textfiles/politics/SPUNK/sp001107.txt

4 articles
2nd is The IRA and its armed struggle; A Bloody Long War [WS35]
3rd is 'Should we get rid of articles 2 & 3 [WS38]
4th is Peace 93' [WS39]

   ********* Collaboration & Imperialism ************
                        from Workers Solidarity No 34
                                             [1990]

THE KILLING of the seven building workers in 
January marks the most bloody episode in an IRA 
campaign against those who work for the 'security 
forces', a campaign which has been going on since 
1985.  There has been a massive wave of 
condemnation from bishops, politicians and media 
figures.

Most of it is hypocritical cant.  In all wars people who assist 
or work for the enemy are targetted.  During the War of 
Independence the 'old IRA' shot people it suspected of 
collaboration.  Today it is a criminal offence to collaborate 
with the IRA.  Anyone allowing them to use their house or 
car, anyone minding weapons or giving information can be 
sentenced to long terms in jail.  In the North their name may 
be leaked to a loyalist death squad.

The Workers Solidarity Movement, as an anarchist and anti-
imperialist organisation, agrees with the Provos that workers 
should not collaborate with the forces of imperialism.  It is not 
in the interest of any worker to collaborate with imperialism, 
in Ireland or anywhere else.

This does not mean we agree with killing buiding workers.  
We don't.  The IRA threats to workers who service or deliver 
to Army bases and RUC & UDR barracks tell us much about 
the Provos.  For all their left-wing slogans, they remain an 
authoritarian nationalist movement.  They decide what is  
good for us, they decide what methods to use.  The role of 
everyone else is to passively cheer them on and preserve some 
sort of nationalist solidarity.

A genuinely socialist and revolutionary movement would have 
appealed to workers to black these bases because it is in their 
own interest to fight imperialism.  It is undeniable that such 
an appeal would have been ignored by most.  However in 
areas such as Newry, Derry and Strabane there was a very 
good chance that it would have been heeded if worked for.  A 
campaign of this sort would consist of raising the issue within 
the unions, holding meetings at depot gates, producing 
leaflets, taking up the arguments and fighting for official 
union backing for anyone disciplined or sacked for refusing to 
help the state's war effort.

It would be a start in bringing workers - as workers - to the 
head of the anti-imperialist struggle.  It has been done before.  
At the time of the War of Independence there was an anti-
conscription strike, the "Limerick Soviet", the refusal of train 
drivers to carry British troops or war materials.  

Activity like this can give workers a sense of the potential 
power they possess.  And by being based on the methods of 
mass struggle it can give workers the confidence to start 
getting involved in political activity themselves intead of 
leaving it to a few rulers and would-be rulers.  This is very 
important if we are to build a real socialist society where 
there is no division into rulers and ruled.

We must also look at the objective result of the threats and 
killings.  It does not matter a lot what the intentions of the 
Provos are, the fact is that killing labourers and other 
workers drives Protestants of our class further into the arms 
of bigots like Paisley.  It is not enough to denounce such 
workers as supporters of imperialism - the question is how to 
win them away from that.  Death threats certainly cannot do 
it. Whether we like it or not many Protestants believe that 
such workers are shot because they are Protestants and that 
the Provos' stated reasons are not the real ones.  Therefore 
we call for the threats to be lifted and replaced by a workplace 
campaign based on arguments about working class self-
interest.

********** The IRA and its armed struggle ***********
                A Bloody Long War
                        from Workers Solidarity No 35
                                                (1992)

Gerry Adams is no longer an MP.  The 
politicians and media pundits are over the 
moon with joy.  In their eyes the 
republicans have been denied the 
international 'credibility' of having an 
elected MP and denied their 'mandate for 
violence' at home.  

In the immediate aftermath we were subjected to a barrage 
of questions and comments about how this will effect the 
respective strengths of the 'hawks' and 'doves' in the IRA.  
Will there be an escalation of the armed struggle?  Will 
they hit back with ferocity?  Will they decide that the 
armed struggle is an impediment to their political 
progress?  Will there be a ceasefire?  

