Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 24 Jan 1996

Vol. 460 No. 4

Northern Ireland Peace Process — Report of International Body on Decommissioning: Statements.

Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Spring)

The report of the international body has been laid before the House of the Oireachtas today. The Houses will recall that the two Governments established the international body last November, with a mandate to provide an independent assessment of the decommissioning issue. The report of the international body was presented to both the Irish and British Governments simultaneously on Monday, 22 January, and launched this morning at a press conference hosted by the body in Belfast.

Before I address the content of the report, I would like on behalf of the Government, and I am sure on behalf of this House also, to express our warm appreciation to the chairman of the international body, Senator George Mitchell, and to his colleagues, former Prime Minister Harri Holkeri and General John de Chastelain. The three members of the body and their staff have displayed enormous commitment, skill and energy in the discharge of their difficult mandate. The Irish and British Governments and the peoples of these islands have every reason to be profoundly grateful to them for the service they have rendered to the cause of peace. I take this opportunity also to place on record our thanks to their respective Governments for the practical and moral support they have given to the work of the body.

The essential goal we seek through the twin-track process is to bring the parties around the table. The ceasefires are an unprecedented opportunity to resolve a tragic conflict on an exclusively peaceful and democratic basis. The democratic process, and the future welfare of all our people, will be poorly served if we allow this opportunity to be lost. The report puts the choice before us very simply. It states:

This is a critical time in the history of Northern Ireland. The peace process will move forward or this society could slip back to the horror of the past quarter century.

For some time there has been a dangerous impasse between two deeplyheld and opposing views: was decommissioning the prior condition for political progress, or, on the contrary, was political progress the prior key to decommissioning? The two Governments launched a twin-track approach, aimed at replacing that essentially sterile and circular debate by a search for complementary progress on both fronts.

The time-frame allocated to the body was extremely short, reflecting the urgency of the Governments firm aim of launching all-party talks by the end of February. In spite of this pressure, the body consulted very widely, and I believe its report shows that it used that process to establish a very impressive grasp of the situation and of the difficulties involved.

It is also clear from the report that they have gone to great lengths to be fair to all viewpoints and to acknowledge the genuine concerns on all sides. This report, represents the unanimous and impartial view of three very distinguished individuals, from very distinct backgrounds. It offers all of us a clear and very practical road map to the negotiating table. It sets out the guidelines necessary to ensure that the negotiating process is fully democratic and untainted by any threat or use of force. We accept it without reservation.

The body, with its valuable outside perspective has helpfully drawn attention to some positive factors in the present situation which those of us who are totally immersed in it may sometimes be inclined to undervalue. They point to the strength of the deep consensus behind the peace. The very widespread acceptance of the need for total decommissioning, including by former paramilitaries, offers a potentially valuable starting point for the search for an acceptable solution to this problem. They also remind us of the need to give due weight to the sustained observance of the ceasefires, notwithstanding the reprehensible killings and beatings which they so strongly condemn. Our understandable concern with the problems we still need to solve should not blind us to the great gains already made.

I was particularly impressed at this morning's press conference by Senator Mitchell' passionate appeal to avoid a point-scoring approach to his report. This was, he reminded us, a matter literally of life and death. I hope his appeal will be heeded by all and that the report will be given the careful and positive consideration it so clearly deserves.

I welcome also the focus in the report on the underlying issue of trust, or more accurately, the lack of trust, for which the decommissioning debate is in many ways an over-simplified code. The body has very skilfully sought to disentangle the different components of the problem, and to treat each in the appropriate way. It recognises that the lack of trust is an essentially political problem and must be addresed by political means.

The six principles it sets out are a stringent and challenging test of commitment to democratic and peaceful methods, including during and after negotiations. Accepting and honouring them would be a very persuasive test of the commitment required under Article 10 of the Downing Street Declaration.

However the body also recognises that there are genuine practical problems arising from the existence of unauthorised weapons which must be resolved as an essential part of a process of total and verifiable decommissioning. These are set out in a realistic and flexible way, leaving many of the details, quite properly, for subsequent negotiation and agreement.

The report of the body replaces the polemics which had sprung up around the so called "Washington Three" debate with an alternative, more logical, and ultimately more promising approach. To solve both aspects of the problem in the way they suggest, is ultimately to solve the problem as a whole. That is the crucial point for both Governments, not whether it must be achieved in one step rather than two, or according to one particular prescription rather than another.

