|
WHAT WE HAVE WE
HOLD - INLA
29th April '01
Reproduced from North Belfast News (supplement of the Andersonstown
News)
Journalist: Barry McCaffrey
The INLA will not disarm nor stand down its volunteers as part
of the Good Friday Agreement, a spokesman for the INLA leadership
told the North Belfast News last night.
In an extensive interview this week the leadership of the INLA
stated: "The INLA will not stand down our volunteers, now or in
the future, the history of sectarian attacks by loyalists show that
it would be extreme folly for any republican grouping to even think
of relaxing vigilance.
"The INLA has always said that our role was always more than that
of a liberation army.
"We are a socialist army, we continue to recruit and to train our
membership.
"The INLA will continue to exist now and in the future."
Revealing that it was monitoring ongoing loyalist attacks against
the nationalist community, the spokesman said:
"We are concerned with the ongoing loyalist attacks on the nationalist
working class and we constantly review the situation.
"If the people request our assistance we will take action on the
basis of a measured response."
And insisting that it would not be decommissioning, the INLA man
said: "The INLA has always believed that the issue of decommissioning
is a non starter and one that is being used by the British and unionists
to destabilise the current political climate.
"It is of absolutely no consequence on the ground, it is as easy
to rearm as it is to decommission.
"As Irish republicans we have every right, not only to demand the
dismantling of the British military machine, but also the disarming
of the unionist community, which has been used by the British to
undermine any potential Irish democracy.
"The decommissioning issue is clearly a red herring."
Full interview text...
As part of an ongoing look at how the various paramilitaries see
the future, Barry McCaffrey speaks to the leadership of the INLA,
and asks what the future holds in store for the republican grouping.
"It is nearly three years since the Irish National Liberation Army
declared its ceasefire on the basis of the analysis of the IRSP.
"The outcome of the joint referenda was a clear result, it was
we believe a clear indication by the people of Ireland that they
wished political groupings to pursue their political campaigns rather
than pursue their military ones.
"The INLA decided that it would respect the wishes of the people
of Ireland and declared a cessation of our 24-year military campaign."
When asked could the organisation envisage a situation in which
it would stand down the INLA leadership replied.
"The INLA will not stand down our volunteers, now or in the future,
the history of sectarian attacks by loyalists show that it would
be extreme folly for any republican grouping to even think of relaxing
vigilance.
"The INLA has always said that our role was always more than that
of a liberation army. "We are a socialist army, we continue to recruit
and to train our membership.
"The INLA will continue to exist now and in the future."
And revealing that it would not sit by and allow loyalist attacks
on nationalist areas, the INLA leadership warned:
"We are concerned with the ongoing loyalist attacks on the nationalist
working class and we constantly review the situation.
"If the people request our assistance we will take action on the
basis of a measured response. We listen with incredulity at calls
for vigilance from nationalist councillors and MLA’s following loyalist
attacks.
"The facts are that the nationalist working class have always had
to be vigilant, from the day we were born it has been a necessity
because of sectarian attacks, especially in North Belfast.
"We also refuse to buy into the idea of good loyalist paramilitary
groups and bad loyalist groups.
"All loyalist paramilitary groupings have been involved in attacks
on the nationalist community.
"The only difference between them is that some are pro-Agreement
and others anti-Agreement, that difference is of no consequence
to the INLA.
"We will meet loyalist aggression head on."
And the group's leadership insists that it can maintain its structures
despite a number of well-publicised feuds over the last 30 years.
"The INLA has not suffered from breakaways or splits over its current
political strategies. We have remained intact because of our political
cohesion, we have not compromised or deviated from our core political
values, which are socialist and republican.
"It is transparent there is only one INLA, dedicated and committed
to our aims and objectives.
"However, we are not complacent and will continue to ensure that
all members of the Republican Socialist Movement are treated equally,
and that all views within the movement are respected equally.
"Collective leadership is a natural consequence of a collective
movement and it has been the internal adherence to the collective
view that has led this movement out of some of its darkest days
into the relevant, vibrant and forward-thinking organisation that
we are today."
In answer to speculation of decommissioning the INLA leadership
insists that it will take no part in talks with General John De
Chastelain.
"The INLA has always believed that the issue of decommissioning
is a non starter and one that is being used by the British and Unionists
to destabilise the current political climate.
"It is of absolutely no consequence on the ground, it is as easy
to rearm as it is to decommission.
"As Irish republicans we have every right not only to demand the
dismantling of the British military machine but also the disarming
of the unionist community which has been used by the British to
undermine any potential Irish democracy.
"The decommissioning issue is clearly a red herring."
But insisting that it will deal with any attempt to split its organisation,
the spokesman said:
"Let us state clearly that any divisions within Irish republicanism
that manifest themselves in internal violence are damaging to the
republican cause.
"A cursory glance at the history of Irish republicanism over the
past 30 years shows that there have been far too many divisions.
"In 1969 we had one Republican Movement, how many are there today?
six or seven, not to mention those groups that have been disbanded.
"Diversity of thought among republicans is a good thing, but armed
action of republicans against republicans is not.
"The word feud has become synonymous with us in the media, we welcome
this chance to set the record straight. The Republican Socialist
Movement as a whole, and the IRSP in particular, have come under
attack on three occasions by those who did not want to see the politics
of the RSM succeed.
"At no time had the INLA initiated these armed attacks on others
and has only ever acted in defence of our right to organise.
"When the IRSP was founded it came under sustained attack by the
forces of the Official IRA, many of our members were attacked and
killed, we responded in defence of our people and our politics.
"In the 1980s in the wake of the paid-perjurer/supergrass trials
it became apparent that some of our comrades had been using the
armed struggle to mask some of their erstwhile deeds, such as robbery
and extortion, that brought the entire RSM into disrepute.
"These people were dismissed from the Republican Socialist Movement,
and went on to arm themselves under the name of the IPLO.
"One of their first actions was to abuse the tried and trusted
republican intermediaries and lured the leadership of the RSM, who
were keen to avoid armed conflict, into the Rosnaree hotel in Drogheda
for a meeting to sort out differences peacefully.
"This was not to be, and a cowardly attack that broke all the rules
of mediation was launched, resulting in the assassination of our
comrades Ta Power and John O'Reilly. Faced with this onslaught the
INLA responded in defence of our membership.
"It has to be said that during this time the INLA appealed to the
wider Republican Movement to assist in bringing the activities of
the IPLO to an end as they were involved in major organised crime
and drug trafficking.
"This assistance was not forthcoming and the INLA had to deal with
this problem on our own.
"The INLA position was vindicated many years later when the PIRA
were forced to take action against the IPLO, but by that time the
damage was done and our areas were already awash with anti-social
behaviour and drugs.
"In the 1990s we again came under attack from dismissed members
of our movement. This began with the declaring of a bogus ceasefire
from the dock of a Dublin Court by senior members of the movement.
"A ceasefire that was not declared on the basis of republican socialist
politics, but solely on the basis of releasing men from custody.
"There had been no internal debate with the RSM and the men had
acted arbitrarily, without reference to their comrades.
"When they refused to explain their actions they were dismissed
forthwith from the INLA. As far as we were concerned that was the
end of the matter.
"The dismissed men under the direction of Hugh Torney commissioned,
armed and gave intelligence to a drug dealer who then used this
information to assassinate leading republican socialist Gino Gallagher
at the Falls Road unemployment office.