Much of what was said was unadulterated rubbish.  Gerry 
Adams and Sinn F<>in held their vote in West Belfast. The 
SDLP did not eat into it. Adams 16,826 was only 36 down on 
the 1987 result and was 447 up on the original 1983 poll.   
The SDLP did not eat into it.  What lost him the seat were 
the 3,000 loyalists who heeded the UDA's call vote SDLP in 
order to deny the seat to Adams.  The Shankill's walls were 
covered with "A vote for Cobain is a vote for Sinn F<>in" 
refering to the fact that if loyalists continued to vote 
for the Unionist, Sinn F<>in would hold the seat.  This was 
certainly not a pro-SDLP vote, it was explicitly an anti-
Sinn F<>in one.  Supporters of the UDA/UFF hate the SDLP, 
it's just that they hate Sinn F<>in a lot more.

Across the six counties, as a whole, Sinn F<>in's vote did 
drop... but only from 11% to 10%.  They aren't going 
anywhere, but they are not about to disappear either.  
However it is true that a tentative debate has been going 
on inside the IRA and Sinn F<>in over the last two or three 
years about the relative values of the armed struggle and 
parliamentary politics.  

In February Gerry Adams told the 'Irish Times' 'Two or 
three years ago, I would have seen it necessary to 
personally state publicly that yes, there was the right of 
the IRA to engage in armed struggle, and perhaps even at 
times that armed struggle was a necessary ingredient in the 
struggle.  I don't feel the need to do that now.  In fact, 
I think that my role now, and I've seen this increasingly 
over the last 18 months, is one of increasingly and 
persistently saying there's a need to end all acts of 
violence."  This is interesting, not so much for what is 
being said, but for the fact that this shows a slightly 
more open attitude towards politics.  It used to be that 
anyone questioning the value of the military campaign was 
shown the door pretty quickly.

However it is not this debate that the establishment 
politicians want to to take part in.  Some of them almost 
foam at the mouth when someone mentions republicans.  They 
have nothing but hatred for the Provos.  North and South, 
all the main parties have done their best to repress 
republicanism.  In the North it is shoot-to-kill 
assassinations, beatings in RUC stations, censorship.  In 
the South it's extradition and more censorship.  To be 
thought a sympathiser of Sinn F<>in is to invite Special 
Branch attention and maybe a beating in a Garda station.  

According to Fianna F<>il, Fine Gael, Labour, Official 
Unionist, DUP and all the rest this is justified by the 
need to oppose violence. What a neck!  The people who 
supported the Gulf War (and those who allowed the use of 
Shannon airport to US bombers) are telling us about the 
need to oppose violence!  What was the slaughter of 
retreating Iraqi soldiers and civilians on the road from 
Kuwait to Basra if it was not an act of violence, of 
terrorism?  The death toll in that terrible few hours when 
the Americans gleefully labelled it a "turkey shoot" was 
far more than all the deaths ever caused by the IRA... and 
far more than the IRA is ever likely to cause. 

The hypocrisy is evident.  However the question remains: 
should we call on the IRA to stop their campaign?  To put 
the question in such a way implies that the IRA are the 
main problem, if only they would lay down their arms 
everything would be o.k.  We have to remember that the IRA 
didn't start the 'troubles'.  After the dismal failure of 
their 1956-62 border campaign the guns were dumped.  A new 
force appeared, the Civil Rights Movement.  Most of them 
believed that peaceful reform within the six county state 
was possible.  

When they took to the streets loyalist gangs (including 
politicians, policemen and the notorious B Specials) 
attacked them.  Streets were burned out, a pogrom began.  
Since the founding of the six county state every time the 
Catholic working class rose from their knees (or more 
frightening for the bosses, every time Catholic and 
Protestant workers united) sectarianism was whipped up and 
a state-led pogrom was unleashed.  The 'liberal' 1960's 
were no exception.  

The British Army were sent back in.  At first they claimed 
to be a 'disinterested' force standing between angry 
Catholics and the Paisleyites and policemen who wanted to 
invade Catholic areas and inflict a reign of terror.  
Within a year it was clear to all that their real purpose 
was to protect the Northern state and this would be done by 
keeping down the Catholics.  The Falls Road was placed 
under a three day curfew in 1970 and three people shot dead 
for venturing out of their homes.  The IRA began to 
reappear.  

