The GFA: ‘Power devolved is power retained’ – Enoch Powell

[imported_anrealtaghlas]

The GFA: ‘Power devolved is power retained’ – Enoch Powell

éirígí analyses the Good Friday Agreement ten years on

It is now ten years since the signing of the Belfast Agreement, or the Good Friday Agreement (GFA) as it is more commonly known. The political establishments in Ireland, Britain and further a field are busily lavishing praise on both those who negotiated it, and the political landscape created by it. It is difficult to find a mainstream news article or television piece, which goes beyond the rhetoric to expose the reality of the current situation.

All of this is, of course, to be expected at the denouement of a British counter-insurgency strategy initiated by General Frank Kitson in the mid 1970s and broadly adhered to by successive British political and military leaders ever since. The GFA and the institutions and context it created are simply complimentary additions to his original three-pronged strategy of ‘Ulsterisation’, ‘Criminalisation’ and ‘Normalisation’.

Related Link: http://www.eirigi.org/latest/latest130408.html

[Pidge]

Interesting article, and I'd agree with the point that the GFA has cemented partition (albeit with a few more holes in the wall). Two questions:

1) What is the British interest in Northern Ireland? The article referred to efforts to entrench partition in the GFA. If the motive for those efforts aren't for relative stability, what is it?

2) How is Northern Ireland less free than, for example, Dublin?

[george hale]

Sure the éirígi people were in Sinn Féin for years after the GFA..

[TheBear]

<Mod>Moved to the Northern Ireland forum.</Mod>

[Halo]

Interesting article, and I'd agree with the point that the GFA has cemented partition (albeit with a few more holes in the wall). Two questions:

1) What is the British interest in Northern Ireland? The article referred to efforts to entrench partition in the GFA. If the motive for those efforts aren't for relative stability, what is it?

This should be judged more so in their actions defending their illegal claim in Ireland which has cost them massive international embarrassment and huge sums of money. 70 billion to be precise, from 69 to 94 anyway. There is no other logical reasoning giving the cost the occupation has had on the british governemnt; that they do indeed have interests. the idea that they are just here subverting our democracy for the sake of a few loyal unionists is absurd. Although if this situations was in fact a reality there actions would still be a crime against irish democracy and therefore their presence illegal. This lie adhered by constitutional nationalists is best addressed in these terms, even to concede that they are just here to uphold the right of 12% of a nations populace against the will of the majority is outrageous but to deem that violations of Irish peoples rights as legitimate is even more preposterous, as absurd as the communist party of Ireland receiving a majority vote in two of our conuties, enabling someone like north korea to supply their militias with weapons, money and the politcal will and thus setting up a state that includes 6counties. Crazy stuff.
There have been many thoughts and reasons thorugh up down the years to what in fact is britians reasoning fof going to all costs to stay in Ireland, below is some good thoughts on the subject.






The question of whether Britain has or has not a strategic interest in Ireland is not an academic question or one that is best left to political spin-doctors. It is far too important for that. The peace process has witnessed Sinn Fein accept British declarations of strategic neutrality with respect to Ireland.

Thus, having abandoned orthodox republican analysis, which holds that the British occupation is the primary obstacle to Irish reunification and that the unionist veto is nothing more than an anti-democratic subterfuge through which Britain justifies her interference in Irish affairs, Sinn Fein now believes that unionism - and not the British State - is the major impediment to Irish unity.

But are these British declarations of strategic neutrality genuine? If Britain is engaging in political duplicity and is concealing a strategic interest, and if these strategic concerns outweigh the political vicissitudes of unionism, then the Adams/McGuinness peace-strategy will undoubtedly lay shipwrecked upon the jagged rocks of British duplicity.

The unity of this article resides in the belief that Britain has a strategic interest in Ireland. Evidence will be produced to support this assertion, thus highlighting the poverty of Sinn Fein's analysis. However, before proceeding to discuss these points it is essential to chronicle the central importance which the debate surrounding British strategic interests assumed during the formative stages of the Irish peace process.

