Fear and hope
A chairde
The 92nd Ard Fheis for me as a non-European observer was a very
interesting experience that I wish to share with you. This was
the third time that I had the honour of attending your Ard Fheis,
and one that reflected the combination of hope and fear in the
aftermath of the Agreement. Having listened to passionate
arguments for and against the Agreement, I felt that this
contribution might be of some help to many that I spoke to.
Coming from a country that in the last two decades has had
120,000 of its finest men and women executed, and more than
200,000 political prisoners, who daily face the brutality of
torture in the search for justice and freedom, I feel that I
understand the nature of hope and fear.
In every struggle that is so close to the hearts and minds of its
activists, political debates of this nature present people with
two pictures. One of the past and the heavy price that has been
paid in the search for political goals and one of the future and
the uncertainty of it. The past is the guiding light for the
future.
The hunger strike campaign began as a tactic that was to shape
and influence the republican movement beyond the cost-benefit
analysis of its own time. When Bobby Sands and other volunteers
began the hunger strike nobody knew what was to be the outcome of
the campaign. But what was apparent to them was that at that time
the only way to challenge the might of the British was for a
number of men to starve themselves to death. There must have been
many people who argued that the hunger strike was not an
effective way and must not be pursued. But with hindsight one can
see the impact and the influence of that tactic.
However, there were a number of people who in the darkest moments
of struggle can see the future and see the victory on the
horizon. Bobby Sands, like thousands of revolutionaries who did
not live to see the day of victory, in his dying moments saw what
we, the living, are unable to see. That is faith in and
commitment to the future, the hope that enables a revolutionary
to have the vision to see the future, to live, suffer, battle and
ultimately die for that vision. This hope is not based on
tactical short-term political cost-benefit analysis, but rather
it is based on long term ideological imperatives. This is the
driving force of any popular revolution.
This Agreement also presents fear of the future and losing the
painful gains of the past. This is exactly the point that in
revolutions nothing is gained without pain and sacrifice. The
revolutionaries are not in the game of politics but rather are
the makers of politics. In the political battlefield the
advancement is very slow and political battles are fought inch by
inch. This Agreement is such a battle. It has to be fought inch
by inch.
Nobody believes that the republican movement can achieve its
goals overnight. Precisely because the leadership have not come
back with a perfect agreement shows that they were involved in a
political battle and did not compromise the principles that your
movement is founded upon. Therefore you must trust their
judgement.
As Gerry Adams rightly said, you are not rhetorical
revolutionaries. True revolutionaries must expect the
difficulties and the challenges of their struggle. The challenge
of the hunger strike was to highlight to the world the commitment
of the republican movement in its just and legitimate struggle.
The challenge of this phase of your struggle is to face the
challenge and examine your commitment to the cause of justice and
freedom for all in your united Ireland. The essence of this
agreement is that the republicans must ask themselves this and
question the other alternatives. In the absence of other
alternatives at this stage of your struggle, you have to accept
the judgement of your leadership who have managed to successfully
steer your movement through a very difficult and turbulent
period. This period in your struggle is a very complex phase that
requires the total commitment and unity of your movement.
Finally, I would like to salute the founder members, the martyrs,
the political prisoners and the leadership of Sinn Fein and
remind you that throughout history those who lived, fought, and
died for justice and freedom were never bound to an agreement or
document. They are bound to honour, justice and equailty. They
are bound to a vision of a future which embraces humanity. That
vision belongs to the future. You all belong to the future and
the future belongs to you.
Your Comrade in Arms
Stepping stones
A chairde,
Before deciding on the ``Agreement'' document, I would ask that
everyone considers these few points. (I should point out that I
am yet undecided on the document myself, and am too young to vote
anyway.)
Firstly; this does not achieve any of our goals; if these
proposals come into operation, we will still be officially part
of the UK, pay taxes to the British Treasury and not to the Irish
Government, and ultimate political power will be wielded at
Westminster. None of our representatives will sit in Dáil Éireann
or Séanad Éireann, and when the next election comes for Uachtarán
na hÉireann, we will be unable to vote. To me this is an
unacceptable situation.
Even worse, the six counties of Aontroim, An Dún, Tír Éoghain,
Fear Manach, Doire agus Ard Mhacha will no longer be part of the
national territory of Éire, while we remain Irish citizens,
therefore making us foreigners in our own land.
However, other points must also be considered. At the minute, we
appear to be on a road of stepping stones to a united Éire, a
path which some object to. This path was not chosen recently, but
by Irish traitors in 1921. Much as some may dislike this road,
there appears to be no going back. This is the road we are on,
and we may as well follow it. Also, on this route, I would give
twenty years maximum before Éire is unified; so the political
situation is indeed presently to our advantage. This new assembly
will not be under hardline unionist control, and Sinn Fein and
the SDLP will have seats in the cabinet.
I would ask that all people consider the document very carefully
before deciding how to vote, remenbering that it cannot be a
final solution, Éire will one day, very soon, be united. I would
also ask Oglaigh na hÉireann, and all other military
organisations on both sides to wait and see how the vote goes
before (re) commencing military activity.
