4 articles 2nd is The IRA and its armed struggle; A Bloody Long War [WS35] 3rd is 'Should we get rid of articles 2 & 3 [WS38] 4th is Peace 93' [WS39] ********* Collaboration & Imperialism ************ from Workers Solidarity No 34 [1990] THE KILLING of the seven building workers in January marks the most bloody episode in an IRA campaign against those who work for the 'security forces', a campaign which has been going on since 1985. There has been a massive wave of condemnation from bishops, politicians and media figures. Most of it is hypocritical cant. In all wars people who assist or work for the enemy are targetted. During the War of Independence the 'old IRA' shot people it suspected of collaboration. Today it is a criminal offence to collaborate with the IRA. Anyone allowing them to use their house or car, anyone minding weapons or giving information can be sentenced to long terms in jail. In the North their name may be leaked to a loyalist death squad. The Workers Solidarity Movement, as an anarchist and anti- imperialist organisation, agrees with the Provos that workers should not collaborate with the forces of imperialism. It is not in the interest of any worker to collaborate with imperialism, in Ireland or anywhere else. This does not mean we agree with killing buiding workers. We don't. The IRA threats to workers who service or deliver to Army bases and RUC & UDR barracks tell us much about the Provos. For all their left-wing slogans, they remain an authoritarian nationalist movement. They decide what is good for us, they decide what methods to use. The role of everyone else is to passively cheer them on and preserve some sort of nationalist solidarity. A genuinely socialist and revolutionary movement would have appealed to workers to black these bases because it is in their own interest to fight imperialism. It is undeniable that such an appeal would have been ignored by most. However in areas such as Newry, Derry and Strabane there was a very good chance that it would have been heeded if worked for. A campaign of this sort would consist of raising the issue within the unions, holding meetings at depot gates, producing leaflets, taking up the arguments and fighting for official union backing for anyone disciplined or sacked for refusing to help the state's war effort. It would be a start in bringing workers - as workers - to the head of the anti-imperialist struggle. It has been done before. At the time of the War of Independence there was an anti- conscription strike, the "Limerick Soviet", the refusal of train drivers to carry British troops or war materials. Activity like this can give workers a sense of the potential power they possess. And by being based on the methods of mass struggle it can give workers the confidence to start getting involved in political activity themselves intead of leaving it to a few rulers and would-be rulers. This is very important if we are to build a real socialist society where there is no division into rulers and ruled. We must also look at the objective result of the threats and killings. It does not matter a lot what the intentions of the Provos are, the fact is that killing labourers and other workers drives Protestants of our class further into the arms of bigots like Paisley. It is not enough to denounce such workers as supporters of imperialism - the question is how to win them away from that. Death threats certainly cannot do it. Whether we like it or not many Protestants believe that such workers are shot because they are Protestants and that the Provos' stated reasons are not the real ones. Therefore we call for the threats to be lifted and replaced by a workplace campaign based on arguments about working class self- interest. ********** The IRA and its armed struggle *********** A Bloody Long War from Workers Solidarity No 35 (1992) Gerry Adams is no longer an MP. The politicians and media pundits are over the moon with joy. In their eyes the republicans have been denied the international 'credibility' of having an elected MP and denied their 'mandate for violence' at home. In the immediate aftermath we were subjected to a barrage of questions and comments about how this will effect the respective strengths of the 'hawks' and 'doves' in the IRA. Will there be an escalation of the armed struggle? Will they hit back with ferocity? Will they decide that the armed struggle is an impediment to their political progress? Will there be a ceasefire? Much of what was said was unadulterated rubbish. Gerry Adams and Sinn FŽin held their vote in West Belfast. The SDLP did not eat into it. Adams 16,826 was only 36 down on the 1987 result and was 447 up on the original 1983 poll. The SDLP did not eat into it. What lost him the seat were the 3,000 loyalists who heeded the UDA's call vote SDLP in order to deny the seat to Adams. The Shankill's walls were covered with "A vote for Cobain is a vote for Sinn FŽin" refering to the fact that if loyalists continued to vote for the Unionist, Sinn FŽin would hold the seat. This was certainly not a pro-SDLP vote, it was explicitly an anti- Sinn FŽin one. Supporters of the UDA/UFF hate the SDLP, it's just that they hate Sinn FŽin a lot more. Across the six counties, as a whole, Sinn FŽin's vote did drop... but only from 11% to 10%. They aren't going