Though Cowards Flinch

Amidst all the discussion of Iraq and Afghanistan, the senior politicos often argue about whether or not someone lied, or whether dossiers were sexed up, or what other motivations there were behind the use of the military to invade two foreign nations. What is rarely discussed is why having an army in the first place is fucking stupid, undemocratic, illiberal and a host of other adjectives which the reportage on the Saville Inquiry brings home.

The following words come from the commander of the 1st Batt. Parachute Regiment, Lt-Col Wilford;

“I have to ask – what about Bloody Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and every day of the week?

“What about Bloody Omagh? What about Bloody Warrenpoint, Enniskillen, Hyde Park, or Bloody Aldershot and Brighton – bloody everything the IRA have ever touched.”

In context, these words were spoken in 1999, in an interview with Radio 4 that involved a direct attack on the credibility of all the families of those who were shot, claiming that they were all Republicans. The interview contains no little religious bigotry too;

“They will all say that [i.e. deny links with the Republican organisation, presumably meaning IRA/Sinn Fein], won’t they? I mean every republican, every – I regret to say – almost every Ulster Catholic will say that.”

Speaking as an Ulster Catholic (technically, as the Church doesn’t recognise apostasy or atheism as a cessation of membership of the Catholic Church – I asked) I resent such remarks – but they are less offensive than the first remarks, which attempt to exonerate the behaviour of the Paras on the basis that what the IRA did was worse.

If one doesn’t wish to read the remarks as an attempt to exonerate the Paras, certainly they are an attempt to deflect media attention – which, when set against the testimony of soldiers at the Saville Inquiry that they were told to expect gunmen and to ‘get some kills’, is preposterous – and a classic case of whataboutery.

The reality is that the State deployed a body of armed men, trained to kill, against a civilian population that was demanding its rights. To shrug off the murder of fourteen people, without even the bad excuse of due process before the law and one’s peers, is inexcusable. Frankly I couldn’t believe it when I heard snippets played on Radio 4 this morning, until I went back to read the transcript.

What is so interesting is how the reaction of the political establishment to Bloody Sunday prefigured the sort of manipulations leading up to the invasion of Iraq. The Home Secretary reported that 1st Batt. Para had come under attack from guns and nail-bombs. Bloody nail bombs! This was a different march from the one absolutely everyone but the British military reported.

We’ll never know quite what happened that day, but it’s fairly certain there were no sodding nail bombs used. This presents us with the simple truth that the British political establishment can’t be trusted to have an army at its disposal. Shit like this keeps happening. Setting aside the initial violence and destruction of the UK-US invasions and the aerial armageddon wreaked, occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan has resulted in uncounted civilian casualties.

Or, in the wider ‘war on terror’, there’s the case of de Menezes, shot on his way to work, like Damian Donaghy who was shot by the army on suspicion of carrying “a black cylindrical object” in Derry, 1972. Those protesters in the City of London, when Ian Tomlinson was batoned and subsequently died from his injury, should count themselves lucky.

Max Hastings said this morning it was a miracle stuff like this hadn’t happened more often in Northern Ireland. Personally I suspect that this was less to the credit of the British Army than due to the decline of what had been a popular civil rights movement that could bring thousands out to the streets in defiance of the authorities. The reality is, when you put a body of armed, trained, tensed up men in control of a situation, it can quickly get out of hand.

Naturally enough, after the event, they will rationalise and justify their behaviour – and silence will reign if that is what will protect these men, who will in turn see it as protecting their mission – a mission they consider important. Whether it’s Sir Ian Blair or Lt-Col. Wilford, staunch defiance becomes the order of the day, couched where possible in appeasing words like ‘tragedy’. Caught between stoicism and silence, justice will die.

Alas the remit of the Saville Inquiry is merely to establish what happened on Bloody Sunday, not to understand the wider ramifications of deploying armed men amidst civilians. Even there, it will be interesting to see what is said. The BBC and other media outlets are reporting ‘consternation’ that British squaddies might be put on trial as a result of their actions – and I can’t see Saville and co letting things go that far.

The army may get a rap on the knuckles for what may be termed its ‘culture’, but I imagine the inquiry will find wiggle room through which to squeeze the soldiers and their commanders, even if it concludes that the march was unarmed.

As a side and final note, this is a sensitive topic. I wasn’t there, though I’ve read first-hand accounts, and truthfully wasn’t old enough to remember the real ‘Troubles’ – I remember the D-notices on appearances by Gerry Adams etc, and I remember the Canary Wharf bomb, and I lived through – even in my rather sheltered town – Orangemen and UVF men closing main arteries in protest at marches being refused routes through Catholic areas.

