Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

Sinn Fein & the House of Commons

21:36 / 17.12.01

I thought it might be interesting to think about this issue - it throws up a number of questions about how to include former terrorists in parliamentary politics, and might bear some relation to possibilities for the situation in Palestine and Israel as well as (perhaps) Afghanistan...

The basic situation is this: the Tories are ending the thirty-year-old bipartisan policy on Northern Ireland because the govt is allowing the Sinn Fein MPs for Northern Ireland to use the House of Commons facilities (offices Etc) - despite the fact that these MPs refuse to take the oath of allegiance (for obvious reasons) and cannot therefore take part in parliamentary debates.

Obviously that's only part of the problem; I think a lot of MPs are unhappy with the way the decommissioning process is going and feel that the IRA/Sinn Fein (there is a difference, but it is not too clear exactly where it lies sometimes I think) is deliberately trying to sabotage the peace process. I heard on the radio that John Reid had admitted that the only person who knew exactly what had been decommissioned was General de Chastelain - all he has said is that it was 'significant'.

Is the Labour government appeasing Sinn Fein too much, or does the possibility of a peaceful outcome justify all their actions?

11:22 / 18.12.01

The whole issue is ludicrously complicated and getting worse.
I think thing could be made easier if the decommissioning process was a lot more open, the way it is things are looking as if not much is really happening so it is kinda fair that people are getting annoyed.
Sinn Fein are going to have to work really hard to impress large chunks of the commons on all side but especially the Conservative Party. I feel the IRA made a big mistake in the Brighton Bomb since (at least a little understandibly) it became personal at that point.

12:03 / 18.12.01

Well, certainly the Tory I heard talking about it asked why the Sinn Fein representatives should have the same rights as the MPs they tired to murder at the Tory conference in Brighton.

Difficult to see how the process *could* be made more open, though, since Sinn Fein is the political 'wing' of the IRA and does not necessarily have much say in the activities of the various militant groupings such as the Real IRA (I hope I'm getting this right, btw - please correct me) - and it would be impossible for the peace process to move onwards if it became apparent the the govt did not trust the Sinn Fein politicians (for example if they were made directly responsible for the actual decommissioning).

In a way it does remind me of Yasser Arafat's position - he is accused of supporting Hamas, yet he is not in any position to affect the activities of Hamas and so he cannot guarantee a ceasefire... does this make him a terrorist, and would it make the Sinn Fein politicians who used to be terrorists, *still* terrorists?

12:22 / 18.12.01

quote:Originally posted by sleazenation:
There are people in both comunities that will never surrender, but its important that the will of these extremists is not imposed on the masses by their violent actions.

Yes, but I can see a problem with this in communities where the polarisation is so great that there isn't really a 'middle way' which won't leave a significant proportion of the polity feeling excluded/disenfranchised/oppressed - because the fact of terrorism makes politics on both sides of a divide more extreme. In this way the violent actions of extremists are almost inextricable from the political positions they espouse in the minds of the polity, & that's why it's so bloody hard to even start sorting things out.

15:16 / 29.12.01

It is important to remember that Sinn Fein are not the only political party in Northern Ireland with links to paramilitary or terrorist groups, despite often being portrayed as such.
The Progressive Unionist Party, for example, is, to a large extent made up of former members of Loyalist terror groups who have since renounced violence, but still use their former links to help negotiate difficult situations within loyalist splinter groups. Johnny Adair also had recent representation from mainstream Unionist political parties, despite being/ having links with known terrorists.

Whatever their (previous?) links to paramilitary groups however, SF and PUP are both democratically elected political parties, and as such ought to be entitled to the same rights of parliament as any other party. The fact that Sinn Fein are being discriminated against by the government because they refuse to take an oath of allegiance - to a state that is intrinsically opposed to what they stand for - is a little ridiculous. As Kit-Cat-Club has pointed out, it runs much deeper than that, into their past, their associations and their stance.

And yet at the moment they, and a number of other parties, are able to do something that government cannot do – that is, talk to the groups who are still holding the weapons. For this reason alone they are useful and should be included in talks/ decommissioning/ debate/ politics.
As Sleazenation has said, there are extremists on all sides who will continue to pursue violence and intimidation to achieve what is in reality a political end. It can be difficult to accept (especially by those affected by violence in the past) but only by opening up a democratic forum to political representatives of these communities, can communication/ understanding/ resolution truly begin.

If the on-going situation in Northern Ireland has revealed anything, it is that to deny any political party – even one with possible violent association – a parliamentary voice will simply strengthen grass roots/ radical/ terrorist support.

Our Lady of The Two Towers

19:29 / 30.12.01

On this point I think there's no point keeping Sinn Fein out because they won't swear allegiance to the Queen because she's effectively a figurehead anyway, oh sure, the Government is supposedly working for her, the PM has to ask her to dissolve parliament before an election and she can theoretically refuse to allow a bill through but she won't get involved and is really pretty powerless.

However, I can see why some Tories would be upset, though unfortunately 18 years means I can't weep too much for their discomfort.