Martin McGuinness – Some Questions To Ask & Answer

It has been the accepted wisdom in Irish politics for almost as long as I can remember that when it comes to telling the story of their lives in the IRA that Gerry Adams is regarded as a brazen liar while Martin McGuinness is treated like a paragon of virtue and candour.

As far as the first part of that statement is concerned there is no contest. Gerry Adams’ contention that he was never, ever in the IRA has to rank amongst the world’s biggest whoppers ever, a veritable taradiddle in the pantheon of untruths. Almost as breathtaking as the cheek of Adams’ claim was his belief and assumption that somehow he’d get away with it. In fact he has paid a huge price for this fairy tale.

His attempt to distance himself from the IRA and what it did under his command so angered Brendan Hughes that he broke the IRA’s unwritten rule of omerta and told all, or nearly all he knew of Adams’ past history to researchers at Boston College. By so doing Hughes made Adams’ effort to rewrite his life a ludicrous sham. Similarly I very much doubt whether Dolours Price would have given an interview to the Irish News, and indirectly to the Sunday Life, about Adams’s role in the various ‘disappearances’ of the early 1970’s if she had not been maddened by the disavowal of his and therefore her life.

So when Martin McGuinness appeared in front of the Saville Tribunal on Bloody Sunday and admitted that he had been in the IRA and held a senior position in the Derry Brigade at the time of 1 Para’s killing spree, much of the media hailed his honesty and so was born one of the most enduring myths of the Troubles: Gerry Adams lies about his IRA past while Martin McGuinness tells the truth.

Thus when it comes to choosing Sinn Fein’s candidate for the Aras, all that puts McGuinness at a considerable advantage over his party leader. While Adams would be hounded by awkward and damaging questions from the media about his past, McGuinness can play the role of the honest paramilitary apostate, truthful about his past and now a changed man.

But what did Martin McGuinness actually tell Saville? Was it the truth or did he too lie? The answer can be found very easily on the web. Type Saville Inquiry into the Google search box, and when the Tribunal’s web page comes up click on the link to Contact Us and then go to Transcripts. Scroll down to Ts391, which stands for transcript of day 391, which happened to be November 5th – Guy Fawkes’ Day – 2003. There, on pages 137 through 141, you will discover what Martin McGuinness really had to say to Saville.

He was being questioned by Edwin Glasgow QC, counsel for the Paras who began this part of the cross-examination by asking McGuinness about the IRA’s “Green Book”, the organisation’s manual, for want of a better term. McGuinness’ answer is the first hint that his admission of IRA membership is very much time-limited, that he is ready to acknowledge membership in the days when the IRA’s campaign was part of a popular uprising but not later when it took on the characteristics normally associated with terrorism.

Asked what the “Green Book” is, McGuinness answers: “Well, I have been aware for many years that there has been a book, described as ‘The Green Book,’ which is the book which most IRA volunteers would read and would be guided by. I have to say, in 1972, whenever I was in the IRA, there was no such book.”

A little later on, more of the same: “….in 1972, whenever I was in the IRA, there was no such thing as ‘The Green Book’….”. And more again: “……you might find this surprising, but I have never read this book. This is the first time that I have seen extracts from the book.”

The creation of ‘The Green Book’ was a part of the re-organisation of the IRA that took place in the late 1970‘s and early 1980‘s. This all arose out of discussions in Long Kesh involving Gerry Adams, Ivor Bell and Brendan Hughes amongst others and was prompted by their perceived need to rebuild the IRA after the failed ceasefire of 1974/75. “The Green Book” set out the IRA’s aims, tactics and politics, included a copy of the organisation’s constitution and was required reading for recruits not least because it set out the penalty – death – for informing and for other transgressions. An IRA Volunteer accused of betraying secrets could avoid a bullet to the head if he or she could prove that they had not been “Green-booked”, i.e. instructed to read the document.

McGuinness’ claim that when he was in the IRA “The Green Book” didn’t exist led Edwin Glasgow to ask the obvious question. Here then is the exchange between Martin McGuinness and counsel for 1 Para on the question of the Derry man’s IRA membership:

Q. It may well be, sir, you had already left the IRA by the time this document in the form that we have it, came into existence. When did you leave the IRA?

A. Here we go again, on another trawl through the Martin McGuinness fixation.

Q. No, it is not at all, sir, not at all. May I just explain to you, because you have been very concerned, understandably, to be treated in the same way as the soldiers, and it is precisely the same question, word for word, as was asked, I think, of some seven or eight soldiers.

A. Were they asked when they left the British Army?

Q. Yes, simply because it was thought to be relevant to the way in which other people had reacted to what had happened on Bloody Sunday. You do not have to answer my question or any of them, I ask them, and I will not ask them twice, it is for the Tribunal to say whether you should answer them or not: I ask again, when did you leave the IRA, if you did?

