When “Collusion” between loyalist
paramilitaries and the British Army was first suggested it was dismissed as
republican propaganda or weird conspiracy material. Indeed, to ask serious
questions about it meant that, if you were any kind of investigator or researcher,
you could be easily ridiculed and therefore ignored if you had suggested
Collusion was real. I remember trying to interest some journalists about this
in the early 1990s when I was first in Northern Ireland with a view to doing a
book on the subject. I was struck by how determined some were to dismiss the
notion. One did suggest that his career would certainly be hurt if he was seen
to be pursuing it even if he did believe it was real. As it happened he didn’t
believe it was anything other than “rotten apples.” So the subject remained at
best on the periphery of mainstream reporting, despite massing evidence that
Collusion was not only taking place but had to have some kind of structure and
official support.
Rotten Apples
Those involved in creating modern
Collusion in Ireland were very careful to cover their tracks. They had
experience of doing this all over the world over decades. So, they knew what
they were doing. In fact, in this context, you can see that had Collusion NOT
occurred in Ireland then that would make Ireland the exception when one looks
at Malaya, Kenya, Aden and other theatres.
Should any part of the trail became
exposed to public view due to some operational carelessness or some
investigative journalist taking his/her role seriously, then the first
“explanation” was the Rotten Apples theory, as in, “Yes, there was some
co-operation between rogue RUC (or Army) personnel and we’re dealing with
that.” Then the inevitable excuses for these rogues’ motivation would be
trotted out. “You’ve got to understand that these people have seen their
community hurt by terrorists. So, naturally, a rotten apple might let emotion
guide him.”
The second line of defence was “Ok,
perhaps it was more than one rotten apple in that area. Maybe a few of them
there took the law into their own hands.” And there were other lines of defence
grudgingly offered but usually only years after any potentially illuminating
event. So context would be lost and we’d be left looking at, ostensibly, a
series of unconnected events performed by a rogue and/or rogues. But the truth
was much darker, much more obscene and, much more horrifying. One day, it
will be commonly accepted Collusion was official military policy.
It is worth reading books like Killing
for Britain by UVF man John Black in the context of not only Ireland
but also of Western Europe in the post-war Cold War.
Every major NATO country had a contingency plan catering for a successful Soviet
Russian invasion of Western Europe, perfectly natural given there was a real
fear in the minds of NATO planners that the Communist hordes were intent in
invading the West. After all, Russian land forces were the largest on the
contentment and had not long defeated the mighty German Wehrmacht. They were
literally on the border of Western Europe. And, given the tension between the
two power blocks of East and West, it was not inconceivable that one of these blocks might give into itchy trigger syndrome in panic, thus starting a war.
Should that result in Russia overrunning
Western Europe, the NATO planners devised what became known as NATO Stay Behind Armies, roughly
based on the concept so well executed by the French Resistance and elements of
British special forces during the brief Nazi reign of Europe from 1940-45.
In the ideological context of the time,
NATO planners looked specifically for committed pro-state and anti-communist
sorts to become operatives in their secret army. All this might still be secret
were it not for the statement of Italian Prime Minister GiulioAndreotti revealing it to the Chamber of Deputies on October 24, 1990 which
sparked a flurry of investigations which detailed the Italian Operation Gladio.
However, Gulf War One soon blew the story off the world’s media
headlines - that and NATO covering the tracks.
This meant NATO getting into bed effectively with many right wing elements, including pro-Nazis who now saw NATO as the best guarantor against the feared Russian invasion. As well as many Nazi scientists and intelligence agents going on to form the nucleus of NATOs nuclear and European intelligence agencies, many more became senior figures in the formation of the Stay Behind Armies whose role would be to become the anti-Soviet resistance in any territories the Soviet armies conquered.
However, in an effort to forestall either
a Soviet advance, or the development of sympathy for communism in Western
Europe, the NATO Stay Behind
Armies often played covert
roles in subverting democratic votes in especially Italy and France as well as
other countries where Communists had strong democratic mandates.
One key method of reducing public sympathy
for Leftist politics was to discredit Communist or socialist groups. This could
be by humiliating some leaders with scandals and such like. But a much more
horrific modes operandi was to perpetrate no warning terrorist outrages
resulting in civilian deaths and then blaming these on leftist groups. The NATO
countries intelligence agencies could either tap into the genuine terrorist
instincts of some leftist groups, or it could infiltrate these groups and guide
them to terrorist actions, or they could simply use their own Stay Behind operatives to place bombs in public
places and massacre civilians. This would create fear and panic in the populace
and result in people insisting their government implement extreme security
measures, thus allowing even easier monitoring of the leftist groups that
“threatened” to undermine the state in the hope of gaining power themselves or
of instigating a Soviet invasion. The placing of these bombs, which killed
scores of civilians in Italy, created a climate of near paralysis. This was a
result of the implemented Strategy Of Tension.
Consider then what preparations would the
NATO planners of the Stay
Behind Armies in continental
Europe have made in Northern Ireland – unless you think it too far-fetched for
these meticulous chaps to have noticed that Northern Ireland was a potential
trouble spot and a security Achilles Heel with its anti-state insurgency
potential.
Going by the form established in Germany,
Italy, Belgium and others, the NATO planners would have ensured the selection
of appropriately pro-state types in Northern Ireland and who could be relied
upon to co-operate with covert state forces in order to protect the state and
challenge any insurgency.
Killing For Britain by John Black in this context does not
seem quite so far-fetched as some would have liked to suggest when it was first
published in 2008, especially in the light of the subsequent finding of Mike
Norman, thought to be the pivotal “Mike” in John Black’s account of his time as
a UVF member working with British Military Intelligence in Belfast in the early
1970s.
Several British Military and Intelligence
contacts, who kindly assisted me when writing The
Hunger Strikes and when
researching other books including SAS
Warlord and John Black’s Killing For Britain, emphasised
the importance of the Cold War in their thinking regarding “Ulster”. One of
these contacts was a senior Military Intelligence operative with strong SIS
links. He insisted the Cold War aspect is always underrated as a key factor in
British State thinking on Northern Ireland.
But, when one considers this, and
considers NATO Stay Behind
Armies - and further considers the whole concept of Collusion between
pro-state terrorists and state forces in Northern Ireland and Western Europe -
then one can clearly see an important pattern. When studied in this context, it
would be remarkable if Northern Ireland was the one potential conflict zone in Western
Europe where such collusion was NOT a reality. In fact, any contention that
Collusion in Northern Ireland did not take place or that it was not sanctioned at official
levels is simply unrealistic.
No comments:
Post a Comment