Re: SocDem Article on Irish Peace Process Stutters

["D OC" <donaloc@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I am attempting to present a critique of what James Daly considers an
accurate analysis of the current situation.

> The April cancellation of elections to the local Stormont assembly in
the North of Ireland marks a significant new stage in the decay of
British plans to bring about a settlement of the Irish question on
their terms. The indefinite suspension followed an earlier temporary
suspension of elections and the dramatic closure, in October last
year, of the local Stormont assembly itself including the dissolution
of the executive amid a mass police raid on the parliamentary offices
of Sinn Fein.

I think this is true. The failure to call elections is reflective of British
difficulty in the North.

> The Good Friday agreement, signed five years ago, was presented as
Britain withdrawing gracefully from the direct rule of its colony in
the North of Ireland, handing over to a process of co-operation
between local politicians and between the colonial structure in the
North and the formally independent Southern state.

To be sure the GFA was not a Republican document, however, it provided space
in which to advance our struggle.

> In practice the British kept appearing from behind the comic-opera façade
> of the
Stormont assembly to make further demands on the republican leadership
and giving further concessions to their local supporters in the
Unionist party, who demanded redefinition of the terms of the Good
Friday Agreement.

This is slightly off-course. The Brits demands of Republicans were as a
result of the inability of Unionists to actually share the limited executive
authority with Nationalists on an equal basis. This is because of the
pressure which extreme Unionism and internal dissidents within the UUP were
able to bring to bear on those forced into power-sharing. The Brits were
unwilling and incapable of standing up to the Unionist veto.

> The move to suspend and collapse the local structures make it crystal
clear that all the claims of a new democratic dispensation in Ireland
are false and that the old colonial structures, supported by religious
sectarianism, remain in place.

Very true. It also makes clear the situation in which the 26 County (Irish)
Govt is in and their inability to stand up for the rights of nationalists
and Republicans in the 6 Counties.

> Just how comic-opera the Good Friday
structures are is indicated by the fact that over 100 elected
representatives and a full cabinet representing all the major local
parties were needed to rule just under 1.5 million people - and were
replaced in an instant by three British labour party backbenchers!

At no point did the Brits really transfer authority (despite the selling of
this to the contrary). However, the terms of the GFA did allow the 26 Co
govt the opportunity as a co-signatory and co-sponsor to stand up  for the
rights of nationalists. This they have failed to do. Hopefully they will pay
the electoral price for such treachery.

> But the April events do not represent the collapse of the Good Friday
agreement. That collapsed finally with the collapse of the executive.

This is crystal ball gazing. Perhaps the GFA is dead. I might actually agree
but the Govts are clear that there is no alternative to it (largely as a
need to portray Paisley's DUP as unrealistic). Its not hugely important
whether the GFA is dead, unimplementable or just stumbling we are in a
crisis point.

> They represent something much more significant - the stillborn death
of Good Friday mark two.

If the last stuff was crystal ball gazing, then this is prophecy itself. Who
knows what will happen. If the Brits fail to call an election in Autumn
(Fall for you Americans), then we are into a very unstable situation. July
will offer significant 'flash points' for Unionism and Loyalism to erupt.
Meanwhile, it looks likely that the UUP might split on Monday 16th June.
What will this do - it really depends how many go each way. There is the
possibility that if Trimble goes that the party could unite under Donaldson
- but this looks absolutely unlikely at this stage. A central element of
Unionist Hegemony in this statelet may therefore be disabled in two days
time. This should be a cause of massive celebration for any Republican. Yet,
we are reading whining accounts about the disaster of the fall of the GFA.

> This [GFA 2] collapsed before it was launched,
despite the personal involvement of George Bush and Tony Blair and
despite repeated, and ever more desperate, attempts by the republican
leadership to indicate its total support for the new state
institutions and willingness to disband the IRA.

