Has Britain won in Northern Ireland?
The "Good Friday Agreement" was approved by an overwhelming majority of the nationalist population in the North of Ireland. Sinn Fein, the political voice of the community which has opposed British rule over the last thirty years, called for its supporters to vote "yes" in the referendum to approve it and presented candidates in the subsequent elections to the new Assembly.
The Sinn Fein leadership presented support for the Agreement as a reflection of the "adaptation of its strategy and tactics to fit the objective conditions at any particular phase in the struggle." (An Phoblacht, May 14, 1998). it considers that the Agreement was achieved by "a political offensive [by Sinn Féin], one of such intensity and pursued with such relentless determination, that it has reshaped the political landscape North and South" and with this "new political self-confidence" Sinn Féin must fight "to turn the current political situation into a transition phase towards Irish
• (Int. Viewpoint #300, May 98)
There can be no doubt that the new situation in the North, first of all the calling of a cease-fire by the IRA (followed, after Omagh, by two dissident nationalist forces, the Irish National Liberation Army (INLA) and Real IRA), is a huge relief to the war-weary population of the North. Another important point for the community is the freeing of political prisoners foreseen in the Agreement. The hope that the next generation will not know only a situation of civil war and military occupation, as is the lot of all those under 30 today, is palpable. The horror and condemnation expressed on all sides at the August 15th explosion in Omagh is
However, the protracted conflict over the Orange (pro-British Unionist) marches at the beginning of August had already shown that the situation is still far from stabilised. The introduction of new "anti-terrorist legislation" risks harening the attitude of the nationalist population which will feel targeted, while Unionists are stating that they will refuse to sit in the Assembly alongside Sinn Féin representatives.
Some voices in the nationalist population, including Bernadette McAliskey, are very critical of the Agreement. They think it will be a block to advancing towards the historic goals of the nationalist movement because it is formulated in terms laid down by the British and Irish governments and thus accepts the partition of Ireland between the Six Counties in the North which are part of the British state and the wentySix Country Republic. This position is expressed in the following article by John North, writing for Socialist Democracy, the group of Fourth International supporters in Ireland. Philomena 0 Malley
1902. 68. 98 The good Friday agreement proclaims a settlement to the conflict in Ireland. But the terms of the agreement read like a wish list for British strategists over the past 30 years. If successfully implemented they will mean a decisive victory for Britain and a successful restabilisation of their rule after 30 years of conflict in
Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution, which together asserted the overall aspiration to an independent and united Ireland, were to be removed and replaced with an affirmation of the undemocratic veto of the unionist minority in the North
The Stormont assembly, representing a savagely sectarian repression and brought down by mass revolt, was to be restored in an improved form that would allow the Catholic middle class and Dublin government to support it. The improvement is to organise the assembly around a sectarian headcount and give each side a veto. There is to be a vague "equality agenda" that includes promises on Irish culture, human rights and policing.
The British would benefit from an assembly that distanced them from the reality of the sectarian state while reserving for them absolute control over the public purse and the state forces.
Dublin can wave a few cross-border bodies as proof that the long-term outcome will be Irish unity. In fact this element of the agreement, from the beginning meant simply as cover, has been watered down to the point of farce, and what remains is little more than the offer of capitalist stability and a junior advisory role with Britain. The Catholic middle class inside the northern state are offered their share of sectarian privilege.
Even the sharp divisions within Unionism, ranging from reluctant support to rabid hostility, should occasion no surprise. They represent a debate within unionism about whether or not they can survive even a minimal dimutation of their sectarian privilege. For the "Not an inch" brigade gathered around Paisley, sectarian privilege is nothing it it is not absolute and written into the very bones of the state.
What does surprise many observers is the support of the republican movement in Ireland for a deal that negates the whole basis of their traditional programme. The military containment of their campaign and the growing realisation of the failure of a militarist strategy played their part, but the main mechanism in place was the political absorption of the movement by the Irish bourgeoisie and the replacement of a revolutionary nationalist program with a reformist program based on secret diplomacy and the sponsorship of capitalism and imperialism. This agenda was addressed by the "equality agenda" sing a desectarianing and democratisation of aspects of the Northern state.
