Not Peace, but an imperialist offensive
On June 10th, all-party talks on future political structures in Ireland will mark a new phase in the Irish conflict. They will almost certainly begin with Sinn Fein excluded until the Irish Republican Army (IRA) reinstates its ceasefire. John McAnulty THE EXCLUSION OF REPUBLICANS GIVES US one indication of the nature of this new phase - the fact that the talks will be preceded by elections to a new partitionist assembly gives an even more striking indication of the major setback that has been inflicted on the Irish working class.
Within the "standard model" of the Irish peace process put forward by the republican leadership and large sections of the left, this makes no sense whatsoever. This analysis indicates that the British are beginning a gradual process of withdrawal and are willing to negotiate a transitional arrangement that will eventually lead to a united Ireland.
Yet Britain has held the line through 18 months of ceasefire and through the Canary Wharf bomb in London and the resumption of IRA military activity. The British justified the delay and the demand for "decommissioning" — effectively a political demand for an IRA surrender - on the grounds that the process must have the support of everyone and that the unionist parties would not participate otherwise.
The period of the ceasefire was marked by a whole series of provocations. The only step taken towards the release of prisoners was the restoration of remission rates that the British had earlier removed. Only a few republican prisoners were returned from England, and for those that remained conditions were made harsher and more punitive. Private Lee Clegg of the Parachute regiment, convicted of the murder of a Belfast teenager, was released in circumstances which essentially endorsed the right of members of the state forces to kill with impunity. Sectarian Orange marches were forced through Catholic areas by state forces while republicans were batoned off the streets. Even the much heralded economic "peace dividend" faded away in a welter of "investment conferences" while major cuts were made in funding for community projects.
Even before the break-down of the ceasefire the British had indicated the sort of democracy they were contemplating by renewing the draconian Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA). More recently
La new law was rushed through the British parliament which gives more or less unrestricted powers of stop and search to the police. Two unionist members of the local police authority were dismissed by the British secretary of state after they proposed cosmetic changes to the brutal and sectarian Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC).
Now the process is to move forward through elections in the occupied area, the existence of which all the nationalist parties oppose, to establish an assembly which they all oppose. In a step reminiscent of the worst days of European absolutism the British have imposed a party list system - based on
Ireland * official party lists drawn up by the goverment. This ensures that the small loyalist paramilitary fronts will gain seats without any electoral support and establishes the British government's right to licence parties. After initial suggestions that Sinn Fein would be excluded, the British have left the smaller and more politically vulnerable Irish Republican Socialist Party off the list. One SDLP representative wondered aloud why the British didn't save everyone a lot of trouble and simply announce the result of the election straight away!
All this was necessary because the peace process was founded on one gigantic illusion - the illusion that Britain was leaving Ireland. In the run-up to the ceasefire British ministers repeatedly said that they had no selfish, strategic or economic interest in Ireland. Socialist Democracy (Irish Fourth Internationalists) stood almost alone in arguing that the British were lying and that Britain remained an imperial power with major economic and strategic interests in her oldest colony.
The formulation of British disinterest was supposed to be contained in the Downing Street declaration, jointly signed by London and Dublin just before the ceasefire.
International Viewpoint #277 11
about peace their next
Ireland
*
NOTES alf they are serious move is obvious.
Their weapons have caused unbelicrable carnage in the past.... And in the
Who knows...
future..
February) was linked to a "target date" for all-party talks.
In the event, this report was overshadowed by the British decision to sideline the report, scrap the target date, and propose elections which would have the effect of fixing in stone the outcome of the process - the return of a modified local assembly with a built-in sectarian majority.
In fact, its proposals simply moved the
© CORMAC 45
These weapons must. They might yet be handed in! r again be used agamst innocent people...
well, perhaps. In the declaration, for the first time ever. Britain used the term self-determination in relation to Ireland. Again we were almost alone in pointing out that the term was immediately negated by enshrining a veto for the Unionist minority in the occupied area to continue the partition of the country.
Following the ceasefire London and Dublin negotiated the "Framework document" as the concrete expression of the Downing Street declaration. This made it clear that partition would remain, but by advocating a few cross-border talking shops it allowed the illusion that the proposals were a stepping-stone to a united Ireland. Tellingly the British accompanied the publication of these woolly proposals in the occupied North with very detailed and specific proposals on the creation of a new local assembly. Just how seriously the British took the framework document, essentially the maximum programme for bourgeois nationalism, was shown when, a week after publication, political development minister Michael Ancram announced that the British would welcome fresh ideas to solve the crisis!