"The INLA sought out those responsible and executed them as counter
revolutionaries. The INLA has always emerged intact and dedicated
to the politics of republican socialism, for that dedication we
have paid a heavy price with some of our most foremost political
strategists losing their lives, Seamus Costello, Ta Power and Gino
Gallagher are a loss not only to the Republican Socialist Movement
but a loss to the national liberation struggle as a whole.
"It suits many of our political opponents and their friends in
the media to misrepresent our history as feud riven, we do not adhere
to this view and if there are lessons to be learned, and there are
always lessons to be learned, it is that if the Republican Socialist
Movement comes under armed attack we will always act to protect
our membership and defend our right to organise."
And the INLA leadership says that it is constantly monitoring the
increase in anti-social crime, and in particular joyriding and drug
dealing.
"There are many social problems faced by the working class community
today.
"Community groups and community activists are working extremely
hard to see that many of the social ills that have been inflicted
on our communities are met face on.
"Republican socialists will continue to campaign and agitate for
proper resources and facilities.
"Having said that there will always be the small minority who place
themselves outside the community and will remain a problem, the
INLA will act to support the community, not direct it.
"Anyone who tries to exploit the working class will find themselves
in conflict with the INLA."
And defending the IRSP's analysis, that the Good Friday Agreement
is fatally flawed, the spokesman said:
"The IRSP has shown itself not only to be resilient but more than
capable of expounding its politics in the current political climate.
"At all times it is seeking to minimise the effect of conflict
on the working class coupled with social policies that maximise
and recognise the contribution of that class.
"It was to this end that the IRSP launched a major conflict resolution
initiative within months of the INLA ceasefire declaration.
"The Charter for Non Aggression remains the only political document
articulated by any political party or government in recent years
aimed solely at conflict resolution and is not dependent on any
political initiative or political compromise.
"The Charter for Non Aggression was not well received by the political
establishment because individual parties and governments see the
peace process as being a barter process where national and human
rights are bartered against involvement in the political establishment,
rather than a genuine conflict resolution process.
"With the issue of republican decommissioning again at the fore
of the political process the IRSP has been firm in its view that
British and loyalist weaponry has not been put under the same scrutiny.
"There has been no clamour for the decommissioning of these weapons
because the British are still wedded to a military strategy in Ireland.
"While we have concerns with the confrontational role of both British
and Irish nationalism, we believe that republican socialism remains
a progressive and inclusive force within the dynamics of Irish politics,
a progressive ideology that has yet to have the opportunity to assert
itself.
"We believe that the Charter for Non Aggression is an initiative
that is way ahead of its time and when people look at it free from
prejudice they will realise its full potential.
"The IRSP is actively involved in a wide range of campaigns from
local community groups, drug education, trade unions and other localised
campaigns to campaigning for the retention of Irish neutrality from
NATO.
"So the answer to your question is clearly yes, the IRSP's analysis
of the Good Friday Agreement remains as valid today as it did three
years ago.
"More than that, the IRSP has shown itself to be more than merely
an anti-agreement party. It is actively pursuing the aims and objectives
of republican socialism and it enjoys the full support of the INLA
in the pursuance of our aims." And insisting that it will not accept
any attempts to repackage the RUC, the spokesman said:
"The INLA has been quite clear and consistent in regards to the
policing debate, the RUC in any way, shape or form, under any set
of initials, wearing any uniform, is unacceptable to our people.
"Patten itself is a compromise, not on policing but on fair and
equal policing, why should anyone have to make compromises to secure
fair and equal policing is beyond us.
"The fact that the British could not deliver a fair police service,
never mind implement the flawed Patten recommendations is a clear
indication that the British are not serious about social change.
"They neither have the courage or the will to deliver this most
basic tenant of civil rights.
"On the issue of local Restorative Justice schemes the jury is
still out, without a doubt they are a wonderful opportunity for
the community to operate a fair and equal system that seeks not
to criminalise but to assist in the gelling of community spirit.
Unfortunately, there is evidence that in the nationalist community
that is being operated by people of a singular political affiliation
and therefore it is dogged with allegations of favouritism and far
from being a unifying community initiative it is proving to be a
divisive and destructive force within the community.
"The issue of community policing needs to be taken away from singular
political identities and applied evenly across the board by a wide
range of community personnel.
"All is not lost on the issue of CRJ, but it will be, if it continues
down its present course where it is viewed by most as another branch
of a movement which persistently fails to deal with its own community
offenders but has no problem in dishing out any amount of punishments
to others outside their organisation.
"The very issue boils down to who is the community, we believe
that all who live within a community are deserving of equal treatment,
not just those who agree with a particular political viewpoint."
News Index
HUNGER
STRIKERS' DEATHS LED TO 'BALLOT BOX' STRATEGY
29th April '01
By Ed Moloney, Sunday Tribune (Ireland)
Twenty years ago this week the IRA hunger striker Bobby Sands died
and by so doing changed the course of Irish politics, North and
South. Sands and his colleagues went on the fateful protest, it
must be remembered, in a bid to legitimise the IRA. It has to be
one of the greatest ironies in Irish history that the long term
effect of Sands' sacrifice may be the very opposite, that his death
acted as midwife to the disintegration of the type of traditional
republicanism which for so long found its purest expression in the
Provisional IRA.
Successive British governments had instituted and upheld a prison
policy which sought to characterise IRA prisoners as criminals by
denying them civilian clothes and other concessions granted in the
early 1970's. For the best part of four years the IRA prisoners
resisted this firstly by refusing to wear prison garb and then by
smearing their cells with excreta while outside the jail the IRA
shot warders and Sinn Féin, reluctantly at first, organised street
protests.
Had anyone other than Margaret Thatcher been prime minister in
Britain at this point it is probable that the protest would have
been prevented from deteriorating any further. One of those fudged
settlements for which the British are famous could have been cobbled
together and made acceptable to the prisoners, not least because
the IRA leadership outside Long Kesh did not think that the ultimate
protest, a hunger strike, could succeed. Fearing defeat in the jail
and the reverberations this would have outside, the Army Council
would have cut a deal.
It is another irony of the 1981 hunger strikes then that of all
people Margaret Thatcher, the Iron Lady, created the conditions
which made the peace process possible. Had she succumbed to the
advice pouring into her office from constitutional Nationalists
in Ireland urging she make a compromise then Bobby Sands would possibly
still be alive, the Fermanagh-South Tyrone by-election of 1981 would
have produced a very different result and Sinn Féin's electoral
adventure would have been a much more cautious and protracted affair.
It would have been many more years before the contradictions between
the armalite and the ballot box would have made themselves felt,
many more years before Gerry Adams and his close advisers would
have been strong enough to steer the IRA down a road which left
alone they would never have contemplated.
The hunger strikes brought to the surface two qualities in the
Sinn Féin leadership which in later years would characterise and
contribute to the success of the peace process. One was an extreme
caution, the other the sort of ruthlessness which distinguishes
those who shape history from ordinary mortals.
The caution was evident in the June 1981 general election in the
Republic which robbed Charlie Haughey of office and put the Garret
Fitzgerald-led Fine Gael-Labour coalition into government buildings.
The H Block campaigners nominated prisoners to stand and two of
them, Ciaran Doherty in Cavan-Monaghan and Paddy Agnew in Louth
won seats.
