An Irish anarchist analysis of the IRA statement to dump arms
ireland / britain |
imperialism / war |
feature
Friday July 29, 2005 19:45 by Andrew - WSM (personal capacity)
The war is over - is coalition next?
The statement from the IRA is formulated to clearly comply with the various demands made by the British and Irish governments over the last year and to so try and expose the Unionist political parties as the ones opposing progress. As such it not only prepares the ground for Sinn Fein to re-enter government in the north but also for it to go into coalition in the south.
The other side of the peace process has been the ditching of much of the radical left rhetoric of the republican movement of the 1980's. Pragmatism became the new watchword whether that meant meeting with George Bush at the height of the invasion of Iraq, imposing education and health cuts as part of the government of northern Ireland or voting for the bin taxes in Sligo in order to get power in the council.
The IRA statement is the culmination of over 11 years of a public process and more years of secret negotiations with the British government. Irish anarchists have written in considerable depth about this process. We also reproduce here extracts from key moments.
The statement from the IRA is formulated to clearly comply with the various demands made by the British and Irish governments over the last year and to so try and expose the Unionist political parties as the ones opposing progress. As such it not only prepares the ground for Sinn Fein to re-enter government in the north but also for it to go into coalition in the south.
An Irish anarchist analysis of the IRA statement to dump
arms
The war is over - is coalition next?
The
statement
from the IRA is formulated to clearly comply with the various
demands made by the British and Irish governments over the last year
and to so try and expose the Unionist political parties as the ones
opposing progress. As such it not only prepares the ground for Sinn
Fein to re-enter government in the north but also for it to go into
coalition in the south.
The years of the peace process have seen a real growth in
electoral support for Sinn Fein in the south so that it would now be
in the position to be a junior partner in a coalition government. By
definition this would have to include one of Irelands right wing
neo-liberal parties as the major partner. It is notable that the IRA
statement lacks even a rhetorical reference to any sort of socialism
- not even in the watered down form of the 'equality agenda' used in
recent elections by Sinn Fein.
The other side of the peace process has been the ditching of much
of the radical left rhetoric of the republican movement of the
1980's. Pragmatism became the new watchword whether that meant
meeting with George Bush at the height of the invasion of Iraq,
imposing education and health cuts as part of the government of
northern Ireland or voting for the bin taxes in Sligo in order to get
power in the council. There is still a radically inclined grassroots
in Sinn Fein, in particular in the urban areas, but it is a well
disciplined one - accustomed to following the pragmatic line coming
from the top.
The 'whiff of cordite' was always part of the reason this was
possible - this and the lack of any serious and sizeable alternative.
Now as the IRA disarms and the libertarian movement grows the space
may open for a dialogue with many rank and file republican activists.
This will be a major challenge for Irish anarchists in the years
ahead. The article
'After
Nationalism ... A WSM member on leaving Sinn Fein' is one example
of the sort or reasons why some rank and file republicans may take
this step.
Today's statement is the culmination of over 11 years of a public
process and more years of secret negotiations with the British
government. Irish anarchists have written in considerable depth about
this process. I reproduce some extracts from key moments below but
see the archive of articles at
http://www.struggle.ws/wsm/peaceprocess.html
for more
When the cease-fire was broken in 1996 the Irish anarchist
Workers Solidarity Movement said that
"As anarchists we welcomed the cease-fire but
condemned the Peace Process in the sense that it has never at any
time concerned itself with the reality of life that faces working
class people in Ireland, both north and south of the border.
Unemployment remains high in Ireland, as do the levels of poverty and
inequality. This disastrous situation is one that has been created
and 'managed' by two of the most important players within the Peace
Process - the Irish and British Governments. They have never been
offering anything else throughout the last eighteen months other than
more of the same. These social conditions, and the fertile grounds
they offer to the politics of sectarianism within Ireland, are the
real problems that must be faced if a lasting peace is ever to be
attained. Nationalism doesn't recognise this; it offers no solutions
to capitalism. It seeks to bind us together on the basis of
'Irishness' or 'Englishness' - so that we may be properly and
securely exploited by both Irish and English bosses. This has been
the underlying basis of the Peace Process from its inception. The
Workers Solidarity Movement rejects it.
The real peace process that is needed is the development of a new
politics within the working class communities - a politics that will
recognise that anti-imperialism need not be the same as nationalism.
The elitist and militarist armed struggle should be abandoned and
replaced with mass action.
