Reply to Michael Keaney

["D OC" <donaloc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

First of all Michael, congratulations are due to you for the manner in which
you are conducting this argument. I must apologise if my post yesterday may
have been a little coarse - insults made were not meant personally I can
assure - rather my respect.

The other thing is that I have difficulty reading your posts as they run
over - is this something to do with your computer's settings? In any case, I
tend to miss words and they run over each other. That's just an aside. Now
onto the debate.

MK: Actually I have not advocated a vote for the Nice treaty. I've
questioned the wisdom of campaigning on the specific issue of Nice. There is
a difference, and it's more than semantic. And while there may be a
self-contradiction in my thinking (which I'm willing to acknowledge if it is
so proven), it is also important to try to unravel the complexity of the
conjuncture and to get past linear modes of thought and employ dialectical
reasoning in an effort to identify the most promising course of political
action. This may well involve campaigning against Nice, but for now I'm not
convinced, for reasons already stated and for more to follow.

I'm glad to hear that you haven't advocated a vote against the Nice Treaty.
I knew that you were vague on it so I made the assumption that you had to
force you to adopt a clarified position. The more one reads the detail of
Nice the more it is unappealing. The bulk of it is to create a less
democratic and more bureaucratic para-EU structure ready for the new
accession states - the underlying rationale is, of course, that of
neo-liberalist conservatism.

MK: The difficulty with drawing historical parallels is that circumstances
have changed in the interim. I am not advocating a Kautskyist capitulation
to national chauvinism, which is not really possible anyway under the
circumstances, given the interpenetration of national capitals and the
nature of the imperialist chain in 2002.

I accept that you are not making Kautskyist formulations - however, you are
sailing close to the wind on this. I am not precisely sure what strategy you
are advocating *in practice*. I am certainly not against using
inter-imperialist rivalries to our own advantage but what does this mean in
concrete terms? That's why I assumed you were advocating a Yes to Nice.
Instead of presenting concrete actions you have returned the argument to a
consideration of why the Irish Left remains focussed on No to Nice. I trust
you can see my difficulty in grappling with your argument. I need to see
exactly what you will accept to advance our cause. In a broad sense, that
understanding underpins Sinn Fein's approach to Europe - a critical
engagement. We look at everything on its own merits. John O'Neill's letter
to the APRN hit the nail when he said that a return to de Valerian isolatism
was impossible - on that we all agree. The problem remains however, that I
see hope in popular forms of resistance against both US imperialism and
those of the EU sub-imperialist state. It is perhaps relevant to also notice
that our involvement in state structures in the North runs opposite to that
but again we must notice two factors which mitigate this and necessitate it
in our specific circumstances (i) The lack of national self-determination
leading to structural inequalities and (ii) the nature of our involvement -
it is occurring in a period of transition and that it is predicated upon
pursuing [political] conflict further within those structures.

MK: Jean-Pierre Chévènement tried that in France and failed miserably,
deservedly so. Nor am I suggesting that we loyally support our bourgeoisies
in any conflict with the US bourgeoisie. The conditions of 1914 simply do
not apply. What we have instead is a complex global interpenetration of
allied and competing capitals linked in an imperialist chain with the
hegemonic fraction(s) of US capital at its head. Such is the danger
associated with the policies being advocated by those at the helm of the US
state apparatus that even the US ruling class is deeply split. But for us on
the eastern side of the Atlantic our potential opening concerns the split in
the tr!
ansatlantic ruling class, which I believe we can exploit without resort to
national chauvinism or Habermas-type festung Europa. Thus we do not stop
opposition to grotesque facts like the British occupation of Northern
Ireland, the Spanish state's repression of the Basques, French
neo-colonialism, etc., etc. Nor do we pretend that the "neutral" Irish state
is somehow better than nasty, evil Britain. A truly equal opportunities
anti-imperialism would be as critical of the Irish capitalist state. Instead
we recognise the overbearingly hegemonic nature of US imperialism and we
work to undermine it by exploiting the contradictions inherent in the
imperialist chain. That is a service to all peoples, regardless of their
geographic and economic circumstances.

