Recession? Time we invaded somewhere

I have a soft spot for British soldiers, the ordinary guy on the ground. He’s probably joined the army for the same reason that men have done for hundreds of years – because it was a way to earn a living, even though earning that living meant  being taught how to take the life of other human beings. That’s what soldiers do – follow orders to kill or be killed.

At the moment,  the British Chancellor of the Exchequer is being criticized by other MPs for trying to freeze the pay of British soldiers. Which makes you wonder what sort of world those arguing for an increase in armed forces pay live in. Because you reveal your values as a society by where you put your money.

And it’s not small money. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Britain  in 2010 spent nearly $60 billion on ‘defence’.  In 2011 Liam Fox, the British Defence secretary, said the price of constructing replacement nuclear submarines could rise to more than £25 billion. Greenpeace figures the renewed Trident programme will cost, over 30 years, £92 billion. Contrast that with the NHS, which is being told to make “efficiency savings” – code for cuts – of £20 billion.

It all ties into the arms industry, of course. With the ending of the Cold War, weapons manufacturers and share holders were in a sweat – they needed something to replace the gap  left by the implosion of the USSR. Hence  Iraq, Afghanistan and now phony claims that Iran is manufacturing nuclear weapons and may need an invasion.

Of course, many of us remember another British prime minister, who knew what you do when you find that things are falling apart a bit at home – giant unemployment, industry collapsing, the government increasingly unpopular. You invent a foreign adventure to distract the masses.  You invent the Falklands.

Iran is today’s Falklands. We know that country hasn’t actually any plans to develop nuclear weapons and we know that it’s surrounded by countries with nuclear weapons and US bases – Israel, Russia, Pakistan, India. We know Iran hasn’t invaded anyone this past 200 years and we know that for over 100 years Britain exploited, occupied and overthrew governments in Iran. But none of that matters. Look out, Iran. 

See the Anglo-Irish Treaty online - and weep?

What price historical documents? Or to be more accurate, what impact if any do they have on those who view them? Yesterday  Enda Kenny put online the signed document of the Anglo-Irish Treaty. The names are all there – Collins, Griffiths, Lloyd George, Birkenhead.  Lloyd George told Collins that if he and the others didn’t sign it, there’d be an immediate resumption of armed hostilities. Collins signed, noting that he'd signed his own death-warrant. And the rest, as they say, is the history of a divided island.

What impact does Enda think the viewing of this document, online now and later on real-life display, will have? Maybe he thinks it’ll have no impact, although I doubt that. More likely he hopes it will distract people from their present European throttling and, as citizens of the Republic of Ireland, feel some pride in a document that mapped them into existence. Unionists, I would guess – but only guess – will feel something similar, if they bother to look at it. This document was the basis for the foundation of the northern state.

De Valera said that when he waned to know what the Irish people were thinking, he went off and looked into his own heart. If I were to follow Dev’s dictum, I’d say a lot of people looking at that document must feel a sadness. It was created by the spilling of a lot of Irish blood in the years preceding it, and it was followed by the spilling of more Irish blood, this time in a vicious Civil War. Collins  talked about it as the document which gave Ireland the freedom to achieve freedom – in short, getting twenty-six counties would make possible an independent thirty-two county republic. Whether he believed that  or not we’ll never know, but certainly the vision he and so many others believed in has not in fact been achieved.

Will it ever? It depends on who you talk to. Speak with unionists and they will tell you – except they’re Jim Allister – that the union is safe. Speak to nationalists or republicans, and they will tell you that we are on our way to a thirty-two county republic, look at the vibrancy and self-confidence of the coming natioanlist/republican generation, look at the brimming vigour in the members of the GAA and those involved in the Irish language, as well as the transformation through power-sharing in the north. National unity is coming, but in a form and at a pace that those who signed the Anglo-Irish Treaty couldn’t have imagined.

