Follies Of The Peace Process

Congal · Follies Of The Peace Process

sunday independent
Our leaders need to expose the follies of the peace process

AS THE Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister prepare once again to reassemble the power-sharing Humpty Dumpty, both should be sat down with a big cup of tea and Henry Patterson's outstanding new history of modern Ireland, Ireland since 1939: The Persistence of Conflict.

This beautifully crafted, passionately argued meditation on what David Trimble once called "Ireland's internal Cold War" has much to teach us. It faces each of the big lies that has sustained this peace process in turn and clinically exposes the follies and cruelties obscured there.

The Provisional Sinn Fein-PIRA propaganda machine has been belching each of the following myths since the early Nineties to great effect:

They argue that Northern Ireland was a slum state that deserved the sectarian civil war PIRA inflicted on it and that PIRA violence was driven by the despair of a helpless minority.

In Fergus Finlay's disastrous vernacular, that the political process in Northern Ireland is "not worth a penny candle" without a pacified republican constituency.

The Irish Taoiseach is morally obliged to act as head waiter for Northern Irish nationalism-republicanism in the performance of his executive office.

That all will be well if Bertie Ahern can get Provisional Sinn Fein and the DUP to agree to power-sharing.

Patterson helps us to see past the distortion and the self-pity in these claims. Patterson shows there were pluralist voices within mainstream unionism like Samuel Hall Thompson who was supportive of Catholic education reform. As to discrimination in the allocation of public housing, Catholics had a higher share of houses than they were strictly entitled to on a proportional basis by 1972. Such blatant and disgraceful discrimination as certainly existed in housing and voting rights was localised in the western part of Northern Ireland and came out of a small number of local authorities.

Few experts now believe that there was wholescale, deliberate discrimination throughout the state.

It is important to remember as well that before PIRA bagged its first dead soldier in 1971, the B Specials were abolished, the RUC disarmed, one-man-one-vote had been conceded in local government elections and Prime Minister Harold Wilson had taken control of policy in London. PIRA's vicious campaign of sectarian violence destroyed a reasonable chance for affecting meaningful political reform without igniting a low-intensity civil war. So much for Adams's so-called apartheid state.

PIRA's campaign of mayhem, so far from being the spontaneous eruption of communal despair and rage, was part of a carefully executed strategy to destroy the state by stages. Popular politics this was not. Patterson reminds us that the first so-called "general army council" of PIRA in 1970 could call on fewer than 30 souls.

While they picked up a huge increase in recruits from the Catholic ghettos as a result of the Heath government's bungled security response in the early Seventies, it is undeniably the case that PIRA posed a greater threat to the lives of Northern Ireland's minority Catholic community than the security services. It is a mystery how an organisation that was responsible for 2,139 deaths out of the total number of 3,633 could consistently portray itself as the victimised party. The demonised RUC killed 52 by comparison.

As John Hume reminded his own party in the late Eighties, between 1982-5 alone, PIRA was responsible for 70 per cent of those killed in the violence, while the security forces accounted for 13 per cent. How many other despairing victims can you think of who managed to kill so many more people than its supposed oppressors?

What about the "penny candle" thesis? Patterson's work reminds us that there was a perfectly plausible political process in the ether during the early Nineties which might well have seen both Irish and UK governments construct a deal between the main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland.

Except that John Hume insisted that PIRA had to be integrated into the process at any price. And with Paddy Devlin and Gerry Fitt having left the SDLP, both passionate critics of sectarian republicanism (Fitt called them "black bastards" at one point), and the Irish government unwilling to confront Hume on this question, he got his way. The Irish government suddenly became fixated at the end of Dr FitzGerald's premiership with pacifying a party that garnered precisely 1.7 per cent of the vote in the Republic's 1987 general election. Adams himself, as Patterson shows, was terrified of the prospect of Hume dumping him and forging ahead with a more "internalist" deal, a move that would in all likelihood have confirmed SF-PIRA in their electoral oblivion for a generation.

It is vital to remember that there was nothing inevitable about SF's absorption into the political process. Contrary to the Finlay thesis, there are strong grounds for thinking that a deal between the SDLP and the UUP in the early Nineties would have had a fighting chance of success. The "penny-candle" thesis is an ideological choice dressed up as an objective necessity.

