Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 18 Oct 1994

Vol. 445 No. 9

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Participation in Political Talks.

Desmond J. O'Malley

Question:

35 Mr. O'Malley asked the asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, in view of the assurances he gave to Dáil Éireann on 1 June 1994, in reply to supplementary questions at columns 1021 and 1023 to the effect that there would have to be a permanent cessation of violence and verification of the handing over of arms before Sinn Féin would be allowed to participate in talks with the constitutional parties or in the proposed Forum for Peace and Reconciliation, if this is still the Government's position following the declaration of a cessation of violence by the Provisional IRA on 31 August 1994; and, if not, the reason therefor. [

Mr. Spring

I stated to the Dáil on 1 June that the definitive abandonment of the use or support of violence for political ends would open the way to participation in political talks and to a role in the shaping of an agreed future for the Irish people, and that it was also a pre-condition for participation in the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation. I also stated on 1 June that the manner in which a permanent end to violence could be established and verified, and the other practical consequences of a permanent cessation of violence, would be matters for decision at a later stage in the light of the circumstances.

Since 1 June, there has been a dramatic and unprecedented change of circumstances, due to the IRA ceasefire of 31 August and the ceasefire called by the loyalist paramilitaries on 13 October. We on this island now have an unparalleled opportunity to advance the process of accommodation between the two traditions in Ireland and to construct the just and lasting peace that the people in both parts of the island yearn for.

The disposal of arms by republican and by loyalist paramlitaries is a very important issue which must be addressed in detail in further discussions. We must ensure that the bomb and the bullet are, quite literally, eliminated for ever from Irish politics. The new situation created by the double cessation of violence offers the most promising possible starting-point to begin to address this objective. I believe it is now right to build on this new situation.

I do not propose at this stage to enter into detail on the obvious logical and other difficulties on both sides. I would hope, however, they would become progressively easier to resolve as confidence grows and the climate of peace becomes consolidated. That objective will be enhanced by a comprehensive process of political dialogue.

I believe such dialogue is urgently called for, and that it would be wrong to refuse it on the grounds that this new situation has not produced, as yet, all the elements, including disposal of weapons, which we all agree are a necessary component of any lasting peace. A satisfactory resolution of this issue will be one of the goals of the dialogue we wish to see in place.

Mr. O'Malley

I take it from that reply that the Government's position has in fact changed quite dramatically, to use the Minister's own phrase, since 1 June. Does he recall on that occasion — as reported in columns 1021 and 1023, of the Official Report of 1 June — Deputy Michael McDowell twice asking him, assuming a ceasefire, if there would be talks with any party or organisation that declined to give up its arms? Twice, without equivocation, the Tánaiste said no, there would be no talks. Does the Government not realise the enormous dangers arising from the fact that there are several hundred tonnes of arms and at least several tonnes of semtex still on this island, North and South, to which people who know the whereabouts of these arms can have resort? If we are to satisfy everybody on both these islands about the prospects of the permanency of peace, would he not agree that the first task should be to seek to have these arms and explosives surrendered?

Mr. Spring

There are about four aspects to the question and I will try to deal with them as best I can. The Deputy states correctly that there has been a dramatic change since I answered questions in the Dáil on 1 June 1994.

Mr. O'Malley

A dramatic change in Government policy. I think I was right in that.

Mr. Spring

As the Deputy is prepared to quote from the record I too will quote from column 1019 of the Official Report of 1 June:

The definitive abandonment of the use, or support, of violence for political ends would open the way to participation in political talks and to a role in the shaping of an agreed future for the Irish people. It is also a precondition for participation in the proposed Forum for Peace and Reconciliation.

Of course, the Government is aware of the dangers that still persist on this island arising from the arms dumps North and South and, of course, we want to see them dismantled and the arms handed over. The Deputy has stated that people have declined to hand these over but I am not sure if they have as yet declined to do so.

Mr. O'Malley

Have they not been asked?

Mr. Spring

Of course, it has been brought to their attention how seriously the Government views this situation and it has been pointed out by numerous members of the Government — the Taoiseach, the Minister for Justice and myself in particular — that as the organisations involved in violence heretofore have now stated that they are renouncing violence and there is an end to the campaign of violence by both quarters there is absolutely no further use for arms or need for the retention of arms dumps and we hope this will be brought to an end as quickly as possible. It will certainly have to be on the agenda of whatever talks take place because until such time as the arms have been handed over and dismantled the threat to which the Deputy refers will persist on this island. The danger is still there but we hope it can be brought to an end as quickly as possible.

It is incumbent on the Government to avail of the window of opportunity that exists to commence dialogue. Both IRA-Sinn Féin and the loyalist military command have said they want to move away from violence, enter the democratic process and enter into inclusive negotiations and I think we should avail of that opportunity.

Mr. O'Malley

Would the Minister agree that while this very large quantity of arms and explosives remains at large there is a danger that the organisation who owns most of them could at some time in the future split into an armed political faction and that the danger of that happening, of which we are all conscious, would be greatly lessened if these arms and explosives were not available to anybody but were in the possession of the Government North and South.

Mr. Spring

With all due respect, the Deputy has to distinguish between the ideal and the possible in a situation such as this. We are all very conscious, and those leading the Sinn Féin organisation to the negotiation table are very conscious also, of the history of that organisation and of the numerous splits that have taken place this century. They are conscious of doing everything possible to avoid that. I think it would be unrealistic — and the Deputy should confer with his colleague Deputy Michael McDowell on a discussion we had some weeks ago — to expect that the arms be handed over right now but I hope that it can be done in due course. The Government will not rest and I do not see a completion of any negotiations taking place until arrangements are made for the handing over of arms by both sides to the quarrel in Northern Ireland.

Mr. O'Malley

Will the Minister explain what he meant by his reference in his reply to my first supplementary question that perhaps those who have possession of these arms have not declined to hand them over? Does he mean that no request has been made to them? What is the explanation of that statement?

Mr. Spring

The Government's view which has been made very clear to the Sinn Féin organisation in the original talks is that it wants to see the arms handed over and dismantled and nothing has happened to change its view.

Mrs. Owen

When?