Ignoring the bit about the 'neutral' Irish state being equivalent to that of
Britain - on which I disagree fundamentally. I generally agree. The problem
is where it is you feel that our predisposition towards using the
fault-lines in global imperialism to our own advantage. I would not disagree
with what you're suggesting however, we need to flesh it out with a serious
analysis of exactly what you would have the left to do.

MK: ...Most of what you say will come to pass regardless of the Irish
people's views of Nice, or mine for that matter.

That's precisely my difficulty with the whole EU project - it doesn't matter
what people think they will seize more and more power. The Nice Treaty is
another leap forward into this bureaucratic private capital form - therein
lies our principle difficulty.

MK: Once again, I'm questioning the wisdom of focusing on this particular
issue, not justifying militarism or British occupation of Northern Ireland,
which I resolutely oppose.

I wouldn't say that we are focusing on this hugely. In the North we are much
more concerned with organising people to vote for next May's elections -
which are going to be pretty significant in Irish history. Westminster has
passed new tight regulations on voting which means that you have to have an
ID card/passport to vote. It means we have to visit every single nationalist
house to get our voters prepared, that is no small task. In the South, they
are focussing on Nice - and I really think we should do. Nice is a further
step towards a loss of sovereignty. I would be more amenable to this if the
European Parliament had some powers but it simply does not. The agreement is
just bad for Ireland - I don't even see the logic of supporting it from a
domestic capitalist viewpoint. To add insult to injury we have already
rejected it once before and now its coming back with a sheet of paper saying
that our neutrality will be respected. Whatever you say I am much happier in
the knowledge that Ireland remains outside NATO or its sub-structures in
Western Europe. They have connived to get the Free State army into the
Partnership for Peace (along with Russia) and these are just sub-species
under US domination.

The principle difficulty in your proposition is that the EU is in some way a
US construct - it cannot simply be used to counter US hegemon because in
some senses (in a dialectical manner) it is part of that hegemon. At the
same time it contains the negation of that in as much as it contains the
potential opposition to that hegemon. Yes, I agree we must take advantage of
splits - in fact I have argued that elsewhere - but I am very cautious about
advocating increased EU power as you appear to be. There is a fine line to
walk on this. What we need is detail precisely where we see our actions
coming. I would agree that Republicans have not thought out its
international positions - it seems to be mostly reaction-based. A true
criticism, and one I have made myself previously; however, we are not
specialists in international struggle we are good at fighting on our own
doorsteps. The task on which we all are focussed is national
self-determination - we do not have the opportunity to think exactly how
this will be utilised. The fight against Nice is part of that fight. There
are people thinking on this issue but the best we have come up with is
'critical engagement' and the construction of a progressive pan-European
grouping in the EP. It is unfortunate that we still do not have an MEP as
just one would do alot in this regard.

MK: If we are going to proceed we have to make our choices effectively.
Campaigning against the Nice treaty on the basis of its apparent
capitulation to British imperialism, while being a very selective and
misleading interpretation of the treaty's importance, would look a lot
better if those same forces making such great nationalist plays against that
treaty were not being so accommodating to the same hated, British
imperialism sponsoring the Good Friday Agreement.

The first thing is that this was only one reason to argue against it. It
might only mean much to those of us in the North - who don't get the chance
to vote on this. As far as the GFA goes, it is to us an agreement reached by
two sides following a protracted conflict. We certainly didn't get far
within it but we reckon that it contains sufficient opportunities to enable
us to achieve our goals through peaceful means. The main reasons I opposed
the Nice Treaty were not included in your reply to my original post. I
assumed everyone else noted that but these are sufficient to justify Irish
opposition to the treaty irrespective of its implications in terms of
building a pan-European 'Rapid Reaction Force'. Of interest too, now that I
am on this, is that the treaty contains the basic line that Ireland would
not be forced to defend another EU state but would be forced to attack a
non-EU state if it was determined by the Council of Ministers. This is
important in that it seems that we won't join an EU force if its fighting
against the US but we will join in 'Peacekeeping' missions (obstensively to
support EU imperialism). This is the contents of the Nice Referendum. I
don't see why we shouldn't oppose it.