As to the Taoiseach's supposed duty to coddle northern nationalism, Patterson shows that this nearly always had a devastating impact on the fortunes of more pluralist voices within unionism. In a succession of episodes, starting with de Valera's irresponsible rhetoric during the Anglo-Irish Agreement negotiations in 1938, through Lemass's exaggerated account of the 1965 meeting with O'Neill and Jack Lynch's fateful "idly by" speech in 1969, banging the drum in the Republic has profoundly agitated unionism to the detriment of community relations in Northern Ireland.

As to our current predicament, Patterson strikes an ironical note. The two extremes have indeed inherited the earth in the peace process and nothing is more foolish than pretending that this is not a major, perhaps fatal reversal for the entire rationale of the 1998 settlement.

The new electoral mathematics have already resulted in the dismantling of the provision that had the First and Deputy First Ministers of the Assembly elected together on a single slate.

He concedes that the Irish government may have some reasonable grounds for thinking that some sort of DUP-SF deal is more likely than not. Yet, the Taoiseach and his optimistic cadre of civil servants should remember that though the DUP has a vested interest in getting rid of the current system of government in Northern Ireland, theso-called "direct rule with a green tinge" model where both governments call the shots, there are other, darker forces at work as well.

We must never forget that the DUP is essentially an extension of Paisley's Free Presbyterian Church and thus constitutes a cocktail of paranoia and anti-Catholicism that would not have shamed the 16th century.

Their prospective partners in a new coalition, when not robbing banks, are more interested in getting representation rights in Dail Eireann rather than in running Northern Ireland.

Even if Ahern pulls a spectacular out of his battered old Siptu hat in the months ahead, can anyone seriously imagine this arrangement lasting longer than a few months?

More to the point, would anybody want it to?

Whatever the future holds, one could hardly ask for a more humane and scholarly guide than Henry Patterson.

John-Paul McCarthy is studying for a PhD in Irish history

Congal

Seen this to-day on Ceefax and the Times. Now who would this also remind you off......forbye the Muslims Wink

Bishop attacks 'victim' Muslims
Christopher Morgan
The Church of England's only Asian bishop whose father converted from Islam,has criticised many Muslims for their ''dual psychology'' in which they desire both ''victimhood and domination''
In the most outspoken critique of Muslims by a church leader, Michael Nazir-Ali, the Bishop of Rochester, said that because of this view it would never be possible to satisfy all their demands.

“Their complaint often boils down to the position that it is always right to intervene when Muslims are victims, as in Bosnia or Kosovo, and always wrong when the Muslims are the oppressors or terrorists, as with the Taliban or in Iraq,” said Nazir-Ali.
“Given the world view that has given rise to such grievances, there can never be sufficient appeasement and new demands will continue to be made.”

'Victimhood and domination'....''new demands will continue to be made'' ''never be possible to satisfy all their demands''. Pretty well sums it up. Now can you think of a similar people? Smile

Rinty · Y

Again the public housing red herring.

To say that catholics had a higher share of public housing then they were proportionally entitled to, suggests that all residents of northern ireland desired or required a council house. It could be argued that having a higher percentage of people in council housing is in indication of a higher percenetage of disadvantage.

Everyone is not allocated a council house, only those who apply.

To say that catholics should only have a third of council houses because they only made up a third of the population suggests that every protestant (or catholic) wanted a council house and is a crazy way to allocate public housing.

I dont see what the current peace process has to do with whether or not PIRA were justified or supported by catholics in the 60's and 70's. I also would like to see more in depth analysis of housing rather than this constant argument that housing should be allocated on peoples religious affiliation and the % of that religion as a proportion of population. That approach fails to look into the other factors in housing and social circumstances.

In my home town miners would have had a higher proportion of council housing than farmers based on the percentage of population that were miners/farmers. I think any fool could see that does not equal a pro-miner bias in council house allocation!

What if a house was empty and only catholic were on the list but catholics had reached their quote under this line of argument? would that house have to lie empty and the catholics remain homeless untila protestant was avaiable to take up that house in that area?

Did catholics tend to live in areas where social housing was of more prevalence? Did no-one own their own house, catholic or protestant? Did more protestants own their own home than catholics? If so why? If not why? What were the social and historical circumstances that created the social housing need and allocation?

It's a bogus point unless backed up with more information.

Congal

All that you say can be argued. A different spin can be put on many things,be it miners,farmers or whatever.

But the point is, the claims of discrimination in the allocating of public housing, were made by the Roman Catholic population. THEY were making it a religious issue. Nobody else was.