While the body was anxious to stay within its remit, it nevertheless usefully listed a number of further confidence-building measures which, while not the subject of formal recommendations, are flagged for the attention of the parties. I believe all these issues should be on the agenda for talks. That includes the proposal for an elective process which, as the report points out, would have to be broadly acceptable if it is to contribute to confidence — or even, I would add, if it is to happen at all. That consideration means that it is for those who support the idea to persuade those who do not. The talks process is there for that very concept.

The next step is for the two Governments working on the basis of the report and addressing also, of course, the various other issues in the political track to intensify still further the round of preparatory talks so as to achieve the launch of inclusive negotiations. Both Governments remain fully committed to the firm aim and time frame set on the November communiqué in this regard.

The report sets out, in very direct and straightforward terms that every citizen can understand, the unanimous view of the body on the way forward. I hope it will be widely read by the public at large. Even more, I hope all the parties will avail themselves of the opportunity it offers. The Unionist parties would gain, perhaps most of all, from an agreed settlement which protected their position and heritage. Political impasse is dangerous for everyone. I believe many Unionists recognise that.

The process of negotiation now on offer contains guarantees for the Unionist community at every level. The principles set out by the body guarantee that any attempt to use force or to threaten force will be incompatible with the basis of talks, and will be rejected. The Unionists themselves, by participating in talks, will be able to monitor compliance with that directly. Second, they have the guarantee that the outcome will be subject to what Prime Minister Major called the "triple lock", including the most stringent possible test of democratic validation, through the process of referendum.

A refusal to negotiate, given all of these safeguards, is only too likely to be decoded as a refusal even to acknowledge the existence of problems for the Nationalist community. That attitude has taken a heavy toll in the past, and I hope we can all put it definitively behind us. Negotiations in relation to Northern Ireland are not a luxury, and not a favour for any one side to grant or withhold. They are quite simply a necessity, if we are to have a better future for all. Both Nationalists and Unionists have the duty to listen to each others proposals carefully and constructively across the table, and to seek a just and honourable accommodation of their differing view points.

The report points the way, but acknowledges that only resolute action by the parties themselves will produce progress. It challenges all sides to take the necessary risks for peace. The greatest tribute we can pay to the body for their dedicated work will be to rise to meet that challenge.

Mr. B. Ahern

On behalf of Fianna Fáil I warmly welcome and fully support the unanimous report of the international body published today. Senator George Mitchell, General John De Chastelain and former Finnish Prime Minister, Harri Holkeri, and their staff are to be congratulated on the exceptional quality of their report, and its expeditious delivery after intensive talks and consultations. I join with the Tánaiste in thanking Senator Mitchell and his colleagues, not for the first time, who have made an invaluable contribution to the Irish peace process. We should also thank President Clinton for giving the exercise the full backing of his administration.

In Belfast, I was the first party leader to commit my party in advance to support the Mitchell report, in effect to accept it as a form of arbitration. The content of the report is very much in line with our thinking and with the spirit of what we put forward to the body, as the party most intimately associated with the peace process in its formative stages.

The report provides the means for breaking the logjam over decommissioning, which has stalled the peace process for over a year and it should be firmly grasped. The body listened to the different positions on the decommissioning issue and has produced, in our opinion, an excellent compromise formula which deals fairly and justly with the legitimate concerns of all parties and recommends a formula that will pave the way for all-party talks in the near future.

Fundamental to participation in all-party talks is an absolute and unqualified commitment to the principles of democracy and non-violence. This was at the heart of the Downing Street Declaration. These commitments were given in very clear terms at the time of the IRA ceasefire and in joint meetings between the Taoiseach, past and present, and the Nationalist leaders of Northern Ireland. It is right that they be affirmed and amplified by all parties at the outset of negotiations, in the manner recommended by the body. In my letter to Senator Mitchell on 22 December I recommended that:

political parties associated with paramilitaries would reaffirm unequivocally their commitment to maintain in all circumstances the complete cessation of military operations and their definitive and binding commitment to the success of the democratic process. The rule of law is an integral part of the democratic process. The parties concerned would publicly pledge to use their influence to bring paramilitary shootings and beatings to an end, before talks would start.

