05.03.1998

Imperialists ‘optimistic’

Ireland

Last week Tony Blair declared he was “cautiously, perhaps stubbornly optimistic” about the achievement of a settlement in Northern Ireland. This was at a time when Sinn Fein had been sus­pended from the all-party talks (and was threatening not to return), and when bombs were still being exploded in the Six Counties.

But Blair’s optimism is well founded. Both the British govern­ment and SF/IRA - the two princi­pal players in the imperialist-spon­sored ‘peace’ process - are determined to arrive at an under­standing, if not complete agree­ment, on terms which would allow the IRA to end its military resistance to the British occupation.

That is why Northern Ireland secretary Mo Mowlam said that “real progress” had been made in the talks, and why SF - for all its bitter condemnation of the action of the Irish and British govern­ments in temporarily excluding it - is almost certain to be back on March 9, when its suspension ends.

Despite unionist allegations that the IRA was responsible for the two recent bombs in Moira and Portadown, and that SF should therefore be permanently expelled from the negotiations, junior minister Paul Murphy stated that he believed that both blasts were caused by the Continuity Army Council. “As far as we know” he said, “the IRA ceasefire is intact.”

Meanwhile Sinn Fein president Gerry Adams has had discussions with Irish prime minister Bertie Ahern and continues to call for urgent talks with the British gov­ernment. However, much as Blair would like to grant this, he needs to step carefully in order not to upset the unionists too much. The Ulster Democratic Party, itself sus­pended earlier after its partners in the Ulster Defence Association murder squads had admitted to random killing of catholics, is al­ready peeved that SF merited a shorter suspension as ‘punish­ment’ for the alleged IRA killing of two people last month. The UDP threatened to pull out of the talks if Blair agreed to meet Adams before SF had completed its pen­ance.

Not that Blair is under the illu­sion that loyalist groups like the UDP/UDF are central to the ‘peace’ process - essentially they are pro­-imperialist ultra-unionists. But he is aware of the need to consolidate the widest possible consensus around the whole process and the proposed settlement itself, and he can well afford to delay meeting Adam’s request - especially as the more important Ulster Unionist Party is echoing the UDP demand. Besides, there are plenty of other channels for SF to use for the ex­change of views with the British. An official meeting with Adams, if it is immediately before March 9, would probably be enough to keep all the participants in the talks.

The two governments view this as essential for their presentation of next month’s final proposals for a settlement. These will take the form of a ‘take it or leave it’ pack­age, which will be placed before the electorate on both sides of the border in simultaneous referenda. The package will however be based on months of discussions - open and private - with all the par­ties. It is not necessary that the main participants give the Anglo­-Irish terms a ringing endorsement; only that they do not try to wreck the settlement.

Provided SF/IRA is able to present the proposals as contain­ing some positive elements, even if it calls on its supporters to reject them, it is unlikely to abandon its present course of winding down its military resistance in favour of a place in the ‘respectable’ bour­geois mainstream. In other words SF’s rejection of the deal will not mean an end to the ‘peace’ proc­ess itself. Last week’s announce­ment that the government is to drop its powers to exclude alleged Northern Ireland ‘terrorists’ from Britain was intended as another gesture to republicans. The an­nouncement of a procedure for re­leasing IRA prisoners - possibly as part of the settlement package - would perhaps be the most impor­tant gesture to ensure SF’s acqui­escence.

One possible scenario is that only the Social Democratic and Labour Party and the Alliance Party will positively campaign for acceptance in the Six Counties ref­erendum, but a grudging neutral­ity on the part of the UUP would ensure a majority in favour. A large majority in the south is just about guaranteed even before the details are announced.

At present the referenda are scheduled for May 7, although Mowlam conceded that there could be “a slight delay”. As long as Blair is confident of victory, he will be looking to force the pace. A ‘yes’ vote would not signal the completion of the ‘peace’ process, but only the beginning of the next stage.

Jim Blackstock