The next year saw internment without trial and the year 
after that the murder of 14 Civil Rights marchers by 
British troops on Bloody Sunday.  The IRA grew in size and 
escalated its recently commenced campaign.  It was clear to 
many young Catholics that the struggle for change had 
become a struggle against the state itself and the British 
Army that was protecting it.  

Far from being the problem, the IRA is a  product of it.  
If the IRA declared a ceasefire the problem would remain.  
If they completely vanished the problem would still be 
glaringly obvious.  And as long as that problem is there 
there will be a response.  Until imperialism is defeated 
and sectarianism uprooted there will be resistance.

The question to be asked is what sort of resistance do we 
need?  The armed struggle of the IRA has no chance of 
achieving victory.  A small minority (the IRA) based within 
a minority (Northern Catholics) cannot defeat the state.  
They are unable to break out of the confines of the 
Northern Catholic ghettoes.  Southern Irish workers are not 
influenced by claims that British imperialism is the main 
enemy, North and South.   Southern capitalism is no longer 
tied to the apron strings of London.  Workers in the 26 
counties find themselves struggling against Irish and 
multinational bosses.    

IRA bombings and shootings are a thorn in the side of the 
ruling class, an unpleasant pain but nothing likely to 
prove fatal.  Neither side can win a military victory.  
There is no way that a small guerrilla army can defeat the 
combined might of the RUC, UDR and British Army.  Equally,  
there is no way that the state forces can wipe out militant 
republicanism.  As long as partition, with its resultant 
sectarianism and repression, has existed there have been 
those who will take up arms against it.

While this continues there will be civilian casualties and 
increased communalism and sectarian tension.  Anarchists 
oppose the republican armed struggle, it is not the way to 
mobilise thousands upon thousands of working class people 
against imperialism.  It is not the way towards an anti-
sectarian working class unity.  

The armed struggle is not something that republicans took 
up because they have a fascination with violence or some 
innate love of armalite rifles, despite what some media 
commentators would have us believe.  IRA volunteers are 
brave men and women who want to hit back at the forces that 
have been sticking the boot into their community.   They 
risk jailing, torture and death.  If bravery was enough the 
British Army would have been defeated years ago.  Clearly 
bravery is not enough.

To criticise the republicans' methods is not sufficient, 
the methods flow from their politics.  Nationalism sees the 
main struggle as one between the 'Irish people' and British 
imperialism.  The class struggle within Ireland takes a 
secondary place until the border is smashed.  The mass of 
ordinary people are kept passive.  While a few hundred 
courageous volunteers take up arms, the role of everyone 
else doesn't add up to much more than joining the 
occasional march or casting a vote for Sinn F<>in.  The few 
fight and the rest stay at home and watch it on TV. 

Republicans see the working class only as victims of the 
system and not as people with the potential power to 
overthrow it.  The bravery of the few becomes a substitute 
for mass action.  The IRA campaign becomes central.  

We do not like the romanticisation of violence.  We do 
enjoy seeing fathers bury their sons.  We do not like part 
of our country being a war zone.  But it is not for these 
reasons that we oppose the armed struggle.  We are not 
pacifists.  At times it is necessary to use violence to 
defend gains won in struggle.  However we reject the idea 
that a small grouping, with guns and bombs, can set us all 
free.  

Only masses of people involved in struggle can 
fundamentally change society.  We have to want to be free.  
Nobody can force freedom down our throats.  Armed struggle 
is a substitute (and a poor substitute at that) for mass 
action.  When was the ruling class most worried by events 
in the last two decades?  It was the big Civil Rights 
marches and the no-go areas of Free Derry and Free Belfast 
that set their teeth chattering.  It was the huge protests 
after the Bloody Sunday murders that saw the British 
Embassy burnt in Dublin and Jack Lynch's government 
declaring a national day of mourning after workers had made 
it clear there was going to be a total closedown of 
industry.