It has been shown time and time again that these allegations were unfounded.

Rinty · y

Congal

Many of the estates were built on virgin land. Lets remember that the Ulster Goverment,built housing estates such as Ballymurphy,Turf Lodge,Andersontown and many others.

My aunt on getting married,put in for a house in Riverdale,but was told that it was reserved for people from the Lower Falls. She had to settle for a 'tin hut' in Taughmonagh.

The quality of the housing in these Roman Catholic estates were superior to what many Protestants were living in.

If you want to see how Protestants lived.....don't take my word for it. Go to the Ulster Folk and Transport Museum. Have a look at Tea Lane. These houses came from the Loyalist Sandy Row. Tell me they had quality housing,while Roman Catholics were getting inferior housing. It just doesn't stand up. No harm to you Rinty,but I think if you did. People would have a good laugh at you.

Rinty · Y

I have yet to see any qualitative evidence of pro-catholic housing bias. As I said, if the new houses in riverdale were reserved for people from lower falls that does not mean it is automatically a catholic bias, it could be a simple planning issue of replacement housing. When castlemilk and easterhouse in Glasgow were built many of the houses were to replace slum clearances in the gorbals. Much of the gorbals population were donegal irish, that does mean that there was a bias pro irish catholics it simply means that the planning of the new estates were to replace the old estates.

I know that protestants lived in poor housing and people may laugh at me. Most working class people lived in poor housing in most industrial cities at the times when housing is now the subject of museums. But again you fail to provide me with evidence other than anecdotal evidence.

My family in NI were and are protestant and they would not have thanked you for a house in a catholic housing estate.

Congal · Re: Y

Rinty

Yes but what I told you about rehousing the gorbals and who lived in council housing in my town is not anecdotal, it is true. I do not doubt that some housing estates in some council areas were allocated to mainly or even totally catholics, what I am asking for is evidence that it was due to pro-catholic bias.

It is irrelevant whether you say "it was them that brought it up first", in this forum, in this conversation, it was you who have said that catholics were favoured when it came to public housing.

What I am showing you is examples that highlight that, just because housing predominately goes to one community or another, does not automatically mean that community had a bias in their favour. We know that farmers didnt need the council houses in my town as they already had houses on their farms, we know that the donegal irish were rehoused in castlemilk and easterhouse because their homes in the gorbals were being demolished and the new estates were the replacements for that housing. What we dont know is whether any allocation that you claim to be biased towards catholics in NI was as a result of pro-catholic bias, disproportionate allocation or simply an accident of social circumstances and/or a consequence of planning decisions.

Of course my family example is anecdotal like yours, that is precisely why I brought it up, to show that any of us can point to personal anecdotal evidence it it means nothing without wider context.

Congal

You still ignore the point it was them....the Roman Catholics who raised the whole issue of discrimination. Nobody was saying a word.

And you are subtly twisting it, to say that I'am saying that Catholics got the favours in housing. Iam not complaining about the houses they got. That is the slant you are now endeavouring to put on it.

I couldn't care less what houses they got.....the best of luck to them.

What Iam disputing is their bogus claims of discrimination. In the interests of fair play. Iam refuting those claims. That is the whole crux of the matter,no matter how many red herrings you bring on the scene.

Rinty · u

Red herrings, congal, would be better than your constant afirmation of a position with, as yet, absolutely no evidence to back it up.

You posted the priginal article and started the thread. Part of your point was that catholics were disproprtionally allocated housing.

You can attempt to turn that back on to catholics in the 60's to justify claims that they made at the time. It would be better for this debate if you dealt with this thread and justified your own claims.

I have waited, years ago, for long time for a council house. I was not a priority as I was part of a childless couple at the time, already in accomodation. People jumped the queue ahead of me because their circumstances merited a more urgent need. It is not as simple as your aunt asking for a house and not getting one. Sixe of house, size of family, planning policy, need, and many other factors determine allocation of housing. What you are doing is using a simplistic numerical argument that if catholics were a third of the population aand had more than a third of council houses that represents a disproportionate bias towards catholics.

I will keep asking (and it seems keep waiting) for some evidence of you claims. You can ask some NI catholic from the 60's who isnt on this forum for evidence if you want, but it is a bit pointless.

Congal · Re: u

Follies Of The Peace Process

Y

y

Y

Re: Y

u

Re: u