The "crash" of the Irish peace process saw the unionists assert yet again the demand for unconditional surrender by republiand this exposed the fundamental contradictions at the root of the process. Nationalist workers suddenly saw that the unionists were not a the unionist party, at least temmisunderstood culture but a gang of sectarian bigots asserting once again an agenda of domination no different from their traditional programme.
The republican leadership, who have based their whole peace strategy on the belief that British imperlalsu was now going to play a progressive role in Ireland, saw. British PM Blair arive a coach and four through the structure of the peace process to accommodate Unionism.
Republican militants who have been told time and again by the leadership that they would be judged by their Diage nevel Lu surrender arms; "not a bullet, not (of explosive)",, suddenly heard of a "seismic shift" in the republican policy which would lead to a timetable for the total surrender of weapons and an initial handover withın days of an executive being formed.
Anthony McIntyre (see article opposite) explains the problem well. Militants kept their eye on the bathwater as the baby - opposition to Stormont, the unionist veto and the British occupation were all thrown away.
The peace "crash" has united porarily, behind Trimble's leadership in restating, more firmly than ever, a rejection of the deal as it was originally formulated on Good Friday.
Of course, despite the "crash"
har peace process marches forPacification The peace process will continue because it is central to British strategy in Ireland. What is new is that it will now be more clearly seen for what it is - a process of pacification - and the question of resistance will be more clearly posed.
Opponents of the agreement have a window of opportunity if they can physically unite and organise in action around questions of democracy and repres sion not addressed by process and if they can endorse an alternative political Vision tor the working class.
The starting point for any new mobilisation must be the primacy of politics. It must offer a political critique of the peace process, democratic methods of political organisation for those wishing to oppose it and a programme of action counterposed to the surrender to imperialism that offers a convincing way forward.
The first question that will confront such a movement is the question of defence in the face of the marches and the persistent (and often ignored) terror campaign by loyalists, involving "ethnic cleansing" and murder with the collusion of the state forces.
Defence has to be political. It has to expose the responsibility of the British and state forces and make them pay.
Instead of building new state institutions we should be tearing them down, calling on nationalists to get out of Stormont and opposing collaboration between Dublin and the British, asserting the right of communities defend themselves, exposing the silence of trade unions, attempting to restrict the movement of the RUC.
resistance would be SUCW based on democratic mass campaigns opposed to diplomacy or secret decisions by the republiCall leaderships. We should assert democratic rights. for all, and resist the tendency built into the peace process to call for communal or cultural rights.
We should wage a consistent struggle to break out of the sectarian boundaries imposed by the British and, as part of that struggle, not concede that the front men of the death squads, such as the Progressive Unionist Party represent Protestant workers.
Part of that resistance to ghettoisation would be resistance to the nationalist family. The Dublin government and the SDLP do not support the disbanding of the RUC and that means that they are enemies of any consistent resistance, not members of it.
Democracy believes that to succeed the resistance movement has to go beyond republicanism and support working class demands. The only Eyes A column from Democracy, Irish section of the Fourth International coherent identity beyond the "two traditions" claptrap is membership of the Irish working class. That identity is not provided by the trade unions or existing political parties.
Both the trade unions and the "left" parties define workers' unity as deferring to loyalism and promoting partnership with the bosses.
Alongside a movement for the united defence of democratic rights, militants should build a revolutionary party of the working class to challenge the influence of loyalism, the attacks of and the betrayals of the trade union leaderships.
For those who break with the illusions of militarism the only available weapon to counter the force of imperialism is the potential strength of the Irish working class and the politics of socialism.