Post by dangeresque on Jul 10, 2008 23:30:18 GMT
Sensible responce to the Orwellian crap from Spin Féin.
The IRA were never accountable
Published Date: SUNDAY JOURNAL 06 July 2008
By Eamonn McCann
Some of us who opposed the strategy of armed struggle throughout the Provos' 25-year
campaign won't be signing the petition calling on the 'dissidents' to disarm.
In his speech at the City Cemetery last Sunday, Martin McGuinness made the point the
petition puts forward, drawing a distinction between the Provisional IRA and those
who still espouse armed struggle: 'When I joined the IRA in this city, it was an
army of the people - sustained by the people - supported by the people - and
answerable to the people.' An editorial in the Journal on Tuesday accepted this
'important point' without reservation. This is entirely understandable, and
emotionally difficult to challenge in the aftermath of the killing of Emmett Shiels.
But no permanent peace will be achieved for the future if we don't acknowledge the
truth of our past.It's natural that Martin McGuinness should express a negative view
of a rival organisation's position - particularly when that organisation is
challenging the legitimacy of Sinn Féin's Republicanism. However, the claim that the
IRA was 'sustained by the people - supported by the people---and answerable to the
people' is true only if we define 'the people' to mean Republicans: themselves
alone. People who gave their backing to the SDLP didn't sustain or support the IRA.
Unionist people tended to be wholly opposed to the IRA. There were many who didn't
fit into the Orange-Green paradigm at all and who found it possible to oppose both
the British Army murder-machine and the armed-struggle strategy of the Republican
Movement.In particular, the notion that the (Provisional] IRA was 'answerable to the
people' doesn't hold water. Throughout its history, the IRA has never made itself
answerable to anyone but itself and its closest followers. A sensible and necessary
attitude from a military point of view. A secret army which routinely invited people
outside its own ranks to pass judgment on its activities wouldn't last a wet
week.Republicans have always rooted their mandate in the 1916 Proclamation and in
the legitimacy of the First Dail, not in the passing opinions of the wider
populace.It's OK by me if Sinn Fein leaders offer a different account. It's hardly
unusual for a political party to offer a version of its past (re)designed to meet
present needs. But the rest of us, when purporting to offer a fair and objective
opinion, shouldn't stretch facts to fit a particular party's particular analysis.The
scary fact which Tuesdays editorial writer seemed to me to be squirming to avoid is
that the 'dissidents' aren't dissident at all, but are following the path already
trodden by every previous generation of Republicans. That doesn't mean that they are
right. It means that if they are wrong, then so is the Republican tradition
itself.To deny the legitimacy of armed struggle in the present while simultaneously
celebrating armed struggle in the past is not to make any useful point of principle
but is implicitly to support a particular political party.
The IRA were never accountable
Published Date: SUNDAY JOURNAL 06 July 2008
By Eamonn McCann
Some of us who opposed the strategy of armed struggle throughout the Provos' 25-year
campaign won't be signing the petition calling on the 'dissidents' to disarm.
In his speech at the City Cemetery last Sunday, Martin McGuinness made the point the
petition puts forward, drawing a distinction between the Provisional IRA and those
who still espouse armed struggle: 'When I joined the IRA in this city, it was an
army of the people - sustained by the people - supported by the people - and
answerable to the people.' An editorial in the Journal on Tuesday accepted this
'important point' without reservation. This is entirely understandable, and
emotionally difficult to challenge in the aftermath of the killing of Emmett Shiels.
But no permanent peace will be achieved for the future if we don't acknowledge the
truth of our past.It's natural that Martin McGuinness should express a negative view
of a rival organisation's position - particularly when that organisation is
challenging the legitimacy of Sinn Féin's Republicanism. However, the claim that the
IRA was 'sustained by the people - supported by the people---and answerable to the
people' is true only if we define 'the people' to mean Republicans: themselves
alone. People who gave their backing to the SDLP didn't sustain or support the IRA.
Unionist people tended to be wholly opposed to the IRA. There were many who didn't
fit into the Orange-Green paradigm at all and who found it possible to oppose both
the British Army murder-machine and the armed-struggle strategy of the Republican
Movement.In particular, the notion that the (Provisional] IRA was 'answerable to the
people' doesn't hold water. Throughout its history, the IRA has never made itself
answerable to anyone but itself and its closest followers. A sensible and necessary
attitude from a military point of view. A secret army which routinely invited people
outside its own ranks to pass judgment on its activities wouldn't last a wet
week.Republicans have always rooted their mandate in the 1916 Proclamation and in
the legitimacy of the First Dail, not in the passing opinions of the wider
populace.It's OK by me if Sinn Fein leaders offer a different account. It's hardly
unusual for a political party to offer a version of its past (re)designed to meet
present needs. But the rest of us, when purporting to offer a fair and objective
opinion, shouldn't stretch facts to fit a particular party's particular analysis.The
scary fact which Tuesdays editorial writer seemed to me to be squirming to avoid is
that the 'dissidents' aren't dissident at all, but are following the path already
trodden by every previous generation of Republicans. That doesn't mean that they are
right. It means that if they are wrong, then so is the Republican tradition
itself.To deny the legitimacy of armed struggle in the present while simultaneously
celebrating armed struggle in the past is not to make any useful point of principle
but is implicitly to support a particular political party.