ANOTHER FALSE PEACE

The key element is their underlying acceptance of the unionist position by agreeing to go along with the outcome of the talks, based as they are on the unionist veto. Commentators were quick to point to Provisional spokespersons who are on record as saying that a united Ireland is not the only democratic option and that they may sign up to an “interim settlement”.

Republican Sinn Féin stated on July 18 that another Provisional ceasefire would “expose as never before the Provisionals’ reformist policy which seeks to make British rule in Ireland acceptable.”

Unlike other elements who opposed the Provo ceasefire this time although they equivocated on the issue in 1994, there was no hesitation by Republican Sinn Féin either in 1994 or on this occasion.

It is clear from Gerry Adams’ statement in the Irish News, (Belfast, July 17) that his organisation will seek a “renegotiation of the union” at the Stormont talks rather than British withdrawal from Ireland, that they seek only a New Stormont rather than a New Ireland free of British rule.

During the Provisionals’ earlier ceasefire Republican Sinn Féin said that it could not provide a just and lasting peace because it did not involve a process of British disengagement. Another false peace in July 1997 means that the British have secured new allies for the restructuring of their rule in Ireland.

The question also needs to be asked at this time: Will the Provisionals police their new ceasefire for the British government and have they given prior assurances to do so? This is particularly relevant given that Gerry Adams has said privately to Dublin establishment figures that he knows that the talks outcome will be a New Stormont with nationalist participation “at every level” and a new Six-County police force with nationalist involvement “at every level”. But he cannot say that publicly, yet . . .

This process has been and will continue to be heavily dependant on such partitionist fudges and ambivalences to try to convince Republicans and nationalists to go down such a constitutional nationalist dead end.

Indeed one commentator has characterised the endeavour of arguing for a united Ireland at the Stormont talks as like trying “to dig a tunnel to the moon”.

That the current process is built on sand was shown clearly during July by the British Labour government's capitulation (much more easily than the previous Major-Mayhew Tory administration) to loyalist threats over Drumcree.

The unionists can obviously repeat this performance at every critical stage with an equal assurance that the British will give way to them again.

Having once again lost the will to rule in the Six Counties, the British must get out in a planned, phased and orderly manner.

The only sure basis for the future lies in an nine-county Ulster within a four-province Irish federation free from British interference. No section of the Irish people would dominate any other in a situation of maximum local power.

In this issue

Letters to the editor