It could have been very different had Gerry Adams, who effectively
took the final decision on the matter, succumbed to advice to stand
live, non-prisoner candidates pledged to take their seats in the
Dail until the hunger strike was satisfactorily resolved. Those
two seats would have given Haughey a working majority and later
history, including the New Ireland Forum and the Hillsborough Agreement
might have been very different.
Adams refused the advice because he was not sure that live candidates
would win and because the strategy came perilously close to breaking
the then sacred abstentionist rule. It wasn't so much that he was
himself so attached to the abstentionist principle but that his
IRA and Sinn Féin colleagues still were. It was too soon to jump
that particular fence.
The same caution, the refusal to make a move until and unless the
next five or six permutations have been worked out and all the risks
isolated and dealt with, is one of the defining features of Sinn
Féin's handling of the peace process. Gerry Adams' reluctance to
step on lily pads is one of the reasons the peace process took so
long to unfold, from the winter of 1982 to the summer of 1994, half
the length of the Troubles. It explains why IRA decommissioning
is similarly so protracted and drawn out.
The ruthlessness showed itself in July 1981 when after pressure
from Fr Faul and relatives of the hunger strikers, Gerry Adams went
in to the jail to talk to the protesting inmates. He went not with
an order from the Army Council to end the protest, which at that
point had just claimed its sixth victim, but to put the onus on
the prisoners themselves to call a halt to the fast. Weighed down
by Bobby Sands death and the five other prisoners who had made the
ultimate sacrifice for their cause the surviving hunger strikers
could give only one answer.
Was it just coincidence that within weeks Sands' election agent,
Owen Carron was elected in his place as MP for Fermanagh-South Tyrone?
Was it co-incidence that the prisoners' reluctance to abandon the
protest contributed enormously to that result? After all there can
be little doubt that had the hunger strikers called off their fast
in July, Carron would have been opposed in the by-election by the
SDLP and Sinn Féin denied a real live MP when that autumn the Army
Council and the Sinn Féin ard-fheis authorised the armalite and
ballot box strategy. The rest, as they say, is history.
This then is the Bobby Sands legacy and it is no wonder that in
this the twentieth anniversary of his death and that of his nine
colleagues the Sinn Féin leadership has gone to extreme lengths
to present themselves as the inheritors of their political mantle.
To do otherwise would be to open up the whole event to critical
and possibly telling examination. Dissident republicans argue that
the peace process was a betrayal of what the hunger strikers died
for but who can deny the straight line that links their deaths to
the increasingly constitutional strategy contrived by the Sinn Féin
leadership.
News Index
CELTIC
'FANS' TO DEFY BAN ON BIGOTRY
29th April '01
By Carlos Alba, Reproduced from Sunday Times (Scotland)
A CELTIC supporters' organisation with republican terrorist links
is plotting to defy a club ban on sectarian activities.
Tiocfaidh Ar Lá - pronounced Chuckee aar laa - plans to reverse
anti-sectarian reforms made by Celtic five years ago.
Its campaign will heighten tension in the run-up to today's Old
Firm match at Ibrox. Sectarian abuse has been a factor in the killings
of eight fans in the past five years.
The group, named after an IRA slogan which translates as Our Day
Will Come, claims to represent the views of up to 15,000 fans, and
believes Celtic's Irish nationalist traditions have been "sold out"
by the club.
The Bhoys Against Bigotry campaign, introduced by former chief executive
Fergus McCann in 1996, has all but eliminated sectarian chants at
Celtic Park.
Closed-circuit television cameras and club stewards have been used
to identify fans singing Irish rebel songs. Since then, more than
200 supporters have had their season tickets withdrawn and have
been banned from the ground.
But an article in the latest issue of Tiocfaidh Ar Lá's TAL fanzine
says: "We need to find other ways to defy the club's diktats. It
is incumbent upon those organised groups of supporters within the
stadium to make their voices heard and to collectively defy the
club and the security."
The group is organised by members of the extreme left-wing splinter
group Red Action, which has been involved in IRA bombings and street
fights with fascist groups. Two Red Action members, Patrick Hayes
and Jan Taylor, were the IRA's top mainland terrorists in the early
1990s. They were each jailed for 30 years for carrying out 25 attacks
in London, including the Harrods bomb in 1993.
The TAL fanzine has existed since 1992, with 5,000 copies of each
edition sold outside Celtic Park. The group claims it gets double
that number of hits on its website.
The TAL fanzine editor, Stephen McAlese, said a growing number of
fans were becoming disenchanted at the club's sanitised image and
were keen to focus more on the issue of Irish republicanism.
"The club pays lip service to the club's Irish origins, but they
want the whole thing depoliticised," he said.
"We are proud to be associated with people like Bobby Sands and
the hunger strikers. We are proud to be associated with that kind
of politics and that kind of struggle."
Celtic said anyone attempting to reintroduce sectarian songs would
be ejected from the ground.
News Index
FUTILITY OF THE
REAL IRA
23rd April '01
By Danny Morrison (Reproduced from The Observer, Sunday 22 April
2001)
Last Sunday the ongoing foot and mouth crisis meant that there
were a limited number of Irish republican marches commemorating
the 1916 Easter Rising.
The media was interested in the turn-out in Dublin for the 32-County
Sovereignty Movement because of its alleged links to the Real IRA
(there had been an explosion in London the night before), and to
see if it would attract significant numbers (two hundred people
showed up), and if a threatened picket by relatives of the Omagh
bomb victims materialised.
But the largest number of commemorations with the highest attendance
were those organised by the National Graves Association addressed
by Sinn Fein speakers. At these marches were relatives of dead IRA
Volunteers, former hunger strikers, ex-escapees, former prisoners
in abundance, as well as thousands of supporters.
The speaker at the 32-CSM commemoration in Dublin said that they
had small numbers and were being vilified just like the men and
women of 1916. On other occasions dissidents have likened their
splitting from mainstream republicans in Sinn Fein and the IRA as
a re-run of the split in 1969. At that time the Republican Movement
divided into the 'Officials' (who imploded several times before
quickly bowing out of the struggle) and those colloquially referred
to as 'the Provisionals' (today's Sinn Fein and IRA).
However, the Real IRA has not flourished in the way the IRA did
after the split from the Officials. It will never be able to replicate
the IRA's firepower and thus bring the British to the negotiating
table. The 32-CSM has no popular support, has failed to produce
a cogent leadership which can articulate a position beyond its obsession
with Sinn Fein, and lacks a credible political programme.
Whereas the Officials went into decline after they cease-fired
in 1972, Sinn Fein's popularity, North and South, has risen remarkably
since the IRA's cessation of August 1994, to the extent where the
party in the South may hold the balance of power after the next
election. Dissidents rely on exploiting growing republican disquiet
at Britain's mishandling of the peace process, but that anger is
unlikely to be directed at the Sinn Fein leadership or be channelled
into substantial support for dissidents.
In its constitution the 32-CSM pompously states: "We hold that
all administrations and assemblies purporting to act as lawful government
for the Irish people, or otherwise functioning as partitionist entities,
to be illegal." But how can its leaders square this belated purism
with the fact that for eleven years - from 1986 until 1997 - they
remained part of the Republican Movement which had dropped its policy
of abstentionism towards that 'partitionist' entity, the Dail? At
least former president Ruairi O Bradaigh had the honesty to leave
and form Republican Sinn Fein.