In the way of many other petty-bourgeois democratic movements in other parts of the world, the republicans political retreat was both extensive and absolute. Six weeks separated a headline in their paper, An Phoblacht; "Defend articles 2 and a special Ard Fheis (Congress) that agreed almost unanimously to dump their party programme, call for the deletion of articles 2 and 3 and their replacement with new wording endorsing an undemocratic unionist veto on Irish unity and agreeing to fight for a place in a new Stormont government.
In an earlier settlement which led to the partition of the country the British lent field guns to the pro-treaty forces. In this settlement the British and Irish governments lent prisoners to the republican leadership to urge support for the extreme volte-face the movement was taking.
The decay of the movement was amply illustrated by Gerry Adams. In a hymn to opportunism he urged delegates to vote yes at the ard fheis and whatever way they liked in the referendum.
The separate but simultaneous referenda that took place almost immediately after on both sides of the border shows the effect of this collapse. Polls in the South had indicated the over 1/3 of the population would vote "No!". In the event this fell to less than 12% and a fairly low turnout in the low '60s. In contrast a lowkey campaign on the Amsterdam treaty produced an almost 40% "No" vote.
Although the overall vote in the North was just under 72%, this hides some major variations. It seems clear that here, where there was a strong republican base and a even stronger middle-class nationalist vote, the nationalist population voted overwhelmingly for the deal with a high turnout also. The "No" vote was at most 4% of the nationalist vote.
But the agreement had at its centre a recognition of a unionist veto over the
* Ireland democratic development of the Irish nation. It quickly became clear that the nationalist votes would count for nothing if there was not sufficient unionist support for the deal.
In the event David Trimble and the other unionist pro-agreement forces won slightly over 50% of the unionist vote. There was a neck and neck battle between those willing to do a deal and those anxious to fight on and secure total and unrestricted sectarian privilege.
One other major factor defining the nature of the agreement was the role of the British. Unionist disarray meant that the British had to take over the "Yes" campaign. Prime Minister Tony Blair spearheaded it with a signed poster assuring the bigots that in effect republicanism was being defeated. They made it crystal clear that part of the developing process would be a constant need to conciliate bigotry to ensure the survival of the Trimble faction.
The fragility of the unionist "Yes" and the need for further British support was confirmed by the Assembly elections in June, where electoral law slightly reduced direct British involvement. Unionist leader Trimble was humiliated when his party came second behind the SDLP in vote share. Technically this was still a victory, as the anti-agreement forces fell just short of the 30 seats that would have enabled them to block the working of the assembly, but the number of doubtful figures within his own camp who stood ready to defect meant that in the medium term the agreement would have to be adjusted even further towards unionism if
Within the main text there are a number of sub-texts. Sinn Fein's strategy has been reduced to electoralism and building itself as a party. The vote is enough to encourage it, but more significant is the increased vote for the SDLP. The imperialist victory has halted their decay and a re-established Stormont will be their natural home, where as the party of the bourgeoisie they will have an advantage over Sinn Fein in working the sectarian state structures.
Welcome news was the fall in the vote for unionist paramilitaries. With the support of sections of the republican movement and the left they have been posing as the socialist voice of the working class. This has proved too implausible and their real role, as muscle for the unionist bourgeoisie, has become all too clear. Unfortunately the right-wing UK unionists have now taken up the "socialist" mantle.
The Women's coalition, a post-modernist and post-feminist grouping supported by the Communist party and trade union bureaucrats, have a programme that boils down to support for the imperialist initiative [a remnant of the old Stalinist stages theory lives on]. This hardly seems enough of a programme to ensure their 8 International Viewpoint #303
Disband the
RUC
RE-ROUTE SECTARIAN PARADES An attempt was made to launch labour party in the 1996 elections, but in fact the alliance was totally unprincipled and made massive concessions to the right. It exploded into its component parts - opportunist, social democrat and the Socialist Party [CWI]. An attempt by the Socialist Party to continue this orientation met with disaster.
Drumcree followed the elections. The whole timetable of the peace process was a guilty one - designed to put in place the structures of a settlement before workers could look too closely at the reality behind
The Orange marches at Drumcree I, II and III had shown all too clearly that reality: a rabidly sectarian mob demanding their 'right' to march through a catholic estate, state forces themselves filled with sectarian bile and the British willing to stymie Orangeism - if it could be done without putting their own base within unionism in doubt.
