Log in

View Full Version : Chinese archives reveal IRA approaches seeking help for armed campaign



boiler
4th January 2014, 16:38
Chinese archives reveal IRA approaches seeking help for armed campaign
Seamus Costello’s overtures for assistance were stonewalled by Chinese authorities

On September 16th, 1964, Seamus Costello of the Irish Republican Army stood outside the door of the newly opened Chinese embassy in Paris, bearing a letter from the paramilitary organisation’s chief of staff, Cathal Goulding.
This letter was a remarkable document. It requested Chinese assistance in the “Irish struggle against British imperialist rule and to establish a democratic people’s republic”.
The IRA hoped Mao Zedong’s communists would provide arms and training as they had done in Africa and Asia.
The Chinese diplomat who answered the door said nothing, although he took the letter, for which he was later reprimanded and told not to accept such a communication in future.
Costello’s knock on the embassy door in Paris began a curious footnote to the power politics of the cold war, where Irish insurrectionists and the revolutionaries of closed, impoverished China circled each other.
The fascinating tale came in a blog posting by China scholar Chris Connolly, who uncovered the information six years ago while researching in the archives of the Chinese foreign ministry (see iti.ms/19FfGAW).

Ideological fervour
It is a story filled with the ideological fervour and intrigue of the era. The communists had been in power less than 15 years when Costello came calling in Paris, in visits that were to prove fruitless.
He made three approaches over the next five months, and his shopping list included requests for military aid, help with training for guerrilla warfare and coaching for IRA members in the use of printing presses for the distribution of propaganda materials.
When Costello asked to see the military attache, he was told the office did not have one. The Chinese stonewalled his requests, at which point Costello “expressed his disappointment and left”.
The embassy had opened earlier that year following French president Charles de Gaulle’s decision to break diplomatic relations with Chiang Kai-shek’s nationalist government in Taiwan and establish them with the People’s Republic of China.
Mao’s focus at the time was inward, on rebuilding after the disastrous failed agricultural reform of the Great Leap Forward, in which millions of people died of starvation.
“They did approach at a time when Chinese foreign policy was taking a radical turn, but in a direction even less favourable to the IRA getting any assistance from Beijing than had previously been the case,” says Connolly.
China would not have wished to become embroiled in a disorganised campaign against the British in Northern Ireland, as it would not have suited its international goals.
“Everyone knows Mao’s famous dictum that ‘political power comes from the barrel of a gun’, but few know that that is only half of what he said,” says Connolly.
“The full statement was: ‘Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Our principle is that the party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the party.’
“I think Mao would have recognised that the IRA was a military movement in search of a political base, not the other way round, and that to him was in no uncertain terms putting the cart before the horse.”

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/asia-pacific/chinese-archives-reveal-ira-approaches-seeking-help-for-armed-campaign-1.1643886

boiler
4th January 2014, 16:38
Here is a story from 1964. A mere few months following a dumping of arms order by the IRA in the wake of a failed Operation Harvest. Did the Volunteers run around in fear and hopelessness? Concede defeat? No. In this case Seamus Costello was sent to Paris seeking to build international links with the Chinese Government.

People would laugh now, they would laugh at a Republican making overtures to well armed, well trained and successful Maoist Revolutionaries or travelling to France or Germany to request foreign assistance and training for the Irish Struggle.

Costello was, according to the article, "stonewalled" by the Chinese who had no faith in the IRA's political struture or basis. Ten years later however the same "boy general" would launch a National Liberation Movement and no such questions could be asked of it, international links had been established.

Ta Power said "Life as a revolutionary offers no material rewards, no medals, only the joy of participating in the struggle for freedom. As individuals we only have a limited time to achieve this task”.

That is true and this experience of Seamus Costello should act as a guide for all those truly serious about participating in Struggle.

https://www.facebook.com/sean.maceachaidh.5

Os Cangaceiros
4th January 2014, 17:17
1964 would be right in between the "border campaign" and the renewal of the violence in the wake of the "Troubles", IIRC. By my understanding the IRA in the mid-60's were revising their strategy and were moving away from the "armed struggle" in favor of building a mass political movement (a tension which would ultimately manifest in the split between the Official IRA and the Provisional IRA), so it's kind of strange that they'd be banging down the door of the Chinese requesting training in guerrilla warfare. Although I guess the renewal of the armed struggle was always on the backburner during that time period.

What they failed to understand at that time was that Chinese foreign policy was primarily aimed at fucking over the USSR, the Cold War within the Cold War in the wake of the Sino-Soviet split, so there really was no practical foreign policy interest for China in supporting the IRA.

laoch na phoblacht
6th January 2014, 11:10
The split between the officials and the provos was not about violence v non-violence, it was about how to respond to renewed unionist violence. The officials didn't go on cease fire until 1972 (shame on them). The period after the border campaign was one of rearming and developing strategies.

