subscribe to the RSS Feed

Thursday, August 20, 2026

American IRA figure calls for end to dissident republican armed struggle

Posted by Jim on January 19, 2015

Martin Galvin, a co-founder of Noraid which funded the IRA, says the popular appetite for republican violence has receded

 

A hardline Irish-American backer of the IRA, who was once banned fromNorthern Ireland by Margaret Thatcher’s government, has said the conditions no longer exist for dissident republicans to continue their “armed struggle”.
Martin Galvin, a co-founder of Noraid and later a bitter critic of Sinn Féin’s peace strategy, is the latest voice within dissident republicanism to call into question the use of violence by the new IRA and other anti-ceasefire paramilitaries.
The New York-based lawyer said he was an unapologetic supporter of Provisional IRA violence during the Troubles. But Galvin – the public face of the Provisionals in the US for several decades – said there was a lack of support for armed struggle within the republican community at present.
“You would need a sufficient popular acceptance or acquiescence in the use of force in nationalist areas, or at minimum in republican heartlands. You will not get such support until political alternatives fail and are seen to have failed,” he said in an interview with the Guardian.
“You must have the personnel, resources and support network to sustain a campaign. There must be a well-developed political strategy in which armed struggle is only one part. Republicans had the capacity to sustain a long campaign across the north [of Ireland] which could not have been done without meeting these conditions.
“I have no inside information about any armed group and do not pretend to have any special knowledge or expertise in this area. I am making a personal judgment based upon information publicly available. It does not seem that these conditions exist today.”
In 1997 the Provisional IRA split with a minority faction opposed to further political compromises, which broke away to form the Real IRA. At the time Galvin broke with Sinn Féin and openly supported Real IRA figures including its founder, Michael McKevitt.
The former spokesman for Noraid also admitted there was a debate going on within the armed anti-ceasefire groups about the efficacy of using violence. “I would expect and believe that the leaders of any armed republican group are evaluating their own capabilities in relation to these same conditions and making a pragmatic as well as moral judgment on whether their campaigns are advancing the objective of ending British rule and uniting Ireland.”
The recent election of independent republican candidates to local councils in Northern Ireland was an encouraging sign, Galvin said. “The issues are there to be raised. The unionists have Jim Allister as the Traditional Unionist Voice tail that wags the Democratic Unionist party dog. Could independent republicans do the same?
“Suppose an independent republican made a real issue of the crown arresting Ivor Bell [a former IRA negotiator] and other republicans on decades-old charges, while drip feeding the Bloody Sunday families with empty promises of still more investigations. Could Sinn Féin take up a call to walk away from its justice ministry compromise or [police] constabulary boards? Could it afford not to do so and be seen as party to such injustices? Could it still get away with lip-service?” he asked.
“It should be remembered that not so many years ago the SDLP scoffed at the idea of Sinn Féin ever winning seats and taunted them with questions about having no support and being afraid to contest elections.
“The openings are there if independent republicans have the political will, commitment and strategy to make proper use of them.”
In August 1984 the Thatcher government banned Galvin from entering Northern Ireland but he defied the ban, turning up at a republican rally in west Belfast. When Royal Ulster Constabulary riot squad officers tried to arrest him outside a Sinn Féin office there were violent clashes. During the disturbances a policeman fired a plastic baton round into the chest of a local man, Sean Downes, who later died from his injuries. In 1989 Galvin again tried to defy the ban but this was time was arrested and deported to the US.
The ex-Noraid publicity director and former editor of the pro-PIRA newspaper the Irish People is the third major figure in the disparate dissident republican family to call for a halt to the armed campaigns of the new IRA, Continuity IRA and Oglaigh na hEireann.
The Guardian has also obtained a taped conversation between a leading dissident republican, the late Tony Catney, and members of the Presbyterian church in Belfast. On the tape Catney reveals his own doubts about ongoing “armed struggle”.
Catney, who after breaking with Sinn Féin became an influential figure within dissident republicanism, tells Fitzroy Presbyterian church in Belfast it is time to admit that the IRA lost the war it fought from 1969 to the ceasefires of the mid-1990s.
In the interview, Catney is particularly scathing about romantic portrayals by some of his former comrades of the Troubles and the armed campaign. “I think part of the dilemma we face at the minute is because the conflict, the war, the Troubles, whatever term you want to put upon it has been so fudged that it has become an old black and white newsreel. Which isn’t really real and didn’t have consequences.
“It was a ‘bit of craic’ to burn buses on the Falls Road; it was a ‘bit of craic’ to barricade yourself into the area so the Brits couldn’t get in; it was a ‘bit of craic’ to hijack the local bread lorry and then give the bread out free to the residents. It was all ‘craic’ and fun because the consequences of it are not openly dealt with,” he tells the Presbyterians.
The convicted IRA killer, who served 16 years in prison for shooting a Protestant teenager during an attempt to steal the victim’s shotgun in 1974, tells his interviewer from the church that there exists a “potent mix” of continued social deprivation and the mythologising of the conflict.
“There is the mystique of ‘let’s-get-back-to-the-early-70s’, let’s-get-back-to-getting-the-balaclavas on’ … it becomes Robin Hood, resistance in the second world war and it also becomes glorification, the jingoism rather than someone turning around and saying: ‘Look, listen, let me tell you I was involved in it and I wish, I wish it had been otherwise.’”
The tape was made last January and only handed to the Guardian after Catney was buried with full paramilitary honours in August. His interview was part of an engagement between mainstream and dissident republicans and members of the Protestant churches, facilitated by a Belfast Catholic priest. The talks are aimed partly at persuading hard-line republicans opposed to Sinn Féin’s peace strategy to abandon armed campaigns.
Earlier in 2014 Gerard Hodgins, Catney’s close personal friend and an IRA hunger striker, also called publicly on the three armed republican organisations to declare ceasefires and create the space for “alternative republican politics”. Hodgins, also a critic of Sinn Féin, told the dissident groups: “The tactics and strategy they are trying to develop are tactics and strategy that we tried, but which failed: the British can deal with these frames of reference. There is also no popular support for armed insurrection and, without a support base, armed insurrection is irresponsible.”
from The Guardian

