Can Éirigí replace Sinn Fein as Ireland's main Republican party

Nicked mercilessly from Mick Hall's Organized Rage. Please direct any comments you have there.

---

By Mick Hall

I have published below in full an article about Éirigí, (Arise) a comparatively new Socialist Irish Republican organization that first emerged in April 2006, after a number of Sinn Fein's leading members in the Dublin City area resigned from the party. At first they concentrated on building a core leadership base in both political jurisdictions on the island of Ireland. Then gradually began organizing against partition, the Afghan war, support for the Shell to Sea campaign and various other progressive causes.

Éirigí is now in the process of registering as a political party after its Ard Fheis [Conference) last May agreed by democratic vote to go in this direction. There is little doubt that Éirigí has steadily recruited experienced Republicans, many of whom first cut their political teeth, helping to build SF in the post Hunger Strike period. Éirigí has also managed to attract a younger generation of Republicans, something that SF is finding difficult to achieve these days.

Éirigí has made it clear it is opposed to armed struggle, claiming at this time there is no mass popular support for it. It’s main strategy seems to be, to replicate the manner in which SF in the 1980s-90s gradually built its support base by patiently building political support at a local level within working class communities in both rural and urban areas, before moving forward electorally.

After I recently wrote it is imperative for Éirigí to challenge SF at the polls if it is to gain ground, I was told by an Éirigí member I must have patience as the party has no intention of entering the electoral fray, before it has prepared its support base on the ground, as it intends taking its membership and any potential voters with it every step of the way. Which was something I found encouraging as it means without a solid presence in a constituency or ward, it has no intention of parachuting in candidates etc...

MH.

* Photo above of leading Belfast republican and Éirigí member Brendan Mac Cionnaith.

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

Éirigí: New kids on the Republican block.

By Conor McMorrow.

Slowly, but steadily and obviously, a new political group has started to make its presence felt. It was present last weekend when workers from the Thomas Cook travel agent locked themselves in their Dublin office to protest at inadequate redundancy terms. It has been a regular at the Shell to Sea protests in Mayo. Staff at the Israeli embassy in Dublin have become very familiar with its protests. It expects to play a prominent part in the campaign to oppose the Lisbon treaty, and soon it will apply to be registered as a political party. Already, two Sinn Féin councillors have resigned to join the new grouping.

So who is behind this organisation, éirigí, whose name translates as 'Arise'? What defines éirigí's politics? And is this dissident group in support of or opposed to violence?

Dissenting voice.

The group was formed in April 2006, on the 90th anniversary of the 1916 Rising, as a dissenting voice against the status-quo republicanism of Sinn Féin. It barely registered on the Irish political radar at first but it has recently become more prominent. éirigí protestors have been particularly noticeable at the Shell to Sea protests in Co Mayo.

Other activities have included distributing leaflets calling for a boycott of Israeli goods at shops in Belfast, organising a protest at an RIR (local British army unit) homecoming parade for soldiers returning from Afghanistan and picketing Stormont when former British prime minister Tony Blair visited, to oppose British foreign policy in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The group is thought to have around 200 activists in the North and a few hundred in the south, with the highest concentration in working-class areas of Dublin.

Speaking to the Sunday Tribune, the organisation's chairperson Brian Leeson said, "We are in the process of registering as a political party after our ardfheis in May gave us a mandate to contest elections." So how does Leeson define éirigí's politics?

"We are socialist republican. We would define our politics relative to all other parties and not just by comparing ourselves to Sinn Féin. Over the last three years, we have succeeded in attracting people who were never involved in politics at all so it is wrong to assume that our members are all from Sinn Féin.

"We see the Good Friday Agreement as more likely to reinforce partition than get rid of it. We favour building a mass movement in support of Irish freedom and British withdrawal.

"We started in Dublin and now have a good foothold across the six counties and a more scattered membership across the south."

A republican source, who defected from Sinn Féin some years ago, said, "It was started by people who had been in Sinn Féin but grew disillusioned with the progress and development of the party three or four years ago.

"They were not particularly pleased with the way Sinn Féin was moving within the establishment in the six counties and they were concerned about Sinn Féin's social and economic policies in the south. Sinn Féin's position in the 2007 general election would have confirmed their outlook that Sinn Féin moved away from being a republican socialist party."

Mary Lou McDonald's sister Joanne is one of a number of Sinn Féin activists that left to join éirigí around that time.

"éirigí has accepted the IRA ceasefires and it has non-insurrectionist policies," the republican source continued. "It is not planning an insurrection and there is no armed wing in the undergrowth. It is not a younger version of the Continuity IRA."

Sources in the North view éirigí as having a militant profile in the south but it is not seen as "serious" about national sovereignty issues by militant republicans, who view it as just a "more active Sinn Féin".

Militant republican Dominic Óg McGlinchey was formerly a member of éirigí, and two men (Brian Shivers and Colin Duffy) charged with the killing of two British soldiers at Massereene army barracks in Co Antrim last March had been members, but they left éirigí before Massereene.

Sources claim the organisation genuinely does not want a return to violence in the North; it just initially attracted people who thought otherwise. One republican source said, "éirigí doesn't want to be within spitting distance of those involved in armed struggle against British soldiers or police."

Protests.

Informed sources say there have been a number of events in recent weeks that prove éirigí is not a violent organisation. Firstly, it had several members present at anti-Orange Order protests in Ardoyne in north Belfast last month but none were involved in the violence that ensued.

Secondly, the North's First Minister Peter Robinson held talks with Brendan Mac Cionnaith, spokesperson for the Garvaghy Road residents, last month. The talks were aimed at finding an end to the protracted dispute between the Orange Order and residents over the annual Drumcree march.

