Three things got me interested in this book. One, my recollection of the events which are now history but at one time were a major part of the newscasts of my youth: bombings, shootings and hunger strikes in Ireland. Two, my interest in revolutionary movements - what leads to their success and what leads to their failure. Three, what links are there from this book to our contemporary times - are there lessons to be learned in general? Some context may be helpful to readers unfamiliar with these events.
At the risk of oversimplifying, let’s say it all started, “In the early 1600s [when] England confiscated all the lands in what are now the six northern counties in Ireland and opened them for settlement by mainly Protestant Scots.The ensuing centuries of rebellion and massacre, when Protestant fought Catholic, were as much an effort by the native Catholic landowners to win back their land from the usurping English and Scots as they were religious wars, but they imparted to Irisih affairs an all-pervasive tint of religion.” (p 4) This continued for centuries and in 1801 Ireland became part of the United Kingdom through the “Acts of Union”. After World War I a war of secession was fought by Ireland and the island was divided with the six northern counties with Protestant population forming Northern Ireland, which to this day is part of the United Kingdom.
The Irish Republican Army was a name originally given to volunteers formed to defend “Home Rule” - a split from England. These volunteers were made up of members of two organizations, the Irish Republican Brotherhood and Sinn Fein. (p. 18) Each had their roots in Irish nationalism with a general goal of a unified nation of Ireland which included the six Ulster counties that were under the control of a Protestant hegemony. The original Irish Republican Army constitution was written in 1923, (p 32-33) about two years after the end of the Anglo-Irish war. Over the decades the IRA underwent many splits,leadership changes, reorganizations, alliances with other like-minded groups and eventually became an organized force whose asserted goal was the unification of all the counties of Ireland under a single Irish government. As I was reading, splits within the Republican movement happened with such regularity that once a new organization appeared in the struggle, waiting for the inevitable split was like waiting for the high-wire walker to take her next step. (Chapter 13 is even named Splits in the Ranks).
Even though I liked this book, some words of caution for any prospective reader. Details, lots and lots of details. Oftentimes it was difficult to see the prairie for the grass. The major sweeps of the history got bogged down in details and the circling back to explain the lives of some of the individuals. Keeping track of who was doing what required a lot of effort. At times it felt like each person alive in Ireland today might be able to get a glimpse of distant and recent ancestors' lives. Here the author benefited and was simultaneously handicapped by knowing so much about his subject. If you are a student of the history of Northern Ireland, this is the book for you. Inasmuch as Ireland and Northern Ireland are historically one nation, much of the history of Ireland since about 1800 is contained in this book too.
One’s perspective affects the way one looks at any situation. I can imagine an Englishman who feels no sympathy for members of the IRA; considering them to be nothing but terrorists who killed innocent people. I can also imagine a member of the IRA who felt like one interviewee, “‘I genuinely wish,’ he said, ‘that there were other ways of dealing with repression, but I believe it is the only way. Therefore I do what has to be done and don’t think about it thereafter. I take no pleasure whatever in it as some people would like to suggest.’” (410). I am not like either of these hypothetical individuals so I tried to look at Mr.Coogan’s book dispassionately - because frankly there was a lot of killing on both sides of the political divide.
I vividly remember the images of the IRA prisoners on hunger strike. I am sure at the time I did not understand at all what the hunger strikes were about, except for a vague notion of a dispute between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland. This book reminded of the hunger strikes and for the first time I became truly aware of what motivated them. Moreover, I was more profoundly moved by the determination needed to literally starve oneself to death for a cause. Of the ten hunger strikers I remembered clearly Bobby Sands’ name. Why did they do this? What could motivate them with such fanatic zeal? It was not Catholicism. It was a belief in “The moral position of the Irish Republican Army, its right to engage in warfare, is based on: (a) the right to resist foreign aggression’ (b) the right to revolt against tyranny and oppression.” (p. 420) As such, the hunger strike was raised in order to, essentially, establish the rights of IRA members to be treated as political prisoners (known as Special Category Status). The United Kingdom would not budge and ten men went to their deaths. It may seem tedious, and while a Google search would provide as much information I am going to share these mens’ names and demands because I want to memorialize them before turning to the issue of revolution.