Sinn Fein agitprop would have us believe that 1990 was the year in which the Provisional leadership entered into indirect dialogue with the British government; and that these negotiations culminated in the 1994 PIRA cease-fire. However, recent research has revealed that in 1986, during Tom King's tenure as Northern Secretary, Gerry Adams opened an indirect channel to the British government via Fr Alec Reid. These communications continued under Peter Brooke's term of office [1989-92]. From the outset British strategic concerns were central to this ongoing dialogue [1].

In August 2000, as part of his research into A Secret History of the IRA, Ed Maloney interviewed Tom King, the former Northern Secretary. During the interview, King recalled an occasion in the spring of 1987, when Fr Alec Reid presented him with a republican questionnaire concerning British government policy on Ireland. King was aware that Gerry Adams was the author [2]. Within weeks Adams received his reply in an unsigned, undated, twelve paragraph and one thousand-word statement [3]. This response set the agenda for the entire peace process and created the template for the negotiations that subsequently led to the Belfast Agreement.

The first item on Adams's 1987 questionnaire asked: 'What is the nature of the British government's interest in Ireland?' The British government replied that it 'has no political, military, strategic, or economic interest in staying in Ireland' and that 'the political and security situation…is due to the historical, political, religious and cultural divisions which separate the people of the nationalist tradition from the people of the unionist tradition in Ireland. These divisions are at the root of the conflict there and not any self-interested dominion policies of the British government' [4].

Maloney concluded that British Intelligence wrote the reply, as King informed the author that he never actually saw the finished draft. Maloney commented: 'aspects of the diplomacy suggest that it embraced a strong 'need to know' element of the sort that usually indicates an intelligence role rather than the conventional duties of a mainstream government department' [5]. The lingering suspicion is that the document represented a British Intelligence 'sting' and that it was written with a view to strengthening the hand of those within the Provisional movement who wished to travel down the constitutional path.

In 1989 Peter Brooke replaced Tom King as Northern Secretary. Towards the end of his first year in office Brooke reinforced this perception when, from his Westminster constituency, he famously declared: 'the British government has no selfish, strategic or economic interests in Northern Ireland'. In an interview given to the Press Agency shortly after this speech, Brooke stated:

'There has to be a possibility that at some stage debate might start within the terrorist community. Now, if that were to occur, then you would move towards a point, if in fact the terrorists were to decide that the moment had come when they wished to withdraw from their activities, then I think the government would need to be imaginative in those circumstances as to how that process should be managed' [6].

During a June 2000 interview with Ed Maloney, Peter Brooke stated that: 'The 1989 interview was based on a mixture of what I had heard from John Hume, MI5, and military intelligence and finally what I had heard about [Fr] Reid. What Reid was saying to us was that there was an opportunity here to end it, and one of the aims of what I said in the interview was to communicate my attitude to Sinn Fein' [7]. Obviously, Hume and Reid believed that if the Northern Secretary publicly declared that the British State has 'no selfish, strategic or economic interests in Northern Ireland' then this would enhance the Adams/McGuinness peace strategy. This was precise approach that King and Brooke adopted between 1986-92.

But are these declarations of neutrality a genuine and accurate reflection of British strategic concerns? Does Britain actually have no strategic interests in Ireland? Or were these experienced politicians simply attempting to mislead the Provisional leadership? Let us ignore the keynote speeches of political spindoctors and the machinations of hawks within British Intelligence and focus our attention upon official documents and reports which outline British strategic objectives in Ireland.

In the aftermath of World War II British Foreign Office officials assessed the post-war strategic importance of Ireland. The Atlee government approved their findings which concluded that 'as a matter of first-class strategic importance Northern Ireland should continue to form part of His Majesty's dominions…it seems unlikely that Britain would ever be able to agree to Northern Ireland leaving His Majesty's jurisdiction…even if the people of Northern Ireland desired it'[8].

