Yesterday TPQ published an Arkiv review of Lethal Allies by Anne Cadwallader. Today Pat Finucane Centre board member, activist, academic and QUB graduate Dr Stuart Ross critiques that review. 

In a review of Paul Larkin’s A Very British Jihad: Collusion, conspiracy and cover-up in Northern Ireland, Queen’s University academic Adrian Guelke argued that many of the author’s claims regarding allegations of collusion were 'open to argument, to put the matter mildly' (Fortnight, May 2004). Indeed, he cites one of the cases highlighted by Larkin – when Guelke himself was shot by the UDA – and states 'that my case hardly demonstrates the intimate level of collusion that he wishes to suggest existed among the Loyalists, elements of the security forces and the apartheid regime.' Ultimately, Guelke contends that much of Larkin’s work was made up of 'foolish innuendo[es] ... about a number of prominent figures in this society'; easily dismissible and easily dismissed.

Anne Cadwallader’s Lethal Allies also takes on the controversial issue of collusion in Ireland; her work isn’t so easily dismissible or dismissed. Still, in a lengthy review of her newly published book, Arkiv claims that but for the inclusion of HET reports:

there would be little to distinguish ... [it] from a number of others that have claimed to uncover an over-arching British state policy to use counter-insurgency tactics ... to deal with the IRA.

Here Arkiv mention Larkin’s A Very British Jihad. Yet Cadwallader never claims an over-arching British state policy per se. And, in fact, there is much more than HET reports which make this important and controversial work a cut above the rest.

From the onset, Cadwallader is explicit about the origins and remit of the project of which her book is the outcome. It is not – and is not intended as – a scholarly treatise on British state policy on the North, much to Arkiv’s disappointment. Lethal Allies covers nearly 120 different killings which took place mainly (though not exclusively) in what has been dubbed the “murder triangle” in Counties Armagh and Tyrone. These killings took place in the 1970s and Cadwallader convincingly documents how they were carried out by a particular 'loyalist gang, and permutations of it, with tacit assistance from members of government forces' (p. 16). She does 'not claim that every RUC officer or UDR soldier was collusive, or every loyalist was manipulated, or every judge or British cabinet minister mendacious' (p.16). Nevertheless, it is argued 'that enough was known, or should have been known, by sufficient people in places of authority, to prevent many of the murders described' (p. 16).

While HET reports certainly play a major part in corroborating the author’s very serious allegations, so too does over 15 years of meticulous research. Lethal Allies is also based upon official government reports, on hundreds of hours of archival research at Kew, at PRONI, the Newspaper Library in Belfast and dozens of local libraries scattered across this island. It is based on years of back-and-forth correspondence between the Pat Finucane Centre and the RUC, PSNI (at various levels), the DPP, the Northern Ireland Courts Service, the Coroner’s Office, the Office of the Attorney General and Lord Chief Justice. It is based on countless meetings and correspondence between Justice for the Forgotten and Justice Barron, the Department of Justice and the Gardai Síochána in the Republic. Numerous interviews were carried out with victims, survivors, whistle-blowers, serving police officers, retired police officers, etc. Moreover, it includes damning ballistic reports which link many a “stolen” weapon to murder after murder after murder.

Arkiv acknowledge that '[t]he issues of collusion raised in the book are indeed profoundly serious ones' but deal very little with these issues (despite the fact that these issues comprise the bulk of Lethal Allies.) And unsurprisingly Arkiv make no reference to the “human side” of these multiple tragedies – the pain, humiliation, harassment, etc. suffered by those who lost their loved ones – this too is an important part of the book. Instead Cadwallader and the Pat Finucane Centre are taken to task for failing to recognize 'the massive challenges faced by the security forces and the RUC in particular in the early to mid-1970s.' This is given as one of the main reasons why so many of the murders described may not have been properly investigated (evidence in the book often suggests otherwise.) The HET investigators do 'note that applying the standards of contemporary best practice to the chaotic, pressurized and dangerous conditions of the Seventies is anachronistic and unfair' but it is the HET that 'in report after report ... goes on to criticize successive RUC enquiries' (pp. 260-261)

Furthermore, while the author is accused of depicting arrest rates of 'loyalist terrorists and rogue security force members [as an] unmitigated failure,' this is only partially true – a section of the book actually documents what happened to some of those arrested, what charges were filed and how the justice system then failed in its duties.