The five demands: the right to wear their own clothes, the right not to do prison work, free association with fellow prisoners, full 50% remission of their sentences and normal visits, parcels, education and recreational facilities. The ten hunger strikers were:
Bobby Sands
Francis Hughes
Raymond McCreish
Patsy O’Hara
Joe McDonnell
Martin Hurson
Kevin Lynch
Kieran Doherty
Tom McElrea
Mickie Devine
These men represented each of the 6 counties of the North and each was an outstanding figure within the Republican movement. Their deaths brought further international attention to the problems of Northern Ireland. (pp. 373-9)
Insurrection, rebellion, revolt, terrorism - these are words that are bandied about with relative ease in our times but always the idea of revolution is a disruptive one. For some the disruption seems essential to overthrow oppression; for others it is an immoral means of dissension against an established order. What were some of the things that happened in Northern Ireland and is there a common thread with other revolutions in history? Early in the book Mr. Coogan explained, “Religion is just a means of keeping the working class divided: ‘The [Orange] Order became such a force in northern life that its included in job, politics and religion is commonly held to be all-pervasive, and at all times its intent is to divide Catholic from Protestant so that the working classes of either sect will never unite to overthrow. . . .” the privileged Protestent class in the north. (p 6) So it was not a religious war per se, but a conflict in which the Unionists (favoring the United Kingdom) were predominantly Protestant who held all the political power and exercised it to ensure Catholics were kept out of jobs, education and housing benefits. So as with other revolutions a common theme here was oppression of one group by another. The Republicans were predominantly Catholic and were engaged in what they saw as a civil rights struggle; a human rights struggle. Even the British saw it this way.
At one point the United States appeared to be leaning toward having United Nations observers come to Northern Ireland, the United Kingdom objected. “The British essentially said, ‘This is a civil rights issue, domestic to the UK. You have civil rights issues too, domestically. If international observers are admitted to the UK’s domestic affairs a precedent will have been set and you will have UN observers, possibly Russian and Chinese, in Selma . . .do you want that?”(253) As an aside, this was not the only time racism weakened the United States’ international moral authority, a problem which still exists for it today.
So in many ways this was a working class struggle which had historical roots in politics (the six counties of Northern Ireland were a political entity) and religion. The IRA came about to fight against oppression by Britain and its proxy Protestant paramilitary organizations. Of course the old “chicken and egg” argument could be raised that the Protestant paramilitary organizations came about to defend against the IRA. Mr. Coogan explains, “But the way the force [Royal Ulster Constabulary - Northern Ireland police force]] was founded and operated for years meant that Protestants regarded it as being an instrument of ‘their law’ and ‘their order’ - the means of imposing a Unionist policy which, in plain language, came down to an Irish version of apartheid. The evils of that system generated the ‘troubles’ and turned the force into a counter-insurgency weapon, with the result that, to the IRA, the police became ‘legitimate targets’. The absence of a political resolution of the conflict has kept them in the firing line.” (461) Earlier the author said, “Wherever the truth lies, the development of the UDR [Protestant paramilitary Ulster Defense Regiment], the subsequent onslaught on it and its involvement with episodes like the Miami affair and the Butchers' activities help to illustrate yet again why, to Catholics in the ghetto the term ‘law and order’ has to be defined as whose law and whose order.” (348) It reminded me of Malcolm X’s words,"Our motto is by any means necessary...I just don't believe that when people are being unjustly oppressed that they should let someone else set rules for them by which they can come out from under that oppression. . . .So we reserve the right to do anything necessary to bring a halt to this unjust condition from which our people are suffering in that country - anything - any means..."
