Understanding loyalist death squads
Unionism must acknowledge that mass intimidation of the
nationalist community is not legitimate
By Marcas Mac Ruairí
IS IT through lack of insight, outright dishonesty or
laziness that the media present loyalist murders as
tit-for-tat killings?
This week witnessed a continuation of loyalist attacks
on nationalists with the death of Fergal McCusker in
Maghera at the weekend and Larry Brennan on the Ormeau
Road on Monday. UDA commander Jim Guiney was shot dead
by the INLA in Belfast earlier that day. And on
Wednesday night a nationalist in his fifties was shot
dead in a loyalist area of South Belfast.
Last year eight nationalists fell victim to loyalist
death squads. Since the shooting of LVF leader Billy
Wright in Long Kesh at Christmas, the onslaught has
continued with the shooting dead of a further five
nationalists.
d while the Loyalist Volunteer Force has been
responsible for the most of these murders, it is clear
that others in the larger loyalist paramilitaries have
also participated in the slaughter on a `no claim no
blame basis.'
Last year they were explained as a backlash against
perceived concessions to nationalists, now they are
being explained as retaliation for the killing of Billy
Wright.
Despite the obvious anomalies in basic arithmetic which
stand to contradict suggestions that loyalist murders
are tit-for-tat attacks on the nationalist community,
media hacks insist on using this descriptive term in
order to rationalise and indeed give justification to
the activities of loyalist death squads.
It must be remembered that attacks from loyalist death
squads have been on a steady increase for several
months, long before Billy Wright was killed.
Republicans have consistently argued that, based on the
rock of sectarian hatred nurtured by Orangeism, the
continued random attacks on nationalists emanates from
a rump within loyalist paramilitarism which has
degenerated into sectarian fundamentalism.
The killings have been capitalised on by the Unionist
Party in the context of the current political talks.
David Trimble refused to engage in genuine negotiations
and hyped the myth of concessions to nationalists. In
the subsequent vacuum, those loyalist paramilitaries on
ceasefire became uneasy.
If they were to break their ceasefire completely, we
were told, it would not be a small fundamentalist rump
carrying out murderous attacks on nationalists, but a
full scale onslaught from mainstream loyalism. The
Propositions on Heads of Agreement are seen in the
nationalist community as a shift away from previously
agreed positions; they are perceived as an attempt to
impose a unionist agenda on the talks, presenting a Six
County assembly as a fait accompli.
Moreover, the document offers no commitment to
equality, but in its place we are offered equity, which
has an entirely different meaning. This change is
interpreted in the broader nationalist community as
showing a lack of commitment to justice by the British.
By manipulating the recent spiralling number of
sectarian murders to extract concessions in this
fashion, the Unionist Party is also seen by the
nationalist community to be encouraging further
loyalist attacks, providing the death squads with a
political rationale.
It is in this broader historical context that loyalist
murders must be understood. Describing them as
tit-for-tat merely serves to absolve those otherwise
respectable unionist politicians of responsibility for
encouraging the slaughter of nationalists.
But Unionists must now be told that they have to move
forward, away from their dependence on mass
intimidation. They must take the opportunity presented
by the opening of negotiations, which began on Monday,
to engage in real dialogue.
Having spent months refusing to talk to Sinn Féin
because he disagrees with its policies, it is now time
for David Trimble to come into the real world. By
entering into the talks in the first place, there is an
explicit acceptance of the need to put the failures of
the past behind us. But with the appearance that
intransigence pays, unionism has no incentive to enter
into substantive dialogue.
Both governments, in their own discussions with the
unionists, must drive home the message that an internal
solution is simply not a solution at all. Rather, the
solution must reflect the concerns and needs of
everybody, and that entails the vital element of an
all-Ireland dimension.
Confidence must be restored by adopting a pro-active
leadership role which seeks to advance on agreements
already entered into and demonstrating that good faith
negotiations can remove conflict from Ireland. In doing
so they will inject new dynamism into the process.
All the substantive issues must be kept on the agenda
and balanced to ensure a politically neutral starting
point for the negotiations .
The process will be further helped by a visible
commitment establishing equality of treatment,
demilitarisation, urgent action on human rights,
concrete measures on the Irish langauge and culture and
the release of prisoners.
![[An Phoblacht]](http://republican-news.org/graphics/title_gifs/aprn.gif)