The six principles put forward by the body involve an absolute commitment to democratic and peaceful means of resolving political issues. They also involve a commitment to the total disarmament ultimately of all paramilitary organisations in a verifiable way, in effect their disbandment, and a renunciation of the use of force or the threat of force to influence negotiations. They also involve a commitment to abide by the agreed outcome of negotiations and to seek to alter anything disliked in that outcome by exclusively peaceful methods. It also involves a commitment to making best efforts to stop and prevent punishment killings and beatings, which are not consistent with the absolute commitment to democracy and non-violence that is required.

There has been much heated argument about whether decommissioning should be or was a precondition to talks. We put forward a clear and consistent view on that issue. The body accepts that the fears of the arsenals and a possible renewed resort to force were real. The principles, if affirmed and adhered to, would remove the basis of that fear. I am glad the body found a clear commitment on the part of both loyalists and republicans to achieve full and verifiable decommissioning. I agree with former Taoiseach, Deputy Albert Reynolds, that it represents a major step forward that paramilitary organisations have been prepared for the first time in their history to agree to verifiable decommissioning. This commitment comes not from political parties but from those in possession of arms. It is important and should not be undervalued.

The body came to the conclusion that all parties in this House have come to, that the paramilitary organisations will not decommission any arms prior to all-party negotiations. They state, I think with much authority that is the reality with which all concerned must deal. It is a great pity the Irish Government and responsible parties in this House were not listened to on that score and that the British Government was badly advised assuming its demand was maintained in good faith.

The body accepts the legitimate concern of those who insisted on prior decommissioning that the commitment to peaceful means of those formerly supportive of politically motivated violence is genuine and irreversible. Equally, it accepts the concerns of those who need to be reassured that a meaningful and inclusive process of negotiation is genuinely being offered to address the legitimate concerns of their traditions and the need for new political arrangements with which all can identify. We have sympathy with the concerns of both sides in this regard.

The purpose of the body's six principles of democracy and non-violence is to overcome the impasse over decommissioning. The solution transcends the argument on both sides and provides an alternative way forward. It seems reasonable to us that all parties attending talks would affirm their adherence to the six principles at the outset.

Progress on decommissioning is situated in the context of all-party negotiations. If, for example, the British Government or the Unionist parties really attach the high priority to decommissioning that they say they do, then it is important for them to adopt the only route outlined in the report that will lead to decommissioning, engagement in all-party talks as promised in the Downing Street Declaration. A delay in all-party talks means a delay in taking weapons out of circulation. Fianna Fáil recommended to the body, particularly in our second submission before Christmas, that, as the body puts it, "the parties should consider an approach under which some decommissioning would take place during the process of all-party talks". I said in my letter that substantive disarmament has to be a subject for negotiation. I also suggested, as a basis for progress, that it would be understood and accepted by all concerned that decommissioning and a wide demilitarisation of Northern society would proceed in parallel on a phased basis with the progress of the political talks, and that paramilitary organisations would thus have to accept that disarmament could not be left to the end of the day. Such phased implementation would provide confidence building during the talks process. We have always said that decommissioning should receive a high priority in all-party talks.

We support the establishment of an independent commission to provide for verification and we agree the legal safeguards and amnesties required to make the process viable. In our main submission we recommended that "the last solution, in our view, would be if the technical expertise of the Irish army were to be made available to assist in the decommissioning of IRA weapons". We also said:

Some verification would be essential if the positive effects on confidence-building are to be achieved. Alternatively, the IRA might undertake the task itself with accredited observers. In any of these circumstances, an amnesty in relation to possession of weapons would have to be implemented, and the full co-operation of State authorities would be required in any case.

We are glad that the commission's report is consistent with our ideas and no doubt those of other parties.

When we were in Government our primary concern, apart from any threat of a resumption of violence, was that arms should not be misappropriated prior to decommissioning. We strongly emphasised that decommissioning had to be mutual rather than unilateral. As regards an independent commission, when the time comes serious consideration should be given to appointing the Swiss based International Red Cross which is neutral and has access to all possible expertise in this area.

The body recognises — this is also our long-term thinking — that continued action by the Governments on prisoners would bolster trust. I welcome the release on parole of three long-term prisoners in Britain. While there is no equivalence with weapons held by the security forces, there should nevertheless be a commitment by both Governments to continue to take responsive measures as the threat reduces. In our main submission we referred to the need for "a steady corresponding reduction in the number of licensed weapons" and "the importance of a civilian and largely unarmed police force acceptable across the community and broadly representative of it". The report refers to normal policing, a review of legally registered weapons and the use of plastic bullets and continued progress towards more balanced representation in the police force, the key issue in the reform of policing.