What makes me speak out here is just how abhorrent I find the notion of the military being deployed against anyone, compounded by the fact that the people shot were British citizens, to whom the British state had an obligation, which it failed. This is the case even if they were the first to pick up weapons and fire. Conversely, it’s also the case that if even one squaddie ends up in the dock, the real fault lies with the British establishment.

The failures of every Prime Minister and government since Lloyd-George to stand up for the oppressed in their own country constitutes a blight on our shared history. Heath, Wilson and their administrations must stand especially condemned as they were Johnny on the spot, and decided on internment without trial, diplock courts and the deployment of the army in the first place – even to ‘defend’ a community from which it shot the vast majority of its 305 victims.

Of whatever stripe, we need to learn this lesson.

This week’s New Statesman interview with Martin McGuinness lets the Northern Irish Deputy First Minister off extremely lightly, allowing him to appear as the romantic Republican, standing astride a bitter past with the promise of a future.

A lot of the interview concentrates on personal questions, such as whether McGuinness killed anyone as an IRA man or whether he lets death threats bother him, but the political part is remarkably weak.

McGuinness gets away with vague answers talking about how he wants to “move forward”, to “work with [Peter Robinson] in a positive, constructive way”, to “end the vicious cycle” and so on, not actually saying much.

Politics in Northern Ireland is much more mundane than a relentless focus on “the Troubles” makes it. Politicians are charged with delivering the same services as elsewhere, within the same constraints. Unbelievably, Martin McGuinness isn’t asked anything about the substantive part of what he does either as Deputy First Minister or as part of the Stormont Executive.

A passing reference to how his faith doesn’t challenge the view that everyone should be treated equally is about it.

The closest the interview comes to a challenging question was to ask whether or not a Tory government might damage McGuinness’ ’cause’. This is an important issue, because the institutions of the Good Friday Agreement, and the functions of the devolved government, operate at the sufferance of Westminster.

To this question the DFM responded:

Well, I’ve met with Owen Paterson [the Conservative shadow Northern Ireland secretary] and David Cameron, and they made it clear that they are prepared to stand faithfully by the agreements that have been made. Being involved constructively in the north of Ireland is a steep learning curve. I hope whatever government is elected will come at this as positively as Labour did in recent times.

Which is nice but rather sidesteps a key issue, which goes beyond the institutions themselves. There is nationalist speculation that the Conservatives are attempting to negotiate some deal between UCUNF (formerly the Ulster Unionists, now allied directly to the Tory Party) and the DUP, as a way to outmanoeuvre the nationalists.

This raises questions over how easily nationalists can deal with a Tory government if they have to watch their back, fearing that each initiative might be aimed at weakening the nationalists rather than furthering peace.

Interestingly, McGuinness’ view on what the Tories are prepared to do flatly contradicts the pronouncements of Owen Paterson, Tory NI spokesman. Called on by Peter Robinson to ratify any potential agreement on devolution of policing and justice, Paterson said;

“We are facing a major economic crisis should we win the next election. We cannot give any guarantees on any spending programmes.”

That’s not even the issue I myself consider important. With George Osborne giving the lie to David Cameron’s softly-softly approach on cuts in spending, in the aftermath of an election, Northern Irish politicians have got to be wondering how this is going to end up affecting them.

Even without immediate spending cuts in the block grant, the Executive needs to find ‘savings’ of some £400 million, in view of pressures like the anti-water charges campaign, which has turned the imposition of the double taxation on water usage into something akin to political suicide.

Predictions by Margaret Ritchie of crisis in the housing department, of shortfalls rising to £100m per year, directly impact upon the stability of Northern Ireland. Whether it’s re-housing people forced out by sectarian, anti-immigrant or even anti-police attacks, or providing for an area with perpetually high unemployment, housing is going to be squeezed and the results may be violent.

There’s talk of increasing the regional rates, which disproportionately affect lower and middle value properties: everything above £400,000 is capped. One hopes this will have eased, following the end of Belfast’s London-like house prices boom, but that in turn reduces the amount that can be harvested.

Capital projects will be put on hold, shelving plans for hospitals, schools and roads (and probably increasing the excess capacity in related industries), to the tune of £170 million. And then there’s the issue of a Tory government whose first priority is to stabilise a credit rating which isn’t under threat.

Perhaps McGuinness should have been asked, with his party touted (however unlikely) to occupy the First Minister spot after the next Assembly elections, how Sinn Fein intends to reconcile this with its rhetoric about how working people are being asked to pay for ‘the greed of the government, bankers and the developers’.