A Very British Jihad: Collusion, Conspiracy and Cover-Up in Northern Ireland by Paul Larkin Review by: Adrian Guelke Fortnight, No. 425 (May, 2004), p. 24 Published by: Fortnight Publications Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25561179 . Accessed: 23/05/2014 10:03 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. . Fortnight Publications Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Fortnight. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 137.108.145.45 on Fri, 23 May 2014 10:03:10 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions I Fortnight MAY 2004 AAdrian Guelke books K A FLAWED ACCOUNT *; OF WHY I WAS SHOT A Very British Jihad: collusion, conspiracy and cover-up in Northern Ireland By Paul Larkin Beyond the Pale ISBN: 1-9900960-25-7 Paul Larkin is a television journalist who made a series of programmes for the BBC Northern Ireland current affairs slot, Spotlight. The book draws on the research he did at the time for these programmes, but also contains much new material as a result of further research he carried out since. The very first programme he made was on the murder of the lawyer, Pat Finucane. This was in February 1989. It is therefore not surprising that the question of collusion looms large in Larkin's book. Though Larkin does recognise that it is impossible to treat the British state as if every member of it is of a single mind, his allegations of collusion go much further than suggesting that individual police officers and members of military intelligence were implicated in collusion with loyalist paramilitaries. This is where the case made by Larkin runs into problems and I'll illustrate the point by examining his discussion of my case. In September 1991 I was shot by the Ulster Freedom Fighters (UFF). I did not realise at the time that the people who had broken into my house in the early hours of the morning were loyalists. Indeed, as I lay in my hospital bed after the operation to *remove the one bullet that had struck me, I imagined that my assailants had been republicans. This was because I had received a threatening letter after writing a piece in the Irish Independent. This was on the subject, as it happens, of allegations of an inner circle in the RUC colluding with loyalists. My scepticism about these allegations had upset the letter-writer(s). I was disabused of the notion that republicans were responsible when a police officer appeared at my bedside with a statement issued by the UFF. This asserted that the UFF had shot me in the belief that I was an IRA intelligence officer. It also claimed that 'my' activities were known to M15, Interpol and Mossad. The alarming implication of this piece of news was that the UFF would try again to kill me in the hospital. The RUC took this threat seriously enough to move me to a private ward and to provide me with bodyguards. MURRAY Fortunately for me, the UDA - and hence the UFF - quickly realised that it had made a mistake, largely thanks to the work done by the journalist, Alan Murray. Murray discovered that the information contained in the UFF statement did come from a security-force file, but about somebody else. Let's call him Mr X. But it wasn't a straightforward case of mistaken identity. I had been deliberately targeted by an agent of South African Military Intelligence. This agent had somehow got hold of the security-force file about Mr X and then changed the details, inserting my name and address. He had then shown the file to the loyalists. The switching of names part of the story does not appear in Larkin's book. To my consternation, it isn't even made clear that I am not a republican, which is extraordinarily irresponsible of Larkin in the circumstances. However, he does just about manage to convey the impression to the reader that there was South African involvement and that the reason I was shot had something to do with my being 'an enemy of apartheid'. (I should mention in parenthesis that while I was indeed opposed to apartheid, I was not a member of the ANC. Exactly why South African Military Intelligence was so keen to kill me is still not entirely evident.) The problem for Larkin is that my case hardly demonstrates the intimate level of collusion that he wishes to suggest existed among the loyalists, elements of the security forces and the apartheid regime. Larkin claims that Brian Nelson, the UDA intelligence officer with both security-force and South African connections, had a role in supplying information about the file at the heart of my case. This seems highly improbable. Had the UDA had access to the file about Mr X, then it would have been impossible for the agent of South African Military Intelligence to exploit his contacts with the loyalists to get me shot. The UFF would have realised from the outset that I was not Mr X. What is more, the readiness of an agent of South African Military Intelligence to behave in this way hardly pointed to a durable relationship between apartheid South Africa and the loyalists. RELATIONSHIP It was not the only indication of the opportunistic and instrumental nature of their relationship. When three loyalists were arrested in Paris in April 1989 in the company of a South African diplomat, in the subsequent court case the French judge treated the loyalists leniently. He did so because what they had been handing over to the diplomat was just a display model of a Shorts missile and not anything that could have been of any value to the South African military. In addition, my case also hardly suggests that the security forces had a complete picture of what the loyalists were up to, since the British authorities would hardly have had an interest in allowing me to be shot if they had had any advance knowledge of the UFF operation. (I was told that the first theory the police developed after my shooting, before the UFF statement but after they had established that loyalists were responsible, was that I had been a target because of my public support for the Anglo-Irish Agreement and because my wife's first name was Brigid!) Larkin's interpretation of many of the other episodes he describes in his book is just as open to argument, to put the matter mildly. In particular, he does not take on board the fact that prosecutions of people involved in collusion point not to widespread collusion but rather the opposite, since if collusion had been routine practice the state would hardly have been in a position to have punished those responsible. The obvious defence of anyone prosecuted for crimes while engaged in collusive activity would have been to implicate those higher up. This is in fact what exposed the activities of assassination squads within the security forces in South Africa. This is not to underestimate the damage that the issue of collusion has done to the reputation of the government or the security forces. However, I would surmise that what has done most damage has been their inclination after the event to cover up failings of control, so as to avoid embarrassment. This has allowed critics such as Larkin to assume the very worst. One final point should be made about Larkin's book. Its lack of an index is going to frustrate many readers. Indeed, the absence of an index makes the book almost unusable, given the huge cast of characters involved in the various episodes he discusses. That is perhaps just as well considering the amount of f o o l i s h innuendo the book about a number of prominent fisures in 4- h5 i s t _ soity. _ ! A rW ; {Ei:S:tt E I PAGE 24 | This content downloaded from 137.108.145.45 on Fri, 23 May 2014 10:03:10 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions