Concern about peace process – from foes of the process
September 1, 2011
I READ with disbelief the Aug. 23 op-ed “Fishing in BC’s archives’’ by Ed Moloney and Anthony McIntyre. I do not dispute that fishing is what the servers of the subpoenas on Boston College are doing or the political motivation behind it.
But for Moloney and McIntyre to express concern that the peace process could be damaged and undermined is breath- taking.
Both have publicly and vehemently opposed the peace process, and have attacked Sinn Fein’s president, Gerry Adams, and others for their role in bringing an end to armed conflict.
McIntyre has written that he left the Republican Movement at the endorsement of the Good Friday Agreement.
The reference to “irredentist elements opposed to the Good Friday Agreement [wanting to] bring down aspects of the peace process they abhor’’ is particularly disingenuous since both these men have been at the forefront of these very elements in their own writings for years.
The writer is Sinn Fein’s representative to the United States.
Argument against BC subpoena doesn’t hold up
September 1, 2011
RE “FISHING in BC’s archives’’ (Op-ed, Aug. 23): Ed Moloney and Anthony McIntyre have every right to protest on ethical grounds against efforts by the British to subpoena Boston College to hand over part of its archives. These archives – a project that both men administered on behalf of the college – contain potentially incriminating taped evidence by Irish Republican Army volunteers about unresolved killings during the Irish conflict.
But for Moloney and McIntyre to claim that the release of the material “could be immensely destructive to the peace process in Northern Ireland’’ and that the subpoena appears aimed at damaging Gerry Adams and Sinn Fein’s “remarkable electoral comeback in the general election in the Republic of Ireland’’ is rank hypocrisy.
This claim is undermined by Moloney’s having published a book based on the testimony of one of the project participants, the late IRA volunteer Brendan Hughes, the thrust of which was to damage Adams, according to many respected historians, reviewers, and commentators.
In fact, Moloney is contradicting himself, because his mantra was to berate other Irish journalists for putting the peace process before their duty. He accused journalists of not challenging Adams and Sinn Fein over their shortcomings and alleged links with the IRA regardless of what effect their reporting would have on the fledgling power-sharing institutions.
Nor is it believable for either Moloney or McIntyre or some at Boston College to claim that their lives would be in danger from the IRA were these archives to be released. Moloney never balked at that prospect when he published his book, and McIntyre has often goaded Adams and the republican leadership for having sold out.
The writer is a former member of the IRA.