Small bombs and big bombs - there's a difference

Even though it’s nearly twenty years since the IRA ended its campaign, there are those in the south and the north who still draw back their garments, as it were, when Sinn Féin passes. As did Prince Philip with Martin McGuinness, presumably because he believed that McGuinness was a leading figure in the IRA at the time of the killing of his uncle Louis Mountbatten, along with several innocent people. Tonight on RTÉ, Miriam O’Callaghan will interview Martin McGuinness. You’ll remember that Miriam is famous for her question to McGuinness during his presidential campaign: “Do you go to confession?”

This drawing-back-of-the-garments thing has to do with the moral repugnanace Prince Philip and Miriam and lots of other people feel for the violence involved in armed conflict, especially when innocent lives are taken in the course of that conflict.

Now, follow me to London, if you will. During the week a memorial pavilion was opened in London’s Green  Park by Queen Elizabeth, with her husband Prince Philip in attendance. It features work by an artist called Liam O’Connor and it depicts the bronze figures of a British bomber crew from the Second World War.  It was created to honour the courage of these bomber crews, which had a 50%+ casualty rate of young men killed and seriously wounded during WWII. The strategy for such crews, devised by Sir Arthur ‘Bomber’ Harris, was to carpet-bomb German cities such as Hamburg, Cologne and Dresden. The claim was that this sort of bombing would weaken German morale.  As a result, thousands of German civilians died horrible deaths in firestorms brought on by the raids. Nor were these firestorms an unhappy side-effect of the bombing – the RAF deliberately created them by first dropping incendiaries, then high explosives. The argument was that this would hasten an end to the war – the same reason given for the atom-bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the Americans.

There are two issues here. One is the justification of these actions on the grounds that they helped hasten the end of war. This is a the-end-justifies-the-means argument and so is morally suspect. It is also based on conjecture – we can’t know whether such actions in fact helped end the war, we can only guess.  The second is that to use this argument and to honour those depicted in these bomber crews stinks of hypocrisy.

The IRA bombing campaign – including the Real IRA’s bombing of Omagh – aimed not to kill civilians, though in several notable cases – Omagh, Enniskillen – it did, killing dozens of innocent people. The bombing raids on Germany and in Japan  were deliberately aimed at killing civilians, and killing them not in their dozens but in their tens of thousands. And yet we have the drawing-aside-of-garments in moral detestation when a former IRA leader passes and statues set in pavilions to honour the courage of bomber crews for killing thousands of civilians.

The taking of human life – any human life – is a terrible thing. But for political and moral leaders to express revulsion at small-scale, often-unintended killing, while building memorials to mass-scale killing always intended, is to display hypocrisy that takes the breath away. 

Putting meat on the bones of a united Ireland

Billy Leonard is a republican. He is also a Protestant. Maybe it’s the Protestant work ethic inheritance that’s prompted him to do what (as far as I know) no one else has done: he’s thought in detail and written about what is meant by the term ‘a united Ireland’. Oh, and he’s outlined in  practical terms just how he thinks that might best be achieved.

I was at the launch of his book Towards a United Ireland  yesterday and it was at once an inspiring and a depressing occasion. The depressing first: it occurred in the Linenhall Library and the attendance was skimpy. The Belfast Telegraph  and those who get it to do their thinking for them would say that’s because virtually nobody cares about a united Ireland any more. Leaving aside the question of the BT’s poll validity, it’s odd then that so many people, north and south, vote for a party that has national reunification at the centre of its policies.  My own explanation for the few in attendance would be that we’re a lazy people. We like talking about things but we’re not so keen on actually thinking about them or going where we believe our ideas might be challenged – or even verified.

Despite the depressingly thin numbers, I found myself full of admiration. If you read Dr Leonard’s book (and unlike Dr Ian Paisley, Billy’s doctorate is a real one), you’ll see that he doesn’t content himself with broad brush-strokes or rallying cries.  He’s looked at what the term 'united Ireland' means, what the implications are for political representation,  the dangers of excessive government in an island as tiny as ours. And lots, lots more.

