Bertie Ahern
Question:5 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach the principal matters he raised with the United States President and at his other meetings on his visit to Washington. [5437/95]
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Visit to United States.
Mary Harney
Question:6 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach the persons included in the party which accompanied him on his trip to the United States for the St. Patrick's Day events. [6000/95]
Mary Harney
Question:7 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his visit to the United States and his meeting with President Clinton, with particular reference to the role of the Clinton Administration in encouraging the peace process in Northern Ireland; and the particular initiatives, if any, which will be arising from this trip. [6001/95]
Mary Harney
Question:8 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach the meetings, if any, he had with industrialists in the United States to encourage inward industrial investment in Ireland; and the prospects, if any, for investment flowing from the visit. [6002/95]
Dermot Ahern
Question:9 Mr. D. Ahern asked the Taoiseach if he, or any person on his behalf, made representations to the United States Administration regarding President Clinton's invitation to Mr. Gerry Adams, Sinn Fein Leader, to attend a function in Washington; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6007/95]
Bertie Ahern
Question:10 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the outcome of his talks with President Clinton and Congressional leaders in Washington. [6205/95]
Bertie Ahern
Question:11 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach the meetings, if any, he had in Washington with Mr. Gary McMichael, Leader of the Ulster Democratic Party. [6206/95]
Mary Harney
Question:12 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach if the Government was consulted by the United States Administration in advance of the decision to allow the Sinn Féin President to raise funds in the United States; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6254/95]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 to 12, inclusive, together.
My visit to the US from 14 March to 21 March had four main objectives: to get to know the President, others in the US Administration and the Congressional leadership; to achieve the maximum US backing for the peace process, including the Framework Document; to promote Ireland's economic interests by the development of US-Ireland commercial investment and tourism links and to maintain the closest possible contact with Irish-America and with the wider American audience with a view to maintaining and enhancing all that is best in the Irish-American relationship.
My objectives were achieved through my meetings with President Clinton initially at a lunch hosted by Speaker Gingrich, at a working meeting with the President where he was accompanied by Vice-President Gore, Secretary of State Mr. Christopher and National Security Adviser Mr. Tony Lake and at a St. Patrick's evening function which the President and Mrs. Clinton were kind enough to host in honour of my wife and me.
In addition, I had a meeting with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The lunch which the Speaker of the House attended involved the attendance of many other speakers of Congress and, through these two events and the good offices of Senator Kennedy. I met almost one-third of the members of the Senate. Among those I met at these functions were the majority and minority leaders in both Houses of the Congress. I was particularly gratified that on all occasions the attendance was balanced as between Republicans and Democrats.
At all my meetings with the President, members of his Administration and members of Congress, I availed of the opportunity to bring them fully up-to-date on the peace process and to thank President Clinton and his colleagues for their contribution to what has been achieved. The continuing support of the President and in a bipartisan way of the US Congress is an important element in the process as it goes forward. It is my intention to ensure that the US role will be maintained and as necessary, enhanced, as we move towards achieveing lasting peace and reconciliation.
The objective of promoting our economic interests was achieved through meetings with the Ireland-US Council for Commerce and Industry in New York at which I had an opportunity to address about 250 people involved in Irish-American commercial relations; the Ireland-America Economic Advisory Board whose meeting in Washington on 17 March I chaired. The meeting was attended by the chief executive officers or chairmen of 14 leading US corporations and heard particularly interesting reports on the development of tourism and the IFSC in Dublin. On the agricultural side, opportunities for co operation between the University of Missouri and agricultural research institutes in Ireland were explored. While Ireland and the US are competitors in world agricultural markets, I see major opportunities for co-operation and indeed for learning in areas such as information technology as applied to price forecasting, genetics and the improved presentation and preservation of food. I had a meeting with Senator George Mitchell who has been entrusted by President Clinton with the organisation of the forthcoming White House conference on trade and investment in Ireland. Our meeting focused on specific ways in which Irish companies might benefit from partnership and other networking relationships with US companies. Furthermore, I had a meeting with the EU ambassador to the US on bilateral EU/US economic relationships.
The objective of maintaining contact with Irish-America and the wider American community was achieved through meeting 400 representatives of Irish-American organisations in New York; attending and speaking at the Irish America magazine top 100 function attended by about 300 people; attending functions in Chicago organised in my honour by the Gaelic Park committee on the south-side of the city and by the Irish American Heritage Center on the north-side of Chicago.