The British approached Drumcree IV with the political capitulation of republicanism and the majority of the nationalist population in their back pocket. But they knew that this capitulation was conditional on sustaining nationalis illusions of Votes and seats in the Northern Ireland Assembly
'96 (%) '98 (%) Seats Official Unionist 24.2 21.3 28 SDLP 21.4 22.0 24 DUP 18.8 18.0 20 Sinn Fein 15.5 17.7 18 UDP[UDA] 2.2 1.0 0 PUP[UVF] 3.5 2.6 Uk unionists 3.5 4.5 5 Alliance 6.5 6.6 6 Womens Coalition 1.1 1.6 Labour 0.9 0.3 0 Independent NO unionists n/a 3 gradual change. If the Orangemen marched down the nationalist Garvaghy Road it would be hard to sustain these illusions and would be seen as victory for the most reactionary elements of Orangeism. This would have weakened nationalist support and weakened the alliance between the unionist and nationalist middle class. In effect restraining the orange mob and defending the Stormont agreement became the same thing
They built massive fortifications to ensure that the bigoted police were kept well away from the Orangemen set up a parades commission to give the appear ance of impartiality and keep blame from the RUC while retaining absolute political control. They set out to divide the unionists, insisting that the orange campaign was simply the minority "No" vote. The new premier and deputy, Trimble and Mallon, were to hold the middle ground.
At first this appeared to work as Orange opposition lacked the unity and force of previous years, but within a few days It all went horribly wrong. The unionists made it crystal clear that they all supported sectarian privilege. Trimble threatened resignation and went into hiding. The Orange forces were active in sectarian attacks throughout the North with the RUC standing well back and the Loyalist paramilitaries carrying out a form of ethnic cleansing. [They were not structurally involved, the RUC reported] British support
Yet in the end the British won, after the sectarian murder of the three young Quinn children. They won because the unionists were divided by the agreement. The unionist leadership was not willing to sacrifice the power that the new assembly potentially offered for a program of unrestricted privilege that was in practice unattainable without British support.
Within the British strategy there was also the need to hold unionism up. So there was a constant shifting of responsibility to the nationalist residents, hints to the Orangemen that if they would just speak once to the residents then they could march, assurances that if they gave way this year they could march the next and, when things got rough, panic pressure from the Dublin bourgeoisie and SDLP.
That pressure partially paid off. The parades commission tried to mollify the Orangemen by allowing the most offensive march of them all - through the Ormeau Road and past the site of a sectarian massacre. The residents, with the support of Sinn Fein, agreed to a token protest. Ironically this was originally the proposal of Orangeism - they march and residents protest ineffectively. The fact that it was the state that was sponsoring the sectarian display became invisible. Brave new world
The brave new world of the future became clear in the final major demonstration of the marching season at Derry. A "Civic Forum" [an unelected body based
T& E HOWIE on proposals by the Women's Coalition] was perfectly suited to mediate. It allowed the sectarians to participate without having to speak directly to the residents and outweighed the republicans with bourgeois representatives and local business people with no interest other than stability. The result - a compromise that met all the demands of the sectarians.
Not that Sinn Fein put up any resistance. They after all had endorsed the strategy of unity with the capitalists and help give it the form of local residents committees which would never be able to launch general mobilisations or introduce any class politics. After many attempts secret diplomacy had its day, and the price was the total and complete demobilisation of resistance and support for all the capitulationist proposals of the other members of the nationalist family. New Sinn Fein
Where now? Sinn Fein stand ready to "take their place in government" - a colonial government headed by noted sectarians and organised around a sectarian headcount. They expect to implement a reformist programme. This shift reflects a shift in Sinn Fein's social base, more and more integrated into the booming community and voluntary sector of the economy funded by pacification funds from the British, the EU and the US.
There's a base for reformists, but little for reform. The Northern Irish colony will remain unable to meet the needs of the working class. Sectarianism, the founding impulse of the state, will remain. The Stormont agreement suggests that sectarian privileges will be shared out, but they cannot be shared out equally. The state will need to establish unequal privilege and use the state forces to defend these. The vague promises of an "equality agenda will fade
This is happening already. The promises on recognition for the Irish language and on human rights never made it to the Westminster legislation. Chris Patton, the last governor of Hong Hong, is to head an enquiry into police reform. He has made it clear where he stands by announcing abruptly that submissions will be terminated in mid-September. Reforms already proclaimed include a ban on recruits joining the loyal orders [at a time when recruits will be few and far between as the RUC retrenches]. The union Jack is not to be flown on July 12th when the Orangemen walk - that is they are not openly to join in the sectarian provocation of the loyal orders. Very little else can be expected.