A republican source explained, "Mac Cionnaith left Sinn Féin some time ago and he is now in éirigí. It is significant that Robinson met him. As First Minister, he would be well briefed by the PSNI chief constable so I would be very surprised that if Robinson had the slightest suspicion about éirigí having an armed wing those talks would have gone ahead.

"The UUP was decimated by the DUP for doing business with Sinn Féin. If Robinson was willing to meet éirigí there must be no lingering doubt that it has a military wing."

When asked about éirigí's position on the use of violence, Leeson, who is from Lucan in west Dublin, replied, "We are not in support of or aligned to any armed organisation as we don't believe the conditions exist for a successful armed struggle and we believe there are more constructive ways for republicans to channel their energies."

So who is joining éirigí? Sources claim it is attracting a demographic of people in their 30s, mainly from working-class areas of Dublin.

"They are people who joined Sinn Féin as teenagers and are now a generation of republicans that have become disenchanted with the direction Sinn Féin is taking. They are fairly solidly working-class Dublin and they seem to have a good grip on social and economic issues in the capital.

"Éirigí has no grip in areas like Cork and Kerry so, apart from its supporters in the North, it is pretty much a Dublin phenomenon. It had no candidates in the local elections and that is probably because it doesn't have the resources, capacity or manpower to contest elections yet.

"I don't think it is a massive organisation but it could pose a real threat to Sinn Féin as it has some very articulate, intelligent people in their 30s involved and these people are hard working and full of energy."

One republican, who has closely watched the emergence of éirigí, drew an interesting analogy between the new movement and the politics of former Official IRA chief of staff Cathal Goulding.

He said, "éirigí seems to be very interested in the nationalisation of natural resources. It won't like this comparison but its politics sound a bit like the republican movement of Cathal Goulding. There are certain similarities as it is aiming at building a party on a base of Dublin working-class socialists."

Opinion is mixed on whether or not éirigí poses a realistic threat to Sinn Féin. While some observers say Sinn Féin is concerned, others say it is not, as éirigí doesn't pose an electoral challenge.

Embarrassment.

Éirigí has caused Sinn Féin some embarrassment in the last fortnight when councillor Louise Minihan left the party to join the new organisation, claiming Sinn Féin had "steadily moved away from the core values of Irish socialist republicanism".

The reality is the beneficiaries of Sinn Féin's mediocre electoral performance in the June elections were the Socialist Party's Joe Higgins, in taking McDonald's Dublin EU seat, and People Before Profit, which capitalised on a move to the left by gaining council seats.

One observer said, "éirigí is pointing out the inconsistencies in Sinn Féin to a younger generation. Its critique is intellectual rather than on the street in gunfire. Unlike other breakaway groups in the last decade, it cannot be written off as the people who are responsible for Omagh."

A republican source told the Sunday Tribune Brendan Mac Cionnaith provided a significant insight into éirigí's modus operandi at a meeting in Belfast shortly after the two British soldiers were killed at Massereene barracks.

"At that meeting, Mac Cionnaith went to some lengths to point out the importance of a point made in the Irish Republican Brotherhood (IRB) constitution drawn up in 1873," said the source. "That constitution stated that the IRB would not stage an armed insurrection without the will of the people.

"Bulmer Hobson, a key figure in the IRB, was opposed to the 1916 Rising, as it was contrary to the 1873 document. It was significant that Mac Cionnaith highlighted this at a meeting in Belfast as he was showing that it is opposed to arms."

In some quarters, éirigí is seen as a trendy left-wing group. Its emphasis on becoming a party of protest is not incompatible with Sinn Féin membership except that Sinn Féin has admitted itself that it has drifted away from grassroots activism.

In her controversial article in An Phoblacht last month, Toireasa Ferris said the party was "suffering from an identity crisis" and needed "to get back to the basics of representing people on the ground and building republicanism from the ground up".

Hardliners in the North believe éirigí's efforts are tokenistic and do not challenge British rule. Some even suspect a conspiracy theory behind the group's motives. There is some suspicion among hardline republican dissidents that while many éirigí activists are 100% genuine, Sinn Féin had a hand in the organisation's formation and some of its main figures' loyalties lie with Sinn Féin.

The conspiracy theory goes that Sinn Féin knew it would lose people, so it decided to set up a "tame opposition" that would engage in left-wing activities rather than have members defect to dissident paramilitary organisations.

The IRB framed a constitution in 1873 and Hobson opposed the 1916 Easter Rising because it contravened that document.

Éirigí's recent reference to that 1873 constitution is part of the latest chapter in the kaleidoscopic history of Irish republicanism. Just three years into its existence, it is still unclear to what degree éirigí will feature in future chapters of that troubled history.

Additional reporting by Suzanne Breen.

Colin Duffy to contest Euro elections

Regular readers of the Wombat Hole would be familiar with the name of Colin Duffy, the dissident northern Irish republican accused of involvement in the recent attacks in the six counties, and who went on hunger strike to protest his innocence and ongoing detention without charge, a detention which was ruled to have been illegal.

Well, it now appears that Duffy is set to stand as an independent candidate for the European elections, on June 4-7.

According to Ciaran Cunningham, a Belfast spokesman for "an umbrella organisation representing a number of dissident republican groups",[1] Republican Network for Unity:

"Colin Duffy intends to stand as a candidate in the upcoming European elections," he said.

"He will be standing on an end-28-day-detention ticket and an anti-internment ticket. A steering committee has been set up to direct the election campaign and RNU fully endorses that committee."