Who's right? Search me. I’ve never met anyone yet who was good at predicting our political future. But I do know the signed Treaty that Enda put online the other day gives off, ninety years later, an unmistakeable air of sadness and a sense of something incomplete.

An Taoiseach cois na tine

I blame Franklin D Roosevelt  - he started it.  On Sunday 12 March 1933, shortly after his inauguration as US president, he began a series of radio broadcasts known as the "fireside chats". His first one was on the banks crisis, the second on his plans for recovery and others on similar topics like  the currency situation and  economic recovery. Apparently the American people really enjoyed them and they contributed to FDR's massive success as president.

Maybe Enda Kenny is hoping some of that success will rub off on him.  His first TV fireside chat (more may come) happened last night on RTÉ. Actually it wasn't by the fireside - he was at a desk, hands clasped in an odd manner, on his left an EU flag, on his right an Irish tricolour that looked as though it could do with a wash. What did he say? Well, things like  "Let me say this to you all: you are not responsible for the crisis". And "Let me be clear - Ireland supports stronger economic governance throughout Europe".  Or, rephrased: "I'm on your side" and "Germany will decide our financial affairs for us from now on".

We'll know whether Enda's chat last night was prophetic or just a load of guff by 2015, because that's when he figures Ireland (he used "Ireland" and "the country" quite a bit ) will be once more up and punching its weight in the financial markets. And jobs and all the rest of it. He did concede that the path he was outlining would be a thorny path: "We have not so far been in a position to do everything we promised".  Or, rephrased: "I know we said during the election campaign that we'd do certain things but, um, unfortunately we can't. Or won't. That was then, you see, this is now. We are where we are."

Now those flags. They were appropriate, I thought. The EU flag, because Germany with France is about to set things up so it decides financial arrangements in all EU member states. It's called revolver-to-the-head politics. We had it on this little island ninety years ago when Lloyd George told  Michael Collins and Co what would happen if they didn't sign on the dotted line. So it was only fit and proper that an EU flag dominated in Enda's office.

The Irish tricolour was even more appropriate. The white between the orange and green was, well, kind of grubby-looking. Symbolic, perhaps,  of the failure of successive southern governments to do anything beyond rhetoric about national unity. Or you could link the grubby national flag with Enda telling us that he travelled throughout the country when he really meant he travelled throughout the 26-county state. Because as far as Enda is concerned, we in the north don't exist. Like the man said, the opposite of love is not hatred but indifference.

Lighter moments? I can think of only one: "I want to be the Taoiseach who retrieves Ireland's economic sovereignty".  Well, you have to laugh, don't you?

A good deed in a naughty world...

Sometimes, when you've nearly given up on human nature, something small but perfectly formed will pop up and flicker for a moment and tell you yes,  there is hope, there is a  thing called progress.

Plenty of reason for thinking otherwise this week  - not least the tone of Ruth Patterson's voice as she lectured the Mayor of Belfast about how he Must Do Better. "Live and learn, Lord Mayor!" she told him, in a voice that didn't so much drip as stay deep-frozen in resentment and clenched-teeth animosity. I've gone over the Duke of Edinburgh award to a British Army cadet thing already so I'll stay off that well-worn path, but it's hard not to think of words like "kettle" and "pot" and "black" when you hear Ruthie lecturing someone about openness and acceptance of diverse views. And I'm amazed that no public commentator has seen fit to utter a single critical word on an army, particularly the British army here, having a hand  in the development of young people like this 15-year-old. If a tobacco company came in to sprinkle its dubious stardust over children,  we'd surely hear the yells of protest, and quite right too. But the British army? Nah.

If anything, more depressing this past week:  the HET findings leak (if such it be) about what happened at Loughgall in 1987. Whatever you may think of the IRA, there can be no doubt of the suffering families left behind after that particular massacre. One of them was on air this week with Wendy Austin and you could hear the pain in her voice over twenty-five years later.

