13 February 1997 Edition
A case of post-imperial trauma
Englishman Nick Martin-Clark considers why Britain remains in the Six Counties
The question of Britain's neutrality in Northern Ireland has been brought to the fore once again by the different treatment of republicans and loyalists in relation to the peace-talks. Ironically, I believe a case can be made for saying that we may have less claim to neutrality the more we distance ourselves from our imperial past. This is a conundrum bequeathed to us in a complicated historical legacy.
No doubt the Maltese, the people of Gibraltar, the Falkland Islanders all feel quite British. Does that mean that they are immediately entitled to the unconditional support of the rest of the British people for every facet of their struggle to maintain that identity?
After the Second World War, with memories of our island vulnerability still fresh, the British government's view was that the strategic importance of Northern Ireland was such that we needed to hang on to it whatever the wishes of any majority there. In this context it made sense to see the British as essentially neutral administrators of territory they had come into by dint of their imperial endeavours - much as they had been in Palestine when they held the balance between Arab and Jew under the League of Nations mandate there. Catholics and Protestants were both in effect pawns in the play of great power interests and if Britain inclined more towards one than the other it was a matter of expedience not sentiment.
Since Peter Brooke's statement in 1990 however, that Britain has no ``selfish, strategic or economic interest'' in Northern Ireland the ground-rules have changed. I would like to draw attention first of all to the very curious nature of that statement. Is Peter Brooke saying that Britain has strategic and economic interests but not selfish ones? Is he saying that Britain has no interest in Northern Ireland at all? Or does it have an interest but one that's somehow unselfish? What is an unselfish interest? Supposing that such a thing exists how can it be reconciled with the claim that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom, thus as much part of us, of ourselves, as Liverpool?
It seems that his statement is an attempt to say two things at once: that Britain is neutral and that Britain is no longer playing an imperial role. The resultant confusion is testimony to their incompatibility. This is the sort of mental log-jam that we might expect of a country in the twilight of empire, no longer sure of its role, saddled with responsibilities that no longer make sense in the way they did - it is a post-imperial muddle, one of many we have faced and half-resolved.
At least the old imperial relationship was clear. Both sides knew where they stood. It served our interests to have Northern Irish ports. It served the interests of the Protestants there to have the might of the British state to help keep the Catholics down. It was a relationship based on mutual self-interest which, like most such, came under strain occasionally but essentially worked well.
But now where exactly do we stand with respect to those living in Northern Ireland? Some of them feel very British. All well and good. But some people in Hong Kong probably feel quite British. Certainly a number of South Africans felt quite British. No doubt the Maltese, the people of Gibraltar, the Falkland Islanders all feel quite British. Does that mean that they are immediately entitled to the unconditional support of the rest of the British people for every facet of their struggle to maintain that identity? Irrespective of the claims of other counties and the cost to this country?
Well it hasn't in the past when we were perhaps happier to be more forthright about the pursuit of our collective interest overall. Now however we appear embarrassed to even consider the argument that this country's interest just aren't served by hanging on to Northern Ireland because, ironically, it would smack too much of an imperial selfishness we were hoping to put behind us. We feel sneakily a little guilty just thinking about it. How could we just cut off a million Britons in all but name just because to us here in Britain they're a burden? Surely that would be immoral? Surely such a thing is only thinkable in some callous calculus of interests whereby peripheral interests are remorselessly subjected to the over-riding demands of the centre? And there is no better definition of imperialism.
Bizarrely then, our current relationship with Northern Ireland is based not on expedience but on sentiment. Perversely, we entrench ourselves in a quagmire inherited from the heady days of empire partly in order to prove that we are not imperialists and never were. We want to prove our high mindedness. And we want to prove it to ourselves, I might add. Can anything argue more strongly a guilty conscience?