It is worth noting that Goulding and Costello both ended up in the official movement whos were initially more ideologically leftist.

khad
6th January 2014, 13:16
What they failed to understand at that time was that Chinese foreign policy was primarily aimed at fucking over the USSR, the Cold War within the Cold War in the wake of the Sino-Soviet split, so there really was no practical foreign policy interest for China in supporting the IRA.
All Maoism boils down to is a cynical post-hoc rationalization of the twists and turns of Chinese policy as they prepared for an alliance with the US and UK.

Os Cangaceiros
6th January 2014, 21:33
The split between the officials and the provos was not about violence v non-violence, it was about how to respond to renewed unionist violence. The officials didn't go on cease fire until 1972 (shame on them). The period after the border campaign was one of rearming and developing strategies.

I don't really think that it was an issue of violence vs non-violence either, that's not really accurate. Cathal Goulding for example had an interest in bombs and guns and things of that nature. But at the same time he kind of embodied a new way of thinking within the IRA that began to believe that the problems in Northern Ireland weren't merely or primarily a "military question", which had been the mindset of earlier generations of the IRA, a mindset which would carry on in the legacy of the PIRA (which, in turn, would develop more and more of a political inclination as the decades wore on). The IRA at that time wasn't really "re-arming", although they had a good number of volunteers IIRC during the mid-60's, if they had been re-arming there wouldn't have been such a scramble for weaponry by the Official IRA of the likes which resulted in the Falls Road curfew, etc.

laoch na phoblacht
6th January 2014, 22:58
I don't really think that it was an issue of violence vs non-violence either, that's not really accurate. Cathal Goulding for example had an interest in bombs and guns and things of that nature. But at the same time he kind of embodied a new way of thinking within the IRA that began to believe that the problems in Northern Ireland weren't merely or primarily a "military question", which had been the mindset of earlier generations of the IRA, a mindset which would carry on in the legacy of the PIRA (which, in turn, would develop more and more of a political inclination as the decades wore on). The IRA at that time wasn't really "re-arming", although they had a good number of volunteers IIRC during the mid-60's, if they had been re-arming there wouldn't have been such a scramble for weaponry by the Official IRA of the likes which resulted in the Falls Road curfew, etc.

according to most volunteers rearming and training new volunteers was what they were doing. just because there was a scramble for arms doesn't mean they hadn't been rearming, by the time of the split they had up to date weapons. there was a move towards more than just military campaigns after the border campaign but that is not what caused the split, the split was over a disagreement about how to proceed with the struggle.

SensibleLuxemburgist
8th January 2014, 01:27
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/official-iras-terror-trip-to-north-korea-29760564.html

North Korea ended up having the guts China never had in arming and training the IRA which by this time was the pro-armed struggle Provisional IRA. By the looks of it, this attempt to gain North Korea's attention was during the back-end of the P-IRA struggle.

Overall, the most active foreign contributor to the PIRA struggle was Gaddafi's Libya which sent arms shipments very near to their front door although many were intercepted by the Irish Navy. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-12539372

laoch na phoblacht
8th January 2014, 12:02
I only ever heard of the stickies OIRA training in NK
Provos got a lot of guns from america as well as gadafi and of course the free state government sent a few north as well

Sixiang
9th January 2014, 00:12
Very interesting information. Thanks for posting.


What they failed to understand at that time was that Chinese foreign policy was primarily aimed at fucking over the USSR, the Cold War within the Cold War in the wake of the Sino-Soviet split, so there really was no practical foreign policy interest for China in supporting the IRA.
Not to mention that the PRC had much cooler relations with the UK in 1964 than with the US or USSR. By 1961 the UK was voting annually for the PRC to occupy the Chinese UN seat. Arming and training the IRA would have looked bad for the PRC if the UK were ever to find out. I also wonder how logistically the PRC would have been able to transport military equipment or soldiers between Ireland and China what with hostile countries in between in both directions.


http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/official-iras-terror-trip-to-north-korea-29760564.html

North Korea ended up having the guts China never had in arming and training the IRA which by this time was the pro-armed struggle Provisional IRA. By the looks of it, this attempt to gain North Korea's attention was during the back-end of the P-IRA struggle.

Overall, the most active foreign contributor to the PIRA struggle was Gaddafi's Libya which sent arms shipments very near to their front door although many were intercepted by the Irish Navy. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-12539372
That's very interesting as well. Thanks for posting it. :thumbup: