The position of the Republican Socialist Movement on the issue of the release of political prisoners has already been laid out by the Republican Socialist Prisoners of War. Our ultimate goal is an amnesty for all political prisoners. One out, all out. No more. No less. This is a realistic and achievable aim.

British consideration for the victims of violence (which includes the prisoners themselves) does not equate with holding prisoners hostage, while stating that you are working for conflict resolution and a lasting peace. The very terminology alone used by Mayhew when referring to the prisoners indicates both a contempt for, and an inability to, understand Irish Republicans.

On the issue of the re-introduction of 50% remission for political prisoners, this is a niggardly response one year later to the Republican ceasefire. It is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a concession or even a half-hearted attempt at tackling the central question of the release of prisoners in a post-conflict situation. If anything, the position has been worsened with British insistence that conditions will now be attached to those prisoners due for release. In consultation with Republican Socialists, the I.R.S.P. will decide its attitude to those conditions.

The continued failure by both the British and the Chief Constable, Hugh Annsley, to identify the R.U.C. as part of the problem in the North of Ireland is the flawed promise on which Mayhew's section on policing is built. The present cultural/political bias of the R.U.C. is internationally known. This bias is an integral part of the ethos and material make-up of what is in fact a heavily armed paramilitary organisation. No amount of expensive P.R. exercised by the Police Authority or equally costly N.I.O. commercials will change this.

The R.U.C. has proven by its latest antics that it is in deep crisis. Its rank and file, and also its officer elite, is permeated by a racist, anti-Catholic hatred manifested in the firing of baton rounds at "Fenian bastards." This, the true face of the R.U.C., was seen in its full glory on the streets of Belfast, Derry, Larne, Lurgan and Portadown in recent weeks. Even the S.D.L.P., the moderate somewhat-acceptable face (to the British) of Irish Nationalism have conceded that the R.U.C. is a totally unacceptable force to the vast majority of Northern Nationalists (not to mention working class Protestants). The fact is that the R.U.C., to all intents and purposes, an armed Loyalist paramilitary group, has no role to play as presently constituted in solving the conflict.

The proposed review of emergency legislation is viewed by the I.R.S.P. as no more than yet another distraction. We will undoubtedly see some fat-cat English Barister, Judge or Lord delegated, with a massive fee, to take his/her time "reviewing" each line of the draconian legislation with a view to making a report recommending some minor changes. No real changes will be made because legislation such as this is ideal when it comes to tackling social unrest, any growth in trade union militancy and of course the treat of "foreign terrorism."

Despite 12 months of peace on, by Mayhew's own admission, hundreds of people have been arrested and homes are still being raided under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. In the absence of violence why is this still happening? There can be no doubt that only the repeal of all emergency legislation and the establishment of built-in guarantees which protect the citizens' rights and freedoms would go a long way to ease working class fears.

Patrick Mayhew states that the exploratory dialogue with Loyalists has been productive and has rewarded them with 50% remission for prisoners. On the issue of talking to Sinn Fein he "regrets that has not been possible to have a more productive and constructive dialogue" with them. Why not? It has not been for want of Sinn Fein trying.

From the beginning of this "peace process" the I.R.S.P. stated that it was willing to enter into dialogue with any political party or group on this island, including the political organisations of the Loyalist paramilitaries. Dialogue and contact has been initiated with various political parties and groups on the island of Ireland. We stated then that we were skeptical of Britain's commitment to making the process work. Therefore, until some measure of honest reciprocation to the ceasefire was shown by Britain, we would not be willing to enter into dialogue with their representatives. This is still the case and twelve months down the line little or nothing has changed.

It would be useful at this stage to point out that just as with the Loyalist organisations, no one party speaks on their behalf, so it is the case with Republicans. Gerry Adams and Sinn Fein do not represent the totality of the thought or political positions of Republicanism. We also have our mandate. We were and are part of Britian's problem in Ireland, and will play our role in the solution. Government politicians and the media would do well to reflect on this when considering or seeking the "Republican" position.

The recent statement by the Combined Loyalist Military Command (UVF, UDA, et al) that their weapons are only for defensive purposes was well-crafted and timed. It obviously came as a result of a N.I.O. tip-off as to the contents of Mayhew's speech, designed to place Republicans on the spot. It does not wear with the I.R.S.P.

This statement comes from an umbrella grouping which is in no position to make out that they are innocents only wishing to defend themselves against Republican aggression. Ample proof exists of continuing re-armament by Loyalists. The U.V.F. Shankhill Road arms display and statement of intent, the Hollywood arms manufacturing factory (post ceasefire) put together with the alleged Scottish arms importation conspiracy would indicate that Nationalists are in patently greater danger of "first strike" Loyalist attacks. Despite recognising this danger and being prepared against it, no threats or statements from the Irish National Liberation Army have been issued to further heighten the tension.

We recognise that factually the I.R.A. have not gone away and neither have the British Army, the R.U.C. and their allies in the U.V.F. and U.D.A. Armed groups exist and the gun is still in Irish politics. To the British, who bear the responsibility for bringing the gun into Irish politics, we say our position is clear. Yes, there is a need for the complete demilitarisation of Irish society. We want demilitarisation. But there can and will be no unilateral decommissioning by Republican Socialists.

In all conscience, we in the I.R.S.P. cannot and will not recommend to the I.N.L.A. that it declare its ceasefire permanent, nor agree to any decommissioning of weapons. But we do recommend that the I.N.L.A. stick rigidly to a no first strike stance until such time as sufficient trust has been established among all the parties to move the position forward. Decommissioning will be part of an overall political settlement and not as a pre-condition. The British have been exposed for creating yet another manufactured and contrived obstacle to peace. Republican Socialists will not jump through hoops prior to or as a pre-condition of peace talks.