Monthly Archives: December 2017

On December 11th, 1917, British forces, led by General Edmund Allenby, captured Jerusalem from the Ottoman empire, crowning a foray into Middle East politics featuring, amongst others, T E Lawrence, the so-called Lawrence of Arabia.

Turkey had made an alliance with Germany during the First World War and so the capture of Jerusalem was a significant waypoint in the ending of that conflict. Allenby’s victory would begin more than thirty years of British involvement with Palestine which would end with the establishment of the Israeli state.

Five days shy of exactly a century later, Donald Trump is today recognising Jerusalem as the official capital of Israel.

British forces parade at the Jaffa Gate in Jerusalem in anticipation of greeting their victorious General, Edmund Allenby as he made his official entrance to the captured city.

British troops corral Palestinians in Jerusalem

Media profiles of Seamus McGrane – read here and here – who was sentenced to 11 1/2 years jail time today for his part in an alleged plot to plant a bomb during Prince Charles’ visit to the south of Ireland in 2015, failed to pick up on his crucial role as Chairman of the Provisional IRA Executive in the years before the Good Friday Agreement when Gerry Adams – and the peace process – were a hairbreadth away from political extinction.

Seamus McGrane

Below is the text of a speech he gave as Executive Chairman to the IRA Convention of 1997. That convention came a year after Adams had his narrow escape and saw the effective defeat of dissident opposition, led by Quarter-Master General Michael McKevitt, followed by a split and the formation of the breakaway Real IRA.

I reproduced the text of the speech first in A Secret History of the IRA. Here it is in full:

Ouch! Gareth Mulvenna, author of a fascinating study of the Tartan Gangs of Belfast in the 1970’s – see this review – has himself entered the often uncomfortable world of book reviews and has put Aaron Edwards’ book on the UVF: ‘The UVF – Behind the Mask’ – under the microscope. He has found it, how shall I put it, less than satisfying.

Here it is below:

https://gmulvenna.wordpress.com/2017/12/05/a-few-thoughts-on-uvf-behind-the-mask/

In no particular order of significance:

1. Surely Theresa May would/should have known that the DUP would never accept anything approaching the deal she discussed with EU chiefs? The DUP had made it clear a day or so before her lunch with European Council President Donald Tusk that it would not accept any deal which diluted NI’s membership of the UK. Doing a deal behind the DUP’s back would also torpedo the confidence and supply agreement May struck with the party in order to sustain her government in power. Did she not realise that treating NI is such a way would set a precedent for Wales and/or Scotland, and that the road she proposed travelling could lead to the break up of the UK as we know it?

2. This question follows from what I wrote above: Is Theresa May therefore just stupid or has she failed to understand the last century or so of Anglo-Irish politics?

3. If Leo Varadkar did insist that the DUP should not be told about the ‘regulatory alignment’ deal before it has been settled between May and Tusk, as has been reported inter alia in the Guardian, what does this say about his lack of understanding of Unionism? Since the days of Daniel O’Connell and the Home Rule crises of the 19th century, Unionists have never trusted governments in London, always fearful of being sold out, always suspicious that they were being tricked and/or lied to. It is part of their political DNA and explains why conditional loyalty has defined political Unionism for decades (and why the British body politic and media have always found difficulty getting their heads around the concept of Loyalism). Varadkar’s insistence that the DUP be kept in the dark played to all these fears, meaning that even if May had done the deal with the EU, May’s government would probably have been brought down by the DUP, notwithstanding the possibility that a fresh election would have brought Corbyn into Downing Street. The reality is that the DUP would probably have calculated that if it had allowed the deal to survive, Arlene Foster would have been overthrown, the DUP riven by dissension and the hard men of Loyalism would be back on the streets. Neither Varadkar nor May appear to have understood the fires they were playing with.

4. A crucial event was the leak to RTE yesterday morning, just before May’s lunch with Tusk. Seemingly intended to signal an Irish diplomatic triumph (the EU had already given Dublin a veto on the deal), it instead alerted and alarmed the DUP, by all accounts, and led to Foster’s angry phone call to May as she prepared to break bread with the EU chiefs. RTE journalist, Tony Connelly, the station’s Europe editor who broadcast details of the deal, has denied that the leaker worked in or for the Irish government. Hmmmmm. That proves nothing. If I was Leo Varadkar and I wanted to leak the document without leaving telling fingerprints that would be the easiest thing to do. If you want to know who leaked something ask two questions: which outlet was chosen as the conduit (i.e. whose audience was targeted?) and cui bono?

