Conference tallis::celt

    
    There is no doubt at all in my mind that the Brian Nelson scandal
    relects a true and alarming situation: British Intelligence has
    infiltrated both paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland, and has
    on occasions gone out of control, much like the American CIA and
    FBI have also gone over the top.
    
    However, I also believe that some infiltration activities are 
    necessary, even essential, if sectarian murders and terrorist 
    attacks are to be contained. What is also essential is that these 
    activities are subject to political control, and do not become 
    themselves unlawful, even though the dividing line may be difficult to 
    define at times. It is in fact a hopeful sign that the NI police
    and judiciary were able to get the case to court, and that Nelson
    was found guilty and sentenced, albeit for a reduced charge.
    
    The article itself is a reasonably good account, I would fault
    it on some grounds: One is a bit unfair, the Republic's Minister
    for Foreign Affairs in now David Andrews, and he has raised the
    matter (we are told) with Peter Brooke. It also did not mention
    that Nelson is said to have saved some lives by supplying advance
    warning of assassination attempts, most notably one on the life of 
    Gerry Adams MP.
    
    A major flaw is the last paragraph: there is a major jump from 
    describing the scandal and immediately saying it undermines
    the moral authority of British rule in Northern Ireland.
    It may in a minor way, but surely British rule in the North
    derives from the consent of the majority of people who live
    there. The administration there is also struggling with policing 
    a dangerously divided society, and performing creditably if
    one compares NI with societies like Cyprus, Lebanon, Yugoslavia,
    Sri Lanka, Nagorno-Karabakh etc. - all countries where ethnic unrest 
    has led to violent outbreaks.
    
    Toby

    
    Something I forgot: this article by Sandy Carlson and the one
    in a previous note by Des Wilson, what publication are they
    from? It is the normal practice when quoting an article to 
    cite the publication.
    
    Just curious,
    
    Toby

    
    re .1
    
     Maybe I'm getting old, but I'll be damned if I don't surmise that you
    think it's in some way "necessary" that the murders of innocent people
    continue.  The infiltrations are necessary?  The targeting of suspects
    for murder is necessary?  Sounds more like the brownshirts of Nazi
    Germany to me.  A regular little putsch going on there, the opposition
    being killed in their beds or kidnapped and murdered in a state-fostered 
    and state-sanctioned purge.  
    
     And you think it's "necessary".  
    
     Well, OK then, perhaps it is.  Fight fire with fire.  If you condone 
    such illegal and terrorist acts, how can you condemn the IRA?  
     

    The question that has always bothered me is why did the Loyalist Paras
    jeopardise their contacts in the security forces by releasing the
    information to the press?
    
    The only hypothesis I can draw is that they had realised that they had
    been infiltrated and that the security forces were feeding them the
    data in order to predict probable targets.  It's one hell of a sight
    easier to catch a criminal if you can predict where he will strike.
    Damned near impossible if he is striking purely at random.
    
    I don't think it made much difference as to how many were killed, only
    to who was killed.  Back in the seventies, the Loyalist para-gangs used
    to wait outside a catholic church and select victims from those who
    crossed themselves.  If Brian Nelson helped to both reduce the death
    toll, and ensure that fewer of those killed were entirely innocent
    victims, then I don't believe he can be painted entirely black.  If,
    on the other hand, he did, in fact, instigate more killings than would 
    otherwise have taken place, then he can.
    
    Reckon you pays your money and takes your choice.
    
    Joe

    
    re .4
    
     And, as usual, in your blind hatred, you support the killing of
    innocents by a ridiculous contortion that the ten Catholics that
    were murdered were justified by the 10 that weren't.  A lie, of
    course.  And another sad attempt to justify the blatant state-
    condoned killing of innocent people.
    
     Well, when the time comes, I hope you can justify your hatred,
    Woodrow.  No one else can.
    

    No Frankie, I do not say that.  I present an hypothesis.
    
