Principios Mitchell Contrarevolucionarios - Diarmuid Breatnach

7/25/2019 Principios Mitchell Contrarevolucionarios - Diarmuid Breatnach

1/5

The Mitchell Principles an undemocratic and pro-imperialist basis for

negotiations.

Diarmuid Breatnach

Preamble:

The discussions prior to the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, in hat is oftentermed !the "rish peace process#, ere based on si$ principles and the Agreement itself is

also said to be based on them. The Mitchell Principles are named after George Mitchell,

a %& &enator and mediator in the "rish tal's and earlier in the Palestinian tal's of()*????

The Good Friday Agreement as signed in ())* beteen representati+es of Pro+isional

&inn Fin and arguably, at the +ery least by pro$y, Pro+isional "A also/ on the one hand

and by representati+es of the 0ritish Go+ernment on the other. &ubse1uently areferendum in the "rish state ga+e a big ma2ority for the remo+al of Articles 3 and 4 of

Bunreacht na hireann, the 5onstitution of the "rish state, articles hich had claimeddominion o+er the hole of the island of "reland, and this as ta'en as a popular

endorsement of the Good Friday Agreement. An election in the 6orthern "reland statelet

ga+e a narroer ma2ority to parties ho endorsed the Good Friday Agreement and thistoo as ta'en as an endorsement of the Agreement.

The Mitchell Principles are often hailed by commentators as fair and democratic and asound basis for peace tal's. This short article sets out to test this claim, to analyse the si$

Principles from a democratic and anti-imperialist point of +ie.

(. !The parties agree to democratic and e$clusi+ely peaceful means of resol+ing political

issues.#

The terms of the first stipulation of the Mitchell Principles, in the circumstances in hich

the 0ritish had imposed a di+ision on the country, in one part of hich they had

constructed a statelet ithin hich their supporters, the %nionists, had an inbuiltma2ority, ere not only unfair but intrinsically undemocratic.

"reland had been considered one entity by the 7nglish con1uerors at least since the (8th

5entury. "ts partition as not e+en imagined until the early 39th

5entury and then only asa response to the nationalist demand for autonomy under ome ule, conceded in

principle by the 0ritish in ()(;< allegedly partition as in response to militant unionists

rebelling against nationalist ome ule.

The partition of "reland, in one part of hich the unionists ould ha+e a +oting ma2ority,

had first been concei+ed to 'eep the historic pro+ince of %lster for the unionists, hilethe 6ationalists could ha+e the other three pro+inces. oe+er, it as soon realised that


2/5

6ationalists and epublicans ould beteen them out+ote the %nionists and so the

boundary as re-dran to e$clude three of the nine %lster counties from the proposed

=oyalist state. 7+en ithin these &i$ 5ounties, the unionists ere obliged, in order toensure political control of local authorities, to dra election constituency boundaries in

such a ay as to ensure that many areas ith a 6ationalist-epublican ma2ority in their

population ne+ertheless returned %nionist candidates. 7ntitlement to +ote based on homeoccupation and property onership, coupled ithh idescale housing discrimination

against potential nationalist +oters i.e. 5atholics/ 'ept local authorities in unionist hands

until a fierce campaign for ci+il rights and a guerilla ar forced the remo+al of thesefranchise restrictions, after hich some local authorities came under nationalist-

republican control. oe+er, ithin the &i$ 5ounties o+erall, demographics continued to

ensure a unionist ma2ority.

The ish of the ma2ority of "reland had been for independence of the hole country and

that had been demonstrated not only by centuries of struggle and uprisings but by the

guerilla ar of ()()-()3( and also by the bourgeois elections of ()() under 0ritish rule,

the democratic e$pression of hich the 0ritish had firstly ignored and later assaulted bytheir proscribing the First >?il parliament/ and the 2ailing of elected members.

The First Mitchell Principle@s stipulation that the di+ision of the country could only be

o+ercome if a ma2ority of the +oters in the &i$ 5ounties +oted for that proposition is

profoundly unfair, in that its effect is that decolonisation and national unification can onlybe permitted by a ma2ority +ote in that part of the country hich had artificially been

di+ided from the rest precisely on the basis that the ma2ority of the population there as

'non to +ote %nionist, i.e. for remaining a 0ritish colony.

