There's a bit of a controversy over a certain letter to The Irish Times this last week. That controversy appears more than a little contrived in so far as every citizen has an absolute right to express any opinion that isn't covered by legislation of one sort of another. And the relationship one has to another citizen really shouldn't enter into it (there's a somewhat different discussion to be had about posting letters on official websites, though the letter was removed fairly sharply). It is good to hear Shane Ross come out so strongly in favour of her right to express an opinion on the matter.
Although he did not agree with Ms Higgins's comments on the war, expressed in a letter to The Irish Times, Mr Ross said she was entitled to her opinions and should not have to be defended by Michael D. Higgins.
Speaking on Newstalk Breakfast, Mr Ross said it was necessary to state "absolutely, categorically" that Ireland was on the side of Ukraine, but that the right of Mrs Higgins to express her opinion was a different matter. Mr Ross said she had "a very, very fine record" as an anti-war activist.
"The idea that the President should now come in and defend his wife's position is to me somewhat ridiculous," he said. "She's entitled to, and does, express her opinion on these views — and if they happen to differ from his, and I don't know whether they do or not, I don't think every time they do differ he's going to come in and say 'I do differ on this, that and the other'."
Notably, though, and this perhaps points to the contrived elements of the supposed controversy, there's not much effort to engage with what is actually said in the letter. For example:
In our own conflicts, whose centenaries we have been commemorating, each time the fighting was ended by a ceasefire being called, followed by negotiation. This was so in the 1916 Rising, in the War of Independence, and in our tragic Civil War.
There were no negotiations worthy of the term following the Rising. There was an unconditional surrender and then imprisonment of many of those involved (with about 3,500 imprisoned) and the execution of some of their leadership (90 sentenced to death, 14 executed).
There was a negotiation after the War of Independence. But the substance of that doesn't make for a comfortable framing in the context of the argument made in the quoted paragraph above. It was precisely because the Irish fought against the British and achieved if not a parity of arms at a minimum an ability to make British rule, as it had been, impossible. There were terms imposed by the British but the gains in the Treaty were substantial enough to allow for a significant proportion of those fighting and those who they fought for to accept the outcome (but in fairness some didn't and they continued to fight, though not against the British). But it was also in no small part an imposed peace - with no Republic and the partition of the island. Which is precisely what led to the Civil War over those issues (albeit to differing degrees). Or as a friend noted, "Every great power, ever, gets to impose its will because small countries can't hope to beat them." That's the reality unless those small countries are able to fend off as best they can the greater powers.
The end of the Civil War similarly did not result in a 'negotiation'. Essentially there was a ceasefire order at which point the conflict, already in decline, petered out. Peace negotiations had started in May organised by the Free State government but they broke down. There was no formal peace. 13,000 Republicans remained in prison at the end of the conflict, and while they were released slowly but surely over the next number of years those who took the Anti-Treaty side suffered significantly in the post-Civil War dispensation - unable to gain work in the Free State, ironically many left for Britain and other points, until Fianna Fáil came to power, near enough a decade later.
All this isn't irrelevant. It has a specific relation to our history, whatever the larger ramifications, and it has implications as to the understanding of our history and present. Is this a sort of retrofitting of the past to a Good Friday Agreement template which is not particularly applicable with regard to the past events referenced. If so what does that tell us about the framing of matters at this point?
No comments:
Post a Comment