    Interestingly enough, following the recruitment of Nelson, the 
    annual murder rate by loyalist paras almost halved from an average 13 
    a year to 7 a year.  
    
    Following his arrest, it immediately rose again and has been
    rising ever since.  It is this fact which underlies my hypothesis that
    he may, to a certain extent, have been successful in both reducing the
    death toll and in redirecting it.
    
    Of course, the saving of ten innocent civilians does not justify the
    killing of ten para-militaries.  It is merely a more acceptable
    alternative to the sacrifice of ten innocent civilians to save the lives
    of ten para-militaries.
    
    Joe

    
    Re: .3
    
    Go back and re-read my note. I did not condone illegality, I
    said that infiltration should be for intelligence purposes
    UNDER POLITICAL CONTROL so that illegal activities would be
    nipped in the bud.
    
    How would you deal with paramilitaries who commit sectarian 
    murders and terrorist bombings? Advertise in the papers for
    them to surrender?
    
    Toby

    re: .1
    
    Toby, if that is the type of peace New Consensus are after then I'm
    not surprised that Fr Wilson had some objections to raise at that
    meeting you mentioned.  I find your note almost incredible for it seems
    to condone official terrorism.
    
    For "real consensus" in seeking a genuine peace my vote goes to the
    two brave Presbyterian churchmen, who recently spoke to the UDA and 
    have plans to talk to the IRA.
    
    -Dermot

    
    re .7
    
     Oh grand...so when confronted with a situation in which an
    "infiltrator" shares intelligence info with paramilitaries who target
    what very well are innocent people for murder, you suggest the British
    do *MORE* of it and claim it's necessary to "contain" terrorism???
    

    
    I am not a member of New Consensus, though I do broadly support
    efforts for peace in NI. I think there is nothing there that
    cannot be remedied by peaceful means. And there is a lot there
    that cannot be remedied by violence. I do not support terrorism
    of any sort, and I can only conclude that you are willfully 
    reading that into my comments. Show me the exact phrases where
    I condone terrorism and I will confirm or deny whether I stand 
    over them.
    
    The Catholic community need protection from sectarian
    assault. How would you do it? The Loyalist community need
    protection from IRA terrorism. How would you do that? Talk
    won't do it on its own. In an ideal world we wouldn't need
    security forces, but NI is very far from being an ideal 
    place.
    
    I do support and applaud the Presbyterian churchmen who talked
    to the UDA. But I seem to recall they got a definite "NO" when
    they asked them to stop their campaign. People have talked
    to the IRA before - John Hume tried, the Catholic Church
    tried, the British Government have tried on at least two
    occasions. Why do you believe these talks ALONE will produce
    an ending of the violence? I am not against talking to the
    paramilitaries (if they renounce violence), but the people of NI 
    must be protected against them in the meantime.
    
    I think I'll leave out commenting on poor old Father Des at
    this stage, I hope he enjoys his trip to the US.
    
    Toby

    Re: .9
    
    Look, Frankie, I know you would like nothing better than for the Brits
    to withdraw and leave it to the IRA and UDA to fight it out in the
    streets of Northern Ireland.  I just don't happen to agree with you,
    OK?   I also believe that anything that reduces the number of people being
    killed can be justified.  There again, we happen to disgree.  So be it.
    
    What I pray for is the day that the Irish discover the simple truth
    that they will not get the Brits out of Ireland by Irishman killing 
    Irishman.  Because that's what they're doing.  We probably lose more 
    Brit soldiers in traffic accidents in a month than the IRA kill in an
    average year.  Most years recently,it's been in single figures.  The
    main victims among the security forces have been the poor bloody RUC
    and UDR - Irish every one.  But the principle victims of the IRA have 
    been 2000 civilians.  Again Irish, every one.
    
    Of course, I'm not counting the bold adventures in Europe and the British
    mainland.  Those civilians have been Brits, with the odd foreign
    national thrown in for good measure.
    
