Your editorial on The Workers Movement and Ireland' IRed Wookiy, 21 November) reflects both the strength and the weakniess of your coverage of avants in WORET 1018170 The strength has always bean in your principled light to educate the workers' movement on the naed to support the fight for salf-determination in Ireland. As you have oftan argued, this involves campaigning for the withdrawal of troops and giving solidarity to the Republican farces who have been pursuing the military campaign ageins the army.
Your weakness has baen your reluct ance to spell out clearly the negative teat ures of trish Republicanism.
Your editorial dealt at length with an intervien given by David O'Connell to the Weekend World TV progremme, and vour assessment or the interviel vor generally positive. Ha was calling for the withdrawal of troops, the relaase of political prisoners, the removal of British influence, and delence of the Catholic aren. Quite right.
CunarUT OT TIe IntenICs was to explain the escalation of the bomb ing campaign to the British mainland -and you lat O'Connall off far too lightly Tor ns ot calt asonint Any socialist watching the interview must have been horrified by the right.
wing line of his argument. You make no mantion of his call for a UN 'pcacokeeping force' following the withdrawal of British troops, nor of his assurance that Republican forces could collaborate with the CAH CE TO REBO WOW ARO OTOEE HI IOFLDCE But most important, you do not dea with the thoroughly petit-bourgeois approach of O'Connell to the British WORKIN CINAX, MR SUSUICH TOM OT ONT anding the bombings to Britain was not to bring the fight ageinet the British state and its army onto the mainland. He was arguing for a bombing campaign AGAINST THE BRITISH WORKING CLASS. His reasaning was appalling: the British workars were allowing the Gavernment to con