Siol nan Gaidheal forum

Whilst this forum is moderated, opinions expressed are those of the person posting, and are not necessarily those of the organisation.
It is currently Tue Jan 19, 2021 7:24 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: The Stockholm Address
PostPosted: Mon May 05, 2008 3:20 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 5:22 pm
Posts: 3240
Location: In the early days of a better nation
I present this with no comment other than saying perhaps it could be considered hardline.

Stockholm Address
Marion Price 32C
April 2008

Ireland remains partitioned. Irish sovereignty continues to be violated by British Parliamentary activity in our country. The democratic wishes of the Irish people cannot be realised because a section of the Irish people, at the British Government’s insistence, maintains a veto over the constitutional future of the island. The cause of conflict in the Anglo-Irish war remains unresolved. For our part, as Irish republican separatists, the 32 County Sovereignty Movement challenged the status quo by placing before the United Nations a submission outlining our case in International Law for the Irish peoples inalienable right to self determination. As a republican organisation we are not the first in Irish history to assert our national rights. We are part of a long and noble tradition. But what our UN Submission represents is the contemporary expression of that tradition in a clear and forceful context. The arguments contained within the submission are not the property of the 32CSM but belong to any Irish person who values the integrity of Irish sovereignty. So long as a British Government maintains a presence in Ireland Irish republicans will maintain a steadfast argument against them.

That struggle has written, and continues to write, Irish history. In Ireland today, as the political establishments North and South celebrate the 10th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement Irish republicans are somewhat bewildered that the 86th anniversary of the 1922 Anglo-Irish Treaty is not celebrated also given that it is in effect the parent of the Good Friday Accord. They are both cut from the same political cloth. But what bewilders republicans even more is that the abject failure which the 1922 Treaty represented was once more used as a template to address the partitioning of Ireland. The mistakes of the past were not learnt from, they were merely updated.

To draw parallels with the past should not be seen as a fixation to dwell on the past. Suffice to say that the motives for any British Government to enter into negotiations with Irish republicanism are to undermine the resistance offered against them. Few could deny that this was the case in 1922 when Civil War erupted as a result and few can deny that 1998 was any different when the Provisional IRA negotiated away its raison detre and destroyed its own weaponry at British insistence. And again as those who argued that 1922 was a stepping stone to independence so too there are those who say Good Friday is a transition arrangement to Irish unity. But even a casual observer of the politics of the Six County state would see that Irish unity is far removed from any current agenda. Those in Provisional Sinn Fein who called on Irish republicans and nationalists to wholeheartedly follow their strategy are now calling on those very same people to become informers for the British establishment against republicans who continue to oppose them. History has come full circle.

After thirty years of armed conflict peace was an easy commodity to sell. Irish political leaders took refuge in the emotional language of peace when they should have pursued the language of freedom and democracy. Republican leaders betrayed their civil rights nature when they bartered our national rights in exchange for British movement on rights within the Six County statelet. And that is exactly what the Good Friday Accord represented, a sanitising of British rule in Ireland. The issue to be resolved was no longer the fact of their presence but the manner of their presence. The long-term British strategy of Normalisation, Ulsterisation and Criminalisation had come to fruition because two fundamental goals were achieved by them; Firstly the Provisional Movement was now part of the state apparatus and secondly Dublin’s Constitutional Claim over the whole island was removed. When the Good Friday Agreement was submitted to a partitioned Irish electorate it was overwhelmingly endorsed and the British immediately seized upon this as an Irish mandate for its presence in Ireland. Those who signed the accord were now legally and politically obliged to recognise partition as legitimate and that armed resistance to it amounted to a criminal conspiracy against the lawful state.

The out workings of the Good Friday Agreement culminated in its eventual replacement by the St Andrews Agreement which was never submitted to either electorate. That ultimate power remained with London was evidenced by London’s unilateral suspension of the Stormont Assembly on several occasions with derisory objections from Dublin. It was the exercising of this power that convinced Unionism that the British dimension to partition was more robustly defended by London than the Irish dimension was defended by Dublin. When the Unionist leadership changed from those who negotiated Good Friday to those who opposed it the scene was inevitably set for the systematic deconstruction of any All Ireland dimension within its remit. All decisions and policies concerning All Ireland co-operation were slowly returned to the Unionist dominated Assembly and Executive. Policing and Justice Powers, yet to be devolved, were separated into local and national areas with the British Security Services remaining in firm control of the ‘National Security of Her Majesty’s Borders’. As these tenets of the original accord were removed in the St Andrews Agreement the unionist leadership were now confidently boasting that the Good Friday Agreement was dead.