    Joe

    RE: .10                                         
    
    >The Catholic community need protection from sectarian
    >assault. How would you do it? The Loyalist community need
    >protection from IRA terrorism. How would you do that? Talk
    >won't do it on its own. In an ideal world we wouldn't need
    
    Toby, your words "Talk won't do it on its own" concerning
    peace efforts in Northern Ireland is a typical, short-sighted,
    pessimistic approach.
    
    The British and Irish governments will expend huge sums of
    money on security and intelligence-gathering, but ultimately
    peace will come to Ireland precisely through talk and negotiation.
    
    The British intelligence-gathering security measures you applaud
    resembles similar measures employed by the Nazis.
    
    Peace *will* come to Ireland.  I for one am optimistic.

    
    I too believe that the "troubles" will ultimately be
    settled by talk and negotiation. And I too am optimistic.
    
    However, in the meantime terrorism must be contained. And
    by the way, the only group in NI striving for a purely
    military solution is the IRA. All other groups are willing
    to leave aside violence and concentrate on talking. I
    am still waiting to hear you condemn their acts, which 
    dwarf in horror any act of violence by the NI security 
    forces.
    
    You remind me of the character in "Catch-22" who opposed
    racism by fainting in its presence. Are you and others
    telling me that you oppose official terrorism (as I do) but
    are neutral on unofficial terrorism?
    
    Some negotiator, some optimist!
    
    Toby

    Toby, if the IRA were the only group striving for a purely
    military solution, then why are there 18,000 British soldiers
    armed to the teeth in Ireland?
    
    The acts of violence by both groups, the IRA and the NI
    security forces, are both equally horrid.  Bloody Sunday on
    one hand - Enniskillen on the other.  One does not dwarf the
    other.
    
    I oppose state sponsored terrorism as well as unofficial
    terrorism as I always have.  However, I do believe that the
    crux of the problem in Ireland is the continued presence of
    the British military.
    
    If the British were so keen as to want peace in its little
    2/3 of Ulster, it would open up the matter to the UN!  I mean
    if the UN is good enough for Iraq and Libya and Israel, then
    why not Great Britain?
    
    /George

    The crux of the problem in Ireland, George, is not the presence of
    the British.  It is the border, and the Republic's refusal to acknowledge
    its legitimacy even after all these years.
    
    Without the threat that the Republic poses to the Union in the 
    perception of the Protestant community,  there would be no Unionists 
    because they would have no common over-riding interest to unite them.  
    
    Without the perceived threat that the Republic poses to the Union,
    the O'Neill's invitation to Lemass could not have been interpreted 
    by Paisley as a threat to the Union to bring the Unionists out onto 
    the streets to oppose it.  Paisley would just be a nutty leader of a 
    tiny religious faction.
    
    Without the perceived threat to the Union, the protestant students
    would have remained at one with the catholic students in the Civil
    Rights movement, and it would have succeeded in bringing justice
    to the catholic community.
    
    Without the perceived threat to the Union, British troops would never
    have has to be deployed.
    
    Without the perceived threat to the Union, the people of Northern and 
    Southern Ireland would now have normal relations and would be co-operating
    and coming to understand one another. 
    
    Without the perceived threat to the Union, who knows?  Protestants
    could well be beginning to see some common sense, logical case for a 
    united Ireland rather than just the Papist and cultural threat.
    
    Joe

    re: .15
    
    <The crux of the problem in Ireland, George, is not the presence
    <of the British
    
    Gawd, what a load of hogwash. 
    
    Y'know Woody, next week is the Spring Equinox, where the clocks
    are set ahead. 
    
    Why not do us all a favour and set your clock ahead by *300 years*
    OK?!
    
    Oh, and lest you forget, before you leave DEC,
    
          "The basic cause of the Irish problem is the presence of the
          British in Ireland and always has been. As long as British
          forces remain in Northern Ireland, the situation is frozen.
          Nothing decisive can happen until they go.
    
          My own view has never changed: British troops should be withdrawn,
          if not immediately, then at some stated date in the near future.
          Their presence is not helping helping towards a solution, rather
          prolongs the deadlock and even strengthens it."
    