This is neither accurate nor decent. I think that the writer should know
that disbanding the IRA was simply not an option (pending full national
reintegration). We are a long way from that. As for the GFA 2 allegations,
that's not accurate. The April negotiations were entirely focussed on the
need for actions to bring the GFA to completion. That included proposals
such as the mothballing of the RIR (another central structure in Unionist
Hegemony) and the normalisation of policing (in fact the powers for policing
and justice were to be transfered to the 6 County Executive under the
Governments' Joint Declaration) and that in parallel to this further (key)
reforms in the operation of the PSNI (local cops) would be changed so that
they would finally be made accountable. As a matter of interest for those
with only a passing interest in Irish politics, the new policing
dispensation would also include very significant community policing
mechanisms whereby policing might be brought under the control of local
communities. It also involved removal of all restrictions from ex-Political
prisoners joining these forces and all on-the-runs were to be amnestied.
There were unpalatable bits to the Joint Declaration but the key issue is
that it was politically unacceptable to the UUP (as it involved massive
problems for them e.g. Republican ex-prisoners in the Police, Disbandment of
the 3 Reserve Regiments of the sectarian RIR). This is why the Brits
rejected the Republican offers. Not because they knew we weren't serious but
because they were 'saving private Trimble'. Unfortunately for the Brits it
looks as if he's going out anyway (or else will be left in charge of a much
weaker UUP). The Dublin Govt will be challenged to defend National interests
when the Brits make their next choice (to cancel the Autumn elections or to
run with them into the ground). I don't hold my breath but if they make the
wrong move, I've a feeling that they might start paying for it on their own
homeground.

> The fact of this
collapse led Lord Kilcooney, aka John Taylor, notorious weathervane of
the unionist leadership, to predict that it would be a generation
before a new Stormont assembly would reconvene.

That would be too bad... I don't think Republicans will shed any tears about
the Six County Assembly. If the Brits take back Direct Rule the GFA (an
international agreement) states that the Agreement must be implemented by
the two Govts. E.g. demilitarisation and normalisation have to be
implemented by the Brits with the Irish Govt in the background. Nobody knows
how much patience there will be for change in this situation but I certainly
feel that Republicans need to play the contradictions to their fullest
extent.


snip...
> A few cosmetic all-Ireland committees were draped around
this legal shift and the nationalists were promised places in a
power-sharing coalition in a new local parliament. British rule in
Ireland was to continue, sectarianism was to continue. The major shift
was that nationalists, completely excluded from political power in the
old Stormont regime preceding the troubles, were to have their share
of sectarian privilege. The republicans, militarily at a dead end and
moving towards a more right-wing and nationalist orientation decided
to support this and claim victory.

This is pretty bad for what is titled an 'accurate analysis'. First the
Cross-Border committees weren't committees at all. There were 6 areas of
cooperation e.g. Health, Education, Environment, Transport, Agriculture and
Energy. There were 6 cross-border implementation bodies: the
Foyle/Carlingford Lights Commission, InterTradeIreland, An Foras Teanga
(Irish language and Ulster-Scots), Food Safety Promotional Body, Waterways
Ireland and the Special EU Programmes Body. The areas of cooperation were
implemented through Ministerial contacts (in the North-South Ministerial
Council) and did some decent work in those Departments controlled by
Republicans or even the Nationalist SDLP. Others did very little. The
implementation bodies were limited but did some quite decent work
(particularly the Foras which helped to coordination all-Ireland development
of the use of Irish). However, Republicans knew that these areas were
limited but there was plans to expand them and increase their number. As far
as Nationalists getting their share of Sectarian privelege - if that was
true - who was going to be left disadvantaged middle-of-the-road alliance
liberals or the odd stickie?? The institutions did to some extent reduce
inequality but not hugely (largely as a result of Unionist opposition and
SDLP neo-liberalism expressed in their distain for affirmative action or
market intervention (especially where these cost money)).
The comments on military matters will remain unanswered and allegations of
SF's shift to the Right can be rejected as unsubstantiated bile.

> Kilcooney remarked dryly that the Unionists were willing to share
power in a revamped Northern colony but of course, he went on, it
could not be equal amounts of power. The point was unanswerable. There
really is no point to sectarianism if it is to be an equality of
sectarian privilege.