If the 32-CSM and the Real IRA really believes in the 1916 analogy
then they should go back to first principles, should contest elections
on an abstentionist ticket and set up an all-Ireland assembly in
opposition to what the electorates, North and South, have overwhelmingly
voted for - the Good Friday Agreement. Similarly, its members should
refuse to recognise the courts. Of course, that would be absurd,
and they know it.
Those who split from the Republican Movement in 1997 to form the
Real IRA and the 32-CSM did so because they refused to go along
with or respect the opinion of the majority of their comrades whom
they categorise as 'stooges' of the leadership. As if activists
and supporters are incapable of evaluating strategy and making up
their own minds or have no right to defend the opinions they have
reached.
The 32-CSM's principal alternative to the Sinn Fein project of
bringing about a new Ireland is remarkably naïve: pressing Ireland's
right to sovereignty and independence at the United Nations. Ask
the Palestinians about UN Resolution 242 and what it has done for
their freedom. Just last week Hizbullah guerrillas who attacked
Israeli soldiers in a disputed border region were condemned by the
UN because "the UN has determined the territory was conquered by
Israel from Syria." I wouldn't trust the UN with my back garden
never mind my country.
Tragically, the Real IRA will continue with its sporadic campaign,
continue to kill innocent people and lose its own Volunteers to
cemetery and jail until some member has the guts to face up to the
futility of the campaign. They and the 32-CSM have no message for
the unionist people, do not understand that the building of trust,
the normalisation of relations with the unionists, preparatory cross-border
social and economic harmonisation, the building of a strong, all-Ireland
republican party, are all part of the struggle for Irish re-unification.
© Danny Morrison
News Index
BRADFORD - CHICKENS
COMING HOME TO ROOST?
17th April '01
'Detecting unconscious racism while simultaneously dismissing in-your-face
evidence of studied aggression is a balancing act British liberalism
has finessed to an art' an article in Red Action commented only
last month.
Police remarks following the race riot in Bradford at the weekend,
that any racial motivation remains 'unclear', bears out that observation
in the most graphic fashion imaginable.
Here you had a situation where an apparently chance encounter between
an Asian and a white youth, flared almost instantly into a full
blown riot, spontaneously drawing in hundreds of combatants eager
to inflict serious injury on otherwise total strangers purely on
the grounds of colour.
In the mayhem that followed cars were burnt out, pubs fire-bombed,
minority owned take-aways set alight in retaliation and the police
are completely mystified as to what might possibly have been the
motivation?
A more vivid example of a 'race riot', even before anyone heard
of William Macpherson, would be hard to find.
Generally since the Macpherson Report, police are encouraged to
regard practically every fight between different ethnic groups,
as the result of deep-seated racism on the part of one of the combatants.
But in Bradford where the attackers and victims were selected on
racial lines, there is head-scratching on the part of the media
and the constabulary.
A more typical example is the trial of the Leeds United footballers,
where the media for months stressed that Bowyer and Woodgate were
on trial for 'attacking Asians' even though the police who had investigated
it as 'a race hate crime', presented no evidence to the court to
substantiate it.
The trial collapsed for that allegation being made by a Sunday
paper anyway. Socialist Worker then ran a totally over the top centre
spread in support of the Mirror allegations.
In the same week, another example of teasing out imaginary racism
and as well as ignoring real racism, involved a ten year old being
charged with 'racially aggravated assault' following a minor playground
dispute where insults were exchanged. In response to being abused
for being over-weight he called his tormentor 'a Paki bastard'.
Had he left it at 'bastard' no charges would have been proffered.
In recent weeks we have also witnessed the ANL hysteria and the
media frenzy generated by a couple of dozen NF marching through
Bermondsey. Yet in Bradford where it is self-evidently an open and
shut case of serious racial conflict, the police, media, and liberals
prevaricate.
Similar contradictions can also be detected in the ANL pretence
that Bermondsey is strategically important whereas Bexley, or Beckton,
or Tipton where the BNP have clocked up 20% averages in recent local
elections are all better ignored.
Warmly applauded by the Left, the Macpherson conclusion that urged
that "any incident which is percieved to be racist by the victim
or any other person" was to be treated as racist is now routine.
On a roll, some members of the inquiry were tempted to go further,
publicly wondering whether it might be possible 'to criminalise
racist thinking'.
Objectively from any progressive perspective deliberately putting
race at the centre of criminal, social, and media affairs as a matter
of routine, effectively racialising debate around such issues is
bound to end in disaster. For only one political tendency can ultimately
benefit from such a preoccupation.
For instance as the law now stands there is a four-fold increase
in the penalty attached to common assault if the Crown convinces
a jury that racial epithets were used.
This is bad enough but it pales besides the 56-fold increase in
the sentence for "racially aggravated" criminal damage.
Currently, the maximum penalty for causing damage worth less than
£5,000 is three months in prison. However if a racial element
is suggested or proved the maximum sentence rises to 14 years. Should
a sentence of anything like such magnitude ever be applied the political
fall-out could be terminally disastrous - to the cause of anti-racism
itself.
Meanwhile each idiotic episode supplies the right and the far-right
with a fresh injection of self-righteousness and propaganda by which
to legitimise its political existence.
It has been said before, but it is undeniably absolute madness.
In the meantime historic rises in reported racial incidents are
'welcomed' as proof of minority confidence in the police. What none
in the race relation professionals seem at all keen to answer is
at what stage the increase might cease to be welcomed and become
a cause for concern?
Neither is any consideration even given to the possibility that
a) the four fold rise in London might reflect how bad things always
actually are, or b) racial incidents are being recorded at such
a rate because racial conflict is itself on the increase.
Other surveys which show that 80% 'resent refugees' or that repatriation
of all immigrants is still favoured by large sections of the population,
even after being abandoned as too 'extreme' by BNP policy makers,
are cast aside without comment by the CRE in favour of the pursuit
of 'greater visibility for minority groups in sitcoms'.
Up to now any militant anti-fascist concerns, or criticisms of
the Left for allowing or encouraging the displacement of class by
race and total lack of priorities on display, has typically been
met with the charge that it is the anti-fascists themsleves 'who
are in need of race awareness training'!
Last summer merely for the fact of pointing out that slogans such
as 'refugees welcome here' were not fact, and therefore likely to
prove counterproductive propaganda wise, Red Action was accused
of being 'national socialist'.
In recent weeks attention has been drawn to the implications of
Beckton, Bermondsey, and now Bradford. For some this suggests an
unhealthy obsession with race, but this is only because the situation
on the ground is in many areas, unhealthy in the extreme.
'Race hate crime' is manufactured artificially where none exists,
and where racial tensions exists in voluminous amounts liberalism
turns a blind eye to the implications.
Hypocrisy and cowardice of such magnitude cannot hope to be credibly
sustained indefinitely. Particularly as none of it is lost on the
working class targets of the finger-wagging.
Only one thing remains certain - it will, it is safe to predict,
'all end in tears'.
News Index
IRA EASTER MESSAGE
2001
12th April '01
Reproduced from RM Distribution
The leadership of Oglaigh na hEireann extends fraternal greetings
to republican activists, supporters and friends at home and abroad.
We reaffirm our belief that the British government claim to a part
of Ireland, its denial of self-determination to the people of the
island of Ireland, the partition of our country and the maintenance
of social and economic inequality are the root causes of conflict.