The review points out that '[m]uch is made of the murderous activities of the former member of the UDR Robert Jackson and the allegation that he worked as a hit-man for British Military Intelligence and the RUC.' The allegation is indeed made and it is based on far more than the word of Colin Wallace (perhaps the reviewer missed the whole discussion regarding Jackson and the Miami Showband killings – see pp. 103-108). Still, rather than focus on this allegation, emphasis is placed on the many opportunities the RUC had to arrest Jackson and many of his associates. What is more, it is argued that the evidence to effectively prosecute Jackson did exist – in fact it existed on a number of occasions – and this is pointed out time and time again. Why this did not happen, readers can decide for themselves.

Elsewhere Arkiv claim that Lethal Allies 'resurrects the ‘Wilson Plot’ thesis of an MI5 conspiracy to overthrow the Labour Prime Minister.' In nearly 400 pages of text, the thesis is touched on in a matter of two or three sentences – not much of a resurrection. Arkiv also argues that “the logic” of the book results in a number of “strange conclusions”. For example, the author’s views on the collusion supposedly lay 'blame for the Kingsmill massacre ... at the door of the British state' (Cadwallader clearly states that the IRA were responsible for the attack – something which the Republican Movement still refuses to do – and that it was “terrible and inexcusable”) (p. 158). It is even said that 'Cadwallader and the PFC claim the IRA’s ‘Long War’ was a product of ... British collusion', yet the IRA’s ‘Long War’ strategy is never discussed in the book. What is said, however, is that collusion simply prolongs conflict – indeed, '[t]he hard lessons learned in Armagh and Tyrone have a relevance as far away as Afghanistan, Iraq and other modern theatres of war' (pp. 372-373).

* * *

Hours after the Dublin/Monaghan bombings, the then Taoiseach Liam Cosgrave (FG) argued 'Everyone who has practised violence or preached violence or condoned violence must bear a share of responsibility for today’s outrage' (p. 221). The Dublin/Monaghan bombings remain the greatest loss of life in a single day of the Troubles but there was no national day of mourning and no government minister visited the injured or bereaved. The deadly attacks were carried out by UVF personnel (many of who were either former or serving members of the security forces) and serious allegations persist that other British security force members also played a part. Much of this was known in the immediate wake of the bombings yet Cosgrave and other Irish government officials quickly shifted the blame for the bombings onto republicans.

Arkiv regards Lethal Allies as 'but the latest manifestation of a one-sided ‘blame the Brits’ syndrome.' As noted above, Arkiv say very little about the 120 murders documented in the book. These brutal killings were carried out by loyalists who were aided and abetted by state forces; oftentimes there was no distinction between the two. The book documents this. The British government was well aware of loyalist infiltration of the UDR and of the frequent arms raids on Army bases in the North. This too is well documented. The 'overwhelming majority of those specifically targeted were people who were progressing economically, socially and politically – people with aspirations their parents could only have dreamed of' (p. 363). Only one of the murders covered in this book was of a republican activist. No over-arching British state policy is alleged here, but in each of these cases blame is 'laid at the door of the British state' and rightly so. Would Arkiv rather shift the blame?

  • Note: Arkiv’s review ends by accusing Cadwallader of 'ungenerously rubbish[ing] the HET’s role in dealing with the past' – not true. Until very recently, the Pat Finucane Centre has critically engaged with the HET on behalf of families since it started reviewing cases in 2006. As the book notes, however, 'many families have been bitterly disappointed by HET Reports' and the Centre has always maintained that this avenue is a deeply flawed and imperfect way for families to begin to learn the truth regarding the death of a loved-one during the Troubles (p. 17). Nevertheless, Cadwallader has very openly and publicly praised the 'small team of very diligent officers of huge integrity and courage' who investigated many of the Glennane gang killings.

