The
O'Loan report into collusion between British policing
in Ireland and the murder of Irish citizens by
unionist paramilitaries comes as no surprise to
Irish republicans. The task for Irish republicans
now is to place this report, and the issues it
raises, into their proper political context. First
and foremost the extent of this collusion points
to the inescapable fact that such activity was
deliberate British government policy in Ireland.
It was not simply the work of rogue officers,
or inadequate accountability mechanisms, or the
absence of token nationalism within its structures
but a systematic abuse of British policing agencies
in Ireland by the British government to defend
and enforce their jurisdictional claim. This collusion
is the product of a British political will to
use it and continues to be so. That political
will directs and orchestrates British policing
in Ireland and at this point in time it believes
those interests are best served by having that
policing endorsed by an Irish political opinion
which formerly refused to do so. That endorsement
now represents and defines political policing
and underpins the contention of the 32CSM that
the British governments political will to utilise
policing structures to protect its occupation
will continue. Until the conflict over the violation
of our national sovereignty is resolved all aspects
of British policing in Ireland will remain political.
In
light of this report, and others, and the political
imperatives that stem from it, there now exists
a grave onus on the leadership of that political
opinion to clearly explain what obligations it
had to honour with the British authorities on
policing due to the constitutional constraints
of the GFA? Will this leadership explain openly
to its supporters what impact the blatantly choreographed
dropping of Annex E from the St Andrews Agreement
was meant to have on their opinion of British
policing in Ireland? Will it further outline what
influence, if any, a regional British Policing
Board can exert over the now conceded right of
the British government to direct the activities
of its security services in defence of its national
borders?
On
behalf of the 32CSM I wish to direct some observations
toward the delegates of the impending Emergency
Ard Fheis.
The
Emergency Ard Fheis called to secure support for
your leadership's position on British policing
in Ireland has grievous implications for Irish
republicanism. The fact that the motion is before
you is in contravention of the expressed will
of the previous Ard Fheis, as outlined in motion
395, underscores the absence of any democratic
basis for the present predicament. That motion
395 was put to the Ard Fheis by the very same
Ard Chomhairle now presenting the policing motion
compounds the matter and begs the question; why
flout its own motion and the democratic support
for it? Are they interested in your viewpoint
or just your endorsement of its will?
The
issue of policing cannot be detached from the
constitutional question unless that question is
recognised as resolved. The British government
recognises it as resolved as does Dublin as expressed
in a recent article in the Irish News. By default
the proposals put forward in the St Andrews Agreement
are proposals based on the recognition of partition
being no longer a contested issue and are thus
designed to police and normalise the present constitutional
status quo. The Emergency Ard Fheis is not in
session to express an Irish political will but
to endorse a British political will in Ireland.
I urge you to reject this will.
Much
has been made of the supposed absence of alternative
strategies on this issue and the broader issue
of reunification. In truth the requests for alternatives
are made in the earnest hope that none actually
exist and that the present course represents the
only option available. Political alternatives
are developed by a political will to develop them
and the absence of imposed constitutional constraints
to pursue them. The 32CSM has the political will
to utilise the overwhelming evidence of British
state abuses of policing in Ireland to forcefully
argue that the British government can never be
an acceptable agent in any aspect of policing
in Ireland. We can further argue that this situation
demands that policing be completely removed from
British control and placed under independent auspices
and we are not limited by any constitutional constraints
to do so. Can Sinn Fein utilise and develop this
alternative under the terms it is bound to by
the Good Friday Agreement? Can Sinn Fein entertain
alternatives on policing outside of an overall
British remit on them? This is the broader debate
that republicans need to engage in and not the
narrow definitions agreed in secrecy with the
British authorities.
The
32CSM recently launched two documents outlining
our views, position and alternatives on the policing
issue. No Other Law,
The Politics Of Policing In Occupied Ireland
and The
Necessity Of Policing & The Necessity For
Constitutional Change represent a coherent
and practical political programme for republicans
to adopt to address the issue of policing in its
totality. We urge all republicans to study and
engage with them.
The
Emergency Ard Fheis has been described as an historic
occasion. In that context I would remind the delegates
that what the British expected off Collins and
DeValera, having made similar commitments, came
to pass despite strenuous denials from both that
such expectations could ever be realised. That
is the price for recognising the legitimacy of
British Parliamentary activity in Ireland. If
you endorse your leaderships motion what will
the British, unionist and Dublin authorities demand
that your leadership demand from you?