To say that we no longer have an imperial interest in Northern Ireland is not to say that we never had one. But our guilt about the past tempts us to conflate the past with the present day in an attempt to make out that we have never acted selfishly in Northern Ireland or in Ireland as a whole, whereas of course we did actually conquer the place. The maddening thing is that in so doing we, of course, actually continue to act in a thoroughly self-serving manner. It is almost as if the British would be happy to leave if only they could bludgeon the nationalist community into admitting that it had never been wrong. This is certainly tyrannical, even if no longer imperial, behaviour. It is the tyranny of a country unable to accept its own failings, obsessed by its own bad conscience, so bound up with a concern for its own image that it is actually blind to the damage it does itself and its image in real terms. This is not rational but deeply emotive, almost compulsive, behaviour. But why should we expect a country, any more than an individual, always to be rational? It is post-imperial trauma. The British appear to wish to wring absolution from their victims before they stop oppressing them. Are we so afraid? If this seems far-fetched it says in fact no more than that we would be so much happier to leave if we could do so without the impression being given that we'd been forced out. And that's hardly contentious.
Our faults seem so gross in our own narcissistic eyes that we can't own them. We'd rather brazen it out whatever the cost. But in fact British selfishness is not much worse than anyone else's and a sensible dose of it would help rather than hinder the peace-process. A realistic attitude towards itself on the part of Britain would however involve the final surrender of a dream, a dream of British greatness and uniqueness, of British enterprise and achievement, courage and imagination, triumph, conquest and glory, a dream all the more potent for having been so largely understated in its public expression, a dream that has lived in our veins for three centuries or more. It is so poignant and redolent of such ecstasy that we can't quite give it up, the more so in that we practically succeeded in turning in to a reality anyway. This dream gives the lie to the British as a nation of democrats. Reserved yes, moderate no. Beneath the surface we seethe and struggle intensely. This has been part of our strength but it now risks being one of our weaknesses. Our unwillingness to address the issues beneath the surface has locked us into a struggle that is going nowhere.
It is time for British policy-makers to get down from their high horse over Northern Ireland, to stop playing moral prima-donnas and to get down to brass tacks. What exactly is the nature of our relationship with the Unionists? Can we continue to maintain neutrality between Catholics and Protestants now that we no longer lay claim to the land on the basis of an over-riding imperial interest? If what so, what right do we have to rule the nationalists? We need some frank and level-headed answers to these questions - without them progress towards peace in Northern Ireland will be stalled. The onus is not on nationalists to ensure that they all play up and play the democratic game, it is on British policy-makers to delve a little into the British psyche. For goodness' sake it's not all bad! But it's time we stopped behaving selfishly in a place where we have no interest.
The question of Britain's neutrality in Northern Ireland has been brought to the fore once again by the different treatment of republicans and loyalists in relation to the peace-talks. Ironically, I believe a case can be made for saying that we may have less claim to neutrality the more we distance ourselves from our imperial past. This is a conundrum bequeathed to us in a complicated historical legacy.
No doubt the Maltese, the people of Gibraltar, the Falkland Islanders all feel quite British. Does that mean that they are immediately entitled to the unconditional support of the rest of the British people for every facet of their struggle to maintain that identity?
After the Second World War, with memories of our island vulnerability still fresh, the British government's view was that the strategic importance of Northern Ireland was such that we needed to hang on to it whatever the wishes of any majority there. In this context it made sense to see the British as essentially neutral administrators of territory they had come into by dint of their imperial endeavours - much as they had been in Palestine when they held the balance between Arab and Jew under the League of Nations mandate there. Catholics and Protestants were both in effect pawns in the play of great power interests and if Britain inclined more towards one than the other it was a matter of expedience not sentiment.
Since Peter Brooke's statement in 1990 however, that Britain has no ``selfish, strategic or economic interest'' in Northern Ireland the ground-rules have changed. I would like to draw attention first of all to the very curious nature of that statement. Is Peter Brooke saying that Britain has strategic and economic interests but not selfish ones? Is he saying that Britain has no interest in Northern Ireland at all? Or does it have an interest but one that's somehow unselfish? What is an unselfish interest? Supposing that such a thing exists how can it be reconciled with the claim that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom, thus as much part of us, of ourselves, as Liverpool?
It seems that his statement is an attempt to say two things at once: that Britain is neutral and that Britain is no longer playing an imperial role. The resultant confusion is testimony to their incompatibility. This is the sort of mental log-jam that we might expect of a country in the twilight of empire, no longer sure of its role, saddled with responsibilities that no longer make sense in the way they did - it is a post-imperial muddle, one of many we have faced and half-resolved.
