Ein Händedruck

Uschi Grandel (Info Nordirland/Baskenland) 27.06.2012 11:56 Themen: Medien Repression Soziale Kämpfe Weltweit

Martin McGuinness, langjähriges Führungsmitglied der irisch-republikanischen Partei Sinn Féin trifft heute die englische Königin in Nordirland. Er ist damit das erste Führungsmitglied von Sinn Féin, das sich mit einer britischen Monarchin trifft. Das Medienecho ist enorm. Aber kaum ein Kommentar beschreibt die Hintergründe. Denn eigentlich geht es gar nicht um die Queen.

Martin McGuinness, langjähriges Führungsmitglied der irisch-republikanischen Partei Sinn Féin trifft heute die englische Königin in Nordirland. Er ist damit das erste Führungsmitglied von Sinn Féin, das sich mit einer britischen Monarchin trifft. Das Medienecho ist enorm. Aber kaum ein Kommentar beschreibt die Hintergründe. Denn eigentlich geht es gar nicht um die Queen.

Die englische Königin bereist Nordirland aus Anlass ihres 60-jährigen Thronjubiläums. Sie trifft dort auf viele loyale und begeisterte Untertanen und auf viele Gegner, die Irland lieber heute als morgen frei von britischer Herrschaft sehen würden.

Das hat historische Gründe. Im Jahre 1920 hatte Großbritannien den nordöstlichen Zipfel Irlands abgespalten und zum Teil des Vereinigten Königreichs erklärt, um wenigstens den wirtschaftlich und militärisch bedeutenden Nordosten nicht an die irische Freiheitsbewegung zu verlieren. Seitdem herrscht die englische Königin über das "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - das Vereinigte Königreich aus Großbritannien und Nordirland". Der nordirische Friedensprozess hat die weitere Zugehörigkeit Nordirlands zum Vereinigten Königreich vom Willen seiner Bevölkerung abhängig gemacht. Das entsprechende Abkommen, das sogenannte Karfreitagsabkommen, wurde 1998 auch von Großbritannien unterschrieben.

Die brutale Gewalt, mit der England über viele Jahrzehnte hinweg versuchte, seinen Herrschaftsanspruch über Nordirland aufrechtzuerhalten, machte immer wieder auch international Schlagzeilen. Der 30. Januar 1972 wurde als Bloody Sunday, als "Blutsonntag", bekannt. an diesem Tag tötete britisches Militär 14 unbewaffnete Demonstranten in der nordirischen Stadt Derry. Nach einer jahrzehntelangen Kampagne der Familien der Opfer gegen die staatliche Mär vom Kampf gegen Terroristen musste Großbritannien die Wahrheit zu guter Letzt einräumen und der britische Premierminister David Cameron entschuldigte sich öffentlich.

Bei vielen anderen Massakern führen Spuren nach Großbritannien und direkt oder indirekt nach Downing Street 10, zum Sitz der britischen Regierung. So auch im Falle des Massakers in Loughinisland. Loyalisten stürmten in das Lokal und eröffneten Feuer auf die Anwesenden der Heights Bar in Loughinisland im nordirischen County Down, die an diesem 18. Juni 1994 das Worldcup-Spiel Irland-Italien ansahen, das im Giant's Stadion in New York ausgetragen wurde. Sie töteten sechs Männer und verwundeten fünf weitere Besucher des Pubs schwer. Letzte Woche, am 18. Juni 2012 trug die irische Mannschaft im Spiel der Europameisterschaft Irland-Italien eine schwarze Armbinde, um an dieses unaufgeklärte Massaker vor genau 18 Jahren zu erinnern.

Als Loyalisten bezeichnet sich ein Teil der Bevölkerung Irlands, der sich aus historischen Gründen als loyal zur britischen Krone empfindet. Loyalisten waren vielfach (manche sind immer noch) fanatische Protestanten, deren Glauben und politische Einstellung sich zu blindem Hass auf alles irische und katholische verband. Die Oranier Orden erzeugten, lenkten und förderten diesen Hass und so kamen aus loyalistischen Vierteln über Jahrhunderte willige Todesschwadronen, die zur Verteidigung der englischen Krone ihre Landsleute ermordeten.

Man kennt diese Art von Hilfstruppen auch aus anderen Kolonialkonflikten. Das Prinzip "Spalte und herrsche" dient nicht nur der Schwächung der Freiheitsbewegungen, sondern auch der Verschleierung der Ursachen des Konflikts. So schreibt die Süddeutsche Zeitung beispielsweise in ihrer heutigen Ausgabe unter dem Titel "Königsweg - Elisabeth II. reicht ehemaligem IRA-Führer die Hand": "Der Handschlag zeugt also vom dramatischen Wandel in Nordirland. Seit dem Ende der 1960er Jahre tobt dort ein Bürgerkrieg zwischen katholischen Republikanern, die für eine Wiedervereinigung mit der Republik Irland kämpften, und protestantischen, pro-britischen Loyalisten." (SZ vom 27.6.2012)

Der Krieg in Nordirland war kein Bürgerkrieg zwischen Republikanern und Loyalisten, sondern eine bewaffnete Auseinandersetzung zwischen der irisch-republikanischen Bewegung mit der IRA als bewaffneter Organisation und dem britischen Staat mit seinem Militär, seiner Polizei, seinen Geheimdiensten, seinem Staatsapparat und auch den Loyalisten, deren paramilitärische Todesschwadronen von britischen Geheimdiensten mit Waffen und Informationen versorgt wurden. Oft legten britische Führungsoffiziere oder Agenten sogar das Mordopfer fest, wie zum Beispiel im Fall des ermordeten irischen Rechtsanwalts Pat Finucane.

Und warum nun der Handschlag?

Eigentlich geht es gar nicht um die Königin. Für die irisch-republikanische Bewegung ist eine der Hauptaufgaben auf dem Weg zu einer neuen gesamtirischen Gesellschaft die Demokratisierung Nordirlands, d.h. der Kampf um Bürgerrechte in einem ehemals militärisch bis an die Zähne hochgerüsteten Überwachungsstaat. Dazu gehört der Konfliktlösungsprozess und der Kampf um die loyalistische (und unionistische) Bevölkerung.

In einem Interview, das auf Info Nordirland in deutscher Übersetzung vorliegt, erklärt Sinn Féin Präsident Gerry Adams das Treffen von Martin McGuinness mit der englischen Königin in diesem Zusammenhang:

wir "... bemühen uns um demokratische Verhältnisse (in Nordirland), eine unabdingbare Grundlage für ein Ende der Teilung Irlands, für ein vereinigtes Irland. Wir wollen einen bestimmten Typ eines vereinigten Irlands, eine Republik, in der alle Bürger gleich behandelt werden. Unionisten müssen wir für diese Konzepte gewinnen. Wir hören den Unionisten zu, wir reden mit ihnen, sie reden über ihr Verständnis von Identität. Wir müssen uns gegenseitig verstehen. Wir sind nicht viele, die Unionisten sind ein bedeutender Teil von uns. Ist es möglich, Ire und Unionist zu sein? Ist es möglich, Brite zu sein, und sich unter seinen Nachbarn trotzdem wohlzufühlen? Wir versuchen, auf sie zuzugehen.

Hier haben wir nun Martin McGuinnes. Er ist ganz klar ein überzeugter, langjähriger Republikaner, klar in seiner Haltung gegen die Teilung Irlands. Er kämpfte sein Leben lang im Widerstand. Und er ist bereit, jemandem, den wir nicht als Oberhaupt unseres Staates akzeptieren, aber den einige unserer unionistischen Nachbarn als solches akzeptieren, - im Kontext von alledem - die Hand zu reichen. Damit ist das eine Geste, symbolisch, die etwas Raum schafft und zeigt, dass wir ernsthaft tun, was wir über Konfliktlösung sagen, über den Aufbau unserer Nation, über den ganzen Prozess der nationalen Versöhnung. Ohne diesen Versöhnungsprozess, der die Menschen zusammenbringt, ist Einheit ist unmöglich.

Deshalb ist das eine sehr bedeutende Initiative and ich hoffe, dass sie die Entwicklung hin zu dem Tag beschleunigt, an dem sich Orange und Grün vereinen. Und ich rufe alle Sinn Féin Mitglieder und Aktivisten, sowie alle Republikaner auf, diese Initiative zu unterstützen. Jeder, der der Überzeugung ist, dass wir selbst unsere Zukunft gestalten müssen, sollte die Möglichkeiten nutzen, die sich aus dieser Initiative ergeben, um sich für eine bessere Gesellschaft zu engagieren. Denn alle Menschen auf dieser Insel verdienen eine bessere Gesellschaft als die, die wir gegenwärtig haben. (Orange und Grün: die zwei Farben der irischen Fahne werden oft als Ausdruck der beiden Traditionen interpretiert: "Orange" steht für den Unionismus, "Green" für den irischen Republikanismus) ..."

Vollständiges Interview mit Gerry Adams: "Martin McGuinness trifft englische Königin"- Interview mit Sinn Féin Präsident Gerry Adams

Martin McGuinness ist Hauptredner der Gedenkveranstaltung am Ostersonntag 2012 in Stranorlar am Drumboe Monument im County Donegal. Gedacht wird der Toten des Osteraufstands von 1916 gegen die britische Besatzung.

Creative Commons-Lizenzvertrag Dieser Inhalt ist unter einer
Creative Commons-Lizenz lizenziert.
Indymedia ist eine Veröffentlichungsplattform, auf der jede und jeder selbstverfasste Berichte publizieren kann. Eine Überprüfung der Inhalte und eine redaktionelle Bearbeitung der Beiträge finden nicht statt. Bei Anregungen und Fragen zu diesem Artikel wenden sie sich bitte direkt an die Verfasserin oder den Verfasser.
(Moderationskriterien von Indymedia Deutschland)

Ergänzungen

Republican groups criticise handshake

Leser 28.06.2012 - 11:34
 http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0628/1224318892319.html

REACTION: THE MEETING between Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness and Queen Elizabeth II has been sharply criticised by republican groups opposed to the political settlement in Northern Ireland.

The Republican Network for Unity, which previously expressed a willingness to take part in talks with Sinn Féin, said the handshake with the British monarch made such contact impossible.

In a statement, the network said: “The decision of the Sinn Féin leadership to meet the English queen during her Belfast jubilee visit defies all republican logic.”

The statement added: “Martin McGuinness’s decision to give recognition to the English monarch’s place in Irish politics by shaking her hand, deliberately puts clear blue water between his party and the feelings of all genuine republican and socialist activists.”