We reaffirm our commitment to the national reunification of Ireland.
On this, the 85th anniversary of the Easter Rising, we remember
all of those who have given their lives in the cause of Irish Freedom.
We salute the courage and fortitude of our Volunteers who have died
in this phase of our historic struggle.
This year also marks the 20th anniversary of our ten comrades who
died on hunger strike in Long Kesh. We remember Bobby Sands, Francis
Hughes, Raymond McCreesh, Patsy O'Hara, Joe McDonnell, Martin Hurson,
Kevin Lynch, Kieran Doherty, Thomas McElwee and Michael Devine.
By their courageous actions and sacrifice they smashed the British
government's attempt to criminalise our struggle for freedom. We
also remember Michael Gaughan and Frank Stagg. This generation of
republicans hold all of those who died on hunger strike in the same
regard as previous generations held the men executed in 1916.
We extend solidarity to their families and to the families of all
our fallen comrades.
We also extend our solidarity to our imprisoned comrades at home
and abroad and to their families. Many of our comrades have now
been released under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement; the
republican prisoners held in Castlerea should also be released.
Since 1994 the IRA has maintained cessations of military operations.
While not being party to the Good Friday Agreement, we have taken
a number of unprecedented initiatives which further demonstrate
our commitment to and desire for a permanent peace in Ireland.
We commend the resolve and discipline of our Volunteers in this
period.
The political responsibility for ending the current crisis lies
with the British government. There should be no attempt to renegotiate
commitments previously made. Those who seek to defeat the IRA and
Irish republicanism will not prevail.
Oglaigh na hEireann remains committed to the achievement of our
republican objectives and the vision of an Irish Republic as outlined
in the Proclamation of 1916.
Beirigi bua.
P O'Neill,
Irish Republican Publicity Bureau,
Dublin
News Index
THIRTY THOUSAND,
FOUR HUNDRED AND NINETY TWO…
11th April '01
By Danny Morrison (Reproduced from Andersonstown News, 9th April)
Twenty years ago today, 9th April, the people of Fermanagh and
South Tyrone went to the polls in a by-election to fill the seat
held by the late Frank Maguire, an Independent MP, who died just
five days after Bobby Sands began his hunger strike. Upon hearing
of his death I doubt if any of us involved in the H-Block/Armagh
campaign thought in terms of an election with a prisoner candidate.
Firstly, the death of an MP does not automatically give rise to
a by-election. A writ must be moved by an MP in the House of Commons
to cause a by-election. Although republicans were friendly with
some left-wing MPs, relations weren't of the nature that they would
do your bidding. Besides, such a call would have presupposed the
existence of a concrete plan or strategy - when there was none.
Bobby Sands' entry into Fermanagh and South Tyrone was an accident
of history, and if there is one person who can be 'credited' with
allowing that intervention then it is James Molyneaux, leader of
the Ulster Unionist Party in 1981, and arguably one of that party's
most stupid.
Molyneaux thought that the nationalist vote would be split between
the SDLP and an Independent candidate and that a single unionist
candidate, in the form of former party leader, Harry West, would
take the seat. It was only when the election was called that the
idea was suggested that the Smash H-Block/Armagh campaign should
make an intervention. Around about the same time that Bernadette
McAliskey let it be known that she was prepared to stand but would
stand aside for a prisoner candidate, others, most notably, Jim
Gibney from Sinn Fein, were suggesting that Bobby Sands should be
put forward.
A meeting was held in Monaghan and, incredibly, a small minority
of Fermanagh republicans actually favoured the candidature of Noel
Maguire, the former dead MP' s brother. However, at the end of the
meeting it was decided to stand Bobby Sands, provided he got a clear
run against West. Noel Maguire, under tremendous emotional pressure,
eventually withdrew his name and the SDLP, fearing a backlash, decided
not to put up a candidate, though Austin Currie threatened to stand
and SDLP councillor Tommy Murray who signed Bobby Sands' nomination
papers was dismissed from the party.
I have never seen an election campaign like it. Thousands of activists
were mobilised from across Ireland to go to Fermanagh and South
Tyrone to help out in the postering and canvassing. In Dungannon
and Enniskillen offices were opened round-the-clock. Some of us
from Belfast went up, thinking we were going to teach the locals
how to run an election. What we discovered was that working quietly
away in the background for decades were people who had dedicated
themselves to the electoral registers, ensuring that everyone of
voting age was on the rolls, that the sick or those overseas were
registered for postal votes, that people were trained in the science
of organising an election and supervising the count. They were brilliant.
At after-Mass meetings people would emerge from chapel, stand and
listen, applaud and then make generous contributions to the fighting
fund. I remember a group of Belfast women return to the election
office in Dungannon totally despondent about Bobby's chances after
they got an extremely cold reception outside a church on the Ballygawley
Road. Francie Molloy asked them to describe exactly where they had
made the speeches. It turned out they had been addressing and leafleting
parishioners leaving a Church of Ireland service!
In Enniskillen on the day of the count we felt in our bones that
Bobby was going to win. You just knew it from the atmosphere, the
people flocking to the polling stations, queueing to vote. In the
afternoon when the returning officer declared the vote I couldn't
contain myself and let out a huge yell.
For years the British government had been denigrating republicans,
declaring they had no support, challenging them to go to the ballot
box. Bobby Sands got 30,492, with a majority twice as large as Thatcher's
in her constituency of Finchley. Bobby's election agent, Owen Carron,
made Bobby's acceptance speech and called for dialogue to resolve
the hunger strike. Harry West got up and began to make his victory
speech, then appeared confused, then realised that the unthinkable
had happened - Bobby Sands had won!
That night I came back to Belfast with Mr and Mrs Sands and Bobby's
sister, Marcella, and went into town to do more interviews. In the
car we discussed the impact of Bobby's victory and the hope it gave
that his life might be saved, that Thatcher would be compelled to
recognise his mandate. But that was not to be. Her reaction was
to amend the Representation of the People Act so that no Irish political
prisoner in any jail in the world could contest a Westminster election.
British governments were later to continually amend electoral rules
– on identification, on deposits, on local government oaths
- all with the objective of excluding republicans, and all of which
failed because Sinn Fein circumvented all obstacles by simply adopting
a pragmatic approach.
Republicans and electoralism could have ended there in 1981, had
not James Molyneaux, again inexplicably, moved another writ for
another by-election! Because of the exclusion of prisoner candidates,
this time Owen Carron, a member of Sinn Fein, standing on an anti-H-Block/Armagh
prison ticket, was nominated and was elected, increasing Bobby's
vote, in yet another dramatic election. Owen's election took place
on 20th August, the day on which Mickey Devine became the last hunger
striker to die.
In voting for Bobby Sands and Owen Carron the people of Fermanagh
and South Tyrone rejected British rule and asserted the integrity
of the prisoners and the cause of Irish independence. They provided
the springboard for the electoral rise of Sinn Fein and the empowerment
of the general nationalist population in its unrelenting challenge
to unionist and British misrule.
News Index
EXPOSED: THE HIDDEN
RACISM OF SCOTLAND'S LEAFY SUBURBS
8th April '01
Reproduced from the Sunday Herald
Special Report. Opposition to mosque plans is evidence of a
"nasty little trend".
By Neil Mackay Home Affairs Editor.