But then this morning I switched on BBC Radio Ulster/Raidio Uladh's Sunday Sequence.  The William Crawley/Finola Meredith/Tim Brannigan take on the D of E award thing was Alliancethink gone mad, and yet when  I switched the programme off a few minutes later, I felt oddly cheered. Why? Because before he passed over to the Sunday Service from wherever, presenter Crawley, a man from a Protestant background, wrapped up with "Sin é,  that's it for this Sunday". It was easy, it was natural, it was good to hear. Now if we could get poppy-wearing on BBC TV opened up in a similar way - opt in if you want, opt out if you want . Or better still, if the same approach could be applied to Easter lily-wearing on BBC TV -    now that would be a move to real even-handedness. It'll probably never happen but still, I'm feeling dangerously cheerful this winter's morn over Crawley's cúpla focal. Maith thú, William.

Loughgall and moral justification

History, they say, is written by the winners. If that is true, then republicans appear to have lost. If Liam Clarke is right and if the Historical Enquiries Team (HET) report next month that the 8-man IRA unit in Loughgall in 1987 fired first on the 24-man SAS team lying in wait for them.

Which is a fair few ifs, but Clarke seems very confident that his source has spilled the beans accurately. The concern over who fired first puzzled me a little at first, but now I gather it means that the SAS were justified in firing back and killing the eight men. The ninth dead man was, of course, an unfortunate accident.

This particular incident from the Troubles brings a number of matters swirling to the surface and not all of them are  nice to look at. One is the view that the IRA men got what was coming to them - that they had been sent, as one judge put it on one occasion, to the ultimate court of judgment. This is usually said in a fairly measured way but it's hard not to think there's a bit of hand-rubbing and fist-pumping behind the scenes. You want war? We'll give you war.

Another point that strikes me is the reasoning behind the moral view that since the IRA fired first, the SAS were justified in returning fire. Mmm. Sounds reasonable. Only then I think of a term that's used frequently of Israel in relation to the Palestinians  - "disproportionate response". The SAS fired over 600 rounds at Loughgall, the IRA men 70.  Do the math, as the Yanks say. Would it be possible that the SAS were intent on putting a metaphorical horse's head into the bed of those who thought they could take on British forces?

The final point worth mentioning might be that, for better or worse, if the HET reports that the IRA men opened fire first, it won't make a blind bit of difference to the response of most people to the event. The hand-rubbers will feel even more satisfied that time and expense wasn't wasted arresting the men and putting them through the courts. Republicans and nationalists will continue to believe that the SAS lay in wait and when they had the IRA men in their sites, opened fire and didn't stop until all of them were dead. Many of them will see the HET as discredited.

Ultimately, maybe, it doesn't matter who opened fire: the eight men are still dead. The one question that itches at the back of my brain for an answer is this: if the IRA men hadn't  fired first, what would the SAS have done?

Ulster - a breath-taking place

Sometimes radio can simply suck your breath away - leave you gasping on over breakfast or in the car. I had two such moments earlier this week; I'm surprised I wasn't hyperventilating by tea-time.

The first came when I was listening to an item of BBC Radio Ulster/Raidio Uladh's 'Good Morning Ulster' programme.  Mark Carruthers was discussing the interesting question of what the word 'Ulster' meant to people. The historian Jonathan Bardon who's flogging a new book said he tended to think of it as the historical nine counties, Denis Bradley said yes, he was an Ulsterman, proud to be so, he was from Donegal and you couldn't get much more Ulster than that. And there was other discussion of terms and nuances - was it the six counties, the Province (which Mark said seemed to have fallen out of fashion) and/or Northern Ireland? They could have added the north of Ireland, the north-east of Ireland or even just 'up there'.  But what sucked my breath away was that at no stage did ANYBODY point out that the the station from which the discussion was being broadcast was called 'Radio Ulster' and that the programme in which the discussion was set was called 'Good Morning Ulster'. Why didn't someone ask Mark what his station meant when THEY used (and called themselves) Ulster? Better still, why didn't Mark himself mention it?  (Note to readers: for a clue, check the  Isle-of-Man-type map at the start of 'Newsline 6.30')

My second gasp-making moment was on BBC Radio 4's 'Today' programme, where John Humphreys was interviewing Peter Robinson about his DUP convention speech, where he said that an attitude of 'No surrender' ("Which served us so well in the past") was no longer appropriate. The last thirty or forty years, Peter said, had created division between people, and it was now time to bring them together again. What must be tackled were things like peace walls which divided people and segregated education which divided children. My jaw dropped and my lungs went on strike. 

