Martin
McGuinness attended the funeral of Denis Faul on
Friday. Hours earlier in the Times of London,
Dean Godson, author of the erudite tome, Himself
Alone, claimed that five years ago Faul had
expressed the belief to him that McGuinness was
an agent of the British state. The timing was unfortunate
for the Sinn Fein man, not only because it must
have been embarrassing to walk in the cortege of
a man who held him in such low esteem, but also
because the previous evening McGuinness had robustly
refuted similar allegations against him on BBC's
Let's Talk programme. While Eoghan Harris
in this week's Sunday Independent reported
on the latest revelation it seems unlikely that
the matter will be rekindled unless something substantive
emerges. Still, a few uncomfortable moments must
have been endured by the prominent Derry nationalist.
If
ever one could have predicted almost verbatim a
question to be asked on Let's Talk it was
the one about McGuinness's alleged role as a British
agent. On this occasion, in contrast to the opening
days of the controversy McGuinness was on the balls
of his feet, pugnacious and persuasive. His fellow
panellists, in their own peculiar ways, offered
comments that suggested they were no more convinced
by the accusation than most other people. McGuinness
dismissed the accusations as lies and his main accuser,
Martin Ingram, as wholly discredited. Ingram, according
to McGuinness was nameless and faceless, therefore
unworthy of belief. This broadside against Ingram
would probably carry more weight were it not for
P O'Neill possessing similar attributes. Yet Martin
McGuinness thinks he is credible kind of guy.
McGuinness
denouncing Ingram as a liar must have the same effect
as, say, Ian Paisley dismissing Willie McCrea as
a Protestant. Ingram it seems is genuine in his
belief that the substance of his allegation is true
but he has an enormous amount of heavy lifting to
do before others will come to share that belief.
Because of its previous mendacity Sinn Fein has
felt compelled to come up with novel forms of denial;
fresh language, through such protestations of innocence
do not prompt people to say, 'here we go again,
tripe about securocrats.'
In
one sense Martin McGuinness has been fortunate.
By not insisting it is a securocrat plot - difficult
enough to do when just about every securocrat has
come to his defence - McGuinness has come up with
an explanation that is plausible i.e. that elements
within the DUP determined to ensure that a power
sharing executive remains in cold storage, are spreading
malicious rumours strategically designed to destabilise.
In
identifying elements within the DUP, however, McGuinness
is only partly right. Arguably, he has correctly
identified the right party but the wrong elements
within it. It is not those opposed to a DUP-Sinn
Fein deal who are said to be have been behind the
whispering campaign, but people situated at the
heart of the DUP deal making lobby, the very people
McGuinness thinks want to share power with him if
they can only face down the 'Taliban' wing.
McGuinness
has pointed to the Willie McCrea February statement
in the British House of Commons to sustain his case.
McCrea asked his party and parliamentary colleague
Peter Robinson: 'will he ask the Secretary of State
to look into the suggestion that one of the leading
members of the IRA and the army council, Martin
McGuinness, has been a paid British agent for a
long time?'
Quite
plausibly McCrea and the Free Presbyterian wing
do not want a deal. Does this mean the rumours about
McGuinness are being disseminated to prevent a deal?
Far from it. McCrea here was only the messenger,
not the source of the message. An alternative explanation
would contend that the deal makers are intent on
striking a deal but it is much easier to sell it
throughout the party and the wider Unionist electorate
if Paisley is first minister alongside a Sinn Fein
deputy first minister who has no IRA pedigree. The
DUP can then bellow that to all intents and purposes
it has defeated the IRA. What unionist would really
feel threatened by a Paisley-Ruane led government?
The
intention of those within the DUP behind the slur
is to undermine McGuinness so much within his own
ranks that only the boldest would risk suggesting
him as deputy first minister. Or alternatively,
by forcing any defence of his integrity to be mounted
on the ground of his military credentials, the DUP
can proclaim that its electorate would simply not
allow it to sit in government with such a figure.
It
is not beyond the bounds of probability that it
has already been signalled to the DUP from some
of McGuinness's close colleagues that if Martin
is an obstacle some way of removing him can always
be found. If he has not realised by now that this
is the house style of some close confederates he
should seriously ask himself does he have the political
nous to operate at such a high political level.
All
of this may not augur well for McGuinness's political
career. But, for a deal between the DUP and Sinn
Fein, the signs are not ominous. Spreading the rumours
against him is designed to make a deal easier not
harder.