Naturally the Unionist spin-cycle has gone into hyper-drive accusing Duffy and his friends of "using this election as a personal and perverted referendum on a return to terror.” Whatevs...

Duffy, 41, currently faces eight charges in relation to the attack on the Massereene barracks in Antrim on March 7th, an attack which the Real IRA has already taken responsibility for.

While there is little (well, stuff-all, really) chance of Duffy replicating the victories of the likes of Bernadette Devlin MacAliskey or hunger-strikers Bobby Sands and Kieran Doherty,[2] and win one of the three available seats, the Belfast Telegraph probably has it right when it points out that "the campaign would highlight the introduction of 28-day detention under the Terrorism Act and could diminish Sinn Fein’s Bairbre de Brun’s prospects of topping the poll ahead of the DUP’s Diane Dodds."

For more (if not directly related) discussion of Norn Iron and what goes on there, see the ever-engaging Organised Rage, and the finger-on-the-bleeding-pulse reportage of Splintered Sunrise, as well as the bods over at éirígí and An Phoblacht.

---

[1] Apparently this includes a large number of ex-POWs and ex-members of Sinn Fein, the 32 County Sovereignty Movement and the IRSP.
[2] While the Representation of the People Act of 1981 banned serving prisoners from running in elections in respnse to these victories, Duffy is on remand, rather than a convicted prisoner, and is still able to run.

Ireland: Colin Duffy to refuse food

Below is a statement from the family of Colin Duffy, one of the Irish republicans arrested after the recent attacks in the six counties, stating that he is refusing to take food in protest over the injustice of his case.

**UPDATE: Since posting this, the news has come out of prisoners in Maghaberry prison going on hunger strike in solidarity with the Antrim Interrogation centre prisoners (including Duffy), currently being held under UK terror laws that allow 28 day internment without trial.
It also appears that the killings that sparked this whole fiasco have had at least one positive effect.**

**UPDATE 2: After a Belfast court overturned the police order allowing the ongoing detention of Duffy and five others, forcing their release, Colin Duffy has been re-arrested. See the comments section below for his family's response.

---

Colin Duffy to refuse food: Statement from Duffy Family

COLIN DUFFY - A CASE OF TRIAL BY MEDIA
OPPOSE THE NEW FORM OF INTERNMENT

In the immediate aftermath of the fatal shootings in Antrim and Craigavon, the media and some local politicians hysterically engaged in what can only be described as frenzy of finger pointing and ‘felon setting’.

As each politician and reporter attempted to outdo the comments of each other regarding who may have been responsible, a deliberate picture was painted that resulted in the media and politicians identifying who ought to be arrested. Our family member Colin was one of those and, in due course, the PSNI obliged.

Colin’s arrest came as no surprise to us, his family. Due to the unsubstantiated comments made by sections of the media and by Stormont politicians, it was our great fear and worry that he would be ‘set up’ as a scapegoat. Our family’s concerns and worries have been reinforced by two very important facts that both the media and politicians have failed to report or comment upon.

Firstly, Colin was visited at his home four days home before his arrest by the PSNI to inform him that a threat had been made on his life. The PSNI photographed Colin at his front door.

Why did the PSNI not arrest him then?

Secondly, following his arrest, Colin’s legal representative was astounded to be informed that the arrest was “not based on evidence”. In the absence of any evidential basis for his arrest, it is clear that the PSNI had other sinister motivations for detaining him.

It is the view of his family that the PSNI’s motivations are based upon sheer vindictiveness and also as a reaction to the media frenzy.

It was similar vindictiveness, spurred on by a hostile media, which led to the wrongful arrest and lengthy imprisonment of innocent people in the past such the Birmingham Six, the Maguire Family and the Guildford Four. More recently, we have witnessed, in the cases of Sean Hoey and Chris Ward exactly what the PSNI are capable of.

How many more people will be wrongfully detained for prolonged periods of time under the new form of internment before someone says “Stop, not in my name’?

While the Duffy family are calling for Colin's release, we are also fully aware that there are others detained under the current British legislation which can hold them for 28 days. We would like to take this opportunity to call for their immediate release also.

Colin has now been detained since Saturday March 14th. In an attempt to bring this ‘farce’ to an end, he is now refusing to take food in order to highlight the injustice he is suffering.

We have all been down this road before and know where it can end unless true leadership is shown.

Justice is a right. It is not a gift to be given or removed from citizens by a police force acting at the behest of local politicians and the media.

Please do whatever you can to ensure that Colin receives justice NOW!

STAND UP FOR JUSTICE! FREE COLIN DUFFY!

Northern Ireland: An Unholy Alliance

Irish democratic socialist republican group éirígí responds to the media bias and misinformation being bandied about in the wake of recent attacks in the Six Counties of northern Ireland.

Two other responses can be read here and here. Some good background on the issue can be found here.

********************************************

16/03/09

éirígí director of publicity Seán Mac Brádaigh analyses the recent media reaction to events in Ireland.

An Unholy Alliance: What lies behind media coverage of recent events?

A spectre haunts Ireland, the spectre of republicanism!!!

