The Tánaiste will conclude statements at 5.45 p.m. and speakers may share time at this stage.
Northern Ireland: Statements (Resumed).
No words can express the deep feeling of shock and despair at the recent breakdown of the IRA ceasefire. One has the feeling other leaders and politicians must have had over the years when great opportunities seemed to slip away and be wasted. The tragedy for Ireland has been that when peace and a settlement appeared to be within grasp something occurred which plunged the country into deeper despair. It is hard to accept that once again, when a major breakthrough had almost been achieved, the opportunity appears to be slipping away. The opportunity must not be lost; the objective must be to return to dialogue and discussion and to turn away from death and destruction.
Political leadership is required, such leadership as brought about the cessation of violence a year and a half ago. It must be continued and the two Governments must make a courageous effort to avoid a return to the chaos and anarchy which Northern Ireland experienced for 25 years. While no one wishes to see that scenario return, there is a prospect of a complete breakdown of the ceasefire of all the paramilitary organisations and a return to mayhem, death and destruction unless urgent remedial action is taken. Such a return must not be contemplated.
I condemn the planting of the bombs in London which have brought death, injury and the widespread destruction of property. There is no justification for these outrages and those who plan the attacks and plant the bombs must be condemned outright. These outrageous events will not advance the prospect of achieving a peaceful settlement in the North and will only serve to make it more difficult and complicated to find a way forward.
The vast majority of people in Ireland and Great Britain wish to see peace restored and want a peaceful long-term lasting settlement to the problems of Northern Ireland. To punish innocent people, many of whom have no understanding of or interest in the political problems in Ireland or the UK, is unacceptable and must be ended.
Gerry Adams has stated publicly on a number of occasions in the past few days there must be a period of calm and that view would be shared by many. However, the easiest and most effective way to ensure a period of calm would be to stop the planting of bombs which is taking place at present. I urge Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness to continue to use their influence to bring about an end to the planting of bombs and the destruction we have seen in the last week. The people of Ireland, North and South, cannot afford to wait any longer for such an initiative.
The inevitable consequences of a continuation of the IRA bombing campaign will be the commencement of a unionist paramilitary bombing backlash. The consequences of such a situation here, in the North and in Britain, would be more violence, mayhem and death — a prospect too horrific to contemplate. Such an outcome must be avoided and every political party has a responsibility to play its part in preventing such a situation. For the most part the responsibility rests with the Irish and British Governments. They must show the way and endeavour to use their influence to get to a point where all-party talks may take place to bring about a long-term permanent solution. Time is running out and no further delays are acceptable.
If the British and Irish Governments move the peace process forward by setting a firm date for all-party talks that would be a first step in avoiding a return of the death and injury of the last 25 years. With Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness, politicians, such as Peter Robinson and Ian Paisley, also have a responsibility to lead their supporters along the route of political dialogue and discussion. The call by Peter Robinson for selective internment on both sides of the Border is neither constructive nor helpful in the present crisis. Such a move may be a recipe for further conflict and would put back the prospects of a resolution of the problem in Northern Ireland by years if not decades.
The restraint demonstrated by people like Gary McMichael of the Ulster Democratic Party should be reflected in the main unionist party and by its leader, David Trimble. Mr. Trimble's election as Leader of the Ulster Unionist Party was seen by many as a backward step but he has the leadership skills to lead the UUP into a new approach of dialogue with the Irish Government and the other parties in the North. He can take example from the leadership of Mr. McMichael and others who have said that a way forward must be found.
I welcome the prospect of a meeting between the Tánaiste and Mr. Trimble, restrictive as that meeting may be. It is a start to building a firm and lasting dialogue between the Irish Government and the UUP. Such meetings can help to reduce tension and build the confidence needed to make progress.
In an Alliance Party presentation to the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation about a year ago, Dr. John Alderdice stated "people are beginning to believe that a stable peace and an honourable settlement is possible". This is an important development which we cannot ignore. We must talk about the future together.
