Showing 1198 results

fore have the Irish and Brit- ish establishments been forced to spend so much time delibera- ting on how best to isolate and defeat Irish republicanism. Since the first hunger-strike, in December 1980, when a 'totality of relationships' was announced through silver tea-pot diplomacy, a short- lived constitutional crusade, the changes of government which were as short on days in office as they were in leadership, Dublin and their Northern allies, the SDLP leadership, have been struggling to claw back the high ground of Irish nationalism which they surrendered so long ago. The Dublin Forum report, its ignominious demise at Chequers and the current talks have marked further dilutions of nationalist aspirations and attempts to lower nationalist expectations. What started off as the "greatest political initiative since the '20s" is now merely "part of a process", to quote Mr John Hume twice. What was to be the relieving of the night- mare of Northern nationalists could well end up with a treaty of the Uni- ted Nations which endorses the British claim to sovereignty in the six counties, thereby copper-fastening partition and insulating the British government from international critic- ism of their involvement in Irish affairs. W HILE it would be foolish to speculate on speculation about what shape any agreement is likely to take, it is nonetheless important to sketch out our attitude to these talks and in 6 general terms the political con- text in which they are taking place. They are not about Irish independence or Irish re-uni- fication, or even federalism or confederalism, or power-sharing – those other Forum favourites. This much the London govern- ment has made clear. And yet the talks go on. The Dublin Forum options were dismissed by Thatcher and yet the talks go on. When the Forum report was launched you will recall that we asked what the Forum parties were going to do when Britain said 'No!' Margaret Thatcher said 'No!' In fact, so that everyone clearly under- stood her, she said it three times. At that point, if Dublin was serious about its own Forum report it could have quite justifiably withdrawn from a process which was patently being conducted in the interests of the British government. Dublin did not withdraw because it shares those interests. The talks, and any subsequent agreement, are about creating a political climate in which this party can be isolated through a mixture of repression and appeasement. The ex- tent of the repression will depend on how successful we are in the con- tinuing process of developing our party and expanding our support. O N that count we can prepare ourselves for a lot of repression and I hereby give notice to Margaret Thatcher and her cronies in Dublin that we have no inten-

tion of ceasing to be success- ful. On the contrary, we intend to be successful again and again arıd again. While I will return to this theme in our private session, it is necessary here to record that proscription, atternpted ostracisation, new laws, censorship, the banning of our newspapers, imprisonment (with or without trial), even summary execut- ions have never defeated us in the past. These measures may have won a temporary respite for the establish- ment in other decades but in this decade, as in the 1970s, any respite was short-lived and this Ard-Fheis and our current electoral support is proof of the resilience and resource- fulness of the republican cause. Leanadh leis an troid ainneoin coisc, cinnsireachta agus priosun- tachta, agus go fiú dúnmharú. B'fhéidir gur ghnóthaigh an daor- smacht a cuireadh orainn, b'fhéidir gur ghnóthaigh sin sos gearr namhaid san am atá thart. Ach sna hochtoidĺ mar aon leis na seachtóidí ní mhair- eann an sos sin ach seal beag gearr. Agus taispeánann ár neart sa lá ata inniú ann nach bhfuil bás i ndan don chuis phoblachtach. Ní bhris- fear sinn ná ní cheannófar sinn. Tá muid anseo agus fanfaimid anseo. We will continue to be as resilient, as flexible and as resourceful in the future as we have been throughout this phase of the struggle. W HAT then has led the British and Dub- lin governments to such extended talks as those currently in progress. London- Dublin collaboration is no new thing. The very nature of this statelet and the ethos of the rul- ing class ensures its dependency upon, and subservience to, the British government. Never be- fore, however, since the British guns were used to bombard the Four Courts has the collaborat- ion been so public and unapolo- getic. The duration of the struggle, the failure of the British to defeat us, and the short-sightedness of the unionist leaderships are all factors which contribute to the British gov- ernment's need to involve Dublin more and more in the task of stabilis- ing their interests in this country. They can afford to offend the unionists. After all, there will be no constitutional changes and, for all their protestations, the unionists have failed to subdue opposition to par- tition. Their blatant use of discrim- ination, gerrymandering and coer- cion, encouraged by the British for as long as they succeeded in ful- filling the British need to neutralise opposition to their rule in Ireland, is now to be refined. More sophis- ticated methods are to be used. In- deed, the predictable unionist outcry will be utilised to exaggerate the substance of whatever concessions are produced. In this way, John Hume and Garret FitzGerald are indebted to Ian Paisley and James Molyneaux. As in the past, they trust that unionist paranoia will be sufficient to reassure nationalists. IMES are changing though. Ordinary nationalists will judge the outcome of these talks not by the rhetoric of its supporters or opponents 7