                                                   A J P Taylor (historian)
        
    Hope you get a life after you go, Woody.

    I am perfectly willing to concede, Joe, that if Dermot MacMurrough,
    King of Leinster, had not offered the hand of his daughter Eva to
    Strongbow in exchange for Strongbow's assistance following Dermot's 
    defeat at the hands of Rory O'Connor, king of Connacht, then it may be 
    possible that Rory would have successfully won the High Kingship he
    was, at the time, contesting with Muirchertach Mac Lochlain, King of the 
    Ui Neills, and managed to unite Ireland without the help of the Normans 
    and things might have turned out differently.
    
    But it is all a bit speculative, don't you think?
    
    As it was, he did and, on the whole, I don't imagine there's a lot 
    we can do about it one way or another.  We just have to muddle along as 
    best we can, not starting from where we were 800 years ago, or even 300 
    years ago, but from where we are now.
    
    'We had fed the heart too much on fantasies,
     The heart's grown brutal from the fare'
    					(Yeats)
    
    Joe

    
    Re: .14
    
    George,
    
    As I drove into work today, I heard a Catholic widow whose husband
    had just been murdered by the UFF, another victim of random terror.
    She was asking why the police and army were not doing more to protect 
    her people.
    
    You are the one who would tell her that you wish to do the reverse,
    take her protectors away, presumably in order to protect her even
    more! It's all got an air the good old American verdict on the 
    Vietnamese city of Hue "We had to destroy it in order to save it".
    
    The IRA are the only group who today have the same goal they have
    when the Troubles started, the British will gladly reduce and withdraw
    the troops as peace comes, and leave the North to regular policing.
    The UN are not involved because there is no Government has brought
    it to their attention (even the Government which represents most
    Irishmen, the one of the Republic of Ireland), nor is there any
    issue in International Law.
    
    Let me quote you Mark Durkan, chairman of the SDLP:
    
    "We now have a situation where the IRA can no longer claim a mandate
     even what has been commonly regarded as their own political wing
     [Sinn Fein]. That must involve an admission from Sinn Fein that
     the IRA is entirely a law unto itself, using violence for its
     own sake and having a increasingly remote association with any
     framework of policies or principles."
    
    That is an Irishman talking, a Nationalist from the North of Ireland
    who probably hates living under British rule as much as anyone else.
    I appeal to you, George, stop filtering out what you don't want
    to hear, and start listening to the voice of the majority of Irishmen.
    Major panaceas like "the UN" or "British withdrawal" are fantasy,
    peace will not come from territorial concessions or annexations
    but from people learning to live together.
    
    Toby

    Simply because the Irish and British governments have not
    brought the issue of NI to the UN is not a reason to deny possible
    involvement by the UN.  The fact of the matter remains - 2 countries
    claim the same territory.  Replacing the British Army by a UN
    army would remove one of the major irritants to peace in NI.  It
    is one possible avenue for peace which hasn't been tried to date.
    I just think that 18,000 British soldiers complicate the peace process.
    
    I envision a peace process whereby a UN peace keeping force gradually
    replaces the British Army, the local policing force in NI becomes
    completely integrated, local rule returned to Stormont under
    strict supervision of the EC, Ireland, and Britain, some form of
    affirmative action is promoted to encourage hiring of minorities
    in all areas, investment in NI promoted by NI, Ireland, Britian, EC
    and the US, and most importantly integrated schooling is advocated
    and officially promoted.
    
    You see, I never once talked about territorial concessions or
    annexations.  They don't even enter into the picture.  The key here
    is to promote peace through education, investment, and military
    disengagement.
    
    Peace will come.
    /George

    Re: .19 - George
    
    I'll say one thing for you, George.  At least you've thought it through
    which is one hell of a sight more than either Joe Drotter or Frankie
    Chaplain have ever managed to do.
    
    However, I fear that you suffer from the same problem which has bugged
    this issue from the start.  You totally ignore the inevitable reaction
    of the Unionists.
    