We are working for a new Ireland, an anarchist society where
production is to satisfy needs and where control rests in the hands
of the working class. The colour of the flag that flies over our
heads is not important, but the quality of our lives is. Compared to
the possibility of real socialism and real freedom, republicanism is
politically bankrupt."
http://www.struggle.ws/once/endcease.html
In 1988 in advance of the Good Friday / Belfast agreement
the WSM wrote
"The people of Ireland, North & South will be
asked to vote on the 'Good Friday' agreement. There is a great desire
for peace which is being used to pressurise us into choosing between
two completely flawed alternatives. The agreement, which was drawn up
in secret by our so-called 'representatives', does not challenge the
sectarian divisions which have bedevilled this country.
In fact the structures proposed in the agreement actually
institutionalise sectarian divisions. Politicians elected to the
proposed Assembly must declare themselves either 'unionist' or
'nationalist' - those who refuse will not have their votes counted in
measuring the cross community support necessary for passing
legislation. We are supposed to line up behind Catholic/Green or
Protestant/Orange banners and seek the best deal for 'our community'.
The concept of working class interests is not even considered.
What the agreement proposes is bringing some nationalist
politicians into a power-sharing arrangement with some unionist
politicians. The division between rulers and ruled, between bosses
and workers, between rich and poor remains. The biggest change will
be a few nationalist faces sitting down with bigots like Trimble and
Taylor, to make laws which preserve the dominance of the rich over
the poor."
http://www.struggle.ws/once/peace_ref.html
After three years of Stormont rule in 2001 the WSM
observered that
"These politicians have spent their time in government
proving to the British government and to international business that
power is in safe hands. Thus we witness the farcical situation where
parties supposedly ranging across the political spectrum from
republican socialist to right-wing unionist can agree - with no
controversy whatsoever - a programme of government. The only rows
they seem to have are over what flags should fly and when, and what
flowers should be put in the hall display!
The level of political debate and disagreement on economic and
social issues is non-existent. From the DUP to Sinn Fein, there is
effectively no difference as to the way forward. When disagreements
arise, it is along sectarian lines - whether or not the Jubilee or
the Royal Victoria Hospital should be closed, for example. Needless
to say none of them were putting forward or fighting for the
proposition that both should remain open. No, it was more important
to prove to Tony Blair that Northern ministers were as good at
implementing cutbacks as their London counterparts"
http://www.struggle.ws/ws/2001/64/friday.html
It is also true however that the years of the cease-fire were a
period in which Irish anarchists discussed, debated and changed their
understanding of partition. This is not a process that is over by any
means but the WSM positions paper
'The
partition of Ireland' reflects much of the changed understanding
that has been developed in that time. From this
18. The Good Friday Agreement came about as the
culmination of Sinn Féin's strategy for over a decade which
was aimed at building various broad fronts around different issues in
an attempt to gain respectability by pulling in Fianna Fáil
members and church figures. This involved dropping all references to
socialism to maintain unity with "the broad nationalist family". This
strategy was never going to deliver a united socialist Ireland, or
any other significant improvements apart from those associated with
"demilitarisation". It represents instead a hardening of traditional
nationalism and the goal of achieving an alliance of all nationalists
- Sinn Féin, Fianna Fáil, SDLP, the Catholic Church and
"Irish America". Such an alliance has nothing to offer working class
people, North or South, and we oppose it outright.
The Good Friday Agreement offered nothing except a sectarian
division of the spoils and in fact copper-fastened sectarian
divisions. We called for an abstention in the referendum on this
deal, refusing to align ourselves with those calling for a 'no' vote,
pointing out that they have no alternative to offer, just more of the
same conflict that has ruined tens of thousands of working class
lives. The republican forces of the 32 County Sovereignty Committee,
the Real IRA, Republican Sinn Fein, Continuity IRA and the Irish
National Liberation Army has nothing but increased communalism and
sectarianism to offer. The loyalist opponents-whose rallies were
attended by vocal supporters of the Loyalist Volunteer Force death
squads -wanted a return to the time when Catholics lived on their
knees in fear.
The Assembly set up under the 'Good Friday Agreement' demonstrates
quite clearly the fact that the net effect of this agreement is to
copper-fasten sectarianism, with elected members having to declare
themselves 'nationalist' or 'unionist' in order for their votes to
count. The political parties have shown that they are capable of
plenty of agreement on economic issues - with no disagreement over
budgets or spending plans, but issues such as what flowers should be
put on display in the lobby or what flags should fly over Ministerial
buildings are used to hype up the divisions between the two sides
19. The huge vote, North and South, in favour of the agreement
-whatever else it might have indicated - showed quite clearly that
the vast majority of people do not want a return to pre-ceasefire
violence. Any return to armed struggle will deliver only more
hardship and repression for working class people in the six counties.
We reiterate our view that permanent peace and an end to
sectarianism will only come about after a British withdrawal and that
working people from both communities must be convinced of the need to
make the fight one for anarchism, not for 'national rights'.
