i ie a, Ce aX _ British rule of Ireland World legacy of repression By JAMES STEWART BELFAST — Twenty years ago on Aug. 14, 1969, heavily-armed British troops appeared on the streets of Belfast and Derry City in Northern Ireland, ostensibly to pro- tect the working class inhabitants of the Catholic ghettos in those cities. A few days previously, on Aug: 9, armed mobs and members of the then Northern Ireland Unionist government’s auxiliary police (B-Specials) had launched a pogrom on these districts with the aim of terrorizing the mass movement for democratic rights, led by the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association, into submission. But British government direct interven- tion was not motivated by humanistic prin- ciples, despite their portrayal in their own mass media as “peacemakers.” They inter- vened because the Unionist administration in Northern Ireland was jeopardizing Brit- ish imperial interests on the island of Ireland as a whole. The roots of the 1969 crisis — and today, 20 years later — lies in the enforced parti- tion of Ireland by British imperialism under the Government of Ireland Act 1920, a par- tition whose objective was to secure British imperialist control of Northern Ireland and to maintain their political, military and eco- nomic interests in the whole of Ireland. Twenty years of a denial of basic demo- cratic and human rights is continued in Northern Ireland under direct control of the British government’s Northern Ireland Office. The Emergency Provisions and the Prevention of Terrorism acts dismiss com- mon law and Violate the most basic human and democratic rights of the people in Northern Ireland. Special courts (Diplock Courts) conduct trials without a jury and often in secret. Plastic bullets are used by “security forces” to kill and maim. And it has also become clear in recent years, a “shoot-to-kill” policy is being carried out by British troops, not only in the towns and the countryside in Northern Ireland, but also in the British colony of Gibraltar where last year British agents gunned down three IRA members on a public street. The much-publicized Anglo-Irish Agree- ment signed between London and the government of the Irish Republic in 1985 is not, as its signatories portray, an attempt to bring a democratic solution to the crisis in Northern Ireland. Its aim is to further Brit- ish interests in Ireland as an entity within the context of the European Economic Com- At left, a British soldier in Belfast; above the funeral for Mairead Farrell, one of the three killed by a British commando team in Gibraltar. munity and NATO. Twenty years of British imperialist oppression continues in Northern Ireland. Thousands are imprisoned (processed through Special Courts), and nearly every family in Northern Ireland’s 1.5 million population is blighted by tragedies — deaths, maimings, torture and jailings. The democratic solution to this crisis is that Britain must go. The most fundamen- tal democratic right of all must be recog- nized: the Irish people’s right to self-determi- nation, independence and national unity. The Communist Party of Ireland has called for international support to demand that the British government disengage from all interference in Irish affairs — and that the British parliament makes a declaration of its intention to withdraw from Northern Treland by a certain date and allow the peo- ple of Ireland — north and south — to determine their own political, economic and social structures. The appeal is accompan- ied by an immediate demand for an end to all repressive laws and measures and a return to common law. Twenty years of British occupation and repression have proven that their is no mil- itary solution to the crisis, and that it can only come through a democratic solution which contains the central feature: “Britain Must Go!” James Stewart is General Secretary of the Communist Party of Ireland. GDR reacts as its citizens cross the border The public relations coup being enjoyed by the Federal Republic of Germany and by many in the West around the exit of several thousand GDR citizens via the Hungarian- Austrian border has provided another round of hand-clapping by socialism’s opponents. It has also given rise to a flurry of diplo- matic exchanges between socialist states on the issue of Hungary’s action in permitting GDR citizens to leave for the West rather than, as the GDR argues, honouring exist- ~. ing treaties. According to media informa- tion available here, the GDR has charged that Hungary has been “induced to violate agreements and accords” and has shown “disrespect for national laws and rules of other states as well as the arbitrary revoca- tion or unilateral suspension of binding treaties and agreements.” On Sept. 12, Neues Deutschland, the main newspaper of the Socialist Unity Party, wrote: “Planned long in advance and organized with care, a cloak-and-dagger operation was begun yesterday to take a larger number of GDR citizens from Hun- gary to West Germany in