30 April 1998 Edition

Resize: A A A Print

Mála Poist

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.

An 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
44 Parnell Sq.
Dublin 1
Ireland