    While I agree that the British Army presence is a major irritant to
    Nationalists,  you must see that the presence of a non-British Army
    would be an equal irritant to Unionists.  (By the way, there are
    considerably less than 18,000 British troops in NI unless you count
    the UDR and, by your definition, both the UDR and RUC are entirely
    Irish in composition.)  The UDA would be no more willing to tolerate a 
    UN force patrolling the streets of Belfast than the IRA is prepared to 
    tolerate a British Force.  In my opinion, the only result of bringing 
    in the UN would be to spark off a major offensive by the 'loyalist' 
    paras against the Nationalist population.
    
    Of course, there is no possibility whatsoever that the UN, even with 
    British concurrence, would agree to go in.  If you look at, for
    example, Yugoslavia, the UN only agreed to send a peacekeeping force
    after not only the Croatian and Yugoslav governments had agreed to
    it, but after the Croatian and Serbian Para-Militaries had also agreed.
    The UN is well aware that a peace-keeping force is precisely that; a
    force that keeps the peace.  It cannot impose peace.  If, following
    its deployment, fighting breaks out again on any scale, it is forced to
    withdraw as, for example, in the Lebanon.
    
    At the risk of sounding rude, which I do not intend it to be, I have 
    long had the feeling that maybe the reason the Irish Question has never
    been resolved is not because the British don't know the answer, but
    because the Irish do not understand the question.  The question is not
    how to get the British out of Ireland.  It is how to reconcile two
    directly opposing traditions and cultures on the island of Ireland.
    Now the UN cannot do that for you, as neither can the British.  Only 
    the Irish can do that.  The British place only one constraint, which
    they are entitled to do, and that is that you resolve it peacefully
    and by consent.  The Republic, unfortunately, has historically endeavoured 
    to achieve it through confrontation and coercion.  In spite of four
    separate and binding international agreements to the contrary, she
    still lays claim to the six counties.  Yet, even while pursuing this
    claim, she has chosen to follow a purely Nationalist path which has
    taken her further and further away from the Unionist tradition.  Even
    now, she sees her role in the Anglo-Irish Conference a purely 
    representing Nationalist interests.
    
    Nobody is going to solve this on Ireland's behalf, George, not the
    Brits, not the UN, nobody but the Irish.  And time is running out.
    Within thirty years the majority population of Northern Ireland is
    going to be catholic.  Some time after that, the majority of the
    population of voting age is going to be catholic.  When that happens.
    and assuming they vote for unity, Britain is treaty bound to withdraw.
    It was this that prompted my very first not in Soapbox some three
    years ago, when I suggested a lease-back arrangement.
    
    So I suggest to you that the time has long gone for romantic, partisan
    gestures.  Unless Northern Ireland is at peace by then, deep wounds have
    healed and the Unionists are reconciled to a future in a United
    Ireland, it just doesn't bear thinking about.
    
    The Brits can't do that for you.  The UN can't do that for you.  The
    IRA aren't doing that for you and the UDA sure as hell won't.  So who's
    going to do it for you, George?  Come to that, why should they? 
    
    Joe

    George,
    
    The "peace process" you enunciate in note .19 is very similar what the
    Irish and British government are attempting to pursue, with the
    exception that they see no need for a U.N. force. And neither
    do I.
    
    The hard fact is that when you call for "Brits out", you are talking
    about 1 million Brits who are here to stay. The work of reconciliation
    must begin NOW, not after we have finished chasing a red herring to
    the U.N. and back.
    
    I would not agree with the previous note putting all the blame on
    the Republic of Ireland, though admitting the culpability
    of our politicians who were content to shed crocidile tears
    about partition, while failing to build bridges to the other
    community on the island, and drive out the climate of fear that
    inspired the Unionists in their sectarian and undemocratic
    state.
    
    In the north we had "a Protestant parliament for a Protestant
    people". In the south we had a narrow and triumphalist Catholic
    Nationalism. Both states were have failed to a large extent to
    provide a decent working life for the majority of their
    peoples. 
    