An insight into British strategy was given by a throwaway remark by foreign secretary Douglas Hurd after the signing of the Downing Street declaration. Asked if he thought the republicans would "buy" the ceasefire, he replied "I hardly think it matters"
The reality for the British was that their "peace process" was in fact a major imperialist offensive designed to force a new 12 International Viewpoint #277
But I suspect that your werage brit or peeier will feel quite naked without guns.... capitalist stability and roll back all the gains of the anti-imperialist struggle. They had won from Dublin agreement in principle to support the establishment of a reinvigorated partition and, in addition, to rescind the historic aspiration of the majority of the Irish working class for unity by removing all claims to a united national territory from the
In addition they had greatly constrained the effects of the republican armed campaign. The difficulty in attacking state forces had led to the militarist strategy broadening the number of "soft targets" considered legitimate and a new concentration on military adventurism in England. The main effect was to isolate republican supporters.
Further the British had built up the Loyalist death squads and these were able to strike at will in nationalist areas, carrying out a number of sectarian atrocities. The IRA had no credible defensive strategy, and when they attempted to carry the fight into loyalist areas the result was civilian casualties, which further weakened their support.
The British were willing to make minor concessions that would help the republican leadership in from the cold. But the price would be republican surrender: the only measure that would allow the imperialist offensive to roll on.
As the peace process ground to a halt the Clinton administration stepped in. A visit by the President helped reinforce the British line and served as a platform for the Mitchell Commission. The Mitchell report (released in date for an IRA surrender from before the talks to during the talks. The proposals, if put into effect, would have forced the disbanding of the IRA. It dismissed any attempt to bring state weaponry into the equation, despite the many atrocities by these forces and their association with the right-wing death squads. Above all the report ignored all the issues of an all-Ireland dimension. It makes clear that a revamped partition is what is on offer.
So the ceasefire ended with two proposals on the table. One from the British government and one from the Mitchell commission. Both demanded the surrender of the IRA and both signposted a return to a modified Stormont (the old regime that ruled a web of sectarian discrimination and privilege).
The whole sorry process was helped by a sharp move to the right by the republican leadership. They wanted out of the cul-de-sac of the militarist strategy, but their new political strategy rested on a whole series of illusions.
The first such illusion was in British imperialism itself. It is quite clear that the republicans believed that Britain was preparing to withdraw from Ireland. After all, the British themselves said that they had no "selfish or strategic" interest in Ireland! Yet Sinn Fein found itself unable to sign up to any of the proposals on which the "peace process" was based.
Alongside the illusions in British imperialism ran more general illusions in the United States and the European Union. Internal documents consistently argued that these forces would support a democratic solution in Ireland and force Britain to toe the line. In order to believe this the republican leadership had to close its eyes to the role of the US as the main force for the suppression of democratic rights on a world scale, its constant invasion and manipulation of small countries and the key role Britain has always played as American imperialism's most dependable ally.
An even more worrying indication of the republican leadership's political evolution
has been their tendency to praise the middle East "peace process," particularly the role of Yasser Arafat, and look to it and him as a model. Martin McGuinness of Sinn Fein was repeating such praise only days before the ceasefire broke down.
The fact that the republicans held on as long as they did is testimony to the greatest illusion of all - the illusion of the existence of a "nationalist family". Both publicly and in internal documents the Adams leadership put forward an alliance with bourgeois nationalism as representing an alternative weapon to the traditional militarist strategy. Unfortunately republican illusions in the Irish bourgeoisie are just as traditional and just as incorrect as their faith in militarism, with the disadvantage that this alliance immediately puts them on the same side of the barricades as the direct oppressors of the majority of the Irish working class. In fact the whole peace process was a process of watching the "nationalist family" crumble to dust. As the ceasefire drew to an end the bourgeois parties were all entering negotiations with the British proposal for a unionist assembly at the top of the agenda. The formal expression of the family —a forum meeting in Dublin over the past 18 months - produced a final report which trashed the demand for self-determination and left Sinn Fein out in the cold, unable to sign up.