Under its current leadership, Sinn Féin had “embarked down an undeniable counter-revolutionary road”.

Republican Sinn Féin said a picket it staged at Belfast City Hall yesterday was “in protest against the visit of the commander-in-chief of the British army, the Queen of England, to the occupied six counties”. It said the organisation was happy to see there was opposition not just to the visit but to Mr McGuinness’s action “in shaking the hand of the British queen while her troops remain on Irish soil”.

Republic Sinn Féin’s president Des Dalton said: “The next step for the Provisionals will of course be to sit in the British parliament at Westminster. Their protestations to the contrary ring increasingly hollow.”

The general secretary of Éirigí (Arise), Breandán Mac Cionnaith, said: “Meeting with and recognising Elizabeth Windsor as head of the British state in Ireland is but another step along the disreputable path of reformism.”

McGuinness und Loyalisten Hand in Hand

Niemand 28.06.2012 - 11:51
 http://www.irsp.ie/news/?p=928

IRSP Activists At Scene Of Attack On Belfast Mountain Anti-Royal Protest

IRSP activists arrived on the scene following news that Republicans who had erected a giant Irish national flag on Belfast mountain had been attacked by Loyalists. Republicans had erected the giant Irish flag in protest at the visit to Ireland by the figurehead of British imperialism.

The attack on the peaceful Republican protest resulted in at least one Republican being hospitalised. His condition in hospital is not known at this time. At present several PSNI/British army helicopters are harassing the mountainside anti-royalist protesters flying repeatedly over the area and a fleet of PSNI/RUC armoured jeeps and armoured cars are making their way to the area.

The situation is ongoing.

RSF Erklärung

http://www.irish-solidarity.net 28.06.2012 - 11:59
Treffen zwischen Queen und McGuinness verurteilt

Belfast/Dublin – Im Zuge der Feierlichkeiten des 60-jährigen Thronjubiläums ist die englische Königin derzeit in Irland zu Besuch. Die republikanische Partei Republican Sinn Féin hat dazu für Mittwoch, 27. Juni, Proteste im Stadtzentrum von Belfast angekündigt.


Der Vize-Präsident von RSF, Fergal Moore, erklärte zu dem Protest: „Der Besuch der englischen Königin ist ein weiterer Versuch, die britische Herrschaft in Irland zu normalisieren. Doch britische Herrschaft in Irland kann niemals normalisiert werden, das zeigen alleine die derzeitigen Proteste der republikanischen Gefangenen in Maghaberry und politische Geiselnahmen, wie jene von Marian Price und Martin Corey und die tausenden britischen Soldaten, die in Irland stationiert sind.“


Er fuhr fort: „Republican Sinn Féin ruft alle irischen Republikaner auf, die Proteste gegen die Oberbefehlshaberin der britischen Armee zu unterstützen, solange auch nur ein Teil Irlands besetzt bleibt. Der Norden Irlands ist kein Teil des britischen Empire! Dies zu behaupten ist eine Verletzung des Kampfes all jener, die für Irlands Freiheit ihr Leben gelassen haben.“


Bereits vergangene Wochen nahmen an einem Marsch gegen den Besuch der Queen laut irischem Staatsfernsehen RTÉ weit über 1.000 Person teil.


Zum geplanten Besuch des vermuteten ehemaligen Oberbefehlshabers des Nördlichen Kommandos der IRA, Martin McGuinness, erklärte der Präsident von Republican Sinn Féin, Des Dalton: „Das Treffen zwischen Martin McGuinness und der englischen Königin ist nur eine symbolische Bestätigung der Realitäten, nämlich, dass die ehemaligen Republikaner von Provisional Sinn Féin Teil der britischen Verwaltung in Irland sind. Für die einfachen Menschen in Irland hat sich nichts geändert, so ist etwa die Internierung ohne Haftbefehl weiterhin ein Instrument im britische besetzten Landesteil.“


„Der nächste Schritt der Provisionals wird sein, im englischen Unterhaus in Westminster zu sitzen. Doch wahre irische Republikaner werden auf das Schärfste gegen den Besuch der englischen Königin protestieren. Sie führt den Staat, der Irland weiterhin geteilt und besetzt hält. Nur ein vollständiger Rückzug bietet die Grundlage für ein gerechtes und friedliches Neues Irland.“


Das Treffen zwischen McGuinness und der englischen Königin wurde auch von vielen ehemaligen Mitgliedern der Provisional IRA scharf kritisiert. So erklärte der ehemalige politische Gefangene Anthony McIntyre im Manchester Guardian, McGuinness würde so „die Souveränität der englischen Herrschaft akzeptieren“.


Das ehemalige Provisional-IRA-Gründungsmitglied Laurence O’Neill bezeichnete McGuinness in seiner Rede auf einer republikanischen Gedenkveranstaltung am vergangenen Sonntag in Süd-Armagh als „Judas“. Er betonte vor hunderten Republikanern, der jahrzehntelange Kampf der Republikanischen Bewegung wurde nicht für eine bessere Teilung Irlands gefochten.



Republican Network for Unity

www.republicannetwork.ie 28.06.2012 - 12:01
Queen handshake makes talks impossible

The decision of the Sinn Fein leadership to meet the English queen during her Belfast jubilee visit defies all republican logic.

Firstly, any presumption that a handshake with an unelected Monarch is necessary to show goodwill towards the Protestants of the north goes against even the most basic Original republican teachings, in which Tone, McCracken and other Protestant leaders identified fiercely with the principles of equality, liberty and fraternity.

Elizabeth Windsor is a privileged and pampered English aristocrat ,apparently granted Sovereign power by God himself, to suggest that Irish Protestants can only find a sense of Identity through Loyalty to such a figure is an insult to both them and the generations of activists who have fought to reverse this stereotyped notion of the ‘Ulster protestant’.

Let us not forget, in the midst of this state sponsored feel good factor, that Elizabeth Windsor is the Commander in Chief of the British armed forces who continue to occupy six counties of Ireland using the most foul and underhand tactics.

Marian Price, Martin Corey, Gerry McGeough and many others currently languish in prison as a direct legacy of these foul tactics, crimes which Martin McGuiness is helping to paint over by performing his role in a Royal pageant, an exercise in normalisation if ever we experienced one.

Martin McGuiness’ decision to give recognition to the English Monarch’s place in Irish politics by shaking her hand ,deliberately puts clear blue water between his party and the feelings of all genuine republican and socialist activists. During this time of savage austerity, mass poverty, unemployment and homelessness, surely even Martin McGuiness would understand the protest value of a ‘first minister’ refusing to meet the monarch of the state he serves?

Nevertheless, in the name of Sinn Fein, Martin will push ahead and so give comfort to defenders of privilege everywhere. In doing so he will demonstrate that his party under its current leadership has embarked down an undeniable counter revolutionary road.

This being the case, any remaining merit in speaking or debating with the Sinn Fein leadership regarding the way forward for political struggle has been lost.

RNU recently stated that they would speak to anybody genuine about perusing political struggle in Ireland, the Sinn Fein leadership by their recent decision have called into question the sincerity of that organisation in that task.

As a consequence there is now little or no appetite within Republican Network for Unity for holding future talks with the Sinn Fein leadership.

We will still however, endevour to debate and discuss with the Sinn Fein grass roots.

32 CSM

http://www.derry32csm.com 28.06.2012 - 12:03
Peaceful protest by Belfast Republicans attacked by Loyalists

Belfast Republicans united to display a successful message on Black Mountain in protest at the visit of the Commander in chief of the British armed forces, Elizabeth Windsor.


The message consisted of an Irish National flag some 120ft x 60 ft and the words "Eriu is our Queen" which was made up of letters spelled out some 30ft high.


The message could be seen on the mountain from near and far across Belfast and was followed by demands from Unionist politicians for RUC/PSNI intervention to remove the articles stating that they could constitute a breach of the peace.


Shortly after the calls from the politicos, a RUC/PSNI helicopter was deployed to the mountain and it subsequently hovered closely over the message trying to blow it off the mountain with the downdraft of the rotors.


Having failed to remove the message the helicopter turned away as a large crowd of Loyalists armed with hatchets, hammers and other implements and attacked some of those manning the flag.One man, a former blanketman was savagely beaten with the weapons sustaining serious injuries and was subsequently removed to hospital.


Below is a couple of messages from the scene:


Following todays incursion into west belfast by royalist extremists some of our comrades have been hospitalised. We appeal to all right thinking republicans to help us reject this royalist celebration. While others are shaking hands with a foreign invader, true republicans have been beaten with hatchets, knives and left hospitalised. What happened to the Ireland of equals that we were promised? This is more evidence that just as in 69. This is a british colony for british people and Irish people will be subjected to the harsh reality that they are not welcome in their own land.


------------------------


Yesterday ,I was left with the task of organising some things from below the mountain, we had most of the day a heavy RUC interest including helicopters, right up until the attack, the RUC were overheard saying "IT must at least be a breach of the peace" they were obviously smarting that Irish Republicans had the audacity to fly our flag and declare the Ireland is Our Queen.
just before the attack the RUC left the area and didnt return, even after the world got news of the attack, as we hurridly made our way up the mountain dozens of young men from our community offered to help and in a co-ordinated effort the bravery of these young men in chasing the attackers secured the Tricolour ,to be reinstated.
It then became evident that a number of people had been injured,some serious injuries ,with one man( An ex-blanketman) left with severe injuries inluding broken ribs and jaw and multiple cuts after he was carried from the scene he was rushed to hospital, the measure of the man was that he said" thank God it was me and not some kid".
Today we appeal to all Republicans to join us on the mountain and unfurl Our flag declaring once again that " Ireland is our Queen" bring along as many Tricolours as possible and as large as possible and transfom the Black mountain to Green White and Orange.
show these bigots that were are proud Irish Republicans ,Unbowed and Unbroken.
We call on everyone to come today and assemble at the top of the Whiterock at 8am, but people are welcome to come and go throughout the day.
Eriu is our Queen


-----------------------


Following the attack, Loyalists who took part photographed themselves with their weapons on the mountain and felt comfortable enough to share around social networking sites comfortable in the knowledge that action will not be taken against them.


It is abundantly clear that the shared space and parity of esteem is a one way street.As has gone before, Loyalist/Unionist politicians call for the Irish flag to be removed and this gets followed by security force operations to do just that up to a point where they remove themselves immediately preceding Loyalist attacks on Republicans.


