« | Home | »

Creatively Ambiguous

Tags: | |

The Chilcot Inquiry is providing further evidence that Tony Blair misled the British public in the run up to the war in Iraq in 2003. Five years earlier he less famously deceived the people of Northern Ireland into believing that paramilitary prisoners wouldn’t be released and Sinn Fein wouldn’t be able to enter government until the IRA had decommissioned its arms. On the basis of this deception, Northern Ireland’s Catholics and a bare majority of Protestants ‘consented’ to the Good Friday Agreement.

In the wake of the referendum Blair retreated from his pledges: the first paramilitary prisoners were released in September 1998 and, in December 1999, Sinn Fein took its seats in government. The IRA continued with its activities – killings, beatings, targeting, spying, recruiting, gun-running, robbing banks – until July 2005. The government argued that an ‘imperfect peace’ was better than no peace at all.

In his book Great Hatred, Little Room, Jonathan Powell, Blair’s chief of staff, acknowledges that the Good Friday Agreement was ‘creatively ambiguous’: republicans could be told that decommissioning wasn’t required while unionists were reassured it was an essential part of the deal. This ambiguity was, not unreasonably, thought to be necessary if an accommodation was to be achieved between the polarised positions of unionists and republicans, and avoid the IRA’s return to violence. Blair gave David Trimble, the Ulster Unionist Party leader, a ‘side letter’ which appeared to suggest that decommissioning would begin a couple of months after the referendum. But the letter wasn’t part of the Agreement and left open to interpretation whether decommissioning was actually required, rather than simply desirable.

During the referendum campaign the IRA’s infamous ‘Balcombe Street gang’ was released to boost republican support for the Agreement. This had a disastrous impact on unionist voters. Blair worked frantically to win over unionist support for the Agreement. Two days before the vote he issued five handwritten, personal pledges to the people of Northern Ireland. According to Alastair Campbell’s diaries, ‘TB was not totally sure about it, and said the wordings had to be very, very careful.’ Among Blair’s promises were: ‘Those who use or threaten violence excluded from the government of Northern Ireland’ and ‘Prisoners kept in unless violence is given up for good.’

On the morning of the referendum Blair had an article published in the nationalist Irish News and unionist Belfast Newsletter which suggested that his demands from the IRA went beyond ‘just’ decommissioning:

Representatives of parties intimately linked to paramilitary groups can only be in a future Northern Ireland government if it is clear that there will be no more violence and the threat of violence has gone. That doesn’t just mean decommissioning but all bombing, killings, beatings, and an end to targeting, recruiting, and all the structures of terrorism.

The deception worked: the referendum passed with 71 per cent of the vote. Opinion polls suggested that a majority of both ‘Protestants’ and ‘Catholics’ thought that decommissioning would have to take place before IRA prisoners were released or Sinn Fein entered government.

The Agreement was signed on 10 April 1998. On 22 April, Blair agreed with the leader of the opposition, William Hague, that ‘no member of the new Assembly will be appointed a minister until any paramilitary associates that he may have had have engaged in substantial decommissioning.’ Two weeks later, Blair said:

What is essential is that any agreement must be signed up to in full, as we said, and the answer to his question is yes of course it is the case that, both in respect of taking seats in the government of Northern Ireland and in respect of the early release of prisoners, the only organisations that qualify for that are organisations that have given up violence and given it up for good.

The British prime minister compounded the deception by continuing to act as if it had never taken place. His government’s failure to mitigate or make amends for the effect of the deception undermined Northern Ireland’s moderate parties. Just a month after the referendum, Trimble’s UUP suffered a crashing defeat which almost sank pro-Agreement unionism. Even so, as late as November 2003 Blair expected Trimble to beat Ian Paisley in an election that saw Paisley’s Democratic Unionist Party emerge as the dominant party within unionism. Sinn Fein similarly went on to eclipse the SDLP.

In a recent interview, Blair argued that the emergence of political parties in Iraq that cross the sectarian divide is paving the way for a more sustainable peace. In Northern Ireland, the most sectarian parties are now triumphant and devolution is precarious.

Comments on “Creatively Ambiguous”

  1. eamonnmcdonagh says:

    I think we here have a case of a political syndrome which, though increasingly common, still lacks a name. It goes roughly like this “Blair bad, bad bad for having accompanied America into Iraq. Blair a liar, Blair a sneak. Therefore, everything done pre- Iraq by Blair must now be interpreted as evidence of his badness and sneakiness. And it doesn’t matter/is irrelevant that parliament approved the war”

    The British state comprehensively defeated Provoism and Blair deserves credit for recognizing that Gerry, Martin and the boys were itching to go respectable. For a more developed version of this thesis see this essay

    http://bit.ly/6QkA5b

  2. Phil says:

    There’s another syndrome which goes like this: “Blair-haters bad; Blair-haters critical of Blair; therefore any criticism of Blair can be assumed to come from Blair-haters and its substance ignored”.

  3. eamonnmcdonagh says:

    Hi Phil,

    Which of the followings statements, allowing for all the caveats that might reasonably be allowed, would you say was nearer to being true?

    1.
    The Provos defeated the British state.

    2.
    The British state defeated the Provos.

  4. Phil says:

    What’s the relevance of that question to the claims made in the article?

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.


  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • andymartinink on Reacher v. Parker: Slayground definitely next on my agenda. But to be fair to Lee Child, as per the Forbes analysis, there is clearly a massive collective reader-writer ...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: And in Breakout, Parker, in prison, teams up with a black guy to escape; another white con dislikes it but accepts the necessity; Parker is absolutely...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: Parker may not have the integrity and honesty of Marlowe, but I'd argue that Richard Stark writes with far more of both than Raymond Chandler does: Ch...
    • Christopher Tayler on Reacher v. Parker: Good to see someone holding up standards. The explanation is that I had thoughts - or words - left over from writing about Lee Child. (For Chandler se...
    • Geoff Roberts on Reacher v. Parker: ..."praised in the London Review of Books" Just read the article on Lee Child in a certain literary review and was surprised to find this rave notice...

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Chris Lehmann: The Candidates
    18 June 2015

    ‘Every one of the Republican candidates can be described as a full-blown adult failure. These are people who, in most cases, have been granted virtually every imaginable advantage on the road to success, and managed nevertheless to foul things up along the way.’

    Hugh Pennington:
    The Problem with Biodiversity
    10 May 2007

    ‘As a medical microbiologist, for example, I have spent my career fighting biodiversity: my ultimate aim has been to cause the extinction of harmful microbes, an objective shared by veterinary and plant pathologists. But despite more than a hundred years of concentrated effort, supported by solid science, smallpox has been the only success.’

    Jeremy Harding: At the Mexican Border
    20 October 2011

    ‘The battle against illegal migration is a domestic version of America’s interventions overseas, with many of the same trappings: big manpower commitments, militarisation, pursuit, detection, rendition, loss of life. The Mexican border was already the focus of attention before 9/11; it is now a fixation that shows no signs of abating.’

    James Meek: When the Floods Came
    31 July 2008

    ‘Last July, a few days after the floods arrived, with 350,000 people still cut off from the first necessity of life, Severn Trent held its annual general meeting. It announced profits of £325 million, and confirmed a dividend for shareholders of £143 million. Not long afterwards the company, with the consent of the water regulator Ofwat, announced that it wouldn’t be compensating customers: all would be charged as if they had had running water, even when they hadn’t.’

Advertisement Advertisement