Republican SINN FÉIN Poblachtach Neo-Colonial Ireland Introduction Occasionally one comes across, especially in the speeches of Leinster House politicians, phrases like ‘…. since we won our independence…’ or ‘…the freedom that we now enjoy..’ and so on. Nearly a century ago, James Connolly foresaw the situation that exists here today, when he warned that unless the basic issue of the ownership of Ireland was resolved then it would be a useless exercise to raise the Tricolour over Dublin Castle and paint the post-boxes green, because England would still be in control. For the purposes of this study we will be making comparisons between developments in Ireland since 1920 and the experiences of the three Baltic Republics: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. The question we will ask is this: how is it that these three small states, similar to Ireland in area, population and resources, could by the time of the Soviet invasion in 1940 be approaching Scandinavian levels of prosperity while the two post-partition Irish statelets had made almost no progress at all? In the six-county case, of course, the area is a direct colonial possession and has the typical features of a colonial economy and society. The twenty-six county entity also has many typical features of a colony but it is in theory not a colony but a completely independent sovereign state. This peculiar situation is termed neo-colonialism, and comprises a situation where colonial exploitation is carried out by indirect rather than direct means. The Ascendancy and the Baltic Barons Some readers may be aware of the photographic archive of Fr Francis Browne, discovered after his death in 1960. That talented amateur photographer left behind about 42,000 snapshots of life in Ireland over the first 40 years of ‘independence’. Several collections of them have now been published, and anybody looking at them today cannot but be struck by how shabby everything was: threadbare clothes, battered shoes, bare feet, dilapidated buildings and litter. But, when Fr Browne moves into the abodes of the gentry, what a contrast! Here are spacious rooms, elegant clothes, sparkling glassware and porcelain, the latest motor cars and all the trappings of an idle and frivolous lifestyle. Here we see plenty of evidence that the gap between rich and poor in Ireland is nothing new: it has been here ‘since the state was founded’ and indeed for a long time before. In the early Middle Ages Ireland was invaded from England by bands of landless knights who attempted to conquer the country and impose feudalism on it. In this they finally succeeded, though it took many centuries. An English-derived ruling class emerged, whose first loyalty was always to England: for the most part despising the Irish and ruthlessly exploiting them. These became known collectively as the Ascendancy. In the Baltic area too armed bands of knights, mostly from Germany, invaded and gradually conquered the native people, killed off their rulers and imposed a feudal structure with themselves in control. The entire East Baltic area passed under the control of Denmark for a period, then of Sweden and finally of the Russian Tsars. However the German-speaking feudal rulers, the ‘Baltic Barons’ remained in control throughout all these changes. Landlord- and-tenant relationships were roughly the same as in Ireland. During the First World War the entire area of the Baltic States was conquered by Germany. The Germans hoped to used the area as a place to settle war veterans after a German victory. However in fact Germany lost the war and had to withdraw. For a number of years the area was a battleground fought over by various factions: Russian Bolsheviks, Russian ‘Whites’, German freebooters, and Poles, until each of the three small nations was able to create a national army, expel all foreign forces and establish independence. What did those states then do about the Baltic Barons? The simple answer is: they ran them out! In Estonia the landlords were dispossessed of all their estates but allowed to keep their mansions. They were paid compensation for arable land at 3 per cent of the value but nothing for forests or other types of holding. A law of 1926 fixed the maximum size of a holding at 50 hectares, with a preferred minimum of 20 hectares; the national average settled at 34 hectares. In Latvia there was a similar reform but no compensation at all was paid, and here also the maximum holding was fixed at 50 hectares. In Lithuania the maximum holding was fixed at 75 hectares, with compensation paid on a sliding scale up to 150 hectares, above which no compensation was payable. The land reform in Lithuania will be the subject of a separate article later in the series. In all three countries, volunteers of the War of Liberation were given first option on land taken into the Land Bank. Because a farmer starting out needed tools, seed and stock; all three states set up