I
once asked a former member of the British Army Intelligence
Corp if there was any substance in the British Government's
fears if they announced their withdrawal from the
Six Counties the Loyalist Paramilitary's would conduct
an OAS* type campaign in England. He replied he
could not see this happening, as the Loyalist terror
groups, the UDA, LVF and the UVF, unlike the Provisional
Irish Republican Army, simply did not have the stamina
necessary to conduct a bombing campaign on the British
mainland. The book Blanketmen, An Untold Story
of the H-block Hunger Strike written by former
Blanketman Richard O'Rawe, more than adequately
answers the question what gave the Provos such tenacious
stamina to fight a thirty odd year war against not
only one of the world's major military powers, but
also the most experienced army in combating insurgencies.
I would appeal to all those who have been warned
off reading this book by the heavy handed attempt
by the Provisional Republican Movement apparatchiks
to discredit Richard O'Rawe to place any doubts
that may have been raised in their minds about him
to one side and make their own mind upon reading
the book. By so doing I guarantee they will come
away with the belief that the aforementioned attack
on O'Rawe was sadly yet another example of the PRM
leadership over-reacting and scoring, not for the
first time of late, an own goal. After all, if Irish
Republicanism means anything, it is an ability to
think for ourselves and thus make our own decisions;
it is not an accident that soldiers of O'glaigh
na hEireann are called Volunteers.
O'Rawe is an honest writer who, in search of the
truth as he sees it, places his own human frailties,
misdemeanours and doubts before his readers without
fear of embarrassment or condemnation. When the
book was first published, some people not as familiar
with the PRM struggle as perhaps they thought, asked
contemptuously, who is this man O'Rawe? On doing
a round-robin amongst ex Blanketmen, the one word
that continuously came back when I asked about O'Rawe
was, he is "sound"; take my word for it,
from such people to be called "sound"
is some compliment. In the book O'Rawe lays out
his service to the movement, warts and all, but
I will leave it to Bik McFarlane and Cleaky Clarke,
both Adams men, to express what people thought of
O'Rawe in the Blocks. In a Com to Gerry Adams near
the end of the Hunger Strikes Bik McFarlane wrote,
"There is a growing feeling amongst those with
what I would describe as a bit of savvy (The Dark
and the Author) that our present troubles may prove
insurmountable." The Dark was Brendan Hughes,
the Author Richard O'Rawe (Com sent from the H-block's
from Bik McFarlane to Gerry Adams on 29th September
1991). After the Hunger Strike ended O'Rawe ended
up in H Block 1; on arrival in the block he found
there was no IRA command structure on the wing.
Cleaky Clarke, who held the senior command in the
conforming blocks, ordered the exhausted O'Rawe
to take command and organise a Ra chain of command,
which he successfully did.
So, far from being a bit player as has been suggested
in this momentous struggle, O'Rawe was at the centre
of the storm as the Prisoners PRO, having inherited
the job from Bik McFarlane, who was moving up to
replace Bobby Sands as OC of the O'glaigh na hEireann
prisoners in the Maze. O'Rawe was also close to
the two most influential Republicans, after the
Hunger Strikers themselves, within the Maze at this
time, Brendan 'the Dark' Hughes and Bik McFarlane.
Thus he was in a unique position to observe this
titanic struggle unfold, from the first hunger strikes,
which ended in confusion, through to the ending
of the Blanket protest, the deaths of the ten men
on the second hunger strike and finally the ending
of the Maze prison protest, after which the prison
returned to a degree of 'normality' under a new
regime which eventually incorporated most, if not
all, of the Hunger Strikers Five Demands.
As this is a review of O'Rawe's book I don't wish
to go into the tortuous behaviour of the PRM leadership
prior to this book's publication. Save to say this
about the two men who were put forward to challenge
O'Rawe's interpretation of events. Bik McFarlane
behaviour was fair enough, due to the nature of
his profession, but for Danny Morrison to attack
a fellow writer in the manner he did, with snide
innuendoes about O'Rawe only having written the
book for money, etc, was contemptible and sad to
see. Far from criticising his fellow Republican
for writing about his experiences during the period
of the Blanket protest and the hunger strikes, surely
Morrison should have encouraged and welcomed it,
even if he differed with O'Rawe's interpretation
of a certain key event. For Morrison is well aware
far too often history is written by the oppressors,
not their victims. That after so many years there
will be different interpretations of these events
is inevitable, as we all see things differently
and it is the nature of a writer to be subjective.