Loyalist paramilitary flags fly from every second lamppost in areas throughout the occupied 6 counties without intervention no matter who feels aggrieved or insulted by them yet the flying or display of the Irish National flag is as much a bug bear to the crown forces as it was in the 1960's when Ian Paisley demanded the RUC removal of one Irish national flag in a nationalist area in Belfast.


This is your Stormont/Westminster shared space.This is your parity of esteem.


Internment reintroduced! Irishmen tortured in British gaols! Miscarriages of Justice! Dirty protests! Human rights abuses! Political policing and political apartheid!


If you harbour an Irish Republican ideology this is what can be expected.

.

. 28.06.2012 - 12:45
Plakat gegen Queenbesuch

Erklärung éirígí’

http://www.eirigi.org/ 28.06.2012 - 12:58
Mac Cionnaith responds to announcement of SF/British queen meeting

éirígí’s Rúnaí Ginearálta Breandán Mac Cionnaith has responded to the decision by the Sinn Féin leadership to endorse a meeting with the British queen, Elizabeth Windsor, commander-in-chief of Britain’s armed forces.

Mac Cionnaith said, “The decision by Sinn Féin to meet with the British queen is not in the least unsurprising, unanticipated or unexpected. However, that decision needs to be examined in a broader context.

“The Sinn Féin leadership previously took the strategic decision to gradually and consciously move that party away from its former role as a vanguard of the anti-imperialist struggle in Ireland. That leadership has also proven itself, in recent times, to be a willing ally of modern neo-con imperialists by assisting the undermining and subversion of anti-imperialist liberation struggles in other countries.

“One calculated outworking of that strategic decision in domestic terms has been the unprecedented acceptance and copper-fastening of partition by that party, and its consent to continuing British government control over part of Ireland, to such an extent that the party is now a willing and integral participant in operating the mechanics of partition and injustice.

“Paying lip-service to demands by families of British state violence for justice and truth while simultaneously acting as a prop for maintaining British injustice has now become one of the hall-marks of the Sinn Féin party.

“The reality of the unchanged nature of British control and the inefficacy of the Sinn Féin approach was highlighted on Monday (June 18th) when incontrovertible proof in the form of official British government documents revealed how, in July 1972, the state at the highest levels officially sanctioned the use of deadly force by its troops against Irish citizens and ensured that members of the Crown forces would receive indemnity from prosecution.

“Further evidence that the 1972 policy is not a mere “legacy issue” but an ongoing and central part of current British policy was demonstrated by the revelation on Wednesday (June 20th) that the British government had rejected a request by the families of the victims of the Ballymurphy Massacre for a public inquiry into those state murders.

“Sinn Féin has also moved away from its working class base and from any semblance of even a thin veneer of socialist politics to a position where it can freely and frequently advocate and ally itself with the interests of the domestic and international business and financial communities.

“It has consistently proved to be a willing tool in the imposition of private finance initiatives and the implementation of the British government’s austerity measures which penalise the young, the old, the sick, the unemployed and those workers on low wages. At the same time, that party has the audacity to hypocritically criticise other parties in the 26 Counties for implementing exactly the same policies at the behest of the Troika.

“In many respects, Sinn Féin today is mirroring and replicating the gradual and total abandonment of core Irish republican ideals in very much the same manner as was practiced by Fianna Fáil in its early history.

“Given that Sinn Féin has decided to target Fianna Fáil’s electoral constituency in the Twenty-Six Counties, it should be no surprise for anyone to learn that Sinn Féin’s current primary objective is to re-create and re-brand itself as some sort of 21st century version of Fianna Fáil with all that particular and discredited political direction entails.

“Meeting with and recognising Elizabeth Windsor as head of the British state in Ireland is but another step along the disreputable path of reformism and one more premeditated and calculated step further away from the revolutionary goal of establishing a free, sovereign and socialist Republic in Ireland.

“But then nothing else could ever be expected from a party which, when correctly politically analysed, amounted only to a modern form of old Catholic ‘defenderism’ and militant nationalist hibernianism.”

.

. 28.06.2012 - 16:05
Noch ein Bild :-)

Zeitungsartikel

. 28.06.2012 - 22:24
Artikel zu den Angriffen gegen Demonstranten gegen den Queen-Besuch

Irish Freedom Committee (USA)

www.irishfreedom.net 28.06.2012 - 22:36
From a pragmatic point of view it should not be much a surprise that Martin McGuinness, the deputy first minister in the Stormont Administration would meet with and pay his respects to England’s Queen Elizabeth. After all the Queen is the head of state of the United Kingdom that, under the current arrangement, claims sovereignty over the six occupied Irish counties, therefore, to all intent and purposes she is Martin’s boss who pays his salary and keeps him safe.

The Stormont Administration implements British government mandates and policies in the six occupied Irish counties.

Martin and his cohort Gerry Adams have covertly and overtly been serving British interests in Ireland for over thirty years. Their metamorphosis from so-called “republicans” in the early 1970’s to servants of the Queen was gradual and practically indiscernible at the onset.

For Irish Republicans familiar with British tactics in dealing with insurgencies it was not surprising that McGuinness and Adams were targeted by British intelligence as potential allies. Their lack of conviction with respect to national aspirations coupled with an avid desire for wealth and acceptance were the same traits the British successfully exploited in recruiting touts from within the ranks of insurgents down through the centuries, not alone in Ireland, but elsewhere throughout the world.

In essence the British concluded that McGuinness and Adams recalcitrance was sectarian in nature, therefore, could be dealt on "carrot and stick" basis.

For thirty plus years McGuinness and Adams followed the game plan devised by their British handlers and were rewarded accordingly. In that regard they had a fair amount of success, however, they failed to deliver the main prize; a subdued and compliant “Ulster Province” that would ensure the survival of the United Kingdom as presently construed. In order to accomplish that the duo would have to deliver the Republican movement, lock, stock and barrel, to the high altar of the British imperial establishment.

That they failed to do. After fifteen years of trying, the only thing the duo managed to deliver was a bunch of sectarian thugs who, in order to survive, had attached themselves to the Republican movement like barnacles to a ships hull.

As the script was supposed to go; the last act in the saga would be the “handshake” a gesture to show the world that the Republican movement was at last defeated, the United Kingdom was no longer endangered and the world was a safer place thanks to McGuinness and Adams -- faithful servants of the realm.

Händedruck Teil der Strategie von Sinn Fein

Uschi 29.06.2012 - 08:32

Im Wesentlichen sind die oben abgedruckten „Ergänzungen“ Diffamierungen von Martin McGuinness und Sinn Fein. Sie beurteilen nicht die Strategie von Sinn Fein, die zu diesem Händedruck geführt hat. Deshalb hier nochmal ein paar Fakten und Links zur Strategie der irisch-republikanischen Bewegung.

Sinn Fein hat eine kohärente und bisher erfolgreiche Strategie für ein Vereinigtes Irland und eine neue Gesellschaft in Irland. Als einen der zentralen Punkte sieht Sinn Fein die Gewinnung der progressiven Teile des Loyalismus / Unionismus.

Für alle, die wenig über loyalistische Stadtviertel in Nordirland wissen: es gibt diese progressiven Kräfte im Loyalismus. Entstanden sind Kontakte bereits in den 70er Jahren, Hauptsächlich durch Frauennetzwerke. Republikanische Frauen haben viel politische Aufbauarbeit in loyalistischen Communities geleistet. Ach ja, in den 30er Jahren gab es eine IRA-Brigade auf der loyalistischen Shankill Road. Gemeinsame Streiks (loyalistisch und republikanisch) haben bei den reaktionären nordirischen Machthabern Alarmglocken schrillen lassen. Was haben sie gemacht? Die Karte des anti-katholischen und anti-irischen Rassismus (nennt man in Nordirland Sectarianism) gezogen, und versucht, die loyalistischen Viertel in diesem Geiste zu erziehen. Wie geht man damit um? Die Gesprächs- und Respektoffensive von Sinn Fein gegenüber loyalistischer Identität versucht, diese Barriere zu stürmen, um den Dialog auszuweiten. Welche Rezepte haben die Gruppen, die oben so vehement SF bekämpfen? Ich habe noch keine gehört.

SF hat ihre Position zum „Handshake“ in über 40 Veranstaltungen in Irland im Vorfeld zur Debatte gestellt. Tausende erfahrene irisch-republikanische Aktivistinnen und Aktivisten haben das Thema hart diskutiert. Martin McGuinness hat diese Entscheidung umgesetzt. Das ist mutig und zeigt ihn auch hier als den Kämpfer, der er seit Jahrzehnten war und ist.

Zur Strategie der Irisch-Republikanischen Bewegung:

(1) Den aktuellen Newsletter von SF (Ausgabe Frühjahr/Sommer 2012): weiterlesen >>

(2) Ein Gespräch mit Pat Sheehan (August 2010): als ehemaliges Mitglied der IRA kämpfte er gegen die britische Herrschaft in Nordirland und für ein vereinigtes Irland. Am Hungerstreik von 1981, in dem Bobby Sands und neun weitere irisch-republikanische Gefangene starben, war er ebenfalls beteiligt. Er hungerte 55 Tage und überlebte nur knapp. weiterlesen >>

(3) Zur Haltung bezüglich der nordirischen Polizei: "Bericht vom Sonderparteitag Sinn Féins zum Thema "Polizei und Justiz" (29. Januar 2007) "Überwältigende Mehrheit für Einmischung in die Polizei" weiterlesen >>

@Uschi

. 29.06.2012 - 10:00
Im wesentlichen zeigen diese Ergänzungen, dass die von dir propagierte "Einheit und Zustimmung der Republikaner" zur "Strategie" von Sinn Fein erheblichen Widerspruch erfährt.

Und es zeigt eben noch mehr. Der irische Republikanismus ist in seiner Geschichte mit bestimmten Prinzipien verbunden. Dazu gehört zum Beispiel auch eine Nichtanerkennung der britischen Monarchie. Nur, weil Sinn Fein die eigene Strategie ändert, ändert das nichts am Republikanismus.

Es ist dir freigestellt, die Politik von Sinn Fein zu unterstützen. Bitte. Was du daraus ziehst, wenn du eine Entwaffnung und Entradikalisierung ehemals progressiver Bewegung wie in Irland oder dem Baskenland unterstützt, bleibt ebenfalls dir überlassen. Eine Abschaffung kapitalistischer Gewaltverhältnisse ist damit nicht zu erreichen.

Mit der Anerkennung der britischen Polizei in den six counties durch Sinn Fein und der Anerkennung der Queen durch McGuinness wurde eben auch die britische Herrschaft über einen Teil Irlands anerkannt. Und sei es - wie du es nennst - als Teil einer langfristigen Strategie.