MK: And is it really an issue that Irish soldiers would potentially come
under British command in a *European* rapid reaction force? Someone will
command such a force, regardless of nationality, and within a *European*
structure. Thatcherites will be making similar claims regarding British
soldiers coming under German command.

The (small) point I was making is that part of Britain is not still occupied
by the Germans. In that context, Irish nationalists can't be supporting this
treaty.

MK: For all the undoubted symbolism of Irish troops submitting to British
command and the grievances that would inflame, it's not relevant to a proper
consideration of the fundamental problems we ought to be seeking to address.

Agreed.

MK: So let's be clear about the real basis for campaigning on the specific
issue of the Nice treaty, the real interests at stake here, rather than
engaging in a selective empiricism that uses well-worn and absolutely
correct observations concerning British imperialism whilst obscuring deeper,
less convenient and more complex realities. Nationalists in Sinn Fein and
elsewhere (including punk Thatcherites in Britain!) are very easily able to
sound off about the terrible consequences of the Nice treaty whilst making
not a single dent in the structure of global and local capitalism.

For a start, Sinn Fein is not in state power. Secondly, Conservatives aren't
focussed like bloodhounds on the establishment of a unitary English
Socialist Republic. But let's avoid this trashy stuff. You are trying to
argue on fundamentalities - on this we will agree. The only thing is that I
will require these to be made explicit.

MK: It is very easy to posture using the Nice treaty as a point of reference
without in fact advancing the cause of revolution one iota. My argument is
that in selecting this red herring certain forces are, unwittingly or
otherwise, assisting US imperialism in its efforts to rein in restive
European imperialists who are as alarmed at certain elements within the US
ruling class as pretty much everyone else. If that means that, for a limited
period only. those of European imperialists, then we can and should exploit
this. To repeat: this is not Kautskyist capitulation to national chauvinism.
Rather, in the present circumstances it's about trying to save the planet.

Yet again this emotive stuff. Sure let's save the planet but what about
fighting imperialism here and now. I think your alternatives will just lead
to more possibilities of war. I don't see how Nice getting passed will help
prevent planetary disaster. Your argument is in the air - you need to bring
it down to earth and to make the difficult linkages.

MK: Blair et al represent that section of the UK state-capital nexus that
wants to extricate Britain from its outdated imperialist commitments because
they have bigger fish to fry elsewhere. For a punk Thatcherite empire
loyalist who views Europe as a collection of nation states vying for power
and influence in classical realist style, then of course hanging onto
Northern Ireland, Gibraltar and anything else you can get your hands on is
the name of the (zero-sum) game. But their time is past, and a new set of
imperialists is ascendant, and their game is positive-sum, because it
involves using British interests to leverage EU institutions for the benefit
of those same interests. Thus it does not matter who has "sovereignty" over
Gibraltar, because if you have the ultimate prize of EU-wide power, who
cares if Spain has nominal jurisdiction over that piece of rock? The real,
strategic decisions are being made elsewhere. The same is true for Northern
Ireland, where the relative insignificance of Ireland as a player in EU
politics means that its sovereignty over the six counties is no longer an
issue for British imperialism.

Agreed.

MK: The trouble is, of course, that France and Germany are playing the same
game, if in their own respective ways. But there is sufficient understanding
among all three that the first thing that they must do is to marginalise the
smaller states within the EU by institutionalising their hegemony via
circumventing the EU Commission, constructed as it is to favour the smaller
EU member states, just as the US senate favours smaller states like Delaware
and Vermont over the much more populated California and New Jersey.

You were going quite well there. The problem is that this process whereby
the big states want to 'marginalise the smaller states' because of the
preferential position afforded to countries like Ireland and Belgium within
the existing structures is exactly what the Nice Treaty is about. They want
to get these features removed before new states come in and then the whole
thing gets too unruly and unmanageable (too democratic some might say).