Furthermore, the acceptance of such a principle internationally ould be disastrous it

ould mean that any state could legitimately in+ade another, anne$e a part of it by force

of arms, ensure through colonisation and other means that a ma2ority +oted to remain itscolony and then prohibit the colonised from liberating the colony and reunifying the

country.

3. !The parties agree to the disarmament of all paramilitary organisations.#

This second stipulation might appear at a hurried first glance as fair but in fact it is

completely the opposite. "t lea+es totally out of the e1uation the largest and mosthea+ily-armed party to the dispute the 0ritish state, ith o+er (,999 personnel in

their armed forcesBand o+er ,399 armed police in the &i$ 5ounties, along ith their

intelligence ser+ices. "t as in fact the +iolence of the armed and sectarian colonialpolice force hich had spar'ed off the uprising in >erry and 0elfast in ()C) and it as in

their support that the 0ritish armed forces had been sent to the statelet.

The main armed struggle had subse1uently been beteen the epublican organisations

and the 0ritish Army, ith the armed colonial police in second place. The =oyalist

BFigures at the time of riting -- the numbers in the 0ritish armed forces ere e+en higher at the time the

Mitchell Principles ere proposed.


3/5

paramilitaries ere only third in le+el of struggle ith the epublican armed

organisations< in addition irrefutable e+idence has emerged o+er the years of collusion

beteen the =oyalist paramilitaries and the colonial police and 0ritish Army and indeedpoints to their actual direction by 0ritish intelligence ser+ices.

The 0ritish state@s armed forces do not e+en recei+e a mention in the Mitchell Principlesand are left at the disposal of the state unhindered to use in any circumstances as it deems

fit. "ndeed, the possibility e$ists that the state ould pre+ent the decolonisation and

unification of the country e+en in the e$tremely unli'ely e+entuality that such a proposalrecei+ed a ma2ority of the +otes in the &i$ 5ounties< the Mitchell Principles ha+e nothing

to say about that.

The 4rdPrinciple, !To agree that such disarmament must be +erifiable to the satisfaction

of an independent commission#underlines the first Principle and s'etches the structure

through hich the unfair &econd Principle is to be gi+en effect.

;. !To renounce for themsel+es, and to oppose any effort by others, to use force, or

threaten to use force, to influence the course or the outcome of all-party negotiations.#

This fourth principle not only strengthens the unfair &econd Principle but lea+es theepublicans ith no means of bringing about independence and unity beyond a ma2ority

+ote in fa+our ithin the &i$ 5ounties here, as obser+ed earlier, an artificial ma2ority

militates against this possibility.

The 0ritish state, on the other hand, can and does use force and the threat of it to

influence not only negotiations but its continued control o+er its colony of the &i$

5ounties. "t used force to achie+e the colonisation of the hole country for hundreds ofyears and hen it could no longer continue to do so, it used force to partition the country

and to maintain that partition for hat is no approaching a century.

The section hich calls upon the parties !to oppose any effort by others, to use force# is

understood by all not to refer to opposing the use of force by the 0ritish state. 0ut not

only that, in !opposing any effort by others#, i.e. those ho might not be signatories, itcommits the signatories to at least morally condemn those ho may continue armed

acti+ities and possibly e+en to collaborating ith forces of the state against them.

That this stipulation in theory falls e1ually upon the armed sections of the =oyalists as it

does upon the epublicans is immaterial, since as e ha+e seen the =oyalist

paramilitaries are not the most significant armed opposition to the epublicans and infact may be seen mainly as au$illiaries of the 0ritish &tate, its armed forces and its

colonial administration. "t is the epublicans ho are clearly the target of this section

and it re1uires those among them ho ha+e signed up to the Principles to denounce

armed acti+ities of other epublicans ho do not feel bound by the Principles andperhaps e+en to supply the 0ritish state and its armed forces ith information about

them.


