Following the start of the so-called peace process and the bombs in Manchester and Democracy, the sister organisation of Socialist Outlook in Ireland.
SO: Does the most recent spate of IRA bombings signal a break with the peace strategy?
PF: The bombings do not indicate that the republican movement has abandoned the peace strategy. The reasoning behind the Manchester bombing is to try and get Sinn Fein into the talks process on terms acceptable to the IRA, ie. inclusive talks without a surrender of weapons.
There are stresses and strains within the republican movement but as yet, no obvious split between the political arm and the military arm. A genuine break from the peace strategy would come in a much more dramatic and violent way, possibly with intemal leucing.
SO: How should social ists react to These latest bombings?
PF: We believe the tactic of armed struggle is counter-productive, though we uphold the basic revolutionary right of parties representing the oppressed to choose their own means of struggle.
We must point out to the republicans the utter futility of their bombs. But we do not join the pro-imperialist media-led campaigns that insist that only the IRA give up their right to use armed means. As revolutionaries we reject the suggestion that only the capitalist controlled state has a right to a monopoly on te use of force SO: Should socialists back Sinn Fein's demand to be included in allparty talks?
PF: Sinn Fein has as much right as any of the other parties to be included in the talks process. The party gained 15 per cent of the vote and this represents almost 42 per cent of the nationalist vote.
We should join with Sinn Fein in exposing the crass hypocrisy of the 'acceptable' parties which all claim to be non-violent. If the guiding principle for mance to mece malks was a recoro oi non-violence then there would be barely anyone left at the table.
Having acknowledged Sinn Fein's right to inclusion, we must argue strongly against Sinn Fein taking up that right.
Ine lalks process can nave only political outcome - the stabilising of a partitioned Ireland. That is what both Westminster and Dublin want.
At this political conjuncture Sinn Fein does not have enough weight to tilt the talks process in a 'progressive' direction.
The republicans would be compelled to accept an anti-republican agreement by the other parties talks Self-determination for the This could only result in a tragic Irish people is the only setback for the framework that would oppressed.
sue what is produce a democratic the likely tra jectory of the settlement.
talks process with or without Sinn Fein?
In the short term nothing is likely to develop out of the process. The Tory government doesn't want to make any strategic decisions on Ireland in the run-up to an election.
However a 'frame-work' for agreement between the British and Irish states is already in circulation — The 'Frameworks for Agreement', 1995.
The unionist parties have already denounced that agreement so it will have to be diluted to meet most of their objections. What will then be on offer will be portrayed as the 'only solution' on offer to Irish nationalists. They will be told to take it or risk going back to the "Trouoles It will be based on a stabilized partition; the Irish government will amend its sovereign claim over the whole of Ireland and a local assembly will be given low status powers to begin with. The hope is that the main unionist party will agree to work with the SDLP.
Sinn Fein and the Democratic Unionist Party will be kept out of the new arrangement until they moderate their opposition to this new improved Stormont.
The imperialist dream is of a peaceful conjuncture in which unionists may even to agree to operate some small-scale cross-border institutions.
The biggest obstacle to this schema is of course the reactionary essence of unionist politics. Unionist public opinion, as evidenced by the recent elections, is right. The unionists may refuse to have TaKS with the Dublin government and may refuse the SDLP a junior role within the executive level of local state The unionists can destroy the process, something which Sinn Fein cannot pull off.
SO: On what principled grounds should socialists oppose the prospeo tive solution now being prepared by the two governments?
PF: Self-determination for all of the Irish people is the only framework that The day after an IRA bomb would produce a democratic settlement. We object to the suggestion that it is up to the British state to decide the Iramework for Insh talks. The present talks have started out from a position of accepting partition and a guaranteed unionist veto over change. The imperialist inspired agreement being considered is merely 'improved' version of the old sectarian system. It Is not even a retormed union that is on offer. It cannot even guarantee a short-run period Unionist public of peace. mind a lasting neveT opinion is hardening peace The settlement on offer to the right, as is nothing but a evidenced by the dressed-up 1mpe election SO: How does the revolutionary left in Britain and Ireland respond to the 'peace process'? PF: Militant Labour has accelerated in its opportunist trajectory during the 'peace process'. They support the principle of consent championed by the the sectarian Unionist veto dressed up in democratic garb. Militant stood in the recent Assembly Socialist Outlook 105 • July 13 1996. Page 6 elections on the principle of consent. They hoped that their two 'labour' candidates might be elected to an assembly with a massive unionist majority.
Even though they acknowledged socialist representatives would be nelpiess in sucn an a assembly, tney sull demanded 'real powers be devolved to the Assembly, something even the ultra-loyalisis don't demand.
Militant reacted furiously to the breakdown of the IRA ceasefire. They nave been organising a strident political campaign against the threat of more IRA violence 'No Going Back'.
The SWP began by saying they would stand by the slogan 'for the peace but against the process' yet when the IRA ceasefire ended, they broke from being opposed to the talks process and pleaded for Sinn Fein to be allowed into the talks.
They refused to warn Sinn Fein about the reactionary trajectory of the talks because they were afraid of being seen to be against peace.
It is tragic that the largest currents on the British left have been exposed during the peace process as singularly unable to stand the test ot te and • the acid test tor British revolutionaries.