anywhere, but they are not about to disappear either. However it is true that a tentative debate has been going on inside the IRA and Sinn FŽin over the last two or three years about the relative values of the armed struggle and parliamentary politics. In February Gerry Adams told the 'Irish Times' 'Two or three years ago, I would have seen it necessary to personally state publicly that yes, there was the right of the IRA to engage in armed struggle, and perhaps even at times that armed struggle was a necessary ingredient in the struggle. I don't feel the need to do that now. In fact, I think that my role now, and I've seen this increasingly over the last 18 months, is one of increasingly and persistently saying there's a need to end all acts of violence." This is interesting, not so much for what is being said, but for the fact that this shows a slightly more open attitude towards politics. It used to be that anyone questioning the value of the military campaign was shown the door pretty quickly. However it is not this debate that the establishment politicians want to to take part in. Some of them almost foam at the mouth when someone mentions republicans. They have nothing but hatred for the Provos. North and South, all the main parties have done their best to repress republicanism. In the North it is shoot-to-kill assassinations, beatings in RUC stations, censorship. In the South it's extradition and more censorship. To be thought a sympathiser of Sinn FŽin is to invite Special Branch attention and maybe a beating in a Garda station. According to Fianna F‡il, Fine Gael, Labour, Official Unionist, DUP and all the rest this is justified by the need to oppose violence. What a neck! The people who supported the Gulf War (and those who allowed the use of Shannon airport to US bombers) are telling us about the need to oppose violence! What was the slaughter of retreating Iraqi soldiers and civilians on the road from Kuwait to Basra if it was not an act of violence, of terrorism? The death toll in that terrible few hours when the Americans gleefully labelled it a "turkey shoot" was far more than all the deaths ever caused by the IRA... and far more than the IRA is ever likely to cause. The hypocrisy is evident. However the question remains: should we call on the IRA to stop their campaign? To put the question in such a way implies that the IRA are the main problem, if only they would lay down their arms everything would be o.k. We have to remember that the IRA didn't start the 'troubles'. After the dismal failure of their 1956-62 border campaign the guns were dumped. A new force appeared, the Civil Rights Movement. Most of them believed that peaceful reform within the six county state was possible. When they took to the streets loyalist gangs (including politicians, policemen and the notorious B Specials) attacked them. Streets were burned out, a pogrom began. Since the founding of the six county state every time the Catholic working class rose from their knees (or more frightening for the bosses, every time Catholic and Protestant workers united) sectarianism was whipped up and a state-led pogrom was unleashed. The 'liberal' 1960's were no exception. The British Army were sent back in. At first they claimed to be a 'disinterested' force standing between angry Catholics and the Paisleyites and policemen who wanted to invade Catholic areas and inflict a reign of terror. Within a year it was clear to all that their real purpose was to protect the Northern state and this would be done by keeping down the Catholics. The Falls Road was placed under a three day curfew in 1970 and three people shot dead for venturing out of their homes. The IRA began to reappear. The next year saw internment without trial and the year after that the murder of 14 Civil Rights marchers by British troops on Bloody Sunday. The IRA grew in size and escalated its recently commenced campaign. It was clear to many young Catholics that the struggle for change had become a struggle against the state itself and the British Army that was protecting it. Far from being the problem, the IRA is a product of it. If the IRA declared a ceasefire the problem would remain. If they completely vanished the problem would still be glaringly obvious. And as long as that problem is there there will be a response. Until imperialism is defeated and sectarianism uprooted there will be resistance. The question to be asked is what sort of resistance do we need? The armed struggle of the IRA has no chance of achieving victory. A small minority (the IRA) based within a minority (Northern Catholics) cannot defeat the state. They are unable to break out of the confines of the Northern Catholic ghettoes. Southern Irish workers are not influenced by claims that British imperialism is the main enemy, North and South. Southern capitalism is no longer tied to the apron strings of London. Workers in the 26 counties find themselves struggling against Irish and multinational bosses. IRA bombings and shootings are a thorn in the side of the ruling class, an unpleasant pain but nothing likely to prove fatal. Neither side can win a military victory. There is no way that a small guerrilla army can defeat the combined might of the RUC, UDR and British Army. Equally, there is no way that the state forces can wipe out