This revolutionary language was consistent in the lives of IRA recruits in the 1980s. The IRA was guided by what was called “The Green Book”. A couple of excerpts will stand to illustrate the position of the IRA at that time:
“The recruit learns from Day One that,’The Irish Republican Army, as the legal representatives of the Irish people, are morally justified in carrying out a campaign of resistance against foreign occupation forces and domestic collaborators.’ (418) Furthermore, “IRA recruits were taught that the organization, ‘stands with our Celtic brothers and the other subject nations of Europe, and with the neutral and non-aligned peoples of the Third World' it seeks a third, socialist alternative which transcends both Western individualistic capitalism ad Eastern state capitalism, which is in accordance with our best revolutionary traditions as a people.” (419)
In the same vein, the IRA also stated its intention, “The IRA promises a democratic and socialist state, ‘A government system which will give every individual the opportunity to partake in the decisions which affect him or her: by decentralizing political power to the smallest social unit practicable where we would all have the opportunity to wield political power both individually and collectively in the interests of ourselves and the nation as a whole. Socially and Economically we will enact a policy aimed at eradicating the Social Imperialism of today, by returning the ownership of the wealth of Ireland to the people of Ireland through a system of cooperativism, worker ownership an, and control of industry, Agriculture and Fisheries.’”(421)
Lofty goals indeed. This book was published before the final peace in Northern Ireland was hammered out. We can easily determine that a unified Ireland never did come about and a lot of people died for something that never occurred. Northern Ireland is still a part of the United Kingdom. So in that respect there never was a “democratic and socialist state”. Why that failed to come about is not definitively answered in the pages of this book. It seems that people finally got tired of all the violence and killing and made a compromise. Of course we could go outside of the context of this book to find out - if you want to know how the story has apparently moved on. Some resolution of what the author referred to as the “Irish apartheid” must have come about so that conditions for armed struggle no longer existed. Even though I was hoping to find out why the revolution failed the answer did not come from this book. I am reminded of Maurice Bishop and the New Jewel Movement of Grenada. I know the forces that were arrayed against the Grenadian socialist and democratic movement - so I suspect a little investigation would bear witness to some similar counter force in the case of Northern Ireland and the IRA. I do see links between the ideas propounded by the IRA and other revolutions and I wonder if those ideas are not due for a rekindling around the world.
I am always digging through books and finding other books I want to read and this book was no different. In an interview of a victim of British military torture Mr. Coogan refers to a book that I would like to read one day: “How did you manage to get through it all, I asked him? ‘I kept thinking of “The Last Words,” and I thought of what those men went through and I said to myself, sure what am I getting - nothing! So I stuck it out.” (“The Last Words” is a book about the last words and writings of the executed 1916 leaders. It is doubtful if any political science course includes it on its reading list, but such works have more relevance to the making of a revolutionary than the learned tomes that are written about them afterwards)” (336) I will be trying to get my hands on that book but I think it may be lost in the deep well of the past.
What then of laws, of nations who wish to claim a moral high ground, who point at countries like Cuba and accuse them of excesses and political prisoners and other manner of alleged abuses? Much like the moral vacuum that existed during the Jim Crow era and how the United States hypocrisy was exposed by the civil rights movement - the United Kingdom does not have much of a leg to stand on. I leave this final example to illustrate that true wisdom would be living up to purported values rather than saying one thing and doing another.
“Subsequently, at cabinet level in Mrs. Thatcher’s government, a judicial murder was decided upon. On March 2, 1988, an SAS ‘hit squad’ was flown to Gibraltar with instructions to kill the IRA party. . .On March 6, the unarmed IRA unit carried out yet another reconnaissance mission into Gibraltar. They were shadowed to the border by Spanish security who were in radio contact with their British opposite numbers. As in Loughhall, they drove not into an arrest, but an ambush. They were shot dead on the streets of Gibraltar.”(440) They were unarmed, they could have been arrested, they were killed instead. Sound familiar?
Tiocfaidh ár lá
Our day will come