I appeal to the leaders of the unionists and loyalists to allow this process to happen. Dr. Alderdice's point was that when he decided to come to the forum in Dublin many unionists telephoned and spoke to him about the urgency of his coming here and the desirability of his taking part in the talks. He was in no doubt that many Northern loyalists and unionists favoured the idea of being involved in dialogue and this was reflected in his presentation to the forum which he published and which forms part of its record. This is important and the leader of the unionist party should take heed of Dr. Alderdice's words. He has had the experience of being at the forum and can see there is nothing for members of the unionist party to fear in taking part in that type of arrangement.
Since his election President Clinton's has demonstrated a genuine desire to help bring about a lasting peace in Ireland and has already brought about closer working relations between the Irish and British Governments. It was plain to see, especially towards the end of last year, that the British and Irish Governments were drifting apart and taking different views and approaches and it is vitally important that both Governments be at one in so far as possible to advance the peace process. In addition, rather than discuss matters by telephone, it is vital that the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister meet either here or in London as soon as possible to examine how to advance the prospect of all-party talks.
In the aftermath of the Mitchell report there were strong indications that the British Government's adoption of the section which dealt with elections rather than the totality of the document was the straw that broke the camel's back in so far as the IRA ceasefire was concerned. Had the British Government not opted for elections alone and taken such a public position about it in conflict with the views of the Government, the SDLP and other commentators, this breakdown might never have taken place. Nevertheless, what has happened has happened. I believe the President of the United States and Senator Mitchell can still play an important part in bringing the sides together in order to get the process of dialogue under way. I understand Senator Mitchell is in the United Kingdom today and will be involved in discussions there and possibly here. As a representative of the US President, he can play an important role in bringing the sides together and getting the peace process back on the road to steady progress again.
I do not believe any of us can play politics with this critical situation. We must all be restrained in what we say, but we are obliged to use whatever influence we have to try to find a way forward which will get all-party talks under way at the earliest opportunity and may, hopefully, chart a course away from the unpleasant road which faces us at present to one which will give a prospect of hope and a lasting peaceful settlement in Northern Ireland.
I condemn without reservation the outrage which has occurred in London over the last week and a half. I also take this opportunity to express my condolences to the families of those innocent victims who have lost their lives and to those who are injured. While the explosion of any bomb is reprehensible and totally unacceptable, the Canary Wharf bomb was more horrific since, in effect, it marked the resumption of military operations after almost 18 months of a cessation of violence which we had hoped and believed was permanent.
Despite the claims of some observers and as we all know only too well now, this bombing was not a symbolic act. It was not a warning shot from the provisionals which was designed to hasten the talks process. First and foremost, it was a murderous immoral outrage which killed and maimed ordinary working people and must be condemned as such.
The Provisional IRA had conducted their campaign against the overwhelming opposition of the Irish people since the early 1970s. If the Irish people have a right to self-determination, then, by extension, they must also have a right to determine the means by which that self-determination is pursued. The position of the Irish people, both North and South, on this issue is clear and unambiguous. It needs no clarification.
Unfortunately, the resumption of the military campaign puts Sinn Féin outside the realm of normal political debate and exchange. Unless reversed, it renders almost useless two years work by people such as Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness. However, this does not mean Sinn Féin are not totally blameless in this instance. During the debate which has taken place over the last week and a half since the Canary Wharf bombing, we have heard much criticism of the British Government's role in the peace process. Like many of my colleagues in this House, I have at times been frustrated by the attitude of the British Government, whose actions have seemed to be remiss and hidebound on many occasions. However, it must be remembered that Sinn Féin have also been unresponsive in their approach to critical elements of the peace process. The resumption of violence by the provisionals has left Sinn Féin with two options: convince the IRA to recommence the ceasefire on a permanent basis, or disassociate themselves from the military wing, which, unless the provisionals can be convinced to call off their campaign, is a decision which they must make. I take this opportunity to commend the loyalist paramilitaries for the restraint which they have shown and I appeal to them to continue to do so.