If nationalism and republicanism is to argue the case for a united Ireland with their unionist neighbours, they need to know – literally – what they’re talking about. To take one example: it’s to the shame of all the political parties – including Sinn Féin -  that they haven’t commissioned costed research as to how a united Ireland would be better for its citizens economically. We frequently hear the claim that duplication of services is manifestly wasteful. What we don’t hear is what the difference would be in carefully-accounted pounds and pence.

Whether  you agree with him or disagree, it’s hard not to salute the courage and focused thinking of Billy Leonard. And if you’re genuinely interested in the idea of a united Ireland, then you should show that interest by reading his book.   You'll find it for sale in unbigoted bookstores and on his website www.billyleonard.ie 

White gloves? There was more to it than that...

While you were enjoying the footie, there was I, slaving away, trying to explain the facts of life to the people of Britain...
http://bit.ly/JudeonNews24

Events, dear boy, and how to 'analyse' them

Is she gone yet? Can we come out now? Yes I think so.  The ‘analysts’ are busy at work, interpreting the body language and the significance and the symbolism and the rest of it.

I watched UTV's report of the Tuesday visit and I felt it’d be putting impossible demands on my digestive system to follow much of the coverage yesterday and make sense of it. But thanks be to God, post-event we now have ‘analysts’ to do our thinking.

One such is at work in today’s Irish Times, talking about ‘another rolling Sinn Féin propaganda bandwagon’. Eh? I thought this was supposed to be an embarrassing encounter for McGuinness and Sinn Féin, that it was a sell-out of republicanism, etc,etc?  Seems not. Well, not in that bit of the analysis. Later on we’re told that yes, it’ll cause ‘some discomfort for Sinn Féin’. So it’s an uncomfortable bandwagon, OK?

Much is made of the difficulty the queen had in shaking McGuinness’ s hand, with her husband’s uncle (and her cousin, apparently) Louis Mountbatten having been killed by the IRA. No mention of the reservations McGuinness might have felt, in view of the fact that fourteen of his fellow-townspeople lost their lives when the British army shot them down in broad daylight in the streets of their city, and no British soldier has been charged with their murder – or even identified by the British Army. Some involved, in fact, have been decorated and promoted. But the ‘analysis’ doesn’t talk about that. Just as it doesn’t talk about the fact that  the queen met with victims of republican violence but not, I gather, with victims of British army violence or victims of loyalist death squads acting in collusion with the British army.

The’analysis’ ends noting the presence of the poet Michael Longley at the Lyric Theatre meeting yesterday, and quotes from his poem ‘Ceasefire’’. It’s the bit where Priam, king of Troy, is given back the body of his son by the son’s killer, Achilles. The poem ends with the moving lines ‘I get down on my knees and do what must be done/And kiss Achilles’s hand, the killer of my son’.

You get the parallel? All the pain is being carried by the queen, none by McGuinness or anyone on the nationalist/republican side. Oh dear, I can feel my digestive system rearing up again. It’s telling me that while that kind of ‘analysis’  would have been common in British army press releases at the height of the Troubles, it’s hardly what we should expect from self-respecting Irish journalism.

But hey, this kind of  ‘analysis’ isn’t unique or confined to the print media. Apparently Martin McGuinness is a special guest talking to Miriam O’Callaghan on RTÉ on Saturday night. So what do you think? Will she go to confession before or after the show? 

Doing a victory war-dance: big mistake

‘It’s not what happens to you but how you react”:  I think that was one of Maggie Thatcher’s favourite remarks. She herself reacted to being booted out of Downing Street by famously saying  it was a funny old world and leaving with a tear in her eye, a woman clearly nursing the belief that she’d been hard done by.

In football it’s the same. When a team-mate misplaces a pass or doesn’t do just what he wishes,  Portugal’s Christiano Ronaldo tends to throw his arms in the air and glare. I am a genius, you are a fool, why are you making my life difficult? Contrast this with the reaction of Argentina’s Messi, indisputably the greatest player of his generation. When a Barcelona or Argentina pass goes awry, he scurries after it and tries to recover from the mistake of his team-mate. At the heart of true greatness there’s a discernible modesty and respect for others.

