Bloody Sunday - new evidence

A Chairde,

The state-directed killing of Irish people on Bloody Sunday, as many northern nationalists have always known, was not an accident perpetrated by a few soldiers who had gone beserk, but was rather what Seamus Deane has called an ``ideological imperative'', the purpose of which was - and is - to control and repress nationalist protest against British rule.

The Channel 4 News revelations on 17 January demonstrated conclusively that the British Army targeted individuals as part of a shoot-to-kill policy; that is, Bloody Sunday was emphatically not a one-off moment of madness on their part. It was revealed that they had positioned snipers on the city walls overlooking the Bogside who shot at least three victims from these vantage points. The tape recordings of army radio communications taken by a local radio ham which confirmed this were deliberately ignored and then suppressed by successive governments.

This highlights again the monstrous injustices which surround the events of that day and the ongoing disgrace of the Widgery report, the primary aim of which was to remove the events and the government's responsibility for them from public scrutiny, whilst providing a central plank to the policy of the criminalisation of Irish Republicans - thereby offering additional justification for the murder of innocent and unarmed Catholics by state-controlled military and paramilitary forces.

On this Saturday 25 January at 12 noon a march will take place from Highbury Fields to Caxton House in North London, to demand justice for those who were killed and injured on Bloody Sunday. We would urge that all those who believe that there should be a fresh inquiry into the events, and that - at the very least - the British government should offer an apology to the families of those killed, together with an explicit acknowledgement of the victims' innocence, come and take part in this march.

There can be no just and lasting peace in Ireland until the British state to take responsibility for the criminal acts perpetrated in their name on the Irish people. In the meantime, it is up to those of us who believe that the Irish have a right to national self-determination, equality of rights and freedom from British rule to turn out and demonstrate our solidarity.

Peter Middleton,
Wolfe Tone Society,
London.

Charter for Irish democracy

A Chairde,

Irish democrats claim with justification that the Irish peace process collapsed in February 1995 because of British and unionist intransigence.

However, the Irish nationalist parties which made up the tentative Irish consensus were far from clear or united about the core issues and what kind of settlement they were going to negotiate. There were serious differences of opinion about the issues of consent and agreement. This created suspicion and distrust within the broad republican community. Before a new peace process can be established with any hope of succeeding I think it is necessary for Irish democrats to identify as far as possible the core issues that must be resolved if there is to be a just and lasting peace. There must be broad general agreement on the meaning of national self-determination.

There is confusion within republican and nationalist circles about the Dublin and SDLP leaders' attitude to British support for the wishes of a majority within the Six County framework. There is, I believe, a need for something like a Charter for Irish Democracy which is acceptable to the broad nationalist/republican community in Ireland. Such a Charter will take account of the cultural and social diversity in this country but will be based on the indefeasible right of the Irish people as a whole to national self-determination.

I believe that in order to advance the argument in favour of creating a new political dispensation Irish nationalists and republicans must have an agreed understanding of our history and of Britain's role in Ireland. So much of British propaganda is based on a false interpretation of Irish history. The Irish side must confront this British propaganda version of our history.

A major weakness in the Irish position, which became evident at the Dublin Forum for Peace and Reconciliation, is that most of the Irish political parties now accept the unionist veto which they euphemistically refer to as ``consent''. It is worth noting that consent is an enabling thing which works both ways and that northern nationalists and republicans have never consented to partition. This weakness in the nationalist consensus needs to be addressed urgently.

The drawing up of an Irish Democracy Charter would be one way of ensuring the full participation of all democrats in the democratic process. Only such a nationalist consensus can lead to a totally new political situation that will guarantee a democratic future. Such a consensus seeking a just solution based on democratic principles would show the world that the British and unionists have a case to answer. One lesson from the experience of conflict resolution in South Africa is the power of a united front persistently seeking a new political dispensation based on justice and democracy.

