Sinn Fein strate Martin McGuinness*
Sinn Fein peace strategy is the dynamic which led to the Irish peace initiative and led to the total cessation of military operations by Oglaigh na hEireann in August 1994.
The Downing Street Declaration and the Joint Framework Documents were formulated as a counter offensive to this to buy time, to constrain and delimit the possibilities which had been opened up.
In parallel, the wreckers went to work the securocrats and the political recidivists who would countenance no change; for whom the new situation simply meant the pursuit of war objectives by other means. And while they were successful in pulling the new situation apart they failed to extinguish the hope that had been inspired in popular opinion on this island and in Britain. [...]
Sinn Fein has not been naive in any of this. We were fully aware of the many flaws built into the talks process. Not least of these was the permanent government of securocrats and civil servants who have ruled the north for a quarter of a century. A bureaucracy which sought to impose a classical pacification programme when what is required is a conflict resolution process.
Nor were we naive about the possible outcomes to the talks process itself These were ring-fenced by the positions of the two governments.
And, of course, as was evident to all oheervers of the unfolding situation. we observers of the unfolding situation, we heralds a change in the status quo. And it could become a transitional stage towards reunification but only if all those who express an interest in that objective, especially the powerful and influential, move beyond rhetoric to build a real, dynamic for national democratic change.
But they must move beyond rhetoric. It was never and it will never be enough to say the nationalist nightmare has ended. And we, who are in the vanguard of this struggle, those risen people throughout this island and abroad are the guarantors of that.
So Sinn Fein will subscribe to what we view as positive in the Agreement, to those aspects which contribute to moving us towards our overall objectives, and it is you, the activists, who with the leadership, shall decide on that.
Some of our critics will say: 'You can't do that! You have to buy into it, all or nothing!" But they are wrong. [...] We will not be caged in, psyched out, intimidated, cajoled, patronised or bought off. We have our eye on the prize. The prize of freedom. * gy at the talks were fully aware that the blocking tactics of the unionist leaders would have to be thwarted. These included, preventing a talks process from getting off the ground at all. In this, they were ably abetted by John Major. Preventing Sinn Fein from participating when talks eventually began and trying to drive us out once this had failed. A purely tactical approach to the situation.
In all of this a united Ireland was not on the British agenda. Everyone knew that, especially republican activists. But it is and was on our agenda. Our remit was to negotiate an agenda for change -political and constitutional and in the matters which effect people most in their everyday lives, equality, rights, justice and demilitarisation. Our agenda for change in this limited but important short-term agenda were outlined in our Bridge into the Future document in March and our Future as Equals document submitted to the talks.
A united Ireland was not attainable in this phase. Because of Unionist opposition, and because, of all the participants, only Sinn Fein was advocating and promoting that objective. To the extent that our political strength permitted us to promote all of our positions we did so.
A stronger electoral mandate would conceivably have effected the outcome of the talks in any number of ways. We need to learn the lesson of that. We need to build on our electoral mandate to shape the many negotiations which challenge us in the future.* *Martin McGuinness led Sinn Fein's delegation to the talks *Martin McGuinness led Sinn Fein's delegation to the talks.
contents
Ireland: A new phase of struggle
• Gerry Adams
Sinn Fein strategy at the talks
• Martin McGuinness
Greece: the Olympic struggle
Denmark: Half million private sector workers on strike • Anders
Lang and Katrine Toft Mikkelsen
Ireland: the "peace" agreement
• Socialist Democracy statement
6 Australia: The power of mass action • John Tully
Senegal: PADS-Time for change
10 Chile: Senator-for-life Pinochet
• Pedro Brieger
12 Bangladesh-CHT: Peace, but in what shape? • Joyoti Grech and
Mrinal Chakma cover story
14 Asia's economic crisis
• Eric Toussaint
20 The international conjuncture
• Maxime Durand
24 Global financial speculation
• Jesús Albarracín and Pedro
Montes discussion
1968 in the United States
• Alan Wald
The "difference" debate in
30 feminism • Lidia Cirillo
Young women and feminism in
France • Laurence Ruimy regular features
33 books (student occupations in
Canada)
34 conference reports and listing
Radical press review
36 NetWorking • Internet action
Turoypapos: loavvns
106 81 Aenvo.
thA.
Kotoatos & Za, Mapıvou Avtuto 4, 163 46 2лолойл, tnA. 9719048. Editor and director: Yannis Felekis, Eressou 34, 106
81 Athens, Greece. Printed by loannis Kotsatos & Cia, Marinou Antipa
4, 163 46 Ilioupoli, Greece, tel. (30) 01/9719048. Distributed by
Spartakos, Eressou 34, 106 81 Athens, Greece, tel.(30) 01/3300675.
International,
Communications Internationale, — PECI, BP 85, 75522 Paris cedex
11, France. e-mail <[email protected]>, fax (+33)
Europe
Denmark
Half million private sector workers on strike
Denmark was shut down on 27 April by the most widespread labour protest since 1985. Private sector workers in industry, transport and construction stopped work in protest at a new collective bargaining agreement proposed by employers and trade union leaders. Anders Lange and Katrine Toft Mikkelsen
Employers and union leaders had insisted on combining the voting in several sectors, representing 500,000 workers (Denmark has about 5 million inhabitants), in the hope of drowning protesters in a sea of apathy, and making it more difficult for any one sector to oppose the collective bargaining settlement.
This time, the manoeuvre backfired. Anger and mobilisation, by shop stewards and workers in the steelworkers, unskilled workers (SiD) and women's unions (KAD) meant that the deal was rejected overall. This means that graphic workers, who voted to accept the agreement, have still been drawn into the conflict.
Benefiting from a more democratic voting procedure than in previous years, the campaign for a "No!" vote was able to build itself nation-wide, and find roots in the transport, metalworking and construction workforce.
Many rank-and-file workers, who had supported the demand for a sixth week of annual paid holiday, were outraged by the employers miserable offer. In the construction sector, the offer is for 1.5 extra days vacation, paid at a maximum hourly rate of 100 Dkr (US$14.60), 4 International Viewpoint #300 which is less than the average salary in the sector. Leaders of the Metalworkers Union settled for an extra holiday on December 24th - which in many workplaces is already a holiday. In those years when December 24th falls at a weekend, there would be no compensation.
Denmark has one of the highest productivity rates in the world, and, after a decade of extreme moderation, workers are increasingly frustrated that they do not receive a fair share of the profits they generate. Industrial wages have risen in recent years, since the decentralisation of the bargaining process. But workers are also demanding an increase in the minimum wage, and improved working hours, which are still negotiated centrally.
As well as these specific protests, many workers are fed up at the circus which dominates the evening news for three months every second year, when men in suits drone on and on about the importance of the agreement, and the difficulties involved, only to come out with such miserable proposals at the end of the negotiations. Working people feel - correctly - that they have little influence over "their" negotiators.
On the other hand, it is clear that many trade union leaders have responded more-or-less positively to the strike movement, in an attempt to justify their status and position. With more and more employers keen to negotiate directly with their workers, the central trade union apparatus is under pressure from below. It is also being squeezed "from above," as more and more European Union directives are