Given that Provo revisionism has been scaling heights formerly attained by their predecessors in the Sticks the Arthurs intervention helps frame matters in some form of republican context. This adds to our understanding of the conflict rather than serving to detract from it as tends to happen when revisionism distorts the prism through which the conflict is viewed.
An example of Provo revisionism came recently via the perspective of the former Provisional IRA activist Martina Anderson. Commenting on the Real IRA car bomb exploding outside a branch of the Ulster Bank in Derry, Anderson, in seeking to place clear Tory blue water between the former IRA she belonged to and the current IRA, dismissed any resemblance or line of continuity between the actions of the recent car bombers and the car bombers of her day. Mark Devenport of the BBC who witnessed her contribution during a Stormont debate summed up her position as follows:
Sinn Fein's Martina Anderson did all the other Stormont politicians might have asked of her - not only condemning the bombing, but calling on people to give information about those responsible to the police. However the jab at "born again Provos" obviously irked her. She rounded on the other speakers, claiming they were providing "a degree of comfort" for the dissidents by associating them with the Provisional IRA's campaign. Ms Anderson then argued that the dissidents and the Provisionals are completely different because the Good Friday Agreement had changed everything and removed the previous justification for resorting to violence, namely that Northern Ireland had been an unreconstructed "Protestant parliament for a Protestant people".
In arguing as she does Anderson is in effect repackaging the Provisional IRA’s armed struggle, seeking to mask its catastrophic failure, by linking it to a goal the organisation had never set itself - equality within the partitioned British state of Northern Ireland - and was long contemptuous of for its serious limitations in terms of republican ideology. For the Provisionals, during their war waging endeavours, the shortfall was simply too great. Argue as she might that the Good Friday Agreement ‘changed everything’ it in fact changed only the internal political landscape within the North. It changed absolutely nothing in terms of meeting the core demand of the Provisional armed struggle. The question of sovereignty went untroubled by the Agreement.
Any student of the political history of the North conflict can sense immediately that the Anderson case is piffle. The dynamic feeding the conflict arguably had its roots in inequality coupled with state repression. The grievances emerging from that dynamic were weaved into an ideological republican framework by the Provos, the apex of which was most demonstrably not equality within the North but the abolition of the north as a political entity.
Arthurs nailed the piffle immediately with his comment to the Tribune that:
no one can deny that there have been changes in the North but it is an equality agenda being pursued. People did not die, they did not take up arms, for equality. They did so for Irish freedom.
It is this simply stated logic that provides the strong umbilical cord linking the Provisional and Real IRAs. It also explains the difficulty many republicans experienced when they saw their former chief of staff Martin McGuinness denounce armed republicans as traitors. A colleague of Arthurs, Peter McCaughey, also interviewed by the Tribune expressed it:
We were disgusted when Martin McGuinness stood at the gates of Stormont with the chief constable of the PSNI after Massereene and demonised republicans. He did not speak for us.
As he continued to let even more air out of Anderson’s balloon Arthurs articulated a persistent republican sentiment which is far from being exclusive to those republicans who continue to favour armed struggle. Whereas the Derry Catholic advocated that people become informers for the British the Tyrone republican urged that they do nothing of the sort.
It can be argued that an armed campaign is not advisable at this point in time but it will never be right to inform on those who decide otherwise. Informing on republicans will lead to their families being oppressed by the state. It will lead to the arrest and incarceration of volunteers and, at worst, to their death. It was wrong to pass information to the police 20 or 30 years ago and it is wrong now. The graveyards are full of young republicans put there because a small minority of the nationalist community passed information to the British forces.
A poignant, telling comment from a man whose brother lies in one of those graves because someone ‘passed information to the British forces.’
Revisionism as practiced by the Provisionals suffers from the same deficiencies that beset the Sticks when they too tried rewriting history from the perspective of their current needs. Republican memory is longer and stronger than revisionist amnesia. The frailty of forgetting what was fought for finds itself flummoxed each time it arm locks with the muscle of memory.