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (5 of 5)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5Comrades,
Just wondering if or why haven't WSM or Organise! comrades made use of Anthony McIntyre's web forum, "the Blanket"?
I'm a fairly consistent reader of that site, and seems to be a truly open forum. The bulk of the commentary comes from dissident veterans of the Provisionals (but not necessarily advocates of continued nationalist armed struggle), but other points of view are routinely published including Sinn Fein, PUP, Green Party, 32CSM, RSF, SWP, etc.
McIntyre, himself, who writes almost weekly has a definite antiauthoritarian sensibility about him. Not a Platformist Anarchist obviously, but someone who shares our distrust of hierarchy. I've seen him use Alexander Berkman quotes, and mention that he thinks the anarchist approach to voting (Don't!) is probably best. And the site carried some nice memorials for John McGuffin, the Bloody Sunday-era anarchist.
It is well known that this site is a thorn (however small) in the side of the ambitious neoliberal Provisional leadership. It would be a good place to see Anarchist documents and analysis.
One more asterisk for the history books: when the north american Love and Rage Revolutionary Anarchist Federation split apart in the late 90's, one of the many issues that separated us was Sinn Fein. The-soon-to-be-Maoists gave uncritical support to Adams & Co. , arguing this is what 'the people supported". The anarchist side outlined SF's neoliberal road and argued for an anarchist anti-imperialism. . . I'll try and dig up the documents if anyone is interested.
You say that McIntyre " thinks the anarchist approach to voting (Don't!) is probably best".
I presume you are talking of voting in "democratic" elections to "representative" bodies such as local and regional councils, national parliaments etc.
The act of voting is not in itself un-anarchist. Anarchists since the days of Bakunin have voted within their own groups and labour organizations, treating it merely as an easy method of expressing an opinion or a choice.
I think the short answer to your question is 'so little time, so much to do'. We don't actually organise our online activity beyond the WSM website and Anarkismo.net itself so members tend to post where they find it worthwhile.
I read the Blanket (http://lark.phoblacht.net/) every now and again but wasn't aware of a forum (or maybe I misunderstand what you mean by this term?).
On a more general level though even the best of the left dissidents were coming from a politics at quite some distance from anarchism. Their (leninist) politics were hard formed - often through years of discussion in the prisons. And they had experience of a real militant mass movement. This tended to trap them in the politics of looking for an alternative Sinn Fein - an alternative left nationalist movement.
Until recently the jump from that background and that sort of politics to anarchism was a hell of a leap - not least because of the weakness of anarchism here. Individuals can and sometimes did make this leap but I don't think it would have made much sense for us to go on some sort of recruitment drive with those sorts of individuals in mind. Nor am I sure if this had for some reason been successful that it would not have brought disadvantages with it.
We don't ignore the republican movement - we've published quite a range of articles over the years on both historical and current topics that put forward an anarchist position. We've also had meetings - I've even led off educationals for SF members on both anarchism and the zapatistas (but then I've also led off Socialist Party (trotskyist) educationals on the summit protest movement). And in day to day political activity you often find SF members are working with you (This is in Dublin where apart from a tiny handful of Irps dissidents are not very visible - I think the situation is somewhat different in Cork) .
But this is a reflection of the political environment around us - we have no particular orientation towards them. In the last few years our orientation has been far more towards aiding in the creation of a broad libertarian movement - mostly through helping to create organisational structures that bring people together. That has probably been a better approach because both the number of libertarians and influence of libertarian ideas has grown substantially to the point where, at least in Dublin and Cork, anyone seriously involved in radical politics has to respect them.
A very short summary - in reality there could be pages and pages of complex discussion here without all that much more being said. It's also true that other WSM members would have quite different perspectives on this - its an area under discussion. I'll email one of our members who is an ex SFer so that he can add some comments if he wishes.
As to Organise! I'll leave them to speak for themselves as I suspect you might get a very different answer.
Yeah, I'm not McIntyre's press secretary, so Im not gonna clarify what was an off hand remark by him. But of course I agree with you that there is nothing wrong with directly democratic decision making within anarchist groups or mass movements. i was talking about Electoral nonsense . . .
On a debate for a different day, I do think I might raise disagreement or questions at least over WSM (& FdCA?) participation in State organized referendum . . .
Andrew, thanks for the reply.
Please by no means take my question as a criticism of WSM. In my opinion y'all are doing more than your share of contributing to the reemergence of anarchism as a social force.
I know that indymedia has been an important avenue for debate and discussion for WSM with the wider movement, and it seemed to me that the Blanket was a similar type of resource in the North.
By the way has WSM never had a presence in the North? It seems for a group that strives to have an all Ireland presence, Belfast would be pretty dang important, whatever our attitude toward exRepublicans, no?
Solidarity,
the meddling amerikan