Aber im Gegensatz zu deiner Interpretation ist das eben keine "Erneuerung" oder "Anpassung" des irischen Republikanismus sondern KEIN Republikanismus. Das kannst du dir so schönreden wie du willst. Ausserdem ist das ja auch keine Neuerung. Verrat, bzw. softer ausgedrückt, eine Abwendung von Prinzipien des Republikanismus hat es in der irischen Geschichte oft gegeben. Was Sinn Fein heute anbietet ist eine langsame Aufhebung der Teilung Irlands in voller Anerkennung bürgerlicher Herrschaft unter einer kapitalistische Gesellschaftsformation. Die Gefallenen des Osteraufstand, die für eine 32 Grafschaften umfassende, demokratisch-sozialistische Republik gestorben sind, würden im Grabe rotieren.

Um Deine folgende Argumentation gleich vorweg zu nehmen: Ja, die hier zitierten Gruppen sind kleiner als Sinn Fein. Aber mal schaun, wie das in 10 Jahren aussieht. Die Geschichte die Officials sollte Dir ja ein Begriff sein...

---

"If you remove the English army to-morrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin Castle, unless you set about the organisation of the Socialist Republic your efforts would be in vain. England would still rule you. She would rule you through her capitalists, through her landlords, through her financiers, through the whole array of commercial and individualist institutions she has planted in this country and watered with the tears of our mothers and the blood of our martyrs. England would still rule you to your ruin, even while your lips offered hypocritical homage at the shrine of that Freedom whose cause you had betrayed.

Nationalism without Socialism – without a reorganisation of society on the basis of a broader and more developed form of that common property which underlay the social structure of Ancient Erin - is only national recreancy."

James Connolly: Socialism and Nationalism, 1897

@Uschi 2

Noch eine Ergänzung 29.06.2012 - 10:33
"Welche Rezepte haben die Gruppen, die oben so vehement SF bekämpfen? Ich habe noch keine gehört."

Auch das ist schönster Schwachsinn aus dem SF-Rhetorikbaukasten. Jede der Gruppen hat eine Strategie, die sie im übrigen auch darlegt. Nur: Wenn man sich dafür nicht interessiert und lieber an den Lippen von Marty und Gerry hängt, als sich mit Inhalten auseinanderzusetzen, wird man darüber auch nichts lernen.

Als Einstieg empfehle ich Dir ein bisschen Literatur. Das ist sicher nicht allumfassend aber es bietet einen Einstieg. Keine Sorge, ich lass dich da nicht im Regen stehen.

IRSP:
Republican Socialist Programme for Ireland:  http://www.irsp.ie/programme/RepublicanSocialistProgramme.pdf

Perspectives on the future of Republican Socialism in Ireland:
 http://www.irsp.ie/programme/PerspectivesDocument.pdf

Eirigi:
From Socialism Alone Can the Salvation of Ireland Come:
 http://eirigi.org/pdfs/socialism.pdf

Imperialism – Ireland and Britain:
 http://eirigi.org/pdfs/imperialism.pdf

Elections, Elected Institutions and Ireland's Revolutionary Struggle
 http://eirigi.org/ArdFheis09/elections.pdf

Bunreacht éirígí
 http://eirigi.org/pdfs/eirigi_Constitution.pdf

Das nur als kleiner Einstieg in die Theorie der beiden explizit sozialistischen Gruppen die - entgegen Martys Rhetorik - keinen bewaffneten Kampf führen. Wenn es dich tatsächlich interessieren würde würdest du auch von den anderen zitierten Gruppen einiges finden. Aber das willst du ja gar nicht.

@Namenlos: Verdrehungen bringen nicht weiter

Uschi 29.06.2012 - 13:22

Abschliessend: Du solltest Dinge nicht falsch zitieren. Die "Nichtanerkennung der britischen Monarchie" als Staatsoberhaupt irgendeines Zipfels von Irland ist und bleibt ein Prinzip des irischen Republikanismus. Daran ändert ein Händedruck mit der englischen Queen nichts. Für SF ist klar (das haben sie auch im Vorfeld des Treffens erklärt), dass sie nur den irischen Präsidenten als Staatsoberhaupt anerkennt und führt deswegen übrigens auch eine Kampagne für die Beteiligung der Nordiren an seiner Wahl.

Noch ein zweites falsches Zitat: ich habe nicht gesagt, dass die oben zitierten Organisationen keine Strategiepapiere haben. Aber sie haben keine Antwort auf die Frage, wie man mit der Hälfte der Bevölkerung umgeht, die sich in Nordirland als Britisch versteht, darunter nicht nur Erzreaktionäre, sondern alle möglichen - auch progressive - Strömungen.

@Uschi 3

. 29.06.2012 - 15:36
Du schreibst: "Für SF ist klar (das haben sie auch im Vorfeld des Treffens erklärt), dass sie nur den irischen Präsidenten als Staatsoberhaupt anerkennt und führt deswegen übrigens auch eine Kampagne für die Beteiligung der Nordiren an seiner Wahl."

Dann sind wir uns ja wenigstens darüber einig, dass SF keine revolutionäre Veränderung der Gesellschaft jenseits des Kapitalismus haben will sondern eine bürgerlich-demokratische Republik mit Privatbesitz an Produktionsmitteln. Damit sind sie - für mich - Teil des Problems.

Bleibt die Frage, was solche Artikel wie Deine auf Indymedia zu suchen haben...

Zum Rest nur ein kurzer Textausriss aus den 80ern:

"Loyalism & Nationalism

We distinguish between loyalism and Protestantism. We recognise the right of everyone to their own religious beliefs, provided they do not use these beliefs to oppress others. We have no quarrel with Protestant workers and welcome them to join us in struggle. However, we stand totally opposed to the political ideology of loyalism. Loyalism is a reactionary, sectarian and proimperialist ideology, with which we can make no compromise. We recognise that nationalism in the context of the Irish struggle is progressive, but we also recognise that nationalism can play a reactionary role. The national chauvinism of the Tories, National Front, etc. is counterrevolutionary and anathema to socialists. The nationalism of an oppressed country is vastly different from such reactionary jingoism. We support all struggles against imperialism throughout the world.

Class mobilisation Only by mobilising our class north and south - Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter - can the goal of national liberation and socialism be achieved. Workers have distinct interests as a class, ultimately opposed to any other class, we must join together as a class to win control of society."

IRSP: This is Republican Socialism! Quelle:  http://www.irsp.ie/Background/theory/thisisrepsoc.html

Noch ne Ergänzung

. 29.06.2012 - 17:21
Auch wenn es inhaltlich nicht wirklich passt:

WIE progressiv SF wirklich ist, zeigt sich auch an der Position der Partei beim Thema Abtreibung. Zumindest bis Ende Mai diesen Jahres hat SF das Recht von Frauen, über ihren Körper zu bestimmen und eben auch abzutreiben, nicht bzw. nur in bestimmten Fällen unterstützt:

 http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0528/1224316807024.html

Auch dazu - beispielhaft - ein Zitat der IRSP:

"Equality

Our class faces daily, relentless assaults inflicted on us from many quarters and a constant onslaught of attempts to divide us. The IRSP oppose and fight against all forms of inequality and oppression, including that of women, travellers, lesbians, gays, or other sexual minorities, refugees, Africans, Asians, and any other oppressed sector of the working class. We oppose racism, Zionism, sexism, homophobia, national chauvinism, and anything else which divides our class. We support reproductive rights and unhindered access to contraception, including a woman's right to choose abortion. We are opposed to religious sectarianism and seek the complete separation of church and state and a secular society."

IRSP: This is Republican Socialism! Quelle:  http://www.irsp.ie/Background/theory/thisisrepsoc.html

Also nochmal die Frage: Was hat Hofberichterstattung über SF auf Indymedia zu suchen?

@ ach

ach weißt du, 30.06.2012 - 20:38
wer wie du kritisch reflektierende Geister wie Ursula an ihrer vermeintlichen Widersprüchlichkeit aufhängen möchte, hat genau nicht begriffen, dass die Welt etwas komplizierter ist als der kleine Michel von der deutschen Linken es mit seinen billig konstruierten Feindbildern wahr haben will. Das ist die Kehrseite rechtsextremer Kleingeistigkeit und deutscher Ideologiehörigkeit und genau der Grund, warum Leute wie du in der europäischen Linken schon immer so ein lächerliches Bild abgegeben haben. Ursula hat ziemlich konkret die Lage von Sinn Fein und der IRA im Kontext britischer und irischer Machtinteressen dargestellt und belegt. Kommunistische, linke ... Überlegungen spielen zwar auch eine Rolle, sind für die Nordiren aber erst mal anders als für die deutsche Wohlstandslinke marginale Fragen...

Ach...

lol 30.06.2012 - 22:35
...ob die "Widersprüchlichkeiten" des "kritisch reflektierenden Geistes Ursula" vermeintlich sind oder nicht, darf jede/r für sich entscheiden. Dass für die Situation in "Nordirland" kommunistische Positionen irrelevant sind, mag deine Meinung sein. Mehr ist eben auch nicht. Als jemand, der sich ein wenig mit der Materie auszukennen glaubt, empfinde ich Eure Darstellung der Situation als geschöntes Zerrbild der Realität. Damit sich jede/r darüber selbst ein Bild machen kann, hier noch ein Artikel. Wird dir nicht passen, der Autor ist nämlich Kommunist.


 https://theirishrevolution.wordpress.com/2012/04/13/the-changing-nature-of-six-county-society/#more-1755

-------------------------
The changing nature of six-county society

by Liam O Ruairc

For many commentators, ‘Northern Ireland’ in 2012 is a ‘post-Troubles’ society(1). With its ‘propaganda of peace’, the media is giving the public an explicit narrative of ‘an end to violence’ and of a ‘political settlement’ having been achieved, as well as an implicit narrative according to which Northern Ireland is fit ‘for integration into the consumerist society and the global economic order’(2). For example, in its editorials, the Irish Times keeps stressing that the north “is a better place” (3) and “has improved immensely in recent years”(4). The so-called ‘Troubles’ are now “passing from the realm of contemporary politics into that of history” (5).

