Vol. 470 No. 8
1 Mr. R. Burke asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the requirements which each party has to fulfil to participate in the multi-party talks; and if he has satisfied himself that sufficient efforts are being made by the two Governments to persuade the IRA to renew its August 1994 ceasefire. [20102/96]
The conditions of participation in the multi-party talks were first set out by the two Governments in the communiqué of 28 February. They were restated in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the ground rules published on 16 April, which in turn were referred to in the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations) Act, which, for British purposes, forms the legal basis of the present negotiations. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Ground Rules read as follows:
"8. Negotiations will involve the participation, in the appropriate strands, of representatives of both Governments and all those political parties operating in Northern Ireland ... which achieve representation through an elective process and which, as set out in the Communiqué of 28 February 1996, establish a commitment to exclusively peaceful methods and which have shown that they abide by the democratic process.
"9. In the Communiqué of 28 February, both Governments expressed the hope that all political parties with an electoral mandate will be able to participate in all-party negotiations. However, both Governments are also agreed that the resumption of Ministerial dialogue with Sinn Féin, and their participation in negotiations, requires the unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire of August 1994."
Those remain the conditions for entry to negotiations. In addition, as was also set out in the February communiqué and the ground rules, it is required as a confidence-building measure that all participants make clear at the beginning of the discussions their total and absolute commitment to the principles of democracy and non-violence set out in the report of the international body. This was done at the start of negotiations in June by the two Governments and the nine parties currently participating in the talks. It will also be required of Sinn Féin if, as a result of an unequivocal restoration of the IRA ceasefire, it is to enter the negotiations.
The Government wishes to see Sinn Féin participate in the negotiations as it remains its view that fully inclusive negotiations offer the best prospect of achieving a fully durable and comprehensive agreement. However, it must be acknowledged that the atrocities perpetrated by the IRA since February and other evidence of its continuing activity have called into question the credibility of the republican movement as a whole.
It is in this context that the two Governments have emphasised that we will need to be satisfied a restoration of the ceasefire is unequivocal. There is an onus on both Sinn Féin and the IRA to ensure that neither their words nor their actions would be in contradiction of a commitment to exclusively peaceful methods and to abide by the democratic process. It is for the IRA, not for the two Governments, to take the decision unequivocally to restore its ceasefire and thus make possible the entry of Sinn Féin to the multi-party talks.
Clearly, the two Governments must continue to work to ensure that, as was also stipulated in the February communiqué and the ground rules, all parties have reassurance that a meaningful and inclusive process of negotiations is genuinely being offered to address the legitimate concerns of their traditions and the need for new political arrangements with which all can identify. I believe the current all-party negotiations proceeding in Belfast have the potential to provide such reassurance, in particular once the way is clear to launch substantive negotiations in the three strands. I am confident that, with the necessary political will on all sides, the negotiations can be made truly meaningful and can lead to a lasting political settlement. However, it is up to the IRA to determine whether it can also become truly inclusive.
I thank the Tánaiste for his reply. Does he agree there are basically two alternatives in the North — violence or dialogue? If we all agree that violence must cease, we must open the way to dialogue. Does he agree that the ground rules document while correct in principle, is far too vague? Should the Government not state clearly that, if violence is brought to an end for good, Sinn Féin will be brought into the talks within weeks, as the Tánaiste said last night? Is it true, as a Government spokesman claimed, that the two Governments are completely united in their approach? Specifically, is there agreement between the two Governments on the criteria to be applied for entry to the talks?