Which brings us, inevitably, to the queen’s visit. Writing in Monday’s News Letter in an article headed “Sinn Fein woe sealed with a handshake”, Alex Kane does a kind of victory war-dance around today’s scheduled hand-shake between the queen and the Deputy First Minister.  To Alex,  McGuinness isn’t the Deputy First Minister, he’s merely “Peter Robinson’s side-kick”.  And McGuinness’s party?  “Sinn Fein has been trapped, stuffed and mounted and unionism is stronger today than it has ever been”. The handshake is the final acknowledgement of this stuffing, apparently, “Martin, bless him, is still one of her citizens and subjects. Three cheers, say I!”

What do you think - what has happened to unionism over the past twenty years?  Is it more secure within the UK, now that the Government of Ireland Act has been removed?  Does sharing power with people it once expressed loathing of suggest that those people have been stuffed and mounted?  Does Sinn Féin’s dominance of nationalist politics in the north and increasing strength in the south suggest a party that’s been to the taxidermist? Most important of all: can you imagine Martin McGuinness, Gerry Adams or any of the leading lights of Sinn Féin doing that kind of ya-sucks-boo, thumb-on-nose routine,  in the face of unionism?

Sometimes when you’re feeling uneasy or unsure of your place, there’s a temptation to get shrill and confuse voice volume with strength of argument.  Methinks our Alex doth protest too much.  Bless him.

Football, royals and unionism

I've been out of circulation for a number of reasons but not, as one unkind person said, because I was still celebrating England's defeat in the Euros. To be honest, I felt sorry for poor Ashley Cole and Ashley Young - it's the kind of world-is-watching nightmare that must be very hard to shake. Although the mood was lightened by a text I had from an unnamed but witty source who said 'Police hunting the Twitter Troll who racially abused Ashley Young and Ashley Cole are appealing for help in locating the Twitter user known as @JTChelseacaptain'.  It's a mixture of sympathy for the unhappy England team that were so TOTALLY outclassed by a team that (probably) won't win their next game, much less the final, and admiration of the Italians. Even if you are English, you'd have to feel privileged to have witnessed, live, even on TV, that Pirlo penalty, against one of the world's great goal-keepers Joe Hart. Italian cool to the power of 100... You can relive it here if you want ...  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wr8tJ1wdxE


Right. Just when I thought there was little or nothing left to be said about QE2 and that McGuinness handshake,  Féilim Ó HAdhmaill  puts an intriguing posting on Facebook.  Always an astute commentator, Féilim notes

"The visit of the British Monarch to the North to celebrate her jubilee raises an important point though. Can you be a unionist and anti-monarchy? It's clear you can be - those who view themselves as British socialists presumably, since the idea of hereditary inequality must be anathema ro them. But maybe there's not enough of them to make their voices heard? It seems to me (as an anti-monarchist) that that was the greatest trick played by the English monarchy - to convince enough ordinary people that their identity depended on the continued existence of a privileged group of parasites at the top of the food chain. Would love to see a proper debate develop though on the whole concept of monarchy (outside of the issue of union with Britain or not) in today's world."


It's a good and original point. The British monarchy is, as he suggests, a ridiculous con-job. It's still officially anti-Catholic (no taigs on the throne, whatever about the house), anti-women (only use 'em in succession stakes when you've run out of wonderful males like, um, Prince Charles) and of course anti-democratic (you get the job because of the family you belong to, not because of any qualities or qualifications you bring, and the people who fund you have no say in it). But if you were anti-monarchy and yet a unionist - what then? Ian Paisley (Sr) has always made a point that his loyalty was to the crown, and the Protestant crown at that, and that if a Catholic should occupy the throne (relax, Ian, it ain't going to happen), then his bond of loyalty would be sundered. But there must be unionists out there who object strongly to the pampered royals and yet believe in the link with Britain. Or are the two inextricably intertwined? I hope not. Whatever argument you might put up for union with Britain, it must be an Alice-In-Wonderland mind that sees merit in the idea of a continued, endless royal reign by the Windsors.  If that really is their name...