Some time ago the Belfast Telegraph spoke of a “new era”: “Northern Ireland has changed so much in recent years that it can be difficult now to recall the darkest days of the Troubles. A new generation is growing up which has no memory of bombs, bullets, rioting or roadblocks.”(6) There is a generation gap between those who were involved in the conflict, many of whom are already grandparents, and people who were ten years old or less at the time of the 1998 Belfast Agreement: “The Troubles are fading from memory into history. . . For many of the younger generations living in Provisional heartlands, ‘the struggle’ is not something contemporary”(7). For example, when the book Voices From The Grave came out in 2010, Brian Feeney noted: “Hughes’ tale is so long ago. The majority of the population in West Belfast is under 40, half under 25. Arguing about who did what and when 35 or 40 years ago is of little interest to them. That’s for their parents and grandparents.”(8)

Things have sufficiently moved on for the Troubles to be now re-packaged as a “sanitized zone for ‘tourism’”(9). For many, the conflict in the six counties thus appears to have been settled.

The conflict was part of what is known more generally as the ‘Irish Question’. C.Desmond Greaves defines the nature of the ‘Irish Question’ as “the question of whether the sovereignty of Ireland is of right vested in the people of Ireland or in the English Crown.”(10) More specifically, after 1921, the conflict was about the constitutional status of the six counties. So in whose interest has the peace process and its various agreements settled the question?

For Gerry Adams, “the point of the Good Friday Agreement is that (the British) are a government that is now committed to legislating for a united Ireland” and “The important thing is that this isn’t as British as Finchley. This is a United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Northern Ireland bit has a semi-detached relationship. The Government of Ireland Act, which gave a British government control for ever and a day, has been removed, and now it’s like two partners, parents, deciding to divorce at some point up the road, as opposed to deciding to stay together for ever.”(11)

However the Northern Ireland Secretary of State has stressed that it is not some kind of “hybrid state” edging towards divorce and made clear that the present government “will never be neutral in expressing our support for the Union.”(12) In fact, according to Anthony McIntyre, the North is now “more British than Thatcher’s Finchley. . . Finchley, remember, has no MI5 knock out centre. Britain has no strategic reason to keep Finchley. Whatever else, the North of Ireland has more strategic value to the current British state than Finchley.”(13)

If the result of the peace process represents a defeat for Republicanism and a victory for Unionism, that does not mean that it has not brought about significant changes. With the Belfast Agreement “the original constitutional political status quo has not changed – instead it has been restructured. . . Essentially, the old partitionist structure has been re-figured to place majoritarianism with power-sharing.”(14) What have been the consequences of this?

The Belfast Agreement has a double logic. On the one hand, it represents a defeat for republicanism, copper fastens partition and strengthens British rule. But, on the other hand, it also represents a victory for nationalism in that it advances nationalist communal interests within the North itself. As Suzanne Breen points out: “There has been undeniable advancement in many areas for Catholics in the North, but within existing constitutional arrangements.”(15)

Research carried out by academics from Queen’s University shows that Catholics gained more from the social and economic benefits of the peace process than Protestants. Ten years after the Belfast Agreement, it is the nationalist community which is making most of the opportunities in the post-troubles era.(16) It is thus not surprising that the Provisionals’ newspaper could note from early on the “growing confidence within the nationalist community” (17). The peace process was said to have created a community “on the march” which would no longer accept the status of second-class citizens.(18)

This can be illustrated in economic, cultural, educational and political terms. In 1990, when the Monitoring Report covered firms of more than 25 employees, Catholic employees were 34.9% of the monitored workforce for whom a community background was identified, which was 5.1 percentage points less than the estimated 40% of those available for work who were Catholics. Twenty years on, that overall imbalance no longer exists. The December 2010 report, based on firms of more than 10 employees, shows that Catholics constitute 45.4% of the monitored workforce, which matches the current estimated percentage of Catholics available for work.(19)

On the contentious issue of policing, the PSNI now enjoys the support of all nationalist parties including Sinn Fein, and the proportion of Catholics in it increased from eight to 29.38 percent, which reaches the Patten recommendation of between 29 and 33 percent. Although there is still debate over the need for an Irish Language Act, areas of nationalist culture such as Irish dancing, traditional Irish music and Gaelic sports appear to be thriving. Speaking Irish is even seen a an indicator of belonging to a social and educational elite.(20)

Compared to Protestants, nationalists are now less likely to leave school with no qualifications and more likely to have a degree. UCAS, the national application system, does not collect information on the religious background of students but, in 2008-09, of those who declared a religious affiliation, 43.9% of full-time undergraduate students at Queen’s University Belfast identified themselves as Protestant, 56.1% identified themselves as Catholic. The University of Ulster, across its four campuses, confirmed it had 11,099 students registered as Catholic. This was in comparison to 6,378 Protestant students.(21)

The richest part of Belfast, the Malone Road, now has a Catholic majority, and the majority of customers for private jets came from that community, which made one commentator pertinently ask: “What did Bobby Sands kill himself for anyway? Was it so that his fellow northern Catholics could own jets? Drive Beemers ?”(22)

This upward social mobility has resulted in an aggressive nationalist triumphalism, that can be witnessed from the tribalism of Gaelic football and Glasgow Celtic shirts -wearing students in the Holylands (23) to the new Catholic bourgeoisie marking out its territory with GAA flags on the Malone Road.(24) In the words of Paul Bew, this represents a transition “from ethnic rage to ethnic vanity” (25). Nationalist communalism is now firmly entrenched into what Christopher Lasch called “the culture of narcissism” (26).

Since 2001, the Provisionals have increased their electoral support and are now the largest nationalist party in the North and are part of its government. According to a former senior election director, the Provisionals attract “new Catholic money. . . largely apolitical but nationalistic in its aspirations” (27). While in the past Provisionals promised no return to Stormont, their argument today is “Why should we be afraid of Stormont? It’s our parliament too.”(28)

The Provisionals’ electoral progress is mainly due to their ability to portray themselves “as the best defender of nationalist interests in Northern Ireland” (29). Thanks to their strong advocacy of the fair employment and human rights legislation included within the Belfast Agreement, the Provisionals succeeded in creating ‘parity of esteem’ and ‘equality’ for nationalists in the six counties. If the material conditions of nationalists have improved, it has nevertheless been an uneven process.

Some of the people most affected by the conflict are actually reaping the least from the benefits of peace.(30) For example, a survey of the Whiterock area of west Belfast carried out by Dr David Connolly of the University of York, an academic specialising in international post-conflict issues, found that many residents felt that life had got worse since the 1998 Belfast Agreement. Half of the households questioned felt community bonds were now weaker. Two-thirds felt stress because of where they live, although many did acknowledge the peace process had brought benefits. The survey found long-term deprivation and the legacy of the Troubles were two root causes of trauma in the area.(31) Speaking of areas such as Ardoyne, The Economist noted in 2010 that “many problems remain, including poverty, unemployment and alienation of various sorts. Though the peace process has virtually eliminated the killings, it has brought little in the way of economic improvement. Some years ago a wave of youthful suicides was a telling sign of the level of family and social breakdown.”(32)

In contrast to the confidence and dynamism of the nationalist people, “the Protestant working class, and its young people in particular, have been the main losers from change in Northern Ireland. . . They feel – and it’s a feeling they know is endorsed and welcomed by many nationalists – that Catholics are on the way up, Protestants on the way down.”(33) This can be illustrated by the fact that whereas the majority of students in higher education are Catholics, 13 of the 15 worst areas for educational under-achievement in the north are in Loyalist wards.

Ten years ago the Northern Ireland Secretary of State warned about Protestant ‘alienation’ and the danger that Northern Ireland could “become a cold place for Protestants” (34). “The sight of Catholics in jobs, and in government and in the reformed police service, merely seems to confirm the truth of the disgruntled loyalist ghetto cliché that ‘Catholics get everything, we get nothing’. . . A Church of Ireland bishop said flatly: ‘People in working-class Protestant, unionist and loyalist areas feel seriously disadvantaged, alienated and isolated from the political process’.”(35)

The feeling of decline and deprivation is very pervasive in Loyalist areas. For example: “Sandy Row has had it hard over the past 40 years. . . But while some Belfast communities, especially nationalist ones, are experiencing a cultural and commercial revival, this loyalist enclave is facing further decline. Forty years ago it was home to 15,000 people. Today it has just 700 houses or flats, and about 2000 people. Where there were once 108 shops and businesses, there are now about 40.”(36) Along with the Whiterock area of Belfast, the Shankill is now the most deprived area in the six counties.(37) If it is not Catholics, it will be immigrants who will be blamed by Loyalists for this situation – statistics show that more than 90 per cent of racist attacks occur in loyalist areas.(38)

The Unionist middle classes are apathetic and have mostly withdrawn out of the public sphere.(39) Unionist and Loyal institutions also look to be in irreversible decline. Membership of the Orange Order peaked at 93,477 in 1968, whereas in 2006, the latest year for which the figures are available, the total was 35,758. According to the Order’s Grand Secretary one reason people are reluctant to join in is that they fear it will be a disadvantage in such jobs as the police and the civil service: “There is a feeling that it will go against you in promotion. For the police, the Orange institution is now a ‘notifiable organisation’ and you have to declare membership. It sounds like a notifiable disease. On the other hand the GAA is positively feted. There are PSNI GAA teams and senior officers attend the matches.”(40)

Protestants are now under-represented in some public sector departments such as the Housing Executive (41). Unionist political parties are also in crisis. In 1973, 447,085 voters supported unionist political parties, in 2010 this had dropped to 340,890, which was seen as ‘a disaster’ by commentators (42). If things look bad for loyalists and unionists, this can only encourage nationalists into thinking that they are winning. But as Liam Clarke notes, “political unionism is in disarray but the Union itself is stronger than any time in the history of Northern Ireland. It is not in danger and can be taken as given for the foreseeable future.” A crisis for unionist politics or loyal institutions doesn’t not imply a crisis for the Union.(43)

As Arthur Aughey points out no serious constituency in Ireland or Britain is advocating Irish unity: “It was once said that ‘We are all Marxists now’. When speaking of the Union I think we can say: ‘We are all Northern Ireland now’.”(44) The paradox is thus that there is a “sense of a Catholic victory” despite the fact nationalists and republicans have lost on the constitutional question, while those who won on the issue of the constitutional status of Northern Ireland feel “being on the losing side” (45). This accounts for the fact that polls have shown consistently more support for the Belfast Agreement amongst nationalists than Unionists.

If Republicanism has been defeated, the situation described above has been used by the Provisionals to present the IRA campaign as having achieved victory. This rests upon a revisionist view that the IRA campaign was the logical extension of the civil rights struggle and that the armed struggle was successful because it led to equality for nationalists within the north of Ireland – ‘parity of esteem’ and an ‘Ireland of Equals’.