Brilliant post mo cara,slowley but surely the drip feed of truth is getting through,I,m a model Anderson like her predecessors in the sticks may be flying high in the oxygen of high public profile and well tutored and versed in media presintation, but even with all this, their lies, deciet and pathetic submissiveness are on a daily basis turning those who gave so much away from the prm, it took years for the sticks to fade into almost oblivion,I dont think the prm will last that long even with their massive hoard of ill gotten wealth.Its really refreshing to hear people like Brian Arthurs adding their names to the ever growing list of republicans sickened and disgusted with the sentiments and activities of those who call themselves the prm.
ReplyDeleteGreat piece Anthony,
ReplyDeletenice to see people leaving the PRM but i wonder why only 2 years ago for a man like Brian Arthurs?
I suppose better late than never!
Terrific post. It's good to see people of that stature tell it as it is. Possibly the delay for many ex volunteers is the commitment they had to what they were engaged in. Like turning a supertanker, takes a while. Also a combination of disbelief and forlorn hope that things can't be turning out like they are.
ReplyDeleteYes, every time SF get involved in condemnation they are seen to be wearing an RUC uniform now. The youth that support them were just a clean page for the McGuinness Adams road trip.
The more people come out in a dignified way like this and say their piece the better. It highlights the truth of what SF are all about.
A chairde,
ReplyDeleteI think every possible benefit of the doubt has been given the 'process' and some traditional republicans went the extra mile to give peace a chance, against their better judgement.
AS the following article explains there can however be no further doubt about what kind of a 'process'it really is. The following article may not be as articulate as the Pensive Quill but its not that far off the mark.
PAEDO FIGHTERS SLEEPING WITH RADIOACTIVE FISH IN BRITISH NUKED IRISH SEA - http://bit.ly/9e2Zfr
Once again Mackers U hit the nail on the head chara, excellent post as ever.
ReplyDeleteI feel Arthurs statement is powerful stuff, what is becoming increasingly clear is senior republicans like Arthurs, Fox etc, were no more in the Adamsite loop as far as the peace process was concerned than the average volunteer. Talk about hope over reality, after all, without their support, Martin McGuinness would never have been in a position to stand next to the chief constable and demand nationalist take up touting.
ReplyDeleteIrishblog, read that article and I think it is in very poor taste.
ReplyDeleteThere are parts of it 'so far off the mark' they border on the ridiculous.
The part that relates to Andrew Kearney is not true, that did not happen. Are things not bad enough for people here, that someone has to actually invent a sordid scenario like this.
Anybody else read this?
ReplyDeletePAEDO FIGHTERS SLEEPING WITH RADIOACTIVE FISH IN BRITISH NUKED IRISH SEA
And Michaelhenry gets stick for his views.
It is absolutely deranged
Mackers, it hardly makes for good bed time reading on a Halloween night or any other for that matter.
ReplyDeleteThis is supposedly written by a professor, surely at some point in the article you would expect at least one piece of factual evidence, a source, the odd credible statistic, something to support his theory about the 'Paedo Party'.
Mackers, your own post was excellent. To repeat what another post said 'hit the nail on the head'
Maybe thats what happened to the professor?
I love the paedo bit believe it or not,ask Mickeyboy his arse is still aching! Andy Kearney knocked the b###cks outa Bubbles C in Ardoyne in a completly unrelated matter,a wee bit of mixing fact with fiction here, just like the psf!no more deranged Anthony than what the wasters in Stormont feed us,
ReplyDeleteNuala,
ReplyDeletenever again will I go to a link from that source. What utter rubbish. I, like the rest of you, have better things to do with my time than waste it on bin material. Professor my bum. Like calling Paisley a doctor of the Master a honest guy!!!
Anthony I agree with you there ,I,ll not waste finger time tracking to that site again,
ReplyDeleteAt last a very senior republican is coming out from under the Northern version of republicanism and putting the record straight on how they in the Northern Provo division have been so duped that they honestly believed a UNITED IRELAND was plausible in 2016 .
