> The following is a transcript of a speech given by Bernadette Devlin > McAliskey in New York on 3 May 2000 at Rocky Sullivan's. It is currently on > the 32 CSM and Ireland's OWN websites and will be printed in the upcoming > issue of the Sovereign Nation. > > The Peace Process is. > > A great deal has been written about the peace process and I've not written a > lot, but what I've written I think has mattered and you can read it if you > like. For where the peace process is, indeed what the peace process is, very > much depends on yourselves and where you are. Some people think the peace > process is the successful culmination of the 30-year struggle for > self-determination, sovereignty, social justice, equality-nevermind > socialism and all the hard bits-and that we are looking within the peace > process at the culmination of the success, at the just achievements, won > again through hard struggle and sacrifice. > > Other people, and here I'm talking about people on our side of the line if > you want to put that at its broadest point, other people within the broad > civil rights, civil libertarian, progressive democratic movement will say > that the peace process is the worst thing that has happened to us since we > lost the 1798 Rebellion. Others would say, well not quite, but certainly > since we lost the War of Independence; and others would say, well maybe not > quite, but certainly since we lost the Civil War. > > So where you are in the peace process, as I say, is really a test of where > your own politics lies. And that makes it quite different and quite > difficult for people to address the whole process, because what ought to be > an ideological, a political or even a pragmatic debate becomes very much a > personalised debate. And those of us who have right from the outset warned > against the dangers of embarking on this particular strategy to bring the > war to an end have been on the receiving end of considerable personal > animosity-based, I think, on people not being quite sure of themselves about > the nature of the political debate. So I'm going to talk about things > tonight and I'll be taking some questions and answers later. I would like to > exclude as much as possible that kind of approach from the discussion. > > I don't think anybody involved in the struggle over the past 30 years has > set about consciously to betray the struggle. I don't think anybody who has > been part of the struggle for over 30 years is about to trade in a good set > of clothes and annual wage for their principles. I don't think that's where > it is at all. I think the real issue is about the process itself. The real > issue is to try and analyse and understand what exactly is happening here > and whose peace it is we are currently processing. And if you look at it > from that point of view, I think some very serious questions have to be > asked. > > Decommissioning: A New Word > > At the minute, within the peace process, we're sort of at a point where the > key issues appear to be things like 'decommissioning'. Decommissioning is > very interesting because prior to the existence of the peace process, the > word itself did not exist. Not even the process, not even the strategy, but > the word did not exist. Decommissioning, like a whole lot of words, are > themselves the product of the Irish peace process. There used to be > commissioning, like you could be a commissioned officer in an army or you > could commission services-but you either did or you didn't. So the opposite > of commissioning was not to bother. You didn't actually commission and then > decommission. If you commissioned something and then decided not to > commission, it wasn't decommissioning, it was changing your mind and > deciding not to commission afterall. So when we talk about the IRA > decommissioning, we're really talking about whether other people are > changing their minds about whether they will commission the IRA or not. When > you see it like that, you say, 'Look what has this got to do with any kind > of realism?' Decommissioning is not a real word; decommissioning is not a > real concept; and, decommissioning is not a real issue. > > But at the minute, people get bogged down in it because it has been a > consistent pattern from the beginning of this whole process to create a > situation for the simple purpose of diffusing it. And many people, if they > can move outside the complexities of the Irish situation will understand > this better from the concept of their own lives. How many people, for > example, have been told in their working lives, that things aren't going > well, the workers will have to take a wage cut. And everybody gets ready to > seek, and wish they had joined a union, and wonder how they could get into > one quick, and start to worry about their wages getting cut. Now at > somewhere in their heads they had been just about to ask for a wage rise; > but before they got time to ask for it, the employers came along and > announced that it was going to be necessary to have a wage cut. There is a > whole battle which ensues. The union leadership gets everybody to join and > declares a victory-that in order to maintain the solidarity of the workforce > and the recognition of the work that everybody has done, everybody's wages > are going to remain static for the next three years. And, everybody thinks > they have won because they haven't had their wages cut. And, everybody > forgets that the discussion actually started with people being entitled to > more money. > > If you're merely a consumer and you've gone into the shoppes to buy things, > the same policy works-people will tell you the cost of food is going to rise > dramatically. You want to rent an apartment; rents are going to go up > dramatically. And, when it doesn't happen, you think you have won > something-even though they go up a bit. The whole peace process has worked > on the same basis. > > Unionists say. > > The unionists say hell will freeze