22 January 1998 Edition
Understanding loyalist death squads
Unionism must acknowledge that mass intimidation of the nationalist community is not legitimate
By Marcas Mac Ruairí
IS IT through lack of insight, outright dishonesty or laziness that the media present loyalist murders as tit-for-tat killings?
This week witnessed a continuation of loyalist attacks on nationalists with the death of Fergal McCusker in Maghera at the weekend and Larry Brennan on the Ormeau Road on Monday. UDA commander Jim Guiney was shot dead by the INLA in Belfast earlier that day. And on Wednesday night a nationalist in his fifties was shot dead in a loyalist area of South Belfast.
Last year eight nationalists fell victim to loyalist death squads. Since the shooting of LVF leader Billy Wright in Long Kesh at Christmas, the onslaught has continued with the shooting dead of a further five nationalists.
And while the Loyalist Volunteer Force has been responsible for the most of these murders, it is clear that others in the larger loyalist paramilitaries have also participated in the slaughter on a `no claim no blame basis.'
Last year they were explained as a backlash against perceived concessions to nationalists, now they are being explained as retaliation for the killing of Billy Wright.
Despite the obvious anomalies in basic arithmetic which stand to contradict suggestions that loyalist murders are tit-for-tat attacks on the nationalist community, media hacks insist on using this descriptive term in order to rationalise and indeed give justification to the activities of loyalist death squads.
It must be remembered that attacks from loyalist death squads have been on a steady increase for several months, long before Billy Wright was killed.
Republicans have consistently argued that, based on the rock of sectarian hatred nurtured by Orangeism, the continued random attacks on nationalists emanates from a rump within loyalist paramilitarism which has degenerated into sectarian fundamentalism.
The killings have been capitalised on by the Unionist Party in the context of the current political talks. David Trimble refused to engage in genuine negotiations and hyped the myth of concessions to nationalists. In the subsequent vacuum, those loyalist paramilitaries on ceasefire became uneasy.
If they were to break their ceasefire completely, we were told, it would not be a small fundamentalist rump carrying out murderous attacks on nationalists, but a full scale onslaught from mainstream loyalism. The Propositions on Heads of Agreement are seen in the nationalist community as a shift away from previously agreed positions; they are perceived as an attempt to impose a unionist agenda on the talks, presenting a Six County assembly as a fait accompli.
Moreover, the document offers no commitment to equality, but in its place we are offered equity, which has an entirely different meaning. This change is interpreted in the broader nationalist community as showing a lack of commitment to justice by the British.
By manipulating the recent spiralling number of sectarian murders to extract concessions in this fashion, the Unionist Party is also seen by the nationalist community to be encouraging further loyalist attacks, providing the death squads with a political rationale.
It is in this broader historical context that loyalist murders must be understood. Describing them as tit-for-tat merely serves to absolve those otherwise respectable unionist politicians of responsibility for encouraging the slaughter of nationalists.
But Unionists must now be told that they have to move forward, away from their dependence on mass intimidation. They must take the opportunity presented by the opening of negotiations, which began on Monday, to engage in real dialogue.
Having spent months refusing to talk to Sinn Féin because he disagrees with its policies, it is now time for David Trimble to come into the real world. By entering into the talks in the first place, there is an explicit acceptance of the need to put the failures of the past behind us. But with the appearance that intransigence pays, unionism has no incentive to enter into substantive dialogue.
Both governments, in their own discussions with the unionists, must drive home the message that an internal solution is simply not a solution at all. Rather, the solution must reflect the concerns and needs of everybody, and that entails the vital element of an all-Ireland dimension.
Confidence must be restored by adopting a pro-active leadership role which seeks to advance on agreements already entered into and demonstrating that good faith negotiations can remove conflict from Ireland. In doing so they will inject new dynamism into the process.
All the substantive issues must be kept on the agenda and balanced to ensure a politically neutral starting point for the negotiations .
The process will be further helped by a visible commitment establishing equality of treatment, demilitarisation, urgent action on human rights, concrete measures on the Irish langauge and culture and the release of prisoners.