4/5

5ertainly since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, hich e are repeatedly

informed are based upon the Mitchell Principles, the epublican parties to theAgreement, &inn Fin and the Pro+isional "A ha+e publicly condemned other

epublicans !dissidents#/ for their continued resistance, ha+e threatened them and at

times administered physical punishment. "n addition, one of the Pro+isionals@ mostsenior figures, Martin McGuinness, on a number of occasions has publicly called for

people to inform on them to the 0ritish authorities.

The Fifth Principle, !To agree to abide by the terms of any agreement reached in all-party

negotiations and to resort to democratic and e$clusi+ely peaceful methods in trying to

alter any aspect of that outcome ith hich they may disagree,#strengthens the Fourth.

As e ha+e seen, the !democratic# methods a+ailable apply only to an area ithboundaries so dran as to lea+e the epublicans alays out+oted by %nionists< they do

not apply to a +ote in all 43 5ounties of the country nor e+en by the population in

0ritain, hich has shon in repeated censi their ish for the 0ritish to ithdra from"reland/. The !peaceful methods# are re1uired of the epublicans but not of the 0ritish

state. The Principles deny the epublicans, in effect, bothdemocratic andmilitary means

to achie+e decolonisation and reunification.

The &i$th Principle !To urge that Dpunishment@ 'illings and beatings stop and to ta'e

effecti+e steps to pre+ent such actions# is one hich seems, at first glance, to be merely

re1uiring ci+iliEed standards of beha+iour. oe+er let us e$amine the situation more

carefully.

The state has means of ensuring compliance ith its re1uirements maintaining its social

order, control of property and security. "t uses fines, threats of and periods of actual

imprisonment as punishments ith the intention of ensuring compliance. "t adminsters

these through courts, police and prison ser+ice, using physical force to carry out court

sentences. %nofficially, it also adminsters beatings, both hen attac'ing demonstrations

and on prisoners in their police stations.

hate+er one may thin' of punishment beatings, they ere the e1ui+alent control

mechanisms of the epublican armed groups. They did not ha+e recourse to fines and

imprisonment. ith regard to !punishment 'illings#, these ere usually carried out, it

seems, against people ho ere pro+en or thought to be informers to 0ritish state forces.

=oo'ed at another ay, in the absence of the possibility of 2ailing for espionage harming

their security, i.e. the standard punishment of the state, the epublican armed

organisations ere either beating or 'illing those assumed to be endangering their

security upon hich their +ery li+es depended. The &i$th Principle in effect prohibits


5/5

the use of any force in order for the epublicans to ensure compliance and their

organisation@s security, hilst at the same time permitting the state all of its on

panopoly in that regard, including the anti-democratic special !anti-terror# las of the

&i$ 5ounties.

5onclusion:

Adherence to the Mitchell Principles remo+es the possibility in any forseeable future of

achie+ing the ob2ecti+es of the epublicans, national reunification and national

independence. "n regard to those ob2ecti+es, the effect of the Principles is to ensure the

continuation of the status 1uo, legitimising the undemocratic partition of the country in

()3( and the continued e$istence of a 0ritish colony in "reland. "n turn, that false

legitimisation and continued colonisation perpetuates the un2ust in+asion of "reland and

its progressi+e 7nglish colonisation nearly a thousand years ago, against hich the "rish

people ha+e ne+er ceased to struggle for e+en a generation but hich has arrested the

political and economic de+elopment of the nation and destroyed a significant part of its

culture.

The continued colonisation is a bra'e upon the future de+eloment of the "rish nation and

the continued sectarian and colonial rule ithin that colony, along ith the partition of

the country, also retards the de+elopment of the "rish or'ing class as a united force able

to pursue its on interests.

The Mitchell Principles, all si$ of them, are colonial and imperialist in effect, profoundly

unfair and essentially undemocratic. Any agreement based upon them, such as for

e$ample the Good Friday Agreement, cannot help but be imbued ith the same 1ualities.

Samhain 2012

Documents

Principios Mitchell Contrarevolucionarios - Diarmuid Breatnach