On the face of it the body makes a mildly positive but non-ocommittal and neutral reference to the idea of an elected body and inserts three caveats: it would need to be broadly acceptable, have an appropriate mandate and come within the three strand structure. The proposal put forward by the Ulster Unionist Party for an elected body does not come within the three strand structure, which it now appears to reject, and, therefore, could not be entertained within the terms of the report. As made clear to the body, it is mainly for that reason the idea is not acceptable at present to the Nationalist parties. Any proposed assembly or elected body needs to be discussed in all-party negotiations, which is the only way it can come within the three strand structure and be broadly acceptable.

I hope that following further reflection the British Government will give its complete support, without reservation, to the Mitchell report and accept its compromise on the decommissioning issue. The report should be seen by all concerned as providing a direct route to all-party talks. Given a positive and constructive response by Sinn Féin and the loyalists parties I want the two Governments to move together to convene all-party talks before the end of February, as they promised. I strongly appeal to the British Government not to move the goal posts yet again and to act in good faith in accordance with the communiqué of 28 November last year. I regret that before the ink is dry the British Prime Minister appears to have effectively rejected the body's report as a means of moving directly towards all-party talks. The proposals on an assembly was only put forward in the event that the Mitchell report failed to resolve the impasse on decommissioning. The only reason it does not resolve the impasse is that the British Government is continuing to insist on Washington 3, which nullifies the exercise. With political goodwill on all sides, the body will succeed in resolving the impasse. For that reason I appeal to the Governments to commence all-party talks. Will the Tánaiste assure the House that the Government remains committed to all-party talks on the basis of the November communiqué? Given the British Prime Minister's statement this afternoon, I am afraid the British Government has taken the Irish Government for a spin on a merry-goround. John Major said he had discussed the idea of an assembly with the Taoiseach yesterday and he looked forward to discussing it further with him. I am sure that, like me, Nationalists would like to know if we are tied into moving the assembly idea prior to all-party talks. I heard what the Tánaiste said last week and I accept what he seems to be indicating now. It seems from what the British Prime Minister said today that he can move the Irish Government into a different process. That will not be accepted by Nationalists and we will not go down that road.

Minister for Justice (Mrs. Owen)

In accordance with the mandate given to it in the joint communiqué agreed by the Taoiseach, Deputy John Bruton, and the British Prime Minister, John Major, the international body presented its report to the Irish and British Governments last Monday.

The establishment of the international body was an essential component of the twin-track process launched by the joint communiqué on 28 November last year. As part of that process the international body was given a wideranging brief and a very demanding timeframe within which to complete it. This timeframe reflected the wish to both Governments to see all-party negotiations launched by the end of February this year.

In welcoming the report, I wish to pay tribute to its three distinguished members — Senator George Mitchell, its Chairman and the Special Adviser to the United States President for Economic Initiatives in Ireland; General John de Chastelain, the former Chief of Defence Staff of Canada and Mr. Harri Holkeri, the former Prime Minister of Finland — for accepting the invitation of the Irish and British Governments to serve on the international body and for the great skill and enormous commitment they have shown in completing their task.

The Government is also deeply grateful to the Governments of the United States, Canada and Finland for facilitating the participation of Senator Mitchell, General de Chastelain and Mr. Holkeri in the work of the international body and for the continuing assistance they provided to the members of the body in undertaking their task. A special word of appreciation is also due to the staff of the international body who were drawn from the United States, Canada and Finland and who came to Dublin and Belfast at very short notice to assist the body with its work. They have played an important part in ensuring its success and I am sure the House will wish to join me in expressing our appreciation to them.

The mandate given to the international body in the joint communiqué of 28 November was, in summary, to provide an independent assessment of the decommissioning issue; to report on the arrangements necessary for the removal from the political equation of arms silenced by virtue of the welcome decisions taken last summer and autumn by those organisations which previously supported the use of arms for political purposes; and, in particular, to: identify and advise on a suitable and acceptable method for full and verifiable decommissioning and to report whether there is a clear commitment on the part of those in possession of such arms to work constructively to achieve that.

