| From Unity, 3 June 2006 |
Connolly: The struggle continues |
| There was a national and international perspective at the conference that was held in Dublin on 12 and 13 May to mark the ninetieth anniversary of the execution of James Connolly, organised by the James Connolly Education Trust.
The guest speakers included Avtar Sadiq, a member of the Communist Party of India (Marxist); he gave an intensive historical and political account of India, the effects of British imperialism, the struggle for national independence, and the divisions in the country, and provided comparisons with the situation in Ireland. He also covered the recent elections in India, where an estimated 36 million people voted for the Communist Party (Marxist). Noel Carrillo, the Ambassador of Cuba to Ireland, spoke about the progress and the difficulties that the Cuban people have had to face; how the collapse of the Soviet Union brought both economic and political change to Cuba; how Cubans are holding on to their independence and sovereignty in spite of the might of US imperialism, which threatens countries that support Cuba economically and politically. He spoke of the developments in Venezuela and Bolivia, the investments that are being made in literacy and health care in Latin America, and the illegality of Guantánamo Bay. David Granville, a member of the International Committee of the Communist Party of Britain, spoke about the response of the British labour movement to the 1916 Rebellion. Having consulted many British labour history books, he could find very little in the way of analysis of the event. The main response was to ignore it. Individuals within the labour movement found it hard to understand why James Connolly had participated in an armed uprising that they viewed as a nationalist putsch. Echoing the excellent memorial lecture given the previous night by Eugene McCartan, he quoted Connolly saying: “They will never understand why I am here,” and with few exceptions, like T. A. Jackson, they didn’t. Jackson wrote that “it was no mystery to the small group of militant Marxists whom Connolly had helped to train. They accepted Connolly’s doctrine that Internationalism is not the negation of Nationalism; least of all when the Nationalism is that of a subject people” (1985, p. 402). David Granville went on to speak about the need to build a solidarity movement made up of the left and labour movement, MPs, the Troops Out Movement, the Irish community in Britain, and those who would join in a campaign to call for Britain to withdraw from Ireland. Earlier in the day Paul O’Connell gave an illustrating presentation on “Socialism or barbarism: Can the world afford capitalism any longer?” on questions relating to the ownership of natural resources and environmental issues. Patricia McKenna of the Green Party enhanced the debate, coming firmly down in favour of socialism. Following this, Seán Edwards spoke on “Imperialism and war,” giving a world view in the present-day context, including the fight-back by the peace movement and progressive developments in South America. Frank Keoghan gave a very detailed analysis of “The European Union and the imperialist imperative.” In this paper he dealt with the EU strategy that totally endorses Bush’s doctrine of pre-emptive war, not bound to any need to secure a UN mandate before it sends in the EU “battle groups.” He told the audience that the “battle groups” were adopted at the EU Defence Ministers’ meeting in Brussels in 2004. “They will act as the ‘shock troops’ of the emerging EU empire. Thirteen battle groups are being created, with 1,500 combat soldiers each”—a total force of nearly 200,000 combat soldiers, who can operate as separate units or as joint expeditions. Much more information was given about the British, Irish and other EU states regarding defence, military research, and attacks on civil liberties and privacy. Closer to home, Frank McCormack put forward a comprehensive analysis of the present situation in the North of Ireland, noting: “The Communist Party of Ireland has played a major role in the peace and reconciliation process through its political and industrial campaigns and also engaging with all sections of the community.” He went on to point out that the CPI had supported the signing of the Good Friday Agreement but that it did not see that as the final outcome. He spoke about the part played by the Ulster Unionists: instead of “pointing out to the Protestant community what they had achieved, they tried to outdo the Democratic Unionist Party in their posturing and rhetoric.” He also drew attention to “political policing” and the role of the Special Branch in the “Stormontgate” affair, bringing down the Assembly. In spite of all this he said that there have been significant developments, most recently the IRA standing down its armed campaign and the DUP’s attendance at a recent British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body. At that meeting Jeffrey Donaldson stated that the DUP “accepted the legitimacy of those who seek—using solely peaceful means—to advance their aspirations for a United Ireland. And with no less legitimacy we will use solely peaceful means to oppose them.” In other words, some in the DUP have acknowledged the right of people to work politically for a united Ireland. Frank went on to talk about the need to strengthen the left and to develop a movement that represents our twin objectives of socialism and an end to partition. The weekend event inspired thought and discussion, but there was little time to analyse issues in depth. For example, whilst recognising that we must hold on to the positive changes brought about by the GFA, if the Assembly does not materialise, what is the way forward? In addition to developing trade union and labour initiatives to fight on the economic front, should we spend more time lobbying MPs at Westminster, including asking Sinn Féin to drop their abstentionist policy? Some discussion on this latter point took place at the CPI Belfast Branch meeting last week, where it was thought that this would be a “bridge too far” for Sinn Féin supporters to accept. However, this could depend on the situation, and no-one suggests that they should take their seats tomorrow (though they might if a bill relating to a united Ireland was at stake); but they could argue the case that they are going in to defend working and living standards by opposing the water charges and other such “reforms,” as well as building Irish solidarity. Looking back to 1988, when the CPI produced its open letter to the IRA calling for a ceasefire, some would never have envisaged a Sinn Féin mayor in Belfast, Sinn Féin at Stormont, and many other bridges that have since been crossed. More in-depth debate about solidarity initiatives in Britain is also needed. David Granville observed that various solidarity campaigns existed in Britain, but many on the British left and even those among the Irish community itself avoided Irish solidarity. One member of the audience questioned this “development,” stating that there was a need to work for unity through united action, and that the Protestant section of the working class must be won for unity and not isolated. Indeed there are a number of fronts to work on, because many in the South have no great desire to embrace the North. The chairperson of the session, Lynda Walker, drew attention to comments made by Lance Noakes in a letter responding to Matt Merrigan’s cynical comments that “Short’s workers drag up again the Outdoor Relief Strike to seek to demonstrate that deep down in the psyche of Unionist workers is a socialist trying to get out.” Lance said: “That is the way Matt Merrigan caricatures the views of those who believe in fighting for working-class unity—a unity including those who currently hold Unionist beliefs . . . Are the hundreds and thousands of workers who voted Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or Tory in Ireland or Britain no longer members of the working class? Yes, socialism and Unionism are incompatible—as Connolly in his debates with Walker showed. But socialism and bourgeois nationalism are also incompatible, as Connolly by his words and actions also demonstrated.” (“Armed Struggle”: The Communist Party’s Open Letter to the Provisional IRA . . . , 1987). At the recent branch discussion there was a suggestion that it would be a useful exercise to bring some of these speakers to Belfast later this year. |
| Home page > Publications > Unity > 2006 > Connolly: The struggle continues |
| Baile > Foilseacháin > Unity > 2006 > Connolly: The struggle continues |