|
This
recent situation and still developing crisis within
the peace process now facing suspension once again,
has found accusations and counter accusations leveled
at individuals, organisations and political parties.
It initially emerged from the recent UUC meeting which
seen in all practical terms an endorsed shift to anti
agreement unionism. The developments thereafter I
would suggest were tactical manoeuvres by elements
who wish to embrace a 'traditional' status quo, thus
anti agreement Unionism, this both within sections
of the political and security establishment. The political
reasoning for the raids on Sinn Fein Assembly offices
was two fold. Firstly a strategic move to shift the
blame from Trimble to republicanism in relation to
the impending collapse of the institutions in January.
Secondly, therefore with the blame now perceived to
be squarely at Sinn Fein's door and the situation
now reversed, consequently then an attempt to further
pressurize the IRA to disband is then intensified.
This
was a well mapped agenda, provided with the opportunity
it only then needed the timing. I would suggest that
it was no coincidence that they now choose to play
this card to aid Trimble, reverse the blame and now
inevitably sooner rather than later to see the standing
down of the IRA. Secondly this situation has enabled
anti agreement unionism to attempt to block or hold
back continual change, which is really at the root
cause of their problem as it seems they believe that
change based on equality means that Nationalism gains,
so consequently, therefore, somehow they must be losing
out. It is, though, interesting to hear the call for
IRA disbandment echoing increasingly louder, not only
from unionism, Blair, Reid and company but now also
by aspects of Nationalism and its media outlets amongst
others.
While
the overwhelming majority of people would want that
such organisations should disband, the problem I believe
does not lay in the eventual standing down of the
IRA but in the perceived and real agenda of attempting
to force the IRA to disband on unionist time limits,
terms and constant demands. Like any such organisation
attempting to move away from conflict to a conflict
resolution situation and to some form of stability
(despite various internal contradictions and public
allegations) to be faced with still provocation and
intimidation from one's military opponents and constant
demands on their terms from one's political opponents
doesn't sit well with conflict resolution. While Reid
warned Republicans not to ride two horses at once
many people do have an understanding of what he means.
For example while the British political establishment
call for peace, aspects of their security agencies
actively seek a return to confrontation. While the
UUP call for those to be booted out who 'have not
shown' that they want the agreement to work they make
this call as an anti agreement party.
It
is interesting to see this development, a pro-agreement
party voting to collapse the agreement and in the
process becoming an anti-agreement party, who state
the vote for collapse of the institutions was done
in order to save that agreement. So with this and
the timely security intervention on behalf of anti
agreement unionism, we then have history being told
that rather than anti-agreement unionism being responsible
for the institutions collapse it was in fact pro-agreement
republicanism who were in fact responsible.
So
we see also within this recent situation questions
being raised such as why were the IRA allegedly keeping
names on groups such as prison officers? Other questions
were also raised. Why were there so many PSNI officers
needed to raid an unlocked office in such a fashion?
Is it really a coincidence that this happened against
the backdrop of the developments at the UUC where
a once pro-agreement stance became a now anti-agreement
one, thus the impending collapse of the institutions
in January in all reality would be laid at Unionism
and Trimble's door? Is it a coincidence that after
a year or so of investigation that this issue came
fortunately and timely for Trimble in full view of
the world's press, timed coincidentally with the Colombia
three trial?
Although
this tactic - politically motivated for a strategic
reason has seemingly put republicans on the back foot,
the situation though may have the potential of developing
in either of two directions in relation to republican
grass roots. On the one hand it has all but succeeded
in its goal to reverse the main blame of the institutions
downfall upon republicans while in tandem pressure
evermore mounting for IRA disbandment. This situation
though in turn could cause confusion, anger, disillusionment
and frustration of activists, with calls of 'we told
you so' (a well worn tactic) to attempt division,
criticism and infighting. On the other hand, however,
as within the situation with Arafat, the organisations
and its supporters can close ranks and pull activists
and supporters even peripheral ones closer together
if the see their movement, their party, their organisations,
their leadership - their rights continually and increasingly
attacked by political and-or military opponents. Whether
such situations are based on either perceptions or
realities, it will be used by all sides for specific
aims and objectives, this ever developing or indeed
'developed'.
For
republicans they have progressed through 'broad republicanism'
and militant nationalism to now as openly stated by
sections of its support base to 'New Nationalism'.
This still embraces the contradictions held within
the left wing spoke by some, and such aspiration of
a few, to its centre right governance and implementation
of some Thatcherite policies by its ministers. Yet
despite this the republican movement by and large
has remained intact with also a still growing electoral
mandate. The peace process has increasingly brought
on board for them new 'middle nationalism' supporters
while still holding the bulk of their working class
constituents, this despite that many within such working
class communities see still little economic and social
change with now the limited political change stalled.
This
peace process has went from crisis to crisis, yet
this is not a surprise. The institutions were established
on the very basis of divisions, therefore little unity
or trust, thus entrenching sectarianism even deeper.
This developed also an economic and social agenda
that provided both perceived and real exclusiveness
for the most vulnerable people and communities, thus
then the institutions continually concretised poverty
through its political and economic structures.
The
peace process is by many called the 'imperfect peace'
- everyone may benefit from peace but not everyone
will eventually benefit from the process. Despite
this, it cannot be denied that change has happened
and progress has been made in some areas. Now though
as before due to suspension a space has again been
created for those who relish such a situation. Those
who oppose not only the concept of the process but
of also the peace may they be loyalist, republican
or elements within the British security and political
establishment, will attempt further to return to the
past rather than to attempt to create a decent future,
this will intensify the longer suspension remains.
Although
such organisations are opposed to the peace process
there are many though who are for peace but against
a process that has the social and economic implications
of exclusion to many communities and people, combined
with the establishment of institutions that by their
very structure institutionalize sectarianism.
The
whole role of Unionism within this recent situation
has seen continual vocal attacks and demands of republicans
while their silence and lack of response (although
muted response when prompted) against ongoing loyalist
violence, which as in the past when they stop killing
each other may then direct their attentions onto nationalists.
Their anti-agreement position also doesn't fit well
for the implementation of the agreement, while their
political threats don't inspire Nationalist confidence
or indeed show Unionist belief in the process of change.
Any
such process needs to be a process of real change
that embraces all. It should be a process of economic
and social inclusion with political equality. It should
be a process that delivers peace and stability and
develops unity not division. With this then a base
can continually be built for eventual real economic
and political emancipation for all our peoples.
Davy
Carlin is a member of the West Belfast Socialist Workers
Party
Index: Current Articles + Latest News and Views + Book Reviews +
Letters + Archives
|