Today's report is the product of a wide process of consultation undertaken in the course of meetings held in Dublin, Belfast and London during December and earlier this month. That process of consultation included both Governments and the political parties here and in Northern Ireland. I was among those privileged to meet them during their consultations with the Government and was deeply impressed by the commitment they showed to completing their task fairly and impartially, their grasp of the issues involved and their searching questions.

The report is, in its own words, the body's "best" and "independent" judgment on the decommissioning issue. The fact that it represents the unanimous judgment of three independent and extremely distinguished international figures clearly adds enormously to its weight and credibility. The report needs and deserves close reading in its entirety. There are challenges in it for all sides. There is no room for an à la carte approach to its findings or for approaching it with a win/lose mindset. All sides need to accept its challenges as well as its comforts for them. By adopting this approach all sides will win. Decommissioning has not only been a difficult issue to resolve but, up until now, it has also been an obstacle to the all-party negotiations aimed at a political settlement based on consent, which is the shared objective of both the Irish and British Governments.

It is not possible in the time available now to comment on all the findings of the report or to adequately summarise its contents. There are nevertheless some central themes which show clearly that the report is intended to challenge all sides and I invite the specific attention of the House to those.

First, there is the finding that the decommissioning issue itself is a symptom of a larger problem namely, the absence of trust and its recognition that both those who insist on prior decommissioning and those who have been persuaded to abandon violence need reassurance. The report recognises that those who insist on prior decommissioning need to be reassured that the commitment to peaceful and democratic means by those who formerly supported politically motivated violence is genuine and irreversible, and that the threat or use of such violence will not be invoked to influence the process of negotiations or change any agreed settlement. The report equally recognises that those who have been persuaded to abandon violence for the peaceful political path need to be reassured that a meaningful and inclusive process of negotiation is genuinely being offered to address the legitimate concerns of their traditions and the need for new political arrangements which they can identify.

The international body recognised that absence of trust and need for reassurance requires new approaches. It has set out the framework for such a new approach, including adherence by the parties to any negotiations to six principles, which would represent a comprehensive commitment to democracy and non-violence. The body also draws attention to the value of some decommissioning during the process of all-party negotiations in order to build trust and confidence during that process. It also suggests that decommissioning should have a high priority in all-party negotiations and provides a basis on which those discussions could take place.

The report is, in the first instance, a report to the Irish and British Governments. The two Governments have undertaken in the Joint Communiqué of 28 November to consider carefully the recommendations the report contains and give them due weight on their merits. The Irish Government agrees with the report and is convinced it provides the basis to move forward confidently and with renewed vigour now in the political track so as to reach all-party negotiations by the end of February.

We sincerely urge all the parties to follow our lead. We urge them to accept the report in its entirety and on its merits. As I indicated earlier, there will be a temptation for parties to find fault with the report because it does not reflect their preferred agenda to the exclusion of others. It is incumbent on all parties to resist that temptation, because, in the words of the report itself, "rigid adherence by the parties to their past positions will simply continue the stalemate which has already lasted too long". All parties must, in the interest of all those they represent, heed the advice in the words of the report that "reaching across the `peace line' requires a willingness to take risks for peace".

The international body recognises that while it can indicate the way in which certain factors should be addressed so that decommissioning of arms and all-party negotiations can proceed, only resolute action by the parties will produce progress.

For its part, the Government is already involved in an intensive round of preparatory talks intended to achieve agreement on the basis, participation, structure, format and agenda for all-party negotiations aimed at a political settlement based on consent within the political track. Those talks have been ongoing since the launch of the twin-track process in November.

The Government believes the immediate requirement now is to ensure progress continues to be made in those talks. We want to see substantive negotiations getting under way by the end of February in accordance with the timetable set out in the Joint Communiqué. The Government will, therefore, seek with the British Government to intensify the preparatory talks process, working on the basis of the report and against the background of the very worthwhile discussions which have been ongoing in the political track.

The international body has rightly observed that this is a critical time in the history of Northern Ireland. It has also indicated that the potential reward is great — a future of peace, equality and prosperity for all the people of Northern Ireland. The onus is now on all of us to secure the progress essential to realise that potential.

Miss Harney

On behalf of the Progressive Democrats, I welcome the publication of the report of the international body on decommissioning. Like the Tánaiste and other speakers, I express my appreciation to the members of the international body, Senator Mitchell, General de Chastelain and former Prime Minister Holkeri for their tireless work in recent weeks to provide a basis to move the peace process forward towards all-party talks.

