The need for plan B
A chairde,
Key to the current strategy of Sinn Féin is a false assumption
that the southern ruling class, as represented by the government
and particularly Fianna Fáil, desires a united Ireland and will
work with us towards that end. The truth of course is that all
the southern ruling class desires is stability so that they can
get on with making money and using their power in their neat
little capitalist state.
Thus when the time comes to do a deal with the British government
(always unionists by the way, never neutral), middle class
Catholics and unionism (the sections that can think), they will
do it to stabilise the situation.
They know as we know that anything mildly reeking of ``peace'' will
be embraced by people in south (eg the Treaty, Sunningdale, the
Hillsborough deal etc.). Unfortunately, the yearning for ``peace''
in the north is so strong the same is likely to be true of the
nationalist community.
In such a context an immediate revival of armed struggle would be
political suicide so their belief is that a chastened Sinn Féin
(chastened by the endorsement by the people North and South of
any deal) would quietly oppose the deal at worst but work it
anyhow and that any IRA revival would be crushed with popular
security measures (something avoided for 30 odd years).
If the IRA and Sinn Féin survived such an onslaught the hope of
the ruling class is that the deal will begin to deliver and that
this would end us politically anyhow. This is where the talks and
the peace process are taking us.
So what's our plan `B' for when the inevitable deal is struck or
imposed?
First, let's get one thing straight. No settlement is going to
end the sectarianism that sustains the northern statelet, no
amount of US jobs are going to rid the north of inequality or
discrimination, no amount of reform is going to de-sectarianise
the RUC or the RIR, no level of power sharing or middle class
nationalist whining will stop the Orange Order parading its
sectarian gospel and nothing short of a united socialist Ireland
can satisfy us. If that's clear then our new strategy starts to
take form.
We must clearly define the reasons why any partitionist
settlement cannot work and we must publicly and privately oppose
it. We must then begin the process of organising and fighting the
new state apparatus that will emerge. Importantly. the emphasis
must be both on partition and its poison and against the
capitalist system it seeks to perpetuate. In other words,
socialism must become the primary focus of our struggle not as
rhetoric - that too, but primarily in terms of activism.
This holds for the south too. Campaigning and working on the
issues that the injustice of capitalism throws up already brings
us into conflict with our erstwhile allies. In the context of a
stitch-up deal we can seek to polarise people around two distinct
positions: pro-government, pro-capitalist, anti-working class,
pro settlement; and pro-working class, anti-government,
anti-imperialist. This is the true left-right divide in Irish
society. We need to make it so you have to choose sides and that
the working class choose our side on all issues.
We already have a strong base and years of experience. It won't
take long for any deal in the north to be proven a failure as the
nature of that society again becomes evident. Importantly, the
lull after such a settlement give us the chance to again make
appeals to `Protestant' working class people, because they, like
the `Catholic' working class, will soon find benefit will not
rapidly flow from this deal. Importantly, the IRA should stay its
hand in such a situation lest the failure of the deal becomes
masked by the usual chorus of ``united against violence''.
I am not saying no more armed struggle. What I am saying is,
let's take as it comes without knee jerk reactions.
The historical failure of republicans has been to underestimate
the centrality of socialism to any successful anti-imperialist
struggle here. The historical failure of socialists has been to
underestimate the centrality of the anti-imperialist struggle to
the fight for socialism here. Let's not allow ourselves to
separate what are complimentary.
James McBarron,
Cork.
Loyalists and revisionists
A chairde,
The racist murder of yet another GAA member by loyalists is made
doubly distressing for the family of the victim by the RUC's
attempt to exculpate loyalists by pretending that the
perpetrators and motive were not known and by the fact that the
entire concentration of the 26 County government and media for
the previous week was on how to remove or alter Northern
nationalists Irish citizenship by changes to Articles Two and
Three. The `revisionists' remove his citizenship, the Ulster
loyalists remove his life.
It is about time that the much-vaunted Celtic Tiger started
protecting all the children of the nation, in particular its
citizens in the North where incredibly in this day and age just
to identify as Irish is deemed by loyalist racists to justify
your murder. Perhaps some of the £20 million given in the budget
to the GAA in the 26 Counties could help its members and clubs in
the North with additional security systems?
It is clear that this murder of a GAA member, coming on the same
day as President Mary McAleese's visit, was an attack on
Irishness itself and cannot be construed by loyalists as an
attack on republicans. No doubt the usual revisionist Southern
commentators will attempt to put the blame on President
McAleese's visit for this murder, questioning whether it was
``wise'', instead of putting the blame where it belongs, with
loyalist racists. Are we not sick of the assumption that we have
to apologise for being Irish?
Joe Murphy,
Birmingham.
History's lesson: Mellows and 1922
A chairde,
On 6 December 1922 the Free State came into being. Today the 26
County establishment tells a story of success, stability and
democracy. There is pride that following the defeat of the IRA in
1923, Fianna Fáil entered Leinster House and later peacefully
assumed power. ``Even the wild men ultimately came round.''
On 8 December 1922 the Free State executed Liam Mellows, Rory
O'Connor, Dick Barrett and Joe McKelvey. Mellow's legacy remains
relevant to republicans.
Mellows declared in 1918, ``I am a citizen of the Irish Republic,
proclaimed at Easter 1916''. During the Treaty debates he called
it a living tangible thing: ``the Irish Republic exists''.
Griffith, Collins, Fitzgerald and others denied the Republic in
1922, claiming it was a tactic, not an end in itself. Mellows
regarded this as counter-revolutionary hypocrisy, and advocated
education about the Republic and republicanism as an antidote.
This divide reflects the tactic of nationalists to isolate the
demand for self-determination and advance it against the Republic
and republicanism. Republicans have always insisted that they are
inseparable. For Mellows the function of the Treaty was to
destroy the existing Irish Republic. The Free State would stand
between the British and the Irish people and provide the means
for Britain to keep its hold on Ireland.