ReplyDeleteA very true quote I read somewhere that goes something like this “you can fool some of the people “ I guess you know the rest. What Gerry wants is power because he has always had it ,Gerry has always been the main man no matter whom was at the head . A republican he most certainly is not ,power driven yes and he has that natural gift of a leader that he can convince others that no matter want I say is always right . He craves power and wants to go even further maybe he and Bertie can share the up and coming Presidencies duties , The combined Liars Association springs to mind.
was not going to sent this
ReplyDeletethen said fcuk it-
at the special SINN FEIN ard fheis
about policing over 90% of members
voted yes and one of those was
brian arthurs
there was plenty of cameras that day-
a year later brian was arrested and is now to face court over
" money problems "
now brian does not support policing
which is his choice
there is a court case at the momment
so can not say to much.
Just had to read that article after seeing the reaction to it. A combination of the article and comments on the 'Quill' have me in stitches. There are a few minutely 'plausibles' in the article but they are quickly drowned in the tsunami of bile and fantasia. I was going to save it to convince myself I'm truely still among the sane but decided against it; I may require my PC serviced at some point.
ReplyDeleteMarty I see your diplomatic studies are coming along full throttle...PRICELESS.
Michaelhenry,
ReplyDeletefair comment. You are merely raising issues that others have previously broached. All these things have to be thrown into the mix before a more rounded appreciation emerges. One qualification is needed, however, and that is that these type of things only ever seem to become an issue when the person leaves or speaks out against the party, not while they are still with it.
Michaelhenry SF must be truely proud of you. Never let the truth or the facts spoil an opportunity for a good old slander attack. Not even a mention of the issue.
ReplyDeleteAnthony,
ReplyDelete"The dynamic feeding the conflict arguably had its roots in inequality coupled with state repression. The grievances emerging from that dynamic were weaved into an ideological republican framework by the Provos, the apex of which was most demonstrably not equality within the North but the abolition of the north as a political entity."
This is a brilliantly lucid debunking of Sinn Fein's current narrative of the Troubles. As you rightly point out, inequality was a cause of the conflict, but equality itself within the British state was never a PIRA objective. Sinn Fein's talking points are an attempt to rewrite history in order to make the losers seem the winners.
The following statement by Arthurs made me pause for thought:
"It can be argued that an armed campaign is not advisable at this point in time but it will never be right to inform on those who decide otherwise."
I think I would have to agree with him about informing, even though I think dissidents' campaign is both inadvisable and unjustified. But does opposing the dissidents' armed actions mean that one should help the police to prevent them taking place? I'm inclined to think that one can oppose both the dissidents and the state forces, but I'm not certain.
"In arguing as she does Anderson is in effect repackaging the Provisional IRA’s armed struggle, seeking to mask its catastrophic failure, by linking it to a goal the organisation had never set itself - equality within the partitioned British state of Northern Ireland - and was long contemptuous of for its serious limitations in terms of republican ideology."
ReplyDeleteAnderson's position is absurd, of course, but because she is trying to maintain her integrity over her life when objective judgement shows her to be inconsistent.
The GFA changed things in that it exposed the contradiction of a 'Republican Army' acting against the democratic will, however manipulated you may consider that will to be. This should have been clear beforehand; there is no excuse now. I could accept some claims to integrity if Irish militant groups were to abandon their claim to represent republican values. They are Irish nationalists, worse, sometimes they are Catholic Irish nationalists.
Martina Anderson will never achieve credibility unless she acknowledges her u-turn. Incidentally, I don't think changing one's mind to be a weakness, but a strength if based on logical and valid reasons.
Equally, those who feel the traditional ideology of Irish Republican struggle is one sufficiently resistant to criticism to be credible are deceiving themselves.
Anderson will have to change under media spotlight and maintaining the trust of her electorate, not an easy task. Dissident republicanism is at exactly the right point in time to take stock and modify its ideology towards something that accounts for the progress of the past few centuries. Its task is perhaps more difficult, but its room for manoeuvre far greater. If it chooses not to regenerate, it will disappear and deservedly so.
Yer man from the Paedo Fighters must be an absolute header.Ate too many of those radioactive fish methinks.
ReplyDeleteI must admit, I am confused about the whole Brian Arthurs thing.
ReplyDeleteNot too long ago I read his wife was on the policing board, which I thought might proved a tad embarrassing with the whole fraud accusations.
That is not to say that he is not entitled to reflect and change his mind in relation to the political path Sinn Fein have chosen.
