Questions for Republicans over Kingsmill: Is “Whatever You Say, Say Nothing” an adequate response?

When he heard about the massacre, Patrick Casey, a member of the IRA in South Armagh said  “I remember my feeling was one of horror when I heard the details. Nothing could justify this holocaust of unfortunate Protestants.”

Casey was speaking about the shooting dead of 6 Protestants by the IRA in Altnaveigh.

That was in 1922. Altnaveigh is about 6 miles from Kingsmill, where 10 Protestants were shot dead by the IRA – 54 years later.

As Danny Morrison (Director of Publicity) for Sinn Fein (SF) during the Troubles could reasonably argue, it was a bit of a nonsense for those commemorating the glories of the IRA in the South in the early part of the 20th century to suggest that “Our violence was good, yours bad” when they were commenting on the IRA in the latter part of the century.

Whatever your view on how good, or how bad, the old and the new IRA were,  these two appalling episodes demonstrate just how difficult it is to conduct an Irish Republican war against the British State in the North – without it descending at some stage into horrible sectarianism.

Kingsmill, if not the worst mass killing of civilians during the Troubles – then arguably the worst by Republicans.  Not just nakedly sectarian and falling outside the IRA’s own declared policy of only attacking legitimate targets – but an atrocity the IRA has never admitted responsibility for – never mind apologised for.

In admitting to other mass killings of civilians, the IRA did offer apologies and explanations for what went wrong, for example:

• with La Mon where the IRA claimed there was a problem with the timing of the warning.
• with Enniskillen where the IRA claimed it was the timing of the bomb.
• with Bloody Friday where the IRA blamed the Security forces for not dealing with IRA warnings in a timely fashion.

Whilst Republicans at the time categorised these mass killings as damaging mistakes, most people in Ireland (North and South) would likely view them – at best – as being the result of a disastrous bombing campaign in civilian areas that showed a reckless disregard for innocent lives.

But the Kingsmill killings contrast sharply with these (and other ) mass killings of civilians by the IRA, in that the Kingsmill operation was not a mistake – but a well planned operation which was deemed a military success.

The South Armagh Republican activist Peter John Caraher noted “It was sad that those people [at Kingsmill] had to die, but I’ll tell you something, it stopped any more Catholics being killed”.  Colin Worton, whose brother, Kenneth, was killed in the massacre, said “Kingsmill did stop Catholics being killed in South Armagh, but that doesn’t justify it“.

(It should be noted that Toby Harnden, whose book Bandit Country: The IRA and South Armagh  was widely acclaimed, found that  IRA members in South Armagh generally condemned the massacre.)

Whilst many/most Unionists will reject any notion of the validity of the IRA’s legitimate targets argument, for many Nationalists and certainly most Republicans, the legitimacy of the actions of the IRA rests in part upon the idea of their being relatively more selective in their targeting than Loyalists were during the Troubles.

And so Kingsmill, understandably, continues to be a very sensitive subject for the IRA and SF – and not just just because former senior members of the IRA remain within the Party but also because SF rely, to some degree, on the war against the British being seen to have been justified – given the huge amount of (shared) responsibility Republicans have for the death and destruction that ensued.

Whilst it may be fair to suggest that the Nationalist view of how the IRA conducted itself during the Troubles is unlikely to win SF many votes – it does have the potential to cost them votes – especially in the South. Dáil exchanges clearly show that whenever Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael are challenged on their political morality by SF or they fear losing their electoral grip, they will often point to SF’s uneasy relationship with law and order during (and in some cases after) the Troubles.

In the North, where SF party loyalty is stronger, criticism from Unionists (some of whom had their own uneasy relationship with law order), probably has less of an impact.

And so the battle to control the Troubles narrative rages on decades after the conflict has mostly gone away. in August 2022 when Michelle O’Neill (SF Deputy Leader) suggested in a BBC interview that “there was no alternative” to IRA violence that battle came into sharp relief with Unionists expressing outrage and Colin Worton (referenced above) telling the BBC “It is really hard to listen to her, Michelle O’Neill, I am not surprised at what she said, but it is very sickening”

And yet, with the war long over and despite the passage of so much time, the IRA, which now exists in a much reduced format (the Residuals), still refuses to admit the IRA’s involvement in the Kingsmill killings. Yet, the evidence is clear.

