You remember Jo Moore, the aide-cum-spin doctor to former British minister Stephen Byers? The woman who suggested September 11 2001 was a good day to release any controversial information her ministry wanted buried? These days with wall to wall coverage of the war in Iraq it's worth keeping a close watch on the NIO to see what they're slipping out. Sure enough, last Thursday as the war began, the NIO leaked to BBC Northern Ireland the British proposals for demilitarisation here. BBCNI could rely on poor Ian Og, always game for a laugh, to jerk his right knee on cue, but otherwise the story sank without trace just as whoever leaked it had planned. It's now a non-story. Mission accomplished.
Do you notice a crucial difference between leaks here and in the Republic or Britain? In the south and in Britain it's normally politicians who leak information to advance their own political agenda. In the north, on the other hand, it's normally officials who leak information, sometimes, as in the late nineties, because they oppose government plans, more often, as last week, to prepare the ground for government policy.
Why should there be this difference? Very simple: our proconsul and his colleagues whom you would be unable to name or number, have 'no selfish, strategic or economic interest' here. Peter Brooke, a Tory proconsul, told us that more than a decade ago. His Labour successors agree. Brooke's statement was merely a public enunciation of what has been the case since 1972. There are no votes here for any British minister. They have no personal stake in events on the ground. Ministers sent over here are just politicians on the make. Indeed, because no one in Westminster cares what happens here, they can survive events which would cause a minister to resign from any other British government department.
This state of affairs confers inordinate power on officials. It means officials make and drive policy as well as implement it. Take the matter in question, demilitarisation. Do you think any British minister could drive you to Ballykinlar or point to Thiepval barracks on a map? Do you think any British minister has an idea of the political pros and cons of closing particular military bases other than what officials have told them? If it were the Republic or Britain, however, the relevant minister would be consulting the local TD or MP before making any proposals of such a nature and calculating the political effect on his own local party.
Here by contrast local parties find themselves reacting to proposals drafted by almost exclusively pro-union civil servants and British officers and rubber-stamped by British ministers. Yet parties play along with the game. They react as though proposals come from ministers just as in a normal political system – in the Republic or Britain. In this respect Sinn Féin has been more accurate than other parties when they blame the delay in demilitarisation on 'securocrats' who have sold ministers the line that watch towers in south Armagh are indispensable. Let's face it, if you were an English MP in the British administration here and an official told you a watch tower at Drummuckavall overlooking Ballybinaby was essential for national security, your only conclusion would be that it sounds so preposterous the official couldn't be making it up. The tower's code name, G20, makes it sound more sensible to English ears, but could you express an opinion on its value?
That's why you can't remember the last time a minister appeared on TV or radio to defend the detail of a decision by the British administration. They can waffle about the peace process, but when it comes down to specifics they haven't a clue. Any interviewer could tie a minister in knots by simply referring to geography. The ignorance of the politicians in the British administration also explains why they never, ever appear on the media with local politicians to defend a decision: general discussions yes, but why A and not B, definitely no.
The obvious conclusion is that a native administration must be preferable. It's not as simple as that though. Matters concerning the British army and other security issues will remain beyond the ken of Irish politicians. So who came up with 5,000 as the lowest number of army personnel stationed here after 2006? Who decided which barracks would be retained? A British minister, or a pro-union official or military officer who presented the details for rubber-stamping?