It was this sort of militant mass action that forced 
concessions from the British government.  The B Specials 
were disbanded, Unionist powers in local government were 
limited. In 1972, after the Bloody Sunday protests, the 
Stormont government was abolished.  Of course many of these 
concessions were clawed back when the mass movement was 
eclipsed by the emergence of the IRA campaign and its 
promise that 1973 (and '74 and '75!) would be the "year of 
victory".  The best example was the replacement of the B 
Specials by the UDR.  But the lesson remains, it was mass 
action that won the concessions.

So if the Workers Solidarity Movement are so opposed to the 
armed struggle why don't we join the call for a ceasefire.  
We won't line up with the right wing politicians and their 
'Peace Train' supporters who seek to apportion all the  
blame to the IRA for the 'troubles'.  The IRA are a 
response to a problem.  The primary problem is partition, 
sectarianism and the occupation by the British Army.  We 
refuse to join in the scapegoating of republicans.   

Equally, we refuse to mute our criticism of republicanism 
and its armed struggle.  We are opposed to their politics 
as well as their methods.  We stand for anarchism, for an 
independent working class position.  We want to break 
working class people from the gombeen nationalism of Fianna 
F<EFBFBD>il, from the reactionary hatemongering of loyalism, from 
the sub-reformism of Labour and Democratic Left, ...and 
from the communalism of Sinn F<>in.  

While opposing the presence of the British Army and the 
continuing partition of the country, the working class must 
also fight the Southern state.  We have to oppose 
imperialism and, at the same time, oppose the clerical 
nationalist laws in the South which ban divorce and 
abortion.  We have to oppose Orange bigotry while at the 
same time campaigning for the complete separation of Church 
and State.  

We do not fight for a united capitalist Ireland, neither as 
a 'step in the right direction' or as an end in itself.  
Joining the six to the twenty six counties offers nothing 
to working class people in either state.  We have no 
interest in re-dividing poverty on a more 'equitable' 
basis.  The only Ireland worth fighting for is a Workers 
Republic where every working class person stands to gain. 
The way towards such a new Ireland is the way of class 
struggle and mass action, taking control of our own 
struggles and doing it in our own class interests.  This is 
the road to freedom.

Joe King

**********  Should we get rid of articles 2 & 3 ********
                                            from WS 38
                                                 [1993?]

Article 2:  The National territory consists of the whole 
island of Ireland, its' islands and its' territorial seas.

Article 3:  Pending the re-integration of the national 
territory and without prejudice to the right of Parliament 
and Government established by this constitution to exercise 
jurisdiction over the whole of that territory, the laws 
enacted by Parliament shall have the like area and extent 
of application as the laws of Saorstat Eireann [26 
counties] and the like extra-territorial effect.

Mention the conflict in the North and many people 
will turn off.  Not because they do not care about 
what is going on but because they do not feel that 
they can make any difference.  Who wants to hear 
about another death or another bombing?  Most 
people in Ireland were glad to see the release of 
the Birmingham 6 and the Guildford 4, but in Dublin 
last Summer only 300 marched against the 
extradition of Angelo Fusco.  The answer to the 
problem is made out to lie with the British and 
Irish governments in collaboration with the 
Unionist leaders.  Workers in the South do not see 
themselves as having a part to play in the 
solution.

It is in this atmosphere of alienation that talks, and 
talks about talks, can be portrayed as having an impact.  
In fact they were just talks.  The latest set wound up last 
November with nothing decided.  The banning of the UDA can 
be portrayed as positive action against the loyalist death 
squads.   Even though they still exist, and are now killing 
more people than the Provos.  And this while it has come 
out that Brian Nelson, a British mole actually took part in 
over sixteen murders with official permission.  

The Unionists are able to claim that it is the Republic of 
Ireland's 'claim' to the North in Articles 2 and 3 that is 
the cause of the 'troubles'.  Meanwhile the British State 
is getting away with occupying the place and few people see 
this as a problem.

In an upcoming referendum anarchists will oppose the 
deletion of Article 2.  We do so, not because we support 
the 26 county state over the 6 county one, but because we 
are opposed to the partition of Ireland.  The Article 
recognises the partition of Ireland and we want to see a 
united Ireland.  For this we will oppose its deletion.  

We, however, won't get too excited about Article 3.  To 
support the claim of  the Dublin government is to support 
the authority of one set of bosses over another.  We, who 
want to get rid of the division into bosses and bossed, 
won't do this.  