I think that the writer is getting himself confused here. What John Taylor
was saying was that they didn't want equality. That they couldn't share
power on an equal basis. Herein lies the whole crux of the Republican
strategy. The 6 County statelet cannot actually withstand equality.
Therefore, our strategy can simply be reduced to achieving equality. Of
course, in order to achieve equality we have to strike at the organs of
Unionist Hegemony by using British wishes for disengagement and by building
our own hegemony (e.g. political strength in its widest social sense). The
fact that this argument is bungled by the writer is in keeping with his
inability to see the Republican strategy for what it is.

> The British pinned their hopes on 'moderate' middle class unionism led
rather unconvincingly by the arch-bigot David Trimble. The problem
here was that the Trimble wing never had a programme of reaching an
accommodation with nationalism. Their argument was that it was through
the structures of the GFA that they would best be able to defend their
sectarian privileges, either totally crushing and humiliating the
republicans and/or forcing them from the government.

Again, in the context where the 6 Counties cannot withstand equality, where
SF is unacceptable in Executive Authority because of the challenge which
they present in terms of bringing about that equality, of course Unionists
are going to try to exclude us. What else can they do. Trimble for all his
bigotry is a pragmatist, he knows that he had to play this game, his
strategy was to slow things down. It looks as if the internal contradictions
within his own party now have come to antagonism and there will be rupture.
The impact of such a split within the UUP should not be underestimated.

> The republicans were well aware of Trimble's position, but believed that
> the British
would punish the unionists if they broke the structures of the
agreement. In any case they believed that the nationalist family of
the Irish capitalist parties and of Irish America would hold the
British to their word.

This is idealistic categorisation. Things are simply not that simple.
Republicans knew full well that the Irish Bourgeoisie would fail us, that
Irish-America might lose interest, that the Brits would play the 'orange
card'. That's abcs of this struggle. What we have to do is build our
coalition of forces in such a way that if political representatives fail to
stand up, that they come under political pressure. That if the SDLP signs up
for policing that it pays an electoral price. That if the Fianna Fail Govt
fails to stand up for the National interest that they are shown to be
lily-livered.

> The British saw things differently. If the North was to remain a
colony to ensure capitalist stability in Ireland., it would need to
continue to base itself on sectarian privilege and on a mass unionist
base. Their job was to placate unionism - by bending the agreement to
the right and even to the extent of turning a blind eye to open
campaigns of sectarian intimidation by loyalist paramilitaries. The
unionists demanded, and got, the destruction of IRA weapons by the
republican leadership. All this did was to embolden the even more
reactionary forces to the right of Trimble. It became clear that only
the public and unconditional surrender of the IRA and its immediate
disbandment would save the agreement. In the absence of this the
agreement collapsed.

The Brits wanted to coop Republicans into running their structures, just
like they did in most every other colony they ever left. The problem for
them is that and beyond their understanding, Republicans are uncorruptable.
We live in deprived areas, we are composed of people with an ideological
commitment to the struggle which we will implement to the very end. The
Brits just can't understand that. I'm glad to be a Republican and part of
that. The contradictions in the process are now open for everyone to see.
Gone are the accounts of how SF are becoming institutionalised, now its
accounts of how Republicans have somehow lost out through the collapse of
the institutions, the UUP and British moral authority in the North. These
are gains for us.

> However the nature of the collapse indicated that the republican
analysis and republican strategy had collapsed also.

I had been forecasting the likelihood of collapse on this forum for quite
some time. That wasn't just me saying that, that was pretty normal within
the movement.

> Good Friday mark one failed because of Unionist protest at allegations
of continued IRA activity - mostly intelligence gathering. In fact
this activity did not break the terms of the Good Friday agreement,
based on an IRA ceasefire. These ceasefire activities kept the IRA
ticking over and helped prevent discontent, but had absolutely no
political significance.

I'm not going to discuss military issues here.

> Given the level of penetration by British
intelligence and, more importantly, the abandonment of the republican
programme by the leadership, there was absolutely no prospect of that
activity leading to a new conflict.

'abandonment of the Republican programme by the leadership'!!!! Catch
yourself on man.

> The Unionist protests were in fact simply cynical ploys to add a new
element to the agreement - the demand for disbandment. They lacked any
moral dimension.