5. I am entirely out of touch with who is who in the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs (a bunch of people I never had easy relations with by the way) but I do wonder about the calibre of the people dealing with the North these days, assuming there any. When all is said and done they were the guys who allowed this to happen.

That, in a sentence, is the question that arises from yesterday’s collapse of Brexit talks between Theresa May and the EU. Was the early morning briefing of RTE, clearly by the Irish government, to the effect that May had accepted a Border in the Irish Sea a screw up, done without thinking through the consequences, i.e. a likely DUP and pro-Brexit Tory backlash, or done in the knowledge that the sea border was never a starter but that it was in Leo Varadkar’s interests to paint May as the rejectionist and to hide his own failure?

Answers on a postcard to L Varadkar, Government Buildings, Dublin. Copy to Micheal Martin, Fianna Fail, Leinster House, Dublin.

As I write this, it is unclear whether or to what degree early news reports about the Brexit deal negotiated by the May government with the EU mean that Northern Ireland could be economically separated from the rest of the UK or if so, what shape that arrangement will take.

What is beyond debate however is that the fact that events have even moved so far in this direction represents a resounding triumph for those who hawked the transparently false proposition that the erection of a ‘hard border’ between the two parts of Ireland would precipitate a return to the bad old days of the Troubles.

As regular readers of this blog will know I have argued that while a ‘hard Border’ will certainly not be welcomed by Nationalists in the North, it was not the existence of the Border, hard or soft, that actually sparked the Troubles but rather the complaints of Nationalists that they could not get a square deal inside Northern Ireland under Unionist rule.

To rectify that they took to the streets in the late 1960’s to demand civil rights – not the removal of the Border – and it was Unionist resistance/refusal to concede civil rights, along with a ham-fisted British military, that caused the Troubles.

Now, you could argue, and you would not be wrong, that the existence of the Border made this possible, or even inevitable, but it is also clear that the majority of Nationalists were and are ready to accept the Border as long as they are guaranteed a fair swig of the jug inside Northern Ireland.

That, more than the actual nature of the Border crossings, is what matters to them. Hence the popularity of the Good Friday Agreement.

Suggest that Unionist majority rule be re-established in Northern Ireland and for sure the Troubles would erupt again, probably with greater violence. But re-impose Border controls that were, in my memory at least, not that exceptionally burdensome (I can not recall, for instance, ever having been stopped en route to Dublin in the 60’s) and I suspect the response would be closer to insouciance.

But since the Brexit crisis began to address the situation of Northern Ireland post-withdrawal from Europe, it has become almost a truth written in stone that a hard Border equals a resumption of violence. To those who sold this false bill of goods – and here you had a de facto alliance between the Varadkar government in Dublin and Sinn Fein – this was a stunning achievement. (So don’t write off an FG-SF coalition!)

The other EU governments and the EU bureaucracy appear to have swallowed this notion almost entirely and I suggest if you doubt all this then you should read the article below, published on November 30th, in the influential German magazine, Der Spiegel.

Note the headline ‘Potential Catastrophe’ and the unquestioning acceptance that a hard Border has the potential to ‘reignite old feuds’.

When Theresa May carved her now notorious deal with the DUP after the last UK general election, many in the British media immediately asked: Who are the DUP? This was only twenty years or so since the GFA yet already the British media had totally forgotten who Ian Paisley was and his role as midwife to three decades of bloodshed.

If that was how the British media remembered the most violent internal convulsion since the Second World War, then how much more susceptible would their European cousins be to misleading or exaggerated consequences in Ireland arising from the Brexit vote?

Potential Catastrophe

How the Irish Border Became Brexit’s Biggest Hurdle

A new “hard” border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland could have dire economic consequences for both sides — and reignite old feuds. Now Dublin is playing hardball with British negotiators.

By Markus Becker

The Words:

“As Americans, we must set the global standard for ensuring those with disabilities are treated with the dignity and respect that all people deserve” – From Presidential statement from Donald J Trump on the International Day of Persons with Disabilities, December 4th, 2017.

The Deeds:

If Mary Lou McDonald really means what she says in this Irish Times article below and does ‘address’ the bullying issue as Gerry Adams’ successor, she will have to take on the IRA and effectively kick it out of Sinn Fein, for it is the IRA, through the exertion of its overriding authority, which ultimately is responsible for the bullying in that party.

If she is any doubt about IRA hegemony in SF she should read the re-organisation document found by Gardai Special Branch when they raided IRA Chief of Staff,  Seamus Twomey’s Dublin flat in 1977. If Gerry can’t give her a copy, I’m sure someone in the Department of Justice can dig it out for her.