WHY IRELAND WAS DIVIDED

Ireland was partitioned because of the conflicting economic 
interests between capitalists in the North-East and those 
in the rest of Ireland.  Generally speaking the South was 
less developed and wanted independence to defend its infant 
economy from cheap British imports.

The North-East was already relatively well developed with 
thriving linen and shipbuilding industries, both of which 
depended on Britain for export markets.  The partition of 
Ireland and the creation of the six county state was a 
compromise between these conflicting interests.  

In order to win support for partition the bosses in the 
North-East stirred up sectarian hatred against Catholics.  
They made sure there was a material basis for such hatred.  
Slightly better housing and jobs were given to Protestants 
over Catholics.  It was made clear that these privileges 
would go if Protestant workers supported Irish 
independence.

On this basis the sectarian statelet of the six counties 
was founded.  It was built with Protestant working class 
support on the grounds that they would remain better off 
than Catholics.  These conditions have existed right up to 
the present day.  Protestant workers may be more likely to 
be unemployed and on lower wages than a worker in London or 
Manchester.  But they know that they are still only half as 
likely to be unemployed as a Catholic living in the next 
housing estate.

The loyalist terror groups have their recruiting grounds in 
Unionist working class areas.  They feed off the fear that 
Protestants will loose their slight privileges over the 
Catholics.  They encourage sectarian hatred by saying that 
Catholics are the main enemy of the Protestants.  That is 
why Loyalists such as the Ulster Defence Association will 
target any Catholics.  They have been tricked into 
believing that it is Catholics that are the main enemy and 
they are all 'legitimate targets'.  

In reality the main enemy for both Catholic and Protestant 
workers is the ruling class.  They are the people who set 
wages, hire and fire, and seek to control peoples' lives in 
all areas.  For socialists, the most important task is to 
unite Catholic and Protestant workers and convince them to 
fight together against the bosses.  

This has happened before,  for example the Outdoor Relief 
Strike in 1932 when Catholics from the Falls Road and 
Protestants from the Shankill Road of Belfast fought 
together for better conditions for the unemployed.  And 
more recently in the health service strikes and DSS strikes 
against sectarian intimidation throughout the 1980s.

Partition is not only bad because of the way that Northern 
nationalists are treated.  It also has an effect in the 
South.  As Connolly predicted partition led to "a carnival 
of reaction, North and South".   

For most of the history of the state, politics in the South 
has been dominated by Fianna F<>il and Fine Gael.  There is 
hardly a political difference between the two.  The 
influence of the conservative Catholic Church has until 
recently determined social legislation.  In the South the 
carnival is winding down, but in the North it is still 
going at full belt.

It is because of this that anarchists are opposed to the 
deletion of Article 2.  A socialist perspective needs to be 
heard.  The question of partition, and sectarian state must 
be dealt with properly by socialists or it will not be 
solved.    

NATIONALISTS

Anarchists do not support the nationalist point of view.  
This will be put forward by Sinn F<>in, the Irish National 
Congress, Neil Blaney and such like. They will be fighting 
for a united capitalist Ireland.  Socialists will not get 
much chance to be heard.  We will be told that, yet again, 
'labour must wait'.

We are not struggling for a united capitalist Ireland.  In 
any campaign we will be putting forward the socialist 
perspective that we are against partition because it fans 
the flames of sectarianism.  In its place we want a 
socialist 32 county Republic uniting both Protestant and 
Catholic workers.  

Unfortunately at the moment anarchists cannot set the 
political agenda.  Our influence is far too small.  Most of 
the time we have to react to events as they occur.  We 
helped to win the referenda on travel and information last 
year but we recognise that the main event that triggered 
the referenda was government action.  They injuncted the 14 
year old girl and caused the "X" case.  It was people's 
reaction to this issue that forced the changes in the 
constitution.