At present we face two options: we either return to the position of two weeks ago or that of two years ago. It is not a choice. While, like others, I have been frustrated by the recent approach taken by the various parties concerned in the peace process, we must not despair and, as democrats, must continue to work for a just and lasting peace because that is what the people of Northern Ireland, the Republic and the United Kingdom want. Over the last year and a half we have all been committed to the ongoing peace. The Canary Wharf bomb and last Sunday night's bomb were not only barbaric and unjustified but a betrayal of the peoples of these islands who are in full support of the peace process. It is in light of this that I add my support to the people who have demonstrated on the streets of Dublin, Cork, Belfast, Derry and other towns in the past few days. The message they send to the IRA leadership is clear and is one I endorse fully. It is that the use of violence to pursue political means is abhorrent to the vast majority of the Irish people. The IRA have no mandate from the people of Ireland to act on their behalf and never will. As far as we are concerned, the only way forward is through peace and reconciliation. The Anglo-Irish Agreement, the joint declaration and the framework document are milestones along the road to cooperation and show the degree of convergence and solidarity which is possible when the political will and imagination are there.
A carefully co-ordinated approach is needed once again. We all have a vested interest in the establishment of lasting peace and stability and both Governments must work together to ensure this is achieved. For almost 18 months a generation of Irish citizens experienced peace on this island for the first time in their lives. Initially, the ceasefire was treated with a certain amount of scepticism and suspicion, but it was not long before the peace was embraced fully. We cannot sit back now as that peace is blown apart by faceless, nameless people who have claimed falsely to act on our behalf. As the Tánaiste said last week, the most important thing we need to do is reinstate the ceasefire, because there was an atmosphere on this island for the last 18 months which we did not have for a long, long time. The peace was palpable and was felt, in particular, by young people, North and South, most of whom did not experience peace in their lifetimes.
There is no longer a place for the gun and the bomb in Irish politics and the outright condemnation of the two explosions in London is a welcome illustration of this. I believe the great majority of supporters of Sinn Féin and the Republican movement recognise the futility of beginning another bombing campaign. Sinn Féin and the republican movement have achieved more in the past 18 months than they did in the 25 years prior to the ceasefire. For this reason they must make it clear to the IRA that a return to violence is the wrong path to take. The two explosions in London are a violation of the moral order by which the majority of people on this island live. It is a violation which we cannot and will not tolerate. No amount of frustration can justify the taking of innocent life or breaking the ceasefire and plunging the nation once more into the grip of violence and fear.
Politics is about making choices. No one ever said that such choices would be easy. It is time for all concerned with the peace process to make a choice. They must choose between peace or violent division. In my opinion this is probably one of the easiest choices one will ever have to make. There is only one option and that is peace.
My speech today will be different from the one I intended to make yesterday. This shows how fluid is the situation at present. My contribution is in response to the very important article by Vincent Browne in today's Irish Times. It is not that I have not changed my basic principles but the prize of achieving peace is so great it must take precedence over all other considerations. Therefore, I prefer not to dwell on issues of basic principle or to pronounce from a position of presumed moral superiority. Anybody who adopts such a position is demanding not compromise but victory, not co-operation with the other side but the unconditional surrender of that side. There will be no enduring peace on that basis. If there is to be enduring peace it can only be on the basis on compromise. The enemy of compromise is the enemy of peace. I utterly condemn the London bombings but condemnation in itself brings us no closer a solution.
The four standard words that litter the rhetoric of Northern Ireland question — peace, violence, consent and democracy — have been repeated ad nauseam. If one were to dwell upon their use in this debate, and in general public discourse, one could show they are far more complex and problematical in the Northern Ireland situation than appears from the way we use them. Each one has had the Northern unionist or British nationalist “spin” placed on them. They are used as propaganda terms and are verbal victims of the tragedy of Northern Ireland. I was going to deal with the inconsistencies in the way in which we use them but I will not do so because it would be divisive. There is already enough division.
I will permit myself one lapse from that resolution and wryly note the invocation of Thomas Francis Meagher, in the Tánaiste's speech yesterday, as the spokesman of conciliation and the designer of the Tricolour — with the colour white representing conciliation between the colours of green and orange. The Tánaiste was correct. However, the complexities of peace, conciliation and violence on this island can be gleaned from the fact that Thomas Francis Meagher is also known as Meagher of the Sword, having made the defining speech in opposition to the pacifist principles of Daniel O'Connell on behalf of Young Ireland. He was the same Thomas Francis Meagher who led the "Fighting 69th" whose flag, which was presented to the Houses by President Kennedy, we pass each time we ascend the stairs to this House. Whatever principle that flag symbolises, with its sonorous roll call of battlefields from Fredricksburg to Gettysburg, it is not the principle of non-violence.