The Deputy makes clear the choices confronting us. One can have either violence or dialogue but they are incompatible. Both Governments have made clear that there can be no departure from the basic rules of democracy and non-violence. There is no question of the admission of Sinn Féin to negotiations before an unequivocal restoration of the IRA ceasefire. In the first instance, Sinn Féin would have to make clear its total and absolute commitment to the six Mitchell principles, including the complete renunciation of all violence and the total and verifiable disarmament of all paramilitary organisations. It is for the IRA to take the decision unequivocally to restore its ceasefire and make possible the entry of Sinn Féin to the multi-party talks. As the communiqué of February 28 stipulates, the two Governments will continue to work to ensure that all parties have reassurances that an inclusive process will take place but it is for Sinn Féin and the IRA to restore the ceasefire to make possible their entry to the talks. The Governments are working closely together. The Deputy knows from his own experience that without absolute agreement between and determination on the part of the two Governments, there will not be a successful process.
I accept that it is up to the IRA. However, does the Tánaiste agree that the British Government and other parties should try, without concession of principle, to make an end to violence attractive rather than unattractive? Does he agree it is essential on this occasion to make clear when Sinn Féin can expect to enter talks, following a satisfactory ceasefire declaration?
I think we should encourage the positive changes which have taken place in republican thinking by keeping open the path which leads from the wilderness of violence to the democratic arena. I think it must also be acknowledged — and the Deputy will have no difficulty accepting this — that the atrocities perpetrated by the IRA since February and other evidence of continuing activity have called into question the credibility of the republican movement as a whole. In that respect we are at pains to emphasise that we want an unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire. We want to move into an inclusive process of all-party talks as quickly as possible and to ensure there are opportunities because it is only in the context of such talks, with people sitting down together around the table, that we will bring about the settlement we are all trying to achieve.
We all want to see people sitting around the table. I remind the Minister of his words of last night that it is deeply frustrating that not one minute has been devoted to discussions on the substantive political issues in the talks process. Will the Minister agree that what is needed at this stage is clarity on when the talks will start in the event of an IRA ceasefire, for which we all hope? The Taoiseach's statement yesterday was less definitive than the Minister's statement last night in terms of the entry of Sinn Féin into talks. It is important for people outside the House to know exactly where the Government stands on this issue. Is it at one with the British Government on when the talks will commence? There are apparent contradictions between the position of the Taoiseach, the Minister and Sir Patrick Mayhew in terms of the British Prime Minister.
There are no differences of view between the Taoiseach and myself or indeed other ministerial colleagues.
Expletives are removed in the case of the Minister, Deputy Proinsias De Rossa.
There is no change in the Government's position on the conditions and what is necessary. The Deputy asked for clarity, but the most important clarity would be a demonstration by the republican movement that a renewed ceasefire is for real. There must be no contradictions between words and deeds. That is the most important aspect in terms of the prospects for the peace process. We urge that the ceasefire be restored so that we can move to get the parties around the table for all-party talks. The Governments are working together to bring that about. The Government's position is set out very clearly in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the ground rules.
I wish to ask a final supplementary.
Deputy Burke knows well that there is a time limit to these questions and I cannot devote an undue amount of time to any one question.
We all want the talks process to start, but because of the apparent differences between the position of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and that of the Taoiseach and between the Minister's office and the British, no clear messages are going to Sinn Féin and the people we want to bring into the talks, the people whom we wish to influence in their decision on a cessation of violence. Clarity is required but what we see at present is a fog. The Minister should make a clear statement on when talks will commence in the event of a permanent cessation of violence.
Let us not forget the time factor in dealing with these questions, otherwise some priority questions may not be reached.
If the Deputy thinks there are apparent differences, that is a matter for him. There are no differences. The Government is working as a team in advancing the talks process. It would be difficult to set out an absolutely watertight and detailed scenario in circumstances in which there are inevitably many uncertainties and imponderables. The process in which we are engaged, as the Deputy well knows from his experience, is extremely complex and difficult and setting down rigid conditions apart from those on which we are all agreed — a restored ceasefire and signing up to the Mitchell principles — would be counterproductive. In the event of a ceasefire the Governments would seek to apply constructively and in good faith the principles we have set out. They would of course have to take account of the terms of any ceasefire as an important and decisive factor.
