Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 00:25:54 +0000
From: Chris Burford <cburford-AT-gn.apc.org>
Subject: M-I: Ireland end game?


Amid scepticism about Blair's target of ending the multi-party talks by
May, suddenly there are pointers that this might in a limited fashion be
attained. 

About a week ago Blair made a public statement where he boldly and
defiantly said he would do anything for peace (including talking to
Republicans) - And go away with it. That is the "bi-partisan" approach with
the Conservative party did not crumble, and he was not denounced with a
wave of critical editorials in the British press. Despite the fact that
Sinn Fein is eligible to re-enter the talks after being suspended for only
6 working days, after two deaths attributed to the IRA...

Suddenly tonight, to the surprise of her mother, former Bernadette Devlin,
Roisin McAliskey, has been freed of the fear of possible extradition back
to Germany for investigation of the bombing of a British Army barracks, on
the decision of the British Home Secretary (who has been guided, so it is
said, purely by an appraisal of the impartial medical evidence of her
fitness).

But most of all, this follows a statement by Gerry Adams yesterday, that
accepts major restrictions on Sinn Fein's negotiating hopes at this
critical time. I could not obtain a copy of Ireland on Sunday, but the
commentary in today's Guardian (London)  notes the following points. The
interpretarion of why Adams made them, and what he expects his own
consituency and other players to do, is the real significance.

1. No imminent prospect of the unification of Ireland. Instead an attempt
to put pressure on the Irish government on this issue, while retreating
from Sinn Fein's claims to be able to promote this at this stage. It is
opposing Ahern's readiness to alter articles 2 and 3 of the Irish
constitution.

2. Cross border bodies with executive powers, not veto-able by a Unionist
assembly in the North

3. Dismantling of the RUC [I suspect this is the most substantive issue
which might represent a real shift in the balance of power in the politics
of Ireland, and on which the British government might make some concessions]

4. The withdrawal of the British army. [probably a pragmatic point for the
Labour Government, especially with its agenda of cutting government
expenditure]

5. The release of all republican prisoners. [the signal tonight appears to
indicate this will not be treated as a matter of principle]


Counter statements by Ulster Unionists belittled these demands. There is
speculation that Sinn Fein would not sign a multiparty settlement.
Nevertheless a statement signed by the two governments, the official
unionists and the SDLP, that the Republicans found it acceptable to
acquiesce in, would still mark a shift.

A recent opinion survey among northern protestants put Trimble ahead of
Paisley in defending Unionist interests, and Trimble's gesture in going
together with the SDLP leader to mourn the dead of both denominations in
Poyntzpass suggests he calculates he has freedom of manoeuvre to distance
himself further from inflexible Unionist opinion.

Meanwhile the immediate skirmishing is around whether Sinn Fein will now
agree to come back into the multi-party talks and whether Adams and
McGuiness will get their meeting with Tony Blair on which day. But it
appears that Blair *will* meet them in Downing Street.

Who is outwitting whom more, in this dramatic gesture by the head of the
British imperialist government to its bitter adversary, remains to be seen.
It is a fact that the armed struggle over twenty-five years could not be
won by Britain, but nor it seems does the Republican movement think it can
be won by them. 

Adams' statement at a critical time ahead of the scheduled end of the talks
suggests he is preparing the Republican movement for the reality of partial
success, and also trying to focus pressure on those points which are either
possibly attainable or important for the Republican movement to maintain in
its contention with others within Irish politics.

It seems likely there are fairly sophisticated behind the scenes
calculations about possible trade offs between different negotiating
positions. Perhaps the radicalism of reform of the RUC will be traded
against the ease of decomissioning Republican arms. Perhaps the change in
the Irish constitution will be traded only against substantive cross border
agencies with teeth.

It is not necessary for all parties to sign up to the agreement for it to
be relevant. It is only necessary that a sufficiently complex process of
negotiation to have taken place for an equilibration of interests to have
been tested and for all significant parties to conclude they have more to
gain by not continuing fighting than by continuing it, whether they do so
reluctantly or with enthusiasm.

If some readers might suspect Adams of selling out to imperialism, perhaps
they can say what different terms he might realistically bargain for, (if
you accept the principle of a peace process). 


Chris Burford

London.







     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---