THE letters starting dropping through the doors a few weeks ago.
They were filled with ominous warnings that there were plans to
build a mosque in an empty field near Newton Mearns, the affluent
middle-class suburb on the south side of Glasgow.
They made clear what the consequences would be: "A quick summary
of this can only mean devaluation of your home". Every house
got the anonymous letter, urging readers to campaign against the
mosque by objecting in writing to the council.
Last Wednesday more than 300 of Newton Mearns's well-heeled residents
crammed themselves into Mearns Primary School to stage a public
meeting protesting against the mosque. Only a handful of Muslims
turned up to campaign for the building to go ahead. The rest hadn't
thought a place of worship could be so controversial.
Accusations of racism flew when the few Muslims in attendance heard
their white neighbours call for the mosque to be scrapped. By Thursday,
a day after Mearns Community Council decided a letter-writing campaign
was needed, East Renfrewshire Council had received more than 150
objections.
When the mosque plans come before the council's planning committee
in May, it is unlikely they will get the green light. Plans for
low-cost houses, offices and a health centre, which are tied to
the mosque development, will most likely be shelved too.
This is not the first time that middle-class Scotland has been accused
of racism and hypocrisy. A previous attempt to set up an Islamic
Centre in Newton Mearns was outlawed, and last year the Muslim community
in Bearsden and Milngavie went through an almost identical fight
when East Dunbartonshire Council took the side of protesters and
scrapped plans for an Islamic Centre.
Of all the people the Sunday Herald spoke to in Newton Mearns, only
one would go on the record and allow his name to be put alongside
the statements he made. That was Huntley Gordon, the chairman of
the Mearns Community Council. He claimed the mosque was not wanted
as it was going to be built on a greenbelt area, would mean more
traffic, and would encroach on an adjacent Christian cemetery. But
from the field it would be built in, only a handful of houses are
visible. It seems unlikely that the families who live in them could
make up the large numbers who have now protested against the plans.
Locals admit that objections have come from Newton Mearns residents
who live far from the site, hinting that their motive is at best
Nimby-ist - Not In My Back Yard - and at worst racist.
Gordon, a civil engineer, is certainly not a racist, and he denies
that racism is behind residents' opposition. "The local authority
should build community facilities for the whole community, not individual
groups," he said. "I'm aware coloured representatives
at the meeting were disappointed with our reaction."
However, his comments do not chime with those of his neighbours.
"We are up in arms about this," said one advertising executive.
"Over the last five years there has been an influx of Asians
into Newton Mearns. Our property value has fallen. The homes Asians
are living in look dreadful. A mosque would just accelerate the
number of ethnics moving into this area.
"That means cultural change for us and that's not acceptable.
Five years ago I would have said there was not a racist bone in
my body, but resentment is running high in this area now."
One resident even claimed: "We don't want to be woken up at
five in the morning with megaphones calling the faithful to prayer.
We see Asian children in cars with no seatbelts and their parents
aren't being arrested because the police dread being accused of
racism. They don't pay VAT, tax, sit their driving tests or have
insurance." Another resident went on: "I don't pay top-dollar
mortgage rates just to have my property devalued. It will come to
the stage where white people will move out. It seems Asians are
a protected species these days. That's the problem with political
correctness - the pendulum has swung too far."
To many people, this level of racist abuse and myth-making is almost
unbelievable. Anyone saying such things publicly today would face
prosecution under Britain's laws on race hatred. But to others this
kind of venom is an everyday event.
Robina Qureshi runs Positive Action in Housing, a charity set up
to end discrimination against ethnic minorities. "People seem
shocked to hear that people in nice middle-class areas can say such
things," she said. "They seem to see racism as confined
to the end of some thug's boot. That is not how it works. The worst
type of racism is the institutionalised racism of the middle classes.
It is perpetrated by people who see themselves as tolerant, but
once they are confronted with a black face their tolerance goes
out the window.
"The difference between racism in the run-down schemes and
racism in the leafy suburbs is one of degree. In Possil you might
end up with a broken nose. In Newton Mearns you can lose your job,
your house and your place of worship. A broken nose goes away, but
you can't replace a job or a home. Middle-class racism is so much
more dangerous. Most black people say that if you scratch the surface
of a white person you will find the racist underneath. It looks
like that's happened in Newton Mearns."
Qureshi, who was beaten in a racist attack in the affluent Glasgow
suburb of Hyndland, knows what she's talking about. Every day she
deals with people who have been racially intimidated. Race hate
crime is three times higher in Scotland than it is in England. Latest
figures show that in the first nine months of 1999 racial incidents
rose to 435, compared to 267 for the same period in 1998. Reporting
of race crime is now at its highest-ever level, even though crime
is at its lowest in 20 years.
"Nowadays we have people from second and third-generation ethnic
minorities getting great jobs and wanting to move to well-off areas,"
said Qureshi. "The more that happens, the more we will hear
stories like this. I think this is just the start of a nasty little
Scottish trend."
Every East Renfrewshire councillor refused to be interviewed by
the Sunday Herald. Spokesman Hugh Doherty said it would be inappropriate
for them to comment on the building of the mosque prior to the plans
being considered by the council. Local MP Jim Murphy was "unavailable"
for interview.
In Bearsden, the plans for an Islamic Centre were scrapped because
many residents said it would be "incompatible" with the
area. To Mohammed Ali, a local Islamic representative, such a comment
is nothing less than middle-class code for racism. "It tells
many stories," he said. "But principally it says, 'This
area says no to multiculturalism.'
"We wanted this community to feel like our home, but if you
are told you can't have your place of worship in your community,
you are not likely to feel part of that community. We now feel like
we have no place - our cultural life has been vastly impoverished.
"We should not be surprised that this happens in well-off areas
such as Bearsden and Milngavie. Affluency does not bring wisdom;
tolerance does not come with wealth.
"The growing Islamophobia of the West plays a major part in
the problems faced by Muslim people in Britain. People see all Muslims
as terrorists. Our Islamic Centre was going to be a place to pray,
not a terrorist headquarters. If white people tried to understand
us, they would realise that we are just like they are. Then they
would stop pointlessly fearing us and hating us, and we could live
and worship together in mutual friendship and respect."
News Index
THE LESSONS OF
NEWHAM FOR ANTI-FASCISTS
8th April '01
Reproduced from Anti-Fascist
Action (5th April)
The concerns raised by AFA about the way the Socialist Alliance
reacted to the Newham by-election should have initiated a serious
discussion within the Left and anti-fascist movement as to what
is needed to beat the threat from the Far Right. Apart from a few
lines agreeing with AFA in Weekly Worker and some comments on the
UK Left discussion site, the targets of AFA's criticisms have remained
completely silent. The Newham election may appear to have only limited
significance, but in fact perfectly illustrates many of the key
issues.
The local paper described the area in the south of the borough
as "being in the top two per cent of the most deprived areas
in the country and long term unemployment has become an accepted
feature of life there. Poor housing stock, a lack of social amenities
and a decline in essential services have all conspired to create
an atmosphere of isolation and despair. The community regard themselves
as the forgotten people of Newham and that feeling runs deep among
the 16,000 living there." (Newham Recorder 29/3/01.) Perfect
territory for the Left to attack the Labour run council you would
think. But no, instead the East London Socialist Alliance called
for a Labour vote.
