Northern Ireland - Touching The Third Rail

Recently my UPC colleague Harkonnendog drew my attention to a post on the rightwing New Sisyphus blog concerning the demolition of David Trimble's moderates by the extremists of the Democratic Unionist Party led by Ian Paisly at the recent general election. Sisyphus advances an argument that unionists of Northern Ireland have backed the DUP because they have realised that one does not negotiate with terrorists, that after gritting their teeth to accept a peace accord with terrorists they were sold down the river by appeasers in the British and Irish governments and now Trimble has suffered from the inevitable backlash.

The trouble is, That is an incredibly oversimplified account which takes no account of the existence and ties to the DUP of militant terrorists from the Unionist block. It makes no reference to inequalities in the Northern Ireland political process which non-terrorist Republicans should have every right to have addressed. It ignores recent political developments in Northern Ireland that made the DUP's victory over their rivals entirely predictable as a consequence of shifts in allegiance by shadowy groups who back both the unionist cause and unionist terrorism. I said so to Hark and he posted my reply on New Sisyphus' comments. Then Sisyphus responded and challenged me to justify my position more completely. Here's the central part of Sisyphus counter:

Yet, your argument never deals with the whys and wherefores of how, exactly, almost the entire Unionist community has been driven into his party’s arms. Could it be that the shameful appeasement of both the Irish and British Governments have driven a community that took a true leap of faith for peace into the arms of a man who told them all along they would be played for fools?

The “a pox on both their houses” stance ... is just more avoidance of the adult moral responsibility to make judgments. Fact is, the Unionist community made a clenched-teeth move for peace and supported a leader who could take them there. This fact was judged as weakness by both Labour and Conservative residents at No. 10 as well as by the IRA. The result, as we noted above, is clear: the Unionist community now knows it is all alone, that it has no partner for peace and, thus, has reached for the most anti-Agreement leadership it could find.

Just quickly, I want to deal with his assertion of the "avoidance of moral responsibility". Sisyphus says he is a lawyer and it is easy to see that here. In court, only one party is judged "right". However, in the real world and the world of politics there are often two opposing and equally wrong extremes. I would not ask my American colleagues to accept the premise that either Michael Moore or Pat Robertson is the correct one, and certainly would not accuse them of moral cowardice if they said both were equally extreme and wrong. In this case, given that both extremes murder innocents, I find the accusation of avoiding moral responsibility highly insulting. It is in no way an avoidance to say that both Sinn Fein and the Democratic Unionist Party are the political voices of murderers and bigots.

So now I have to prove that the loyalists have as much to be judged for as the far better known (at least on US shores) sins of the Sinn Fein/ IRA extremists at the other end of the Irish scale. And I have to prove that the DUP have an influence which outweighs the apparent size of their party until recent events. It's time to touch the third rail of British politics, Northern Ireland.

Any Scot finds himself on the fringes of the NI battle by default and much of what I know is based on decades of MSM and personal experiences. As a beginning, I know that the DUP founded at least one terror group directly, have intimate ties with the Orange Order which funds other terror groups via it's grassroots (I've seen the posters in lodges, clubs and businesses run by Orangemen asking for donations for terror groups) and has shared a platform with known terrorists at gatherings such as the Drumcree marches. Now I want to put some verifiable links and facts to that personal knowledge.

The terrorist Loyalist Volunteer Force regards Ian Paisley's DUP as it's political spokesparty. This terror group was formed after the riots and sectarian killings of the 1996 Drumcree Orange parades and no British intelligence officer seriously doubts that, as the leaders of the Democratic Unionist Party are all prominent Orangemen, they knew about and participated in the formation of the group. The LVF has threatened politicians, Church and industry leaders and paramilitaries who it claimed were colluding in a "peace surrender process designed to break the Union and establish the dynamic for Irish unity, within an all-Ireland Roman Catholic, Gaelic Celtic state." Some of those threatened are themselves Unionists and the LVF has an ongoing turf-war with the loyalist terrorist Ulster Volunteer Force which has caused several deaths in the loyalist community. The current status of the LVF is somewhat uncertain after the kiling of their leader Billy Wright by Republicans, and may now be a part of the Ulster Volunteer Force.

Paisley's Democratic Unionist Party are accustomed to sharing a platform with terrorists, as they did last June when they participated in the North and West Belfast Parades Forum alongside the loyalist UDA, UVF and Red Hand Commando. It is estimated that over 78% of all terrorist mureders committed by Loyalist bands have been purely sectarian, just to kill innocent Catholics, rather than being directed at their putative enemies in the IRA.

