, I do not know. Others may be more conversant with the subject?
 
Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent 
Socialist Republican and Marxist

15 comments:

  1. INDEPENDENT INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON DECOMMISSIONING

    STATEMENT
    8 February 2010
    On OIRA Decommissioning

    “Further to an IICD statement on decommissioning earlier today [8 February 2010], the IICD can confirm it has, over a period of time, been engaged with representatives of the Official IRA to facilitate a decommissioning process, which has recently been concluded. The OIRA representatives have informed us that the arms decommissioned constitute all that were under the control of that organisation.”

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well, thats news to me Christopher, I stand corrected if its true. I, and many others, were under the impression no previous organisation styling itself IRA had ever decommissioned prior to the Provos.

    I have no reason or evidence to doubt the authenticity of this statement.

    Caoimhin O'Muraile

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Officials came after the Provos Caoimhin.

      Delete
  3. Oh well, the plot thickens, and thickens, and thickens. Revolution postponed? Nay, cancelled due to lack of interest. If I think too hard I feel anger, and if I feel anger and deflated, Anthony, I cant imagine how you must feel.

    Caoimhin O'Muraile

    ReplyDelete
  4. Though I still think in the early days there was "no alternative".

    Caoimhin O'Muraile

    ReplyDelete
  5. Caoimhín, those who can abandon their scrupulosity will eventually reconcile the unavoidability and the unjustifiability of the violence. The Provisionals were not an 'immaculate conception'. While they were the product of a long tradition tradition of militant nationalist opposition to the coloniser, they ultimately failed. They failed in their stated goal of Brits Out, abandoned their cherished objective and ultimately acquiesced to the peaceful and parliamentary positions of all those they previously derided.

    Rather than pondering alternatives, we must retrospectively now ask how useful was the extended military campaign, what (and who's) purpose did it all serve?

    ReplyDelete
  6. The key word there, Henry, is "extended" as I pointed out the early days, according to countless people I have met since the eighties, was necessary to defend the areas. No question in my eyes about that. The loyalist pogroms could not go unoppossed, and were not unoppossed.

    The loyalists and British created a situation, starting at unofficial level in 1969 then, under Brigadier Kitson at official level in 1971 and Harry Tuzo etal in 1972 and did not like the response. Responsibility at that time lay firmly at the British and loyalists feet. Later on, as I said, others more qualified than me can answer.

    I was in a different party, separate with a different list of priorities to the provisional movement. At the time Sinn Fein spoke of a socialist republic but they were not convincing in my eyes. Proved right on that one, socialism is pivotal, hence IRSP.

    Caoimhin O'Muraile

    ReplyDelete
  7. Perhaps that is the only way to be about it Anthony.

    Caoimhin O'Muraile

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think that there is always an alternative to inflicting violence, but often it is accepting violence. Ghandi's non-violent resistance being perhaps the best example of this.

    There's an interesting argument about what is the best option to use. And another one about which option is 'right' to use.

    I think that whilst the IRA's campaign didn't achieve a united Ireland, it pulverised and diminished the Orange state, and exacted an extremely high cost on the British establishment.

    The status quo that we find ourselves in at the moment most likely could have happened with far less violence, though. But if/when constitutional change does happen, will the PIRA's campaign make loyalist terrorism against nationalists more or less likely?


    ReplyDelete
  9. The IRA violence, after the formation of the Provisionals, was in the early days a response to loyalist violence. There really was "no alternative" unless could asking the loyalists nicely to stop tgrowing molotov cocktails have worked? No, of course it wouldn't the only way to stop them was to meet their violence unfortunately with violence.

    PIRA took the traditions of the Defenders and defended. Then, as you pointed out, they "pulverised the orange state" which may, with hindsight, have been an ideal time to stop and claim victory.

    They did not and continued finishing up with little more than the Brits offered under what they called "Ulsterisation" back in the latter half of the 1970s.

    Caoimhin O'Muraile

    ReplyDelete
  10. "There really was "no alternative" unless could asking the loyalists nicely to stop tgrowing molotov cocktails have worked? No, of course it wouldn't the only way to stop them was to meet their violence unfortunately with violence."

    I don't disagree.

    "Then, as you pointed out, they "pulverised the orange state" which may, with hindsight, have been an ideal time to stop and claim victory."

    I think the problem with this analysis is that republicanism's power was on the wane from 1972, and pulverising the Orange state was a poor substitute for driving the British out. And, besides, to claim victory for grinding down the Protestant ascendancy and its forces would be tacit acknowledgement of fighting sectarian war.

    I find these conversations fascinating.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Pays to remember the Protestants believed they were on the eve of a violent IRA uprising, fostered in no small part by thon gobshite Paisley.

    ReplyDelete
  12. @ Steve R

    That is true - and Roaring Hugh Hanna and others before him, and others alongside, and then after him.

    I don't think Protestants are anywhere near as likely to be sucked in by the hyperbole of the likes of Bryson and Jim Alister now-a-days. To be fair to militant loyalists and the Protestant community from which they emerged, a large-scale terrorist campaign is unlikely without republicans/nationalists indulging in violence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Definitely not. There's also the swing toward Alliance to contend with, but there's nothing to retaliate against so I can't see how/why the PUL would bring weapons on to the street. Plus those who call themselves Loyalists are nothing but drug cartels and this isn't lost on the community.

      Delete