over before we share power with the > republicans. Now I don't recall any fundamental tenet of republicanism ever > being that we would assist the unionists in sharing out British controlled > power. It was never a part of the discussion, but somehow because the > unionists said, they got the first blow in, they said, oh not till hell > freezes over will we allow the republicans to assist us to administer > British rule. Oh no we wont. Oh never, said Mr Paisley, never never never! > And the republicans said, Oh yes you will. And so we had the 'Oh no we > wont-Oh yes you will' debate which led to a republican 'victory'. The > republicans won the right to assist the British government in administering > British rule and sharing British power with the unionists-or as much as the > British would allow either of them to have. And so when we lost, we thought > we had won. > And then having got the principle over, and if you go back to the beginning > you'll remember it, it was John Major, who with a straight face in > Parliament, said talking to Gerry Adams would make his stomach heave. His > stomach had been heaving for 6 stricken years, because that's how long he'd > been in discussions with the republican movement! But he said publicly that > his stomach would heave if he had to talk to Gerry Adams and everybody got > upset. Decent American people got upset too, and said how dare you be so > rude and so racist and say that you wouldn't talk to Gerry Adams. So the > republicans demanded, and the democrats demanded, that John Major talk to > Gerry Adams. But of course he'd been doing it for 6 years. Now if that > hadn't happened, we may all have taken a different point of view when we > discovered that Gerry Adams was talking to John Major. But by the time we > discovered it, we were on a whole different debate-we were on the 'right to > be talked at'. > > The Right to be Talked At > > As part of our human rights now, we have a right to be talked at! We have a > right to be sitting at every meeting and allowed to put an opinion on every > issue, none of which will be taken into account. But it is our basic human > right to be there. We all have a right-there is not a single party to be > held in Washington, not a cupcake to be eaten, not an invitation to be sent > out-that we have a fundamental freedom, and human rights under the United > Nations Charter of Human Rights, to an invitation. And we have secured > victory, because we got those things. And bit by bit, people have convinced > themselves that we have won major victories. > > Step back a minute and ask ourselves: what this was, what it was all about? > I mean, if all we wanted was to help the unionists share power in the > Northern Ireland Assembly, why didn't we democratise Ulster when Cathal > Goulding asked us to? They were all there, this is not a new idea (and > Cathal Goulding had better politics, if you don't mind me saying so, when he > was attempting to share power!) But if that's what we wanted to do, why > didn't we do it before 30 years of conflict and dying and killing and going > to prison all happened? Why didn't we do it then? If that was all that we > wanted-was to share power with Fianna Fáil in the South of Ireland, what was > the difference between sharing the power now, Fianna Fáil now, and sharing > power with Cumann na nGaedheal then? What did we fight the Civil War for, if > we were prepared to administer shared power in a partitioned state within > the social order imposed upon us by the British government? So never mind > what did we fight this war for, what did we fight the Civil War for? Why > didn't we listen to poor old Michael Collins? Because we're not saying > anything different than he said then. The freedom to win freedom, the > freedom to work for freedom. > > And I don't have a difficulty about people saying, 'Time goes on Bernadette, > and we get older, and we get wiser, and we realise that maybe that's what we > should have done'. I have absolutely no problem with that. I think that's > inherent in everybody's right to say if I had it to do again, I might have > done it differently. Maybe in retrospect, looking at the way things happened > and looking at the forces of power that developed, maybe we should have gone > down the 'deomcratisation of Ulster' road in the early '70s. Maybe if we're > in a position now, where if we really want to, at any cost, take the SDLP's > clothing and be the biggest social democratic and vaguely Catholic party in > the North of Ireland. Why didn't we do that in '72? In fact, why didn't > everybody just join the SDLP and elbow John Hume aside years ago? > > What is Republicanism? > > If people want to say to me, that is maybe in retrospect what we should have > done, that's fair enough. What worries me is when people say no no, that's > not what we're saying, what we are saying is that this is fundamentally > different-idealogically, socially, politically and economically > different-this is victory, this is victory for republicanism. And I have to > say, right, let's go back to that very bottom point because republicanism > itself is not a flawless ideology. Republicanism comes of the days of Thomas > Paine and republicanism itself is being revised as we go along. > > When we were coming in, just as an aside, when we were coming in to JFK, > probably those of you who live here don't notice it anymore but the > beginning of the American Constitution is written along the wall, and as > you're going along the walkway, you can read it you know. And my husband, > Michael, was suggesting, since this was his first time in through that > airport, he was suggesting that of all the ideas that we get from America > these days, we ought to incorporate this one so when people arrive in > Northern Ireland, the Special Powers Act should be written along the wall! > So people would know where they were coming. And it would say, 'Welcome to > Northern Ireland. Police may enter your house