Likewise with a referendum to change Articles 2 and 3.  
While we would prefer to be involved in widespread united 
strike action of Protestants and Catholics, arguing for 
socialism, we cannot do so at the moment.  If there is to 
be a referendum we will use it as an opportunity to argue a 
socialist perspective.  This is an opportunity to argue a 
socialist answer and it should not be missed.
<EFBFBD><EFBFBD>
Andrew Blackmore


         ********** Peace '93 ********
                 from Workers Solidarity No39
                    [1993]

DUBLIN SUNDAY MARCH 28TH.  On a rainy 
afternoon about 20,000 people (Irish Times 
estimate) crowd O'Connell Street to protest 
at the deaths of two children, Jonathan 
Ball and Tim Parry.  At the fringes of the 
rally a small group carry pictures of some 
other victims of violence.  Fergal 
Carahers's widow holds a placard saying 
"also, remember, British soldiers killed my 
husband".  Others hold pictures of Majela 
O'Hare, Aiden McAnespie, Seamus Duffy, 
Karen Reilly and other victims of security 
force violence in the North.  

A small section of the crowd reacts angrily and 
begins to heckle them shouting "out, out, out!".  
Gardai move in quickly to grab the offending 
placards.  In death as in life it seems that some 
are more equal then others.

The Peace 1993 movement was set-up after the 
Warrington bombings as people reacted angrily to 
the killing of innocent children.  Their efforts 
to distance themselves from politics have not 
been entirely successful.  Attempting to mould 
the peace movement in their own image were New 
Consensus and the Peace Train Organisation.  

These organisations are little more then fronts 
for the Democratic Left, Workers Party and others 
who see the IRA as the incarnation of all evil.  
They are partly financed by the British 
government, through the Northern Ireland Office 
(see 'Peace train runs out of steam' Workers 
Solidarity 33).  The people involved in Peace 
1993 events have the best of motives and are 
sickened by the violence on all sides.   
Unfortunately they are been used.

GANGSTERS AND PSYCHOPATHS?

Peace 1993 has started with the analysis we are 
offered again and again by our rulers and the 
media.  Paramilitaries, especially republican 
ones, are portrayed as gangsters and psychopaths 
used and manipulated by cynical "godfather's of 
crime".  It is because of the IRA (we are told) 
that "normal democratic politics" cannot proceed.  
If they were to lay down their arms everything 
would be Hunky-Dory.  Unfortunately this is not 
the case.  Indeed the ceasefire of 1975 between 
the British government and the IRA was broken 
unilaterally by the British.  They used the 
opportunity to conduct raids and searches for 
arms, and provoked the republicans in every way 
possible.  The ceasefire was not signed by the 
loyalist gunmen who stepped up their sectarian 
campaign.

Sinn F<>in's electoral support is 10% in total and 
30% among Northern Ireland Catholics, 
concentrated in the working class areas of West 
Belfast and Derry and among small farmers in the 
border counties.  The IRA have no difficulty in 
recruiting young Catholic workers and unemployed 
and will continue to do so.  They are not the 
problem, they are a product of the real problem. 

This is the Northern Ireland State.  There can be 
no "normal politics" in Northern Ireland.  This 
is a State founded on blatant sectarianism and 
the repression of the minority.  Catholics are 
still twice as likely to be unemployed as their 
Protestant neighbours (according to the 
government's own Fair Employment Agency).  This 
is combined with day-to-day harassment by the 
security forces and the recent acceleration of 
sectarian attacks.  These are the conditions that 
make it very unlikely that the IRA will just 
disappear.  

POLITICS OR POND LIFE?

The IRA are a response to a State that was a 
model in sectarianism.  The British State 
succeeded in buying off Protestant workers with 
marginal privileges.  They created the 
reactionary ideology of unionism.  Normal 
politics in Northern Ireland is illustrated 
graphically by the activities of the Belfast city 
council which recently took another giant step 
into the dark ages when it renewed it's ban on 
over 18s films on Sundays.  The normal politics 
of this council chamber was described as "more 
like pond-life then politics" by one recently 
resigned SDLP councillor.

As long as the British occupation  continues and 
as long as unionism is propped up by them, so-
called normal politics in Northern Ireland 
remains in the realm of sick humour.  The IRA are 
not to blame for the situation in the North.  But 
they will never be able to change it.

