đŸ Archived View for library.inu.red âș file âș andrew-flood-one-year-on.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 06:57:19. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
âĄïž Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: One year on Author: Andrew Flood Date: 1995 Language: en Topics: Ireland, United Kingdom, peacebuilding, Irish Republican Army, Workers Solidarity Source: Retrieved on 28th November 2021 from http://struggle.ws/ws95/cease46.html Notes: Published in Workers Solidarity No. 46 â Autumn 1995.
The IRA CEASEFIRE is approaching its first anniversary. That year has
been striking for two things, on the one hand the success of the âpeace
processâ in turning Sinn FĂ©in from demonised pariahs to lauded peace
makers. On the other hand, the failure of the process to produce any
substantial gains for the nationalist community.
Although many British soldiers have been returned to barracks, only
about 800 have left Ireland. The RUC may have exchanged their machine
guns for pistols but they have also moved into areas they previously
feared to patrol. Harassment of nationalists has continued. Sinn FĂ©inâs
paper, An Phoblacht/Republican News, now carries a Peace Monitor instead
of a War News column.
Every week it reports on beatings, threats & intimidation directed at
nationalists by various sections of the British war machine. Although
prisoners have been released early in the Republic, no such releases
have occurred in the six counties and, indeed, the number of prisoners
allowed compassionate temporary release has been reduced.
In this situation itâs not surprising that a minority are questioning
the validity of the ceasefire strategy. Some left republicans see the
ceasefire as a sell-out of a previous commitment to socialism and
anti-imperialism. There are other republicans who see the ceasefire as a
cunning strategy forced on the British government. They seem to expect
the Sinn FĂ©in leadership to pull a united Ireland out of the hat at a
future stage despite obvious hints to the contrary by the same
leadership. This view fails to realise that the peace process is a
change in strategy rather then a victory.
When looked at in the context of the last twenty five years the
ceasefire not only makes sense but is inevitable. All other strategies
had been exhausted. Britain was not militarily defeated in the âyears of
victoryâ declared by the IRA in early 1970s. Likewise, the economic
bombing campaign in Britain and the six counties failed to bring
victory.
The post Hunger-Strike turn to electoral and community politics
represented by Danny Morrisonâs âballot box and armaliteâ strategy
ground to a halt in the mid-80âs. Although Sinn FĂ©in had a lot of
support in the nationalist ghettoâs it was unable to break out of these
and attract significant votes from Catholic working class voters
elsewhere or the Catholic middle class. In the south, outside of a few
council seats it never had any success.
Once this was realised it became not so much a question of if, but when
an IRA ceasefire would be declared. Talk of fighting the British army to
a standstill is all very well but when translated into a yearly toll of
harassment, deaths and prisoners the need to move beyond the war of
attrition became dominant.
This has been recognised by Danny Morrison (seen by many as a hard-liner
within the current republican leadership). On his recent release from
prison he told AP/RN âIt was obvious that something was going on, and it
might appear controversial, but it was tacitly understood by many people
that there was a military stalemate developing .... the IRA had in 1992
exploded a bomb in the City of London followed by the Bishopsgate bomb
in 1993 and the Heathrow mortar attacks early last year. Despite these
prestigious attacks there was a stalemate on the military front.
So I think people were mature enough to understand developments even
though the announcement of the cessation came as a severe shock and ran
contrary to all our instincts.â
The ceasefire was also inevitable in a broader setting. Wars of
ânational liberationâ donât end with outright victory and independence
for the nationalist side. They involve a negotiated settlement. In the
Irish context this means one acceptable to the British state. This has
been the pattern of the settlements in South Africa, El Salvador,
Nicaragua and Palestine in recent years.
Sinn FĂ©inâs has long held a strategy of uniting the nationalist family
against Britain. In this context the âpeace processâ has delivered more
than any other strategy. One year ago Sinn FĂ©in were pariahs with
virtually no political allies nationally or internationally of any
stature. Today the man once known as John Unionist (Bruton) is giving
out about the British government stalling in releasing prisoners. The
much dreamed of pan-nationalist alliance of Sinn FĂ©in, SDLP, Fianna FĂĄil
and the Catholic Church not only exists but seems to include Fine Gael,
Labour and even a somewhat hesitant Democratic Left! Eamonn Dunphy has
argued in the âSunday Independentâ that it is dangerous to continue to
demonise Sinn FĂ©in! A world turned upside down, unimaginable twelve
months ago.
