 |
|
|
The UVF abandons its campaign of terror
Aaron Edwards explains the background to the recent UVF statement on its future activity and objectives.
News that Northern Ireland’s oldest paramilitary organisation, the UVF, is finally ‘leaving the stage’ (Sunday Times, 22 April 2007) will come as no surprise to those of us who have observed the organisation at close quarters over recent years. In fact, in an article in Fortnight (No. 444) last May, Stephen Bloomer and I suggested that although the UVF’s so-called ‘internal consultation process’ was reaching a recognisable conclusion, the grouping had not yet articulated its vision for its Protestant working class support-base. In fact, this protracted process was seen by the media as something of a ‘straw man’, erected by UVF leaders so that they could stall their ‘promised’ transition towards disbandment. What no-one in the organisation, or those close to them, wanted to admit was that internal UVF politics was somewhat over-complicating the situation. The UVF hierarchy (or ‘brigade staff’ in their parlance) were taking a much more pragmatic approach, by which they sought to brief their ‘volunteers’ about the future role of their organisation in post-conflict Northern Ireland. The leadership duly informed the rank-and-file that there would be ‘no jobs for the boys’ (phraseology employed as a subtle way of distancing themselves from the UDA) and that the guns, in Gusty Spence’s words, would be “left to rust”.
After much prodding – initially at the local level - the UVF has now accepted the model put forward by the East Antrim Conflict Transformation Forum (known popularly among the grass roots by its acronym ‘EACTF’) - agreeing in principle to transform its organisation into something akin to an old comrades association. Nevertheless, this was not a decision arrived at without painstaking debate: community practitioners who work in those communities where the UVF is strong sought to persuade it to end its military campaign and dismantle its war machinery. The PUP’s involvement in the EACTF project is an open secret – even though, I should stress, it is not controlled by the party – and has ensured that the ‘militarists’ as well as the ‘politicos’ (including those who straddle both camps) are singing from the same hymn sheet. The need for self-appointed ‘defenders’ to devote more time to community politics - or to finding an honest job - is acknowledged within the PUP-UVF-RHC constituency. Arguably, they are not insulated from wider public perceptions or the careful dialogue with ‘critical friends’ from within civil society.
Despite the hysteria whipped up by the local media the UVF has accepted that the way forward for their support-base is to roll out the EACTF programme across the Province as a practical measure designed, in the words of Billy Hutchinson, to ‘decommission the mindsets’ of paramilitants. It is important to stress, here, that from the UVF’s perspective this was not a decision arrived at by the promise of a ‘cash cow’ or by ‘collusion’ – as some critics have alleged (Irish News, 23 January and 7 February 2007). To date the UVF and its associates in the community/voluntary sector have not received funding from the British government to oversee their organic disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration strategy (though neither, incidentally, has the Provisional IRA), nor have they decided to ‘pawn their guns’ as is the case with the UDA. The argument put forward by the UVF is that as they are not motivated by aspirations for material wealth they do not require a cash windfall to stop their campaign of terror. Rather they have taken a rational decision to dismantle their centralised command structure, downsize their organisation and wind up their paramilitary campaign. This is conditioned, in the main, by strategic choices available to them in the absence of violence from mainstream republicanism. Curiously, this is a point lost on many commentators – such as the IMC - who seem unable to accept the truism that, unlike the republican movement, the UVF is devoid of an elaborate political strategy. The UVF’s function since it went on ceasefire in October 1994 is to ensure that the CLMC principles (not the Mitchell principles) are upheld.
Back in October 2006 - at his party’s conference - the late David Ervine called on the UVF (and paramilitary groups more broadly) to put an end to what he called the ‘war economy’; that is extortion, robberies and profiteering. He likened his task of telling the UVF to step down as akin to “telling your mate that he has BO”, it might be unpleasant but it has to be done! Few would disagree with Ervine’s analogy, yet there were those who continued to doubt the PUP’s ability to convince their associates in the UVF to end their military campaign. The same people doubted Dawn Purvis’s chances of regaining Ervine’s assembly seat following his untimely death in January 2007, though they would later refuse to admit that they had got it wrong. It could be argued that a class-based challenge will now emerge to counter the rhetoric of what Ervine disparagingly called “Provisional Unionism and Provisional Nationalism”.
The decision to end its military campaign has been a difficult one for the UVF. Over the past number of years the group has fluctuated with internal difficulties. Nuala O’Loan’s report was only really the tip of the iceberg in exposing how rusty the organisation’s disciplinary procedures had become, though it is simply nonsensical to rush to the conclusion that the UVF had been controlled by the British state all along. The sullen fact is that nobody really knows the extent to which this is actually true. Media speculation serves only one purpose in a propaganda war: to discredit an enemy so that it divides within itself and can be quickly conquered. As we know from the earlier fracture - which produced the LVF - such sensationalism is not only provocative and dangerous, but can very quickly lead to loss of life.
There can be little doubt that loyalism has had its politics corrupted in recent years by the cowardly actions of self-appointed gangsters who have placed personal gain (both in terms of material wealth and notoriety) ahead of their community and country. Yet, it is obvious from what Peter Hain and Hugh Orde are now publicly saying that there are loyalist leaders in the UVF and UDA who do wish to move their communities on and who recognise the futility of continued violence.
During my research into progressive loyalism I have personally heard senior UVF leaders tell their grass-roots that their campaign of violence would simply be unjustified once peace took root. In the same vein I have heard scores of journalists doggedly maintain that a deal between the DUP and Sinn Fein remained a ‘pipe dream’! The same people told us for years that, in their ‘expert’ opinion, the PUP and the community activists close to them could never convince the UVF to end its terrorism and ‘leave the stage’. Yet this is what is transpiring. It has not been brought about by belly-aching, hand-wringing or blowing hot air at the problem, but by ordinary people (including those who have never engaged in paramilitarism) taking risks for peace. If nothing else these ‘unsung heroes’ deserve our thanks for doing the spade work and laying the foundations for the ‘new Northern Ireland’.
Dr Aaron Edwards is a journalist with The Other View magazine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