HENRY McDONALD INTERVIEW

 

 

1-Can you elaborate on why you say the conditions do not exist for the continuation of armed struggle at this time?

 

My views about armed struggle are no secret. When I joined Irish Northern Aid, decades ago, I took a considered decision to join an organization whose guiding principles included moral support for the armed struggle to end British rule. For more than fifteen years as INA Publicity Director I gave interviews and speeches, and also as Editor of the IRISH PEOPLE weekly newspaper, wrote editorials and columns defending this viewpoint.

 

Just last month I spoke in Tyrone at the 25 year commemoration of my closest friend Liam Ryan. He was a victim of a ‘collusion murder’ arranged by crown forces as he worked in the Battery Bar. I did not go to demean his life and legacy by any ‘sorry’ initiative, but to remember a patriot with pride. I recounted the British injustices which drove him and so many others to armed resistance to break British rule and establish a 32 county Ireland that could belong equally to all of its citizens without sectarian divisions.

 

Obviously anyone who ever believed armed struggle against British rule was justified, must have been convinced that British rule was wrong, irreformable and could only be maintained, indeed propped up by deeper injustices.  That argument can still be made despite the reconfiguration of British rule. Today Britain is determined to stay in the north and confident they nailed the door shut on Irish reunification by sanctioning the DUP to treat any moves toward justice like toilet paper.

 

However beyond the injustice of British rule there must be a reasonable possibility of successfully ending British rule and achieving a free and united Ireland. This means a reasonable expectation that the struggle, as part of an array of political and economic forces, can convince Britain to leave, after negotiations where they are persuaders for Irish unity with guarantees of equality, instead of guarantors of continued British rule and persuaders for unionist intransigence.

 

 

You would need a sufficient popular acceptance or acquiescence in the use of force in nationalist areas, or at minimum in Republican heartlands. You will not get such support until political alternatives fail and are seen to have failed. You must have the personnel, resources and support network to sustain a campaign. There must be a well developed political strategy in which armed struggle is only one part. Republicans had the capacity to sustain a long campaign across the north which could not have been done without meeting these conditions.

 

 

I have no inside information about any armed group and do not pretend to have any special knowledge or expertise in this area. I am making a personal judgment based upon information publicly available. It does not seem that these conditions exist today.

 

 

2-In your own opinion, do you think those groups involved in armed action should call off those campaigns?

 

I would expect and believe that the leaders of any armed Republican group are evaluating their own capabilities in relation to these same conditions and making a pragmatic as well as moral judgment on whether their campaigns are advancing the objective of ending British rule and uniting Ireland.