    Toby
    
    
    

    
    As regards the initial note, about Loyalist and Security force
    "collusion", let me draw the reader's attention to an academic
    study of loyalist violence by Professor Steve Bruce of Aberdeen
    University. He rejects large-scale collusion, pointing to the
    higher conviction rates obtained by the RUC in relation in
    prosecuting loyalist crime compared with convictions against
    republican paramilitaries.
    
    He also claims that these groups have no large scale support
    within the Protestant community because of their gangster
    image, and the greater identification of Protestants with the
    forces of the state.
    
    Prof Bruce's report "Northern Ireland: Reappraising Loyalist 
    Violence" will be published this year by Oxford University Press.
    
    Statistics show that between 1976 and 1990, security forces
    had been very successful in containing loyalist assassinations
    to about 12 to 13 per year - in the 4 years previous to 1976 ,
    Loyalist gangs had killed 500 people. However in the last year,
    because of the takeover of these groups by a younger and
    more militant leadership, and the failure of police
    intelligence, the murder rate has risen significantly, though
    not to the levels of 1972-76. In 1991 loyalist terrorists
    had killed some 40 people.
    
    This study should make fascinating reading to all who are
    interested in this topic.
    
    I am indebted for the above to a report in the "Irish Times" of
    March 23rd.
    
    Toby

    Toby,
    
    You see, the Irish and British governments have had ample time to
    promote peace in NI and the results have not been overly impressive.
    I think it's time for the UN to get involved.  Or are you afraid that
    the UN might be successful?  Is UN involvement good for those Arabs,
    but not for the British and Irish?
    
    Furthermore, you are putting words in my mouth.  I never have stated
    once "Brits out".  So you better remove those quotes.  I have
    frequently stated the British military has no justification to be
    in Ireland.  And I stick by that claim.
    
    If the 1 million British in Ireland (and they are not called Brits)
    want to remain British that's fine.  But there's no reason to make
    Northern Ireland be a military training ground for the British
    military.  It is scarring the landscape.  Remove the weapons
    and you will remove the violence.
    
    Cheers,
    /George                         

  re. .22
  As regards Toby Joyce, and his information rejecting
  Loyalist and Security force "collusion", let me
  draw the reader's attention to an impartial international
  agency called Amnesty International, and one of 
  their recent publications.  It can be found in note
  1008.0 and is entitled

           Amnesty International
           United Kingdom Human Rights Concerns June 1991
   Section 5:  Collusion between security forces and
   armed groups.

   Perhaps Professor Steve Bruce of Aberdeen University
   missed that report. Perhaps he missed that report
   on purpose.

                          Mark

    
    Re: -1
    
    I guess I am just not telling you what you want to hear!
    
    Re-read the note. Bruce rejects large-scale collusion. That
    is not saying it has not happened. I'm sure that the instances
    described in the Amnesty report all took place. In fact I
    expect these documents to complement, not  contradict, each
    other.
    
    Incidentally, an IRA "mole" was recently arrested, serving
    with the Gardai Siochana - does this imply collusion between
    the IRA and the Southern security forces?
    
    Please keep an open mind, it seems to me the statistics given
    bears out Bruce's contention. However, I will wait until I
    read his full report.

    
    I didn't express myself very well in my note ....
    
    Bruce rejects large scale collusion but that is not to
    say that individual cases of collusion have not taken place.
    
    This sentence should replace sentences 2 and 3 of my second
    para.
    
    Toby

    
    Re: .23
    
    I would certainly agree to let the U.N. get involved if I 
    thought it would achieve anything. I cannot see the slightest
    good that could come from Ghanaian, Finnish or Canadian troops
    in Northern Ireland.
    
    Far from what you believe, George, the fabric of society in
    Northern Ireland is still holding up well. The is not large
    scale lawlessness as there is in Croatia or Nagorno-Karabakh.
    Belfast is a far safer place than the black ghettos of 
    New York, Washington and Los Angeles - which are policed mostly
    by white policemen. Why not get the U.N. to end crime in 
    those communities?
    