Media attacks on Irish republicans are not a new phenomenon. As long as there has been resistance to British rule in Ireland there have been journalists willing to do Britain’s work and attempt to demonise and criminalise republicans. The Sunday Independent in particular has a long tradition of anti-republicanism. Almost 100 years ago under the ownership of William Martin Murphy, it acted as cheerleader for British army recruitment; encouraging Irish men to go and fight in Britain’s imperial wars. Those who stayed with the Irish Volunteers and fought in the 1916 Easter Rising were described by the same paper as being involved in ‘criminal madness’. According to the paper ‘no terms of denunciation would be too strong to apply to those responsible for the insane and criminal Rising of last week’. Not satisfied with the fact that following the Rising thirteen men had already been executed; the Sunday Independent continued to bay for more republican blood. The editorial of 12th May was explicit in its demands:

‘Certain of the leaders remain undealt with, and the part they played was worse than that of those who have paid the extreme penalty. Are they, because of an indiscriminate demand for clemency, to get off lightly, while others who were no more prominent have been executed?’

Their wish was duly granted. On 12th May 1916 a seriously wounded James Connolly, the man who had fought so vigorously against William Martin Murphy during the 1913 Dublin Lockout, was strapped to a chair and executed by a British army firing squad. The same fate befell Seán Mac Diarmada.

So it was no surprise to find that last weekend the Sunday Independent launched an ill-informed diatribe against republicanism in general and éirígí in particular. The author of the piece is the paper’s so-called ‘security’ correspondent, and committed fantasist Jim Cusack. Jim Cusack is an experienced hand at the black art; he has been the most persistent advocate of the Sunday Independent’s particular brand of anti-republicanism. Author of a book on the UVF, Cusack has built his ‘journalistic’ career on the back of spreading lies and innuendo about Irish republicans. He also regularly acts as a mouthpiece for Gardaí, with consistent claims on their behalf that they lack the resources to deal with crime.

The fog of anti-republicanism clouds his approach to many issues: for instance he has argued that British collusion with loyalist death squads in the 1974 Dublin/Monaghan bombings is an ‘unfounded conspiracy theory’. Renowned for a liberal interpretation of the truth and a less than rigorous approach to checking his sources; Cusack has on occasion been made to look less than competent. The 2006 Dublin riot during the ‘Love Ulster’ parade is a case in point. Firstly Cusack claimed that fellow fantasist Willie Frazier’s Love Ulster inspired march was no loyalist affair rather a march of ‘victims of IRA violence’. Unsurprisingly, Cusack neglected to inform his readers that the ‘Love Ulster’ organisation was founded by a coalition of loyalist groups including loyalist paramilitaries. Or that in August 2005, UDA leader Jackie McDonald was on hand to launch the ‘Love Ulster’ newspaper, as it was offloaded from a boat at Larne harbour, in an attempt to rekindle memories of the UVF gun-running operation at the same harbour in 1914. Cusack claimed that the riots had been co-ordinated by a coalition of republican groups.

Below is a short excerpt from his interview with Newstalk radio the morning after the riot:

Jim Cusack: There was a fair a bit of planning. Absolutely, a fair bit of planning. There was 2 or 3 groups involved here, it wasn't just them. And also, it wasn’t just Republican Sinn Féin, there was other groups as well. There was the political wing of the Real IRA and there was almost certainly in collusion with other groups and Sinn Féin people were there in the background.

NewsTalk106: Jim, where is your evidence for that?! You are the only person I’ve heard saying this.

Jim Cusack: No I’m not...

...

Jim Cusack: What Gardaí aren’t saying this?

NewsTalk106: The Gardaí are saying they still don’t know.

Jim Cusack: Well y…Ask the guards. Why don’t you ask the guards, (well, you know what I mean but the guards, oh sorry, the guards [?]broke an[?])…

NewsTalk106: They are still saying they are not sure if the riot was orchestrated – they actually don’t know, as we speak.

Jim Cusack: No, no, no, you’re quoting official spokesmen (you know) and they don’t say anything that’s any significance whatsoever. The Garda management made a mess of this here – whether or not they had the intelligence and I believe they did have the intelligence. They just didn’t act on it and this got out of hand.

NewsTalk106: If they had the intelligence, Jim, why would they not act on it?

Jim Cusack: Well, there’s all sorts of reasons for that there (I mean), they don’t want to over-spend on overtime and stuff like that. There’s resource and human resource led management in the police force which really doesn’t tally with the needs of what’s going on in the city sometimes.

Clearly, Jim doesn’t like to let facts get in the way of the particular fanciful narrative he has created. Indeed he has been criticised both by community representatives and the Gardaí for some of his wilder fantasies and sensationalist reporting. Last April in a front-page piece for the Sunday Independent he claimed that ‘carnage was averted at a funeral in Limerick after a man armed with an automatic handgun was prevented from gaining access to the cemetery during the burial of murder victim James Cronin.’ The piece had absolutely no basis in fact and was dismissed as ‘wild speculation’. His latest fantasising involves éirígí and is a fine example of feverish imagination and appalling journalism.

It is difficult to know where to begin analysing this piece because from the outset Cusack gets some very basic facts completely wrong. A cursory search of the éirígí website would provide some information on the background and formation of éirígí as a campaigns group in Dublin in May 2006. Cusack and his political ‘sources’ it seems have other ideas and would like to create an altogether different narrative: one that fits the Sunday Independent and his new political ‘sources’ agenda. So he reports as ‘fact’ that ‘éirígí was formed in early 2007 after a group split from Sinn Féin when the party voted to support policing in the north’. This is simply wrong. And it is an attempt to suggest that éirígí has but a singular agenda. Unfortunately for Mr. Cusack and his new political ‘sources’ there has been much published about éirígí since its formation in May 2006, some of it in fact written by Cusack himself, and which dispels this particular lie.

