INCERTIDUMBRE EN LA INDUSTRIA PETROLERA

The period of calm after O’Neill’s “crossroad speech” came to an abrupt end in the beginning of January. The People Democracy march from Belfast started on January 1st 1969 and right from the start there were confrontations between protesters and counter-protesters who showed up along the route. But the most serious confrontation came on the last day of the march. When the march reached Burntollet bridge the protesters were attacked by two groups armed with lead piping, crowbars and iron bars. The police could offer little protection against the aggressors; the attacks were brutal and relentless. The unresisting marchers were beaten, prevented from seeking shelter and then pursued when they tried to escape. The attacks were well prepared, piles of stones had been left in the fields, and the phone wires had most likely been cut the night before. The incident was good propaganda for the civil rights movement since, many of the attackers were members of the B-Specials.122

This chapter will stretch from the Burntollet march in January 1969 up to O’Neill’s resignation in the end of April. It was in this period that the Unionist Party really started to split, and when O’Neill announced a general election the party became split into Pro and Anti-O’Neill candidates. The questions I will explore in this chapter are:

• Did the unionist perception of the civil rights movement change in this period? • How did the civil rights movement influence the process that led to O’Neill’s

resignation?

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH

O’Neill issued a statement concerning the Burntollet incident on January 5th. He said that enough was enough. He was clearly upset that his effort before Christmas had not lead to a better result. He said that “We have heard sufficient for now about civil rights let us hear a little about civil responsibilities.”123 His tone in this statement was much more condemning than in the crossroads speech. He said that the march, planned by:

(…) the “so-called” Peoples Democracy was from the outset a foolhardy and irresponsible undertaking. At best those who planned it were careless of the effects it would have: at worst they embraced the prospect of adverse publicity causing further damage to the interest of Northern Ireland as a whole.124

122 _{Purdie:1990:214-215} 123 _{Belfast Telegraph:6/1-1969} 124

It was time that certain students returned to their studies O’Neill claimed, for which they had the support of the tax-payers. They should learn a little more of the nature of the society before they again displayed such arrogance towards those who had built up the facilities they enjoyed.125 The way O’Neill characterised the Peoples Democracy was different from the way he had spoken about the civil rights movement before the Burntollet march. He was much more sceptical about the motives of this group than he had been about the other civil rights groups.

But O’Neill also condemned the Protestants who he claimed had played right into the hands of those who were encouraging the current agitation. The right thing to do would be to treat the march with silent contempt. By turning their back to what he called irresponsible and misguided people, they would have won a new respect. Peaceful contempt would bring the marches to an end.126 This statement suggests that O’Neill did not support the civil rights reasoning for arranging these marches. But he did support their democratic right to express their views on the street, regardless “how foolish, ill-judged and untimely they may be.”127

The statement also contained a poorly concealed threat of the consequences if the marches should continue. If the warring minorities did not rapidly returned to their senses he would consider further reinforcement of the police by using the B-Specials. He would also have a look at the Public Order Act to see if he would have to ask the Parliament for further powers to control the elements that were holding, in his words, “the entire community to ransom.”128 It is clear that O’Neill did not believe that the Peoples Democracy had sincere motives, but unlike the backbenchers he did not give the organization all the blame, he also condemned what he called the extremist Protestants. It is also clear that his tolerance had its limits. If the movement refused to remain within what he saw as the normal democratic procedures, he would use force to make them conform.

The Peoples Democracy march changed the situation in Northern Ireland. The Times wrote that it, after O’Neill’s political victory within the Unionist Party the previous month, had looked like the province had won another chance to outgrow its communal antagonism, but that this scenario looked less likely now.129 O’Neill’s statement did nothing to appease the civil rights movement; unlike the crossroads speech it did most likely inflame the situation. The Derry Citizen Action Committee (DCAC) called the statement a disgrace, and stated that:

125 Belfast Telegraph:6/1-1969 126 _{Belfast Telegraph:6/1-1969} 127 _{Belfast Telegraph: 6/1-1969} 128 _{Belfast Telegraph: 6/1-1969} 129

“whether he agreed with the march or not, his attack on the conduct of the marchers is completely indefensible when one considers that the marchers preached and practised non- violence in the face of the most extreme and horrifying provocation.”130 The image among the civil rights campaigners of a Prime Minister who stood on their side diminished, the DCAC argued, when O’Neill criticised people who had been attacked only because they tried to express their views. The Burntollet march showed that the problems in Ulster had not disappeared after O’Neill’s five-point plan for reform. The renewed tension demanded new measures from the government.