militant republicanism. As long as partition, with its resultant sectarianism and repression, has existed there have been those who will take up arms against it. While this continues there will be civilian casualties and increased communalism and sectarian tension. Anarchists oppose the republican armed struggle, it is not the way to mobilise thousands upon thousands of working class people against imperialism. It is not the way towards an anti- sectarian working class unity. The armed struggle is not something that republicans took up because they have a fascination with violence or some innate love of armalite rifles, despite what some media commentators would have us believe. IRA volunteers are brave men and women who want to hit back at the forces that have been sticking the boot into their community. They risk jailing, torture and death. If bravery was enough the British Army would have been defeated years ago. Clearly bravery is not enough. To criticise the republicans' methods is not sufficient, the methods flow from their politics. Nationalism sees the main struggle as one between the 'Irish people' and British imperialism. The class struggle within Ireland takes a secondary place until the border is smashed. The mass of ordinary people are kept passive. While a few hundred courageous volunteers take up arms, the role of everyone else doesn't add up to much more than joining the occasional march or casting a vote for Sinn FŽin. The few fight and the rest stay at home and watch it on TV. Republicans see the working class only as victims of the system and not as people with the potential power to overthrow it. The bravery of the few becomes a substitute for mass action. The IRA campaign becomes central. We do not like the romanticisation of violence. We do enjoy seeing fathers bury their sons. We do not like part of our country being a war zone. But it is not for these reasons that we oppose the armed struggle. We are not pacifists. At times it is necessary to use violence to defend gains won in struggle. However we reject the idea that a small grouping, with guns and bombs, can set us all free. Only masses of people involved in struggle can fundamentally change society. We have to want to be free. Nobody can force freedom down our throats. Armed struggle is a substitute (and a poor substitute at that) for mass action. When was the ruling class most worried by events in the last two decades? It was the big Civil Rights marches and the no-go areas of Free Derry and Free Belfast that set their teeth chattering. It was the huge protests after the Bloody Sunday murders that saw the British Embassy burnt in Dublin and Jack Lynch's government declaring a national day of mourning after workers had made it clear there was going to be a total closedown of industry. It was this sort of militant mass action that forced concessions from the British government. The B Specials were disbanded, Unionist powers in local government were limited. In 1972, after the Bloody Sunday protests, the Stormont government was abolished. Of course many of these concessions were clawed back when the mass movement was eclipsed by the emergence of the IRA campaign and its promise that 1973 (and '74 and '75!) would be the "year of victory". The best example was the replacement of the B Specials by the UDR. But the lesson remains, it was mass action that won the concessions. So if the Workers Solidarity Movement are so opposed to the armed struggle why don't we join the call for a ceasefire. We won't line up with the right wing politicians and their 'Peace Train' supporters who seek to apportion all the blame to the IRA for the 'troubles'. The IRA are a response to a problem. The primary problem is partition, sectarianism and the occupation by the British Army. We refuse to join in the scapegoating of republicans. Equally, we refuse to mute our criticism of republicanism and its armed struggle. We are opposed to their politics as well as their methods. We stand for anarchism, for an independent working class position. We want to break working class people from the gombeen nationalism of Fianna F‡il, from the reactionary hatemongering of loyalism, from the sub-reformism of Labour and Democratic Left, ...and from the communalism of Sinn FŽin. While opposing the presence of the British Army and the continuing partition of the country, the working class must also fight the Southern state. We have to oppose imperialism and, at the same time, oppose the clerical nationalist laws in the South which ban divorce and abortion. We have to oppose Orange bigotry while at the same time campaigning for the complete separation of Church and State. We do not fight for a united capitalist Ireland, neither as a 'step in the right direction' or as an end in itself. Joining the six to the twenty six counties offers nothing to working class people in either state. We have no interest in re-dividing poverty on a more 'equitable' basis. The only Ireland worth fighting for is a Workers Republic where every working class person stands to gain. The way towards such a new Ireland is the way of class struggle and mass action, taking control of our own struggles and doing it in our own class interests. This is the road to freedom. Joe King ********** Should we get rid of articles 2 & 3 ******** from