When I met the members of the international body, with my party colleagues, I was deeply impressed by the level of their commitment and concern to ensure that the process was consolidated and all-party talks would begin. All those who co-operated with the body in its work and all the parties who met it have a duty to accept its findings. It was asked by both Governments to independently analyse the decommissioning issue and come up with a formula to break the impasse reached in recent months. We have a duty to accept its findings as the findings of an arbitrator. If we are not prepared to do so, the chances of breaking the impasse are slim.

There are options in the report which would not be my preferred option nor I am sure the preferred option of many others, but nonetheless I sincerely believe, as I said ten days ago, that if we want to move the process forward the only way is to accept the analysis of these three independent experts.

I wish to comment on the idea of an elected body as sometimes we in this House and elsewhere are inclined to accept the things we like and shoot down the ones we do not. I have serious reservations about holding elections in Northern Ireland prior to a political settlement. The hallmark of elections in Northern Ireland has been campaigns of extremism as each party looked over its shoulder at the extreme elements within its own community. That would be dangerous. If the elections were to be boycotted by any party, they would be meaningless. For those two reasons I am concerned about holding elections in the present context. The peace process is a very fragile process. However, we should have an open mind and explore what others wish to see happen. This should be done, as the international body indicated, in the context of the three stranded approach. Elections desired by one side but boycotted by the other or which see a return to extremism, given that there has been a move towards moderation during the past 16 months or so, would pose major threats to the process.

Like many others, I would prefer, for reasons I have explained in the House before, if a gesture was made on decommissioning. I accept that paramilitaries could always re-arm — unfortunately, it is easy to make explosives. I am not naive enough to think that if one takes away the arms, this will remain the permanent position. I have always seen this issue since the process commenced 16 months ago in the context of trust and symbolism and symbolism is important in Northern Ireland. These arms and the people who hold on to them on both sides are the arms which killed the loved ones of so many people in Northern Ireland. They represent a barrier to peace and reconciliation. For this reason mainly, a gesture or commitment by those who hold them, to travel down the road of decommissioning would provide a powerful momentum to the peace process. It would create the minimum level of trust to allow all-party talks to be effective.

If the all-party talks are to be effective, people must come to do business. They can be in the frame of mind to do business with others only if there is a minimum level of trust. Irrespective of my views on decommissioning, which I forcefully expressed to the commission, I must accept the unanimous recommendation of the commission when it states that "the paramilitary organisations will not decommission any arms prior to all-party negotiations". It reached that conclusion having spoken to people in the security forces on both sides of the Border and representatives from the churches, community organisations and political parties. I must accept that unanimous recommendation even though it may not be my preferred option. I urge others, in relation to decisions they may not like, to adopt a similar approach.

If we are to break the impasse on arms decommissioning that has dogged the peace process for approximately one year, we will do so only by accepting the findings of the Mitchell Commission. It has not been able to remove the impasse but cleverly it sought to provide a mechanism for us to get around it and we should accept that. In particular, the six principles enunciated in the commission's report should be accepted, as it suggests, by all parties who want to be involved in the talks. They are comprehensive and could provide a basis for creating the minimum level of trust we all want if we are to have effective talks.

The commission wants all parties to the talks to accept that they can achieve their political aims only through democratic and exclusively political means. It wants a commitment that paramilitary organisations will disarm and that that will be verified by an independent body. It wants everybody who comes to the table to do everything possible to end punishment beatings and killings and in that regard it mentions taking effective steps. It wants everybody who comes to the talks to agree that they will not use violence or the threat of it to affect the course of the talks or change their outcome. It wants everybody at the talks to do whatever they can to stop those over whom they have influence from threatening the use of force. They are comprehensive and far-reaching principles and if accepted by all parties to the talks they will unlock the deadlock. If Sinn Féin accepts them the two Governments should move speedily to call the all-party talks that are so necessary.

I have reservations about the attitude some members of the Unionist community may adopt. Some may be happy that there is peace. However, Northern Ireland, in its symbols, emblems, its British administration at Stormont and its parliamentary representation at Westminster, represents Unionism and the voice of the Unionist. The identities and aspirations of Unionists are reflected in everything that is Northern Ireland and some Unionists may believe that if they enter into talks they will lose out as the position of Nationalists will have to be bolstered. Northern Ireland will have to become a partnership where the identity, emblems and aspirations of Nationalists are equally recognised.

