Political Commentary

No let-up in Ireland

John Grigg

What has been happening recently in Ireland, north and south, shows that the IRA is Still as great a threat as ever to individual life and the authority of elected governments. In Ulster the IRA is not, of course, the only para-military organisation, but the Others exist very largely as a reaction to it, and because the legitimate security forces have hitherto failed to suppress it.

In 1922 the new-born Irish Free State was challenged by the IRA supported—to his everlasting.disgrace—by Eamon de Valera. The Anglo-Irish Treaty of the previous year had been ratified by the Dail and endorsed by the electorate. But the IRA, then as now, was indifferent to the will of the people.

The government of the Free State was led bY William Cosgrave, father of the present Prime Minister, and it proved more than a Match for the terrorists. Thousands were interned, and dozens executed, without trial. In a single year nearly twice as many republicans were shot by the Irish as had been shot by the British during the whole troubled Period between 1916 and 1922.

One of the victims was the famous Erskine Childers, whose son of the same name was, until his recent death, President of the Irish Republic. While he and Cosgrave fi/s were in office together Ireland was in the curious position of having a Prime "Minister whose father had shot the father of the President—surely a most unusual relationship between high functionaries in a civilised state.

The methods used in 1922-3 were certainly brutal and by any standards grossly unjust. ut they did the trick. As Robert Kee says in Me Green Flag: 'The executions ended When de Valera, speaking as political head of a movement whose one chance of success had appeared to rest on its military effectiveness, and whose military effectiveness had Patently collapsed, issued with IRA agreement an order to dump arms'. Today even the government of the IcePublic would not be able to get away with s.acil methods, and the British government is more inhibited still in what it will do, or Permit to be done, in Northern Irelandnecause Irishmen accept ruthlessness from their fellow-Irishmen which they would denounce as unspeakable atrocity if perPetrated by the British. But the problem is The same as it was more than half a century.

to reduce the IRA to a state of manifest Ineffectiveness. _ Fortunately the present Mr Cosgrave is afs uncompromisingly anti-IRA as his der was, and so are his colleagues. They ° not regard the IRA as misguided patriots but as criminal maniacs, as the °rnmon enemy of democratic governments

in both parts of Ireland and on both sides of the Irish Sea.

They have gone to remarkable lengths in their fight against the IRA. They have imprisoned about 600 of its members, mostly convicted on the mere word of a police superintendent, which is really a form of de facto internment. They have absolutely no surreptitious dealings with the IRA and deplore the fact that, until quite recently, British officials were authorised to talk to representatives of it in Northern Ireland.

The long-standing grievance that those who had committed terrorist crimes could not be extradited from the Republic has at last been met by a law providing that they can be tried in the Republic for such crimes committed elsewhere. Above all, the Dublin government has stated quite explicitly that, far from regarding British troops in Ulster as colonialist oppressors enforcing a partition which would otherwise cease to exist, it would regard their early withdrawal as an unmitigated disaster.

There is now more misunderstanding of the Irish question among supposedly responsible people in England than among those who are directing the policy of the Irish Republic. In his very moving address at the memorial service in St Patrick's for Christopher Ewart-Biggs and Judith Cook, the Irish Foreign Minister, Dr Garret FitzGerald, said: 'Ireland, shamed by the deeds of men with minds twisted by the myths that for too many in this country have displaced history, will not forget this moment.' He might, alas, have added that some most baleful myths about Ireland are still widely accepted in England.

For instance, far too many English people, including some who ought to know better, seriously believe that the emergency in Northern Ireland only came about because the minority there was persecuted and denied elementary human rights. If this were even approximately true, it should be obvious that there would have been a mass exodus of Roman Catholics from Ulster during the years of Stormont rule.

They could have moved to Great Britain without forfeiting any of the social welfare which, allegedly, was the only reason for their remaining in Northern Ireland. But what are the facts? There was, indeed, a mass exodus from Ireland, but from the South. The population of the Republic fell substantially, while the Roman Catholic population in Ulster rose.

Of course there was some regrettable discrimination there (though not all one way), and the Unionist regime made too little effort to convert the minority's passive acceptance into active loyalty. But the idea

that Northern Ireland was a police state in which Roman Catholics were downtrodden helots is far-fetched to the point of hallucination.

It is necessary to say this because for many in England a mythical view of Ulster has 'displaced history', with the result that the struggle there tends to be regarded as a squalid and alien quarrel in which British troops should not be involved and to which we should feel no moral commitment. In fact, it is 'our' quarrel in the deepest and fullest sense, and to opt out of it would be a betrayal not only of our brave fellowcitizens in Ulster but of countless people in the Republic as well, who are praying that the IRA will be crushed.

The policy of Labour and Tory governments since the emergency began has never been wholly sound, because there has always been a suggestion that IRA violence was only a symptom, not the cause, of trouble in Ulster. From now onwards it is essential that we should concentrate upon defeating the IRA.

If we cannot go back to internment, even in the covert form practised by the Dublin government, we can at least introduce a general law against terrorism, as Lord Gardiner advised, and make far more extensive use of the existing conspiracy laws.

According to a report last weekend (by Chris Ryder in the Sunday Times) troops and police recently captured six of the most wanted men in Northern Ireland, members of the Provos' brigade staff, only to have to release them three days later because they could not be charged. This sort of thing, together with the conditional release of more than 800convicted terrorists, is enough to destroy the morale of the security forces and of the people they are trying to protect.

Only force will prevail against the IRA. Constitution-mongering is no substitute for victory on the streets and in the countryside, and it is unlikely that there will be any significant political progress in Northern Ireland until victory is won, or at any rate until the security forces seem to be winning instead of barely holding their °yin.

But in the wider UK context' there is a constutitional step which could and should be taken, both for reasons of abstract justice and to boost the confidence of people who desperately need to be reassured. Northern Ireland should be given the representation at Westminster which its population deserves, i.e. about twice the present number of M Ps.

In 1973 Mr Whitelaw was prepared to make this important change, but had to drop the idea because Labour objected. Until recently Mr Rees has maintained a negative attitude, but there are now at last signs that his view may be altering.

Finally, there must be an end of talking to the IRA, by the media no less than by officialdom. Nothing has been more resented by decent people of all persuasions in Northern Ireland than the kudos and publicity which have been gratuitously handed to the enemy.