The expression “on mature recollection” has been a bit tainted since it was used by Brian Lenihan Sr used it about a phone call he said he hadn’t made and then remembered he had. So I hope I won’t find myself in the same sort of bother as the unfortunate Brian Sr when I say that on mature, not so much recollection as reflection, I’m a bit less satisfied with the Smithwick report and with the Nelson Mandela press than I should be.
The Smithwick report first. I haven’t read it but like most other people I’ve accepted Smithwick’s conclusion that there was a garda mole in Dundalk Garda Station who tipped off the IRA so they could ambush Superintendent Buchanan and Chief Superintendent Harry Breen. But then it turns out that the judge can’t actually point to a mole but says it’s probable there was one. In other words, he’s not sure. But the headlines don’t include such ambiguities. Firmly lodged in the public mind now is that there definitely was a mole in Dundalk,and that said mole tipped off the IRA. That’s how the report was spun from the start, along with the culture of collusion line. Whatever about the second, the first looks like something that is drawing its conclusion based on insubstantial evidence. As I say, I haven’t read the report but from what I know, it’s beginning to smell a bit funny. And you’ll notice that the report was welcomed by unionism and essentially rejected by the gardaí. Go figger.
Now for Nelson Mandela. Taken as a man, it’s near-impossible not to be impressed by him. He was clearly someone who didn’t let the years of incarceration and the years of arrogant apartheid make him bitter. On the contrary, he made every effort to find reconciliation with his former enemies. Leave aside his views and actions on violence: did he deliver the kind of South Africa that most impoverished blacks were hoping for? The answer is no. It’s a bit like Obama in the White House: black people feel proud that one of their own has made it to the top (cf the Irish and JFK), but the role of blacks in US society remains the same – for some their lot has improved but for many it stays stuck in poor educational attainment, higher percentage in prison than whites, great poverty. Likewise Mandela did much, but the picture of him as a man who lived a life dedicated to peace and a man who transformed South African society, changing the lives of millions of black South Africans – it’s a myth. A nice myth but a myth.
I hate coming to these kinds of conclusions. They’re not the way these stories should end, if the world were more like a feel-good movie. But it’s not.
First may I say I am on Chapter 18 of the Smithwick Report and I would advise that this fascinating and thorough document should be read as it tells the real story of how it all works. Smithwick was very forthright and deserves great credit? If you read the document you might understand why the Garda might reject the report.
Nelson Mandela was intending to move the great bulk of the black population out of grinding poverty but was advised that he could not do it all. Internal and inward investment would not be forthcoming for that dream. He focused on what he could deliver, to destroyed apartheid and to unite South Africa. It’s up to other leaders to emerge and deliver a better South Africa for the marginalized.
Jude
As Dan has said you should really read the report, or as much of it as you can get time for.
It is fascinating and Smithwick explains his reasoning quite thoroughly. You may still end up thinking it smells fishy, but at least you would know why.