I mention this fact to hint at the potential for inconsistency in using the phrase "violence" without qualification. Unless we are pacifists — I fear there are very few pacifists among us, I am not one because I lack the courage to be — we all distinguish in our own minds between legitimate and illegitimate violence. That would return us to the issue of basic principles which I will not discuss.
I turn instead to see what, if anything, can be done to pick up the pieces of the peace process. The Mitchell report claimed that what is needed above all is the decommissioning of mindsets. There are only two fundamental mindsets involved in the Northern Ireland situation. There is that which claims the right in principle, and practice, to force others against their will into another political jurisdiction or state. This is the mindset of the IRA vis-à-vis the Ulster unionists. It is also the mindset of Ulster unionists, or British nationalists in general, vis-àvis Irish nationalists in Northern Ireland. The second mindset rejects in principle the right of anybody to impose their political allegiance on anyone else against their will. I need hardly state that this is my own position. How the second mindset can be operated in the Northern Ireland situation is the nub of the matter.
I accept that it is very difficult, given the actual distribution of populations. The main purpose of all-party talks ought to be to find a way to reconcile the reality of the Northern Ireland situation with the fundamental principle of genuine democracy. Those talks should proceed on the basis of the Mitchell report. My thinking on this matter has been strongly reinforced by Vincent Browne's article and also by an article in The Economist, which is one of the best, fairest, most informed and judicial analyses of the situation that I have read. I hope Vincent Browne is correct about the willingness of the IRA to enter talks in the circumstances he outlines.
The British response to the report of the Mitchell Commission has been intriguing and depressing. I have certain difficulties with the mindset of the commission and with many of its assumptions. However, I accept them in the interest of compromise. The Mitchell report represents the considered views of three unbiased and highly experienced public figures. It cannot be dismissed as academic waffle. In any circumstances other than the acceptable level of British behaviour in dealing with Irish affairs, John Major's response would have been incomprehensible.
When he rose in the House of Commons Mr. Major had behind him centuries of British experience in dealing with Irish affairs — in comparative context, a record of sustained incompetence which has few parallels in the annals of history, an incompetence in which an almost infinite succession of blunders, despite occasional goodwill and sometimes because of it — was cloaked by an infinitely superior command of violence in the last resort and an invincible capacity for sanctimonious self-righteousness, a capacity of which we ourselves have our fair share, but it is he who insists on taking responsibility for the affairs of Northern Ireland. I believe that Mr. Major is a decent man but his performance only reinforced the reputation of British diplomacy vis-à-vis Ireland.
The Mitchell report is not sympathetic to the IRA. The six principles of Article 20 buy into British nationalist concepts and the vocabulary they use. It is really putting it up to the IRA and loyalist paramilitaries to decommission their mindsets. It demands no comparable decommissioning of British nationalist mindsets. If one were of a conspiratorial cast of mind — God forbid that that might be the case in this House — one might wonder if John Major so discourteously dismissed the report, however problematic, out of fear that Sinn Féin/IRA might accept it. This would make it more difficult for him to stall on the issue of talks. The Reverend Roy Magee, appearing on the television programme "Farrell" last Sunday, informed us that these principles posed huge problems for loyalist paramilitaries but that they were on the verge of agreeing to accept them when Mr. Major made his statement.
The timing of Mr. Major's response was simply incredible. Had Sinn Féin/IRA formally and categorically rejected the Mitchell report, it would have effectively isolated itself from nationalist Ireland and international opinion. It would have made it far more difficult for President Clinton to play a role in the peace process. Mr. Major must have known, as the dogs in the street knew before Christmas, that there were dangerous rumblings within the IRA against what it perceived as the constant procrastination of the British Government on all-party talks. Nevertheless, he was prepared to take the risk of a bloody IRA response, either because he miscalculated the risk or because his concept of a peace process does not involve the idea of compromise. If he has bought into the unionist mindset of "not an inch", the sooner we are clearer on that the better in order to avoid massive self-delusion on our part.