I would like Unionists to realise the potential that exists for them in having a Northern Ireland that is at peace and where there is a political settlement. We will translate the peace process into a peace settlement only if Unionists and Nationalists — in particular, the moderates on both sides — reach agreement in all-party talks. Irrespective of how much the Governments do, they cannot reach that agreement for them. They will have to do it themselves.

I hope the talks will be called soon. They present a great challenge for representatives of the two communities to come to the table and strike a peace settlement and that is an opportunity from which reasonable politicians would not wish to walk away. We need only reflect on what happened in the Middle East at the weekend and on what has happened in South Africa and in so many other parts of the world where people with courage and determination decided to enter into dialogue. The Forum for Peace and Reconciliation is another example of where talks can develop their own momentum. A level of trust evolves once people begin to talk. Irrespective of the criticisms of the forum, it has kept people talking and people have been able to forge links and relationships with each other which has been good for the political process on this island.

The format used on the last occasion, where as many as 30 or 40 people got around the table, is not always an effective way to strike a political settlement. These talks may take on a different format. When the Government published the twin-track approach before Christmas I said I welcomed the talks about talks process and believed we should explore various combinations with a view to striking a political settlement. I still believe that to be the case.

Senator Mitchell and his commission produced a balanced report and provided a mechanism to allow us get around the impasse. If all parties accept it, it can have a powerful effect in moving the peace process to the next stage. The report is balanced and seeks to address issues other than decommissioning. For example, I was struck by the reference to policing and to the question of legally held arms, although I note the absence of a reference to consent. The report is comprehensive, balanced and fair. In the context of the conflict that exists in Northern Ireland, it is the best we could have expected. I can think of no more fitting words than those of the late John F. Kennedy in his first presidential address in 1961 when he said, "let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate". Those words are very apt at this stage. If Sinn Féin accepts the six principles in the report people should not be afraid to negotiate. Acceptance of those principles by all the parties who want to be involved in the talks process will provide the mechanism to unlock the deadlock and to resolve the impasse.

I thank the commission for its work which was done in a fair and even handed fashion and I am delighted that all the parties here are prepared to accept the report. It is important that as far as possible we maintain an all-party approach to Northern Ireland. It is far too important an issue with which to play party politics. I hope the example given in this House will be followed in Northern Ireland where it is much more necessary.

Mr. Cowen

And by the British Government.

Minister for Social Welfare (Proinsias De Rossa)

I pay tribute to Senator Mitchell, his colleagues and team for the report of the international body. In the Dáil we sometimes have to make statements of thanks or tribute which are more notable for form than for enthusiasm. Today I can say with complete confidence that the report of the international body is a highly impressive and authoritative piece of work. It is slight only in its size.

In measured tones, it sets out a lucid analysis of the current political position in Northern Ireland and it picks its way surefootedly through the thicket of genuinely held mutual fears to suggest a reasonable and balanced way to move forward. The body, quite correctly, has defined the core issue as the absence of trust between the different traditions in Northern Ireland and directed by these traditions towards the two Governments in varying degrees.

The report also asserts a fundamental truth about the ceasefires — that there were no winners or losers, no defeat or victory. Rather, there was a decision to enter the democratic process on the part of both sets of paramilitary traditions, and a decision on the part of both Governments to facilitate entry to the democratic family through mechanisms such as the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation and the bilateral and trilateral talks with the Governments.

The other part of the bargain that the Governments made with the representatives of the republican and loyalist traditions was to ensure that the identity and allegiances of both sets of people, indeed of all people in Northern Ireland, must be recognised and protected in whatever settlement may be reached between the Northern Ireland parties and the two Governments. That is a commitment we can and must honour.

In making progress towards a durable settlement we must also make progress in enshrining the rights in law and in practice of people from both oppositional traditions and people who merely prefer to consider themselves Northern Irish. As the body's report states, "what is really needed is the decommissioning of mind-sets". It is not within the power of the Irish Government or the Irish and British Governments acting together to achieve this, but we have an important part to play.

It is clear that the two Governments cannot browbeat parties in Northern Ireland into talks. Intimidation is not a mechanism which a democracy can wield. What the two Governments can do is act to allay that visceral fear which still is rampant among the parties in Northern Ireland; we are in a better position to persuade all parties to take that courageous step into all party talks if our own talk and behaviour reflects an even handed approach and a readiness to consider all sides of the argument. Education for mutual understanding should begin at home.

