PARTITION--WHAT IT MEANS FOR IRISH WORKERS By Sean O Mearthaile ********** from An Camcheachta/The Starry Plough The Theoretical Magazine of the Irish Republican Movement Vol 1. Issue 2 ********** (facilitator note for readers new to Ireland: Articles 2 and 3 referred to here in the article are two articles in the Irish Contitution which read as follows: Article 2: The national terrotory consists of the whole island of Ireland, its islands and the territorial seas. Article 3: Pending the reintegration of the national territory, and without prejudice to the right of the Parliament and Government established by this Contistution to exercise jurisdiction over the whole of that territory, the laws enacted by the Parliament shall have the like area and extent of application as the laws of Saorstat Eireann (Irish Free State) and the like territorial effect. There significance for this article is that there has been for some time a movement afoot in Ireland to repeal these articles which refuse to conceed the partition of Ireland or the surrender of Irish sovereignty over the whole of Ireland. The politcal impact of this debate is discussed in the article, along with other topics.) Given the conservative ethos of the Irish constitution with its promotion of the rights of private property and its ban on divorce, it is not surprising that many Irish workers would not be up in arms against proposals to change it. And republicans would be among the first to agree that the 1937 Constitution is outdated and a new modern constitution is needed for a new modern Ireland. However, the plans being promoted to change Articles 2 & 3 represent an attack on the very concept of uniting the Irish people and the need to bey very carefully examined by all who wish to build a new progressive democratic socialist society in Ireland. It may be argued that Articles 2 & 3 are irrelevant to Irish workers in this ongoing economic crisis. But, is the opposite not the case? Is the whole tragic history of the past 70 years, North and South, with mass unemployment, poverty and emigration and social and economic backwardness not a vindication of James Connolly's warnings when partition was mooted in 1914? CONNOLLY'S PREDICTIONS Partition was first proposed, against the wishes of both unionists and nationalists, by British Prime Minister Asquith in 1914. Connolly wasted no time in attacking the proposal and wrote in "Forward" in March 1914: "Such a scheme would destroy the Labour movement by disrupting it. It would perpetuate in a form aggravated in evil the discords now prevalent, and help the Home Rule and Orange capitalists and clerics to keep their rallying cries before the public as the political watchwords of the day. In short, it would make division more intense and the confusion of ideas and parties more confounded." He dismissed the support for partition by Home Rule MPs Redmond and Devlin (the 1914 equivalents of Haughey and Hume), as the "depths of betrayal" in the "Irish Worker" of March 14, 1914. Connolly did not relent there. He went on to write a longer piece in "Forward" on April 11 in which he made clear his fear that partition would be a disastrous setback for the cause of democracy and: "the effect of such exclusion upon labour in Ireland would be at least equally, and probably more, disastrous. All hopes of uniting the workers, irrespective of religion or old battle cries will be shattered and through North and SOuth the issue of Home Rule will be used to cover the iniquities of the capitalist and landlord class." Just like today, the then establishment, through the press which they controlled, continued to push their partition proposal as the 'price of peace' which Connolly angrily termed an outrageous falsehood. Unfortunately after Connolly's death the labour leadership did not heed his warnings and advice and the labour movement failed to take a clear stand against the partition imposed under threat of "immediate and terrible war" in 1921. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT It is not necessary here to go into a long critique of the failed economic entities that are the Six and 26-County states today. The basic facts are depressingly familiar: over 400,000 unemployed, well over one million living in poverty and another million in economic exile. The pertinent question is: did partition have a part in these dismal statistics and would an end to partition make any difference? Clearly some of the disadvantages of the Irish economics are directly attributable to the division of the country. These include reduced markets North and South (a CII study this year found that 75,000 extra jobs could be created over five years by more north/south trade alone); duplication of support bureaucrats (Industrial Development Agency/Industrial Development Board, Irish Tourist Agency/Northern Ireland Tourist Board, etc.); the decline of the border areas and of course the hundreds of millions wasted on 'border security' every year. Even the New Ireland Forum, which was set to halt the increase in support for Sinn Fein admitted: "The division of the island has been a source of continuing costs, especially for trade and development in border areas, but in general also to the two separate administrations which have been pursuing separate economic polices on a small island with shared problems and resources. The North was not a natural economic or administrative unit and its separation from the rest of the island, resulting in separate approaches rather than a single policy for each sector, without provision even for joint planning or capital investment programmes, had heavy economic penalties. In addition, there has been duplication of effort at official and private level and an absence of economies of scale in the transport, tourism and energy sectors and in the health and education services." But the broader effects of the southern state's lack of full independence and its dependency syndrome are even more debilitating. Valuable taxpayers' money, which should have been used to develop Irish industry, was used to entice foreign multinationals into setting up plants here. As predicted by many socialists