MK: The trouble with this is that the British, French and Germans cannot
agree on the best way forward because of their competing interests, most
notably in agriculture where Germany now unhappily subsidises French farming
interests under the CAP. Now, should the British left be supporting the
British state's efforts to step up a gear and use the EU to further the
interests of British imperialism? Of course not. [And you criticised my
rhetorical flourishes??!] But it should also be mindful that the biggest
obstacle to progress for the British working class, and by extension that of
the rest of Europe, is an increasingly irrational and overbearing US hegemon
which is now unashamedly and very openly attempting regime change in
Germany, if Richard Perle's revealing comments are anything to go by.
Thwarting that hegemon means exploiting the contradictions and rivalries
within the imperialist chain, and for Britain that means membership of the
eurozone.

Agreed. But what does this mean?

MK: Indeed there is the residual national bourgeoisie of Britain
concentrated in the financial sector that would finally be destroyed once
and for all were Britain to join the euro. This segment of UK capital bears
responsibility for a great deal, including the smashing of the UK labour
movement in alliance with US capital during the latter stages of the Cold
War, and the vicious military occupation of Northern Ireland from about 1970
onwards (I know the troops went there earlier, but it's important to
distinguish the reasons among the various elements of the UK state that put
them there -- there were clear difference nominally under Heath was about).
So there is a case for arguing for greater British participation in Europe
as a means of hastening the withdrawal of British troops from Ireland and
elsewhere. It's maybe not the cleanest, most admirable means of achieving a
united Ireland, but it's something to consider.

The first line here is the important bit: 'the residual national bourgeoisie
of Britain concentrated in the financial sector...would finally be
destroyed...were Britain to join the Euro'. Do you really think so? The
rationale for this is that finance would move from FTSE to DAX. If this
happens Britain would be decimated economically. The financial sector in
London is the only part of the British economy worth a damn any more - their
manufacturing industry is gone so is Agriculture, tourism is underdeveloped,
the Public Sector is bloated and inefficient. Finance is the only thing that
the British have going for them. It is my understanding that it is this
sector which is pushing most for the Euro. The only thing that would really
happen if Britain joined the Euro would be that they would transfer monetary
policy from the highly constrained officials of the neoliberalist Bank of
England to the highly constrained officials of the neoliberalist European
Central Bank. That would make very little difference to the British
Financial sector. By your logic the CAC in Paris should be in serious
trouble now - even the pathetic Irish Stock Exchange hasn't evaporated
although I wouldn't hold my breath. I just cannot agree with you on this.
There's absolutely no way in the world that Blair would be pushing the Euro
if the holy grail of the British Economy was to disappear as a result. Once
again, the wealth of the home counties is due in large part to the presence
of London as a financial centre - otherwise the whole of Britain would be
like the North of England.

MK: Even if these statistics are true, and I find it hard to believe that
today so much can be squeezed, although no doubt the economy has improved
since the relative cessation of hostilities, there are other important
considerations in a cost-benefit analysis of occupation. You neglected to
mention that part of the armed struggle was waged in Britain itself,
including most successfully London, where the damage caused by various bombs
was enough to convince the British state's capitalist sponsors that enough
was enough, get talking.

Those statistics are definitely the most accurate available. The figures of
spend are very accurate - the others are estimates. The exact figures are
about £700 million for the British Army and £400 million for the RUC. The
subvention is definitely £3.5 billion. Spending is £12 billion and taxes
raised are £8.5 billion. Those figures are for last year. Yes, the impact of
bombs in London was catastrophic towards the end - £10 billion for the last
few, many felt that more needed to be done like that but the costs were
high. MI5 put cameras in every corner of London - they say you are filmed 3
times every hundred metres.

MK: Hence the Downing Street Declaration, GFA, etc. And of course elements
of the British state (MI6 most obviously) had been talking to republicans
for years, despite Thatcher's strictures against "talking to terrorists". In
other words, even taking at face value the figures you cite, the costs of
policing and enforcing this subvention outweigh the benefits, and why bother
anyway when there is a cleaner way of achieving what used to be accomplished
via colonialism?

Colonialism doesn't yield six counties on which you can conduct and perfect
your war maneuvres. The point was that this is why some elements are so
committed to remaining here and in a war footing.

