Karl Carlile pad at
Sat Feb 17 16:24:08 MST 1996

Will you please read this and even offer comments.



>It was the absence of negotiations and the consequent failure to address
and resolve the causes of conflict which >made the re-occurrence of conflict

The absence of negotiations  are not  what make the re-occurrence of
conflict inevitable. What make the re-occurrence of conflict possible is the
deep-seated contradictions inherent in six county society and indeed in
Irish capitalist society as a whole. To suggest the absence of negotiations
as cause is to mistakenly confine to surface phenomena the cause of
conflict. Again negotiations don't necessarily resolve the causes of
conflict. It is the struggle between social classes that can lead to the
resolution of conflict. Furthermore it is simplistic to suggest that the
ending of the ceasefire meant a re-occurrence of the conflict. Even during
the so called Provo ceasefire conflict continues under other forms.
Furthermore the character of negotiations is no more than a reflection of
the relationship of power between the classes. Gerry Adams, not recognizing
this fact, fetishes negotiations.

>The people of this island do have the ability to come to an agreed and
>democratic accommodation. The vehicle >for this is democratic and inclusive
>dialogue and negotiations.

If the people of Ireland do have this ability then this is tantamount to
falsely claiming that the struggle for national self-determination of the
Irish people is superfluous since discursive activity  can be substituted
for this struggle. The only thing that has significance is dialogue; all
else is meaningless. This is postmodernism at its most cynical. Language
substitutes itself for reality. Adams fails to understand that the character
of specific dialogue reflects the asymmetrical power relations that underpin
it. Words on their own are meaningless. The success of a political interest
participating in dialogue is a function of both its political power and the
character of its relationship with the relevant different political powers.
It is not a function of its debating skills. If the Provos had no political
power the Irish, British and American  bourgeois governments would not have
given it anything like the attention it has received.

>The IRA cessation was, itself, the culmination of a long process of
dialogue within Irish nationalist opinion aimed >at identifying a method of
resolving the conflict and building a lasting political settlement.

Again for Adams dialogue produced the IRA ceasfire. Words take on the power
of concrete struggle. The armed struggle of the IRA  generated dialogue,
words, and these words in turn generated the IRA ceasefire. Adam's mystifies
the power of words. He is the prisoner of words and images. Consequently his
world is one of fantasy; an Irish Don Quixote. The real situation is that
the Provos ceased their armed struggle because of concrete political
considerations and not because of mere dialogue.

The very fact that the IRA found it necessary to end the ceasefire is proof
of the limitations of dialogue, of language. The IRA bombing in the London
docklands has already generated a modification in the political situation in
a way that dialogue could not. Indeed the only reason that Sinn Fein have
been allowed to even talk with the Irish government is because of the
political significance  of their armed campaign. If the IRA had not waged
their campaign then no dialogue  would have taken place. Therefore it was
not, as Adams believes, language that led to language. The gun compelled the
bourgeoisie to enter into talks with the Provos. The problem is that the
guns of the IRA are not proving powerful enough to achieve an independent 32
county republic.

>The Irish Government of that time, Sinn Fein, the SDLP and key elements of
Irish America were all agreed that >inclusive negotiation, without
preconditions or vetoes, is the only way to resolve the conflict and secure
a lasting >peace. It was agreed that peace could be achieved only by
replacing the failed political structures with a new >political arrangement
on the island, based on democratic principles of agreement and consent.

If the only way to resolve the conflict is through "inclusive negotiation"
then why has it not been achieved? If a settlement, as Gerry Adams believes,
is simply a matter of the different parties sitting around a table to talk
then there can be no reason why all the parties would object to this.
However because it is far from as simple as this the parties have not
engaged in this inter-communicative exercise. It has not been achieved
because words have their limits and are not as Adams believes the essence of
social being. The armed conflict reflects class interests which are concrete
material interests. A resolution cannot then be a simple matter of
discursive reason; of the application of reason to a socio-historical
problem. A problem of this kind can only be resolved through politics which
entails class struggle. Social conflicts never have and never will be solved
by means of discursive activity.

>There was an intensive and unprecedented dialogue within Irish nationalist
opinion in its broadest sense, a >dialogue which required courage,
imagination and a new approach on all sides, not least on the part of the
then >Taoiseach, Albert Reynolds, and the SDLP leader, John Hume, who,
despite intense opposition, turned their >backs on the failed policies of
isolation and took the risk required in the building of the Irish peace process.

Whether the dialogue "required courage, imagination and a new approach" is
irrelevant. Of relevance, however, is that Reynolds, Spring and Hume were
simply serving their own class interests by engaging in such dialogue. They
"turned their backs on the failed policies of isolation" simply because they
had found another and perhaps more effective strategy to either crush,
encourage the Provos to surrender or accept a compromise. Sections of the
Irish bourgeoisie had changed their strategy in an attempt to further
stabilise bourgeois conditions on the island. But it must be remembered that
it may be "the failed policies of isolation" that played a strategic role in
generating the kind of Provo leadership that is prepared to fall for what
maybe a new strategy of sections of the bourgeoise.

> With a clear commitment by all the major Irish nationalist parties
proactively to pursue a new, negotiated and >democratic political
arrangement, and a public commitment by the British government to convene
with the Irish >Government the necessary peace talks to achieve this
agreement, the Sinn Fein leadership gave an assessment >to the IRA
leadership of the prospects for a lasting political settlement. It was on
the basis of clearly-stated >commitments and agreements that the IRA
announced a complete cessation of military operations on August >31st, 1994.