This is a re-writing of the past to legitimise the present. Although revisionist in nature, this argument has a rational kernel: “Volunteers in the IRA of the 1960s were fighting much more of a national liberation war while those today are fighting in a civil rights war expressed in national liberation terms. Support in the north did not originally emanate from the desires of national aspiration but from the drive for civil equality. Without the civil rights consciousness there would be little support for the IRA’s traditional goal of a united Ireland to be obtained by force; with civil equality there would be nothing like the allegiance to a united Ireland that there is in the Catholic communities. The irony in the unionist jibe that CRA (Civil Rights Association) was just another way of writing IRA was not that it was true, because the IRA never totally dominated the movement, but that civil rights were later to become expressed in terms of republicanism.”(46)

This is why Gerry Adams can claim that “this is the only IRA campaign that has succeeded”(47). It was successful because it brought down the Orange state and brought equality for nationalists. For Adams, nationalists would still be ‘on their knees’ and ‘second class citizens’ had it not been for the IRA (48). Gerry Adams has stated that “the Orange State as we knew it is gone” (49), something also acknowledged by some of his republican opponents (50). Martin McGuinness also emphasizes that “the Orange state has gone and the Orange state is never, ever coming back” (51). This has been the achievement of the republican struggle according to them. But as Henry McDonald points out: “The idea that thousands would have to die and thousands more go to jail or themselves lose their lives so we could have an Irish Language Act or the control of policing and justice powers WITHIN the Northern Ireland state is a gross, deliberate distortion of history” (52).

Other Republicans critical of the Provisionals such as Brendan Hughes “do not feel any satisfaction whatsoever. All the questions raised in the course of this struggle have not been answered and the republican struggle has not been concluded” (53). Tommy Gorman has questioned whether the struggle was all worth it (54) and Provisional IRA founder John Kelly asked “if MI5 rules, what was the 30-year war all about?”(55)

While the British and Irish governments are trying to encourage the “gradual normalisation” (56) of the north of Ireland, the process is increasingly under strain. The economic basis of the peace process is facing growing difficulties as the prospects for the northern economy are bleak.(57) Sectarianism and divisions have increased since the peace process with so-called ‘peace walls’ trebling since the ceasefires, which indicates that this is much more a case of “reconciliation under duress”, to use Adorno’s expression, than a lasting peace (58).

Armed actions by Republicans hostile to the current status quo are also setting limits upon the British government’s ability to normalise the six counties. But whether this is sufficient to undermine the pacification process remains unclear. The social and economic changes experienced by the nationalist community have probably succeeded in undermining the idea that it is impossible for Catholics to ever get a square deal within the northern state.

Notes
(1) Colin Coulter and Michael Murray (eds) , Northern Ireland After the Troubles: A Society in Transition, Manchester University Press, 2008
(2) Greg McLaughlin and Stephen Baker, The Propaganda of Peace: The Role of Media and Culture in the Northern Ireland Peace Process, Bristol: Intellect, 2010, 87ff
(3) Editorial, Northern Ireland is a Better Place, Irish Times, 14 July 2008
(4) Editorial, North’s progress, Irish Times, 6 November 2010
(5) Kevin Bean, The New Politics of Sinn Fein, Liverpool University Press, 2007, 2
(6) Editorial, Moving Forward from a Troubled Past, Belfast Telegraph, 23 June 2007
(7) Bean, op.cit., 261
(8) Brian Feeney, Claims nothing new but add detail and credibility, Irish News, 29 March 2010
(9) Jim Collins & Adrian Kerr (eds), Free Derry Wall, Derry: Guildhall Press, 2009, 42
(10) C.Desmond Greaves, The Irish Crisis, London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1972, 12
(11) ‘I have never distanced myself from the IRA’, Gerry Adams talks to Stephen Moss, The G2 Interview, The Guardian, 24 January 2011
(12) NI is not a hybrid state – Patterson, The Newsletter, 17 November 2010
(13) Republicans at Easter commemoration told – ‘North is more British than Finchley’, Derry Journal, 24 March 2008
(14) Tom McGurk, Why truth in the North is still an impossible target, Sunday Business Post, 1 February 2009
(15) Suzanne Breen, ‘I’ll jail McGuinness any day soon’, jokes Paisley, Sunday Tribune, 6 May 2007
(16) Research shows Catholics gained more from NI peace process than Protestants, Belfast Telegraph, 31 March 2008
(17) The fun isn’t over, An Phoblacht-Republican News, 6 August 1998
(18) Brian Campbell, Time for change, An Phoblacht-Republican News, 2 July 1998
(19) Bob Collins, How vigilance keeps bias out of workplace, Belfast Telegraph, 8 December 2010
(20) Gráinne Faller and Seán Flynn, Report: Irish speakers a social and educational elite, Irish Times, 9 January 2010
(21) Minister urged to help counter the ‘brain drain’, The Newsletter, 6 October 2009
(22) Jim Cusack, Who’s got the bling here – Catholics or Protestants?, Belfast Telegraph, 18 June 2008
(23) Henry McDonald, Student drunkenness in Holylands shows how tribalism has grown during peace process, The Guardian, 20 March 2009
(24) Concern over contentious flags, The Newsletter, 22 July 2009
(25) Paul Bew, The Making and Remaking of the Good Friday Agreement, Dublin: The Liffey Press, 2007, 71
(26) Christopher Lasch, The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations, New York : Norton, 1979
(27) Tony Catney, Sinn Fein’s Electoral Growth, Fourthwrite, Issue 2, Summer 2000
(28) Tim Pat Coogan, The IRA, London: HarperCollins, fifth revised and updated edition, 2000, 715
(29) Martyn Frampton, The Long March: The Political Strategy of Sinn Fein 1981-2007, Basingstoke : Palgrave Macmillan, 2009, 126ff. See also Kevin Bean and Mark Hayes, Sinn Fein and the New Republicanism in Ireland: Electoral Progress, Political Stasis, and Ideological Failure, Radical History Review, Spring 2009, 126-142
(30) Hardest hit in the conflict reaping least from peace, North Belfast News, 19 June 2009
(31) Life since Troubles ‘got worse’, BBC website, 5 September 2007, and also David Sharrock, Ulster peace brings in a new set of Troubles, The Times, 6 September 2007
(32) Marching as to war, The Economist, 15 July 2010. See also: Mary O’Hara, Poverty is the backdrop to the riots in Northern Ireland, The Guardian, 14 July 2010
(33) Eamonn McCann, Northern Ireland’s identity crisis, The Guardian, 18 June 2009
(34) Reid warning over alienation, BBC website, 21 November 2001
(35) David McKittrick: Belfast: a city of alienated youth, The Independent, 20 June 2009
(36) Dan Keenan, Children’s Centre in beleaguered Sandy Row many close, Irish Times, 23 February 2008
(37) Patrice Dougan, Shankill ‘most deprived area in Northern Ireland, The Newsletter, 3 March 2008
(38) David Sharrock, Northern Ireland has ‘culture of intolerance’, The Times, 18 June 2009
(39) Colin Coulter, The Culture of Contentment: The Political Beliefs and Practice of the Unionist Middle Classes in Peter Shirlow and Mark McGovern (eds), Who are ‘the People’ ? Unionism, Protestantism and Loyalism in Northern Ireland, London : Pluto Press, 1997, 114-139
(40) Liam Clarke, Time to march to a different tune, Sunday Times, 28 June 2009
(41) Protestant recruitment ‘falling’, Belfast Telegraph, 11 October 2010
(42) Nicholas Whyte, United Ireland a long way down the line, The Newsletter, 15 October 2010
(43) Liam Clarke, Why a crisis for unionist politics doesn’t mean a crisis for the Union, The Newsletter, 11 May 2010
(44) Arthur Aughey, Unionists can add to vision of UK, The Newsletter, 7 July 2010
(45) The hand of history, revisited, The Economist, 3 April 2008
(46) Frank Burton, The Politics of Legitimacy: Struggles in a Belfast Community, London : Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1978, 121
(47) Johann Hari, Gerry Adams: Unrepentant Irishman, Belfast Telegraph, 9 September 2009
(48) Dan Keenan, Adams says IRA won rights for nationalists, Irish Times, 5 April 2010
(49) Barry McCaffrey, Adams: Dissidents must not hijack republicanism, Irish News, 13 April 2009
(50) According to Fourthwrite the Belfast Agreement “signalled an end to the Orange State” (Editorial, There is another way, Fourthwrite, Issue 35, Spring 2009)
(51) ‘The Orange state is gone forever’: McGuinness, Derry Journal, 23 February 2010
(52) Henry McDonald, How the Provos ‘sold out’, Belfast Telegraph, 19 November 2008
(53) Interview with Brendan Hughes, Fourthwrite, Issue 1, Spring 2000
(54) Tommy Gorman, Was it all for nothing? Andersonstown News, 11 September 1999
(55) John Kelly, If MI5 rules, what was the 30-year war all about?, Irish News, 5 February 2007
(56) Editorial, The start of normalisation, Irish Times, 6 July 2010
(57) Province no longer ‘a special case’ for cuts, Belfast Telegraph, 13 January 2011
(58) Henry McDonald, Belfast’s ‘peace walls’ treble after ceasefires, The Guardian, 28 July 2009, Leading article, The lingering sectarian troubles of Northern Ireland, The Independent, 14 September 2009
(59) Theodor W. Adorno, Erpresste Versohnung: Zu Georg Lukacs’s Wider den missverstandenen Realismus, in Gesammelte Schriften II: Noten zur Literatur, Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1974, 251-280

Ach ja,

lol 30.06.2012 - 22:43
zu Deinen Ausführungen, dass auch kommunistische und linke Ideen bei SF eine Rolle spielen würden, hier ein Zitat von Gerry Adams: "There is no Marxist influence within Sinn Féin. I know of no one in
Sinn Féin who is a Marxist or would be influenced by Marxism"

Quelle: www.psai.ie/conferences/papers2006/malley.pdf

Sinn Féin Councillor blasts McGuinness handsh

Ergänzung 01.07.2012 - 09:31
 http://www.donegaldemocrat.ie/news/local/sinn-fein-councillor-blasts-mcguinness-handshake-1-4005599

Sinn Féin Councillor blasts McGuinness handshake

Published on Friday 29 June 2012 11:27

One of the most vocal proponents of Sinn Féin in South Donegal yesterday morning slammed the meeting between Martin McGuinness, the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland and Queen Elizabeth at the Lyric Theatre in Belfast yesterday.