In 1951 a British Commonwealth Relations Office document, highlighting the vital strategic importance of Ireland, concluded: 'Historically, Ireland which has never been able to protect herself against invasion, has been, as she is today, a potential base of attack on the United Kingdom. It is more important that a part of the island, and that strategically well-placed, should, and of its own free will, wish to remain part of the United Kingdom and of the United Kingdom defence scheme' [9].

In 1982 Vice-Admiral Sir Ian Gough, the former Royal Navy commander for NATO's North Atlantic area placed his strategic concerns on record. Gough stated that 'the sea above the continental shelf, and the airspace above it, constitute the North Western approaches to NATO in Western Europe. To the north and west, soviet forces would have to make the lengthy transit from the North Cape, and if their target was trans-Atlantic shipping, that transit would be increased by 500 miles or more if the shipping were to be brought in via the south of Ireland.

Indeed, the strategic importance of Ireland [the island] in any scheme of protecting shipping in the approaches to the British Isles can hardly be exaggerated. The current unrest in Northern Ireland…therefore, has serious implications for allied strength and unity'[10].

When confronted with these imperialist declarations, proponents of the view that Britain has no strategic interest in Ireland make two points. Firstly, they retort that the potential Soviet threat was greatly exaggerated and that the termination of the Cold War makes such declarations redundant.

However, in 1997 an alternative post-Cold War perspective on British strategic interests was offered by GR Sloan, the Deputy Head of the Strategic Studies and International Affairs Department at the Britannia Royal Naval College in Dartmouth. Sloan argued that during the Cold War Ireland 'became strategically more important because of the perceived need for defence against the Soviet Union which now occupied half of Europe' [11].

In support of this, Sloan cited the British government's 1949 Ireland Report which asserted that: 'So far as could be foreseen, it will never be to Great Britain's advantage that Northern Ireland should form part of a territory outside His Majesty's jurisdiction' [12].

Sloan contends that the ending of the Cold War has not spelt the end of potential threats to British security. In fact the post-Cold War geo-political order has resulted in a potential increase in the strategic importance of Ireland: 'The collapse of the Soviet Union merely means the lack of only one ideological challenge to democratic capitalism. Outside the west religion still inspires universal claims and genocidal loyalties; the passing of the European wars of religion has not ended religious wars. Nationalism remains deep-rooted even in the placid and industrial societies of Western Europe. In societies born in poverty from the debris of empires great and small, the national cult retains all its primitive forms. The future is not an object of knowledge, but it has been shown that with respect to Ireland, geopolitical patterns of the past can have relevance for the future' [13]. Ireland lies squarely within the British and American sphere of influence. Hence the strategic justification for partition. In its absence, a united Ireland could disengage from the NATO alliance. Therein resides the threat to British strategic objectives in the region.

Sloan argues that it is essential for the British government to continue to engage in what he describes as a 'unique geopolitical dualism' which is 'premised on the assumption of being able to differentiate between a strategic policy which was enunciated for the purposes of political consumption in Northen Ireland, to send a signal to the Republican Movement' and the necessity to consolidate British sovereignty in Northern Ireland and thereby ensure 'the continued membership of Northern Ireland in the NATO Alliance' [14]. The Deputy Head of Strategic Studies at the Britannia Royal Naval College concludes: 'Given the current preferences of the British government with respect to Northern Ireland, this most recent geopolitical dualism looks likely to underpin British strategic policy for some time to come' [15].

During the formative stages of the peace process the Dublin government regularly pointed to Peter Brooke's 'neutrality' speech in their discussions with Sinn Fein, while the SDLP repeated it ad nauseam. However, what is perhaps most astonishing is 'the willingness of republicans and most of the left to believe British claims of a disinterested and neutral position in relation to the political framework in Ireland' [16].

In 1992 Martin McGuinness stated: 'I don't buy a lot of the previous notions about British strategic interests. Personally I believe they're here because they wish to uphold the right and support the position of unionism within the six counties, rather than any strategic or economic interests' [17].