The above remarks suggest that the present Sinn Fein leadership accepted the
word of its enemy, an enemy it had been struggling against for over twenty
five years. Adams does not understand  that these manoeuvres by London may
have formed part of a political strategy to defeat the Provos. Adams now
wants to criticize the British government because the Adamites may have made
the significant political mistake of naively taking their enemy at his word.
However there are those who would suggest a more sinister reason for their
apparent political innocence.

> In the 18 months of the IRA cessation, the British government stalled the
commencement of all-party peace talks >time and time again. The unilateral
dumping of the Mitchell report, and the introduction of a unionist proposal
for >a six-county election, placed an unbearable strain on the peace
process. Sinn Fein warned repeatedly of the >dangers. Our warnings were
treated as threats when they were intended to alert those responsible that
the peace >process needed to be consolidated and built upon.

Again all this simply proves that words are not a substitute for concrete
reality. If it is only a matter of rational dialogue then there is no reason
why Unionism, London and Dublin  cannot sit around the table with the Provos
to arrive at a solution. This has not happened because  social problems in
the six count state Ireland cannot be reduced to mere words.

>The stalling, the negativity, the introduction of new preconditions was
steadily undermining the position of those, >myself included, who had argued
that a viable peaceful way forward could be constructed.

The above remarks mean that Adams admits that his position has been
undermined which can only mean that the Adamites may have played a vital
part in the Provos suffering a defeat at the hands of the Tory government.
Adams does not understand that this may be just what London intended as part
of a possible strategy to split the Provos and make its defeat easier. This
may then mean that the Adamites are John Major's best allies.

>Against this background and with consternation I, and those who had worked
to put this peace process together, >watched as Private Lee Clegg was
released and then promoted, as David Trimble and Ian Paisley marched
>through the nationalist community in Garvaghy Road, as Irish prisoners were
mistreated in English jails, as >plastic bullets were fired at peaceful
demonstrators, as nationalist homes continued to be wrecked in RUC raids.
>And, most fundamentally, we pointed out, with a growing sense of
desperation, that there could be no negotiated >peace without peace
negotiations; that without peace talks there was no peace process.

Adams may be surprised to know that there is nothing new in this. This is
the kind of conduct British imperialism has engaged over many years. More
surprising might have been the discontinuation of this conduct by the
British state. Given British imperialism's enduringly oppressive role in
Ireland it is ironical that the Adams' leadership naively believed British
imperialism's promises. Then when the British bourgeoisie  fails to meet
these promises it engages in posturing that suggests surprise. Such a naive
belief in British imperialism's good intentions mistakenly suggests that
imperialism can play a non-oppressive neutral role and that it is not
inherently oppressive. The politics of the present Provo leadership, the
Adamites, also paints American imperialism in bright colours by depicting
the Clinton administration as facilitator of the struggle for Irish national
self-determination. In this way it promotes the view that British and
American imperialism are progressive and not essentially oppressive of other
peoples. Essentially then the  Adams leadership is pro-imperialist.

>Attempts to isolate Sinn Fein failed in the past. The Taoiseach knows that
our party is committed to dialogue, >that we are not involved in armed
actions and that we have a democratic mandate.

Adams declares that Sinn Fein is "committed to dialogue". This is a truism
of no political significance. Many political organizations, including
fascist ones, are committed to dialogue. But they are committed to many
other things too. It has been known for many years that Sinn Fein have
always been committed to dialogue. It has always been known that Sinn Fein,
as such, are not involved in armed actions. However Sinn Fein has been under
the control of the IRA leadership and the latter  has been engaged in armed
action. Sinn Fein has enduringly supported the armed struggle of the IRA and
has been its political arm. There is also dual membership of both
organizations. The only reason Sinn Fein have received more than generous
media and political attention is because of this relationship to the IRA. It
may also be because the Adams leadership is in the process of betraying what
was the original political aim of the Provos. There is no other reason why
the bourgeoisie now treat as royalty the leadership of an organization that
it has so persistently  sought to suppress, sometimes with great savagery,
over many years.

> What of those whom we represent? Are they to be discriminated against by
the Irish Government in a crude >attempt by that government to pressurise an
organisation for which Sinn Fein and our electorate have no >responsibility
or control? The Taoiseach also knows that I have honoured every commitment I
made. He knew >how fragile the peace process was. All of us have to reflect
on our stewardship of the peace process. Mr Bruton >must reflect, as I must,
on the lessons of the last 18 months.

Sinn Fein have a responsibility for the existence of the IRA by their
failure to seriously criticise it and by their general political support for
the actions of the IRA.

>One thing is clear. It is not possible to make peace in Ireland unless the
British government WANTS to make >peace also. It is also very important that
the Taoiseach's unilateral decision to refuse to accord Sinn Fein our
>democratic rights is set aside so that we can all find ways through
dialogue to rescue the peace process.

          (capitals mine)

This is tantamount to claiming that there cannot be a successful struggle
for national self-determination by the Irish people.  Political conditions
in Ireland depend, according to Gerry Adams, on whether "the British
government wants to make peace". No longer is it a problem of the Irish
masses defeating British imperialism and thereby forcing  its troops out of
Ireland. Instead the masses simply wait until British imperialism wants to
take its troops out of Ireland.

Contrary to what Adam claims the struggle for national self-determination of
the Irish people can only achieve success through the establishment of  a
workers' republic or a federation of workers' republics supported by
sections of the petit bourgeoisie. Such a workers' republic or federation of
workers' republics can only be consolidated through the establishment of a
fedration of workers' republics on both the islands of Ireland and Britain.

     --- from list marxism at ---


More information about the Marxism mailing list