IRSP opposes current talks - not peace

Right of reply exercised by Paul Little, press officer of the IRSP

IN the Irish News leader column of December 31 1997 your paper indicated that in the wake of the killing of Billy Wright and Seamus Dillon the "only way forward is through the political process". You also stated that both men were "victims of a political situation which has blighted this country for generations", and that we need to focus on the things that unite us and eradicate the things which divide us and "that can only be done through the political process".

The IRSP, to the surprise of some (but not your newspaper, as it received a statement giving the IRSP position on the "peace process" on December 29), concur with those sentiments. But then if a political party is demonised, censured, marginalised, and excluded, its views distorted and politics suppressed, then is it any wonder that there is almost total ignorance about what the Republican Socialist movement is about.

The Irish Republican Socialist Party does not speak for the INLA but it does have an insight into its thinking. Since 1994 when the first Provisional ceasefire was declared, the IRSP has provided its political analysis of the situation to the INLA. This political analysis led the INLA to adopt a position of "defence and retaliation" and committed itself to a no-first-strike policy - a policy that it has adhered to. This went unacknowledged as unionism and loyalism engaged in a campaign of sectarian killings, intimidation and forced evictions particularly around the time of Drumcree marks 1-2-3.

The IRSP, as part of its long term political strategy, sought dialogue with other political parties, governments and other interested parties. We made specific proposals to the Irish Labour Party in face-to-face talks. They failed to respond to those proposals. We sought to play a role in the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation. This was rejected.

We made at least three requests for dialogue with the political representatives of loyalism out of the glare of publicity. They refused to meet with us. In August 1997 they refused to even stay in the same building as IRSP delegates at the Glencree Reconciliation Centre. We were marginalised by all sides to the so called "peace process". We were barred and excluded from contesting elections to the forum from which the participants to the talks process are exclusively drawn. We said then that "those who are part of the problem had to be part of the solution".

Earlier this month at this year's Ard Fheis the party had an open and democratic debate about the politics of the so called "peace process". Also, the IRSP passed a motion calling on the INLA to take no direct action against the "peace process".

The IRSP believe in and have a strategy for peace in Ireland. It has been in the main the working classes who have borne the brunt of Britain's occupation of Ireland. Peace based on justice, democracy and human rights is something that the IRSP strive towards.

But the current talks process at Stormont is not about that. The so-called confidence-building measures such as the transfer of political prisoners, the removal of some British troops from certain areas and the doing away with the power of internment (it can still be brought back overnight) are what should have been done years ago and have nothing to do with the talks process. Since when did issues of civil and human rights become political bargaining chips?

The RUC remain a paramilitary force dedicated to maintaining the union. Political prisoners are still in jail, nationalists continue to be killed or forced from their homes by loyalist murder gangs, the unionists have made it clear that the union is not up for negotiation, the loyalist ceasefires disintegrated a long time ago and even when they did exist were conditional on there being no change to the union.

The British government have made human rights and equality trade offs for the pacification of republican resistance, and the assimilation of some republicans into the body politic of the northern state.

The Dublin government has been selective in who it talks to, how it treats political prisoners, and has conceded the nationalist position before the outcome of the talks is even on the distant horizon. The outcome of the talks if they go the full distance is known. A reformed power-sharing Stormont with institutional but cosmetic links with the 26 Counties, the strengthening of the union and the abandonment of Articles 2 & 3.

The reason violence exists as a political weapon is because of the continuation of British rule. We agree with the Irish News that dialogue is the key to the way forward.

We are opposed to the current process exactly because it will not deliver a political solution and therefore peace, not because we oppose peace.

As part of our political strategy we are committed to have dialogue with other parties. The facts are that the current process does not allow that dialogue to take place. How can dialogue take place if there is exclusion being practised by both governments?

We remain convinced that Britain needs to fully acknowledge the role it has played in Ireland. Furthermore Britain should immediately implement full equal and human rights in the north. That would create the climate whereby all could adhere to unconditional ceasefires.

Until then, spurious calls by the media for the Republican Socialist movement to get involved in the political process and hypocritical hand wringing by political leaders in Stormont are little more than fancy words.

I have laid out the various attempts the IRSP has made to engage in dialogue with all participants to the conflict here: most have been rejected.