The biggest illusion of all is the new progressive role assigned to imperialism. The Trimble unionists have yet to meet Sinn Fein and are insisting that they physically surrender weapons before being allowed into government. The unionists are divided internally and face a strong challenge from the right. The loyalist ceasefire becomes more and more illusory, with frequent sectarian attacks. Trimble is trapped in the agreement, but shows little real willingness to operate it, while a powerful coalition crossing the Official unionists, the UK unionionis and sections of Paisley's DUP plot against him and talk of a new party of the extreme right. The fragility of unionist support means that the assembly could easily fall to the right. What is not recognised by republicans is that the imperialists and bourgeois nationalists would then accuse themselves of being too hard on the unionists and look for further concessions.
The nationalist "Yes" vote marks a major victory for imperialism, but it also represents a lot of expectations that cannot be met. There are plenty of explosions to come, though these will be held back by the weakness of the political opposition.
Regroupment is made difficult by the totality of the republican collapse. Republican opponents have made no definitive political critique and are themselves unable to break from the concept of the nationalist family. They are unable to explain the collapse of the Republican movement and are mired in a militarist strategy - blind to the fact that it was the defeat of that strategy that lies at the heart of the peace process. All the long-standing Marxist critiques of militarism apply to the new groups in an even stronger form. The amount of force that can apply is not credible as a weapon against imperialism. They have even less of a political analysis and justification than the Provos had. At best they demobilise workers and at worst they damage the cause.
The Irish Republican Socialist Party has just announced that its armed wing, the INLA, is calling a ceasefire. It's clear from the context that there will be a political ceasefire also and they intend to be the "left" of the peace process.
The revolutionary left have fared no better. In theory the Socialist party and Socialist Workers Party oppose the deal, but in practice the former called for a yes vote while the latter claimed that the agreement somehow left the way open for "socialism from below".
Socialist Democracy has characterised the agreement as an imperialist offensive from the first talks between Capitalist representative John Hume and the republican leadership. We are preparing by fighting the battle of ideas and resisting the retreat on policy led by the republican leadership. We are building a network of discussion and activity among political opponents of the deal and aim to be in the forefront when sections of the working class find themselves in conflict with Britain and its bigoted allies and when they also come into conflict with the leaders of the "Nationalist family" who themselves are part of the oppression. * The Socialist Democracy group has recently published The Real Irish Peace Process, available for £6.00 from Socialist Democracy, PO Box 40, Belfast BT11 9DL, Northern Ireland Socialist Democracy on the Omagh bombing
Democracy would like to express their sympathy and sorrow to the victims and relatives of the Omagh explosion. There are some harsh realities that must be faced if we are to prevent further tragedies.
The atrocity at Omagh shows the bankruptcy of a republican platform based on militarism. This kind of slaughter is what fatally weakened the movement and led to the political collapse that fuelled the peace process. The "Real IRA" will never have at its disposal the kind to force that would defeat Britain. These sort of tragedies can only make the political process they oppose much
Militarism has nothing to offer Irish workers. At its best it is simply ineffective while demobilising the self-activity of working people that can bring real change. At its worst it discredits and demoralises the entire
But these is more to be said about the events at Omagh that sympathy for the victims or criticism of those who carried out the bombing. What it shows is that the peace process will not be enough. Because it does not actually offer a democratic solution it will time and again, as so often before in Irish history, produce marginalised and left without hope.
Gerry Adams will be called on to do more. His movement will be asked to retreat further and settle for even less than the minor changes on offer. The British and Free state forces will now move to further restrict democratic rights and use all the forces of the state to silence dissent. Those supporting the current settlement will be asked to responsibilities by supporting further police powers.
We call on all socialists democrats to oppose this. Britain could make a giant step towards peace tomorrow by leaving Ireland.
Giving her and her allies more power is not the road to peace and is not in the interests of working people.*
Contact Socialist Democracy at: PO Box
40, Belfast