    In fact a recent survey found that the British link is supported
    by 50% of the CATHOLIC community - which undermines Woodrow's
    fear that Catholics will immediately vote for a United Ireland
    as soon as they become a majority (if that ever happens).
    
    By the way, there is a clear correlation between the number of
    terrorist incidents and the numbers of troops in NI. After every
    atrocity the British up the number of troops, when things are 
    quiet, the number of troops decreases. Of the course the IRA
    do not like this because they must at all costs prevent NI
    from becoming a normal society.
    
    Isn't that the simplest way to get the "troops out" (which I 
    want as much as you) - simply stand down the IRA campaign and
    let a degree of normality return to the lives of ordinary
    people? It could happen much sooner that chasing a will o'the
    wisp to the U.N. and back.

    Last night BBC televisions current affairs programme Panorama featured
    a documentary on the Brian Nelson Scandal.  I only caugt the last half
    hour but it was very interesting.
    
    It was obvious from the evidence given that Brian Nelson had got very
    much out of control in his dual role as British Army undercover agent
    and high ranking officer in the UDA/UVF.  What was interesting to note
    was the Colonel in charge of Brian Nelson's activities for the BA
    claimed that work by Nelson helped save 290 or so lives althouygh he
    struggled to remember the names of many.  Nelson himself could only
    name 50 or so which he thought he had help save.  Hard evidence
    provided by the documentary showed that only 2 lives could have been
    proved to have been saved thanks to evidence from Nelson, one of which
    was Gerry Adams.
    
    Apparently he passed on over 300 names of republican/nationalist
    suspects to the UVF.  These names are still with the UVF and since
    Nelson's arrest 6 have been murdered and 4 badly injured in terrorist
    attacks.
    
    The programme also highlighted the lack of co-operation between the BA
    and the RUC, so much so that Nelson actually arranged for the murder
    of an RUC agent who was high ranking in the IRA.
    
    It finished with the narrator saying that Nelson's "reward" for
    "services" to the BA in NI was 10 years imprisonment (IMO should have
    been life) where as the Colonel in charge of him received a medal for
    meritous service in NI.
    
    Very interesting viewing.
    
    		Brian.
    	

    What I forgot to mention was evidence the programme showed which
    suggested Nelson was very selective with information he passed on
    regarding pending assassinations.  On the night of one UVF
    assassination Nelson telephoned his BA handlers twice to ask "if
    anything had happened yet" while neglecting to inform them that what he
    was waiting for was news of a murder.
    
    Anybody else catch the programme last night ??? 
    
    		Brian.

    Ah, yes: the putrid stench of British Government collusion, cover-up and,
need I say - Dishonesty.

Northern Ireland

            Are Far-right Loyalists here Tied to Pretoria?
                          by Kevin Cullen
                       (Sunday Globe 6/21/92)          


    Belfast - British Army intelligence officials breathed a sigh of relief
a few months ago when Brian Nelson, their top informant in Northern Ireland,
was sentenced to 10 years in prison after admitting he took part in the very
murders he had been supposed to prevent.

    While the security forces were relieved that the Nelson case would go away
without a public airing of some very soiled laundry, one person who is
frustrated the whole truth did not emerge is Adrian Guelke.

    Guelke, 44, a lecturer in politics at Queen's University, thought that with
the Nelson case he would finally find out why Protestant extremists tried to
kill him as he and his wife slept in their home last autumn.

   The attempted murder of Guelke, a native of South Africa, was the first
attack of its kind on an academic without obvious connections to extremist
elements here. As a result, some intellectuals suggest a degree of academic
freedom in NI has been compromised.

    But the attack on Guelke, who was shot once but survived because the guns of
both of his assailants jammed, raises an even murkier subject: the connection
between loyalist extremists here and far right-wing supporters of apartheid in
South Africa.