One thing that actually puzzled me was why Brian and his wife were charged at all. Was it because they left Sinn Fein?
Fraud, and deception is hardly a unique phenomena within Sinn Fein.
Many of their lifestyles can be credited to monies obtained through ill gotten gain. So why in the { we will look the other way while you feather your nests culture} were the Arthurs singled out?
I think you nailed it Mackers, when you said all of these things are only a problem when they leave the party!
F##k what would happen if a load of the top brass leave at once.
They would have to open a new prison to house them all.
Wonder why the 'Professor' did not write about their financial dealings, would have made an interesting article.
Nuala,
ReplyDeleteMick Hall summed it up pretty well. Brian Arthurs and those who stayed and backed the leadership bear serious responsibility for where things are at. I think they would accept that. And there is no one right time for leaving. Everyone of us who left probably wishes we had left it earlier.
I thought it was the wife of Sean Hughes who was on the policing board not the wife of Brian Arthurs.
Nuala, don't put any ideas into the professor's head. One of those pieces is enough. He will be vying with Gibney next for his Irish News spot. He would have a good case, mind you.
Mackers, apologies if I got that wrong about Brian's wife, not a very nice thing to be accused of.
ReplyDeleteYes Mick Hall nailed it. Some of these people actually aided their their rite of passage to fully fledged British minister. You are also right in saying that there is 'no right time.' to leave, it is the fact they did that is important.
Mackers, I seem to be getting the Sean Hughes and Brian Arthurs case mixed up!
ReplyDeleteIs Sean Hughes and his wife who you rightly said is on the DPP also being accused of fraud?
I think the Professor could take that spot of Gibney!
He might be slightly over the top but a least there was a glimmer of truth amongst the mayhem. Gibney relies on spoof and conjecture.
AM,
ReplyDeleteGreat synopsis on Suzanne Breen's article. The fact that both these men have spoken out coupled with where they hail from, speaks volumes for the current sentiments being held within grass root Irish republicanism-there is an element of being left behind no matter how many flying visits the reformed ‘Conflict Junky’ makes to the heartlands for commemorations-one wonders is such 'tugging at the heart strings' the last straw for PSF to touch base with the faithful. James Connolly himself once remarked to Pearse that he was more interested in living Fenians than dead ones (loosely translated!)
In your aptly entitled 'Death of Irish Republicanism' at the hands of the ‘Give’m Fcuk All Agreement’ one can now see the slow seeds of a 'Lazarus' like re-birth. There seems to be a general consciousness of preserving both traditional Irish Republicanism ideological and military strategy for a future insurrection i.e. ‘we have no intention of going away you know!!’
As regards the previous comment by Kettlebellsireland’s, I think that the slow drip, drip away from PSF has its roots more in loyalty to Adams & Co. than a clear ideological difference in opinion with the bearded one. That probably stems from the military like control structure that exists throughout the PSF political machine- i.e. to disagree would be like a court martial offence and to walk away would be treated like desertion- so in fairness given the Irish republican roots and their previous positions within the PIRA, one surmises it was for loyalty rather than agreement with the strategy that made both men stay with the ‘programme’ for so long. Whilst PSF ploughed forward with the political strategy (with interwoven elements of the military control) they forgot one vital ingredient. The American army drill the phenomena of ‘No Man Left Behind’ into their military strategy. This is emphasised both within the American military and the public as a symbol of comradery and is emphasised as not just an expression through the press, news and films such as ‘Black Hawk Down’. However, this attitude has been glaringly absent from PSF since GFA as they plod nonchalantly further and further into the abyss.
Keeping with the American analogy, Martina Anderson’s comment that GFA had ‘changed everything’ is a tad reminiscent of George Bush’s infamous statement of ‘Mission Accomplished’. However, she is right to a certain degree, in that there has been a certain degree of change. Through decommissioning, the PSF left the only avenue open for Irish reunification was via political means. As self proclaimed head of the Irish Republican family they firmly place the onus on ‘themselves’ to deliver the goods.