Shifting the Blame from the Brits

Yesterday TPQ published an Arkiv review of Lethal Allies by Anne Cadwallader. Today Pat Finucane Centre board member, activist, academic and QUB graduate Dr Stuart Ross critiques that review. 

In a review of Paul Larkin’s A Very British Jihad: Collusion, conspiracy and cover-up in Northern Ireland, Queen’s University academic Adrian Guelke argued that many of the author’s claims regarding allegations of collusion were 'open to argument, to put the matter mildly' (Fortnight, May 2004). Indeed, he cites one of the cases highlighted by Larkin – when Guelke himself was shot by the UDA – and states 'that my case hardly demonstrates the intimate level of collusion that he wishes to suggest existed among the Loyalists, elements of the security forces and the apartheid regime.' Ultimately, Guelke contends that much of Larkin’s work was made up of 'foolish innuendo[es] ... about a number of prominent figures in this society'; easily dismissible and easily dismissed.

Anne Cadwallader’s Lethal Allies also takes on the controversial issue of collusion in Ireland; her work isn’t so easily dismissible or dismissed. Still, in a lengthy review of her newly published book, Arkiv claims that but for the inclusion of HET reports:

there would be little to distinguish ... [it] from a number of others that have claimed to uncover an over-arching British state policy to use counter-insurgency tactics ... to deal with the IRA.

Here Arkiv mention Larkin’s A Very British Jihad. Yet Cadwallader never claims an over-arching British state policy per se. And, in fact, there is much more than HET reports which make this important and controversial work a cut above the rest.

From the onset, Cadwallader is explicit about the origins and remit of the project of which her book is the outcome. It is not – and is not intended as – a scholarly treatise on British state policy on the North, much to Arkiv’s disappointment. Lethal Allies covers nearly 120 different killings which took place mainly (though not exclusively) in what has been dubbed the “murder triangle” in Counties Armagh and Tyrone. These killings took place in the 1970s and Cadwallader convincingly documents how they were carried out by a particular 'loyalist gang, and permutations of it, with tacit assistance from members of government forces' (p. 16). She does 'not claim that every RUC officer or UDR soldier was collusive, or every loyalist was manipulated, or every judge or British cabinet minister mendacious' (p.16). Nevertheless, it is argued 'that enough was known, or should have been known, by sufficient people in places of authority, to prevent many of the murders described' (p. 16).

While HET reports certainly play a major part in corroborating the author’s very serious allegations, so too does over 15 years of meticulous research. Lethal Allies is also based upon official government reports, on hundreds of hours of archival research at Kew, at PRONI, the Newspaper Library in Belfast and dozens of local libraries scattered across this island. It is based on years of back-and-forth correspondence between the Pat Finucane Centre and the RUC, PSNI (at various levels), the DPP, the Northern Ireland Courts Service, the Coroner’s Office, the Office of the Attorney General and Lord Chief Justice. It is based on countless meetings and correspondence between Justice for the Forgotten and Justice Barron, the Department of Justice and the Gardai Síochána in the Republic. Numerous interviews were carried out with victims, survivors, whistle-blowers, serving police officers, retired police officers, etc. Moreover, it includes damning ballistic reports which link many a “stolen” weapon to murder after murder after murder.

Arkiv acknowledge that '[t]he issues of collusion raised in the book are indeed profoundly serious ones' but deal very little with these issues (despite the fact that these issues comprise the bulk of Lethal Allies.) And unsurprisingly Arkiv make no reference to the “human side” of these multiple tragedies – the pain, humiliation, harassment, etc. suffered by those who lost their loved ones – this too is an important part of the book. Instead Cadwallader and the Pat Finucane Centre are taken to task for failing to recognize 'the massive challenges faced by the security forces and the RUC in particular in the early to mid-1970s.' This is given as one of the main reasons why so many of the murders described may not have been properly investigated (evidence in the book often suggests otherwise.) The HET investigators do 'note that applying the standards of contemporary best practice to the chaotic, pressurized and dangerous conditions of the Seventies is anachronistic and unfair' but it is the HET that 'in report after report ... goes on to criticize successive RUC enquiries' (pp. 260-261)

Furthermore, while the author is accused of depicting arrest rates of 'loyalist terrorists and rogue security force members [as an] unmitigated failure,' this is only partially true – a section of the book actually documents what happened to some of those arrested, what charges were filed and how the justice system then failed in its duties.