but by the real substance, its effects on their lives and its relevance to the struggle of the Irish people for self-determinat- ion. In this regard the establishment have made the major mistake of bel- lieving their own propaganda. They believe that Sinn Fein flourishes In conditions of deprivation, unem- ployment and one-sided laws. They fail to note Sinn Fein's commit- ment - while smashing partition - to working alongside ordinary people to win as many gains as possible within the six and twenty-six counties. They also underestimate the intell- igence of the republican electorate. No mention was made in the past of the Flags & Emblems Act, the sta- tus of the Irish language, the condit- ions of political prisoners and their families. Issues like this, neglected by the SDLP and Dublin in previous negotiations with the British, are now elevated to the position of major importance. The people are not so unsophisticated. They realise that It is their soundness on these issues, allied to their support for Sinn Fein, which makes these issues important points now. So too on the question of poli- tical prisoners. Our domestic oppo- nents advise both administrations that Sinn Fein needs the imprison- ment of our comrades in order to maintain our support base, and that we fear the release of these pris- oners or the modification of regu- lations governing the imprisonment of 'SOSPs' or lifers. On the contrary, this assumption reflects how little people understand the conditions in which we and our supporters live. The political prisoners are our bro- thers and sisters, sons and daughters, husbands or wives, mothers or fath- 8 ers. They should not be imprisoned at all and any real change in their conditions will be due to their own resistance and the steadfastness of their families. It will be welcomed by us as such. Not as a sop to the consciences of their jailers, but as an overdue recognition of their incorr- uptibility. S O too on the accusation that we exploit social inequalities. Unemploy- ment, social demoralisation, po- verty, bad housing and ill- health may be a breeding ground for apathy, drug-taking, alcohol- ism, and the battering of women and children, but they are hardly fertile conditions for political activism. Where Sinn Fein members are in- volved with the people against the drug menace and other issues of social concern, it is not for political point-scoring but because these evils hurt the communities that we live in and represent. Regardless of what way our motives are maligned or misrepresented, we fully intend to continue to campaign, with those in- volved, for proper and total changes in this situation. And we do not fear any progress on this front. On the contrary, in its proper context we will welcome any meaningful pro- gress and we recognise the central- ity of people's own efforts in making these issues pertinent now. Indeed, whilst recognising that Britain may make some concess- ions to Dublin and the SDLP, and that the EEC and US financial aid may be made available as part of a mistaken analysis that we will be un- dermined, any such concessions are