In Suzanne Breen’s article Brian Arthur’s correctly pointed to Irish unity rather than equality as the ‘raison d’etre’ for the struggle. This is in direct contrast to a TV interview with Bairbre de Brun last year where she stressed that the struggle was about equality. The word equality also features prominently on PSF’s electoral literature. Surely the Civil Rights movement had started the ball rolling and had achieved quite a bit (foundation wise) with respect to equality????
Paradoxically, if PSF can’t deliver on Irish Unity will they themselves be complicit in bringing the gun back into Irish politics??
The RUC played a cute game. Countless republicans were suddenly aquiring new houses and many were goin OTT with huge property portfolios. The RUC sat back and let personal greed go to work whilst the peace process took root. Now some people are having as many as TEN houses confiscated by the 'criminal assets'because they didn't even have a job when they got their morgages. TEN houses, how many does one need?
ReplyDeleteIt's sad so many got so deeply caught up in that. But the wee crows are coming home to roost, they have 'criminal assets' tags on their feet. The word criminal pops up again, I woner will there be a protest against the label?
Yeah Larry looks like a few have been well stitched up, greed is a dangerous thing!anyone who used the republican struggle for their own personal gain deserve far more than just a crim label!
ReplyDeleteAM,
ReplyDeleteGreat discussion of the Breen column. But here's the rub: The sentiments expressed by Arthurs and McCaughey are the exact echo of what Geraldine Taylor and Des Dalton both told me in the RSF offices in August.
What's the difference in their positions, and how long will it be before "independent" republicans like Arthurs join (at least rhetorically) with RSF and 32CSM and call for bringing the guns back out?
Can independent republicans have it both ways?
Pete,
ReplyDeleteit remains to be seen. The comment that the time for armed campaigning is not right at the current moment is ominous. Playing to the gallery perhaps but I don't really know. Nor am I sure of the difference between the positions of Arthurs/McCaughey and RSF. They haven't said enough to permit a judgement. Their view that the GFA is not any route to a United Ireland is is bog standard critique these days. The strategic outcome of that is another matter.
There is no strategic outcome they've all made hoors of themselves and been walked wilingly up the garden path into a wee septic tank..it's called a property bubble...it defeated the IRA ... let em stew in their own juices..who cares.
ReplyDeleteThought I would set the record straight following michaelhenry's allegations. Both Brian Arthurs and I attended the Sinn Féin Ard Fheis on policing as voting delegates from Dungannon Sinn Féin. We both voted NO to policing.
ReplyDeleteAlfie,
ReplyDeleteI think it is eminently plausible for a republican to oppose armed republicanism without giving support to the political dimension of policing. The PSNI are no less British today than they were when called the RUC. That was why we opposed them. The idea that we opposed them because they were the armed wing of unionism rather than being an instrument of British policy is pushed to make it better fit the myth that the struggle was for equality.
On the question of informing, how could somebody like me feel comfortable giving information to the PSNI that would condemn a republican to what I endured? There may well be an argument for informing which groups like the SDLP can make and feel genuine in doing so, but it is not a republican argument.
‘so the dissidents have no real justification for going to war, given that only
a minority support them.’
It is how we define grievances that genuinely lend to an armed response. In 1982 we can find Danny Morrison telling an interviewer that if even one Irish person feels subjectively oppressed by the British state that person has the right to take up arms. Now, that is nonsense to me today even if it didn’t sound nonsense then. But there are people who have inherited it from the Provos and carry on today.
Green Flag: A History of Irish Nationalism is the name of the Kee work.
‘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.’
The difficulty here is that the legitimacy of a grievance is not automatically extended to the means used to redress it. Proportionality has always to be taken account of
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?
I do think physical force republicanism should be rejected altogether in today’s world. We should learn from the failure of the Provos rather than seek to emulate it. I don’t think we should disown the Easter Rising or the War of Independence. But we should very much allow for others to view them as wrong and not hound them for it or accuse everybody of being a revisionist who does not share the republican view of those events.
Anthony,
ReplyDelete"I don’t think we should disown the Easter Rising or the War of Independence. But we should very much allow for others to view them as wrong and not hound them for it or accuse everybody of being a revisionist who does not share the republican view of those events."