Argue out the differences in a comradely manner,
not stoop to nasty innuendoes and smears. What a
missed opportunity this has been, for would not
a debate between the two old comrades, who now disagree
on things they both experienced from a different
perspective, have been advantageous to all who wish
to understand this period? It would also, at this
time when Republicanism is under the spotlight,
have shown a more heroic side to the struggle and
displayed the British Government in all its hatefulness.
Perhaps if the bitterness recedes we can look forward
to such a debate sometime in the future at the Féile
an Phobail West Belfast.
As to the claims the book makes that it was the
PIRA Army Council (AC) who called the shots during
the Hunger Strike. I do not wish to go into this
here, for to do so would not only prolong the controversy
over this matter, but also promote this part of
the book out of all proportion to the overall context.
Thus it is for the readers of the book to make a
judgement on this and for history to decide the
merits of O'Rawe's supposition. However if one concludes
the AC did behave in this way, should we be surprised
as all of the Hunger Strikers, bar those who belonged
to the INLA, were disciplined solders of O'glaigh
na hEireann, the supreme authority of which was
the Army Council? The members of the AC had responsibility
for the big picture of the struggle and not just
the front that was being fought out within the Maze
prison. Thus it would hardly be surprising if the
Army Council were involved in the most intricate
details of the Hunger Strike; not to do so would
have been a negation of their duty. As to Mr Adams'
role, think what you will about him, but he is not
a man to shirk his duty to the Provisional Republican
Movement, nor does O'Rawe claim he did so during
the Hunger Strikes. Indeed he all but claims the
opposite is true.
Myself I read this book in one sitting, enthralled
by the story O'Rawe relates to his readership. Heroism,
human endurance beyond belief, and leadership qualities
are portrayed that would have broken the average
man or woman and these qualities were shown by leading
Republicans both inside and outside the Maze. A
comradeship developed amongst the hunger strikers
and their immediate comrades within the jail those
of us who were not party to this struggle at the
sharp end will in truth have difficulty in fully
understanding. Looking back we can see it might
have been better if this or that had been done differently,
but those who led this struggle were either battered
and bruised prisoners or members of a liberation
movement who were up against the full force of the
British State. The true marvel of the Hunger Strikes
is that so few mistakes were actually made, for
this truly was a David and Goliath struggle.
Although I can hear the jeers I will conclude with
two quotes from Father Denis Faul. The first, on
reading it in the book, enraged me and made my heart
go out to Bik McFarlane. The priest stormed into
the prisoners canteen on hearing of the death of
Martin Hurson and shouted at McFarlane, "You
are responsible for the death of Martin Hurson";
a vicious row ensued during which Bik McFarlane
quite correctly sharply pointed out it was the Thatcher
Government who bore responsibility. The argument
continued until Fr Faul countered, like a man who
had lost the argument, "You should go on Hunger
Strike yourself, McFarlane, and see what it was
like." With the pressures of leadership on
Brendan McFarlane's shoulders at that moment, to
be on Hunger Strike would I have no doubt been a
heavenly release, if only, the man must have thought
and wished. The second quote from Father Faul is
well known, yet it still sums up the Hunger Strikers
to this day and will until eternity. After trying
to persuade Bobby Sands to give up his Hunger Strike,
Sands turned to Faul and quoted the priest's master
Jesus Christ, "Greater love have no man for
his friends than to lay down his life for them."
In the scheme of things, this basically sums up
Richard O'Rawe's interpretation of the Hunger Strikes.
Myself, I'm certain these gallant warriors also
gave their lives for something else: the dream of
a Democratic Socialist Republic. Without getting
all dewy eyed, is there a nobler cause than the
human freedom such a Republic could herald in.
* When General Charles de Gaulle recognised the
Algerian Liberation Movement the FLN was not only
unbeatable but had the wind of history in its sails,
he decided to withdraw and grant Algeria full independence.
The settler population decided to fight a rearguard
action within mainland France using bombings and
assassination as their main tactic.