MK: Traditional left-nationalist reasoning hits the buffers when faced with
this conundrum, and either it switches its focus to outright
anti-imperialism (broadly conceived as capitalism) or instead veers off into
national chauvinism (cloaking pro-capitalist policies in an inflammatory
nationalist posture) which, given the current Sinn Fein leadership's
policies, looks like the route that SF is taking, with the blessing of its
US sponsors.

Nice one! I might ask you to justify it but I'm not sure that would be able.
As far as US sponsors go - it's pretty clear that our support comes from
individuals (whatever their class in the US). I might return the complement
reminding readers of how British social-patriots decried Lenin for being
bribed by the Germans into going to Russia. Didn't they even give him a
train to himself and his party??

MK: True again, but once again time does not stand still. One need only look
at the state of the British army (overstretched, poorly equipped to fulfil
the ambitions of its state commanders) to see that priorities have changed.
There are many different reasons why Blair in particular seems to be such an
enthusiastic and passionate warmonger. The major, overriding reason is
Britain's awkward strategic position vis a vis the EU and the US.
Paradoxically Blair must manically support US militarism in order to rein it
in even a little, and especially in order that his position at the top of
the UK state apparatus is not undermined by the likes of Richard Perle
looking to impose democratically elected leaders who "are with us" as
opposed to against us (such is the sophistication of Bush administration
policy wonks). He has the examples of Harold Wilson and Jim Callaghan, and
even Anthony Eden, to remind him that, if so aroused, the US can easily
undermine British interests without going to too much trouble. A sterling
crisis here, media smears and disinformation there, financial backing to the
opposition, all these are very possible and well-exercised in practice.
There is strong residual opposition to UK colonialism within the US, and the
occupation of Northern Ireland is viewed in this manner by certain important
elements of the US ruling class. Hence Clinton's deep involvement in the
recent "peace process" which produced an outcome much to the satisfaction of
the broadest swathe of the US ruling class: a beginning to the end of
British occupation involving a transition to a united Ireland that is as
incorporated into global capitalism as any other state you might care to
mention.

Some transition? The whole edifice is about to fall down around our ears.
That afterall was always going to happen. The problem with your analysis of
the GFA is it has no grounding in what is happening on the ground. You need
to comprehend the swell in support for SF, the challenge that offers Fianna
Fail, the collapse of Unionist hegemony. You have some appreciation - such
as a knowledge of the non-unitary nature of British policy here but you need
to complement that with an appreciation of what you are seeing. The eclipse
of the SDLP should scare the pants off the architects of the GFA. Some may
say SF is taking their place but that is not what is happening. People are
becoming more confident in their radicalism. In a sense, SF's leadership are
using their prestige to radicalise the wider Nationalist support base. Does
that mean that we are building towards Socialism - not hugely - as might be
gathered from the recent polls which showed SF voters less likely than Fine
Gael or Labour to oppose Nice (most probably because most of our supporters
are male in the Republic). This process is at its infancy - we remain
focussed on national self-determination but we are certainly developing our
wider policies and that will progressively impact on the popular
consciousness - of that I am certain.

MK: And Sinn Fein is an excellent vehicle for managing such a transition
because it can carry the nationalist constituency and thereby manage the
political and ideological components of the transition so much better than
the alternative parties. Thus another blow is struck against anachronistic
colonialism, whilst capitalists are reassured that the guardians of the
transition are no threat to capitalism, whatever anti-UK-imperialist
rhetoric might be employed during the transition process. And now, where the
EU/US rivalry is even more pronounced than it was under Clinton, having such
a safe set of guardians actively campaigning to effectively weaken its
uppity EU rival from within suits US interests very well indeed -- the best
of all worlds.

Again, this analysis happens in stark isolation from facts. It's the sort of
stuff Phil Ferguson reams out without a care for looking at what is
happening. Having said that, it is a danger of our strategy that this could
become true and there are many who are focussing on this issue precisely.
This is a transitional process and we must ensure that our underlying
ideology remains protected from the effects of today's necessary compromises
(which are mainly due to New Labour's love-affair with PPPs no less!).