Lest he has forgotten, let us remind Jim what he wrote in the Sunday Independent on 28th September last: ‘the decision by the Sinn Féin party leadership to soften its socialist position on economic and what are termed core republican issues has led to resignations and defections to a group called éirígí [which] started life two years ago in Dublin’. So which is it Jim? Perhaps he might return to his political ‘sources’ to clarify the matter. Or perhaps if he can’t trust them or indeed himself he might check with his peers. He could start with fellow ‘security’ correspondent Tom Brady, who wrote in the Irish Independent back in July 2006 that the Garda Special Branch was ‘closely monitoring members of éirígí’. Or he could have checked the story published by fellow Sunday Independent journalist Maeve Sheehan on 21st September last, which reported that éirígí was founded in 2006. One imagines that checking facts and sources is the staple of any credible journalist. While Cusack’s political ‘sources’ might be keen to portray éirígí in a particular light and to manipulate facts and spread falsehoods, a story published in the Village magazine by Scott Millar, on 22nd June 2006 would have provided Cusack with at least an accurate date as to the formation of éirígí. The article briefly quoted current éirígí chairperson, Brian Leeson: ‘This group has emerged from Dublin-based political activists who felt that what was needed was a credible campaigning group that was going to promote Socialist Republican politics in Dublin and challenge a lot of the inequalities we see around us.’ So while Cusack and his political ‘sources’ would like to portray éirígí as simply the ‘anti-policing party’, fundamentals such as the truth have got in the way of that particular line.

We then move on to Cusack and his ‘sources’ description of éirígí as an ‘extremist group which has sought to link itself with legitimate protest over the last two years’. The falsehood that éirígí was established in early 2007 has already been dispelled. Now to the allegation of ‘extremism’ and ‘manipulation’ of other groups: what does Cusack and his ‘sources’ mean by ‘extremist’? éirígí is unashamedly a republican and socialist party. It seeks to be part of a movement that establishes a republic based upon fundamental principles of liberty, equality and solidarity.

We stand by the pledge of Wolfe Tone ‘to unite catholic, protestant and dissenter under the common name of Irishman’ and his belief that ‘our freedom must be had at all hazards. If the men of property will not help us they must fall; we will free ourselves by the aid of that large and respectable class of the community - the men of no property.’

Like Fintan Lalor we wish to see Ireland ‘free from the centre to the sea’.

We believe as James Connolly did that ‘the British government has no right in Ireland, never had any right in Ireland and never can have any right in Ireland’.

And unlike those who pay it lip service; we stand by the commitments set out in the Democratic Programme of the First Dáil:

‘the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland, and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies to be indefeasible, and in the language of our first President. Pádraíg Mac Phiarais, we declare that the Nation's sovereignty extends not only to all men and women of the Nation, but to all its material possessions, the Nation's soil and all its resources, all the wealth and all the wealth-producing processes within the Nation, and with him we reaffirm that all right to private property must be subordinated to the public right and welfare’.

If this is what the Sunday Independent and their new political ‘sources’ consider to be ‘extremist’ we are proud to carry that label.

éirígí does not seek legitimacy from any group or campaigns. We have not as Cusack implies sought cover behind any group. We are an open democratic political party that has organised political campaigns and events in conjunction with many other groups and individuals. We were proud to play our part in the defeat of the Lisbon Treaty last summer. Unlike the establishment we respect the democratically expressed will of the people in rejecting the Treaty. However, as the Treaty will be put to the people a second time we look forward to working alongside our colleagues in the Campaign Against the European Union Constitution (CAEUC) and defeating it a second time. We take inspiration from the community in Rossport, Co. Mayo who have been harassed and bullied by the state and demonised by the media and will continue our work in the Shell to Sea campaign. We are equally proud to take our place alongside the massed ranks of those who oppose imperial wars. As affiliates of the Peace and Neutrality Alliance and the Irish Anti-War Movement we will continue to oppose the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan and support the people of Palestine in their struggle against Israeli oppression. We will take our place alongside workers on the 30th March, as we did last month when 120,000 people marched in opposition to government cuts. éirígí will not be deflected from any of this work. We will continue to organise politically. We do not require nor desire the approval of nationalist politicians and we certainly do not seek ‘legitimacy’ as others might from imperial powers in London or Washington.

There is a bizarre twist to Cusack’s piece which is somewhat baffling. Not a man known for his regular jaunts to west Belfast, he claims in his piece that the homes of éirígí members in that part of the country were picketed following the killing of two British soldiers in Antrim last week. Clearly his new ‘sources’ are attempting to portray éirígí as a group that is isolated within the republican heartland of west Belfast and its members treated as ‘outcasts’. This came as a great surprise to the very many members and supporters of éirígí in west Belfast. There were no pickets of any description outside the homes of members of éirígí. Indeed had Jim, the not so intrepid reporter, actually done some work and bothered to check his sources he might have discovered that éirígí in west Belfast hosted a very successful function last Friday evening on the Whiterock Road. The event was advertised in advance and held to mark the 90th anniversary of the First Dáil. It was filled with members, supporters and members of the public, with no pickets to be seen. Perhaps Cusack might like to elaborate on his ‘source’ for this particular fantasy.

So there it is. A tissue of lies and fabrications served to undermine legitimate political activism. Republicans should not be surprised nor deflected by this. There are clearly many forces at work. The fact is the media and certain political representatives and organisations are seeking to criminalise and demonise republicanism. That they are doing so in conjunction with British state forces and the reactionaries of the Sunday Independent, and other erroneous outlets, is a worrying development. It is a tactic tried and tested by countless British administrations. It has failed every time. And it will fail again. éirígí will vigorously defend its right to organise politically. It will defend the integrity of its organisation and membership. It will not allow the gutter journalism of a Sunday Independent hack, nor mischievous briefings from anonymous political and state ‘sources’ to deflect it from playing its full part in rebuilding republicanism. There has been much recent bluster from nationalist politicians about denying republican groups room to breathe. éirígí does not seek nor require the approval of any politician. It will continue to work alongside others in building popular support for republican and socialist demands.

