|
It
appears there is increasing discontent with the GFA
bubbling to the surface within the Nationalist and
Republican communities of the North. Having said this
it also needs to be emphasised that there is little
demand for a return to war coming from within these
communities, far from it in fact. Unfortunately much
of this discontent has slowly festered away because
SF has not only failed to provide any outlets for
it to be expressed publicly, but in the past years
has gone out of its way to tar all those who disagree
with Mr Adams' political strategy as being hand-in-glove
with reaction, in the guise of either the Unionists
or the British State. Which is in itself an outrageous
claim to make as the current SF strategy has placed
that party far closer to the Unionist position than
their Republican critics. As incredible as it may
seem to those who are unfamiliar with the mindset
of Mr Adams and co, SF has no political journal in
which its members and supporters can debate the momentous
changes party policy has gone through in recent years.
Thus perhaps understandably, of late much of this
discontent has emerged into the light of day as criticism
not of the wrong-headed political strategy of the
SF leadership, but as personal criticism, real or
imagined, that centres on the human frailties of certain
individuals that comprise SF's leadership clique.
If this personalising of political differences continues,
it could have a detrimental effect, especially for
those who wish to see SF pushed to the left. Before
I go any further so that there is no confusion, I
am not including here those who have used satire to
burst the pomposity of certain SF leaders, nor those
who have been on the receiving end of the SF smears
I have mentioned above and have replied like with
like.
However in my experience few people originally join
a radical political organisation, whether it be a
left wing political group or an Irish Nationalist/Republican
Party such as SF, for personal advancement or financial
gain, although of course there are always examples
that disprove the rule. The simple fact is there are
far easier paths one could choose within the political
arena. This was in the past especially true in the
north of Ireland and even these days in the brave
new world of the GFA, being an elected representative
of SF still means you are going to become a likely
target of the loyalist para-militaries' steroid enhanced
goons. As to earning large sums of money from being
an elected SF representative, it has not been an option
to date. The party to its credit operates a system
of all of its elected TD’s, MP’s, MEP’s
and MLA's, drawing only the average workers wage from
their parliamentary salary, with the rest going into
party coffers. This is not only practical politics
designed to prevent an economic gap opening up between
SF’s elected officials and those they represent.
It also has the additional advantage of pouring a
considerable amount of money into SF coffers, which
can be and is used to build the party. It is true
the homes of some SF Representatives may have nicer
looking windows and doors than some of their neighbours,
but can we really begrudge them the protection these
avail? They are after all more likely than most to
have something unpleasant thrown or fired through
the said windows and doors. What would we think of
a party that does nothing to protect its elected officials
in a society where allowing the police to deal with
such problems as the aforementioned is still not a
viable option for most Nationalists let alone Republicans?
The problem that arises when Sinn Fein's left and
Republican critics either make or endorse these claims
made against the Sinn Fein's leadership is twofold.
Firstly few people within the nationalist communities,
who actually know the current Adams clique personally,
seriously believe that they are lining their own pockets.
Indeed, although again there may be exceptions that
disprove prove the rule, most people are well aware
that in most cases the opposite is true and many of
those who form the current leadership have made as
many sacrifices in support of their political beliefs
as their Left and Republican critics. As for Adams
himself, in my judgement he has in all probability
put far more cash into the SF coffers than he has
taken out. If he were to cease his political activities,
he could make a small fortune from his rather turgid
self-promoting propaganda tomes or on the US Lecture
Tour circuit.
The second reason and of far more importance as to
why these personal attacks on the SF leadership are
counterproductive, is that they equate their political
errors and mistakes with human weaknesses. i.e. The
reason they signed the GFA, behaved as they did whilst
in Ministerial Office, defended the British army up
in Ardoyne on the 12th July and treat their 'dissident'
critics within the Republican communities in the arrogant
manner in which they do, is solely because they are
over-ambitious for office and for the prestige and
the perks plus the large salaries that go with it.
Of late even harsher language is seeping in from some
quarters; there has even been talk of the Adams clique
being financially corrupt if not traitorous too. Thus
implying that perhaps the Brits (the clever things)
have been conducting SF political strategy all the
time.
Of
course by accepting the aforementioned as fact one
is also accepting that the British State can buy,
bribe or corrupt all Irish people who rise to a position
where they can threaten the UK state's continued presence
in Ireland. If this were indeed true then those that
claim PIRA lost the war would have been proved correct.
But of course these people are wrong, for if they
were not the Brits would not have bothered, no matter
how flimsy their intent, to offer a negotiated settlement.
They would have simply dictated terms as to where
and when volunteers would hand in their weapons to
the RUC/PSNI and Republicans would have had to await
her Majesty's pleasure before any prisoners were released
from jail.
No,
the Provisional Republican Movement did not lose the
war, however nor, sadly, did the RA win it. Those
members of the PRM who at the time of the ceasefires
first being called, went around claiming the war had
been won, did a great dis-service, because by so doing
they were planting the seeds of future disillusionment
within their communities. Whilst it is correct as
I have already said to claim the RA did not lose the
war, what they certainly have lost to date is the
negotiations that followed the second ceasefire. We
should not be too surprised about this as this also
happened in 1975 during the ceasefire back then and
further back in the negotiations that brought the
Tan War to a close, out of which the Free State and
its northern sibling emerged in all their imperfections.