I agree; I hope I didn't give the impression that I am intolerant of views different to mine. I think it is healthy to engage with alternative analyses and opinions (even those in the Sunday Independent!) and to regularly subject one's own views to scrutiny. At the same time, I don't think people should be afraid of putting forward the republican view of past armed campaigns. I would share your reluctance about resorting to violence, but I do think there are times when it is justified.
barry m -
ReplyDeletei was a few seats behind him that
ard fheis- he voted yes
keep up the debate councillor
the camera's don't lie.
Damian,
ReplyDelete‘The GFA changed things in that it exposed the contradiction of a 'Republican Army' acting against the democratic will, however manipulated you may consider that will to be.’
But, really, the GFA was hardly needed to show this. Besides Anderson is not arguing this point (which in fact shows common cause between her IRA and the IRA of today when she is actually trying to hermetically seal one of from the other). She is arguing that the GFA was a republican advance, somehow consistent with the war being fought, which it was not.
‘Irish militant groups … are Irish nationalists, worse, sometimes they are Catholic Irish nationalists.’
This can be said to apply to SF in that through the GFA they have emerged to represent the Catholic population within the NI state against the representatives of the Protestant population. A Catholic party for a Catholic people so to speak.
Changing one’s mind is fine but in doing so people should give up the notion that they can speak with an authority as if their position is immutable, their utterances eternal verities.
‘Equally, those who feel the traditional ideology of Irish Republican struggle is one sufficiently resistant to criticism to be credible are deceiving themselves.’
It is the nature of the authoritarian to think as such. It is one of the major ailments of Irish republicanism. It finds it very difficult to deal with alternative viewpoints. The opening response to every act of dissent is to scream ‘verboten.’
Anthony,
ReplyDeleteNot a word there I could take you up on. On this point:
"She is arguing that the GFA was a republican advance, somehow consistent with the war being fought, which it was not."
I have some sympathy with her, given the human difficulty in realising a large part of your life and belief systems were wrong or wasted - I imagine you have somewhat less. For your honesty, you get respect; for her hypocrisy, she gets power. Maybe it's a win/win given the respective personalities. Where I sympathise a little is that she is, to be generous, trying to tzke people with her. Hypocrisy will be a part of politics until people prefer to vote for those who don't "speak with an authority as if their position is immutable, their utterances eternal verities." So there is an onus on the SF grassroots to push for more honesty. Whoever's listening.
In the event, those are convenient fig-leaves, I suspect, for someone who simply can't grasp the gravity of the contradictions she embraces. I wonder which of the Catholic parties will show some genuine confidence first.
Longer and Stronger
ReplyDeleteAlfie, no you didn’t give me the impression at all that you were intolerant and my comment was not a criticism of your position.
There are of course times when violence is justified. Few of us are pacifists and everything is backed up by the rock of coercion. It is not the red in the traffic light that stops us going through. But the starting point should, in my view, be Poulantzas who said once started we have no idea where it is going to lead to. If every problem is defined as a nail then the solution is going to be a hammer.
kettlebellsireland
has left a new comment on your post "Longer and
Stronger":
‘i wonder why only 2 years ago for a man like Brian Arthurs?
A question that has crossed many minds I suppose. As I said earlier most of us we all feel we should have left it earlier. He has certainly brought clarity to a very fundamental issue. Larry catches it right in his comment ‘The more people come out in a dignified way like this and say their piece the better. It highlights the truth of what SF are all about.’
Mick Hall,
This is spot on. Many at senior level were left out of the loop. It is atrait we can trace back to the hunger strike at least.
Interested
There is as much chance of me becoming president as Gerry. Even more chance of Ireland being united by 2016. But if in 2016 he pronoiunces Ireland united very few in SF will disbelieve him.
Nuala,
I know Hughes had property taken. Don’t know anything about his wife other than that the woman sat on the policing board.
The Rebels Yell!
Lots of engaging points there. Comparing Martina with Bush however was out of order. George will be furious.
Damian,
ReplyDeleteI have nothing whatsoever against her in personal terms. I just think it is sad to witness activists as committed as she was buying into sheer nonsense. I don’t even get into the business of terming her a hypocrite as I take your point about the need to take people with her but where is she taking them? Martina never spent one day in prison for any of this and every day against it.