The coroner, Judge Sherrard, who investigated the killings for 8 years concluded in the inquest  in April 2024 that:

Shortly after the attack the so-called South Armagh Republican Action Force claimed responsibility for it. That was a lie. The attack was carried out by the IRA operating under the authority of the Army Council which had, in April 1975, given wide authorisation to IRA units. It was sophisticated and complex, involving multiple individuals in its planning and execution.

The attack, while ostensibly in direct response to the murderous attacks on the Reavey and O’Dowd families by loyalist terrorists on the evening of 4 January 1976, was not spontaneous but had been planned well in advance. The IRA failed to engage with the Inquest. There has been no acknowledgement by the IRA of the utter wrongness of the atrocity, its impact on those bereaved or the damage caused to the entire community.

Kingsmill was an overtly sectarian attack by the IRA. It was mounted because the deceased men were Protestants and for no other reason.

In a further pointed comment directed at  the IRA and SF for their lack of cooperation with the inquest the coroner noted that:

Unlike other legacy inquests which have examined the actions of the state in directly causing death, those responsible for the deaths at Kingsmill have not given an account either personally or through any organisation or any political party.

In his response to the lack of Republican cooperation with the inquest, Alan Black, the one survivor of the attack, said “but gunmens not going to put their head on the line…turkeys don’t vote for Christmas“.

And Alan Black is dead right. Anyone in the IRA who admitted involvement in the killings would likely be arrested and sent to prison (albeit for 2 years) given that the previous Conservative British Government’s amnesty legislation will not now be implemented.

So without incriminating anyone in the IRA – why don’t Republicans admit the IRA’s involvement, the role of the IRA Army council in it, the thinking behind the attack and their attitude to it’s successful execution. Why is there no apology from Republicans to the lone survivor and the victims’ families?

None of the explanation and answers for the above required or requires a sophisticated British administered legacy process in the North for the IRA and or SF (on their behalf) to make truthful disclosures which don’t incriminate former or current members of the IRA.

Presumably, as with the killings in Altnaveigh (which were also never admitted by the IRA), the Republican thinking is that if we wait long enough, it will all go away? In the interim, the waters will continue to be muddied as debunked conspiracy theories swirl around about the involvement of Robert Nairac and others – and the waters further muddied as the Police’s role in the investigation comes into question and the murky operations of informers are examined.

And as ever, in these matters, there is always whataboutery to fall back on –  the British haven’t come clean on collusion etc – So Whatever You Say, Say Nothing.

Of course, Unionists (and the British) could rather uncomfortably point out that the British did come clean on their own worst atrocity against civilians during the Troubles with the 2nd Bloody Sunday enquiry.

Does this make Kingsmill, “it wasn’t us Guv”  the Republican Widgery stance? It certainly looks a bit like it – and that’s not a good look – especially if you are claiming to be a good Republican.

Given that the Republican movement doesn’t generally listen to Unionists or the British in these matters, it would be nice to think that the pressure on the Republican movement to admit and explain their involvement in Kingsmill might come from Nationalists – and perhaps rank and file Republicans themselves? That Nationalists, like myself, and in whose name – the uniting of Ireland – Republican violence was carried out – might expect better from the Republicans leadership?

If Republicans want to persuade the many they need to persuade (especially in the North) of  the merit of the Republican vision  “To unite the whole people of Ireland: to abolish the memory of all past dissension; and to substitute the common name of Irishmen in place of the denomination of Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter” – then being dragged in denial before a future Public Enquiry into Kingsmill  – where they might be compelled to give evidence would also not be a good look.

…and those who are sceptical of the Republican Movement’s suitability to promote that vision and sceptical that the Republican Movement is serious about reconciliation and dealing fairly with the past – may well remain sceptical with the denials of Altnaveigh being repeated by the denials of Kingsmill.

…remember – one thing we all share on the island of Ireland – is long memories.

So should we expect that the words of Gerry Kelly (SF’s Policing spokesman) might actually mean something when he suggested after the inquest that “The Kingsmill families are entitled to truth and justice.” ?

As Gerry Adams said after the Bloody Sunday verdict:

“Today is a day for the families of those killed and those injured on Bloody Sunday.

“They have campaigned for 38 years for the truth and for justice.

“They have campaigned for the British government to end their policy of cover-up and concealment.”

So Gerry, et al, please take note – the same principle of truth and justice and ending cover-up and concealment applies to Kingsmill – the Kingsmill families deserve that just as much as the Bloody Sunday families did – and surely all good Republicans would agree with that?

Sin é.