MK: This buys into the mythology propagated by the punk Thatcherites. The UK
state apparatus is very capable of surviving the "loss" of Northern Ireland.
I don't believe for a second that there would be a destabilisation of the
UK, other than because of opposition from the very same punk Thatcherite
empire loyalists whose day passed with the 1980s, if not actually earlier.
Sure they can still cause trouble, but they are all so past it and ready to
die of old age that they have only nuisance value. As for the Irish state,
that's a different proposition, although I think that my previous answer re
Sinn Fein may also cover that one. As for moral defeats, another sterling
crisis manufactured by the US would represent a far bigger loss to the
British state and its New Labour guardians than the uniting of Ireland.

I'm sure you are right. But there is no doubt that the space opened up by
New Labour in establishing the devolved structures has clearly opened the
possibility of further destabilisation. A concrete example is the manner in
which the Welsh Assembly has effectively renationalised Welsh Water (through
the backdoor) - this is now being pushed in Scotland and in the six
counties. Of course, the opposite tendency is still prevalent (that of
British Treasury strictures pushing particular policies) but there are
undoubtedly greater possibilities. The creation of a unity Republic in
Ireland would represent a step-change and there is no doubt that it would
fuel Scottish independence to a much greater extent. Even Fianna Fail has
made gestures towards the Scottish and the old IONA (Islands of the North
Atlantic) idea is not beyond possibility.

MK: My references were to saving the planet, which accounts for humanity as
a whole, not just the fortunate minority of the North.

My point here is that this could be used to justify absolutely anything. The
destruction of the billions of people is not qualitatively different to the
deaths of millions. As such, we must be concerned that such slogans do not
assume disproportionate importance - i.e. as a fundamental justification for
any course of action. To illustrate this, I might consider that the
continued development of US imperialism is the only possibility to prevent a
huge asteroid hitting the planet - therefore, to 'save the planet' we must
acquiesce to its less palatable outcomes. That's the point I was making -
perhaps too clumsily.

MK: Nor have I admitted that the US can change EU structures as it desires.
EU structures are a bit more robust than that. The US operates at the
national level to undermine those structures, and often does not have to try
too hard, as with Berlusconi and Aznar. At other times you get more obvious
direct interventions, as with the recent German elections and aftermath, the
thwarting of the PCI in Italy, and the history of British sterling crises
since 1945. And no one is excusing imperialism or the specific experience of
imperialism in Ireland. The question is, which way is forward.

You appear to have made two concrete suggestions: support for Britain
entering the Euro (as a means for destroying the British National
Bourgeoisie) and the need for the Irish left to reconsider focussing on
opposition to the Nice Agreement. I honestly do not think that you have
demonstrated anything nearing a detailed justification of these positions.

MK: Part of revolutionary struggle involves assessing, as objectively as
possible, the relative strengths and weaknesses of the different social
classes, the possibilities (or otherwise) for class alliances, and the
courses of action most likely to succeed. Sometimes the choices are easier
than others.

I agree totally - but such an analysis is difficult and requires something
more than a qualitative discussion. I am the only one to provide anything
nearing specific evidence to justify my opinions (assessment of contents of
the Nice Agreement, figures on British subvention/spending, subjective
assessment of changing circumstances on the ground here). The nearest that
you have offered is the fact that the British state is not monolithic and
that the various state apparatuses used the war here to further their own
narrow agendas - both of which are very true.

Right now, with so much at stake, I think that there are bigger fish to fry
than the specific one of the Nice treaty. I also question the motive behind
SF's stance on the treaty since it is hardly consistent with that taken on
the GFA, unless you accept the scenario outlined above. In other words, we
should be careful not to be hoodwinked by those who use the "correct"
rhetoric, talking left and walking right. But I appreciate the chance to
engage with you on this.

What are the bigger fish to fry? Our position on both is consistent in my
eyes as the successful prosecution of our struggle in both arenas will
advance the cause of national democracy. That is the common thread. I too
appreciate your thoughtful contributions but we need to specify precisely
what it is you are suggesting the Left do.

Le meas,
D OC.


~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.