The review points out that '[m]uch is made of the murderous activities of the former member of the UDR Robert Jackson and the allegation that he worked as a hit-man for British Military Intelligence and the RUC.' The allegation is indeed made and it is based on far more than the word of Colin Wallace (perhaps the reviewer missed the whole discussion regarding Jackson and the Miami Showband killings – see pp. 103-108). Still, rather than focus on this allegation, emphasis is placed on the many opportunities the RUC had to arrest Jackson and many of his associates. What is more, it is argued that the evidence to effectively prosecute Jackson did exist – in fact it existed on a number of occasions – and this is pointed out time and time again. Why this did not happen, readers can decide for themselves.

Elsewhere Arkiv claim that Lethal Allies 'resurrects the ‘Wilson Plot’ thesis of an MI5 conspiracy to overthrow the Labour Prime Minister.' In nearly 400 pages of text, the thesis is touched on in a matter of two or three sentences – not much of a resurrection. Arkiv also argues that “the logic” of the book results in a number of “strange conclusions”. For example, the author’s views on the collusion supposedly lay 'blame for the Kingsmill massacre ... at the door of the British state' (Cadwallader clearly states that the IRA were responsible for the attack – something which the Republican Movement still refuses to do – and that it was “terrible and inexcusable”) (p. 158). It is even said that 'Cadwallader and the PFC claim the IRA’s ‘Long War’ was a product of ... British collusion', yet the IRA’s ‘Long War’ strategy is never discussed in the book. What is said, however, is that collusion simply prolongs conflict – indeed, '[t]he hard lessons learned in Armagh and Tyrone have a relevance as far away as Afghanistan, Iraq and other modern theatres of war' (pp. 372-373).

* * *

Hours after the Dublin/Monaghan bombings, the then Taoiseach Liam Cosgrave (FG) argued 'Everyone who has practised violence or preached violence or condoned violence must bear a share of responsibility for today’s outrage' (p. 221). The Dublin/Monaghan bombings remain the greatest loss of life in a single day of the Troubles but there was no national day of mourning and no government minister visited the injured or bereaved. The deadly attacks were carried out by UVF personnel (many of who were either former or serving members of the security forces) and serious allegations persist that other British security force members also played a part. Much of this was known in the immediate wake of the bombings yet Cosgrave and other Irish government officials quickly shifted the blame for the bombings onto republicans.

Arkiv regards Lethal Allies as 'but the latest manifestation of a one-sided ‘blame the Brits’ syndrome.' As noted above, Arkiv say very little about the 120 murders documented in the book. These brutal killings were carried out by loyalists who were aided and abetted by state forces; oftentimes there was no distinction between the two. The book documents this. The British government was well aware of loyalist infiltration of the UDR and of the frequent arms raids on Army bases in the North. This too is well documented. The 'overwhelming majority of those specifically targeted were people who were progressing economically, socially and politically – people with aspirations their parents could only have dreamed of' (p. 363). Only one of the murders covered in this book was of a republican activist. No over-arching British state policy is alleged here, but in each of these cases blame is 'laid at the door of the British state' and rightly so. Would Arkiv rather shift the blame?

  • Note: Arkiv’s review ends by accusing Cadwallader of 'ungenerously rubbish[ing] the HET’s role in dealing with the past' – not true. Until very recently, the Pat Finucane Centre has critically engaged with the HET on behalf of families since it started reviewing cases in 2006. As the book notes, however, 'many families have been bitterly disappointed by HET Reports' and the Centre has always maintained that this avenue is a deeply flawed and imperfect way for families to begin to learn the truth regarding the death of a loved-one during the Troubles (p. 17). Nevertheless, Cadwallader has very openly and publicly praised the 'small team of very diligent officers of huge integrity and courage' who investigated many of the Glennane gang killings.

