February 16, 2011
By Staff Reporter
The quiet Twelfth hoped for by many within the political arena, and predicted by much of the media, failed to materialize. Riots erupted after loyalists were able to march past the Ardoyne shops.
The omens were not good on Monday morning, July 12. As Orangemen marched through the Ardoyne on their way to Belfast city center, Martin Morgan, a member of the SDLP — a party that sits on the Policing Board, was warning that PSNI would flout the Parades Commission ruling that barred loyalist “supporters” from taking the return route home later that evening.
The Ulster Unionist’s Fred Cobain — a policing board member — labeled Morgan’s comments as “infantile.” Morgan was, sadly, right on the money.
After a day of drinking, about 300 loyalists were marshaled back through the area by police and British troops. They passed through a steel cordon that separated them from the nationalist residents of the Ardoyne.
Nationalists surged toward PSNI and army lines when it became apparent that the police had chosen to ignore the Parades Commission’s ruling. Bottles, stones and golf balls were hurled and army land rovers were jostled as nationalist youths, ignoring the pleading of senior republicans for calm, took out their anger on the security forces.
Sinn Fein’s Gerry Kelly and IRA spymaster Bobby Storey had taken to the streets to urge calm. Kelly was heard on radio arguing with young nationalists. While he had some success in preventing youths from approaching the loyalist Glenbryn area, he was unable to prevent them from attacking soldiers and police.
Republicans marshals reportedly intervened with rioters to prevent assaults on individual PSNI officers and soldiers.
For the previous two years Kelly and other senior republicans had stopped things from getting out of hand. PSNI assistant chief constable Alan McQuillan had predicted in 2002 that nationalists were gearing up for a confrontation with Orangemen and the security forces. He said nationalists were stockpiling various missiles in preparation for a street battle. The subsequent restraint exercised by residents and onlookers was welcomed by Sinn Fein as a moral victory for nationalists. Republicans claimed that the PSNI was guilty of unnecessarily ratcheting up tensions.
Last week’s rioting, while perhaps drawing attention to the fact that the Parades Commission ruling had been ignored by PSNI, meant that the majority of headline writers were able to paint the event as an unprovoked attack on the police and army. The disturbances were also linked to the tragic death by heart attack of a pensioner living in the area.
The unionist Newsletter ran with “What a Shame”; the Irish Times said, “Twelfth Marred by Violence”; the Irish Independent led with “Parade Leads to Violent Clashes?” and the BBC headlined. “Officers Injured as Troubles Flares.”
The political fallout from the disturbances will cause difficulties for both Sinn Fein and the SDLP.
Sinn Fein, keen to do a deal with the DUP as soon as possible, had hoped for a quiet summer. Integral to any deal will be Sinn Fein’s acceptance of the new policing regime in the North. Convincing the young nationalists of Ardoyne that it is in their best interests to join PSNI will be nearly impossible given what happened in the Ardoyne.
Perhaps more worryingly for republicans is the fact that respected and experienced figures such as Kelly and Storey were seemingly ignored by the rioters.
Cynics may argue that Sinn Fein officials were playing up for the cameras and that the odd riot may help create the impression that the party is not ultimately responsible for what happens on the streets. However, it can also be argued that to do so would mean Sinn Fein is prepared to undermine its credibility with young nationalists by coming to the rescue of the hated British troops. It’s unlikely that the party would take such a risk. Dissident republican organizations, though small, could conceivably tap into disquiet among Sinn Fein’s ranks. The party would not have urged restraint had it not thought it would ultimately benefit its own interests and those of the residents.
The SDLP is also in a quandary. It moved at the early stages of policing reform to lend its support to PSNI. It joined the Policing Board and nominated members to the local district policing partnerships.
The SDLP’s Morgan said last week that the party may have to reconsider its membership of the Board in light of PSNI’s handling of the march.
Party leader Mark Durkan, meanwhile, moved to distance himself from the suggestion of SDLP resignations.
“There are bigger issues here at stake than just whether or not the SDLP take a particular attitude in relation to policing overall based on what we believe was a mismanaged situation yesterday,” he said on Tuesday, July 13. “We are on the Policing Board to hold the police to account for their performance and we will be holding the police to account for their performance.”
Morgan’s comments have been criticized by a senior nationalist member of the Policing Board. Independent member and former SDLP vice-chairman Tom Kelly has said the remarks were “regrettable in both tone and content.”
“It would appear that along with reactionary unionists and republicans, Martin has found common ground in expecting people to act irresponsibly and recklessly by resigning,” he said. “To what end would resignations be helpful?
“By asking nationalist people to consider their positions on District Policing Partnerships, and logically one has to conclude the Policing Board, he appears to have forgotten a basic rule of politics, which says you can only resign once so you must make sure it counts. Resigning is all too easy an option. It is one-hour media wonder — the real problem about resigning is how you get back on board without looking stupid?
“If political relevance is to be proved through withdrawal from DPPs and or the Policing Board it will be a signal of the level of political bankruptcy that appears to be emerging from some quarters.”