20.06.1996

The ‘luxury’ of openness

The Weekly Worker this week publishes in its entirety a document received via the offices of the Irish Republican Socialist Party. The document, from republican socialist political prisoners in Portlaoise Jail, ‘instructs’ us to apologise for printing an article (‘Historical reality’, Weekly Worker May 30) of which they disapprove. They allege that we were duped by British intelligence into publishing ‘disinformation’

First of all let us clear up one major inaccuracy in the comrades’ letter. ‘Historical reality’ did not “purport to represent the views of members of the IRSP” or claim to be a “statement from the IRSM”. It was received, and presented in our paper, as the point of view of one individual, who did not state his own connection to the movement. The Weekly Worker strongly disagrees with those views, but their publication did provoke an immediate response, signed Irish Republican Socialist Prisoners (see Weekly Worker June 6), which effectively rebutted some of them.

We do not know if those prisoners are the same ones who are now demanding that we apologise for printing ‘Historical reality’ and submit all future “letters, statements, comments, etc” regarding the Irish Republican Socialist Movement to the IRSP headquarters for vetting.

Comrades, the Weekly Worker is sent to all known Irish prisoners of war - both IRA and Irish National Liberation Army - in Britain, the Six Counties and the Irish Republic. We have printed many letters from prisoners over the years and we want to actively encourage real debate using the revolutionary method of open polemic. It may be that over the years we have unwittingly published a ‘contribution’ from British intelligence.

We do not think that ‘Historical reality’ falls into that category. To be frank, it was a very poor effort. The prisoners who described it in their reply as “a mish mash of political jargon that lacked form, structure or a coherent argument” were completely correct. In fact parts of the original were so completely incomprehensible that they had to be omitted altogether.

To have any chance of succeeding, disinformation has to be based to a large part on accepted fact and must be easily understood. We think that British intelligence would do rather better. To be credible, state agents would almost certainly pose as supporters of the leadership letting slip some ‘indiscretion’.

A classic example is the case of Malinovsky, a Tsarist agent provocateur within the Bolsheviks’ ranks. He became so well trusted and respected that he was nominated and elected as a Bolshevik deputy to the Tsar’s duma. When he was exposed, Lenin at first refused to believe that he was in fact a spy.

In this case we are puzzled as to how the Portlaoise prisoners can be so sure that the author of ‘Historical reality’ is a British agent. We did not state from which prison - in Britain or Ireland - the article was sent. Nevertheless, if the comrades think they have identified this individual (whose signature was illegible), they ought to say how they know he is linked to British intelligence. Otherwise a sceptic might conclude that they merely want to suppress views which they find unacceptable. The prisoners who instantly replied, easily rebutting those views, displayed a much more healthy attitude.

We cannot ensure that we never publish disinformation by submitting everything to the IRSP leadership. In fact the present leaders claim that some of their predecessors were themselves state agents. What if an Irish Malinovsky succeeds in penetrating to the very top of the organisation?

Ideas belong to no individual. They can be expressed by anyone, friend or foe. Their truth is established by testing them in the full light of day, not merely by linking them to the status of the person who puts them forward. ‘Historical reality’ expressed badly formulated and incorrect ideas, but it did us a service in at last provoking some genuine debate.

Everybody knows that there have been deep divisions within the Irish Republican Socialist Movement. But workers can only take sides if they are genuinely informed. The open expression of differences is a sign of strength, not weakness. It is a much better protection against disinformation than leadership vetting can ever be, because it cannot stand a chance of fooling anybody when the facts have been open for all to see.

It might be argued that in normal circumstances we may be correct. However, when the IRSP and Inla have been fighting for their very existence against murderous attacks from those who - objectively - are doing the work of British imperialism, can we afford the ‘luxury’ of openness?

We say: yes - even more so. At this time of crisis it is essential to put your case before the workers, to win them to defend you. Of course we do not advocate the disclosure of organisational or operational details. For them security is paramount. But the openness of ideas, in the long run, provides the best defence of all.

We hope that the leadership of the IRSP and Inla will repudiate the Portlaoise prisoners’ letter.

Jim Blackstock

Disinformation! - ‘Historical reality’

Please publish a short statement as soon as possible to the effect that:

In the Weekly Worker 145, May 30 1996, p3, we inadvertently published a letter from a ‘political prisoner’, which purported to represent the views of members of the IRSP. We published this letter in good faith, but, it has now been pointed out to us, and we fully accept, that this letter did not emanate from any member or supporter of the IRSM. We now accept that this letter, composed by an individual who has been linked to British intelligence by the IRSM, was written over the signature of a prisoner who is not even a member of the IRSP.

The Weekly Worker wishes to apologise to the IRSM, and to our readership, for this error, and hopes that this mistake on our part will serve as a warning to other groups not to accept, at face value, any alleged statements from the IRSM until their validity has been confirmed by the IRSP HQ in Belfast. ENDS

Please accept that in future all letters, statements, comments, etc should be cleared with the Belfast offices. This is an unfortunate situation, and we fully accept that the Weekly Worker was the unwitting victim, and was merely used as a conduit for disinformation by British intelligence.

Please confirm the authenticity of this, and future correspondence, with our Belfast HQ.

RS POWs
Portlaoise Jail