Mellows predicted the Free State would become a permanent
arrangement and that those holding positions and power would not
readily relinquish them.
Mellows supported republican unity: ``We want unity, and had
unity... but we had it on one basis - the basis of the Republic.
Destroy that basis and you cannot have unity''.
He also argued that much support for the Treaty was not from
principle, but fear of the consequences of rejection: terrible,
immediate war. ``That is not the will of the people,'' he
concluded, ``that is the fear of the people''.
In Mountjoy Mellows reflected on the erosion of the republican
position. He concluded that the struggle could only be built upon
a radical republicanism. ``The commercial interests... are on the
side of the Treaty, because the Treaty means Imperialism and
England. We are back to Tone... relying on that great body, `the
men of no property'. `The stake in the country' people were never
with the Republic... they will always be against it. We should
recognise that definitely now.'' Mellows emphasised the
connection: ``Free State - Capitalism and Industrialism - Empire.
Republic - Workers - Labour''.
Mellows' other conclusions were that political and military
struggle should be co-ordinated and militarism opposed; and that
many volunteers did not have a ``grasp of fundamentals. They were
absorbed into [the] movement... not educated into it.''
Speaking of Mellows and Terence MacSwiney, Muriel MacSwiney
declared, ``Rather than that they should turn imperialist, I'd
prefer to see them both dead''. Such language is not fashionable
today, but republicans still oppose co-option by imperialism and
capitalism. Not all the ``wild'' men and women have come round.
No Other Law
Dublin.
Presidential conduct
A chairde,
So they are saying the President is allowed to receive Queen
Elizabeth in Aras an Uachtaráin and not allowed to receive Jesus
Christ in the Church of Ireland.
Blethers.
Desmond Wilson
Weighted majority
A chairde,
The announcement by Senator Mitchell of the formation of a small
committee to look at restructuring the stalled Northern Ireland
talks process is possibly the most significant event yet to have
taken place at Stormont.
As a means of pressuring the IRA to call a ceasefire it was
understandable that the British government set up the talks under
the only format that could theoretically work without Sinn Fein -
the `sufficient consensus' rule that allows for progress only if
a majority of both communities agree. But now that Sinn Fein are
in talks the time for that tactic is past.
The obstacle to meaningful negotiations now is the refusal of the
UUP to engage constructively. It is not just that they have
avoided Sinn Fein; their entire approach is based on construing
the `sufficient consensus' rule as an effective veto. This rule
prevents any real debate over the nature of `consent' in Northern
Ireland allowing the UUP to uphold unchallenged their own,
flawed, version. Their participation in the talks is thus shown
to be merely tactical.
The lesson from South Africa was that no talks can succeed
without an acknowledgement on both sides of the need to seek a
meeting of minds. Having successfully built all-party talks it is
now the responsibility of the British government to make sure
that they lead to genuine negotiation. The rules need therefore
to be changed.
Instead of `sufficient consensus' decisions should be taken by
weighted majority vote of those sitting round the table in
face-to-face talks, the weighting depending on electoral support.
This would set the cat amongst the pigeons. In particular it
would put pressure not just on David Trimble but on Dr Paisley as
well. In order to counter Sinn Fein he would have to engage with
them. But that seems fair enough. Why should life be so easy for
him when it's so difficult for the other participants? At present
he is able to exert a significant drag on the talks with
impunity. Why should Trimble be the only Unionist to struggle
with the difficult issues that, realistically, all must face in
finding a peaceful way forward? Perhaps the British government
should be given the right to vote by proxy for any absent
Unionist parties. Nothing could infuriate the good doctor more
than the thought of Mo Mowlam speaking for him - it might just
drag him to the table.
Now there's a prospect to conjure with.
Nick Martin-Clark
London
RUC not welcome
A chairde,
As an ordinary person who turned out to welcome Bertie Ahern to
West Belfast I and most other residents were delighted to see him
arrive at Andersonstown Leisure Centre.
During the long wait the RUC hovered around us and other families
in a menacing fashion as we waited in the harsh winter
conditions. They continually held up traffic, caused unnecessary
chaos and were in fact a general nuisance. I and my young family
found their demeanour both unnerving and at times extremely
intimidating. Despite this we were not prepared to let them spoil
the day for us.
This uneasy atmosphere was only alleviated when a number of local
stewards, aware of the RUC hostility and attempted disruption,
mingled among people reassuring us that everything would be
alright. And it must be added to their credit that they performed
their duties as stewards under intense provocation from the RUC.
Their informative, friendly and civil manner was in stark
contrast to that of the RUC's.
It only occurred to me during these scenes that the RUC realised
the threat and implications for their future of a community
outrightly rejecting their hosting, managing and policing an
event for the Irish Taoiseach which excluded the RUC.
Obviously this is nothing of a revelation to them or others in
the corridors of power. It was just that on this particularly
historic occasion it was being demonstrated in the full glare of
the media and they were prepared to disrupt and hinder this for
their own ends. Fortunately they failed.
I for one would like to see more of this type of organised
community management and policing of events. It was refreshing to
see local friendly faces which are acceptable and accountable.
Full credit to all involved.
Poleglass reader.
Garda harassment
A chairde,
We would like to hear from anyone from the Six Counties who has
in recent months been harassed or abused by any member of the
Garda Síochana while travelling in the south. We would especially
like to hear from anyone who has been stopped for alleged traffic
offences. We will only treat as serious letters which are signed
and with an address.
The Secretary
Centre for Human Rights
7 Springhill Close,
Belfast
BT 12 7SE
![[An Phoblacht]](http://republican-news.org/graphics/title_gifs/aprn.gif)