No wonder the English don't understand this deformed little corner of Ireland. The last thirty or forty years CREATED division? Gimme a break, Peter. Some of us remember pre- the last thirty or forty years and the divisions were well and truly in place then. In fact, the state of Ulster/NI/ six counties/ etc was created on exactly that - the division between Protestant and Catholic with, it was presumed, a permanent majority for Protestants. But since that wasn't mentioned, Peter's little point sounded very solid. Then Peter and John got to talk about those peace walls, neatly confining the problem to the  unwashed working-class areas. You don't get peace walls about Malone; or Holywood; or the middle-class estates of Derry's Waterside. But do a little head-count or check the statistics -  over 90% of people here CHOOSE to live separated from their Protestant or Catholic fellow-citizens. When middle-class Catholics moved into Malone, for example, the air was thick with the sound of Protestant bags being packed for North Down.  But since that middle-class thing wasn't mentioned, Peter's working-class peace-wall-point sounded very solid. As for segregated education - well, no matter how many polls Peter may cite showing a majority in favour of integrated education, the fact is that the vast majority of Protestants CHOOSE to send their children to Protestant schools, and Catholics to Catholic schools. But since that wasn't mentioned, Peter's little point sounded very solid. What's more, I know from experience that neither Protestant nor Catholic school staff inculcate sectarianism - in fact most of them work very hard against it. But since that wasn't mentioned, Peter's little point sounded very solid. 

But the most air-sucking-out moment of all was at the end of the Humphreys interview with Peter. As I chewed my final mouthful of toast it suddenly hit me: not once in the course of the Peter-John dialogue was it mentioned that Britain claims the right to jurisdiction over the six counties (or the north or Northern Ireland or Ulster or the Province) and that that claim  is the hard-core, terribly uncomfortable source of division here.  But since that wasn't mentioned, the English audience probably stood up from the breakfast table shaking their civilized heads and murmuring "Those Irish and their religious wars  - tsk, tsk, tsk.  When will they ever learn?"

Sorry - gotta dash.  The man with the oxygen mask is at the front door. 

The Mayor of Belfast and a shameful affair

It’s good to see for once that the public of Belfast appear to be united against a shameful affair. I’m referring, of course, to the case of the British Army cadet who wasn’t given  a Duke of Edinburgh award by the Lord Mayor Niall Ó Donnghaile. There really is a point where people have to say enough is enough, whether that’s by words or actions – or in this case refusal to act. 

Because what we have here is a 15-year-old who has been encouraged along the path of organized violence.  This child has barely reached the age of puberty, yet she has been enlisted in an organization where people are taught to kill other people – with guns, with grenades, with tanks, with rockets, with bombs. Last year cash-strapped Britain spent over £38 billion on training and equipping people to kill or threaten to kill other people. To that you can add another £34 billion for the Trident nuclear replacement, a death-programme designed to kill civilians by the million. Meanwhile there are nearly three million people out of work in Britain today, while those who are in work are having their pensions gutted and their pay slashed to fill the pockets of bankers and bond-holders. 

It’ll be three more years before this cadet child is allowed to vote. It’ll be three more years before she can get married without his parents’ consent. Yet right now, without a murmur from anyone, she is being inducted into the world of weapons, violence,  mutilation and death. Thank God someone at last has had the courage to refuse to lend his office to this corruption of the young. Maith thú, Lord Mayor – well done!