I also had a briefing with Irish-American media representatives. I gave numerous radio and television interviews, including on ABC coast to coast and CNN international stations. I spoke at the St. Patrick's Day lunch of the National Press Club, which was broadcast coast to coast. I briefed major US papers, including the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe and the St. Louis Post Dispatch.
Dealing with specific points raised in questions, the party which accompanied me consisted of my wife, the secretary of my Department, my special adviser, the second secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Government Press Secretary, my private secretary and a security officer.
I met and spoke briefly with Mr. Gary McMichael of the UDP at the White House function hosted in honour of my wife and me on St. Patrick's Day.
In informal contacts with the US Administration in advance of my visit, it was made clear on my behalf that invitations to the White House were entirely a matter for the US authorities and that I would have no difficulty with the President of Sinn Féin being included. As Deputies will be aware, I have met him on many occasions since becoming Taoiseach. As far as fundraising in the US by Sinn Féin was concerned. I made it clear that this was also a decision for the US authorities who were, of course, aware that there are no obstacles to Sinn Féin fundraising in this jurisdiction or indeed Britain.
Overall, I am satisfied that the visit achieved the objectives which I set and will contribute, as similar visits by my predecessors have done to the achievement of our political, economic, social and cultural objectives.
I congratulate the Taoiseach on his extensive visit. It will be a lesson to him not to be so cynical about visits by a Taoiseach and Ministers to St. Patrick's Day parades abroad. What steps did the Taoiseach take when in the United States to get political dialogue going again, particularly since he stated that his second objective was to move forward on the Framework Document? I assume there was total support from all sides in the United States for that document and that the objective was reiterated in the course of his visit. Some weeks after its publication, what initiatives did the Taoiseach suggest to the United States President, and other political leaders? What initiatives did he achieve in moving forward discussions on the Framework Document?
In practice moves to get discussions going on the Framework Document will take place in Ireland or in Britain, that is where the primary focus will be, because that is where the people who need to talk to one another live. In the United States I availed of the opportunity to explain the underlying philosophy of the Framework Document, a document which is quite complex in its elaboration but quite simple in its purpose which is to enable two communities with radically different loyalties to share the same piece of ground while each feels that their respective loyalty remains respected by the institutions under which they live. That is quite simple or easy to explain to American audiences and has application not just to the conflict in Northern Ireland but to conflicts worldwide, such as those in Bosnia, Estonia and Romania. Any number of places in which the United States has interests have problems which could be solved by the method we are seeking to solve the problem in Northern Ireland. I was very happy to have the opportunity of explaining the Framework Document to a wider audience.
To revert to Deputy Ahern's specific question, as far as talks between the parties are concerned, the real work has to begin. I am satisfied that the influence of all the activity in the United States over the past week will have been entirely good in bringing the respective positions of the parties who are not talking to one another as fully as they ought — because of the remaining difficulties about the decommissioning of arms — closer together and brought closer the day that that will no longer be a problem or road-block in discussion. Certainly my contacts with President Clinton, and my media comments on all of that, were designed to get both sides, not just one, to make movement on this very important question of arms, the subject of a subsequent question. In summary, the real work of getting talks going has to begin here at home; it is not something someone else can do for us.
Did the American authorities consult the Irish Government before Mr. Adams's visa was issued for fund raising? Is the Taoiseach concerned at the extent of the coverage Mr. Adams's visit received? Given that such emphasis is placed on the democratic mandate, that the difference in votes between the Alliance and Sinn Féin parties at the last Westminister election was 1 per cent, whereas the disparity of the media coverage was much greater, would the Taoiseach agree that the arms issue was the reason so much United States' coverage was given to the leader of Sinn Féin? Did the Taoiseach avail of the opportunity while in the United States to speak to the leader of Sinn Féin privately on this issue? Was the Taoiseach aware that British Minister. Mr. Ancram, was meeting the UDP and PUP this morning and was his Government consulted about that?
The answer to the first part of the question is "yes", we were consulted. On the question of pressing Mr. Adams privately as well as publicly on the question of decommissioning of arms while I was in the United States, the answer to that is also "yes"; that is an important question. However, it is not the only item on the agenda. In everything I said I made it clear that there are at least four areas where movement forward is necessary, this is one of them and this movement is required on the part of Sinn Féin as well as by the British Government.