The unionist demand for a continuation of their system of privilege and advantage cannot be sustained by any British government that is serious about recognising the democratic rights of the Irish people as a whole. The Six County statelet is inherently undemocratic based as it is on a religious headcount and against the declared wishes of the vast majority of the Irish people. However, the right of unionists to a say in determining the future political landscape in Ireland must be recognised by all Irish democrats.

Only when the British are persuaded to accept their responsibility for the conflict here and are compelled to engage in negotiations with representatives of all the Irish people can we have any real hope of beginning to build a democracy. Only then will unionists realise that they should, in the interest of the welfare of all the people here, seek an accommodation with the rest of the Irish people. Only then will Irish democrats be able to see that at last the British are taking the demand for Irish national self-determination seriously. Anything short of this will be seen as mere window-dressing.

The Irish peace initiative in 1994 invited the British government to take its responsibility for ending the conflict here seriously. The British failed to take up the invitation.

The task facing Irish democrats now is not just to try to convince the British and the unionists but to convince the Irish parties that only when they act in solidarity to demand just and democratic structures to replace the undemocratic Six County statelet will there be any real progress towards a lasting peace.

There needs to be an answering commitment by Irish nationalist, republican and socialist leaders to the social and political transformation of this country so that all sections of the community interested in building an Irish democracy as envisaged by the leaders of 1916, can become involved. This commitment will contradict those commentators who claim that an Irish consensus is divisive. An Irish consensus will seek to unite all Irish people - nationalist and unionist alike - around the idea of creating a modern democracy in this country. It is the British who have created divisions here and prevented democratic structures from being created.

New ideas about democracy and freedom are required; new institutions are required that will allow the ideas to find expression. This will demand imagination and courage. Surely such imagination and courage can be found amoung all sections of the Irish people who have at various times in the past contributed to movements for change and democracy in this and other lands.

Fr Joe McVeigh,
Fermanagh.

Longfingering the struggle

A Chairde,

The peace strategy proposes building a consensus among Irish nationalists and republicans to make self-determination a common objective. I take this to mean an end to partition and British withdrawal. This would require Irish nationalism having a compelling interest in ending partition. History suggests its principal interests have been met in the partition settlement.

75 years of history suggests Irish nationalism will never overturn partition. Today, the nationalist parties support the existing constitutional arrangements and the unionist veto.

Here the form of politics also fails. The vast majority of those who support the nationalist parties share an interest with republicans in overturning partition. But instead of seeking to win this base to republican politics, the peace strategy involves manoeuvring and secrecy among leadership elites. An alliance with conservative nationalist leaders will not radicalise Irish nationalism.

Another argument is that the cumulative effect of little victories on civil rights will bring the Orange state tumbling down and end partition. Gerry Adams points out that for 24 years no institutions of state have been in Orange hands. Power and authority rest in the British state. As Adams says, rights and equality can happen now, without negotiation and without a peace process. History has left the Orange state behind.

Making orangeism/unionism the primary focus of our strategy sectarianises the struggle and conceals the forces and interests involved. Orange/Green divisions have been of great benefit to British strategies, but they are not ends in themselves. Partition and the British presence lock Ireland into the world system of capitalism. This system is indifferent between Orange and Green, so long as its interests are protected. A crucial question arises: if we longfinger the struggle against partition and the British presence, and concentrate on ``parity of esteem'' and cross-border co-operation, what will be the dynamic force to move us forward?

The only available dynamic seems to be the economic forces of capitalism and EU integration, or the absorption with time of unionism into the consensus between nationalists and republicans.

The former scenario is conservative, the latter sectarian: both are improbable.

A strategy for republican objectives will understand partition as a bulwark for capitalism in Ireland. On this basis it will confront the British presence, oppose conservative nationalism and unionism, and recognise the role of the 26-County state as a guarantor of stability.

Can the peace strategy meet these requirements? Through open and comradely debate we can develop a republican strategy. It is our duty to do so.

`No other law',
Dublin.