Print-friendly version

Responses to the events in Ireland's north

There have been a number of different responses to the recent attacks in the Six Counties in northern Ireland, most of them stridenty critical, and for good reason.

The responses and some analyses are listed below , followed by an important and relevant piece from James Connolly, the heroic socialist revolutionary who fell in the Easter 1916 Uprising, and whose work remains some of the best for understanding the Irish struggle, and what the best solutions might be.

Sinn Fein
Éirigí
Eamonn McCann
SWP
Lenin's Tomb
Socialist Party
Brian Freeney
Socialist Democracy (and this)
A musical response

James Connolly - Physical Force in Irish Politics (1899)

---

From Workers’ Republic, July 22, 1899.
Transcribed by The James Connolly Society in 1997.

---

Ireland occupies a position among the nations of the earth unique in a great variety of its aspects, but in no one particular is this singularity more marked than in the possession of what is known as a ‘physical force party’ – a party, that is to say, whose members are united upon no one point, and agree upon no single principle, except upon the use of physical force as the sole means of settling the dispute between the people of this country and the governing power of Great Britain.

Other countries and other peoples have, from time to time, appealed to what the first French Revolutionists picturesquely described as the “sacred right of insurrection,” but in so appealing they acted under the inspiration of, and combated for, some great governing principle of political or social life upon which they, to a man, were in absolute agreement. The latter-day high falutin ‘hillside’ man, on the other hand, exalts into a principle that which the revolutionsists of other countries have looked upon as a weapon, and in his gatherings prohibits all discussion of those principles which formed the main strength of his prototypes elsewhere and made the successful use of that weapon possible. Our people have glided at different periods of the past century from moral force agitation, so-called, into physical force rebellion, from constitutionalism into insurrectionism, meeting in each the same failure and the same disaster and yet seem as far as ever from learning the great truth that neither method is ever likely to be successful until they first insist that a perfect agreement upon the end to be attained should be arrived at as a starting-point of all our efforts.

To the reader unfamiliar with Irish political history such a remark seems to savour almost of foolishness, its truth is so apparent; but to the reader acquainted with the inner workings of the political movements of this country the remark is pregnant with the deepest meaning. Every revolutionary effort in Ireland has drawn the bulk of its adherents from the ranks of the disappointed followers of defeated constitutional movements. After having exhausted their constitutional efforts in striving to secure such a modicum of political power as would justify them to their own consciences in taking a place as loyal subjects of the British Empire, they, in despair, turned to thoughts of physical force as a means of attaining their ends. Their conception of what constitutes freedom was in no sense changed or revolutionised; they still believed in the political form of freedom which had been their ideal in their constitutional days; but no longer hoping for it from the acts of the British Parliament, they swung over into the ranks of the ‘physical force’ men as the only means of attaining it.

The so-called physical force movement of today in like manner bases its hopes upon the disgust of the people over the failure of the Home Rule movement; it seeks to enlist the people under its banners, not so much by pointing out the base ideals of the constitutionalists or the total inadequacy of their pet measures to remedy the evils under which the people suffer, as by emphasising the greater efficacy of physical force as a national weapon. Thus, the one test of an advanced Nationalist is, in their opinion, one who believes in physical force. It may be the persons so professing to believe are Republicans; it may be they are believers in monarchy; it may be that Home Rule would satisfy them; it may be that they despise Home Rule. No matter what their political faith may be, if only they are prepared to express belief in the saving grace of physical force, they are acclaimed as advanced Nationalists - worthy descendants of ‘the men of ’98.’ The ’98 Executive, organised in the commencement by professed believers in the physical force doctrine, started by proclaiming its adherence to the principle of national independence “as understood by Wolfe Tone and the United Irishmen,” and in less than twelve months from doing so, deliberately rejected a similar resolution and elected on its governing body men notorious for their Royalist proclivities. As the ’98 Executive represents the advanced Nationalists of Ireland, this repudiation of the Republican faith of the United Irishmen is an interesting corroboration of the truth of our statement that the advanced Nationalists of our day are utterly regardless of principle and only attach importance to methods – an instance of putting the cart before the horse, absolutely unique in its imbecility and unparalleled in the history of the world.

It may be interesting, then, to place before our readers the Socialist Republican conception of the functions and uses of physical force in a popular movement. We neither exalt it into a principle nor repudiate it as something not to be thought of. Our position towards it is that the use or non-use of force for the realisation of the ideas of progress always has been and always will be determined by the attitude, not of the party of progress, but of the governing class opposed to that party. If the time should arrive when the party of progress finds its way to freedom barred by the stubborn greed of a possessing class entrenched behind the barriers of law and order; if the party of progress has indoctrinated the people at large with the new revolutionary conception of society and is therefore representative of the will of a majority of the nation, if it has exhausted all the peaceful means at its disposal for the purpose of demonstrating to the people and their enemies that the new revolutionary ideas do possess the suffrage of the majority; then, but not till then, the party which represents the revolutionary idea is justified in taking steps to assume the powers of government, and in using the weapons of force to dislodge the usurping class or government in possession, and treating its members and supporters as usurpers and rebels against the constituted authorities always have been created. In other words, Socialists believe that the question of force is of very minor importance; the really important question is of the principles upon which is based the movement that may or may not need the use of force to realise its object.

