Let’s have the whole truth about the Hunger Strike
It is encouraging to read (April 7) that Danny Morrison welcomed the newly-released Freedom of Information documents which show that the British government made an offer to end the hunger strike on July 5 1981, three days before hunger striker Joe McDonnell died.
However, the news of this offer reflects badly on the 1981 prison OC, ‘Bik’ McFarlane, who has consistently said that there was ‘no offer whatsoever’.
Whatever possessed Bik to say that in the first place is beyond me as Danny has always admitted the existence of the offer.
This debilitating fracture, which runs right down the spine of the conventional hunger strike story, can only but cast grave doubts on anything Bik McFarlane has said in the past while adding considerable weight to my assertion that he and I accepted the offer and that the outside leadership rejected our acceptance.
In the Freedom of Information documents, it is confirmed that Thatcher approved the offer from No10 Downing Street, but ?they [the PIRA] did not regard it as satisfactory and that they wanted a good deal more?.
As well as that, the documents state that the republican negotiators, Gerry Adams and Danny Morrison, changed their minds when the British warned that they were going to pull the plug on the process, and that this threat: ?produced a very rapid reaction which suggested that it was not the content of the message which they had objected to but only the tone?.
This begs some questions which Adams and Morrison must answer:
– Do they agree with this interpretation?
– If they do, why did they not inform the prison leadership, the hunger strikers, their families, and the Blanketmen about this enormous volte-face?
– If only a Parius softer’ tone stood between hunger strikers living or dying, why did they not make the most strenuous efforts to agree language with the British?
– How is it that the last six hunger strikers died – if there was no fundamental disagreement between them and the British on what constituted a settlement?
Perhaps Adams and Morrison do not agree with the British interpretation of events, as shown in the documents.
If this is the case, why then would Danny ‘welcome’ the documents and say that they ‘corroborated’ his account of events?
– Why are the NIO still blocking the release of information about the hunger strike?
– Is Gerry Adams ever going to break his silence about all this, and give republicans his version of events?
I call on the British to release all documents which they appear to have withheld, including the communications between themselves and Adams and Morrison.
Irish News, letters, 09/04/2009
Sourced from Slugger O’Toole