Brooke talks farce

Brooke Talks Farce: Building an alternative A star comedy turn was provided at the Tory party conference in October by Britain’s Supremo in the North, Peter Brooke. His impression of a world-weary idealist searching for dialogue among the lost Irish tribes had the party faithful rolling in the isles. But then they don't have to count the cost in Irish blood.

The high farce of the “Brooke talks” and Brooke's inexaustable ability to label black as white should not mask reality. The collapse of the ramshackle “dialogue” that it had taken Britain 18 months of unremitting pressure to force together is a major setback for British interests.

Today the British are simply marking time. There will be no new major initiative whilea general election is pending in Britain and while the Dublin establishment are buried under a mountain of scandal. It should be clear that not only do British imperialism and Irish capitalism have no answer to the political crisis in Ireland - they are not even able to pose the questions. At the same Tory conference Foreign secretary Hurd made this perfectly plain - the agenda was not Irish unity but how best to maintain partition.

STRATEGIC PROBLEM

More immediately the British are faced with a major strategic problem - how to deal with the decaying and fragmented Unionist movement that became clearly identified during the talks process as the major obstacle to any form of settlement. The whole farce opened on April 30th with bilateral mectings between the British and each of the parties. Itwas the usual mixture; * Diplomacy - “Perfidious Albion” told different sets of lies to each group to keep them at the table.

* Inelevancy - Political questions were ignored in favour of rows about Venue, chairing and standing orders.

* Secrecy - The substantive issues were kept out of the public gaze. Yetthe political necessity for these talks had grown out of Britain's last major piece of diplomacy in Ireland, the Hillsborough accord, This agreement with the Dublin Government had won the open poliucal support of bourgeois Nationalism for the continuation of partition. In return the British had agreed the appearance of consultation through regular meetings of an Anglo-Irish ministerial conference and the creation of a Belfast secretariat drawn from the British and Irish civil services, The bigotry of Unionism meant that its representatives were not consulted about the deal, but the Bntish hoped that the carrot of a devolved Unionist administration would eventually win their support.

Instead they found themselves faced with a mass uprising.

They held on to the outline of the deal and managed to defuse the-unionists with combination of political retreats and a softly-softly approach. Nevertheless this helped finally demolish the argument of independent Loyalist power and showed more clearly than ever Britain’s leadership role in maintaining partition.

UNIONIST FRAGMENTATION

But Britain was left witha major problem. The bigotry and sectarianism of Unionism was such thal, instead of being drawn into the political negotiations, they increasingly fragmented. This was not in Britain's interests. It needs Unionism as the mass base for its military occupation of the North. Having put Unionism gently in its place, the British now needed to hold up the decaying monolith. The Brooke talks were meant to achieve this, with the “bone” ofa 10-week break in the Anglo-Irish conference mectings to draw the Unionists in, The bourgeois Nationalist parties were willing to cooperate. Dublin needs political stability and imperialist support in the face of growing economic crisis and increasing austerity drives against southern workers. Inthe North the SDLP along with the Catholic church have become the funnel for a great deal of public funds and are enmeshed in anetwork of sleaze, kickbacks and clientelism.

There were two areas in which Unionist concessions would have made it possible for Nationalism to collaborate in the building of anew Stormont. One was the basis of the Sunningdale settlement - power-sharing with the SDLP - An Reabhloid page 17

For my next trick. but the Unionists had staged amass revolt the last time this was on offer and it wasn’t even on the agenda now, The other, even slighter, concession was for an ail-Ireland talk shop which would effectively have no meaning but could be sold to SDLP and Fianna Fail supporters a step towards a United Ireland. There were no concessions here either.

The Unionists had nothing to offer and the talks were fuarantecd to end im farce.

Perhaps the most telling incident of all was the proposal that Lord Carmington, top Tory, imperialist warmonger and former head of NATO, should chair the talks. The unionists denounced this arch-reactionary as a traitor jinterestingly enough on the grounds of his “betrayal” of White settlers in Zimbabwe - a clear indication of how Unionism sees itself). On the other hand the Insh bourgeoisie thought this imperialist fossil a perfect choice!

NEED FOR AN ALTERNATIVE

Despite the farce there is some basis for Brooke's optimism and his attempts during the Summer tore-launch the *The talks were built on the Hillsborough accord. It Temaius in place, the first British political initiative in 20 years £6 survive. *The Nationalists have made massive concessions; Support for the RUC and UDR, support for “shoot to kill” operations, suggestions thal articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution be abolished, proposals from the Right for the reiniroduction of internment, *The total absence of a Republican alternative. They correctly poimted out that their exclusion from the talks showed that the central questions were not going to be addressed, but have no policy to offer other than the mililarist conception of the “long war” * Parily as a result of this the talks had a great deal of popular support - people wanted them to succeed, tho’ they didn’t have to count the cost that any settlement supported by the British and Unionists would have involved.

In the Brooke talks the British had a free hand. Never in the past has there been less sign of mass resistance, less of a political challenge or more apparent public support. Yet they failed. “They failed because, although they have demobilised the mass struggle in the North, they have not destroyed the mass sentiment against British rule which still exists. Its this resistance which has fragmented Unionism and which prevents bourgeois nationalism from going further and giving the fullblooded support for partition that would cement a deal.

Normally this would pose a major threat to imperialism, and the opportunity to pose such a threat ts still there, but the British remain relatively unscathed by the collapse of the talks. The absence of any visible alternative to British rule represents both a block toany advance by anti-imperialists and a danger to the whole movement. That alicrnative exists in the call for a workers republic, in the call for independent organisation and action by the working class, in unyielding opposition to British imperialism, Unionist bigotry and Nationalist oppression of the working class, m lmking up wath all the oppressed sections of the Irish people and building a class struggle alternative. The teflon-like survival of Brooke despite the farce of his talks and his continued attempts to impose a solution are a graphic illustration of Lenin's dictum that there is no final crisis for capitalism. Action by the working class is essential for its defeat.

JOHN NORTH.

An Reabhloid page 18