WS 38 [1993?] Article 2: The National territory consists of the whole island of Ireland, its' islands and its' territorial seas. Article 3: Pending the re-integration of the national territory and without prejudice to the right of Parliament and Government established by this constitution to exercise jurisdiction over the whole of that territory, the laws enacted by Parliament shall have the like area and extent of application as the laws of Saorstat Eireann [26 counties] and the like extra-territorial effect. Mention the conflict in the North and many people will turn off. Not because they do not care about what is going on but because they do not feel that they can make any difference. Who wants to hear about another death or another bombing? Most people in Ireland were glad to see the release of the Birmingham 6 and the Guildford 4, but in Dublin last Summer only 300 marched against the extradition of Angelo Fusco. The answer to the problem is made out to lie with the British and Irish governments in collaboration with the Unionist leaders. Workers in the South do not see themselves as having a part to play in the solution. It is in this atmosphere of alienation that talks, and talks about talks, can be portrayed as having an impact. In fact they were just talks. The latest set wound up last November with nothing decided. The banning of the UDA can be portrayed as positive action against the loyalist death squads. Even though they still exist, and are now killing more people than the Provos. And this while it has come out that Brian Nelson, a British mole actually took part in over sixteen murders with official permission. The Unionists are able to claim that it is the Republic of Ireland's 'claim' to the North in Articles 2 and 3 that is the cause of the 'troubles'. Meanwhile the British State is getting away with occupying the place and few people see this as a problem. In an upcoming referendum anarchists will oppose the deletion of Article 2. We do so, not because we support the 26 county state over the 6 county one, but because we are opposed to the partition of Ireland. The Article recognises the partition of Ireland and we want to see a united Ireland. For this we will oppose its deletion. We, however, won't get too excited about Article 3. To support the claim of the Dublin government is to support the authority of one set of bosses over another. We, who want to get rid of the division into bosses and bossed, won't do this. WHY IRELAND WAS DIVIDED Ireland was partitioned because of the conflicting economic interests between capitalists in the North-East and those in the rest of Ireland. Generally speaking the South was less developed and wanted independence to defend its infant economy from cheap British imports. The North-East was already relatively well developed with thriving linen and shipbuilding industries, both of which depended on Britain for export markets. The partition of Ireland and the creation of the six county state was a compromise between these conflicting interests. In order to win support for partition the bosses in the North-East stirred up sectarian hatred against Catholics. They made sure there was a material basis for such hatred. Slightly better housing and jobs were given to Protestants over Catholics. It was made clear that these privileges would go if Protestant workers supported Irish independence. On this basis the sectarian statelet of the six counties was founded. It was built with Protestant working class support on the grounds that they would remain better off than Catholics. These conditions have existed right up to the present day. Protestant workers may be more likely to be unemployed and on lower wages than a worker in London or Manchester. But they know that they are still only half as likely to be unemployed as a Catholic living in the next housing estate. The loyalist terror groups have their recruiting grounds in Unionist working class areas. They feed off the fear that Protestants will loose their slight privileges over the Catholics. They encourage sectarian hatred by saying that Catholics are the main enemy of the Protestants. That is why Loyalists such as the Ulster Defence Association will target any Catholics. They have been tricked into believing that it is Catholics that are the main enemy and they are all 'legitimate targets'. In reality the main enemy for both Catholic and Protestant workers is the ruling class. They are the people who set wages, hire and fire, and seek to control peoples' lives in all areas. For socialists, the most important task is to unite Catholic and Protestant workers and convince them to fight together against the bosses. This has happened before, for example the Outdoor Relief Strike in 1932 when Catholics from the Falls Road and Protestants from the Shankill Road of Belfast fought together for better conditions for the unemployed. And more recently in the health service strikes and DSS strikes against sectarian intimidation throughout the 1980s. Partition is not only bad because of the way that Northern nationalists are treated. It also has an effect in the South. As Connolly predicted partition led to "a carnival of reaction, North and South". For most of the history of the state, politics in the South has been dominated by Fianna F‡il and