Of course they lacked any moral dimension, the IRA are a legitimate national
liberation movement. They demanded this because they knew it couldn't be
delivered. Just as they had demanded 'decommissioning' only to be left empty
handed when 'weapons were put beyond use'. As I said at the time,
Republicans were undercutting their ability to make demands and use these as
an excuse not to implement the GFA (and equality).

> At the same time that they demanded IRA disbandment
the Trimble group were part of an organisation called the Loyalist
commission. Its task was to provide political cover for armed
sectarian attacks by the Loyalist groups.

And... don't tell me you expected consistency from the leaders of
Unionism/Loyalism. This isn't some grandeous argument played out for fun.
This is a revolutionary process.

> The big shock to Republican strategy was the British response. The
police raid on Sinn Fein's parliamentary offices kicked away the
illusions of a parliamentary democracy with the same efficiency as a
few careless kicks demolish a sandcastle.

I don't think anyone was shocked by British acts of violence. These guys are
the people who invented concentration camps and initiated the use of
biological weapons. They are evil bastards. Of course, Republicans expected
such moves.

> It served dramatic notice
that the British would not negate their history in Ireland and
suddenly play a progressive role, that the British supported Unionist
demands, that Sinn Fein would have to do a great deal more if they
wanted to preserve the pretence of power and that the demand for IRA
disbandment would be the starting point for future negotiations to
establish a new agreement.

I suspect this tells more of the writer than the reader. Did this guy ever
believe that the Brits would play a nice exit strategy? The only person who
makes such claims on this list is Michael Keaney and he only says this about
the MI6. Besides, that raid on the SF offices were not politically cleared
by the Brits but by PSNI Special Branch without the authorisation of the
Chief Constable (isn't that messed up for you). If this author really thinks
that this was a shock to Republicans, has he forgotten how the Brits bugged
Gerry Adams car? My understanding is that the Brits are more active than
they were before the ceasefire as they're trying to pick up loose
information which wouldn't be so easily got previously.

> In a visit to Belfast Tony Blair spelt it
all out. The promises of the Good Friday agreement, supposedly set in
stone, were now conditional on the unconditional surrender of the
republicans. The final blow came when Sinn Fein's friends in the
nationalist parties North and South and their friends in Washington
all lined up to lash out and demand capitulation.

This was disappointing, but not unexpected. This is the natural result of
our growth. We now represent a serious challenge to the 26 Co authority in a
political manner. We have not loosened our ideological commitment to
Socialism and we still choose our own friends. In that circumstance, it was
only a matter of time until the consensus collapsed. Having said that the
continuing support which the Bush regime gives for the implementation of the
GFA is of some worth in pushing the Brits towards engagement.

> Sinn Fein offered no resistance. The period from October to March was
spent in carefully crafting these conditions. The collapse of the
negotiations at least allows the Irish working class to see the nature
of the deal. At their centre was to be an IRA declaration that they
would surrender arms, run down background activities and were moving
towards disbandment and that Sinn Fein would unambiguously support the
structures of the new state by joining the Policing Board. In case
this was not enough Dublin and London would establish a commission
that would oversee the winding down of the IRA and punish Sinn Fein if
the military wing showed any sign of activity.

The surrender arms bit is totally untrue and mischevious. Yes, the Joint
Declaration was not a Republican document and we found it hard to sign up to
all aspects. But at least it did open up new sites of struggle e.g. the
Police. Of course, it could not be implemented due to the fractures in
Unionism and our acceptance of it has to be seen in that context.

> At first this was described as a 'deal breaker' by Sinn Fein but like
so many other republican positions this was quietly dropped. The
reward, spelt out in a joint declaration by London and Dublin, would
be a reduction in military levels. Some border watchtowers would be
demolished, and the British army would be reduced to 'only' 5000
soldiers and 14 bases - subject of course to their being absolutely no
resistance. The sectarian colonial structures at Stormont would be
re-established, repressive legislation would be redrafted - not to
meet human rights demands but to allow nationalist influence on
various boards and quangos. There would be some further pretence at
cosmetic reform of the police and that a small number of 'On the
Runs' - republicans still wanted by the British - would be allowed to
return home under extraordinarily humiliating circumstances. They
would be tried by a commission on the allegations put forward at the
time they left, a sentence would be imposed and they would then be
released on licence - subject to imprisonment at the whim of the
British administration.