As far as the last part of the Deputy's question, the meeting with Loyalist political parties at British Government ministerial level, is concerned, I understand the reason that meeting was taking place is that they have moved forward their position on the decommissioning of arms to a more advanced stage than that taken by Sinn Féin to date. The loyalists have met the requirements being sought by the British Government in terms of willingness to discuss the issue and this is positive. On the ceasefire, the decision taken by the IRA to introduce a ceasefire at end of August last year was a very difficult and courageous one and led to a loyalist ceasefire in October last. I am hoping that on this occasion, if the loyalists take a more advanced position on the decommissioning of arms, in turn, that may lead to some movement on the other side. The important point is that, while the process may seem painfully slow, we are all moving in the same direction at present and that is good.
Last year the previous Government was berated because of its involvement in the granting of a visa to Mr. Adams to visit the United States at that time by some people from the Taoiseach's side of the House. Would the Taoiseach accept that that decision was a correct one in order to push the peace process ahead?
Yes, I would unambiguously accept that, it was the correct decision. When speaking in the White House, in praising President Clinton for his role in that decision. I made it clear there were others, including myself, who had doubts about it at the time, but it was the right decision; I readily concede that point. I wish to express my appreciation of and gratitude to Deputy Dermot Ahern for his work as chairperson of the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body.
Not good enough.
Politics.
I welcome the Taoiseach's acknowledgement of the change from his position of last year, when he was critical of that decision. Will he outline what he perceives to be the substantive differences on the decommissioning of arms by loyalists and republicans because I do not perceive the subtleties — I do not want to make an issue of it?
It is the first time I have heard anybody say they understand the subtleties involved. The British Government would do better not to engage in any political games. Having set out their position, with which I do not disagree — that the decommissioning of arms in a certain way has to be on the agenda — to engage in political games about it will not help. I have never heard of any substantive difference.
While accepting what the Taoiseach said about the difficulties with regard to Strand I and understanding the inappropriate timing of Strand III, would the Taoiseach agree that the contents of the Framework Document primarily are about Strand II, which is his initiative or call? It is on that aspect I should like him to reply. Several weeks after its publication and the Taoiseach's good work in the United States, including his ongoing contacts, and those of the Tánaiste, with the British Government, would he agree that inaction on Strand II could be unhelpful? Would be agree there is a clear opportunity afforded the Irish Government, in developing talks on the Framework Document — within the context of what has already been substantially agreed under Strand II — to move the process forward, thus removing the logjam created under Strand I? Does the Taoiseach see the benefit of so doing?
I do, undoubtedly. In practical terms, there would be no difficulty in arranging a meeting tomorrow morning with the Alliance Party, the SDLP or Sinn Féin; the difficulty is to get meaningful discussions going with the Unionists and that is a practical fact. It is important to issue invitations only when one knows they will be accepted, and not get ourselves into circumstances in which there would be stand-offs, when the contacts continuing at a lower level might be adversely affected by public disgreement.
I am continuing to explore informal contacts with a view to finding when it would be most appropriate to make more formal contacts to discuss Strand II. I agree with Deputy Ahern that Strand II is where the Government has a legitimate right to enter into discussion with the parties in Northern Ireland. Strand I was a different matter. In that context, I will be happy to have discussions with all the parties in Northern Ireland, but the timing is a matter for political judgement.
Will the Taoiseach agree that the significant difference in the approach to arms between the former loyalist paramilitaries and Sinn Féin is that the loyalists have agreed to deal with what they call "illegal arms" and that Sinn Féin is still talking about the arms legally held by the British Army and the RUC? Will the Taoiseach agree with my concern that the visit of Mr. Adams to the United States received far more coverage here and abroad than the Taoiseach's visit and is he concerned about that?
I do not know how publicity is measured. Perhaps one visitor might have got more publicity than the other in the United States print media, but on television the position was the reverse. That does not concern me. The important matter is that we are making progress at the highest and lowest levels in moving the process forward and we should not be too worried about media coverage. I endorse what Deputy Harney said about the importance of the mandate of Dr. John Alderdice's Alliance Party. That was acknowledged at the White House as was the mandate of Mr. John Hume. I will not get into the semantics of the nuances in the difference between the loyalist and Sinn Féin position on arms. There is a movement on both sides. Even today I am aware of significant productive movement on this issue and I believe it will bear fruit.
To answer Deputies Ahern and Harney on the arms question, the important thing we are seeking is not any particular form of words, but a sense that the people sitting at the table are serious about dealing with this issue soon; that they are not there to talk about it while gaining concessions on other issues and at the end of the agenda to apologise and say they do not have a mandate to do anything about it. They must be willing to engage seriously in discussions on this issue. What is in question is a judgement on people's seriousness about this issue. If people say they cannot deal with the question of arms, one must question to some degree what they are able to deal with. If this issue cannot be dealt with, we must all worry because the amount of arms available is substantial. It is not just a question of what might satisfy the British. The representatives of the communities who have been the victims of violence must be satisfied on this issue. They are the people whose sensitivities need to be taken into account. The people of Greysteel want to know that the arms used there are out of commission just as the people of the Shankill want to know that semtex is also out of commission. We are not talking about simply military logistics, but about the feelings of people and the need to show symbolically and clearly that not only is the violence over but that the instruments of violence are no longer relevant to political dialogue, that they and the potential of their use are removed from dialogue and that the dialogue will take place "on a level playing field".