and republicans (with some notable exceptions), these multinationals did not transfer modern technology into the Irish economy, but gobbled up grants and tax breaks to set up mainly assembly production units and used transfer pricing to create large profits, which were then siphoned out of Ireland. These exported profits, when added to the capital invested abroad by Irish businesses and interest repayments on the foreign debt, have totalled 4 billion Irish pounds per year for the last three years, which is one fifth of our GNP. If even a fraction of this exported wealth (which is generated by Irish workers) was reinvested in Ireland, it would make a massive difference to our levels of unemployment, emigration and poverty. But this is unlikely to happen while the present partitionist regime with its neo-colonial mentality of dependence on multinationals and the EC handouts remains in control. It is true that a united Ireland would not necessarily do things differently but it is impossible to envisage any effective challenge to the present right-wing establishments, North and South, as long as partition persists and the working class remains divided. As Ronnie Munck and Douglass Hamilton put it: "Continuation of present trends will almost certainly not meet people's needs in either Irish state. An evolutionary and co- operative reunification on its own is simply not enough and some kind of democratic transformation of the economy would need to occur. The presently underused and misued resources of the Irish economy, North and South, could be unlocked." SOCIAL PROGRESS? Has the social development of the two partitioned states in Ireland been any better than their economic performance? Again, we do not have to look far for the answer. In the South, divorce is banned, information on abortion is banned, homosexuality is banned and even non-medical contraceptive sales are limited despite the 'new liberalism' of Fianna Fail and the Progressive Democrats. There is still much clerical control of education and health with Catholic 'ethics committees' in hospitals banning and restricting certain medical procedures such as sterilization and hysterectomies. In the North social backwardness also prevails. A current example is the row over the proposal to open a Brook Advisory Clinic in Belfast. An unsavory alliance of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP, the party of the Catholic middle class), the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP, the party of Ian Paisley), the Catholic Church and the Free Presbyterian Church (Paisely's church) is opposing this sex advisory service for young people. Add in the 'Save Ulster from Sodomy' campaign of the late 1970's and early 80's, the censorship of films like 'The Life of Brian' and the ban on playgrounds opening on Sundays and it is clear that Connolly's predicted 'carnival of reaction' is in full swing on both sides of the border. The question is: would this situation change if partition was ended? One way of answering this is to look at the most reactionary elements in Ireland and their stance on Articles 2 & 3. The most conservative leaders in the Catholic Church such as Cahal Daly and Bishop Newman have made it clear that they wish to preserve their little Catholic-dominated state in the South. Daly has openly called for an end to Articles 2 & 3 as have the Jesuits, who play a major role in preserving social and economic inequality in the south with their exclusive private schools. They are supported by the most right wing politicians in the South like Pat Cooney and Brendan McGahon, who have been leading opponents of social liberalization, republicanism and socialism. In the North the same link exists between the anti-republicanism and social reaction with Paisley and his party and the conservative Catholic wing of the SDLP as represented by Eddie McGrady being prime examples. In a divided Ireland where the Catholic Church dominates in the South and Protestant fundamentalism flourishes in the North, there is little chance of social progress. But in a united country the Catholic Church would not be in the same dominant position (if only because of the one million Protestants and the fact that a large portion of northern nationalists do not heed Catholic clerics preaching) and the new Ireland would be genuinely secular. Protestant fears, which provide a fertile ground for fundamentalism, should be greatly reduced. Robert Heatly forecasts that: "new political alliances would develop in a United Ireland. Social and class lines would develop and this, if it was true to its nature, would mean a huge stride forward in terms of democratization. The tens of thousands of dispossessed, North and South, Protestants and Catholics, the jobless, the low paid and the emigrants could at last begin the get their democratic rights as citizens. This new situation would release the long suppressed radical potential of the Protestant people." DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS? Most socialists, trade unionists and other progressive people would agree that there have been many restriction on democratic and human rights in Ireland over the past 70 years and there ar numerous Amnesty International reports to verify that. In the North there has been a constant 'State of Emergency' since 1921 when the B-Specials backed pogroms against Catholic residents and workers. This continued on and off up to the start of the civil rights campaign in 1968 when the RUC (Royal Ulster Constabulary) again led the vicious assaults on defenseless marchers. The catalogue of repression since then is a long one, a small sample of which includes the RUC-led pogroms in 1989, internment, Bloody Sunday, plastic bullets, police torture, shoot-to-kill and British forces collusion with loyalist death squads (which is reminiscent of South Africa and El Salvador). It has been argued that these acts of repression are only a response to the IRA's armed campaign but it should be remembered that in early 1969, 69 year old Samuel Devenny was batoned to death in his own home in Derry and 65 year old Francis McCloskey was beaten to death at his front door in