The Stormont regime continues along sectarian lines. It is the stated aim of unionism that the voting arrangement known as the d’Hont system, where agreement is needed by both sides to proceed, will eventually be replaced by a return to majority rule. The current system in place means that there is no organised opposition to the direction the institutions can take. If nationalists remove themselves in protest the institution collapses and direct rule from London is reintroduced. Either way partition remains. Nationalists are now caught in a no win situation. They either go in a Unionist direction or they surrender to direct rule from London. Dublin is now a recognised foreign government. And although these developments were predicted by Irish republicans at the time we were powerless to assert any meaningful influence upon them.

How are Irish Republicans to react to these developments? From the outset Irish republicanism was the real target of British intentions. If the British Government could ensnare republicans into a British apparatus within the Six Counties as part of a settlement republicans who opposed the move could be labelled as anti-peace. It was the emotive appeal of a peaceful future which deterred a critical analysis of what exactly the parties had agreed to. Those who tried to offer this critical analysis were dismissed as nay sayers and peace wreckers whilst those within the negotiations who realised exactly the political and constitutional implications of the agreement remained silent to preserve their electoral support. It was the ultimate British victory of having Irish republican representatives agree to the legitimacy of partition for fear of an electoral backlash against them if their failure to do so meant the collapse of the Agreement. The salient point however lay in the fact that the British Government are not democratically accountable to any section of the Irish people yet here were the Irish people endorsing their presence in our country. The Absentee Landlord had triumphed again.

It was within this context that Irish republicans who opposed this entire direction found themselves. Our views were deliberately ignored or cast as anti peace. The dense fog of political emotion, misrepresentation and a compliant media was the vista we had to stare into. And this we did.

The 32 County Sovereignty Movement set out a structured format by which it would address the political situation as it evolved. This meant addressing three principle areas:

1.The premise upon which the negotiations were taking place.

2.What exactly was politically and constitutionally agreed to?

3.What are the future implications of the agreement?

Contrary to a misrepresented belief the opposition of the 32CSM to the so called peace process did not commence after the Good Friday Agreement was signed. Prior to the agreement, and more importantly prior to the holding of the dual referendums to ratify it, the 32CSM challenged the very basis upon which the negotiations were being held by lodging a detailed submission to the United Nations. This submission spelt out the Irish case for our right to national sovereignty, the illegality of British interference in Irish affairs and the invalidity of the referendums as an exercise of self determination by the Irish people. Our efforts to raise the issue of sovereignty with the Sinn Fein leadership led to their refusal to allow us to address the party’s National Conference. It subsequently led to our indefinite suspension from Sinn Fein on grounds that were never officially explained by the party leadership. The arguments laid out in our UN Submission will remain relevant indefinitely as will our challenge to the British and Irish governments to address them.

When the dual referendums ratified the Good Friday Agreement the 32CSM realised that the politics which fathered it would be the dominant politics for some considerable time to come. Our objections to the legitimacy of the agreement were never challenged but were dismissed by a new found slogan ‘What’s Your Alternative?’ This slogan became the mainstay of the pro agreement parties. To meet it head on the 32CSM outlined a detailed alternative by which a true peace could be brought to the people of Ireland. Entitled Irish Democracy, A Framework For Unity we formulated our belief that only democracy at its maximum expression could secure a lasting peace and that all negotiations should take place within an Irish Democratic Framework. The issue was not one of allowing Unionist Consent to become a veto over Irish Consent but understanding that one was intrinsic to the other and both represented Irish democracy. British Parliamentary activity in Ireland has no democratic basis whatsoever.

We recognised that the legitimacy of our arguments alone was not enough to politically promote them. That process required engagement with those who vilified us most. We addressed the positions of both governments and all parties who signed the GFA as they related to their public and private positions. Diametric claims were being made as to what exactly the GFA represented to extent that not all could be correct interpretations. For Sinn Fein the GFA represented a stepping stone to unity. Unionists saw it as a cementing of the border between North and South. Both governments were non committal as to where they would like to see the agreement develop. Once again the 32CSM submitted to all the parties a detailed analysis of our beliefs as to what the GFA represented and invited each party to offer theirs as well as refute our own. None of the parties or the governments responded to our engagement despite their stated position that dialogue was the only way forward. Clearly that position is as untruthful as it is prevalent.