If one lesson has been learned from the past 17 months it is that insisting on the preconditions of any particular party before entering talks is a recipe for disaster. The conditions of the Mitchell report — I have difficulty with some of them in principle — ought to be acceptable because they were presented by so respected an international body. Any other conditions which anybody seeks to impose must be seen as purely tactical and obstructive.
It is correct that the ceasefire itself was partly tactical. As with all politics, the British response to it was also partly tactical. The tragedy of the squandered opportunity is that statesmanship might have converted a tactical ceasefire into genuine peace. The fact that there was a tactical dimension made a constructive and far-sighted response all the more urgent. It has not received that response from the British Government. There is now perhaps a month or less to salvage the situation before the awful abyss opens. The IRA offered a ceasefire; the British Government demanded, in effect, a surrender. Repulsive though the murder of innocent people is — I hope to God it stops — it is not difficult to understand, however little one condones it, the response of IRA mindsets to that perception. Whatever little trust had begun to be built up has been destroyed on both sides. If all party talks cannot be entered into as a matter of urgency, then the consequences are bleak. What Mr. Vincent Browne said in his article offers some flicker of hope and it should be accepted by everyone. He stated:
. . . there will be a resumption of the IRA ceasefire if the two Governments announce that:
(a) all-party talks will begin by, say, Easter;
(b) these talks will go ahead irrespective of how many (or few) of the eligible parties show up, provided more than one such party show up;
(c) that eligibility for participation shall depend only (i) on the winning of an electoral mandate in elections to be held by the end of March [I regard that as silly, although I do not object to it, because if the paramilitaries do not win an electoral mandate they must still be incorporated somehow] and (ii) unequivocal acceptance of the Mitchell principles.
That is a reasonable compromise basis on which to enter all-party talks.
Yesterday Senator Norris repeated his frequent proposal that Articles 2 and 3 of Bunreacht na hÉireann should carry the qualification that they would be implemented, in so far as they would ever come to be implemented, solely by peaceful means. I repeat my proposal, which has received as little consideration as that of Senator Norris, for what little it may be worth in an effort to begin decommissioning mindsets, it is that both Governments should revise their basic constitutional documents of legitimacy — the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, and Bunreacht na hÉireann — by asserting that they do not claim in principle the right to rule over those people in Northern Ireland who wish to belong to another jurisdiction. In practice, there is British rule there but the question of principle seems to be vitally important in terms of the self images of people in Northern Ireland. We must confront the situation in practice. However, if we can distinguish principle from practice and make it clear it is not on the basis of superiority or inferiority but on the basis of practical realities that certain jurisdictions are exercised, I believe that would be a significant contribution to the beginning of that decommissioning of Irish and British nationalist mindsets which are the basis of this continuing conflict.
I would like to share my time with Senator Hayes.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I extend my sympathy to the relatives of the people killed and the innocent people injured in the Canary Wharf and London bus bombings. I hope the debates in the Seanad and the Dáil will show there is all-party agreement for peace, that we are trying to put the peace process back on the rails and that we condemn violence.
It is possible that many of us took the past 18 months for granted. It is only in hindsight, after the Canary Wharf bombing, that the benefits of the past 18 months weigh on our minds. The people are determined to restore peace and to achieve a lasting settlement. There were times in recent weeks and months when it was too easy to lay blame at one door or another. However, we must move forward and we must put what has happened behind us, but not before condemning it. It is important that people who come to the negotiating table with a bomb or a gun should have no part to play in how we shape our future. We should not forget that some people would not be alive today but for the ceasefire. This is particularly true when one sees the atrocities in other places.
There must be a willingness on all sides to meet and discuss the issues which divide them and to try to reach a solution acceptable to everyone. I was interested in Senator Lee's comment that the enemy of compromise is the enemy of peace. The two Governments must get together. Unless each group gets together and discusses the other's difficulties and problems and tries to make progress, it will not matter what either Government does or how much outside help we receive. There must be give and take and a meeting of minds on both sides. People saw the benefits of the past 18 months and we hope progress can be made from that.
There can be no place for any type of violence and it is important to convey this message to those who see violence as a means to an end. Attempts by criminal subversive groups who seek to destroy the hard won freedom of the people must be rejected out of hand. At times there is a certain ambivalence that particular acts may be partly acceptable depending on where they occur.