Former Mayor of Bundoran Sinn Fein councillor Michael McMahon has blasted the handshake between McGuinness and the Queen saying that it was “simply a step too far”

Cllr. McMahon’s views are in stark contrast with the official stance taken by Sinn Féin and may well have endangered his future in the party. Putting this to the councillor, Cllr. McMahon said that “he didn’t care and that he couldn’t hide behind his views or the views of many other republicans.”

The media both national and worldwide have hailed McGuinness as a statesman praising his transition from a self confessed commander of the IRA to a statesman.

Mr. McGuinness met with Queen Elizabeth who was dressed in green early yesterday morning at Belfast’s Lyric Theatre along with First Minister Peter Robinson and the Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Phillip.

Cllr. McMahon yesterday told the Donegal Democrat, “I am not in favour of this meeting by a long head - I think it is wrong, it is premature and a step too far.

“I feel that I have a responsibility to remind people that this is the very person that decorated the paratroopers that killed innocent victims on Bloody Sunday.

“She is also responsible as Commander in Chief of the armed forces for the continued occupation of the six counties. Martin McGuinness should be asking the British Government and the Queen what is the real position in relation to the Six Counties. By meeting with the Queen he is acknowledging her as Head of State in Northern Ireland and giving legitimacy to the situation.”

McMahon also said that McGuinness had claimed that there was normalisation in the Six Counties but that he disputed this.

“The army are still there and the Good Friday agreement has never been fully implemented - we still have a long way to go and this meeting has sent out the wrong message to many republicans who have worked so hard to bring peace to this country.

“It leaves republicans confused - they do not know what direction the party is taking”.

McMahon added that a lot had been achieved over the last number of years through the democratic process and he welcomed this progress.

“I am part of the democratic process and feel it is my right to express my views even if they are at odds with the party.

“We have achieved a lot over the last number of years and I would call on all Republican groups to cease all military activities. The armed struggle is over and there is no going back.

“We must continue along the road of democracy to achieve the goal we set out as a party.”

Eine letzte Anmerkung

Uschi 02.07.2012 - 17:53

Nur um die etwas abstruse Verwirrung aufzulösen: schon Gerry Adams beschäftigt sich in dem oben zitierten Interview damit, dass der Händedruck für viele Republikaner ein schwerer Schritt ist, und dass so ein schritt natürlich viel Diskussion und Widerspruch auslöst. Es geht wohl mehr darum, ob man eine solche Diskussion solidarisch führt, oder nur einen Grund zum Dreckschleudern sucht.

Sinn Fein war auch nie eine marxistische Partei, sondern eine irisch-republikanische, die Demokratie und Sozialismus als Ziel hat. Gerry Adams spricht auch vom Ziel einer egalitären Gesellschaft. Aber Schlagworte allein sind eh eine ziemliche Nullnummer. Wer sich bei uns Historie, Gegenwart und Parteienlandschaft und Grüppchenbildung ansieht, weiss auch, dass Schlagworte wie Marxismus, Sozialismus, Antikapitalismus für sich alleine keine Revolution und keinen Revolutionär machen, sondern es auf die inhaltliche Strategie und die aktuelle Umsetzung dieser Strategie ankommt, ob man oder frau in eine progressive Richtung etwas bewirkt, oder eben nicht. Deswegen nützt das Posten einer gefühlten Tonne verschiedenster Strategiepapiere nicht wirklich was.

Zu Liam O Ruairc und seinem Blog zur Wahrheit über das 1998 unterzeichnete Karfreitagsabkommen aus Neuseeland und zu "The changing nature of six-county society": ich teile seine Einschätzung überhaupt nicht. Ich finde sie völlig falsch und an der Realität vorbei. Im übrigen waren auch IRSP und eirigi nicht immer gegen das Abkommen. Die INLA, die zur IRSP gehörige bewaffnete Organisation, gehörte gemeinsam mit der IRA zu den Organisationen, die einen Waffenstillstand einhielten und deren Gefangene durch das Karfreitagsabkommen freikamen. eirigi gibt es erst seit 2006, Leute, die aus SF zu eirigi gewechselt sind, haben über viele Jahre den Friedensprozess unterstützt. Wir haben auf Info Nordirland seine Seite zum Karfreitagsabkommen, da kann man/frau die Entwicklung und die Streitpunkte nachlesen: Schwerpunkt Friedensabkommen/Karfreitagsabkommen (GFA=Good Friday Agreement) auf Info Nordirland

Ach Uschi

. 03.07.2012 - 06:28
"Nur um die etwas abstruse Verwirrung aufzulösen: schon Gerry Adams beschäftigt sich in dem oben zitierten Interview damit, dass der Händedruck für viele Republikaner ein schwerer Schritt ist, und dass so ein schritt natürlich viel Diskussion und Widerspruch auslöst.“

Es geht weder um das eine noch das Andere. Es geht um eine grundsätzliche Kritik am Karfreitagsabkommen, das eben nicht republikanisch und noch weniger fortschrittlich ist.

„Es geht wohl mehr darum, ob man eine solche Diskussion solidarisch führt, oder nur einen Grund zum Dreckschleudern sucht."

Legst Du da die selben Maßstäbe an wie bei der Diskussionskultur der Provos? Wie bei Joe O'Conor? ( http://sluggerotoole.com/2010/09/30/killing-joe-oconnor/) Oder bei Bobby Tohill? ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2004/feb/22/northernireland.northernireland1) Wie erwartest du, dass man über solche Politik diskutiert? Erwartest du da wirklich einen "solidarischen Umgang" mit?

"Sinn Fein war auch nie eine marxistische Partei, sondern eine irisch-republikanische, die Demokratie und Sozialismus als Ziel hat. Gerry Adams spricht auch vom Ziel einer egalitären Gesellschaft. "

Das Zitat von Adams war eine Antwort auf den Schreiber vom 30.06., 20:38 Uhr der behauptet hat, für SF würden kommunistische Ideen eine Rolle spielen auch wenn der Kommunismus an sich keine Rolle für "Nordirland" spielen würde. Ich würde nie behaupten, das SF eine marxistische Partei war/ist.

"Aber Schlagworte allein sind eh eine ziemliche Nullnummer. Wer sich bei uns Historie, Gegenwart und Parteienlandschaft und Grüppchenbildung ansieht, weiss auch, dass Schlagworte wie Marxismus, Sozialismus, Antikapitalismus für sich alleine keine Revolution und keinen Revolutionär machen, sondern es auf die inhaltliche Strategie und die aktuelle Umsetzung dieser Strategie ankommt, ob man oder frau in eine progressive Richtung etwas bewirkt, oder eben nicht. Deswegen nützt das Posten einer gefühlten Tonne verschiedenster Strategiepapiere nicht wirklich was."

Purer Revisionismus. Entweder eine Bewegung ist für den Kapitalismus oder dagegen. Entweder eine Bewegung unterstützt das Recht von Frauen auf Abtreibung oder sie tut es nicht. Entweder eine Bewegung will eine nachhaltige Veränderung der gesellschaftlichen Verhältnisse oder nicht. „Irgendwie progressiv“ ist irgendwie komisch. Im Übrigens sind die Thesenpapiere auch nicht für dich hier gepostet sondern für die Leute, die hier mitlesen. Damit die nicht alles glauben was ihr so verbratet sondern damit sie eure Aussagen mit der Realität abgleichen können.

"Zu Liam O Ruairc und seinem Blog zur Wahrheit über das 1998 unterzeichnete Karfreitagsabkommen aus Neuseeland und zu "The changing nature of six-county society": ich teile seine Einschätzung überhaupt nicht."

Liam O'Ruairc ist aus Belfast und hat unter anderem für das Online-Journal „The Blanket“ geschrieben ( http://indiamond6.ulib.iupui.edu:81/). Google mal seinen Namen, da findest du viele schlaue Aurtikel. Das Blog stammt von Philipp Ferguson. Der hat bis Mitte der 90er in Dublin gelebt und war SF Mitglied, bevor er nach Neuseeland gegangen ist. Heute gehört er zu den SF Kritikern. Dass du Liams Einschätzung nicht teilst, ist klar. Aber deine romantisierenden Texte über den "ewigen Revolutionär" McGuiness machen eine ernsthafte Auseinandersetzung mit Inhalten ja auch nicht nötig. Liam hat in seinem Text aber einen Haufen Thesen aufgestellt und die mit Quellen belegt. Ziemlich nüchtern und wenig ideologisch. Was genau kritisierst Du daran? Sind seine Quellen unglaubwürdig? Sind es seine Thesen? Bisschen einfach. Von einem „kritischen Geist“ hätte ich mehr Sinn für Widersprüche erwartet.

"Im übrigen waren auch IRSP und eirigi nicht immer gegen das Abkommen. Die INLA, die zur IRSP gehörige bewaffnete Organisation, gehörte gemeinsam mit der IRA zu den Organisationen, die einen Waffenstillstand einhielten und deren Gefangene durch das Karfreitagsabkommen freikamen. "

Nö. Die INLA hat 1998 einen Waffenstillstand erklärt aber das Karfreitagsabkommen (das im April 1998 in Kraft getreten ist) politisch abgelehnt. Da empfehle ich einen Blick in die Erklärung der INLA und die flankierende Veröffentlichung der IRSP:

INLA cease-fire declaration
22 August 1998

"Although we, for our part believe that the Good Friday agreement was not worth the sacrifices of the past 30 years and are still political opposed to it, the people of the island of Ireland have spoken clearly as to their wishes. The working classes have born the brunt of the consequences of the war for the past 3 decades. They have also suffered repression, social deprivation, unemployment and poverty. We recognise their desire for a cessation of violence express through the referendum and for a peaceful future. „

Quelle:  http://www.irsm.org/statements/inla/980822.html

Die IRSP-Erklärung ist auf der Webseite des IRSM aufgrund eines technischen Fehlers nicht einsehbar. Hier die (etwas holprige) deutsche Übersetzung von „So oder So“ vom 22.08.1998:

„Wir machen keinen Hehl daraus, daß wir ablehnend dem gegenüberstehen, was euphemistisch das Karfreitagsabkommen genannt wird.

Wir glauben, daß dieses Abkommen keine politischen Ziele klar benennt und deshalb auch nicht die politische Dynamik oder Triebkraft beinhaltet, die nötig wären, um den Frieden herbeizuführen, für den die Menschen in Irland sich im Referendum so überwältigend entschieden haben.

Lassen wir uns also klar feststellen, daß die IRSP davon überzeugt ist, daß der Sechs-County-Staat und seine Organe nicht reformierbar sind.