In taking stock of all of this the 32CSM looked inward and chose honesty instead of false praise. We analysed our position with brutal frankness and reached the pertinent conclusion that we do not possess enough political strength to promote the political arguments we have to make. Moreover Irish republicanism itself does not possess enough political strength to impact on the current status quo irrespective of the eloquence of our arguments. We were being ignored rather than being engaged. Given the diversity which makes up the Republican Movement we concluded that an element of republican unity was essential for us at this stage. Whereas such an observation may seem glaringly obvious to the outsider the history of Irish republicanism made this prospect a daunting task. As with our approach to the general political scene the 32CSM laid out a format by which we would approach this difficult issue and acted within its remit. We looked at the following:

1.The grounds upon which Unity could be based?

2.The manner by which such grounds could be agreed?

3.What should united republicans do?

The 32CSM felt very strongly that the most obvious argument in favour of exploring republican unity was its necessity. Irrespective of any ideological difficulties our dire political circumstances should be a focal point for action. In order to facilitate the debate which was already happening in wider republican circles we drafted a discussion document simply entitled Republican Unity where we outlined in non committal and general terms how we believed republican unity should be perceived. Central to our position was that unity could only come about if all other perceptions were placed upon the table so that an open agenda could be held.
We followed up this discussion document with a proposal outlining a mechanism by which all republicans could enter into negotiations on an equal footing debating an agreed agenda. Called Preparing An Irish Democracy it called for the establishment of a National Constitutional Forum wherein republicans could draft a detailed blueprint of the free Ireland we envisaged. This blueprint would become the main interface between Irish republicans and the Irish people. It would keep the issue of Irish unity on the political agenda.

Progress was inevitably slow as people and groups were nervous to commit. But as the fruits of joint republican activity began to yield results this nervousness waned and discussion became more frequent and intense. Major issues like Policing and Bloody Sunday witnessed cross republican platforms where the various opinions and views were openly expressed. A highly successful Joint Commemoration of Wolfe Tone, the founder of modern Irish republicanism, was held in 2007 and other similar events are in the offing. It is a slow process but it is also an open process as the errors of the past, most notably the avoidance of elitist leaderships, are acutely learned from. The 32CSM remain at the forefront of this initiative as we see this development as essential for the development of republicanism in Ireland. Having put forward our ideas concerning the agenda for debate and devising a mechanism to allow that debate take place we finally submitted the official position of the 32CSM. Our National Executive put forward our proposal entitled Dismantling Partition to all republican groupings and urged them to draft their proposals so that the best way forward can be achieved. We look forward to their responses.

In conclusion I would like to once again impress upon you the very difficult position republicanism in Ireland finds itself in due primarily to the actions of former republican leaders. We are endeavouring to emerge from a situation which cannot be matched by any previous similar events save the introduction of partition itself. We know our history but we know that is not enough to help us surpass these difficulties. We know our position well and can articulate it but we know that is not enough either. The 32CSM have resolved that only through unified republican activism can the republican message be made heard. Addressing this conference is a part of that activism, as is protesting against a hostile media, as is protesting for the rights of republican prisoners as is protesting for the restoration of Irish sovereignty. There is much work to be done and the 32 County Sovereignty Movement has squared up to the task. Go raibh maith agat.

"The thistle rises and forever will" - MacDiarmid

NB - I am not the same person as the poster "Scottish republic".

Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 05, 2008 7:03 pm 
this is from the guys that did the Omagh bombing...hmmmmmmm :roll:

Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 05, 2008 8:29 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 8:28 pm
Posts: 22
Location: sassan
I think time will prove that the British state had a hand in the Omagh bombing. Certainly the Brit agent David Rupert knew a lot about its preperation.

you can kill the revolutionary but not the revolution

Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2008 8:29 am 
Geijersgatan 263
SE-102 29 Stockholm, Sweden

Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Copyright Siol nan Gaidheal © 2003-15

Newsnet Scotland