A. I left the IRA in the early part of the 1970s.

Now Martin McGuinness could have taken up Edwin Glasgow’s offer and declined to answer that question, but he didn’t. Instead he chose to tell a lie. It may not be as flagrant as Gerry Adam’s lie to be sure; he didn’t say he had never been in the IRA (and given his infamous interview with the BBC’s Tom Mangold, he could hardly do otherwise) just that he’d been in it for only a short time. But it was still a lie and, given events between ‘the early part of the 1970s’ and the ending of the IRA’s war in 2005, a pretty darned big one.

In a sentence his post-1972 career as Chief of Staff, twice Northern Commander and Chairman of the IRA’s Army Council (during which times he would have been on familiar terms with “The Green Book” and those who had ignored its warning to putative informers) was simply washed away and with it all the things he is alleged to have done while holding down those jobs.

It will be interesting to see how the media treats all this as the campaign for the job in Phoenix Park hots up.

UPDATE: In today’s Irish Times, a Sinn Fein spokesperson is quoted thus: “We are not naive political operators. Martin has never run away from his past, and he took the lead in terms of republicans facing up to the legacy of the past.”

How does that statement square with what McGuinness told the Saville Tribunal?

5 responses to “Martin McGuinness – Some Questions To Ask & Answer

  1. Who Was Alice Collins?

    On 10 April 1997 a full-time RUC reservist named Alice Collins was shot while on duty outside the Guildhall in Derry – the high-velocity bullet passed right through her. The next day the Irish Times Security Correspondent Jim Cusack, quoting security sources, reported that it was carried out on the orders of a ‘senior Sinn Féin leader in Derry… reputed to be the head of the IRA’ and a Donegal IRA man ‘believed to have been the central figure in bringing the ceasefire to an end’ with the Canary Wharf bomb, which killed two newsagents.
    If a journalist knew so much about this deadly duo, then the Irish and British governments must have known a lot more about them. It is likely, indeed, that the security forces had informed their political masters of the activities of the conspirators in advance of the crime being committed – it is farfetched to imagine that Cusack, outstanding reporter though he is, was getting the same briefing at the same time as the governments were. Whatever about the exact state of their knowledge before the shooting, the governments certainly knew after the fact the names of those responsible. But they did nothing. And they did it for a reason.
    Gerry Adams was quick to teach them the lesson, and in public too: had Sinn Féin been invited to all-party talks after the ending of the IRA ceasefire on 10 February, the attack, he said, ‘would certainly not have happened’.
    Heard in that context, Alice Collins’s cry as she fell was merely a political slogan.
    Thirteen months later, on 9 May 1998, Sinn Féin held a special Ard Fheis in the premises of the Royal Dublin Society in Dublin. Its purpose was to ensure the compliance of rank-and-file members with the wishes of the leadership in relation to the Belfast Agreement. In order to help achieve that aim, the government sanctioned the temporary release from Portlaoise prison of IRA prisoners.
    But on the morning of the Ard Fheis the newspapers announced the death of Alice Collins.
    The coincidence seemed almost purposely designed to embarrass both the organisers of the Árd Fheis and the government that facilitated them. But there was no embarrassment. No link was made by the media between the death of a real woman and the antics of the gang that shot her. Alice Collins was forgotten. The Belfast Agreement was ratified by Sinn Féin, and shortly afterwards, Martin McGuinness, the man who was the most senior Sinn Féin leader in Derry when this mother of three children was shot, was the Minister in charge of their education. Only a special kind of intelligence could encompass the two ends of that irony.

    For a fuller version of this passage see the Introduction to ‘Pity for the Wicked’ (Duras Press, Dublin, 2005) by Brian Lynch.

  2. Martin McGuinness is then guilty of perjury. I am assuming he was under oath. Possibly he might argue that he left the IRA in the early 1970s for a few days at least.

  3. I wonder if Martin McGuiness or Adams will ever admit membership of the IRA. I don’t think Sinn Fein expect of win the presidential election, they just want to out flank Fianna Fail.

  4. as many members of the senior provs will state ,mcguinness was not only a liar but a coward ,when questioned that he had cooperated with british security services ,with a view to his acceptance in future peace talks,he denied all knowledge .Many members of the provo are bitter about this deciet,but i am suprised that none of them has stood up to denounce his hypocracy,particularly in view of his statements with regard to acceptance of the crown,a totall u turn ..??

  5. Very sad death that. A wife and mum gone. God forgive the gunman and the one who gave the order. Such a pointless death as all Troubles murders were.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s