Dungiven. These were the first victims of the 'troubles' and were perpetrated by the RUC long before the IRA fired a shot. This restarted the cycle of repression and resistance which is unlikely to end while partition continues. The South is no great bastion of human rights observance either. As in the North there has been 'emergency legislation' on the statute books since 1921. One element of this legislation, Section 30 of the Offenses Against the State Act, is used to stop, search and arrest anyone the police chooses. It has been used against Birmingham Six protestors, anti-Ronald Reagan demonstrators and to falsely imprison innocent people like Nicky Kelly, Oscar Breathnach and Brian McNally. Another element, Section 31 of the Broadcasting Act, has been used to ban elected politicians, elected trade union and strike committee spokespersons and to jail and fire journalists. As a result, a whole ethos of censorship has evolved which prevents most people in the South from hearing much about the routine repression in the North. When we include the discrimination against women and Travellers, the banning of 'immoral' books and films, the removal of pages from imported women's magazines (for including ads for abortion clinics. facilitator) and the prosecution of record stores for the selling of condoms, it is clear that civil liberties are also restricted in southern Ireland. Again, it is not possible to 'prove' that, if partition had not been imposed, there would be more democratic and less repressive ethos but it is clear that much of the violations of human rights derive from the artificiality and insecurity of both partitioned states. Of course, the imposition of partition against the wishes of a majority of the Irish people was itself a denial of democracy. Those trying to get rid of Articles 2 & 3 claim that the unionists are a majority in a part of Ireland so the Six Counties should be partitioned. But why these six counties? Why can the nationalist majority in Fermanagh and Tyrone (or West Belfast, South Armagh or South Down) not also be allowed self- determination? The logical extension of partition is repartition but this would be economic and political nonsense that no one except Connor Cruise O'Brien would propose it as a solution. And the arguments put in favor of dropping Articles 2 & 3 are the same as those put by the far right in South Africa in favor of partition there. CONCLUSIONS Republicans do not claim that a united Ireland would automatically lead to an improvement in the economic, social and democratic life of Irish workers. On the contrary, we should be opposed to simply 'joining Northern Ireland with the Republic' as it is often put in the opinion polls, to form a 32 county Free State with the same discredited system that rules the South toady. What republicans are very definitely saying is that an end to artificial division of the country is a necessary prerequisite to the radical transformation of Irish society that is needed to give hope to the jobless, the poor, the emigrants and all those who are marginalized and disadvantaged by the present failed system. Even the New Ireland Forum, which was set up to oppose Sinn Fein had to conclude: "Partition and its failure to provide political stability have resulted in extra costs in many sectors and have inhibited the socio-economic development of Ireland, especially in the North. Division has had an adverse effect on the general ethos of society and has contributed to a limiting of perspective, North and South. Had the division not taken place...the people of the whole of the island would have been in a much better position to benefit from its resources and to meet the challenges that face Irish society, North and South, towards the end of the 20th century." Over the past year there has been a concerted effort by conservative and some who claim to be on the left of the political spectrum to get Articles 2 & 3 deleted or amended. It is perfectly understandable why those with wealth, power and influence in the present set-up should try to maintain their relative privileges by copper-fastening partition. What is perplexing is why self-proclaimed socialists (such as the recently defunct Workers Party. facilitator) should try to maintain a system which has resulted in so much poverty, misery and division for working people, North and South. This paradox is well described by Andrew Boyd: "The political entity known as Northern Ireland was created by the 1920 'Government of Ireland Act' which partitioned Ireland, leaving the six northeast counties under an Ulster Unionist government. That this so- called experiment in devolution has been a failure economically, politically and constitutionally has been admitted even by British Cabinet Ministers and senior civil servants, but it would be virtually impossible to get many trade union members in Northern Ireland to admit likewise...yet the partition of Ireland, apart from its many other undesirable consequences, has been a most serious obstacle in the way of trade union progress and development." In order to defend the legitimacy and the practical advantages of Irish unity, republicans and other socialists need to oppose the campaign to remove Articles 2 & 3 of the Constitution. But that is not enough. We have to present an alternative vision of a united Ireland which will not be dominated by the Catholic or any other church or run by the cable of crooked and corrupt politicians and businessmen (and they are all men) which has been exposed by recent scandals. This new vision should be based on the principles of maximum decentralization of power, economic equality and freedom of information and should incorporate a Charter of Human Rights based on the UN Charter. Republicans must also listen to the views of all genuine progressive groups and individuals on how to best achieve this democratic socialist republic. ********** Copies of Republican Movement publications such as The Starry Plough (5 dollars) Women in Struggle (5 dollars) IRIS (5 dollars) The Captive Voice (5 dollars) and other information on Ireland is available from Eugene McElroy 265 Townsend St New Brunswick, NJ 08901