As a member of the Communist Party of Great Britain said on the
UK Left discussion site: "Given that the only reason that the
BNP ever gets any halfway decent votes is because working class
people feel they are being disenfranchised by Labour (old and new),
it is therefore bizarre to then call for a vote for Labour to defeat
the BNP!!"
And why did the Socialist Alliance back Labour? Because they placed
race above class. Fearing their intervention might split the Labour
vote and allow the BNP to win the seat, rather than out-radicalise
the Far Right and win over working class voters from the BNP, they
instead backed the class enemy. In a community where some resources
are already allocated racial lines, a failure to be seen to be standing
up for all sections of the community only helps those who seek to
divide the working class into competing racial groups.
Having backed Labour in the election, it is hard to stomach the
prospective Socialist Alliance candidate in the forthcoming general
election claiming in a letter to the Newham Recorder (4/4/01) that:
"Newham New Labour council's plan for Canning Town is nothing
other than 'social cleansing' - push out working class people and
bring in the rich and those for whom a flat or house is a 'property
investment', not a place to live and bring up your family. The Socialist
Alliance will stand with those fighting this 'social cleansing',
and opposing Jim [Fitzpatrick MP] and his New Labour friends on
Newham and Tower Hamlets councils at the general election."
The question is, will the 'working class people' referred to by
the Socialist Alliance have any faith in an organisation that was
launched with a fanfare to fight Labour, then decides to back Labour,
and now announces it will stand against Labour in a few months time?
This is hardly principled opposition designed to show the community
you have their interests at heart.
Recent results in Austria should give encouragement to the Left.
Although the Freedom Party still got over 20% of the vote in the
Vienna elections, the 7% drop they did suffer was on account of
their support for cuts in welfare spending which were unpopular
with their working class supporters. The potential for a genuine
progressive working class movement remains immense.
Unlike the Socialist Alliance, the Christian People's Alliance
were keen to stand against Labour, their candidate speaking out
against Labour's "gentrification" before the election,
and afterwards said: "On the streets I heard a lot of hurt
and anger. No one is upset about the need to do things for Canning
Town, but the housing programme will destroy communities."
(Newham Recorder, 4/4/01.) And what were the Socialist Alliance
doing while this was going on? Backing the forces of 'social cleansing'!
The need for a consistent working class opposition to Labour becomes
a priority when you look at the big picture. The latest Commission
for Racial Equality survey found that "three quarters of white
respondents thought that ethnic minority communities receive too
much advice and assistance from the Government" and 20% of
those surveyed were hostile to asylum seekers. These are the issues
that the BNP will look to exploit and at the same time these are
issues that the Left can challenge the fascists on. The BNP only
appear radical in the absence of any alternative, a point AFA is
totally confident on. Whether it is consistent support for local
working class concerns or addressing the refugee situation with
a working class friendly 'For the community - Against racism' approach,
the Left could isolate the fascists from working class communities.
If, on the other hand, none of these lessons are learned and it
remains 'business as usual' then projects like the Socialist Alliance
will have no value for the anti-fascist movement. To make it a serious
three-cornered fight in working class communities between Labour,
the BNP and the Left (because this is the issue), then the Socialist
Alliance will have to do a lot more than just turn up with a few
slogans.
News Index
IS THIS THE SAME
SOCIALIST ALLIANCE...?
6th April '01
In a strongly worded attack on the Labour Party in Newham in this
weeks Newham Recorder, Dr Kamla Boomla, Socialist Alliance prospective
parliamentary candidate wrote:
"Newhams New Labour councils plan for Canning Town is nothing
more than "social cleansing" - push out working class
people and bring in the rich and those for whom a flat or house
is a "property investment" not a place to live and bring
up a family".
"The Socialist Alliance" he continued "will stand
with those fighting this "social cleansing", and oppose
Jim and his New Labour friends at the General Election."
Is this the same Socialist Alliance who, rather than stand against
the social cleansing policy of New Labour instead took a 'principled'
decision to actually physically campaign on the ground for New Labour
only last week?
Is this the same Socialist Alliance who opted to back a Tory defector
against the Christian Alliance candidate, the sole candidate to
oppose gentrification and reflect working class interests and concerns
on the issue?
Is this the same Socialist Alliance when faced with a choice of
boosting working class independence opted instead to maintain New
Labour's monoply in one of the most discriminated against boroughs
in the country?
Is this the same Socialist Alliance who possibly made that crucial
5% difference to reinforce the New Labour mandate on social cleansing?
Is this the same Socialist Alliance - or is it a different one?
News Index
LSA CATASTROPHE
BECKONS IN 2002
2nd April '01
On Friday midday the results of the Beckton by-election were announced.
This revealed that Labour retained its seat, winning 40% of the
total, although run a close second by the Christian Alliance who
clocked up an impressive 34%. The BNP came third with 17%, exactly
half the total of the CPA candidate and approximately twice the
Tories who trailed in fourth with 8%.
Of course as we know, the real story of the by-election was the
failure of the London Socialist Alliance to put up a candidate at
all. More startlingly, the local branch committed themselves to
campaign for Labour, in the knowledge that the candidate was a Tory
defector! What could be more ignominious for a nascent party which
on occasion likes to present itself as revolutionary?
However the deafening silence that greeted Red Action criticism
of the thinking behind the decision was at least as significant
as the decision itself. On the UK Left site for example which has
around a thousand posts a month, no one could bring themselves to
even comment for fear they would be too closely associated with
a Red Action analysis.
Indeed it was not until about a week later when an AFA analysis
was presented that any response was forthcoming. Interestingly,
the verdict was an overwhelmingly healthy contempt for the LSA's
display of bogus anti-fascism.
Despite all this the election used as a snapshot carries two important
messages for all concerned.
The primary one is that the unexpectedly strong showing of the
Christian Alliance was due to it, rather than the LSA or for that
matter the BNP, reflecting 'immediate working class interests'.
It achieved this by the stance it adopted against the gentrification,
or to give it its proper name the 'social cleansing' of the area
by Labour. The BNP on the other hand sought to blame everything
on asylum-seekers. In this instance, considering there is historically
a particularly strong resonance for racist arguments in the area,
(Beckton being the ward which came within a whisker of returning
a BNP candidate in the mid-90's), this was very much a victory for
'class' over 'race'.
This is the lesson AFA has oft repeated but which continues to
fall on deaf ears: Euro-nationalism as practised by Haider and the
BNP amongst others, can expect to enjoy long term success only where
working class interests are put to the side in the favour of the
finger-wagging dressed up as anti-racism (Refugees Welcome Here!)
recommended by the likes of the ANL, Searchlight and arguably the
LSA. That is lesson one.
The second lesson is just as instructive. While it is true that
both AFA and RA poured scorn on the formal reasons given by the
LSA against standing, and thereby threatening to 'split the Labour
vote', with the results in, the question that now needs to be asked
is what difference an LSA candidate would have made? Not much, if
the results of other recent forays are used as a gauge.
In the last two by-elections it has contested in the east London
area before Christmas the LSA managed 55 and 60 votes respectively.
On such a showing they would have come bottom of the poll behind
the Tories on 79.
However in such a close fought election with a mere 58 votes between
1st and 2nd that 60 odd votes the LSA might have expected to accrue,
presuming those votes came from Labour, might have been enough to
hand victory to the one campaign that put working class interests
to the fore. Instead as we know, the LSA committed itself to campaign
for a Labour victory 'social cleansing'/'Tory defector' and all.