Delays cannot be accepted because we must move forward. It is imperative that all groups meet as soon as possible. I welcome the Tánaiste's meeting with Mr. David Trimble. Although there may not be much agreement between them, the fact they are talking may move the process forward. We hope the voices of those from all sides who benefited in recent months will be heard. There is no place for double talk from some groups which support peace and violence when it suits them.
I hope those who spoke in this debate and the people's call for peace will be listened to. There is a desire to get things moving again but it will not be easy. We must support all those in positions of responsibility.
I thank Senator Cosgrave for agreeing to share his time with me.
I was in Bundoran on 9 February and when I heard about the breakdown of the IRA ceasefire my initial feeling was of being let down by people I had trusted. I accepted what Sinn Féin told us some 17 to 18 months ago and I accepted what they said to me at meetings I had with them as a representative of my party. I enjoyed those meetings. My response as a politician is the same as that of all parties in this and the other House: it is of being totally let down by people we believed. It will be very difficult to get that sense of trust back into the peace process.
A complete cessation of military operations was what the IRA said in their statement 17 to 18 months ago. We must never allow a situation where violence can be used as a political tactic at the whim of a private army. That is an exceptionally dangerous road to travel. The response of the Government in cutting off links at ministerial level was a wise one. I accept that the Government must ensure that dialogue is kept going with republican groups. I suggest that backbench colleagues in both Houses could also keep open contacts with the republican movement. That could be a valuable role to play. However, as a Government, we must never accept the principle that violence can be used as a tactic and that we will negotiate accordingly. That is totally wrong and is the point of no return. That is something we must accept.
The peace process was more than just the cessation of violence by the IRA. It was an attitude of mind on the part of the Irish people. It was represented by the large increase in the numbers of men and women who went to Belfast for the first time and by the large numbers of people from Northern Ireland who travelled South for their first holiday here and it was represented by the large amounts of investment from Europe and the United States. It was an attitude of mind and more than just a cessation of violence by the Provos. We must continue to work at that attitude of mind; these people have no right to take that from us. I believe passionately that the process must continue whether they are on or off side. That process where people North and South can learn to understand each other's place must continue. No one has the right to take that from the Irish people, be they Irish nationalists or Irish unionists.
Since the ceasefire ended, we have been told by many people, particularly the leadership of Sinn Féin, that the politics of condemnation will get us nowhere. However, we need to take a stand, either as an elected Government or as the Seanad within the Houses of the Oireachtas. It is vitally important that we take a stand because we want the international community to hear this loud and clear: not only do we condemn these acts but we draw a line at what these people are trying to achieve. I accept the point Senator Lee made about contact and I welcome the ongoing contact. It could be intensified through the backbench committees or other Members of the House.
The bombing which took place in London was a calculated act. It was planned by the IRA who knew exactly the damage to property and life which would result. It was not an impulsive act but rather a premeditated act on which they decided to embark. I condemn it and those who are responsible for it should be brought to justice.
It is important to remember that while the ceasefire was operational, there was not always peace in existence in Northern Ireland. Some 267 beatings took place in that period. Large numbers of young people were told to get out of Northern Ireland because they disagreed with the control the Provos had over their communities. There are countless examples of community groups standing up to the IRA and telling them to leave their communities alone. While the peace process existed, there was tremendous violence on the streets of Northern Ireland, particularly in working class areas which the IRA tried to control. It is important that we should not forget that point.
I agree with other speakers that the focus of the relationship between both islands must be the Anglo-Irish process. The British and the Irish, through their Governments, are saying that this problem can only be resolved when both sides can come to an agreement about a future. That relationship must be restored because it is the same relationship which brought us success through the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the Downing Street Declaration and the Framework Document. I encourage both Governments to come together quickly and to put together a strategy which others can bring to the republican movement and which will hopefully get us to where we were before the events at Canary Wharf.
A number of years ago Dr. Alderdice painted Northern Ireland and the way forward as a train leaving a station. At some point others must decide whether they want to be on that train as it moves towards the negotiating table. I believe that is the case today. We are all politicians and we have to make decisions for ourselves. If a tiny minority of people, maybe as few as 100, decide to perpetrate barbaric crimes against humanity in the name of the Irish people, they must be let off that train as it leaves the station.