The sky is falling - he's going to shake her hand!

God but we Irish are a simple lot. A pebble gets tossed in our pond and we act as though it’s the mother of all tsunamis. Settle the head, people. Breathe deep. Stop screeching and ask the one question worth asking.

But first, a few points.

1.   Gerry Adams said meeting the queen would be a big ask for republicans.

2.   Gerry Adams said the meeting would be very, very significant.

3.   There are yells of indignation at the decision from some in the republican community.

4.   There are mocking comments from some in the unionist community.

5.   Hardly anybody – unionist or republican – says it’s insignificant.

But before deciding if the meeting/handshake between Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and Martin McGuinness is a Good or a Bad Thing, there’s another question MUST be answered:  what does the meeting/handshake mean? What is  its significance?

It could mean “You were my enemy, now you’re my friend. Shake”. We used to end quarrels as schoolboys that way.

It could mean “I want to do business with you, and since business people normally shake hands when they meet, I’m shaking yours”. That’s what people do when they’re doing business. (See Richard Nixon above.)

It could mean “We in Sinn Féin used to give out about people in the DUP not shaking hands with us (some still don’t), so it’d be a bit absurd for us not to shake EAMSCG’s hand”.

It could mean “I am Deputy First Minister for all the people in the north of Ireland and I’m shaking hands with the unionist people I represent in mind”.

It could mean “I was your enemy but now I’m your humble subject. Please forgive me – I was wrong, so wrong”.

You see what I’m getting at, I expect. McGuinness’s move is a mirror from which you can take any meaning you decide to attribute to it. In itself, shaking hands is simply pressing flesh.

But Gerry Adams says it’s more than that – it’s “very, very significant”. I don’t agree – or at least not fully. If it’s very significant that’s because people choose to give it significance.  When the queen visited the south,  most of the people there appeared to think it was terribly significant. Some said they were deeply moved when she laid a wreath and bowed her head at the memorial to those killed by the British. I found it neither moving nor significant, because no one yet has told me what it means, just as virtually no one has come near telling me what the coming handshake means.

So here’s my take.

Sinn Féin are seen as having missed the boat last year when EAMSCG visited the south and they didn’t meet her. Now they see their mistake and are busy catching up. Could be. Although it also could be that they held off because their meeting would have been lost in the welter of gasping southern emotion. This way, they’ve turned the meeting into a  one-on-one and full attention, a big spotlight is given to their action.

Who will benefit from this meeting? Well I’d say Sinn Féin hope they’ll benefit. As my old stablemate in the VO, Brian Feeney, pointed out yesterday, this gesture is  aimed at the middle classes in the south, to reassure them that Sinn Féin is safe, because that’s the meaning the middle classes will probably take from this. And having reassured them, Sinn Féin hopes they’ll vote for them. The party knows this will prompt howls of rage from the unreconstructed fringe of republicanism, but then if Martin McGuinness carried a banner saying “Lizzie Go Home!” they’d still have howled their contempt. So electorally, they’re a lost cause. What matters to Sinn Féin is making further electoral inroads in the south, and probably the north while they’re at it, and they reckon this will do the trick. Some may fall off the Sinn Féin campaign wagon at one end, but more, they hope, will join it at the other. In short,  Sinn Féin see the meaning the middle classes will attach to this action and they act accordingly.

Cynical? An abandonment of principle? If it is, you’d better include Michael Collins in your condemnation. When he was running his ruthless campaign against the British and was the most wanted man in Ireland, Collins used to ride his bicycle around Dublin. And when he encountered British soldiers, he’d chat amiably and often give out about the inconvenience caused by these damned murderous republicans.  Cynical? An abandonment of principle? Only if you’re very, very simple.