Hi everyone,
A curious feature of the peace process and cease-fires in Northern Ireland
has been the drizzle of smug accusations of 'sell-out' directed against
the republican movement by the various revoltionary left groups. One might
have thought that a move away from murderous armed struggle, in pursuit
of the forced incorporation of one million British protestants in a
united Ireland, would be welcomed. The republican strategy of using
politics is a more rational method and is not therefore a sell-out from
their perspective. Armed struggle has no higher moral worth than
parliamentarianism - in most cases, quite the contrary.
Are republicans pro-imperialist? Its not clear what is meant by
imperialism. Does it suggest that the British presence in Ireland is
solely due to its own 'selfish and strategic interests'? I don't doubt
that Britiain does have selfish interests in Ireland, nevertheless the
real British presence is not military or administrative, but the one
million protestants. Britain, in all liklihood, hopes for eventual
disengagement, particularly as Ireland in current form would be unlikly
then to break out in socialist revolution. They do not withdraw primarily
because they know the result then would be civil war in Ireland.
Does this mean partition is justified? At the time, probably not.
Self-determination cannot be an absolute right, and unionist
self-determination in 1920 meant the subordination of half a million
Ulster catholics. The complete rejection of unionist political rights by
James Connolly and his ilk at the time was neither wise nor just. We can
sympathise, if not neccessarily agree in detail, with the Belfast labour
movement (post-labour unionist William Walker) who preferred Ulster
autonomy within an Ireland connected to Britain, but independent in
domestic affairs and undivided.
Now, of course, partition is entrenched. It cannot nor should not be
arbitrarily done away with. The Good Friday Agreement is an
advance in that it rejects majoritarian democracy in domestic politics.
National identity, however, is also a matter of intangible (though
psychologically powerful) symbolic structures. Northern Ireland remaining
100% British in sovereignty is unfair to the substantial catholic / Irish
minority. Something more like Joint Sovereignty between Britain and
Ireland would much better meet the case. Such a state, over time, would
not only give due recognition to the two identities, but might also permit
catholics to acknowledge their very real British affinity, and protestants
their Irishness.
The republican objective is fundamentally reactionary and utopian - a
Britless Ireland. Its new strategy, however, of increasing the Irish
dimension, by approaching the model of a dual national state, is generally
to be welcomed. Their militancy on this matter compares well to the
supine SDLP. All this is negated, however, as long as they employ
political violence, which in a liberal democratic state is grossly
disproportionate (as well as counter-productive). Socialists should
encourage the de-militarisation of Irish politics.
The IRA, George and Karl argue, never threatened 'imperialism' and thus
are pro-imperialist. As only socialism threatens imperialism, as I gather,
then I suspect that all but George, Karl and a few others are true
anti-imperialists. Everyone else, me too I'm quite sure, objectively are
pro-imperialist. There is, I'll concede, a striking internal logic to this
position, but I doubt its use as an analytical tool in the real world.
All the best,
Marc.
----------------------
marc mulholland
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|