at any time, they may come and > take you away. Aye, you can be interned, you will not get a lawyer. You can > be shot in the street. We run a shoot-to-kill policy here. Don't send for a > lawyer, we shoot them too,' and incorporate that good American idea! > > But looking along, as I was looking at it, there are things we forget about > flaws in republicanism itself. The words in the American constitution are > actually very beautiful about equal rights and the rights of people to > secure their person, and the fundamental freedoms, and the right of citizens > to bear arms, and all this was written against a background of slavery. All > of this was written against the background where key elements of our society > got left off the equality equations. And, republicanism as a concept has > moved on in it's best form to recognise those weaknesses, and then as far as > it can to incorporate equality for all citizens, for all human beings. And > that kind of republicanism over the years has become socialist > republicanism. And republicanism in crisis has only one of two ways to go. > In crisis, republicanism as a democratic ideology will move towards > socialism and equality or it will move towards nationalism. > And, when republicanism is forced to move, either left or even right, the > reality of our history is that Sinn Féin as an organisation has never moved > any way but right. James Connolly was not a member of Sinn Féin, ladies and > gentlemen, and Sinn Féin at a crucial point in their existence took their > politics back into the constitutional movement. So don't be too hard on > Gerry Adams; he's going the way of his forefathers. Every last one of them > in the leadership of the organisation went that way. And every last one of > them, within the leadership of labour movement as well, can have that path > laid out in front of them. I can see as clearly as they must be able to see, > as anybody who wants to look at it outside of issues like trust and loyalty > and pragmatism and personalities, that this is not about good men or bad men > or difficult women. This is about politics. > And right through the history of our country at moments of clear crisis, the > republican ideology has been submerged. The republican ideology has been > abandoned for constitutional, nationalist all-class alliances. And every > time that it has happened, it has benefitted the greedy who aren't the > members of Sinn Féin-they're the members of Fianna Fáil, they're the members > of the unionist party, they're the members of the national bourgeoisie of > Ireland. Every single time that this new alliance has been created, the > people who have suffered have been the poor in Ireland. The dissidents in > Ireland. The radicals in Ireland. The women in Ireland. And at every single > point, this kind of politics has been bad for the people who have always > mattered to us-bad for the people that mattered to the leadership of Sinn > Féin, and bad for republican politics-bad for republicanism. > > The War is Over but the Struggle Continues > > You would imagine that people would approach this with due caution and care > and be very very careful not to fall for any of the tricks of the trade that > have been pulled out in the past. And yet that hasn't happened. The people > have not staggered, they have virtually stampeded towards pacification. The > war is over. Everybody knows the war is over. And that's probably the only > good thing we have going for us at this point is that the war is over. > Nobody likes war and nobody wants war. The war came and the war is now over, > but the war is not won. And time will tell, in the fullness of time whether > or not the war was actually lost. But the war is over-win, lose or draw. > > The struggle continues and the struggle is immeasurably weakened by the > peace process. Immeasurably weakened. When the Downing Street Declaration > was first written, I wrote a small piece in response to it, and I said the > purpose of the Downing Street Declaration and the peace process which it > created was to demobilise, demilitarise and demoralise the republican people > of Ireland-and it has done all three. > At this point, people will say to you, 'Is the peace process stalling?' No, > it is not. The peace process is exactly where it is; it is exactly where > those who are controlling it want it to be. It is not stalling. There is no > panic here. This is just part of the choreography that has taken place. It > will go on whether the IRA part with a single bullet, part with a single > Armalite, part with a single ounce of Semtex-wont make any difference, the > peace process will go on and Sinn Féin will continue to be drawn further and > further into it. And they are now so far into it, it is highly unlikely a) > that they can be got out of it and b) that even if they got out of it, its > unwavering movement forward to advance the shared power interest of the > British and Irish governments, and the class of people they represent, can't > in the short or relatively long term, be stopped, or even be slowed down. > > How do I know the peace process will continue? It is important to the Irish > government that it continue. Not because their heart bleeds for me or you, > for the people who went to prison-these are the same class of people who > executed Joe McKelvey. This is the same class and government of people that > took republicans out during the war and shot them. This is the government, > the ideology and the politics that filled New York and Chicago and San > Francisco with the political dissidents it wouldn't allow to earn a living > at home, and with wave after wave of immigrants it wouldn't share wealth > with. And now those who have made their money are invited home to join the > wealthy. But let me tell you this, you see if you're not hacking it here > folks, don't count on Bertie pulling you out when you get home! It will be > up to Darndale, along with the rest, is where you'll