not attributable to the efforts of those politicians but can be claimed by the struggling nationalist people as some minor appetiser on the road to tast- ing the full fruits of victory. HE dangers of the present talks lie not in the conclu- sions that they may or may not reach on these issues but in their intention of put- ting a diplomatic veneer on British rule and injecting a credibility to constitutional nat- ionalism so that British rule and its interests can be stabilised in the long-term. A report, Britain's Undefended Frontier — A Policy for Ulster, pub- lished by the Institute for Euro- pean Defence & Strategic Studies, gives an interesting insight into right- wing establishment thinking and a refreshing vindication of our atti- tude to current views. This report recognises the problem of what is called 'nationalist alienation' from British institutions in the six coun- ties and the dangers of this to the Dublin government. It promotes cross-border collaboration as the only alternative to a dangerous escalation of British repression which could provoke a nationalist backlash throughout Ireland. You will not be surprised to learn that among its proposals are included:- A joint London-Dublin secu- rity commission, including a military sub-committee made up of repre- sentatives of both forces. A full-time secretariat drawn from Dublin and Whitehall civil servants. London-Dublin summits at fixed intervals. Explanations for the doggedness of the British government in main- taining its occupation of the six counties are many, including the ridiculous notion that they remain there out of some sympathy with, or obligation to, the loyalists. T HE British occupation of the six counties is one of political imperialism which has weakened the Irish working class, North and South, because of the absorbing and divisive nature of partition, and which created powerful vested interests in the unionist and Irish estab- lishments which have a real affinity with Britain. Successive Dublin governments in- herited a tradition of neutrality – in practice, the battered concept of which they have often stretched. Nevertheless, neutrality is a prin- ciple which coincides with the in- stincts and mood of the Irish people who do not want to be drawn into any imperialist nuclear nightmare and who support the concept of an independent foreign policy and im- proved relations with the develop- ing nations. It has been mooted – and the SDLP deputy-leader, among others, has welcomed the idea – that the principle of neutrality be bartered in return for British concessions on the national question. Not only would such a move be taking the twenty-six counties back into the 'United Kingdom', but in joining with the NATO powers Ireland would be joining the club of imperialists and former colonial nations notorious for their oppression of people across the globe. Irish foreign policy should be bas- ed on a policy of neutrality and non- alignment which includes the pro- 9

motion of nuclear disarmament, the promotion of peace internationally, and independence in political, econo- mic and ideological matters. S INN Fein is totally oppo- sed to the twenty-six counties being involved in the EEC Security Commit- tee. In our consistent opposit- ion to EEC membership we have pointed out the dangers of such involvement. Strategic considerations have al- ways been a major factor in the British government's attitude to Ire- land, which is considered by NATO as an important element in strategic planning. These considerations have increasingly led to US interest in the stabilisation of the six-county situation. We will continue to oppose all plans for the siting of a military, radar or communications network in any part of this country. To the ordinary people of the twenty-six .counties I appeal that they examine their government's role in these issues with the same cyni- cism you afford them on social and economic issues. I know the effects of censorship tend to insu- late you from the real suffering of Northern people and of the eff- ects which partition and the Brit- ish domination of Irish affairs have on your lives. Nonetheless, I remind you that your government said, "No internal agreement would be accept- able." Your government said, "The UDR must be disbanded." Your gov- ernment and its opposition called for "sweeping changes in the econo- mic, social and judicial institutions of the six counties". I remind you of the words of the leader of the opposition. I appeal 10 to you to make yourselves more aware of the centrality of partit- ion in all our related social, econo- mic, cultural and political ills and I call upon you not to leave your brothers and sisters in the six coun- ties, or their future, in the hands of cynical or manipulative career poli- ticians. W HAT happened once be- fore in the 'great political initiative of the 1920s'. It cannot be allowed to hap- pen again. We as a nation have a right to nat- ional self-determination. Ireland does not stop at the British border. And no Irish institution, government or otherwise, has the right to sign any treaty with the British which en- croaches on Irish sovereignty. On a more practical note, you should con- sider also why you, as a taxpayer, were being charged £53 per year in 1984 for the 'privilege' of partition when the cost to your British con- temporary was a mere £9 per year. So much for economic planning! You should not be confused by Dublin or SDLP support for the unionist veto. Northern Protestants have as much right as any other section of the Irish people to shape, or veto the shape, of any future independent Irish society, but un- ionists have absolutely no right to veto that society's right to national self-determination. They have no right to veto over the British connect- ion. Dublin often attempts to con- fuse its acceptance of this veto as being part of a high-minded pluralist approach. It is nothing of the sort. It is merely an ignoble surrender to a reactionary and undemocratic assert- ion of brute force. Real proof of the

Published by: Wolfe Tone Society Publications BM 6191 London WC1N 3XX

FORWARD ALONG THE PATH OF CONNOLLYISM AND THE JUCHE IDEA by H. Stephens With a selection of quotations from the works of James Connolly and Kim Jong Il