government-sponsored credit unions to assist them. Comparative Statistics Country Area Population (Square Km) (in 1938) Estonia 47,500 1,125,000 Latvia 55,700 1,950,000 Lithuania 65,800 2,400,000 Saorstat 70,000 2,960,000 Eireann (26 Counties) Saorstát Éireann had the most land and the largest population, and also had many other advantages: a better climate, fine coasts teeming with fish, adequate energy resources, some mineral deposits. Only in reserves of natural forest did the Baltic states have an advantage. They had no energy resources apart from peat bogs and in Estonia some shale- oil deposits. Yet they had twenty years of steady progress while Ireland north and south experienced little but poverty, backwardness and decay. The reason was that the Baltic States made far better use of the resources they had, and understood that their people were their best resource. Unlike Saorstát Éireann, no other country was allowed to meddle in their affairs. Their resources were not expended in the payment of feudal rents and spurious debts, their cultures were prized and cherished, their leaders were men of ability and decency. The Democratic Programme of the First (32-County) Dáil could have been the blueprint for each of these countries, while here in Ireland it was scorned and repudiated by those in power. The origins of Saorstát Éireann The insurrection of 1916, though itself a failure, began an armed struggle for freedom that by the early part of 1921 was well on the way to success. The government of England had lost control of large parts of the country, Republican courts and a Republican police were functioning and the features of an independent state were beginning to emerge in Ireland. The London government was not going to give in that easily: when they realised they would not be able to maintain the total control they once had they devised a fall-back position hoping to give away as little as possible. In 1920 they brought in a ‘Government of Ireland Act’ under which Ireland would be divided into two states, both under British control. The six north-eastern counties would comprise one state to be called Northern Ireland and would have a Protestant majority and would continue to be run the way the whole of Ireland previously had been. The remaining twenty-six counties would be lumped into a state called Southern Ireland and would have a measure of self-government a bit like Canada and Australia then had but would be tightly bound to Britain and ruled ultimately by the British monarch. Republicans were unable to prevent the British setting up a puppet parliament in the north- east, where they were weakest, but the attempt to establish one in Dublin was a flop and the war went on. The Truce and the Treaty In the summer of 1921 the British requested a truce and in return promised to negotiate. The truce came into effect on Monday, July 11th, at noon. The British offered a treaty, but it contained merely a rehash of their previous ‘Dominion Status’ proposals. ‘Southern Ireland’ would be governed the same way as Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand: the king of England would be head of state and would be represented by a ‘Governor General’, usually an English aristocrat, who would be the supreme authority in the land and could nominate and dismiss ministers, call elections, pardon convicts and veto legislation and overturn the decisions of courts. All public representatives would have to swear allegiance to the monarch, as would soldiers, police and civil servants. The British government could conclude treaties and declare war on behalf of a dominion without consultation. The Irish situation differed from that of the existing ‘dominions’ in two very important respects. Firstly Ireland is small and very close to Britain while the others are large and far away. Secondly the overwhelming majority of the Irish people did not want to be ruled by England at all. In the then existing dominions the majority of the population had strong ethnic and emotional ties to England: it is true that they had minorities who did not want to be ruled from London (Quebecois, Boers, Maoris) but these had been cowed by defeats and remained docile. The proposed treaty was rejected by the Second Dáil on 16th August 1921 without a single dissenting vote. A delegation was then sent to London to negotiate terms for a complete British withdrawal. In London the discussions dragged on and on without any solution being reached. Then the British pulled a master stroke: on the 5th December they engaged the delegates in a lengthy and acrimonious negotiating session that dragged on into the early hours of the following morning, then they suddenly produced the original rejected treaty and told the delegates that orders had been passed to the Home Fleet to put to sea from Scapa Flow and sail for Irish waters and that if the delegates did not sign at once there would be ‘immediate and terrible war’.