    ...Guelke says he is no longer in fear of the Ulster Freedom Fighters, the
paramilitary group that said it attacked Guelke because he had imported arms
from the Middle East for the IRA.

    "Through intermediaries," said Guelke, widely recognized as a moderate who
has no links with the IRA, "the UFF has admitted it was a mistake, that a third
party came to them with intelligence documents with my name on them, and showed
them my house. They feel they were used. They won't say who the third party is,
but I believe there has to be a South African connection."

WHO FINGERED GUELKE?
     Just who provided the dossier that fingered Guelke, and why, remains a
puzzle that could have been solved by Nelson.
     According to police, Nelson was working as both a British agent and chief
intelligence officer for the Ulster Freedom Fighters, the cover name for a legal
loyalist organization called the Ulster Defense Association, when he went to
South Africa in 1985 in search of weapons.

    Historically, loyalists have been poorly armed compared to the IRA, and
Nelson's trip was the first attempt by loyalists to use South Africa as a base
to increase their firepower.

    South Africa was a logical choice. Throughout this century, loyalists in NI
who consider themselves British and want to remain British subjects have
empathized with South African whites. Both groups have a seige mentality -
loyalists with their fear of being swallowed up by what they view as a
Catholic-dominated Irish Republic; South Africans with their fear of the black
majority.

    In the early 1980s, the South African security forces began recruiting
Northern Irish men as police officers. Sources familiar with the major arms
deal Nelson brokered in 1985 say his contact in South Africa was a Northern
Irish-born man who had moved there.

    Nelson apparently succeded in arranging to buy from Armscor, the South
African state armaments manufacturer, several hundred rifles, pistols, grenades
and rocket launchers. No one has ever been charged in the weapons suggling
scheme, but three loyalists and a South African diplomat were arrested in Paris
in 1989 as they allegedly tried to consummate what police said was the loyalist
end of the deal: missle parts stolen from the Shorts aircraft factory in East
Belfast.

NEW LOYALIST FIREPOWER
    The South African arms are one of the main reasons that loyalist killings
have risen dramatically in the last two years. Between 1972 and 1976, during the
worst fighting in the political and sectarian conflict that broke out in 1969,
loyalist extremists killed about 500 people. Over the next 12 years, however,
they averaged only about a dozen murders annually. Last year loyalist gunmen,
armed with a new, more ruthless leadership and better weapons, killed 40.

    Police have recovered more than half of the wepons smuggled in from South
Africa, some of which have been used by loyalists to kill at least six
Catholics, including three mourners at an IRA funeral in 1988. But why, given
Nelson's role as a double agent, the shipment was allowed to land here and be
handed out remains a bone of bitter contention.


    [Ed note: several passages about Gulke's connection to the South African
     anti-apartheid movement and the South African security forces
     checking up on him have been omitted for sake of brevity.]

    Guelke isn't the only one who wants to know more about Nelson and South
Africa. Nationalist politicians, from the party that represents moderate
Catholics and the party that supports the IRA, want answers too. So does the
Irish government, which has raised the matter at the last two Anglo-Irish
conference meetings.

    One Irish government official acknowledged, "We don't really expect
the Nelson case to come into the open." But the Irish government does see the
debacle as creating leverage for reform among the security forces in NI. Last
week for example, the British government announced that an independent assessor
would review the system used to file complaints against the British Army
in Northern Ireland.

    A BBC documentary last week refocused attention on the Nelson case,
and may well lead to an investigation of Nelson's chief handler, named only
as Colonel J.

    Also searching for answers are the families of Ternece McDaid and Gerald
Slane, for whose murders Nelson was initially charged. The charges were dropped
in exchange for his guilty plea.

    "The authorities have a duty to tell people what has been going on and end
all the covering up," said McDaid's widow, Maura.

    Guelke, meanwhile wants the matter resolved so he can return to South Africa
to continue his research.

    [Ed. note: article ends with Guelke wondering if it's OK to return to
     South Africa]