Over
the last few years, whenever Sinn Fein's political
elite have found themselves in difficult circumstances,
often of their own making, they have time and again
wheeled out the 'securocrats' to provide them with
an alibi as to why they could not have been responsible
for their unfortunate predicament. This excuse is
beginning to wear a bit thin and not only for SF's
normal opponents. To continuously blame these mysterious
'securocrats' for all the PRM's ills reminds one
of those petty criminals, who, when asked by the
Police where they came by the stolen property that
filled their back-bedroom, replied, "I brought
it off a man named Paddy in a Dublin pub."
Just
as Old Bill reacts to the hood's reply with a wearisome
look born of experience, many now do the same when
Messrs Adams, McGuinness, Kelly and McLaughlin try
the same trick with the 'securocrats' tag. The fact
is for SF to continuously blame the 'securocrats'
is well past its sell-by date. For this SF can only
blame themselves, for they have had every opportunity
to explain to us who exactly these people are. The
word implies they are a very powerful group of individuals
who are employed in the Northern Ireland Office
and the British Security Services. I say powerful
as, according to SF, they have managed to bring
the northern Government down and with their latest
exploits have all but railroaded the GFA.
Now,
as the British security service, according to SF
officials themselves, were the main conduit for
SF to first make and then maintain contact with
the British Government in the early days of the
Peace Process, we can only assume that this organisation
supported the Peace Process. If so, are we now to
assume that they, or at least a slice of SIS, have
gone native and are acting against the central strategy
of both the NIO and the SIS leadership in London,
and that these people have co-conspirators within
the NIO? If so, it seems we are being led to believe
what you have is a group of renegade civil servants
acting against the interest of their own government
with impunity. Plus, they are in such senior positions
they are also able to manipulate sections of the
Guards/PSNI, plus the media, and all but dictate
the public Statements of Tony Blair and Bertie Ahern.
The
question I ask, is this likely? True, all massive
bureaucracies have disgruntled elements and I'm
sure the British civil service is no exception.
British government departments like the NIO and
the SIS have had moles in the past. The Cambridge
Five, for example, operated simultaneously in both
the Foreign Office and Security and Intelligence
Services (SIS); there have been many other individuals
since them. However, all of them acted as moles
burrowing away in various government departments
whilst gleaning information and then passing it
on to there Soviet masters or some other foreign
power. In recent times there have also been the
odd disgruntled individual, who due to political
differences with government policy, did much the
same thing, only they tipped the media off about
certain issues and outrageous injustices.
The
whole point about the securocrats, as described
by SF, is they do not go about their work in comparative
secret like the aforementioned moles, but by manipulating
central governments, the police and media. Or so
we are led to believe by SF central. In my opinion,
this is something which would be almost impossible
for them to do without their identity coming to
the attention of their employers, the British Government.
If one accepts this SF hypothesis, then by the British
Government's refusal to bring these 'securocrat'
conspirators to account, logically one would also
have to concede that the Blair government is party
to this conspiracy. Which, incidentally, is something
even SF has failed to suggest. Thus by not doing
so, surely they have reduced the whole 'securocrats'
allegations to a house of cards? For if these Governments
(I include Ahern's in the south) had decided to
concoct an excuse to cut SF adrift, why after the
break in at Castlereagh, did they then bring them
back onside and why in all probability will they
do the same in the near future despite the Northern
Bank robbery?
However,
by suggesting these securocrats are a rogue element
within SIS and the NIO who can go about their business
without fear of exposure, Sinn Fein may well be
treading a very dangerous path indeed. The whole
basis of the demand for a public enquiry into collusion
by the British State with loyalist paramilitaries,
plus strategically placed PIRA volunteers such as
Freddie Scappaticci is that this collusion was not
a matter of a small number of British intelligence
operatives overstepping the line without the knowledge
of their superiors, but it was part and parcel of
British strategy within the north of Ireland, which
had been agreed upon at the highest level of the
British State. For SF now to continuously harp on
in the manner they do about securocrats, surely
allows the British government an ever open door
to deny these charges of collusion and put the blame
on unnamed rogue elements, who at the time such
collusion was taking place, not only acted outside
of their control, but it now appears (they could
claim), according to even SF, had their own political
agenda which was contrary to that of the UK government.
Indeed SF has all but provided an alibi for the
UK government to place the whole blame for the north's
misfortunes on the out of control securocrats. If
they were to do so, how could SF counter their argument
after their years of touting that such a group exists?
