Irish situation

[<jbm7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This was written by a friend of mine
Jim Monaghan

Gerry Arafat? Graffiti on Belfast walls last year compared Gerry Adams to
Michael Collins, with the implied threat that if he sold out, Adams would
meet the same fate as the main signatory of the 1921 Treaty with Britain
which partitioned the country. A more apt comparison might be Yasser
Arafat
since Adams and the Republican leadership are now locked into a process
which, as has been pointed out often in these pages, is destined to lead
to
the very opposite of the aims of the republicans. The Unionists know that,
which is why they are increasing their bluster: most recently in their
"concern" at the threats by the Provos against joyriders and other
anti-social behaviour.

The Republicans main goal is to achieve their two Ministerial places on
the
Executive, which is to implicitly recognise the Northern State. They have
already accepted the Unionist veto on Irish unity and are almost in a
position of having to admit that 25 years of armed struggle has achieved
precisely nothing. Disarmament would be to admit this publicly hence its
difficulty, though according to the Independent on Sunday, IRA leaders did
promise this to Blair on condition Sinn Fein were allowed into the
Executive. Even then, the Unionists refused to play ball, believing they
can
extract more from the Republicans in Mitchell's review.

It is likely that more will be extracted. The Unionist's grandstanding
over
the Patten report on the RUC shows their position clearly. They don't even
want the symbolic changes: uniforms badge and photographs of the Queen in
every station. Most Unionists want the old pre-1972 Stormont back and want
to keep the RUC in its original pristine sectarian shape. Even if the
Republicans surrendered their arms and cheered Orange marches down every
nationalist area, a sizable section of Unionists would still not allow
them
into any position of power. But symbolic surrender by the Republicans is
what they are after and they know they can't lose because in the end they
have the support of the British ruling class, including Blair. The
Republicans will either make more concessions or they will put out and the
Unionists and the British can resume the war in much more favourable
conditions.

Why then the attempted importation of arms by the IRA which the Unionists
made so much of? One reason is to keep the more militaristic of their
supporters happy: after all, the rank and file have been assured that "not
an ounce of Semtex" would be handed over. A more sinister motive is
suggested by the nature of the weapons intercepted by the police; these
were
mostly short arms, and while it was reported that those arrested in the US
had claimed they were for use against the Army and the RUC, it seems much
more likely that they were for internal "security", i.e. against
dissidents.

The dilemma of the Republican leadership is this: 25 years of armed
struggle
has yielded no more than a seat at the conference table and a deal which
they would have had under the 1974 Sunningdale Agreement. Seamus Mallon,
Deputy first Minister until resigning in protest at the antics of the
Unionists, called the Stormont Agreement "Sunningdale for slow learners"
The
"cutting edge" against the Northern State and the British has, apart from
a
brief period around the Hunger Strikes in 1981, been the armed struggle.
Now
they have to explain the futility of this to their supporters. Clever
games
such as betting that that the Unionists would refuse to deal, or, (a
favourite among some of their supporters in the Dublin media) the idea
that
if they sit tight for twenty years demographic changes will give the
nationalists a majority, are merely sops to a disgruntled membership. But
there is no "Plan B": if abandoning the armed struggle and negotiating
fails, then there is no alternative to biting the bullet and making the
best
of it within a (mildly) reformed 6 County Statelet.

However long it takes, however many further concessions have to be made
before the Unionists deal (and at current reckoning it will sooner or
later
be disarmament), however many appeals to Blair's best instincts or the
republican heart of Fianna Fail, in the end there will be a bitter pill to
be swallowed by the Republican rank and file. At this point the rumbling
dissent now just kept out of the public eye by "visits" to the homes of
dissidents might erupt into something more serious requiring a return to
the
use of armed force, this time used against its own members. You can bet
than
when this starts to happen the Unionists now weeping bitter tears over the
exile of nationalist youth for anti-social activities, will be quietly
urging the use of weapons against republican dissidents.

So how should the swelling band of Republican dissidents and socialists
respond to stalemate. They must resist the temptation of militarism. A
generation of heroic and dedicated guerrillas, at best, fought the British
to a standstill. A smaller and more isolated group returning to war now,
while they might manage a few "spectaculars in Britain", could be
annihilated, if only because the British would have the excuse to unleash
again the loyalist death squads.

They must refuse on any account to give up their weapons: to do so would
be
to commit themselves into the hands the RUC, the armed wing of Unionism.
Local defense committees should supervise the protection of each area.
They
should oppose all Orange marches and actively participate in local
committees. They should fiercely oppose any hint of sectarianism in their
own ranks and should open/maintain contact with loyalist working class
organisations who have not participated in sectarian violence. Most of
all,
they must begin the building of a socialist party on the island which
challenge the ruling classes in Britain and Ireland and the sectarianism
which they foment.

Socialists in Britain should continue to oppose the Stormont Agreement.
The
essential principle which must be kept in mind is this: the Six Country
state cannot be reformed, not by Tony Blair, not by Sinn Fein Ministers in
the Executive. Sooner or later it must be destroyed. While we support the
cease-fire, we oppose the Stormont Agreement for what it represents:
another
British attempt to stabilise its rule in Ireland. We oppose it because of
the way it sets in concrete the sectarian divide in the North of Ireland
and
for the way in which the Republican leadership has betrayed its principles.

Palestine under Arafat is a terrifying model for what could happen in
Ireland if the "peace" treaty is imposed by the British. The only brake on
their doing so is the mass opposition of local communities and working
class
organisations in Britain and Ireland.