By Marcas Mac Ruairí
IS IT through lack of insight, outright dishonesty or laziness that the media present loyalist murders as tit-for-tat killings?
This week witnessed a continuation of loyalist attacks on nationalists with the death of Fergal McCusker in Maghera at the weekend and Larry Brennan on the Ormeau Road on Monday. UDA commander Jim Guiney was shot dead by the INLA in Belfast earlier that day. And on Wednesday night a nationalist in his fifties was shot dead in a loyalist area of South Belfast.
Last year eight nationalists fell victim to loyalist death squads. Since the shooting of LVF leader Billy Wright in Long Kesh at Christmas, the onslaught has continued with the shooting dead of a further five nationalists.
And while the Loyalist Volunteer Force has been responsible for the most of these murders, it is clear that others in the larger loyalist paramilitaries have also participated in the slaughter on a `no claim no blame basis.'
Last year they were explained as a backlash against perceived concessions to nationalists, now they are being explained as retaliation for the killing of Billy Wright.
Despite the obvious anomalies in basic arithmetic which stand to contradict suggestions that loyalist murders are tit-for-tat attacks on the nationalist community, media hacks insist on using this descriptive term in order to rationalise and indeed give justification to the activities of loyalist death squads.
It must be remembered that attacks from loyalist death squads have been on a steady increase for several months, long before Billy Wright was killed.
Republicans have consistently argued that, based on the rock of sectarian hatred nurtured by Orangeism, the continued random attacks on nationalists emanates from a rump within loyalist paramilitarism which has degenerated into sectarian fundamentalism.
The killings have been capitalised on by the Unionist Party in the context of the current political talks. David Trimble refused to engage in genuine negotiations and hyped the myth of concessions to nationalists. In the subsequent vacuum, those loyalist paramilitaries on ceasefire became uneasy.
If they were to break their ceasefire completely, we were told, it would not be a small fundamentalist rump carrying out murderous attacks on nationalists, but a full scale onslaught from mainstream loyalism. The Propositions on Heads of Agreement are seen in the nationalist community as a shift away from previously agreed positions; they are perceived as an attempt to impose a unionist agenda on the talks, presenting a Six County assembly as a fait accompli.
Moreover, the document offers no commitment to equality, but in its place we are offered equity, which has an entirely different meaning. This change is interpreted in the broader nationalist community as showing a lack of commitment to justice by the British.
By manipulating the recent spiralling number of sectarian murders to extract concessions in this fashion, the Unionist Party is also seen by the nationalist community to be encouraging further loyalist attacks, providing the death squads with a political rationale.
It is in this broader historical context that loyalist murders must be understood. Describing them as tit-for-tat merely serves to absolve those otherwise respectable unionist politicians of responsibility for encouraging the slaughter of nationalists.
But Unionists must now be told that they have to move forward, away from their dependence on mass intimidation. They must take the opportunity presented by the opening of negotiations, which began on Monday, to engage in real dialogue.
Having spent months refusing to talk to Sinn Féin because he disagrees with its policies, it is now time for David Trimble to come into the real world. By entering into the talks in the first place, there is an explicit acceptance of the need to put the failures of the past behind us. But with the appearance that intransigence pays, unionism has no incentive to enter into substantive dialogue.
Both governments, in their own discussions with the unionists, must drive home the message that an internal solution is simply not a solution at all. Rather, the solution must reflect the concerns and needs of everybody, and that entails the vital element of an all-Ireland dimension.
Confidence must be restored by adopting a pro-active leadership role which seeks to advance on agreements already entered into and demonstrating that good faith negotiations can remove conflict from Ireland. In doing so they will inject new dynamism into the process.
All the substantive issues must be kept on the agenda and balanced to ensure a politically neutral starting point for the negotiations .
The process will be further helped by a visible commitment establishing equality of treatment, demilitarisation, urgent action on human rights, concrete measures on the Irish langauge and culture and the release of prisoners.