The armed struggle over the last 20 or so years 
has done little more then irritate the British 
and Irish governments.  A small guerrilla army 
will never defeat the combined resources of the 
British and Southern Irish States.  Like all 
small guerilla armies they are elitist and 
unanswerable to those they claim to represent.  
The only role they offer Catholic workers is to 
cheer on from the sidelines.  

No group of this nature no matter, how brave or 
well armed, will ever set us free.  Ultimately 
the armed struggle is no substitute for mass 
action.  The only way to fundamentally change 
things is by uniting workers North and South of 
all religions and none to defeat the bosses, 
orange and green, and build a secular worker's 
republic.

WINNING SUPPORT ...FOR MORE REPRESSION?

The so-called economic bombing campaign in 
Britain is another reflection of the IRA's 
political bankruptcy.  Any serious socialist 
anti-imperialist group would attempt to enlist 
the support of British workers against their own 
ruling class.  The IRA's simplistic strategy is 
that they can bomb them into submission by 
causing massive economic damage.  In fact it 
alienates British workers and makes the 
introduction of anti-Irish laws like The 
Prevention of Terrorism Act that bit easier.  

And it has to be said that the IRA know well that 
the authorities will occasionally ignore or delay 
a bomb warning in order to whip up anger at the 
Provos.  With this knowledge it has to be said 
that the IRA take a very cavalier attitude 
towards the lives of ordinary people every time 
they plant a bomb in a shopping mall or railway 
station.  It would not be unreasonable to ask if 
their bombing of Warrington amounts to 
manslaughter.

The economic bombing campaign of the last 20 
years from the Birmingham pub bombs, through the 
attacks on Downing Street, the stock exchange and 
the recent massive attack on the Nat West tower 
have not shaken the British government's resolve.  
Despite the cost (the Damage from the Nat West 
bomb is estimated at <20>3-500 million or about 1/10 
of the annual bill for running the North for a 
year) they still hang on.  

MORE PROGRESSIVE THAN THE LEGION OF MARY!

Anyone waiting eagerly to hear radical ideas from 
the IRA's political wing, Sinn F<>in after the 
slight relaxation of Section 31 (of the 
Broadcasting Act) forced on RTE can stop holding 
their breath.  Take womens' rights for example.  
At this year's Ard Fheis a motion was put forward 
committing them to support a woman's right to 
choose abortion.  One delegate (Daisy Mules from 
Derry) in support of the motion said that "the 
struggle for human rights and democracy must 
include womens' rights which includes the right 
to choose".

The party's ruling Ard Chomhairle had different 
ideas.  Tom Hartley claimed that existing policy 
was "the most progressive held by any political 
party in the country" (Not true, of course, both 
Democratic Left and the Worker's Party have gone 
further in their limited support for abortion 
rights).  Gerry Adams claimed that to change 
policy "would be the biggest mistake we could 
make this weekend".  The motion was defeated (An 
Phoblacht/Republican News 25th February).

Sinn F<>in's politics continue to be based around 
a desperate attempt to make friends with right 
wing nationalist elements like Fianna F<>il TD 
Michael Noonan  and the SDLP 'grassroots'.  This 
strategy has failed totally and their vote in the 
South remains minute.

The truth is that neither Peace 1993 nor the 
republicans can change things.  Their simplistic 
solutions of "Lets all put down our guns and be 
pals" (unless we happen to have uniforms) or that 
of a united capitalist Ireland underline the lack 
of ideas of both organisations.  Not only have 
they no solutions they haven't even begun to ask 
the right questions.

WORKERS' ACTION

Our solution is not quite so simple.  It is a 
longer and more difficult route, but it is the 
only one which will work.  It involves uniting 
workers in Ireland to fight for a united 
anarchist republic.  

In the short-term this means supporting and 
building, where possible, united action against 
the bosses.  Also where united struggles do take 
place trying to make connections showing how the 
only way to real unity against the bosses is to 
oppose partition which is used to keep Protestant 
and Catholic workers apart.  In the long-term it 
means fighting both British imperialist 
occupation of Northern Ireland and our own native 
bosses and Southern clericalist laws.  The only 
way to do this is through massive united class 
struggle.  There are no short-cuts on the road to 
freedom.

Des McCarron