On violence
Alan Watkins
Herod: Reflections on Political Violence Conor Cruise O'Brien (Hutchinson £6.50) Having been subjected to Welsh windbaggery from an early age, I soon acquired a resistance not only to this particular form of word-spinning but Celtic guff generally. Dr Conor Cruise O'Brien, I believe, shares this broad approach. He is a patriot, deeply learned in his country's history and literature. He is also a tolerant, civilised, humane and rational man. He is, moreover, a marvellous writer of English. And, in impeccable sentences, he persists in addressing his fellow-countrymen as if they too were tolerant, civilised, humane and rational men, when manifestly they — or a significant number of them — are nothing of the kind. For whereas the Welsh go in for a sort of maudlin, sentimental boastfulness (during the last war some people seriously believed that the Russian general Timoshenko had been born in Brynamman, and was called Tim Jenkins), the Irish, like the Sicilians, have a dispostion to kill one another. This is an unfortunate fact verifiable both from the study of history and
from observation of the present state 01 affairs. It is a fact which causes Dr O'Brien some dialectical difficulty. His book is a collection of essays and addresses, written or delivered (with one exception) during the 1970s. The collectios is supplemented by the texts of three plaY5 in which King Herod figures, so accountini for the book's somewhat fancy title. The pieces hang together remarkably well, just as they did in his previous collection, Write and Politics, and they can be read both 0,1 instruction and for enjoyment. Dr O'Brien concern is terrorism rather than Ireland' though naturally Irish examples pre' dominate.
His message is simple enough. Terror1511 should be treated as ordinary criminals' Every effort should be made to catch then' and, when caught, they should be tried ill the ordinary courts under the ordinary la° and, if found guilty, punished accordinglY In the meantime, endeavours should be made not to glamorised their activities or rn adopt their own terminology, such 3S 'execute' for 'murder'. These last injunr; tions, to be sure, raise delicate questions 0' censorship and control of television and the press; and Dr O'Brien deals with these questions honestly, though not altogether convincingly. But on the whole we murmur' how true, how very true! It takes an intel' lectually self-confident man to say that, In general, a government is doing the right thing. And this is what Dr O'Brien saY5. both about terrorism and about Northern Ireland.
But if Dr O'Brien is admirable as practical guide, he is less satisfactory as 3 political theorist. For instance, he says se' eral times that every consistent pacifist mu!' also be an anarchist. This proposition 1,5 painfully reminiscent of the questions asgen, by the chairman of conscientious objectors tribunals on the lines of: If you found burglar in your house, would you send ler the police? Dr O'Brien falls into the (in Of philosophical sense) realist error of regaru. ing the coercive power of the State as 8 single entity, a substance. Either ye!, believe in it, or you don't. In fact 11''' coercive power of the State is a phraniet which covers a multitude of relationshipsis perfectly logical and consistent to believet in law courts, tipstaffs and policemen Ye not to believe in the waging of war bY rile modern State. Dr O'Brien is also, I think, slightlY unsatisfactory on what has come to 11,e called 'institutionalised violence'. 1141„5 technique is to meet the objectors head4;', and say: 'Yes, the violence jolly well institutionalised, and a good thing too.' Thl seems to me unfair to the liberal-democro.. state in at least three respects. First, rtle, violence, or force, rests on a basis of CO.,n) sent. Second the force is (in theory anywN controllable by law. And, third, the force.,Ir generally of a minimal character. If, ve O'Brien refuses to pay his income tax a Ind man in a bowler hat will at some stage arro'cie at his front door and say: 'Would you rulll coming along with me, Sir?' If Dr O'Brien refuses, the little man will call on bigger rIlen, also in bowler hats: 'Come on, Sir, we don't want any trouble, do we?' At some Point a policeman may turn up. This is quite different from violent assault or from havling one's house razed to the ground by name-throwers But this is a quibble on the margin. My teal objection to Dr O'Brien is that, to °Ister his wholly sensible and respectable Practical case, he minimises both the politkal effects of terrorism and the political ra, tionality of terrorists. Thus Dr O'Brien 19alms19— I do not say he is wrong 7that the 16 Rising achieved, following the 1921 knegotiations, nothing beyond what had ,Ireen agreed in 1912. But the sad fact is, I 'tear that he is reluctant to admit that the Irish state was established by thugs and ,Injorderers. Dr O'Brien consistently mud"Ies morality with rationality. The man who walks through my open door and steals my ?elevision set is no doubt a bad man, but he Is behaving quite rationally. I well remember, in the early 1970s, Mr Reginald ?IiiLaudling as Home Secretary talking about terrorists as 'psychopaths' and gunaLies'. On these occasions Richard Crossman "uld shake his head vigorously. Crossman admittedly had a sneaking regard for terrsorists. He also believed that the basis of the ,rate was force. Still, his view of terrorism ;lad been proved right both in Palestine and CYprus; and he thought history would be ilItated in Northern Ireland. Well, so far er O'Brien has been proved right, and f,.r°ssman wrong. But it does not follow ,T1111 this that the IRA terrorists are, as Dr u Brien consistently implies, lunatics and aPsYchopaths: they may simply be bad men, hs br O'Brien recognises elsewhere in the 1°1c, when he demands that terrorists 'oould be treated as ordinary criminals. if Nor is the terrorists' vision of Ireland, ; such it can be called, quite as silly and 'MPossible as Dr O'Brien says it is. At the willmrient the Irish government does not ant unification. The majority in Northern e`reland does not want it. The British Govah,rillneut and Opposition do not want it. I tii" not so sure about the British people:
"
tLeir disposition, I think, is to get out. And ere is nothing in law to prevent the W. esrminster Parliament from divesting lirtself 6 Of all its Irish responsibilities. Suppose 3es this: suppose, further, that the Irish twernment desires unification. The United v 4.143ri5 and other worthy bodies add their ii!ces. Would Dr O'Brien still be on the of the reluctant majority in Northern "r,Fland? I am not sure whether the people Katanga were for or against incorP_ oration in the Congo, but the Katangese gao_ vernment certainly was not. Dr O'Brien, a UN official, tried to coerce Katanga :!10 staying in the Congo. Would he refuse Itu_ coerce Northern Ireland into joining :r_eland? One is a case of, if you like, ;'!o.exation, the other of (theoretical) sec 1'. but this hardly affects the political Principle. Very tricky altogether.
Previous page