Tiocfaidh ár lá!
Fear Og
Keep Rule 21
A chairde,
I would like to support caution on the GAA's readiness to abandon
Rule 21 at this time. I sincerely hope we have not entered an era
where barter of human rights in exchange for political
expediencies and £20 million grants is becoming the commonplace.
I share with you part of my letter to the President of the GAA on
24 April:
Sir,
The RUC has its roots in Protestant vigilantes set up by Lord
Brookeborough in Fermanagh during 1920. Therefore a modern
professional RUC has never existed. To date, the RUC has been
trained in and under emergency legislation since 1922. I suggest
that you would study numerous reports from reputable human rights
organisations about RUC actions. These are readily available from
about 1985, a number of them have gone as submissions to the UN.
From my view, the GAA's Rule 21 must stay in place until The
Agreement has dealt with the policing issue. Changing it is a
political ploy and human rights organisations will be very
disappointed that the GAA ignores the truth and refuses to act in
justice. In any situation, the RUC is a human rights disaster;
recognition confirms this and reflects badly on the GAA.
I take the same view about recruitment campaigns to the RUC; it
would be an immoral act to join the RUC as it is. A denial of
truth and justice. Hopefully, there will be an outcome to the
Independent Commission on Policing. I would advise the GAA to be
extremely careful until that outcome. Please stand for truth and
justice.
A human rights worker.
Who fears to speak of 98?
A chairde,
The question is ultimately, who fears to speak of Good Friday
1998? The Agreement is supposed to be the answer to all our
concerns. Does it really address all the issues properly? Will it
do away forever with the conditions that make conflict (armed
conflict) inevitable?
On the basis of what appears in the document this does not seem
to be the case. For a start it is virtually impossible to
translate into layman's terms - it is purely a legal-type
document and because of its intricacies it will not be widely
read or understood.
Most of the positions in the Agreement appear to fall short of
the minimum required in the republican analysis. It can't be all
things to all parties, it can't be transitional for nationalists
towards a united Ireland while at the same time consolidating
partition and the union. Because of deeply entrenched positions
adaped over the years it has to be one or the other to placate
and please either set of party faithful.
Close examination of some of the main issues expose traps. One
glaring one is the proposed (cross border) all-Ireland bodies
which are not, it would appear, free standing but are answerable
to a new assembly. The same all-Ireland bodies on paper seem
purely consultative and not armed (oops!) with executive powers.
The issue of the RUC is left with an Independent Commission - who
this will be, with what powers, and how long they will take to
pass judgement is anyone's guess. Already Ronnie Flanagan is
setting out his stall. He would be well advised to stay out of
politics and leave it to people who know best after his biased
attitude in getting Sinn Fein barred from negotiations for a
short while after his politically motivated pronouncements on so
called IRA breaches of ceasefire while ignoring the UFF etc.
The issue of POWs is another major concern for republicans. A
commission of sorts is again mentioned. Does this mean releases
on licence, papers having to be signed, curfews imposed? All
these points need to be clearly defined and understood. The lack
of an amnesty effectively bars any prisoner involvement in
policing at community level.
Statements also from some TDs that the men charged with killing
Garda Gerry McCabe might figure differently in their analysis of
prison releases don't help. All prisoners incarcerated because of
the conflict must, if the conflict ends, be released
unconditionally. If, as seems likely, elections to an assembly
take place, do republicans (with a change in their constitution)
take seats? At the end of the day Sinn Fein is a political party
and political parties fight elections, and political parties
should take seats and get in there amongst them, working flat out
for the main issues of concern to our ever-increasing electorate.
Most activists know and understand that because of percentages at
the negotiations our bargaining position wasn't strong enough and
on the basis of sufficient consensus our team wasn't able to
prevent most of the Agreement being rubber stamped.
The Sinn Fein negotiating team cannot be faulted, they worked
tirelessly night and day on the issues of concern to us. The rest
of the parties there were in awe of our negotiators and with a
little more clout (or real support from SDLP/Irish government)
might have succeded in achieving a lot more. They had then and
still have all our full support. But as Sinn Fein and the
republican movement in general searches for new political
direction on the way forward will the so called
Agreement/Document become irrelevant to republicans?
Charlie Casey
Newry.
Potential for progress
A chairde,
There are some things in the Agreement which republicans may
welcome, but perhaps even more which they would reject. However
the potential for progress towards a united Ireland does not
really lie in the minutiae of the text, nor in an exercise of
carefully weighing up the good things against the bad.
The potential for progress lies in the way that real political
forces have already been re-aligned in the wake of the Agreement.
The details of the compromise are not as important as the fact
that a compromise was actually done.
Republicans often think a compromise is a sign of weakness, which
can only shore up the political position of the enemy - and
indeed this can often be the case often.
But in the present case the compromise has broken the back of
unionism. It has split the forces of the UUP, and isolated
Paisley, and has seen the national democratic forces emerge
united and stronger that before. (This unity will of course be
fractured if Sinn Fein rejects the Agreement.)