This national success has been matched internationally. Gerry Adams has
not only been allowed a visit to the US, but with John Hume has sung a
duet of âThe town I knew so wellâ for Bill Clinton. Whatâs more both
Bill Clinton and the icon of sacrifice of the 1980âs, Nelson Mandela,
have publicly given out to the British Government for dragging its
heels. All thatâs missing is a Noble peace prize for Adams (and heâs
actually been awarded a lesser peace prize by Swiss industrialists).
Unionism has become more fragmented and isolated. No significant section
of the Tories opposes the peace process and no major loyalist
mobilisations against the process have been organised in the six
counties. The British state has not yet fulfilled Sinn FĂ©in wishes, by
becoming âpersuadingâ unionists to accept the inevitability of a united
Ireland, but they have pretty much said that as far as the peace process
goes the unionist veto is dead.
So the peace process has achieved what the armed struggle failed to. The
pan-nationalist alliance exists, with Gerry Adams at the head of it.
Britain is internationally isolated and seen to be dragging its heels.
Unionism is isolated to the point where small sections are willing to
consider direct talks with Sinn FĂ©in. But even in the most optimistic
forecast of its dividends there are many republicans who are wondering,
is this it, is this all? The answer from the Sinn FĂ©in leadership would
seem to be âyesâ. To quote Morrisonâsâ interview again âone thing is
certain we are not going to end up with a pre-1969 Stormont solution. It
is going to be much more radical than that.â
A mystic vision of a united Ireland is not what drives most republican
activists. They became activists because circumstances which included
constant harassment, high unemployment and poor housing compel them to
fight the sectarian system that created these conditions. They are
activists because when at the end of the 60âs they and others took part
in peaceful attempts to reform this system they were first batoned and
then shot off the streets.
But even if the peace process resulted in British withdrawal tomorrow,
few of these conditions would change. Decent housing and decent jobs are
no more likely in a 32 county Ireland with Gerry Adams as Taoiseach. The
âsuccessâ story of South Africa illustrates this point. The most
ambitious scheme of the post-apartheid government is to provide fresh
water to a sizeable percentage of squatter towns by the year 2000. The
reason cited for the lack of ambition is lack of money.
Yet in both South Africa and Ireland enough wealth exists to make a
massive difference to the way most of us live. But it needs to be taken
out of the hands of the wealthy and put into the hands of the workers.
Gerry Adams may scoff at the Irish left but it is only a united working
class that can drive the British state out, and usher in a better life
for all. The all-singing, all dancing âpeace processâ, sponsored by
Donald Trump and Bill Clinton may look good but at the end of the day
what can it deliver?
Even the basic demand of British withdrawal cannot be met by the peace
process or any other nationalist based strategy. This can only be won in
one of two circumstances. Firstly if the British state decides it no
longer has any interest in staying and is satisfied that it can withdraw
and leave stability behind. It is unlikely to do this in the short term,
as most northern Protestants want it to stay, and it is wary of the
destabilisation they could cause in the event of withdrawal.
It is also wary of withdrawal undermining its credibility in Britain. In
the course of its 25 year war it lied to the British working class about
what was going on. Republicans were portrayed as psycho-gangsters,
terrorising even their own communities. To admit that it lied about
Ireland means that it will be less able to convince its own population
that sections of British society that dare to fight back are common
criminals.
During the 1984 miners strikes Thatcher referred to the striking miners
as âthe enemy withinâ, and they received the sort of media coverage
familiar to Irish republicans. They also received the attention of the
SAS, often dressed in police uniforms, although in this case they were
content with kicking the shit out of miners rather then killing them.
The anti-Poll Tax rioters were also portrayed as criminals by the media.
The rule of the British state in Britain as well as Ireland is dependant
on most of the population of Britain trusting it. Admittance of the true
facts of its Irish war threaten this.
The only other way the British state will leave Ireland is when it is
forced out. The IRA could not achieve this, it was incapable of
defeating the British army. Withdrawal will only happen in the face of a
united working class in Ireland, supported by vast sections of the
British working class. Creating this unity requires an entirely
different strategy than anything Sinn FĂ©in could pursue, it requires a
break with nationalist politics.