Fine Gael. There is hardly a political difference between the two. The influence of the conservative Catholic Church has until recently determined social legislation. In the South the carnival is winding down, but in the North it is still going at full belt. It is because of this that anarchists are opposed to the deletion of Article 2. A socialist perspective needs to be heard. The question of partition, and sectarian state must be dealt with properly by socialists or it will not be solved. NATIONALISTS Anarchists do not support the nationalist point of view. This will be put forward by Sinn FŽin, the Irish National Congress, Neil Blaney and such like. They will be fighting for a united capitalist Ireland. Socialists will not get much chance to be heard. We will be told that, yet again, 'labour must wait'. We are not struggling for a united capitalist Ireland. In any campaign we will be putting forward the socialist perspective that we are against partition because it fans the flames of sectarianism. In its place we want a socialist 32 county Republic uniting both Protestant and Catholic workers. Unfortunately at the moment anarchists cannot set the political agenda. Our influence is far too small. Most of the time we have to react to events as they occur. We helped to win the referenda on travel and information last year but we recognise that the main event that triggered the referenda was government action. They injuncted the 14 year old girl and caused the "X" case. It was people's reaction to this issue that forced the changes in the constitution. Likewise with a referendum to change Articles 2 and 3. While we would prefer to be involved in widespread united strike action of Protestants and Catholics, arguing for socialism, we cannot do so at the moment. If there is to be a referendum we will use it as an opportunity to argue a socialist perspective. This is an opportunity to argue a socialist answer and it should not be missed. ÿÿ Andrew Blackmore ********** Peace '93 ******** from Workers Solidarity No39 [1993] DUBLIN SUNDAY MARCH 28TH. On a rainy afternoon about 20,000 people (Irish Times estimate) crowd O'Connell Street to protest at the deaths of two children, Jonathan Ball and Tim Parry. At the fringes of the rally a small group carry pictures of some other victims of violence. Fergal Carahers's widow holds a placard saying "also, remember, British soldiers killed my husband". Others hold pictures of Majela O'Hare, Aiden McAnespie, Seamus Duffy, Karen Reilly and other victims of security force violence in the North. A small section of the crowd reacts angrily and begins to heckle them shouting "out, out, out!". Gardai move in quickly to grab the offending placards. In death as in life it seems that some are more equal then others. The Peace 1993 movement was set-up after the Warrington bombings as people reacted angrily to the killing of innocent children. Their efforts to distance themselves from politics have not been entirely successful. Attempting to mould the peace movement in their own image were New Consensus and the Peace Train Organisation. These organisations are little more then fronts for the Democratic Left, Workers Party and others who see the IRA as the incarnation of all evil. They are partly financed by the British government, through the Northern Ireland Office (see 'Peace train runs out of steam' Workers Solidarity 33). The people involved in Peace 1993 events have the best of motives and are sickened by the violence on all sides. Unfortunately they are been used. GANGSTERS AND PSYCHOPATHS? Peace 1993 has started with the analysis we are offered again and again by our rulers and the media. Paramilitaries, especially republican ones, are portrayed as gangsters and psychopaths used and manipulated by cynical "godfather's of crime". It is because of the IRA (we are told) that "normal democratic politics" cannot proceed. If they were to lay down their arms everything would be Hunky-Dory. Unfortunately this is not the case. Indeed the ceasefire of 1975 between the British government and the IRA was broken unilaterally by the British. They used the opportunity to conduct raids and searches for arms, and provoked the republicans in every way possible. The ceasefire was not signed by the loyalist gunmen who stepped up their sectarian campaign. Sinn FŽin's electoral support is 10% in total and 30% among Northern Ireland Catholics, concentrated in the working class areas of West Belfast and Derry and among small farmers in the border counties. The IRA have no difficulty in recruiting young Catholic workers and unemployed and will continue to do so. They are not the problem, they are a product of the real problem. This is the Northern Ireland State. There can be no "normal politics" in Northern Ireland. This is a State founded on blatant sectarianism and the repression of the minority. Catholics are still twice as likely to be unemployed as their Protestant neighbours (according to the government's own Fair Employment Agency). This is combined with day-to-day harassment by the security forces and the recent acceleration of sectarian attacks. These are the conditions that make it very unlikely that the IRA will just disappear. POLITICS OR POND LIFE? The IRA are a response to a State that was a model in sectarianism. The