A series of speeches delivered by the then taoiseach, Charles Haughey in the United States on Northern Ireland in April 1988 angered the British prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, according to previously confidential files released today in Belfast. The documents also reveal Haughey’s suspicions that the British were conspiring with his domestic political opponents against him, only to be told he “should forget this fantasy” by the British ambassador.
The American speeches were the subject of a follow-up visit to Mr Haughey by the British ambassador, Sir Nicholas Fenn, on April 26th, 1988. In a report to the British foreign secretary, Sir Geoffrey Howe, Fenn noted that the visit was at Haughey’s request. The taoiseach “had been irritated” by reports of Fenn’s earlier representations of his US tour. Haughey told Fenn that his US visit had been “a complete success in diverting the support of the Irish-American community away from the men of violence . . . By the line he had taken he had for the first time reduced Noraid to a small and impotent rabble . . .” In addition, cardinals O’Connor and Law and Mayor Flynn were “in coherent support” of the Irish government’s policy.
The ambassador told Haughey that he understood that, “but a crucial element must be a dedicated and uncompromising alliance against terrorism. The omission of this would send the wrong signal”. Haughey replied that the British were “quite wrong”. He had been addressing “respectable American bankers to whom a lecture on not supporting violence would have been insulting”. The taoiseach, Fenn told Howe, said “he understood the Irish-American community better than we did and appealed to us to let him play it his way . . . He was determined to win the hearts and minds of some 100,000 new Irish-American immigrants”, regardless of the pro-IRA views of “the immigrant of 1922”.
The ambassador, however, remained unconvinced, telling Howe: “I said his words were also heard in London and West Belfast . . . The omission of this point [on violence] from four major speeches was remarkable and I hoped that he would take an early opportunity to restate his commitment to the fight against terrorism – perhaps in the Dáil this afternoon.’
At this point Haughey rounded on the ambassador. He said he felt it “a remarkable coincidence” that both Mr Des O’Malley (the leader of the Progressive Democrats) and Mr Alan Dukes (the leader of Fine Gael) had been criticising him on precisely the same grounds as the British government. Fenn, taken aback, informed Howe: “I told him sharply that I had not seen Mr O’Malley and had exchanged only a few words with Mr Dukes at a rugby match. He should forget this fantasy. It was no part of our business to make his life more difficult. If different people came up with similar conclusions, perhaps he should consider whether there might not be something in them.”
The taoiseach repeated, however, that the British request to include a denunciation of violence in his speeches “was unnecessary and unreasonable”. He had “done enough to demonstrate his commitment against violence was absolute”. The ambassador then told the taoiseach that the British government “had noted the qualified language he had used about the Agreement” but Haughey said he remained committed to work with the British “over the whole range of the Agreement”. He said his aspiration to Irish unity did not contradict his willingness to work the agreement. “If he was to talk to the Unionists, then it would have to be outside the framework of the Agreement”.
Responding, Fenn urged him to encourage the SDLP leader, John Hume “to take a constructive attitude” in his talks with the British secretary of state, Tom King. However, “Mr Haughey said he had full confidence in John Hume and would not presume to pressurise him”.
In a note on the file for NIO Ministers, RO Miles, an NIO official, noted that of three speeches by Haughey in the US, only one at Harvard contained “a clear rejection of violence”. Two of his speeches had referred to “the killing of three Irish people at Gibraltar”. He noted “the fact that the Harvard speech does not condemn violence as we had urged”.
The issue provoked a strong letter of protest from the British prime minister to Haughey, an undated draft of which appears in the file. Referring to the report of the taoiseach’s meeting with the ambassador, Thatcher mentioned that the speeches at New York and Harvard “did a disservice to Anglo-Irish relations and the prospect of making a success of the Anglo-Irish Agreement”. She told Haughey: “We have refrained from public criticism but you should know my thinking”. Thatcher added brusquely: “I am glad that you found it possible in the Dáil on 26 April to recall your condemnation of terrorism . . . Not only did your speeches fail to acknowledge this, you seem to be arguing that the persistence of violence called into question the entity of Northern Ireland. Such an omission would give credibility to the terrorists. It therefore undermines Clause 1 of the AIA [Anglo-Irish Agreement] which provides that the future of NI is to be determined by the democratic will of a majority of the people there.’
Thatcher went on to attack Haughey for his “unjust and provocative criticisms” in the US on the administration of justice in Northern Ireland. “They must”, the prime minister concluded, “make the agreement work”.