This acceptance of British strategic neutrality is a profound error of judgement. Adams and McGuinness may point to Brooke's declaration in an attempt to reassure their supporters of Britain's neutrality with respect to future political arrangements on the island. But, as has been shown, these declarations are duplicitous and misleading: a fact which has profound and fatal implications for the potential of the Sinn Fein peace strategy to realise traditional republican objectives.

One is left with the disturbing conclusion that the Provisional leadership has conveniently consumed what G.R. Sloan refers to as a 'unique geopolitical dualism,' which in lay terms amounts to traditional British political duplicity.

Despite over fifteen years of repeated declarations to the contrary, Britain does have a strategic interest in Ireland. As Craig, McNulty and Flannigan point out are we to believe that Britain has spent stg23.5bn since 1979 to protect the 'democratic rights' of one million unionists as an act of goodwill? This scenario has no precedent in British imperial history. And are we asked to believe that Britain injects an annual subvention of stg4bn out of the goodness of its heart?

That it has conducted a brutal and dirty war that has tarnished its international reputation out of some sense of loyalty to the unionist people and that these facts by themselves are a demonstration of its neutrality? As with many popular prejudices and positions adopted out of political convenience, rational and argument are often very little use in confronting it http://www.newrepublicanforum.ie/Republican

2) How is Northern Ireland less free than, for example, Dublin?

Irish people from dublin to belfast are denied their basic right to detremine their own futures because of a unionist veto enforced and upheld by terrorism by an imperial government. very much undemocratic and a crime against Irish people fundamental rights.

[Halo]

Sure the éirígi people were in Sinn Féin for years after the GFA..

And your point being.....

[Halo]

The GFA: ‘Power devolved is power retained’ – Enoch Powell

éirígí analyses the Good Friday Agreement ten years on

It is now ten years since the signing of the Belfast Agreement, or the Good Friday Agreement (GFA) as it is more commonly known. The political establishments in Ireland, Britain and further a field are busily lavishing praise on both those who negotiated it, and the political landscape created by it. It is difficult to find a mainstream news article or television piece, which goes beyond the rhetoric to expose the reality of the current situation.

All of this is, of course, to be expected at the denouement of a British counter-insurgency strategy initiated by General Frank Kitson in the mid 1970s and broadly adhered to by successive British political and military leaders ever since. The GFA and the institutions and context it created are simply complimentary additions to his original three-pronged strategy of ‘Ulsterisation’, ‘Criminalisation’ and ‘Normalisation’.

Related Link: http://www.eirigi.org/latest/latest130408.html

It should also be remembered that thoses who support the GFA do so on the grounds that britain is here only to uphold the rights of 880'000 unionists and is a neutral player
Since the GFA we've had mark haddock and the like under the payroll of british state agencies murdering innocent catholics, pat finucine, rosemary nelson and a host of other murders with mi5's name all over, governments took down, intelligence headquarters built in co down, who the moderate mark durkan described as letting a peado oversee a playschool or something to the like.
with this there have being numerous incidents of their agents rising sectarian tensions in certain areas in the north, 15% of their overall intelligence allocated to the occupied area, british agents exposed within the upper reaches of the norths 2nd biggest political party and a big bomb in omagh that has their name all over it. I could go on.
Most certainly not neutral and anyone that does support this idea is living a lie.

[Bogwarrior]

Preaching to the converted here, but a well written piece. I know eirigi sent copies of the Proclamation all around Dublin. Maybe someone could put something like this in leaflet form and door-drop it republican areas in the 6 counties, particularly Belfast.
.It's things like this that could be organised jointly with maybe the 32CSM and IRSP etc in the spirit of republican unity.I'm speaking here solely as a 32 supporter btw, I don't claim to speak for them.
The majority of the electorate only hear one side of the story, and frankly our argument, whilst made well, does not have a big enough impact due to poor publicity depts in all our camps.