11 December 1997 Edition

Resize: A A A Print

Mála Poist

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
44 Parnell Sq.
Dublin 1
Ireland