This paragraph details much of what I have discussed previously but in
obviously negative ways (to limit their possibilities in terms of future
struggle). The Joint Declaration was written by the Brits and Irish Govts -
not by Republicans. It focussed on the need to build equality and in the
context of a War of Position, it gave us space for future struggle. As it
turned out, we didn't need it as it looks as if the contradictions in our
opponents have buckled them.

> There were however some worrying signs. A first attempt to make the
deal at a summit led by Blair and Irish Taoiseach Bertie Aherne ended
in disarray when the Unionist parties walked out. The final deal was
crafted, only to be torn away from the fingernails of the Sinn Fein
leadership as they made lunge after desperate lunge to meet British
terms.

Republicans would have liked to have found a formula of words which would
get the GFA up and running again. We believe that it offers the best roadmap
for the transitional process. We identified strategic priorities within its
format for greater all-Ireland integration. We wanted that election as we'd
have done very well and would have set ourselves up in a stronger position
from which to demand more. As it stands now the Brits have no power to
prevent the next EU election even if we don't get to vote for an assembly.
We'll have to wait until then.

> The republicans were told that the IRA statement, carefully worded so
that it would read surrender to the British and yet be sold to the
republican base, was insufficient and unclear. Desperately Gerry Adams
stepped forward to provide that clarity - that is to define the terms
of surrender in words provided by the British. The British responded
by declaring that this was real progress - if only Gerry had used the
word 'will' instead of 'should'. Adams provided the missing word, but
this was not enough. It was now necessary to list in detail all the
activities that the republicans would now abjure. "What part of
absolutely no activity do you not understand?", asked Adams. But by
now it was clear that no words would be enough.

Whether or not, the writer wants to enjoy using the word surrender when
talking about the IRA contribution to peace, what's clear is that they
wanted something which couldn't be delivered. They chose it because they
couldn't follow up with their side of the bargain.

> The reality that had now dawned was that the unionist opposition to
sharing power with Sinn Fein was absolute. There were no conditions to
meet because there were no conditions under which the Trimble wing of
unionism could enter elections and propose a coalition government with
Sinn Fein that would not lead to his defeat and a large majority for
anti-agreement forces in his own party and for the rejectionist, and
even more bigoted, Paisleyite Democratic Unionist Party. Even bearing
Gerry Adam's head on a spike, Trimble was bound to be defeated. The
Unionists would not share power with Sinn Fein and even hints that
they would share power with nationalists if Sinn Fein were excluded
seemed distinctly shaky.

This is a laugh. Republicans have been saying this for years. For years.
This guy writes as if it only became apparent in April. This guy just
doesn't understand the strategy. Yet is trying to set himself up as
something of an authority, when in reality every article of material fact he
offers to substantiate his argument is contorted or just simply wrong.

> Under these conditions the British role became what it was in the fall
of GFA 1 - to pull the plug, defend unionism and condemn the
republicans for not giving enough.

Just as they had done before. This is actually the second election to be
postphoned now? Has the writer forgotten that, or if he remembered it would
it then be difficult to pretend that somehow Republicans didn't know that
this would happen (again)?

> However this is not a re-run of the October collapse. This is not yet
another suspension of the cardboard executive or postponement of the
elections and no amended GFA 3 waits in the wings.

We're into GFA 3 already and we haven't moved clearly away from GFA 2 yet.
This is just to get attention from a reader.

> The indefinite postponement of the elections in the North is in fact their
cancellation.

Quite likely. But this is crystal ball gazing. This writer obviously wrote
this before Trimble's internal difficulties became clear to him. Republicans
told me that Trimble might go within 6 weeks of the April logjam (at the
time). Donaldson has messed up his attack on Trimble so he might fail, in
any case, a serious split in the UUP looks likely which will pretty much cut
Trimble's importance to a level where he's politically worthless to the
Brits. In such a circumstance, his remaining political supporters might well
desert him. Again, this is all in the future, who knows what will happen.
The key question is what do we do now. Republicans are getting out onto the
streets as we've realised that politics is pretty much a deadend just now.

> With the elections goes much of the structure and
political content of the Good Friday Agreement. There will be no
Autumn election because the agreement itself contains provision for a
review that must take place then.