Looked at in that way whatever influence the LSA call to vote Labour
might have had it was, for both it and the working class locally,
guaranteed to be an entirely negative one. An inauspicious verdict
on a 'party' that made it's public debut in London less than nine
months earlier. In truth depite taking roughly half the BNP vote
then, the LSA has steadfastly refused, despite, or in some cases
possibly in response to the efforts of Red Action delegates to introduce
a modicum of reality to projections, to learn anything from it.
If anything, as the dissolving of the London Steering Committee
would indicate, the body language is becoming even more closed and
introspective. There is no possibility of this changing or being
changed prior to the General Election on June 7th - and - may if
anything be more conservative and defensive afterwards.
This would be bad enough if the survival of the Left as constituted
were all that was at risk. However in just over twelve months the
same LSA 'united front' is going to find itself confronted at a
local council level across the capital in the council elections
in May 2002, by what promises to be the most focused and ambitious
electoral drive from the far-right for decades.
Quite correctly in contrast to the Socialist Alliance, the BNP
has decided this rather that the General election offers it the
the best chance to capture the anti-Labour protest vote. How will
the LSA respond? Much will depend on how much influence Red Action
delegates can bring to bear when democracy is 'returned' with the
re-convening of the LSA Steering Committee in July.
As is stands now, as Beckton demonstrated, the LSA is spectacularly
ill-equipped both phychologically or politically to deal with a
head on challenge from the BNP. With the last three BNP council
by-election results in and around London showing them with 27, 9,
and 17 per cent respectively there will be a mere ten months from
when the Steering Committee is re-convened in which to avoid comparative
catastrophe. The forecast is, it must be said, not promising.
News Index
REID 'A THREAT
TO AGREEMENT'
2nd April '01
By Martin McGuinness (Reproduced from Ireland On Sunday, 1st April)
IN A very short time, the British government's new secretary of
state in the North of Ireland, John Reid, has moved away from the
Good Friday agreement and significantly closer to the unionist
position.
Sinn Féin has honoured all commitments entered into throughout
the
peace process, including those in the agreement itself. We have
stretched our membership and constituency very considerably in the
course of this. By contrast, the British government and the UUP
have both acted in bad faith and in breach of the agreement on a
number of counts.
He has is moving closer to the policy approach adopted by the John
Major government which the Blair government discarded as unworkable
and counter-productive when it came to power in May 1997.
Mr Reid's remarks in recent weeks have to be seen in context.
In early 1995 - several months after the leadership of the IRA
had
unilaterally called a total cessation of all military operations
-
the then British secretary of state, Patrick Mayhew, visited
Washington.
There he publicly enunciated the so-called "Washington principles",
which were, in effect, a demand for an IRA surrender as a pre-
condition to the commencement of negotiations.
PRINCIPLES
These so-called "principles" were, in reality, a device
by the
British government that have since been used by the Unionists to
try to block progress through the peace process.
Sinn Féin's position has been consistent. If we are to have
a
successful peace process the issue of arms must be resolved - all
arms. Making an objective of the peace process into a pre-condition
is totally counter-productive.
And while the Blair government publicly moved away from Mr Mayhew's
pre-conditions, which had almost destroyed the peace process, the
securocrats have been unwavering in their pursuit of the political
defeat of Irish republicanism and an IRA surrender.
Six years on, John Reid has resurrected the Washington principles
and has been thematic in publicly restating these over a number
of
weeks now.
On March 11, John Reid in an interview with David Frost, publicly
endorsed David Trimble's breach of the agreement. Mr Reid pointed
out that following the IRA re-engagement with the de Chastelain
commission by the IRA, David Trimble had said that if it:
"Continued in a more substantial fashion then he would respond
positively giving the Sinn Féin elected members their full
place in
that process, so there was a small step forward ..."
In effect, Mr Reid backs David Trimble's actions against Sinn Féin
ministers.
Subsequently, in the United States over the period of the St
Patrick's Day celebrations, John Reid told the Boston Globe that
Sinn Féin "still has a gun under the table". The
Globe reporter
also claimed that Mr Reid told him that the progress of recent
years would be lost if the IRA does not surrender its weapons.
This open and unapologetic use of a unionist argument and language
again sets Mr Reid in behind the Trimble line.
And then on March 25, Reid told the BBC's On the Record: "We
have
to have some movement of a substantial nature on decommissioning,"
and "- so we now have re-engagement with the Provisional IRA
and
John de Chastelain".
"That must move on from the stage of talking about whether
they
decommission to how they decommission ... and actual
decommissioning, right. And we have to set the target date."
This is pure Mayhew.
What has now emerged is a repackaged Washington principles scenario
in which the new British secretary of state is:
- Endorsing the UUP's breach of the agreement and of the law in
respect of the All-Ireland Ministerial Council;
- Falsely accusing Sinn Féin of being an armed organisation
as a
camouflage for ignoring the democratic entitlements of the Sinn
Féin electorate and the UUP's breach of the agreement;
- Demanding the commencement of an IRA surrender, as a pre-
condition to David Trimble honouring his obligations under the
terms of the agreement;
- Seeking to blame Sinn Féin for any damage done to the
agreement
by David Trimble's obduracy and the refusal of the British
Government to attempt to get him to live up to his obligations.
All of this, while blithely ignoring the fact that the refusal
of
his government to honour the deal that it made with the IRA last
May - and which it still refuses to honour - opened up the space
for David Trimble to do what he has done and continues to do.
The British government reneged on its commitments to implement
the
Patten recommendations on a new policing service and on
demilitarisation.
In other words, Mr Reid, like David Trimble, is attempting to
renegotiate the agreement; to resurrect pre-conditions which a Tory
government erected as a deliberate and effective block on progress.
And he has expressed all of this in very frank and forthright
terms.
This, I believe, warrants an equally frank and forthright response.
AGREEMENT
The agreement cannot possibly succeed unless all parties to it,
honour their commitments and obligations.
Sinn Féin has honoured all commitments entered into throughout
the
peace process, including those in the agreement itself. We have
stretched our membership and constituency very considerably in the
course of this.
By contrast, the British government and the UUP have both acted
in
bad faith and in breach of the agreement on a number of counts.
Most notable amongst these have been:
- The British government's enactment and implementation of
legislation to suspend the institutions;
- The British government's emasculation of the Patten
recommendations;
- The British government's failure to demilitarise, and
- The UUP's veto in respect of the All-Ireland Ministerial
Council.
I also have to say to John Reid that Sinn Féin will defend
the
democratic entitlements of our electorate and the Good Friday
agreement, and will challenge any erosion or denial of this from
any quarter.
The impunity with which David Trimble has acted since last October
owes much to the encouragement he has received from the British
government, in particular. That is what forced Sinn Féin
into court
on the issue.
John Reid's recent utterances will encourage Unionists to continue
to act unlawfully and with impunity.
Mr Reid has, furthermore, in his Boston Globe interview, moved
even
more fully to embrace the wrecker's charter David Trimble unveiled
for his UUC meeting last October and which set as its chief
objective the placing of blame on Nationalists and Republicans.
A strategy for blame is a wrecker's strategy. Is this really where
Mr Reid wants to take the situation?
Copyright Ireland On Sunday 2001
News Index
|