British State succeeded in buying off Protestant workers with marginal privileges. They created the reactionary ideology of unionism. Normal politics in Northern Ireland is illustrated graphically by the activities of the Belfast city council which recently took another giant step into the dark ages when it renewed it's ban on over 18s films on Sundays. The normal politics of this council chamber was described as "more like pond-life then politics" by one recently resigned SDLP councillor. As long as the British occupation continues and as long as unionism is propped up by them, so- called normal politics in Northern Ireland remains in the realm of sick humour. The IRA are not to blame for the situation in the North. But they will never be able to change it. The armed struggle over the last 20 or so years has done little more then irritate the British and Irish governments. A small guerrilla army will never defeat the combined resources of the British and Southern Irish States. Like all small guerilla armies they are elitist and unanswerable to those they claim to represent. The only role they offer Catholic workers is to cheer on from the sidelines. No group of this nature no matter, how brave or well armed, will ever set us free. Ultimately the armed struggle is no substitute for mass action. The only way to fundamentally change things is by uniting workers North and South of all religions and none to defeat the bosses, orange and green, and build a secular worker's republic. WINNING SUPPORT ...FOR MORE REPRESSION? The so-called economic bombing campaign in Britain is another reflection of the IRA's political bankruptcy. Any serious socialist anti-imperialist group would attempt to enlist the support of British workers against their own ruling class. The IRA's simplistic strategy is that they can bomb them into submission by causing massive economic damage. In fact it alienates British workers and makes the introduction of anti-Irish laws like The Prevention of Terrorism Act that bit easier. And it has to be said that the IRA know well that the authorities will occasionally ignore or delay a bomb warning in order to whip up anger at the Provos. With this knowledge it has to be said that the IRA take a very cavalier attitude towards the lives of ordinary people every time they plant a bomb in a shopping mall or railway station. It would not be unreasonable to ask if their bombing of Warrington amounts to manslaughter. The economic bombing campaign of the last 20 years from the Birmingham pub bombs, through the attacks on Downing Street, the stock exchange and the recent massive attack on the Nat West tower have not shaken the British government's resolve. Despite the cost (the Damage from the Nat West bomb is estimated at £3-500 million or about 1/10 of the annual bill for running the North for a year) they still hang on. MORE PROGRESSIVE THAN THE LEGION OF MARY! Anyone waiting eagerly to hear radical ideas from the IRA's political wing, Sinn FŽin after the slight relaxation of Section 31 (of the Broadcasting Act) forced on RTE can stop holding their breath. Take womens' rights for example. At this year's Ard Fheis a motion was put forward committing them to support a woman's right to choose abortion. One delegate (Daisy Mules from Derry) in support of the motion said that "the struggle for human rights and democracy must include womens' rights which includes the right to choose". The party's ruling Ard Chomhairle had different ideas. Tom Hartley claimed that existing policy was "the most progressive held by any political party in the country" (Not true, of course, both Democratic Left and the Worker's Party have gone further in their limited support for abortion rights). Gerry Adams claimed that to change policy "would be the biggest mistake we could make this weekend". The motion was defeated (An Phoblacht/Republican News 25th February). Sinn FŽin's politics continue to be based around a desperate attempt to make friends with right wing nationalist elements like Fianna F‡il TD Michael Noonan and the SDLP 'grassroots'. This strategy has failed totally and their vote in the South remains minute. The truth is that neither Peace 1993 nor the republicans can change things. Their simplistic solutions of "Lets all put down our guns and be pals" (unless we happen to have uniforms) or that of a united capitalist Ireland underline the lack of ideas of both organisations. Not only have they no solutions they haven't even begun to ask the right questions. WORKERS' ACTION Our solution is not quite so simple. It is a longer and more difficult route, but it is the only one which will work. It involves uniting workers in Ireland to fight for a united anarchist republic. In the short-term this means supporting and building, where possible, united action against the bosses. Also where united struggles do take place trying to make connections showing how the only way to real unity against the bosses is to oppose partition which is used to keep Protestant and Catholic workers apart. In the long-term it means fighting both British imperialist occupation of Northern Ireland and our own native bosses and Southern clericalist laws. The only way to do this is through massive united class struggle. There are no short-cuts on the road to freedom. Des McCarron