This did not happen because of the details of the compromise but
because of the concept of compromise itself. There will always be
a hardline element within unionism which sees any compromise with
``Papishes'', regardless of how reasonable, as betrayal of the
unionist cause. Indeed, they are quite correct in this, for the
whole essence of unionism is about walking all over the rights of
nationalists. The concept of compromise entails the concept of
equailty - and it is this which ``traditional unionism'' cannot
contemplate.
But there are many ordinary unionists who couldn't be bothered
with sectarian nonsense and just want to get on with life, and
who are quite prepared to cut a dal with nationalists. It is this
constituency which will vote for the Agreement along with the
rest of nationalist Ireland.
The Agreenent thus opens up the possibility of a new demarcation
of democratic forces - all based upon the concept of compromise,
equailty and reasonableness. Although in a formal sense this
means the continuation of partition for the immediate future, it
would have the effect of isolating, dividing, and destroying
hardline (or traditional) unionism. And ``traditional'' unionism -
with its notions of supremacy - is the very pillar upon which
partition was built.
intriguing scenario is now possible. The hardline unionists
who have made such a song and dance about the ``democratic
majority'' of the Six Counties are slowly going to realise that
they have positioned the Sword of Damocles over their own heads.
It seems fairly certain that a majority of citizens in the Six
Counties - SDLP and Sinn Féin supporters plus the moderate
element of unionism - will vote for the Agreement. Even if a
majority of unionists stay with the hardline position and vote
against it, it doesn't matter. They will no longer be, by their
own definition, the ``democratic majority''. Unionism can be hung
with its own rope.
The situation will emerge where the mass of the people in the six
counties will be ranged against an outpost of bigotry and
sectarianism.
Objectively this puts this ``six county majority'' into the same
camp as the Irish people as a whole on the issue of the
Agreement, thus creating an embryonic 32 county movement with
potential for further democratic advance.
It is quite possible that the hardliners will be able to wreck
the assembly, the north-south bodies and the Agreement. But they
will be destroying what the ``majority'' wants, demonstrating to
all that their support for ``democracy'' was nothing more than a
pretence to disguise their squalid sectarianism. Their antics
will further isolate them.
In the absence of an IRA campaign, it will be clear to all that
the problem in the six counties is not ``terrorism'' but the
inability of a section of unionists to behave with common decency
towards their fellow citizens.
It is therefore essential that republicans give this Agreement
their support and let the world see who the real wreckers are.
Sectarianism is the principal force which sustains partiton. As
it is gradually defeated (or rather as it defeats itself) and
retreats in ever-decreasing circles, the back of partition will
also be broken.
A Close Observer
Dublin.
The work continues
A chairde
I am wtiting to congratulate Sinn Fein for their ongoing
commitment to a just and peaceful solution to the conflict in the
north of Ireland. Whatever the outcome of the current phase,
which we hope will be a stepping stone to a re-united Ireland, we
feel that republicans have given most to achieve that.
I think the British and unionists fear the republican movement,
not so much because of the IRA, but because Sinn Fein and its
leadership are rooted in the working class communities they
represent.
These people have the cheek to believe in themselves and throw up
leaders of international calibre who haven't a GCSE between them!
People believing in themselves and educating themselves through
struggle is the most powerful weapon any community has. It is the
confidence, tenacity, determination and lack of bigotry in the
nationalist community which will ensure a just and lasting peace.
The croppies are not lying down anymore.
A number of people have asked me since Easter what I am going to
do with my time now that its all over. I want to stress that
there is still just as much need for the Troops Out Movement as
there ever was.
What has angered me most in the talks process has been the
behaviour of Blair, Mo and Co. They have behaved as if they were
referees at a football match, refusing to take any responsibility
for years of British misrule, propping up the unionist bigots
whilst oppressing nationalist communities.
The British troops are still on the streets, overwhelmingly in
the nationalist areas. Since the talks ended friends have told me
about the relentless helicopters over Belfast and Derry and the
RIR oppressing and taunting nationalist people in Lurgan. If we
are talking about decommissioning weapons shouldn't the British
army and the RUC set the example? Perhaps then the British
government could be taken seriously about peace - or do they mean
surrender?
As I am writing this Tony Blair has already moved the goal posts.
He has said that the RUC will not be disbanded (so much for a
commission) and that only prisoners who personally reject
violence will be released within two years. I see he learnt a lot
from Nelson Mandela when he met him! I am sure that republicans
are well aware of previous British ``deals'' that have been reneged
on.
Those of us living in England, Scotland and Wales have just as
much responsibility as ever to campaign for British withdrawal
from Ireland. We still need to expose the appalling reality of
British Rule - the sectarian nature of the RUC, collusion between
the security forces and loyalist paramilitaries, the nature of
the Orange Order, job discrimination, non jury courts, inhuman
treatment of prisoners etc, etc, etc. We call on all those
committed to the re-unification of Ireland to join us in our
campaigns. I think it will be a while yet before we can all down
tools and go to pottery classes.
Mary Pearson
Troops Out Movement.
![[An Phoblacht]](http://republican-news.org/graphics/title_gifs/aprn.gif)