The end of the ceasefire in no way resolves the problems for republicans or ends the confusion and illusions. The bombing campaign is itself based on the assumption
Remember
this?
• Russian left demonstrates against Chechnya war • Salvador's EMLN becomes single party • Indian feminists debate the UN Conference on Women • 1 million African Americans march in Washington DC The bound collection of International Viewpoint costs only £5/$ US 10 per year (19821995), plus 20% postage charge for orders of less than 5 volumes. Order now!
that Britain is willing to leave Ireland. If it is in Britain's interest as an imperial power to stay then lost trade and tourism and bills of £150 million for bomb damage will make no
Even now the leadership cling to the Irish bourgeoisie. Their latest analysis, outlined by Gerry Adams at this year's Sinn Fein Ard Pheis, indicates that the family would have survived if it had continued to be led by the populist Fianna Fail party rather than the slightly more openly pro-imperialist Fine Gael party!
Adams went on to suggest that the difficulties they face are due to a British Tory government with a tiny minority being dependent on unionist support. He didn't explain why the Labour Party and the British establishment as a whole would vote against the government in a crucial vote, as they did over British arms sales to Iraq. In fact leading establishment figures warned Prime Minister John Major not to play party politics with the Irish question. They have remained silent since, indicating that the government's stance is essentially based on the interests of British imperialism.
Sinn Fein continue to make their main call for all-party talks with restrictions. Again, if Britain is leaving then Sinn Fein can fight their corner within all-party talks as a minor party. If Britain is staying, then the talks will achieve nothing.
All the recent remarks by the republican leadership indicate that the link between military and political action is the demand for talks. Now London and Dublin have provided a fixed date for all-party talks, June 10th. This in the context of a partitionist election, with the "nationalist family" lined up with the British and Unionists in ruling out any democratic solution and with the Mitchell proposals at hand to turn the screw on the republicans at every turn.
The republican leadership's response to the collapse of their strategy has been to reassert it. A new Fianna Fail government in the 26 country state, a labour government in Britain, and all would be well. Without explicitly recognising the damage and demobilisation within their own movement they accommodate to it with a new and even more violent lurch to the right. The latest catchword is realism. As Gerry Adams told the Ard Fheis; "there is no way that Sinn Fein will be a party to any restoration of that kind of institution [Stormont]. Our preference would be to boycott both the election and the elected body. However, we live in the real
Ireland * world. We will be guided therefore by whether it is necessary to defend our vote or uphold the rights of our electorate."
So with a partitionist election and assembly imminent, held under the most undemocratic rules ever dreamt up by the British, where the only real issue will be the legitimacy of the new institution, Sinn Fein are to leave the decision on a boycott to their seniors in the bourgeois Social Democratic and Labour Party!
One is reminded of the critical voice of the Palestinian Edward Said, who, discussing the Middle East "peace process", says "advocates [of the process] say we had no alternative'. The correct way of phrasing it is, •we had no alternative, because we either lost or threw away a lot of others, leaving us only this one."
Veteran republican Bernadette McAliskey has called for a republican congress to map a new road forward. The republican leadership can't support this proposal without breaking from their bourgeois partners. Yet the opportunities are there. While the republicans counted single percentage increases in recent bi-elections in the 26 counties of the south, Joe Higgens of Militant Labour came within a few hundred votes of taking the Dublin West seat on a wave of opposition to local tax increases. Major public service unions have rejected recent pay deals and threaten the cosy national agreement between the government and the trade union bureaucracy. The Dublin capitalists are the weak link in the present offensive. Present republican policy prevents them from attacking that link.
On a broader front all the signs are that British attempts to persuade unionism to make even the most minor concessions will fail. The election of David Trimble as the new unionist leader means that at each opportunity the unionists select the most hard-line option. Despite attempts to portray him as a moderate, Trimble has remained on the streets, supporting the right of sectarian gangs to march through nationalist areas. while at the same time denying the right of republicans to march at all. He intends to build the new Stormont while sabotaging any talks. The British have shown no willingness to impose anything on the unionists and the freer the hand of the local nationalist bourgeoisie, the less pressure the British will be under. Imperialism will deal with symptoms rather than cause and their settlement will become more ramshackle and unstable. *
International Viewpoint #277 13