One should try and not be too downcast about this
latest setback, however difficult this may be for
those who have invested the best part of their lives
in this struggle. But never forget the British State
has an enormous depth of experience in such negotiations
going back hundreds of years. We should also not overlook
the fact that in the post ceasefire negotiations of
the late 1990s, they had a considerable advantage
over SF, as from the British States point of view
there was little of major importance that could come
from these negotiations that they could not live with.
They simply saw the talks as a further step in the
Ulsterisation of ‘the troubles’ and all
those party to the talks, including SF, seemed only
to willing to assist them in achieving this. Whereas
the SF negotiating position both during the talks
and after the agreement was signed made it all too
obvious that they not only wanted, but also needed,
to show major gains from these negotiations and in
the process they time and again made the British only
too well aware of this fact. Trooping up to Stormont
when they have been locked out demanding to be let
back in (think about that one). Destroying weapons
long after their prisoners were released and by so
doing gaining little in return beyond the odd sympathetic
leading article in the Times or Guardian.
No, these negotiations have not been a great success
for the SF.
The British State may wish to disengage from Ireland,
but it is not a priority; they can leave it to the
next generation or beyond without suffering too much
torment. But even when they do go, which in the long
run is almost inevitable, the more so if the EU moves
forward to become some sort of political federation,
the advantages to the British State of withdrawal
will not be momentous. Although the economic and political
burden of staying in the north indefinitely increasingly
will become more tiresome and, on a more personal
level, staying must be downright depressing to say
the least. Imagine reaching the pinnacle of your profession,
i.e. British Prime Minister or a senior Cabinet or
Civil Service post, then having to spend endless hours
listening to ‘the Ian Paisleys', David Trimbles
or Jeffrey Donaldsons forever telling you that you
are selling out their people, etc, etc. One could
almost feel sorry for the Brits — but not quite.
So whilst withdrawal is in all probability the British
States preferred option, what they do not want to
happen is a rerun of what happened in Algeria when
it gained independence from France. That is, the loyalist
paramilitaries, silently backed by the Unionist political
establishment, aping the OAS with bombings on the
British mainland, along with mutinies amongst a section
of the officer class within the British Armed Forces.
However I am getting ahead of the story. If we continue,
as I have described, to claim that these negotiations
have reached the current impasse due to the human
weaknesses of the current SF leadership, then the
logical conclusion to draw is all that is needed is
a leadership that will not underestimate the Brits,
sell out, be bribed or flattered. Sound familiar?
Is this not where the Adams leadership came in post
1975? Whereas the real reason Irish Republicanism
under the leadership of Gerry Adams has reached its
current impasse is just like previous generations
of Republican leaders: its negotiating strategy was
inadequate, ill-thought through and, like his predecessors,
Adams had no viable fall back position beyond rattling
the RA sabres. With the passing of every month, as
the current ceasefire has turned into years of PIRA
inactivity as far as challenging the British military
is concerned, sabre rattling became so much empty
rhetoric. Today, if the majority of experienced PIRA
volunteers were to return to war, they would be accompanied
by walking frames, dodgy prostates, blood pressure
tablets and reading glasses. Sure they could become
an irritant, but we should never forget the British
State withstood and financed twenty years plus of
full scale war with the Provos and still did not run
for the door marked exit.
The current period suits the British down to the ground.
They have finally got near their aim of full Ulsterisation
of the conflict, with the PRM forever at their door
with a begging bowl. In reality I doubt whether they
care two hoots whether the Assembly ever meets again.
What options does SF have? Well, perhaps it should
make clear to its constituency, let alone membership,
that the Armed Struggle is no longer an option for
them. In the current international climate, let alone
that within Ireland itself, armed struggle cannot
move the situation forward. Once this has been said
by PIRA, it could take the next logical step from
a ceasefire and stand the Army down. Off the record
with the loyalist groups still active it would not
be unreasonable to keep a headquarters staff active,
in any case some such would be needed to administer
the standing down of the army. Arms would be dumped
and sealed to such a time when confidence was high
enough in the north that they could be destroyed.
In all likelihood what would happen is the Provos
would not be the first armed Republican group to become
known as the Rusty Riffles.
Once this was done the British could take it or leave
it; SF would be able to concentrate on becoming the
largest political party in Ireland or, even more optimistically,
become the pivotal party in a coalition of Ireland's
dispossessed. In the north they would continue to
gain more seats from the SDLP and eventually in all
probability the wretched Assembly would be reconstituted
with once again SF being the largest nationalist party.
If the Unionists continue to refuse to enter a coalition
government with SF, then they should become the main
opposition within the Assembly, exposing every mean
spirited trick of both the British and the Unionists,
which in reality is the only principled position Republicans
could take in such a place and even this would be
a step too far for many. Oh, and whilst the SF leadership
is organising the above, Left Republicans can go about
their business, exposing every one of Adams and company's
mean spirited tricks and smears, opposing any further
acquiescence by SF to Capital and its political gofers.
Finally
what we should all remember is that unless the injustice
is great, the Irish vote for bread and butter issues,
just like the electorate in most other countries,
not the bullet and the ballot box. Yes, the same voter
may give a Republican volunteer a bed for the night
if they are on the run, a meal and perhaps even a
lift across the border. Such things are sympathy born
of Irish history, but they cannot be automatically
transferred into a political mandate at the polls.
If ever there is a lesson to be learnt since the first
ceasefire this is it.
Index: Current Articles + Latest News and Views + Book Reviews +
Letters + Archives
|