The report of the international body is a compromise. However, it is a compromise firmly on the side of democracy and non-violence. This is greatly to be welcomed. Also to be welcomed is the fact that everyone the international body spoke to "agrees in principle with the need to decommission". There is almost universal support for "the total and verifiable disarmament of all paramilitary organisations". This is in line with public opinion, North and South, which expresses a strong commitment to "democratic and exclusively peaceful means of resolving political issues".

The six principles outlined by the international body will, if supported and adhered to by all relevant parties, do much to establish the trust necessary for all-party talks. Despite the ceasefires, trust has not been re-established between the two communities. The confrontations of last summer with their clear sectarian overtones and the continued punishment beatings have scarred the peace enjoyed since the autumn of 1994. The cultures of grievance and siege remain intact. Add to this the legacy of hurt and suffering brought about by 25 years of violence and the complex nature of the problem becomes clearer.

However, we accept that the ceasefires are for real: that while political progress has been incremental and uneven, there is no desire on the part of any of those previously engaged in violence to re-engage in the so-called armed struggle. It may well be the case that many expectations at the time of the ceasefires have not been met. However, perhaps one of the first lessons of politics is that expectations and reality can be worlds apart. What is politically desirable and what is politically feasible are not always the same. That does not require participants to abandon their long-term goals or aspirations. Neither is there any suggestion of victory or surrender.

In this context, there has to be an end — in our time, among this generation — of the historic notion that a historical political wrong can be put right by selfsacrificing armed struggle. There is a slowly growing recognition that armed struggle dispossesses both its adherents and their victims of self worth, dignity and rights. I suggest that it dispossesses most of all the very people who perpetrate it. Their actions indicate a lack of personal and group confidence, an inability or unwillingness to engage in debate and dialogue and an assumption that those with whom they disagree can be dismissed out of hand. Decommissioning and mindset is as critically important as the physical decommissioning of arms and must be directed towards the self as well as urged on others. In a democratic society the force of argument can be the only acceptable force deployed.

Decommissioning should be a declaration of confidence in the political process — a determination to use peaceful and democratic methods exclusively to deliver political objectives and a willingness to accept the outcomes of political strategies as expressed at the ballot box by the people. Acceptance of the sovereign will of the people is the cornerstone of all democratic politics. In this context I particularly welcome the fifth principle of the six set out by Senator Mitchell, and his colleagues, as a clear recognition of the primacy of the democratically expressed will of the people.

No matter how much it is publicly desired and needed, it is clear that the physical fact of decommissioning, even as a gesture, is not going to happen immediately. The peace process, if it means anything, has to mean the primacy of politics. The currency of politics is accommodation. Accommodation is not weakness but confidence.

I urge the paramilitaries to accept that decommissioning in the structured, balanced and flexible way outlined by the international body offers an honourable way forward from the current impasse.

This Government has been very careful to differentiate the need for decommissioning from any suggestion that decommissioning is tantamount to a surrender. That perception, and the manipulation of that perception, creates an entirely false conflict. Decommissioning is best viewed as an entirely positive process. Decommissioning in parallel to political development should be a declaration of confidence in the political process, reflecting a determination to use the craft of politics to deliver political objectives and a willingness to accept the outcomes of political strategies as expressed at the ballot box by the people. Acknowledging such acceptance of the will of the people is not surrender but confidence in the good sense of ordinary citizens.

The democratic process is about negotiation and compromise. That might sound dull set against the macho world of direct action but I can vouch from my own experience, particularly over recent weeks, that democratic politics offer great excitement.

The international body has provided us with a report which offers a constructive way forward. It acknowledged frankly the huge problem of perceptions on both sides. The most useful approach for all of us engaged in the peace process is to study the report and reflect in particular on its principles of democracy and non-violence and on the modalities of decommissioning it proposes. I believe the report offers a positive way forward.

Working on the basis of this report and addressing the many other issues involved in the political track, the two Governments will now intensify their consultations with the parties in the preparatory round of talks with a view to agreeing the basis, participation, structure, format and agenda for those negotiations. Once again I would like to thank Senator Mitchell, General de Chastelain and Mr. Holkeri for their valuable contribution to peace and democracy on this island. They have certainly fulfilled the task entrusted to them by the two Governments.

An Ceann Comhairle

That concludes statements on the report of the International Body on Decommissioning.