Here, then, is the immense difference between the Socialist Republicans and our friends the physical force men. The latter, by stifling all discussions of principles, earn the passive and fleeting commendation of the unthinking multitude; the former, by insisting upon a thorough understanding of their basic principles, do not so readily attract the multitude, but do attract and hold the more thoughtful amongst them. It is the difference betwixt a mob in revolt and an army in preparation. The mob who cheer a speaker referring to the hopes of a physical force movement would, in the very hour of apparent success, be utterly disorganised and divided by the passage through the British Legislature of any trumpery Home Rule Bill. The army of class-conscious workers organising under the banner of the Socialist Republican Party, strong in their knowledge of economic truth and firmly grounded in their revolutionary principles, would remain entirely unaffected by any such manoeuvre and, knowing it would not change their position as a subject class, would still press forward, resolute and undivided, with their faces set towards their only hope of emancipation – the complete control by the working-class democracy of all the powers of National Government.

Thus the policy of the Socialist Republicans is seen to be the only wise one. “Educate that you may be free”; principles first, methods afterwards. If the advocacy of physical force failed to achieve success or even to effect an uprising when the majority were unenfranchised and the secret ballot unknown, how can it be expected to succeed now that the majority are in possession of voting power and the secret ballot safeguards the voter?

The ballot-box was given us by our masters for their purpose; let us use it for our own. Let us demonstrate at that ballot-box the strength and intelligence of the revolutionary idea; let us make the hustings a rostrum from which to promulgate our principles; let us grasp the public powers in the interest of the disinherited class; let us emulate our fathers and, like the ‘true men of ’98,’ place ourselves in line with the most advanced thought of our age and drawing inspiration and hope from the spectacle presented by the world-wide revolt of the workers, prepare for the coming of the day when the Socialist working-class of Ireland will, through its elected representatives, present its demand for freedom from the yoke of a governing master class or nation – the day on which the question of moral or physical force shall be finally decided.

From Iceland to Ireland: the streets are rising...

With Iceland gone down the drain, and the Latvian government having collapsed only the day before, the greatest circus in the world continued to ramp up its act, with the Irish looking set to host the next crisis of a capitalist system give every impression of entering its death-throes.

*******
Also: An Phoblacht, éirigí, Socialist Party, this, this, and more
*******

Never a people to miss out on a party, up to 120,000 people took to the streets in Dublin last Saturday, surrounding the Dáil (Irish Parliament) and closing the Irish capital down. [Dublin – it should be pointed out, has a population of only 1.2 million, and the Republic of Éire only 4.7 million. This is easily the biggest protest since the Iraq war.]

The protest, organised by Ireland's chief union body, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU), was directed against the Irish government's planned austerity measures, increasing unemployment and the ongoing bailouts of failing banks.

The most odious of these is a proposed "pension levy" on public sector workers, the centre-piece of the Irish government's economic recovery package. The Irish economy - the "Celtic Tiger" - was once a poster pin-up of a neoliberal economy in the EU mould. Ireland slipped into recession last year, however, a situation made worse by a collapse in the important building and real estate sectors, and it's now looking more and more likely that the balloning budget deficit is going to hit 9.5% of Irish GDP by the end of the year. As a result, unemployment is exploding - a record 326,000 people were claiming unemployment benefits in January, and the number is likely to reach over 500,000 by the end of the year.

But that's not all.

On top of the job losses, the hip-pocket political suicide which is the "pension levy" [more on which below] and a recession so wide you could drive a revolution through it, Ireland is also wracked with outrage at what the bourgeois media calls "the handling" of Ireland's banking crisis, particularly the scandals seeping out of the Anglo Irish Bank, which was nationalised last month after collapsing under the weight of its own bad debts.

Anglo’s former chairman, Sean Fitzpatrick was forced out last year after it was revealed that he secretly took out 87 million euros worth of personal loans form the bank, and he clearly wasn’t the only bad apple in the barrel. There are already links being made or suggested between the bank's failure and people close to Irish Taoiseach (Prime Minister) Brian Cowen and the Fianna Fail government, including the Taoiseach himself.

So, to turn this all around, Cowen has cooked up a "levy" scheme aims to slug 350,000 public sector workers for between 1,500 euros and 2,800 euros (£2,500) each per year as the cost-cutting Cowen's finance-friendly response to the recession, in order to “save” about 1.4 billion euros (1.8 billion dollars) this year alone, with plans for €15 billion in cuts over the next few years. And while Cunning Cowen talks of "saving" 15 billion euros to stabilise Irish finances, his government is busy pumping public funds into the banking sector, a fact which hasn’t escaped public scrutiny.

And there's the rub. In short: the government plans to recapitalise Allied Irish Banks and the Bank of Ireland by chucking €7 billion (that's about US$9 billion, about £6 billion, and something near AU$14 billion) into the fetid sinkhole of financial capitalism. Where's the cash coming from? Why, the National Pensions Reserve Fund, of course, a pretty package of cash (and a sovereign fund, to boot!) set up to pre-finance the pensions of public servants that retire after 2025. And what does Cunning Cowen do to fill the new financial black hole he's created? Why, he tries to make public servants pay a levy to recoup the costs. Brilliant!

The only problem apears to be that the Irish - despite the racist slurs and bigotry - ain't stupid, and they’ve just shown that in a 6-figure protest. And not the first, either, by all accounts.

ICTU leader David Begg said that the Dublin demonstration was "just the first step in a rolling campaign of action" to achieve a similar bringing to account of the country's bankers and politicians as the union-led protests that toppled the Icelandic government in January.