The first statement is not true. The GFA actually contains details on how
the Agreement will be implemented in any period of review. I don't think
that the second statement is true either. It looks wrong and the two Govts
seem sure of their ability to call an election in Autumn. I just don't think
they will.

> After 5 years, surrounded by the ruins of GFA 1 and GFA 2, the review will
> inevitably become
negotiation for a completely new settlement.

Where GFA 2 comes from here I don't know. The review might well lead to a
new Agreement - one involving Sinn Fein and the DUP. Although I really don't
see that happening in a hurry.

> The outline of that settlement should be clear. Good Friday has fallen
twice to the right under the weight of Unionist bigotry. On both
occasions the British have provided cover and blamed republicanism.
Irish nationalism and US imperialism stand foursquare with Britain.
Britain will chair the new negotiations and set the agenda. Only one
conclusion is possible. The weakness of the Good Friday Agreement was
that it was too radical! It gave nothing to Irish democracy, but that
nothing was too much!

Does anyone see something of a massive contradition in the last two lines?
This writer wants it both ways, he wants to say SF sold out for 'nothing'
but then wants to argue that that 'nothing' was too much for the
Brits/Unionists!!! Truly pitiful analysis.

> Any new arrangement must shift away from
coalition structures. There may be a greater shift of power towards
direct British patronage and appointed committees, where the Unionists
are better able to ensure that they maintain the lions share of
sectarian privilege. The republicans will be made an offer they can't
refuse - a more humiliating surrender and less reward for it.

Again what a lovely juxtaposition! An offer we can't refuse... The reality
is that the GFA is the floor for any future negotiations. The cross-border
institutions and areas of cooperation which were established in 1998 will
remain. Any future negotiation will add to them. Republicans are already
identifying areas which will provide us with a dynamic towards further
integration and towards greater levels of empowerment and equality. This is
how we will build the New Republic.

> To some extent that shift has already begun. The British are going ahead
> with
a promise to dismantle a few watchtowers in South Armagh that they no
longer need. There are behind the scenes talks about the legislation
involving 'On the Runs'. The British will press the republicans to
give full support to the new police and join the Policing Board.

Just after him saying that we would be getting less, he goes on to prove
that we are already getting more!!

> The most immediate sufferers will be the republicans. The British can
continue to reward them but they cannot give them the rewards they
really need. Only parliamentary seats and ministerial positions in the
North can hide the absolute collapse of their strategy of reform and
give momentum to the only tactic they have left - to use their
Northern electoral success to propel themselves to greater electoral
success in the formally independent
26 counties.

The first line is in blatent contadiction to the previous paragraph. The
rest is completely ignorant of how a War of Position works. I hope this guy
is advicing the Unionists or the Brits.

> In any case the 'Stakeknife' story of a high-level
informer in the IRA leadership shows that conditions are now much more
hostile for the republicans.

I wondered when he would bring this in. Just how the Stakeknife story shows
that the situation is more hostile for Republicans is never indicated.
Perhaps James Daly who says that this article offers an accurate analysis
might be able to answer this and the other questions.

> However the outlook in the longer term is ominous for the British.
Negotiating a new agreement and making it work will depend on a
capitulation to unionist sectarianism by the nationalists that will be
difficult to sell. A settlement, if it is established at all, will
depend for its operation on the absence of any largescale resistance.
No amount of bribery seems sufficient to keep the thugs in the various
loyalist groups at bay.

Now just where the f$$k did this come out of. Even James appears to have
noticed that this is out of the blue and in complete contradiction to the
rest of the article. Perhaps the writer wants to leave the reader with a
nice taste in their mouth after his (inaccurate) bileous polemic. The hope
coming out of this is from the Loyalist thugs!!!

> JD --As an analysis the above is devastatingly accurate. But the
statement ends with a prognosis which seems a bit disarticulated from
the analysis [hence my comments in square brackets]:

Devastating accurate. It's just a good job the guy isn't as devastating
accurate in building a political party or in waging a war against the Brits
here...

_________________________________________________________________
Get Hotmail on your mobile phone http://www.msn.co.uk/msnmobile