I do not disagree with what the Taoiseach stated. On the decomissioning of arms, I understand that the talks with the loyalists will start and decommissioning of arms is on the agenda, and that in upcoming talks with Sinn Féin the decommissioning of arms is also on the agenda. Had the Taoiseach an opportunity to speak with Mr. Gary McMichael to ascertain his views on a possible timeframe for moving forward on the Framework Document? Did he indicate his support or otherwise for that process?
Unfortunately my conversation with Mr. Gary McMichael in the White House was very short and it was not possible to have a substantive discussion — I met him on a receiving line. I had a few words with him but to characterise them as a substantive discussion would be a misrepresentation.
I accept that perhaps all the parties in Northern Ireland would not want to sit at the table. Based on the position achieved by the end of 1992 and recent statements made by the parties before and after the publication of the Framework Document that they would not be afraid to restate their positions, will the Taoiseach use this House today to invite those parties to consider continuing the peace process and using the Framework Document as a basis for discussion? I accept that invitations may be issued only once, but now that the Framework Document has been published and recent visits to the United States have successfully moved the process forward and ministerial talks have been announced with loyalists and are about to be announced with republicans, perhaps it would be an appropriate time for the Taoiseach to seek the good offices of the parties in Northern Ireland to move the process back to at least the level of bilateral discussions with the Irish Government, the Taoiseach or the Tánaiste rather than waiting any longer.
If those parties wish to meet me, I would be happy to formally discuss either the Framework Document or their proposals. I do not want to issue formal invitations for the reasons I have already given at great length. I am maintaining informal contact with them and, from my knowledge. I understand some of them will come forward with other ideas in the near future. We should be willing to talk to them on their ground as well as asking them to talk to us on ours.
On media coverage I am surprised at the Taoiseach's comment, because it concerns me that the Taoiseach and those who are a voice for moderation in Northern Ireland, like Dr. John Alderdice and Mr. John Hume, received so little media coverage. That also surprised and disappointed many people in Northern Ireland. Will the Taoiseach agree that the most powerful way to move the process forward is to deal seriously with the arms issue and not talk about it as if it is just one other issue? If we are to get the Unionists involved and expect them to trust those who waged a campaign against their community the arms issue must become the number one priority. The IRA was the arms aggressor and it must be involved in the process first. Does the Taoiseach agree with that and what steps does he intend to take to ensure that this matter is not just seen as an additional item, but one which is fundamental if we are to become involved in all-party talks?
On the second part of the Deputy's question, everything I have been doing in the United States and in previous contacts with the parties involved has been designed to sort out the arms issue to ensure it is no longer a block on other issues. I have been involved daily in trying to move forward on that. As Deputy Ahern pointed out, the position has inched forward and is close to resolution. We should not worry too much about media coverage. It is ephemeral. Very often people forget what television programme they saw yesterday. The important thing is that one is making substantial progress on things of lasting importance.
On the question of arms decommissioning I welcome what the Tánaiste said yesterday, in reply to me, that it was one of a myriad of issues which had to be addressed and addressed quickly. That is the right approach being adopted by the Government. In relation to contact with the Unionist community will the Taoiseach accept, because of the euphoria engendered by the visits to America by himself and others, that there has been a sidelining or a marginalising of some of the smaller Unionist representatives — the PUP and the UDP — who have taken a major step towards resolving this problem? Will the Taoiseach accept the need for the Irish Government to put the hand out to such parties to show they are not being marginalised by the wave of euphoria?
I have put the hand out to them and will continue to do so. The arms issue is not just one of a hundred issues; it is one of the three or four most important issues and holds the key to movement on a number of other questions. We should not diminish its important. It is a significant issue but not the only one. There is also prisoner release, policing and the absence of substantive talks between the parties. I identified those as the four main points in response to questions in the United States and I would hold to that view.
Part of the Taoiseach's visit included meeting representatives from the industrial community in the United States. Will the Taoiseach agree that inward investment into Ireland will be affected by the Government's confusion in relation to the currency crisis and the uncertainty that has generated?
No.