In fact, Begg apparently went further, calling for the nationalisation of the entire banking system, and ICTU president Patricia McKeown addressed the protest, ripping strips off the "casino capitalism that has brought this country to its knees.

"An economy cannot be built on shady financial deals, privatisation of public services and the ever insatiable greed of the very, very wealthy," she pointed out.

"But we face a government which wants the workers who built the economy to now sacrifice while it protects and bankrolls those who wrecked it. We are not prepared to live in that type of society," Ms McKeown declared.

So, the wombats raise our Waterford crystal glasses of whiskey and propose a health to the coming collapse of another stinking crooked government, and to the rise of people’s power, in Éire, Europe and across the world! Sláinte, agus beir bua!

'Sinn Féin and the Politics of Left Republicanism'

From An Phoblacht:

A NEW BOOK, Sinn Féin and the Politics of Left Republicanism, by An Phoblacht columnist and Sinn Féin activist Eoin Ó Broin, is set for release next week in Dublin and in Belfast.

Published by Pluto Press of London, the book is a critical analysis of the past, present and future of Sinn Féin and ‘left republican’ politics.

The premise of the book is that, despite the growth of the party in recent years, Sinn Féin is much misunderstood and often misrepresented.

Speaking to An Phoblacht this week, Ó Broin said:

“I wanted to write a book which, on the one hand, told the history of Sinn Féin and left republicanism from its origins in the 18th century to the present while, at the same time, offering a critical analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the left republican project.”

CHAPTERS

The book is divided into four chapters.

Left Republican Origins explores the history of the United Irishmen, Young Ireland and late 19th century socialists.
The Arrival of Left Republicanism takes a critical look at Connolly’s Irish Socialist Republican Party and asks why this project was such a political failure.

Left Republican Interventions looks at various left republican forces during the 20th century, including Liam Mellows, the Republican Congress, Clan na Poblachta and the Workers’ Party/Democratic Left. Again, the author explores why each of these projects failed to develop into significant long-term political projects.

The book’s final chapter, A Century of Struggle, charts the history of the Sinn Féin party from Arthur Griffith to the present.

Ó Broin again asks why left republicanism failed to become dominant within the broader nationalist movement or indeed in the country as a whole. He also explores the relationship of Sinn Féin’s nationalism to its socialism, and issues of class, gender and the party’s attitude to unionists.

HISTORY LESSON

The book’s conclusion, The History Lesson, looks to the future and asks how Sinn Féin can become the dominant political force in Ireland.

“The vast majority of books on republicanism,” Ó Broin says, “are written by non-republicans. This does not diminish the value of books by such authors but it is time that we started to engage in the debate about our own past, present and future in a more analytical, critical and reflective way. To do so can only strengthen our ability to advance the struggle for a 32-county democratic socialist Ireland.”

The Dublin launch of Sinn Féin and the Politics of Left Republicanism will take place on Monday 16 February at 6pm in the Pearse Street Public Library, 138-144 Pearse Street. Councillor Daithí Doolan will chair the event and Sinn Féin MEP for Dublin Mary Lou McDonald will speak. The Belfast launch will take place the following Wednesday, 18 February, at 7pm in Lecture Theatre 2, St Mary’s College on the Falls Road. Sinn Féin Mayor of Belfast Tom Hartley will chair and former Hunger Striker Dr Laurence McKeown and Queen’s University Belfast Professor Richard English will speak.


The publishing of this new book has already stimulated some interesting discussion over at Mick Hall's Organized Rage, where Mick writes:

Irish Republicanism is currently passing through a traumatic period of reassessment and regroupment. It is not an exaggeration to say that many Republicans have been shaken to the core by Sinn Fein’s (SF) willingness to not only enter the Stormont Assembly, which many support, but to also help administer British rule in the north of Ireland and by so doing sending out a signal that it accepts the Police Service of Northern Ireland as a legitimate vehicle of law and order.

Whilst the more traditionally minded Republicans have found a home in Ruairí Ó Brádaigh’s Republican Sinn Fein,(RSF) which was founded after Ó Brádaigh’s supporters broke from the Provos back in 1986, over Republicans taking their seats in the southern parliament. Although firmly established RSF has failed to gain a mass support base in either of the Irish political jurisdictions.

Those who defected from the Provisional’s over the last decade, after the terms of the ‘Peace Process’ became to onerous to accept, have also struggled to build an alternative to SF. The largest group to emerge has been éirígí, whilst it has managed to recruit some of the more experienced activists from the SF, along with young people who are new to Republicanism, it has yet to decide whether it will stand candidates for local and parliamentary office. Which demonstrates that this is still a contentious issue amongst its membership. It has carried out some audacious act of agitprop, but as one experienced left republican said to me, “Fine, it gets éirígí name into the public consciousness but it does not put bread on the table.

What he meant was that for Republicans to be effective there must be a combination of political activity on the street and within local councils and other elected bodies. One of the major failures of Left Irish republicanism has been its inability to gain a foothold within and thus have a left republican voice within Stormont and the Dáil, the lower house of the ROI parliament. This leaves the way clear for SF’s brand of Republicanism, which some critics believe comes close to being a form of collaborationist politics, which has resulted in SF making major concessions in both jurisdictions to the political right.

Thus a new book by Sinn Fein member and left republican Eoin Ó Broin is to be welcomed, Eoin was part of a left republican grouping within Dublin SF. Whilst many of these comrades went on to found éirígí, Eoin has remained within SF and regularly argues his corner in the Party’s paper An Phoblacht.

Click here to read the full post & comments at Organized Rage.