The DUP have always been the spoilers of any attempt at peace in Northern Ireland. They have always said they will only talk to Sinn Fein once all IRA weapons are decommissioned and have issued an edict that any DUP party member who makes contact with Sinn Fein will be expelled. Their insistence on a condition for Republican disarmament which was not being asked of loyalist terrorists was the final sinking stone for the Good Friday Agreement and the power-sharing process that evolved from it. This is a great pity as had they only dropped this requirement that no-one thought loyalists should abide by, the IRA were ready to issue a statement which would have eschewed violence as an option for the future.

The "photo" issue thus became "why embarass us in a manner you will not ask your own terrorists to do?" To date, there has been no call for proof of ANY kind other than those set down in the agreement for loyalist paramilitary disarmament.

The Unionists in NI are outnumbered by Republicans by about the same ratio as the Sunnis are outnumbered in Iraq. Like the Sunnis, they were always the dominant grouping politically (mostly due to British rules) until very recently. The Loyalist movement within Unionism which Paisley's DUP and the Orange Order represent have always been willing to do anything to hold on to their unbalanced power in the police force, government, education and business within Northern Ireland. Recently, they formed a pact with the sectarian Orange Order, a quasi-religious extremist group with over 75,000 members who have always been power brokers in Northern Ireland, after Trimble's UUP refused to play ball with the anti-agreement views of the Order. This is where the votes to destroy Trimble's party really came from, not some popular dienchantment with the peace process. It is also the reason that Paisley cannot be regarded as "one lone meanie" but rather is the face of a large, well funded and organised movement determined to scupper any and all peace moves that include Catholics.

And yet the peace process will no doubt continue because most people, outside the rabid extremists on both sides, want peace. They are enjoying not living in constant fear. That is David Trimble's true legacy - that he gave the province silence instead of the sound of bombs more despite his party and his community than because of them.

Don't mistake me for an IRA apologist. They are scum. Sinn Feinn are certainly no better than the DUP and their allies. I just believe in fair shakes on both sides. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Simply, the security forces regard the Republican groups as marginally more of a threat because they are more organised - however, they also regard Loyalist paramilitaries as a significant cause of unrest and crime. Check the statement by the Chief Constable in September 2004 for more details.

Dissident republicans have been responsible for a total of 114 terrorist incidents since January 2003 - including bombings, shootings, assaults, hijackings and other violent crime. During this period there were some 24 attacks planned/carried out against the military and police while intelligence would indicate more than 200 general security threats against security forces.

Since January 2003, PIRA has been involved in over 70 violent incidents and the INLA has been responsible for at least 20 violent incidents in the last 18 months.

All the loyalist groups - UDA, UVF, LVF - have been responsible for in excess of 160 violent incidents since January 2003. The regular feuding between loyalists has implications for police resources, especially TSGs. For example, during the loyalist feud in May 2004, within the space of 13 days, the following incidents occurred: one murder; two shooting incidents; seven Improvised Explosive Device attacks and one attempted abduction. During the period a number of 'death threats' were issued and police recovered a quantity of explosives and firearms.

All of this shows that the loyalists do not have clean hands in destrying the peace process. In dealing with extremists on both poles, I feel that what's good for the goose is good for the gander and do not feel I am a moral coward for saying so.

I will say again, therefore, that Sisyphus is over simplifying the situation greatly. His position sounds like that of someone who has come to the issue recently and without sufficient research. Again, I say he has an agenda - partly that he has spotted what appears to be the most right wing grouping and decided to support them. The trouble is, the DUP, with close ties to the Orange Order are not nice people. The are bigoted anti-Catholics. Their grassroots support have never welcomed the peace process and worked hard to scupper it. Now that they have a self fulfilling prophecy, they are happy to reap the political benefits.

Sisyphus appears to support the DUP also because he thinks it helps his thesis that Clinton was a useless party-animal more interested in state dinners than in the peace deals he involved himself in and that this is proven because it never works to negotiate with terrorists. The first part may be true, I couldn't say, but the second part is patently false. I suspect Sisyphus is quite a young man or an exceedingly ill-read lawyer, otherwise he would recall the beneficial effects of negotiating with terrorists (that is, terrorists from the point of view of the agreived and attacked state in authority at the time, and particularly those terrorists who have been very successful) on the very formation of nations such as Israel, modern South Africa and even the US itself. Again, he is promoting his agenda, not the whole story.

Surely Sisyphus has access to this stuff as a State employee. That he did not mention it is why I thought he was fitting the facts to his agenda. What do you think? I think he is trying to touch the third rail without really knowing what he is touching.