be and learn to pull > your socks up. These things aren't different. > > So why is Bertie stuck to enacting the peace process? It gives him a stable > society. It brings all the strands of nationalism back under his leadership. > What is the big discussion in the revolutionary leadership of the most > consistently fought struggle against British imperialism in the history of > Ireland? What is the key internal debate in the organisation at the minute? > On what terms will they sit in government with Fianna Fáil? I have the > simple answer to that for them all: Don't lose any sleep over it boys, it'll > be on the terms that Bertie lets you in! That's the terms you'll sit with > Bertie-on the terms he lets you in. And the terms he lets you in are that > you sit in power in the North first, that you go through the cleansing > ritual and be a safe pair of hands for government. And that means, whether > you like it or not, there'll be less talk about socialism, unless its me > that's doing the talking, there is no talk about socialism anyway. And > unless you're buying Fourthwrite (second issue which will be out very > shortly) there's nobody writing about socialism. > > But what does it mean for the people? What does it mean for the people on > the ground, apart from that the fact the war is over and that there are > maybe less soldiers on the street that can be brought out. That maybe fewer > people are being killed by loyalists because its not politically suitable. > But there is nothing in place to stop those things from all coming back > again, if and when we need to be threatened. So all that we have at the > minute is the absence of war and the existence of large amounts of European > money. > > What do the British get out of the peace process? > > So what do the British get out of the peace process? The de-militarisation, > the de-radicalisation, the de-mobilisation of the resistance movement in the > North. It is demoralised. The most radical thing it can do now is vote to > increase the Nationalist agenda by moving 1) Sinn Féin, 2) SDLP-as if we > were all mates out of the same stable or 1) SDLP and 2) Sinn Féin because > there are no differences, no ideological differences between these people > any more, because there's no war. > > So what did the British get? The British got, as I say, stabilising, > demilitarising, mobilising and caught in the expenditure of war. That has > great feedback in inward American investment, which is what the Americans > got as well. They got rid of the annoying and irritating insistence > constitutionally by the people of Ireland that the territory didn't belong > to them. It's gone. Now we used to have these debates about whether or not > you would go to the United Nations on the basis of the Constitution. That > debate is no longer valid because of people of the South of Ireland, while > Sinn Féin kept its mouth shut, dropped a right that they didn't even own! > And, that was a right to abandon the North-but it's gone. > > So if the peace process falls apart and the North's teachta go with it, and > the ministerial North-South-East-West Council of something or other goes > with it, and we have to go back to the drawing board, by what right is > Bertie Ahern at the table? By what right, if this agreement goes by the > board, and it's back to the drawing board and start again, and all the > interested parties who have a right to determine the future of the North of > Ireland are called to another conference. What will be on the invitation to > the government of the 26-county Republic of Ireland? What will distinguish > them from the French government or the German government or any other member > state of the European Union to come in and mind somebody else's business? > They have no standing if this agreement falls to play ball in the next > round. > > So Britain got pacification, got a stable society, got rid of the annoying > interference such as it was or potential interference from the South. It > doesn't actually have to put up with unionist rule because it may never > happen. The British don't care if it doesn't happen. The place is actually > cheaper to run the way it is now. Pay the secretary of state, pay the civil > service. It would be a bonus if you could get somebody else to take the > blame for political and social and economic weaknesses of the country. But > it's not necessary. The British can run the country very easily. So it > doesn't matter if the peace process doesn't move another inch, it actually > doesn't matter-the British are in a better position than they were in before > they started it. > > What do the Irish get out of the peace process? > > Now as I say, the Irish government from our point of view is in a worse > position because we don't have the constitutional position on which to push > the government into constitutional action, into non-violent, political > international action. We don't have it. But they may not want it-the Irish > government to be able to get up the next time around and say, 'Look I'm very > sorry, it's not our fault. The people voted.' And so they did; it's the > people's fault, and ignorance is no defence, and stupidity is less. The > people voted to abandon the North, and it remains abandoned. Now the people > have to vote in a referendum to change it; but, the government has to hold > the referendum first. Do you think that any government in the South of > Ireland is going to hold a referendum to ask the people to allow them to get > themselves into the mess it taken them all this time to get out of. So > they're alright. > > But if all falls through, and Sinn Féin stop jumping through hoops, what > position will they be in? What of the gains that they have made for > themselves or for the people will they be able to hold on to? American > visas? Not a chance. They'll not be let into this country if they don't > behave themselves. We've all been there, we know what that's like. They'll > be no more big