Sie werden nicht reformiert werden durch die Trikoloren, die an Laternenmasten flattern oder Flaggentüchern quer über der Straße oder gaelischen Straßenschildern. Sie werden nicht reformiert durch die ökonomische Politik der kapitalistischen Allianz, die von denjenigen Parteien repräsentiert wird, die das Stormont-Abkommen unterzeichnet haben (Stormont-Nordirlands Parlament)

Ein Amerikanisches Fast-Food-Restaurant an jeder Straßenecke repräsentiert weder die Stärke noch die Befreiung der Irischen Arbeiterklasse. Das sind Rückschritte. „

Quelle:  http://www.sooderso.net/inhalt/sooderso/1998/08/EpZVlAyZlyjlmaAhQV.shtml

"eirigi gibt es erst seit 2006, Leute, die aus SF zu eirigi gewechselt sind, haben über viele Jahre den Friedensprozess unterstützt. "

Stimmt. Ein Grund warum viele andere „Dissidenten“-Gruppen die skeptisch betrachten. Aber alleine die Tatsache, dass die von SF zu Eirigi gewechselt sind und die Frage warum wäre doch eine Berichterstattung wert, oder? Auf Eurer Webseite finde ich aber nichts zu Eirigi (mag auch an mir und meinen technischen Fähigkeiten liegen). Widerspruch zu SF kommt bei euch einfach nicht vor. Und das hat mit der Realität eben nix zu tun.

.

. 03.07.2012 - 07:39
.

The politics behind the handshake

https://plutopress.wordpress.com/ 04.07.2012 - 06:35
The politics behind the handshake – Tommy McKearney on Sinn Féin and the Queen

In a guest post Tommy McKearney, author of The Provisional IRA: From Insurrection to Parliament ( http://www.plutobooks.com/display.asp?K=9780745330747&), argues that the handshake between Martin McGuinness and the Queen was political theatre and that the focus of the media on it distracts attention from the real problems facing the people of Northern Ireland.

Britain’s monarch visited Belfast on Wednesday and shook hands with Martin McGuinness, Deputy First Minister in the local devolved regional assembly. Throughout Northern Ireland the level of unemployment is as high as it was prior to the royal visit, security walls to keep neighbours apart are as permanent as they were before Elizabeth arrived and Northern Ireland’s local media has returned to reporting the usual tensions generated by the Orange Order in the run-up to the annual battle of the Boyne celebration on 12 July. In other words and in spite of the media ballyhoo, it is business as usual in this most westerly region of Mrs Windsor’s kingdom.

Of course it was a remarkable and notable media moment when Britain’s head of state (and commander in chief of the country’s armed forces) met with a former chief of staff of the Irish Republican Army. Undoubtedly, it was gripping drama to have the queen meet a reformed rebel. At the same time, there has been many similar memorable moments on British television and most receive their due recognition at the annual British Soap Awards. The handshake was of no greater significance than any other pointless gesture and contributed nothing to improving the quality of life for the masses.

Therein lies the real difficulty many of us have with this contrived handshake. It was merely a piece of theatre, which does nothing to address the real problems faced by the people of Northern Ireland. If anything, this type of symbolic posturing is actually harmful. It displaces and/or prevents mature and necessary debate and reflection on the unequal nature of our society and the detrimental impact of Britain’s ruling class upon the public’s well being.

Martin McGuinness was presented with what was possibly a once in a lifetime opportunity to explain a republican position and philosophy, not just to the unionist people of Northern Ireland but also to the wider British population. As Deputy First Minister at the time of a jubilee visit, he would have had airtime on each network and coverage from every press outlet in Britain and Ireland. By refusing to meet the queen, Martin could have raised questions about the very nature of the British monarchy and in doing so, opened to scrutiny many of the systemic faults afflicting contemporary society.

Why, he might have asked, is the monarchy still guilty of one of the most blatant acts of discrimination in the United Kingdom? The royal family adheres to the Act of Succession, which excludes from the throne every person who is not a practising member of the Church of England? This may not seem important to some but, nevertheless, it sends a dangerous signal to nasty elements in Britain that ancient and destructive privileges are justified as a birthright. Moreover, in the context of Northern Ireland, community relations are hardly improved by ignoring the fact that only a member of the reformed church is worthy of being head of state.

Martin McGuinness might also have raised the matter of Britain’s armed forces. Why did a man who witnessed the events of Bloody Sunday in his hometown, not seek to criticise an institution (i.e. the monarchy) that is uncritically supportive of Britain’s military? Britain’s soldiers and sailors have not only played a cruel part in Ireland’s history but Martin would have done well to point out that the current actions of British troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are hardly beyond criticism either.

Most crucial of all perhaps was why Martin did not raise the issue of the profoundly anti-democratic practice of a having a hereditary head of state? Nothing reinforces the dire inequality produced by the British class system so much as the endorsement granted by monarchism to the transfer of power, prestige and wealth within the elite section of society. Gross inequality, which is at its worst in Britain since 1940 according to an article by Professor Danny Dorling in the Guardian, is not only offensive to our sense of justice but is an economic blunder. Encouraging the over concentration of wealth in fewer hands not only deprives an economy of the spending power necessary to promote growth but also leads directly to the type of ‘casino’ capitalism that has caused the current financial crisis and the subsequent impoverishment of millions.

Had Sinn Fein and Martin McGuinness decided to adopt and articulate the republican position outlined above, unionists in Northern Ireland may well have criticised their decision. It would, however, have been a significant step towards inviting that community to deal meaningfully with Irish republicanism as a coherent philosophy rather than as a hostile ethnic identity. It would not have provided a panacea but then, allowing people to think that deference to monarchy is progress is hardly a remedy either. Moreover, it would have given Irish republicans a rare opportunity to make a positive and progressive contribution to a necessary debate about wealth and privilege in our neighbouring island across the Irish Sea.

Reflections on the British Queen protests

http://www.eirigi.org/latest/latest290612.htm 04.07.2012 - 07:00
Reflections on the British Queen protests

When it was announced by the British government on May 31st that Elizabeth Windsor was to visit her Six-County colony, we, in éirígí, along with other republicans, discussed the most effective manner to protest against this ‘visit’.

We met with like-minded republicans from other parts of the Six Counties and the first thing all agreed on was to involve those most affected by the British presence – the families of Britain’s victims.

Consultations with a number of families who had lost relatives at the hands of state forces were central to the format, date, and location of any protest. This again required several meetings over a period of time in order to reach consensus and finally agreement was reached on holding a march and rally in Belfast on Saturday 23rd June.

Although the Windsors, their hangers-on and their cronies, would be meeting their supporters in Enniskillen and Belfast, it was decided to concentrate our energies in Belfast where it was felt the protest would have greater impact.

Over 20,000 leaflets were printed, as well as numerous posters, asking people to attend a march starting on the Falls Road and ending with a rally at the City Hall. Given that there were only five days to deliver the leaflets, most parts of the city were covered – and this despite the heavy rain, PSNI harassment and in one case, an activist being bitten by a dog. Luckily, it wasn’t a corgi!

Although many statements were repeatedly issued to all media outlets in the week leading up to the march and rally on Saturday 23rd, few were prepared to report or afford any type of pre-publicity to the planned protest.

It was obvious that a conscious and collective decision had been taken by the media to ignore victims of British state violence and to whitewash over the many injustices which Elizabeth Windsor’s forces had been responsible for.

Instead, the media maximised on the propaganda of ‘normalisation’ as they focussed on the artificially constructed “will they/won’t they” saga being churned as Sinn Féin attempted to portray Martin Mc Guinness’ handshake with Elizabeth Windsor as being ‘a positive thing for Ireland’.

éirígí, meanwhile, had earlier published its own incisive analysis of the Sinn Féin position on Friday June 22nd. (Mac Cionnaith responds to announcement of SF/British queen meeting)

While delivering the leaflets advertising the protest across Belfast, there was a palpable sense of anger and dismay being expressed by ordinary people at the Sinn Féin publicity stunt, with quite a few saying the McGuinness/Windsor meeting was a step too far. Many felt that the injustices and suffering inflicted upon our communities by the British state were being deliberately ignored by the re-branded constitutional nationalist party.

On the day of the Belfast march and rally, many families from across the Six Counties who had lost mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters turned up. They were joined by several hundred others who stood with the families in their demand for truth and justice.

Although it had been raining heavily and the weather conditions were atrocious, the organisers and, more importantly, the families were delighted with the turn-out with reports putting a figure of between 1,000 to 1,500 participating in the actual march.

At Belfast City Hall, which had a large union jack flying, we listened as family members of those killed by the British Army and by the British police force addressed the crowd. The speakers came from each one of the Six Counties and some denounced McGuinness for meeting the commander-in-chief of an army that was responsible for the killing of their loved ones and hundreds of others.

On Tuesday 26th June, the day Elizabeth Windsor arrived in Ireland, a group of community artists and political activists erected a massive tri-colour measuring 120ft x 60ft on Sliabh Dubh overlooking Belfast.

Many unionist politicians reacted to this act of defiance by encouraging a gang of their paramilitaries to attack those on the mountain.

Inevitably, this did happen when a unionist gang attacked the protest and seriously assaulted one of the protestors, leaving him in a serious condition. The man, a former H-Block prisoner and blanketman, was very lucky to escape with his life.

As word circulated out about the attack, many republicans responded by going to the mountain to join the protest and strengthen the show of defiance.

The following day, Wednesday 27th June, the flag was once more erected and many more protestors joined with those already on the mountain. Both the PSNI and the unionists were deterred from taking any further action to disrupt the protest because of the presence of so many on the mountain.

Later that day, we gathered in support of a vigil outside Belfast City Hall organised by victims of British state violence, including relatives of all those killed in the Ballymurphy Massacre, who handed out leaflets to passers-by calling for an independent investigation into the killing of their loved ones.

This vigil was held outside a building which was then flying the “armed forces” flag in support of the British army – an army that murdered hundreds of Irish people, an army which continues to carry out massacres in Afghanistan; the same army of which Elizabeth Windsor is the commander-in-chief and whose hand a representative of constitutional nationalism thought fit to shake politely.

Beiträge die keine inhaltliche Ergänzung darstellen

Zeige die folgenden 10 Kommentare an

was soll das? — ...

Ekelhaft — !

Einfach mal nachdenken — No Pasaran

Einige Anmerkungen — Uschi

Lass Niveau regnen — No Pasaran

@No Pasaran — Ach...