a move that was both illegal and in breech of international agreement .... “This incident, unprecedented in interna- tional life and in the relations that exist between sovereign states, constitutes open interference in the internal affairs of the GDR and other countries. Those who are in charge in West Germany have made and financed this move in spite of all suggestions and warnings, contrary to all constructive proposals and initiatives on the part of the GDR that were designed to bring about a joint settlement of the issue. An unbridled malicious campaign was launched against 8 « Pacific Tribune, September 25, 1989 the GDR, overtly tempting away and delud- ing citizens of our state, misusing opportun- ities for travel and contacts, with the help of the media and through direct actions ....” The Neues Deutschland article doesn’t detail the treaty provisions which it says oblige Hungary to prevent GDR citizens from leaving Hungary via Austria, and it doesn’t provide details of other bilateral and international agreements it says were breached. Similarly, the article doesn’t con- tain an outline of the proposals and initia- tives advanced by the GDR that it says were rejected. That the FRG is engaged in a well- planned operation is clear. Bonn gives each GDR citizen $100 (250 marks) when they arrive. They receive free schooling, a free car, health and unemployment insurance and between $1,200 and $4,000 to get settled. There are special charter trains laid on and temporary shelters provided for transit. FRG newspapers run ads offering some 4,000 jobs and prospective employers hand out slick brochures to the mostly young, highly skilled GDR arrivals. As well, the whole operation is accom- panied by a highly-tuned media campaign which, of course, beams directly into the GDR showing the enthusiastic welcome and lucrative benefits being showered on them. Amid this crescendo, scarcely menti- oned, is the fact that of 70,000 GDR citizens Tom Morris COMMENTARY who decided to move to the FRG in 1989, 50,000 left through normal channels directly between the two German states. While the noise level will surely abate and the media will turn its attention to other stories, many of the issues raised in this latest tug of war remain to be settled. Inits article, Neues Deutschland quite accurately complains that the FRG campaign comes at a time when things in Europe were begin- ning to improve and the idea of a common European home comprised of all states and social systems there beginning to take hold. As well, the newspaper writes, the action was staged as two anniversaries are being marked: the S0th anniversary of the out- break of World War II, and the 40th anni- versary of the founding of the GDR. ‘One cannot but ask those in Bonn,” the paper says, “whether their alleged right to custo- dianship of all Germans may not be turning into a modern version of the notorious “Back to the Reich’ movement, which treats human beings as mere objects of revan- chism and chauvinism. The devastating consequences and innumerable human tragedies of such politics and practice ' should not be forgotten ....” The article doesn’t answer the question that many Canadians are asking, that is: why are so many young, highly educated and highly skilled people, including entire families, leaving the GDR? Whatever legal disagreements the GDR may have with Hungary over treaty provi- sions, Hungary can’t be tagged with respon- sibility for the attitudes of those GDR citizens wanting to leave for the FRG. That the FRG has not (and will not) abandon its effort to undermine socialist GDR in every way it can, should not come as a surprise. A very large part of the reality of the GDR since its founding in 1949 has been the fact of a powerful FRG next door, which was rebuilt, initially with Western aid, into today’s major Western European economic power. There have been 40 years of relentless anti-GDR propaganda and every conceivable attempt to sabotage and subvert the construction of socialism there. Anyone fortunate enough to visit the GDR will attest to tremendous success in every sphere which has turned the former “Russian zone” of defeated post-war Ger- many into an efficient, highly-cultured and often breathtakingly beautiful land inha- bited by a motivated and proud people. The GDR is grudgingly referred to by many of its ideological opponents as the best exam- ple of socialism, one which provides its citi- zens with the highest living standards yet seen in socialist Europe. And, also not surprisingly, problems remain to be solved, not least of which is to continue to strive to build a society in which all citizens feel fulfilled and feel they have real control over their lives and future. Throughout the socialist world, restructur- ing, extension of democratic rights, the new involvement of citizens in public life and questions pertaining to people’s rights and responsibilities are posing themselves in varying ways with varying results. In this process the GDR is not immune.