We had planned on saying little about the death of Charles Haughey, RIP, but the obituary in the New York Times calls for clarification:
But as prime minister, unfazed by his anti-British reputation, he negotiated with Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher on the future of Northern Ireland and supported the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985, which gave Dublin a consultative role in Ulster (sic).
Besides the clumsy phrasing that leaves the impression that he was directly involved in negotiating the Anglo-Irish Agreement, this is flat out wrong. Fianna Fail, in oppposition, opposed the agreement and since then have sought to downgrade its role as an, er, stepping stone, for the agreements that followed. This opposition to policies that they would later support when back in government also marked their economic policies. But it's bizarre that the NYT would get the Agreement position so wrong, when it's remembered by everyone who was paying attention at the time. Today's statements recall it (Irish Times, subs. req'd):
Current SDLP leader Mark Durkan said Mr Haughey was directly involved in incubating and cultivating the earliest prospects for a peace process.
"That is a something that has never been properly acknowledged by those who disparaged him for other things," he said.
Mr Durkan said Mr Haughey was a "landmark figure" in Irish political life over the last half century. "When he became taoiseach in 1979, he advocated a new British-Irish approach to the North's problems, and he took the founding steps to achieve this. Among his paradoxes was the fact that he then opposed the Anglo-Irish Agreement when in opposition in 1985," he said.
An overall friendly statement, appropriate for the mourning period, that still gets the facts right.
UPDATE: Haughey's opposition to the Anglo-Irish Agreement is also noted in this Irish Times overview, which makes clear its role in the formation of the splinter Progressive Democrats.
No comments:
Post a Comment