dinners courtesy of the Democratic Party because it will not > be fashionable any longer to be seen on the arm of shinners. All that they > have in this myth of American support can go like that. And of course the > good people who fought the good fight to get them the visibility and get the > doors opened that were opened will continue that fight. But the door will be > shut. > > Peter King will always be there doing what Peter King has always done, but > Peter also remembers when the door was shut in his face. And that door can > be shut again, and voting is a great invention. There are people in this > room and people not in this room, who want to know whoever gave the people > the vote anyway, because they do the most ridiculous things with it. And, > the people who have gone out in their droves and voted for Sinn Féin, who > never lifted their finger for human rights. And there are many hundreds of > people, thousands of people, who voted for Sinn Féin when the penalty for it > was getting shot. And, there are many decent men and women standing for Sinn > Féin in elections now who stood for election when the penalty for standing > for election was getting shot. And there were kids and older people who went > out and worked and put up posters for republicans when you got crucified for > it. > > But there is a new breed of voter, who used to vote for the SDLP, now > they're voting for Sinn Féin-not because they had a radical change of heart, > but because Gerry Adams is younger, smarter and better looking than John > Hume. And he's going to be around longer. Now once he cannot deliver, once > he cannot deliver, that insulting vote will walk away again-will walk away > again to a safer pair of hands, and they'll be back where they started. > > And so you say, how did they get in to the peace process and why don't they > get out of it? At some point there is a dignity in when you can do nothing > else, gathering your dignity and walking away. And even of this era, if they > could do that, instead of running off to Westminster demanding that Stormont > be put back together again so they can sit in it and play revolutionary > politics. Why don't they just send a message to Mr Blair saying, 'look, been > there/done it, when yous are serious about resolving, conflict resolving > problems, you know where we live,' and then just walk away from it? They > can't. They can't because so much energy has been vested in it. They can't > because it's a very seductive system and far too many of their own people > now like it. > > It's Like a Funnel > > When I came here in whatever it was, '94, and I said at the time where it > was all going, nobody believed me. I counselled them not to be blaming Gerry > Adams when it went to where it was inevitably going, because it was very > clear that that's where it was going and when it would come to this point, > he would have very choices left because it's like a funnel. > > There will be people in the four corners of the world in military and > political academies studying the absolute genius of this British strategy. > And when they get up to draw the diagram, the diagram will be the funnel. > How people were got to the lip, and each option they made, and each choice > they made, actively limited the number of choices then open to them, and > increased the chances of them having to choose the only choice the British > wanted them to make the next time around. And each time they did it, the > funnel got narrower. > And Sinn Féin are now hanging by their finger nails. You know the wee narrow > bit that goes right inside the neck of the bottle? That's where they are. > And the slope down has got steeper. They're already inside the bottle but > they're still hanging on to the funnel. And it's very very hard for them to > start that climb back. If Gerry Adams, I believe, turned now, the majority > of his own party wouldn't come with him because for some it's too steep a > climb back and for others there's a nice warm breeze, and nice smell, and I > don't know what it is in that bottle, but far too many people like it and > they're happier to move on in. > > The reality, however, is that it has nothing to do with politics as we know > it, nothing to do with the things that those of us who are republicans > believe in, nothing to do with carrying forward the ideology and the > struggle and the capacity to create an independent, sovereign, free and > socialist Ireland. Not even an independent, free and democratic Ireland. The > game has changed. And as I said at the beginning, every human being is > entitled to change their position in life. Everybody is entitled to say, > 'Could you stop the bus for a moment? I want to get off here.' But nobody is > entitled, and there's a man at the top of O'Connell Street who says it all > the time, 'nobody even looks the road he's on.' Charles G Parnell said, > 'nobody has a right to put a halt to the march of a nation.' And Sinn Féin > do not have the right, and the peace process does not have the right to say, > 'this is where the bus stops, this is the terminal, this is where everybody > gets off,' because this has nothing to do with the things we struggled for. > This has nothing to do with equality, nothing to do with human rights, > nothing with the working class, nothing to do with socialism. > > This is how yet again the British buy in to constitutional politics the > leadership of the revolutionary movement. Its about nothing more and nothing > less. And it is a measure of the length of the struggle, the loyalty of the > people and the calibre of the leadership that so many people followed them > to their own destruction. > > Thank you. > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Get 2 FREE books at eHarlequin.com.Indulge in our romantic books, > recipes and getaway ideas. Take your romantic escape today to > http://click.egroups.com/1/4778/5/_/502727/_/960129677/ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >
