Post by dangeresque on Aug 24, 2007 18:55:40 GMT
ernative Processes – The Task Facing Republicans
“éirígí would firstly like to take this opportunity to thank the Republican Socialist Youth Movement for inviting us to this event.
I hope that despite the nascent nature of the organisation and the policy development that is, in many cases, only beginning I can give an accurate reflection of where we currently stand.
We feel that meetings like todays are conducive for republicans still actively opposed to British rule in Ireland who are trying to again build a sense of momentum around the demand for national self-determination.
It is appropriate that today’s theme is ‘Alternative Processes’, as the last number of months have witnessed the effective conclusion of a process that has lasted over a decade and dominated the political scene in this country.
There are many different takes on and analyses of the Irish Peace Process. However, it would be difficult to argue that its finale has been anything other than the completion of the normalisation process begun by the British government in the 1970s.
In effect, almost every vestige of conflict over the constitutional status of the Six Counties has been removed and almost every mechanism of repression aimed at securing Britain’s constitutional claim has been retained.
Operation Banner has made way for Operation Helvetic, which will maintain a garrison of 5,000 British troops in occupied Ireland on an indefinite basis.
These troops will have all the powers that the thugs who terrorised nationalist communities in the 1970s, ‘80s and ‘90s had. With one major difference, the government-employed thugs of the late 20th Century terrorised our communities under emergency legislation - the government-employed thugs of the early 21st Century have had their powers normalised into permanency.
So the right to stop, question, arrest, search and seize property will be every day roles, if and when deemed necessary, for the British soldiers occupying the Six Counties.
Likewise, the British government can decide to increase the size of their garrison any time they deem it necessary. Their decision to lower the garrison to 5,000 and remove most of the bases they operated from should be seen as an example of their pragmatism.
The strength of the British garrison in Ireland has always been commensurate with the perceived threat to their presence and the strength, at any given time, of the progressive forces in the country.
With Britain fighting two modern-day colonial wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and considering the lack of opposition to their presence here, it is sensible, from their point of view, that they reduce their Irish garrison for the time being.
However, they are continuing to recruit for their regiments in Ireland and their propaganda is on display in schools around the Six Counties.
In the meantime, Britain will continue to secure its border and occupation with all the judicial, policing and intelligence means at its disposal.
Contrary to optimistic reports, the non-jury Diplock courts are being retained for use against those they were always used against, Irish republicans, and they will continue to be staffed by the class of people who have the most interest in Britain’s interference here, those with money.
Those unfortunate enough to have to face these courts will be put there by one of two organisations or, more likely, both, acting in cooperation with each other.
The first is the PSNI. 70 per cent of PSNI officers formerly served in the RUC. Their Chief Constable is the man who can call British troops back onto our streets without consulting the Policing Board that is supposed to hold to him to account.
This reincarnation of the RUC still has thousands of plastic bullets in its possession, fired most recently in Bangor when they injured six people, and Hugh Orde has dismissed the suggestion that they ditch their handguns and assault rifles as a “non-starter”.
In short, they are the same paramilitary force that was established in 1922 to be the front line protectors of the Orange State.
The second organisation is MI5.
During the course of this year MI5 took over responsibility for ‘national security’ matters in the Six Counties from PSNI Special Branch – ‘national security’ being the interests of the British state in Ireland.
With next to no accountability, MI5 will have, the now official power, to wage a covert war against Irish republicans and other malcontents (the unionist death-squads so beloved of RUC-PSNI Special Branch will remain within the remit of that body).
MI5’s new nerve centre in north Down will act as a hub for them to run their agents throughout Ireland. The PSNI, as always, will work hand-in-glove with the spooks.
Anyone in any doubt about the repressive measures being maintained to secure the North of Ireland for Britain can consult the details of the Justice and Security Act 2007 and the text of the St Andrews Agreement.
On the more overtly political front, one of the most right-wing politicians in Europe has got to where he always wanted be – acting as the prime minister of Europe’s own little Rhodesia.
Any progressive measure introduced by nationalist politicians in the Six County executive or assembly is subject to a unionist veto.
The stifled progress of the proposed Irish language act is a point in case.
Meanwhile, the British government still acts as the colonial paymaster, doling out meagre sums to the Six County governmental departments aimed at forcing the introduction of Private Finance Initiative schemes and punitive measures like water charges.
All of what has been mentioned adds insult to the massive injury that is the unionist veto over the reunification of the Irish nation. All attempts at a genuine process of national reconciliation will prove impossible while this anti-democratic measure remains.
Considering the situation we find ourselves in, the question is not whether we need an alternative process to that which has been used to provide cover for the modernisation of British rule in Ireland, but what form that process should take.
éirígí are of the firm belief that any rejuvenation of the freedom struggle must begin with a re-examination of the vehicles we have traditionally used to attain freedom.
Firstly, we should look at what has failed.
Chief among the failed experiments have been militarism, reformism and the policy of ‘labour must wait’.
éirígí defends the right of any people who are subjected to imperialist occupation to use whatever means they deem necessary to remove that occupation. However, we do believe that the elevation of military struggle to a principle as opposed to a revolutionary tactic has retarded the development of the republican project.
The policy of militarism encourages elitism and stifles the initiative of our communities.
Pursuing a military strategy at all costs also divorces the struggle from ever-changing contexts and hence, our ability to capitalise on them.
The disastrous English bombing campaign of the late 1930s and early ‘40s and the abortive Border Campaign are perfect examples.
Similarly, we do not believe that the conditions currently exist for the successful prosecution of an armed struggle against British rule in Ireland.
Reformism has been used many times in the last 100 years in attempts to remove British influence.
In the Six-County context, the unity of catholic and protestant workers through the promotion of class issues was proposed as a pre-requisite to the removal of the border in the early 1970s.
Today, the policy of nationalism appears to promote the unity of the business class in the Six Counties, who will in turn see the presence of the border as an impediment to the making of money.
The removal of the border and the government that maintains it is itself the pre-requisite aim that must be achieved to allow for real unity to develop among our people.
Furthermore, the era of globalisation has shown that the presence of borders is not necessarily an impediment to the profiteering of capitalists.
This week’s revelation that the recently privatised Aer Lingus wants to pay their employees in Belfast less than their employees in Dublin would point to the fact that, in a lot of cases, the border is in fact an advantage for corporations.
This leads us to the famously coined strategy of ‘labour must wait’, where the social and economic interests and struggles of the Irish working class are placed on the back burner until the successful completion of the national struggle.
Given the amount of time that has elapsed since the arrival of this phrase onto the political scene, it would have been appropriate for it to have carried a health warning advising against any working class person who agreed holding their breath in the meantime.
The worst and most brutal aspects of British rule in this country have always been perpetrated against the poorest people in this country. It is therefore absurd to try to divorce the national struggle from the social and economic struggles of the people who have most to gain from the removal of British rule.
As Connolly pointed out, the key aspect of the English Conquest of Ireland was the introduction of the law of private ownership.
For the Re-conquest to be completely successful, every resource and institution that has the potential to benefit our people must be returned to public ownership.
Anything less would leave us politically free but economically subjugated.
What we propose is an option that is probably the only one that has never been seriously attempted in the Irish fight against imperialism.
The building of a broad based and disparate movement for Irish freedom that will campaign at many levels and on many fronts for a British withdrawal.
This movement should include community and residents’ groups, trades unions, political parties, cultural organisations, interested individuals and more. It should have as its primary aim, the placing of Britain’s interference in Irish affairs back onto the national and international agenda.
It must be anti-imperialist, internationalist, democratic, anti-sectarian, anti-racist, culturally revivalist, and focused on the everyday needs of the working people in this country.
In building such a movement, we would have a lot to learn from the massive social movements that have recently taken power in Latin American countries, most notably Bolivia and Venezuela.
éirígí are under absolutely no illusions about the massive challenge the building of such a movement presents.
We take this position mindful of the fact that Irish republicanism is in one of the weakest states it has found itself in since its conception.
However, as James Fintan Lalor once said and a wise woman recently repeated “Somewhere and somehow and by someone a beginning must be made.”
The somewhere is here, and republicans and socialists across Ireland are the some ones. None of us individually owns anything – not an ideology, not an organisation and not a political position. But collectively we own a struggle, and we have to take responsibility for making it somehow successful.
In the participative spirit of Bobby Sands “everyone has their part to play, no role is too big or too small, no one is too old or too young to do something.”
ENDS.
“éirígí would firstly like to take this opportunity to thank the Republican Socialist Youth Movement for inviting us to this event.
I hope that despite the nascent nature of the organisation and the policy development that is, in many cases, only beginning I can give an accurate reflection of where we currently stand.
We feel that meetings like todays are conducive for republicans still actively opposed to British rule in Ireland who are trying to again build a sense of momentum around the demand for national self-determination.
It is appropriate that today’s theme is ‘Alternative Processes’, as the last number of months have witnessed the effective conclusion of a process that has lasted over a decade and dominated the political scene in this country.
There are many different takes on and analyses of the Irish Peace Process. However, it would be difficult to argue that its finale has been anything other than the completion of the normalisation process begun by the British government in the 1970s.
In effect, almost every vestige of conflict over the constitutional status of the Six Counties has been removed and almost every mechanism of repression aimed at securing Britain’s constitutional claim has been retained.
Operation Banner has made way for Operation Helvetic, which will maintain a garrison of 5,000 British troops in occupied Ireland on an indefinite basis.
These troops will have all the powers that the thugs who terrorised nationalist communities in the 1970s, ‘80s and ‘90s had. With one major difference, the government-employed thugs of the late 20th Century terrorised our communities under emergency legislation - the government-employed thugs of the early 21st Century have had their powers normalised into permanency.
So the right to stop, question, arrest, search and seize property will be every day roles, if and when deemed necessary, for the British soldiers occupying the Six Counties.
Likewise, the British government can decide to increase the size of their garrison any time they deem it necessary. Their decision to lower the garrison to 5,000 and remove most of the bases they operated from should be seen as an example of their pragmatism.
The strength of the British garrison in Ireland has always been commensurate with the perceived threat to their presence and the strength, at any given time, of the progressive forces in the country.
With Britain fighting two modern-day colonial wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and considering the lack of opposition to their presence here, it is sensible, from their point of view, that they reduce their Irish garrison for the time being.
However, they are continuing to recruit for their regiments in Ireland and their propaganda is on display in schools around the Six Counties.
In the meantime, Britain will continue to secure its border and occupation with all the judicial, policing and intelligence means at its disposal.
Contrary to optimistic reports, the non-jury Diplock courts are being retained for use against those they were always used against, Irish republicans, and they will continue to be staffed by the class of people who have the most interest in Britain’s interference here, those with money.
Those unfortunate enough to have to face these courts will be put there by one of two organisations or, more likely, both, acting in cooperation with each other.
The first is the PSNI. 70 per cent of PSNI officers formerly served in the RUC. Their Chief Constable is the man who can call British troops back onto our streets without consulting the Policing Board that is supposed to hold to him to account.
This reincarnation of the RUC still has thousands of plastic bullets in its possession, fired most recently in Bangor when they injured six people, and Hugh Orde has dismissed the suggestion that they ditch their handguns and assault rifles as a “non-starter”.
In short, they are the same paramilitary force that was established in 1922 to be the front line protectors of the Orange State.
The second organisation is MI5.
During the course of this year MI5 took over responsibility for ‘national security’ matters in the Six Counties from PSNI Special Branch – ‘national security’ being the interests of the British state in Ireland.
With next to no accountability, MI5 will have, the now official power, to wage a covert war against Irish republicans and other malcontents (the unionist death-squads so beloved of RUC-PSNI Special Branch will remain within the remit of that body).
MI5’s new nerve centre in north Down will act as a hub for them to run their agents throughout Ireland. The PSNI, as always, will work hand-in-glove with the spooks.
Anyone in any doubt about the repressive measures being maintained to secure the North of Ireland for Britain can consult the details of the Justice and Security Act 2007 and the text of the St Andrews Agreement.
On the more overtly political front, one of the most right-wing politicians in Europe has got to where he always wanted be – acting as the prime minister of Europe’s own little Rhodesia.
Any progressive measure introduced by nationalist politicians in the Six County executive or assembly is subject to a unionist veto.
The stifled progress of the proposed Irish language act is a point in case.
Meanwhile, the British government still acts as the colonial paymaster, doling out meagre sums to the Six County governmental departments aimed at forcing the introduction of Private Finance Initiative schemes and punitive measures like water charges.
All of what has been mentioned adds insult to the massive injury that is the unionist veto over the reunification of the Irish nation. All attempts at a genuine process of national reconciliation will prove impossible while this anti-democratic measure remains.
Considering the situation we find ourselves in, the question is not whether we need an alternative process to that which has been used to provide cover for the modernisation of British rule in Ireland, but what form that process should take.
éirígí are of the firm belief that any rejuvenation of the freedom struggle must begin with a re-examination of the vehicles we have traditionally used to attain freedom.
Firstly, we should look at what has failed.
Chief among the failed experiments have been militarism, reformism and the policy of ‘labour must wait’.
éirígí defends the right of any people who are subjected to imperialist occupation to use whatever means they deem necessary to remove that occupation. However, we do believe that the elevation of military struggle to a principle as opposed to a revolutionary tactic has retarded the development of the republican project.
The policy of militarism encourages elitism and stifles the initiative of our communities.
Pursuing a military strategy at all costs also divorces the struggle from ever-changing contexts and hence, our ability to capitalise on them.
The disastrous English bombing campaign of the late 1930s and early ‘40s and the abortive Border Campaign are perfect examples.
Similarly, we do not believe that the conditions currently exist for the successful prosecution of an armed struggle against British rule in Ireland.
Reformism has been used many times in the last 100 years in attempts to remove British influence.
In the Six-County context, the unity of catholic and protestant workers through the promotion of class issues was proposed as a pre-requisite to the removal of the border in the early 1970s.
Today, the policy of nationalism appears to promote the unity of the business class in the Six Counties, who will in turn see the presence of the border as an impediment to the making of money.
The removal of the border and the government that maintains it is itself the pre-requisite aim that must be achieved to allow for real unity to develop among our people.
Furthermore, the era of globalisation has shown that the presence of borders is not necessarily an impediment to the profiteering of capitalists.
This week’s revelation that the recently privatised Aer Lingus wants to pay their employees in Belfast less than their employees in Dublin would point to the fact that, in a lot of cases, the border is in fact an advantage for corporations.
This leads us to the famously coined strategy of ‘labour must wait’, where the social and economic interests and struggles of the Irish working class are placed on the back burner until the successful completion of the national struggle.
Given the amount of time that has elapsed since the arrival of this phrase onto the political scene, it would have been appropriate for it to have carried a health warning advising against any working class person who agreed holding their breath in the meantime.
The worst and most brutal aspects of British rule in this country have always been perpetrated against the poorest people in this country. It is therefore absurd to try to divorce the national struggle from the social and economic struggles of the people who have most to gain from the removal of British rule.
As Connolly pointed out, the key aspect of the English Conquest of Ireland was the introduction of the law of private ownership.
For the Re-conquest to be completely successful, every resource and institution that has the potential to benefit our people must be returned to public ownership.
Anything less would leave us politically free but economically subjugated.
What we propose is an option that is probably the only one that has never been seriously attempted in the Irish fight against imperialism.
The building of a broad based and disparate movement for Irish freedom that will campaign at many levels and on many fronts for a British withdrawal.
This movement should include community and residents’ groups, trades unions, political parties, cultural organisations, interested individuals and more. It should have as its primary aim, the placing of Britain’s interference in Irish affairs back onto the national and international agenda.
It must be anti-imperialist, internationalist, democratic, anti-sectarian, anti-racist, culturally revivalist, and focused on the everyday needs of the working people in this country.
In building such a movement, we would have a lot to learn from the massive social movements that have recently taken power in Latin American countries, most notably Bolivia and Venezuela.
éirígí are under absolutely no illusions about the massive challenge the building of such a movement presents.
We take this position mindful of the fact that Irish republicanism is in one of the weakest states it has found itself in since its conception.
However, as James Fintan Lalor once said and a wise woman recently repeated “Somewhere and somehow and by someone a beginning must be made.”
The somewhere is here, and republicans and socialists across Ireland are the some ones. None of us individually owns anything – not an ideology, not an organisation and not a political position. But collectively we own a struggle, and we have to take responsibility for making it somehow successful.
In the participative spirit of Bobby Sands “everyone has their part to play, no role is too big or too small, no one is too old or too young to do something.”
ENDS.