 

3-Do you think that a tactical cessation at this time would enable the emergence of alternative Republican politics?

 

Clearly there are issues which provide openings for alternative Republican politics. There is an inherent contradiction between partnership with the DUP in British ministries and advancing Republican objectives. Look at justice issues for a start. I accept that there were people who did not join constabulary boards and partnerships or back David Ford’s justice ministry intending to become cheerleaders for the constabulary. Today that constabulary carries out the same policy of undeclared immunity or impunity gifted to the Bloody Sunday or Ballymurphy Massacre Troopers or those who arranged hundreds of collusion murders. That constabulary meanwhile has no difficulty in moving against respected Republicans like Ivor Bell, Gerry McGeough, Seamus Kearney and others on decade’s old charges.

Are those who took up places on these boards unwilling or unable to do anything about these injustices? The British certainly use them as cheerleaders, pointing to them to deflect any Irish- American pressure about these injustices.

 

Look at the Tory cuts bludgeoned through by David Cameron and Theresa Villiers. Why has so much already been spent on water meters for the north if they are not going to be used? Where are the peace dividend jobs for West Belfast and across the north beyond slots for party workers?

 

The universal response to these and other potential issues seems to be that if you raise such inconvenient truths you want a “return to the past.” That is just code words to scare voters by falsely linking votes for any Independent Republican with an armed campaign.

 

I would expect and believe that leaders of any armed Republican group are taking this on board as they make their own pragmatic and moral judgments whether their campaigns are advancing the objective of ending British rule and uniting Ireland.

 

 

4-You make reference to emerging support for alternative/independent Republican representatives in Ireland, say for example in Derry. Do you see hope of that force building?

 

 

The issues are there to be raised. The unionists have Jim Allister as the TUV tail that wags the DUP dog. Could independent Republicans do the same?

 

Suppose an Independent Republican made a real issue of the crown arresting  Ivor Bell and other Republicans on decades old charges, while drip feeding the Bloody Sunday families with empty promises of  still more investigations. Could Sinn Fein take up a call to walk away from its justice ministry compromise or constabulary boards?  Could it afford not to do so and be seen as party to such injustices? Could it still get away with lip-service?

 

If issues like the lack of peace dividend jobs or the money spent for water meters were raised by Republicans such questions could no longer be deflected or dismissed as unionist point –scoring.

 

It should be remembered that not so many years ago the SDLP scoffed at the idea of Sinn Fein ever winning seats and taunted them with questions about having no support and being afraid to contest elections.

 

The openings are there if Independent Republicans have the political will, commitment and strategy to make proper use of them.

 

 

 

 

5-I assume you still hold the position that the current SF leadership’s policy of being in a British backed power sharing government is not going to deliver a British withdrawal and a united Ireland?

 

 

The British have no such illusions about any such strategy. David Cameron formulates twenty-five year plans for the six county economy. His priority in the Stormont House deal was bludgeoning through cuts on the road to austerity. Theresa Villiers, like a modern Lady Macbeth, walks around trying to rub away the bloodstains from British hands by denying inquiries and giving speeches whitewashing the record of British forces in the six counties.

 

They would not bother unless Britain planned to stay. Republicans may have thought they had an agreement which would open the door to a British withdrawal. Britain sees it as a chance to nail that door shut.

Britain need no longer answer for its own injustices. It can simply nod as the DUP treats any move towards justice, much less a united Ireland like toilet paper. The British then say it is a devolved matter or the parties will not agree, while denying funds and disclaiming any responsibility. The British deflect any Irish-American pressure by saying that Sinn Fein supports their policies and is integral to their administration and constabulary boards.

 

Where is there any pressure for British withdrawal? They feel they have consolidated their strategic objectives of normalization, Ulsterization and criminalization as never before, masked by Sinn Fein’s visible presence.

 

 

 

6-Do you think-at present at least-that the armed Republican groups are being ground down and thwarted in large part by  British forces arguably as never before?

 

I have no special knowledge about what is happening inside of any armed Republican group. I would be hesitant to make any assessment in those terms. I can still remember one of Villiers’ predecessors, Roy Mason, boasting of squeezing out Republicans like a tube of toothpaste. I would not want to risk sounding so foolish.

 

 

 

Leave a comment, and if you'd like your own picture to show up next to your comments, go get a gravatar!

You must be logged in to post a comment.

home | top