6 comments:

  1. Stuart,

    thanks for allowing TPQ to carry this. It is a strong tackle, adroitly delivered. Hopefully it prompts discussion and reflection.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Prompt it does Stu. From an American perpective, the comment about dirty war/assassination/shoot-to-kill in Iraq & Afganistan is particularly salient. No lessons learned. Guelke delusional or in denial, like many of his colleagues at a certain university. Slice an artery, a flood of orange. But as for the new book, Lethal Allies, it sounds as if the author meticulously documented murders that are described elsewhere but not collectively. That's of great service, the herding of cases. The Larkin comments on the inefficacy of public prosecutions for past war crimes - sensible - makes a book of this sort indispensible.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Michael,

    I am not at all convinced that your take on Adrian Guelke is accurate. I have not read Paul Larkin's book and cannot comment. A republican two days ago who is scathing of the Brit record sent a review Guelke did of Paul Larkin's book (I had read the review some time ago) and his comment was "Adrian Guelke demolished Larkin's book in a review published in Fortnight in 2004."

    I think as critics of the British state's role we need to be wary of overegging the pudding and see the critique lost by default. It is much more inportant to get the measure right - something Stuart has shown great awareness of here in his overview of the Arkiv perspective.

    Adrian Guelke I think has brought an honesty, not a delusion to his perspective. I have always found that in my dealings with him. I doubt if he will ignore the evidence. What Anne Cadwallader, it seems, has done is join up the dots that make the isolated and the bad apple start to appear as something much more systemic. It is in showing this that the position of Guelke will be tested not by dismissing him as some sort of idiot.

    We see how quick critics can be to focus in on any analytical weakness that relies on hyperbole. We can also see how Stuart swerved to avoid allowing that type of high tackle to be made.

    ReplyDelete
  4. AM,

    Mea culpa, truly. It was silly of me to take a swipe, albeit a small one, at Guelke or any other QUB history or politics lecturer. I think what struck me as strange was Guelke's muted criticism of loyalist gunmen. But yes, he seems a perfectly likable man and his South African provenance gives him a special perspective on Northern Ireland, I think. Stuart does exhibit great delicacy and nuance here, qualities which I have always admired in those of you who have had to live through The Troubles on the front line. Moving around and talking to folks in both communities in Belfast has been an invaluable education, an exposure that has taught me - except for today - to try, at least try, to choose words, colors, and symbols carefully. As you can imagine (or know), most Americans don't give a hoot about the complexities of Irish history or the tiny signs which reveal origin and allegiance: "Are those people still fighting about religion? That's just dumb."

    When sniffing unionist apologia, I missed the mark and showed some lingering resentment against other QUB staff who, once they detected my sympathy for Irish nationalism, cut me off at the knees or simply just cut me off. So it goes. Emotion hijacks me sometimes, makes the ship of reason list, and in the end I'm simply another American with an Irish surname.

    As for the book in question, yes, Cadwallader seems to have provided a real service. The courts, as you've intimated, could not be counted upon to do the same, and as a result, the British government would again slip the noose. Thank you for your honesty, Anthony, I need a good comeuppance from time to time. Overegging the pudding, now that's an expression we do not use: good one though. High tackles? Given out and absorbed.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Michael,

    no apology required. You put right what you thought was wrong and that's it done and dusted.

    There are few decisions based on pure reason. We might try to reason as best we can but being human, reason is not the only faculty we have. There is that little problematic add on called emotion! In another circumstance I would make the same error.

    I think with Arkiv the debate needs to be had at a rational level where each perspective tries to engage the other. It can be a very sharp exchange. In fact it has to be. But it is better that the sharp end is applied like an incision rather than a slash, more scalpel less knife, type of thing. If there is something to learn from Arkiv people should not be afraid to learn it; likewise if Arkiv is not afraid to learn from its critics a better understanding grows in potential.

    But probably more importantly the audience following the discussion will benefit from the clash of ideas even if each side is entrenched.

    Well that's the theory but as they say all great plans rarely survive first contact with the opposition!

    ReplyDelete
  6. So, The Glenanne Gang morphed into The Committee, The MRF became the FRU and The Unknowns name changed to The Nutting Squad?

    ReplyDelete