and London have been humming all week. What Mr Arlow said was that he had reason to believe that the British Government had given the Provisionals a firm commitment to withdraw: All that 1 can say is that 1 have reason to believe this will happen I cannot add to this statement or take from In his reply the Northern Ireland Secretary,Merlyn Rees, was at pains to point out mat au ne nad cone was to emare on us previous position that the troops would go,given 'a genuine and sustained cessation of violence. But Arlow went further. His information,he said, was that the troops will go if the Convention collapses.
What was worrying Arlow and others like him was as he said himself, the more inan distinct possibuty tnat tne convention will collapse. After that, all he could see was a doomsday situation of civil war and bloodshed. Undoubtedly certain high placed individuals in British ruling class circles hoped that such statements would put pressure on the Loyalist ultras to make a few concessions towards 'power sharing' and other discarded policies of the British in order to avoid just such a situation.
CHARITY
Even the Irish Times of 27 May wasmoved to urge the Loyalist leaders-including William Craig, who at that time had not actually visited the Convention-to walk the hundred yards from Stormont to Lord Craigavons's tomb where they could study his motto: 'Charity Provokes Charity".
But the writing is clearly on the wall in the north of Ireland. The Convention election results revealed a Loyalist poll of 35%,an SDLP poll of 15%. and a boycott of 37%. The middle ground that Rees had tried to cobble together whilst the army a loud-mouthed When the Rev. William Arlow declared on the Dublin radio programme smashed into the resistance has vanished into dust.
On the one side now stands an antiUnionist population that will not allow five years of struggle to pass by with nothing to show for it and on the other a brazen Loyalist population with a huge majority in the new Convention bellowing about preserving its sacred rights.
Reverend gentlemen like Mr Arlow migne well nesiate berore contempiaung the future. They see clearly that all the best laid plans of British Governments have come to nothing,for there is no British solution to the legitimate struggle of the Irish people for self-determination. What is evident is that British Government policy is paralysed at the present time, thus enaomme une wildest rumours to lake on credibility.
Of course the British ruling class would like to have its army back home for the impending battles against its own working class. But it cannot do just as it pleases It would have liked the Government of the South to police the whole of reland for it, but that plan collapsed with Sunningdale. It certainly cannot unleash war against its oldest ally, the Protestant population in the North-and yet just to hand over to these elements would also cause massive problems, not least tne prospect ol cIvi war. So it is stuck.
The interesting thing about this situation is the panic into which it has thrown the Loyalist leaders. Red Weekly has consistently maintained that the troops do not and The Rev. William Arlow were not intended to play peace-keeping role. They in fact give support-moral and physical-to the most vicious elements of Loyalist sectarianism. That is why sections of the Loyalists are so worried about the possibility of a pull-out.
in acusix orthe surongose Lovals groups, including even the 'Red Hand Commando' have now set up a united commane structures ney nave cooperater before of course, during the UWC strike, but not on this level. These groups have on y occh abe to opcraten me waw ane British Army over their activities. The presence of the British Army is the guarantee that this sectarian statelet can connue to exist.
UNWILLING
Loyalist workers have always tried to solve the problems caused for them by imperialism and the capitalist system. If the army goes they will be forced to abandon the old methods and come to terms with the real cause of their oppression-the imperialist system. This is precisely why pull out the troops.
of troops must be built within the British the troops out. Not only would that be a big victory for the British working class,it the victory of the anti-Unionist forces. That is the only kind of charity British workers need be interested in.
truce. have because of the benign eye cast by the This is the framework in which the the British Government is unwilling to just It is, of course, precisely for this reason guerrilla warfare. unat a massive movement lor une witnarawa working class movement. The construction of such a movement is the sure way to get would be a massive step on the road towards Brian Grogan persists in Red Weekly in misrepresenting the Provisionals' good reasons for their political bombing and for their qualification (by "controlled' violence) of the For instance, in the issue of 17 April he says : They have now moved to a policy of defence'. When has the IRA since 1969 failed to defend its people? He continues : "This statement (that the Provos were a 'legitimate' community self defence reflex) could be developed by the Provisionals to stimulate the minority into organising its own selfdefence'. In late 1969 when our areas first came under siege from the police and the Loyalists we then went through the motions of what he is only now prescribing!
The organisation of districts undertaken by the Provos was a search for Volunteers to engage in defence; political awareness increased issues were clarified and the prospects for Revolution enhanced by confrontation with the imperialists. The initial defence was still paramount but the Volunteers were subsequently to defend the socialist ideal through five years of heroic Grogan's main objections to the resumption of the bombings are that they would dissolve the differences in the Loyalist and imperialist ranks and that they disillusion the minority over the real source of the violence It must be stressed that the history of the past six years has left the minority in no doubt as to the real source of the violence, and that the apparent differences within the Loyalist ranks are mostly illusory and border on fascism As I said in a letter published in Red Weekly of 10 April : There are a number of excellent reasons for the bombing campaign. Symbolically, buildings and factories owned controlled and exploited by the foreign imperialist are attacked and seen to be attacked. To protect the property of the capitalists the enemy finds it necessary to mount roadchecks, patrol and search civilians in the business zones: thus its important tactical value of tying down soldiers who would otherwise be employed in suppressing guerilla strongholds.
The Government. unable to stop the bombings, has to foot an enormous and costly bill, which brings involvement down to an unprotitable level. Profitability - the raison d'etre of Occupation - is attacked at the roots. The bombing is complementary to the military attacks waged by Provisional units from their areas (the ghetto, the estate, the suburb) against a now depleted force. To a true revolutionary its polarising effect must be seen as favourable. It divides and commits the society into two camps • those for the IRA and those against.
The immediate effect of this is the visibility and magnitude of a mandate. There are no fence-sitters - even the fences have been blown to bits! It creates ammunition for unimaginable propaganda victories..
*Politically, the bombings increase instability and demonstrate by wide-
----- pull-quotes -----
vicar sent the balloon up
The Week' on 25 May that Britain intended to pull the troops out of Ireland, he certainly started a flurry of activity. The wires between Belfast, Dublin Ted Coxhead
'The (Provisional) leaders are the only people capable of creating a 32-county, Socialist Republic.'