At least the old imperial relationship was clear. Both sides knew where they stood. It served our interests to have Northern Irish ports. It served the interests of the Protestants there to have the might of the British state to help keep the Catholics down. It was a relationship based on mutual self-interest which, like most such, came under strain occasionally but essentially worked well.
But now where exactly do we stand with respect to those living in Northern Ireland? Some of them feel very British. All well and good. But some people in Hong Kong probably feel quite British. Certainly a number of South Africans felt quite British. No doubt the Maltese, the people of Gibraltar, the Falkland Islanders all feel quite British. Does that mean that they are immediately entitled to the unconditional support of the rest of the British people for every facet of their struggle to maintain that identity? Irrespective of the claims of other counties and the cost to this country?
Well it hasn't in the past when we were perhaps happier to be more forthright about the pursuit of our collective interest overall. Now however we appear embarrassed to even consider the argument that this country's interest just aren't served by hanging on to Northern Ireland because, ironically, it would smack too much of an imperial selfishness we were hoping to put behind us. We feel sneakily a little guilty just thinking about it. How could we just cut off a million Britons in all but name just because to us here in Britain they're a burden? Surely that would be immoral? Surely such a thing is only thinkable in some callous calculus of interests whereby peripheral interests are remorselessly subjected to the over-riding demands of the centre? And there is no better definition of imperialism.
Bizarrely then, our current relationship with Northern Ireland is based not on expedience but on sentiment. Perversely, we entrench ourselves in a quagmire inherited from the heady days of empire partly in order to prove that we are not imperialists and never were. We want to prove our high mindedness. And we want to prove it to ourselves, I might add. Can anything argue more strongly a guilty conscience?
To say that we no longer have an imperial interest in Northern Ireland is not to say that we never had one. But our guilt about the past tempts us to conflate the past with the present day in an attempt to make out that we have never acted selfishly in Northern Ireland or in Ireland as a whole, whereas of course we did actually conquer the place. The maddening thing is that in so doing we, of course, actually continue to act in a thoroughly self-serving manner. It is almost as if the British would be happy to leave if only they could bludgeon the nationalist community into admitting that it had never been wrong. This is certainly tyrannical, even if no longer imperial, behaviour. It is the tyranny of a country unable to accept its own failings, obsessed by its own bad conscience, so bound up with a concern for its own image that it is actually blind to the damage it does itself and its image in real terms. This is not rational but deeply emotive, almost compulsive, behaviour. But why should we expect a country, any more than an individual, always to be rational? It is post-imperial trauma. The British appear to wish to wring absolution from their victims before they stop oppressing them. Are we so afraid? If this seems far-fetched it says in fact no more than that we would be so much happier to leave if we could do so without the impression being given that we'd been forced out. And that's hardly contentious.
Our faults seem so gross in our own narcissistic eyes that we can't own them. We'd rather brazen it out whatever the cost. But in fact British selfishness is not much worse than anyone else's and a sensible dose of it would help rather than hinder the peace-process. A realistic attitude towards itself on the part of Britain would however involve the final surrender of a dream, a dream of British greatness and uniqueness, of British enterprise and achievement, courage and imagination, triumph, conquest and glory, a dream all the more potent for having been so largely understated in its public expression, a dream that has lived in our veins for three centuries or more. It is so poignant and redolent of such ecstasy that we can't quite give it up, the more so in that we practically succeeded in turning in to a reality anyway. This dream gives the lie to the British as a nation of democrats. Reserved yes, moderate no. Beneath the surface we seethe and struggle intensely. This has been part of our strength but it now risks being one of our weaknesses. Our unwillingness to address the issues beneath the surface has locked us into a struggle that is going nowhere.
It is time for British policy-makers to get down from their high horse over Northern Ireland, to stop playing moral prima-donnas and to get down to brass tacks. What exactly is the nature of our relationship with the Unionists? Can we continue to maintain neutrality between Catholics and Protestants now that we no longer lay claim to the land on the basis of an over-riding imperial interest? If what so, what right do we have to rule the nationalists? We need some frank and level-headed answers to these questions - without them progress towards peace in Northern Ireland will be stalled. The onus is not on nationalists to ensure that they all play up and play the democratic game, it is on British policy-makers to delve a little into the British psyche. For goodness' sake it's not all bad! But it's time we stopped behaving selfishly in a place where we have no interest.