(And by the way let’s not try to pretend the IRA no longer exists. It may not have the numbers and structures of the past but it hasn’t gone away by any means. It still runs an Intelligence Department and oversees an investment portfolio worth many millions of dollars. Where did you think the Northern Bank robbery loot went?)

Discovered inside a pencil case, the Twomey document mapped out the IRA re-organization plan authored by Gerry Adams and others which, inter alia, said that Sinn Fein should come under IRA authority at all levels.

Nothing has changed to alter that relationship since then. The bullying is simply the outworking of IRA authority and while it may be tolerated by most in the North, for historical and cultural reasons, SF’s Southern membership have increasing difficulties with it. Hence the spate of resignations.

The only effective way to end the bullying is to cut the cord. Mary Lou has to know that, and if she does, has she the gumption to follow through? Time will tell.

In the meantime here is what she told The Irish Times. Enjoy:

McDonald plans to address spate of Sinn Féin resignations
TD will announce run for leadership at Dublin Central selection convention

By Fiach Kelly

Sinn Féin leadership frontrunner Mary Lou McDonald will examine how the party is run in light of a series of resignations if she is elected to succeed Gerry Adams.

On Monday night Ms McDonald will officially declare she is standing to succeed Mr Adams, with the vacancy to be filled at a special ardfheis to take place by the end of February.

Speaking to The Irish Times ahead of her Dublin Central selection convention on Monday, Ms McDonald acknowledged there is an “issue to be addressed” following a number of resignations.

She strongly rejected suggestions there is a “culture of bullying”, but added Sinn Féin must be better able to manage its development into a large political party. This will be a key element or her discussions with party members in the coming weeks as she seeks the leadership, she said.

“I don’t for a second accept or buy into this kind of thing of a ‘culture of bullying’. That is not true. But that is not to say there isn’t an issue to be addressed. There is, but to suggest it is a ‘culture of bullying’ is wrong. Are there issues? Yes there are. It is managing growth.”

‘Modernising’

Ms McDonald will talk to members about “modernising the party . . . shaping ourselves up a bit”.

She said it is not possible to manage a large- or medium-size party in the same way as a smaller operation, pointing out that Sinn Féin now has 13,000 members and has grown rapidly in the Republic.

“There is no doubt that we have had tensions, interpersonal difficulties and in some cases disciplinary difficulties. We are not an outlier in that. That is absolutely normal.

“I think of course we need to look at how we get better at managing on an ongoing basis all of these things that arise. We also have to be clear, and every member of Sinn Féin has to be clear, that we have a constitution and rules and the rules are applied fairly, transparently, without fear and without favour.”

Sinn Féin lost another elected representative yesterday after a county councillor in Galway resigned and accused some in the party of “unacceptable behaviour”.

‘Great regret’

The resignation of Gabriel Cronnelly came days after a Galway Senator Trevor Ó’Clochartaigh also quit amid allegations of bullying. Ms McDonald said she heard news of the two resignations “with very great regret”.

Councillors have also resigned or been expelled in Tipperary, Limerick, Cavan, Westmeath, Kilkenny, Kildare and Wicklow.

The Dublin Central TD will not fully outline her policy platform on Monday evening. This will be done at a later stage in the campaign.

She added that, despite assumptions she is the runaway favourite, “there is no done deal here . . . there is no ordination, coronation”.

“It is the members and the members alone who select their leader and I am going out to have that conversation with that membership.”

This will mean speaking about Irish unity, Brexit and Northern Ireland, among other subjects.

By Ed Moloney and Bob Mitchell

During the Troubles the British Army constructed or used already erected mock towns/streets to replicate the urban environment that their troops would experience during tours of Northern Ireland. Below is a selection of photos of the sites and some training exercises. Only one, at the Ballykinlar camp in Co Down, was situated in the North. The rest were in England.

Since the end of the Troubles some of the same sites have been used for training troops about to serve in Iran and Afghanistan. You can see that at the training village in Rype, Kent one of the streets has been re-named ‘General Massoud Road’. Interesting, yes?

Ballykinlar

Rype Village in Lydd, Kent

Dymchurch Redoubt – A fort constructed off the Kent coast in anticipation of an invasion of England by Napoleonic forces at the beginning of the 19th century

A soldier surveys a map of a fictional town called, would you believe ‘Killymurphy’

In the meantime, here are some pictures of actual training during the early 70’s. Look familiar?