I have total support and admiration for the small band of people who have organised next Sunday as a national day of protest against all forms of paramilitarism. I would encourage as many people as possible, North and South, to take a stand next Sunday and to participate in the nationwide demonstrations. Internationally, people will look on us and see what we are doing. People can take a stand next Sunday. They can stand against paramilitarism and they can stand for all-party talks. I encourage every Irish citizen to do that next Sunday.
I would like to share my time with Senator O'Brien.
Acting Chairman
Is that agreed? Agreed.
At this stage the matter has been well debated. We have had two days of talking through all the points and I do not have much more to add to the valid points made about the tragedies of the last two weeks. There is absolute shock and horror that this has happened. I take this opportunity to sympathise with the families and relations who were affected by these tragedies which must be condemned.
We have to ask why this happened. We had peace for 18 months. It was a long haul to arrive at a point where the IRA stopped the violence. It took long hard work which came to fruition with John Hume, Gerry Adams and our leader at the time, Deputy Reynolds. That was a great achievement and those people took a great risk to make it work. It would be a shame if there is a return to violence and indiscriminate killing. All we must do to realise that that is absolutely futile is to look back over the previous 25 years.
Before we look ahead, we must examine why it failed. I studied a number of points and I feel it failed because the British Government totally ignored the framework document introduced in February. In addition, the unionists decided they would not participate in talks and that they would withdraw their support. There was also the situation in the House of Commons, that is, the reduction of Mr. Major's majority, and this became a crucial issue. The final straw was the sidelining of the Mitchell report and the proposal for elections.
A new vocabulary has emerged over the last 12 months. For a while I had great difficulty understanding the word "decommissioning". The word "decontamination" was also used and this was followed by the word "elections". We are now approaching the long haul of "proximity talks" and I have great difficulty understanding this term. The Forum for Peace and Reconciliation has been ongoing for the past 18 months and, given my understanding of the word "proximity", I thought such talks were held there. There was discussion and many submissions from various people were invited to try to break down the barriers in terms of peace and reconciliation. Progress would have been made but for the fact that we were unable to get the unionists to attend and talk to us. This was a pity and was one of the reasons that, in the last six months, many delegates felt it was becoming a chore.
So much was taken for granted. People felt there was peace and nobody would restart the violence. The IRA was where we wanted it and the process would move forward from that point. This is where it all went wrong. We took the situation for granted and allowed Mr. Major to get away with everything. Mr. Trimble dictated the terms of reference and, unfortunately, this part of the country was outmanoeuvred. The Government was reactive rather than proactive. There is fault on all sides but that will not solve the problem. We must examine this aspect, acknowledge the failures and consider how best we can move forward.
The peace process is limping along at present. It is damaged, but we can take the example of the former Yugoslavia. How many times has that peace process broken down in the last 12 months? We have reached a vacillation stage; we move forward, lose a little, but we have gone forward. The only way we can get the process back on the rails is if, regardless of whether we like it — as Mr. Seamus Mallon said at the forum, there is nothing wrong with talks — both Governments decide on a date. It does not matter who is there, but they should say they will sit around a table. Many unionists agree with that philosophy.
I read an article last week by Fr. Denis Faul in which he stated this time there were different reasons for the breakdown of the peace process and the bombing. It was not Catholics blaming Protestants or vice versa, rather that the politicians have failed. I am a politician and I accept that we all took the peace for granted. However, politicians must become the leaders. If a poll was conducted in the morning, I am sure a large majority would urge peace. This is the message coming through. As Fr. Faul said, the current leaders are not reflecting what is happening on the ground. The public want peace and I do not understand why Mr. Trimble feels he is an authority on what is and what is not peace in the North.
He does not have the mandate he thinks he holds. If he faced an election in the morning and this matter was at the top of his agenda, I would put money on it that he would have difficulty securing support for what he wants in terms of elections. The holding of elections is returning to the status quo and we should not consider going down that road. We should start with parties talking and bring as many people as possible to that arena. That involves honest dialogue and patience and it is a question of how best it can be done.
The forum should not be allowed to take a back seat in this area. It should get back into action and I am sure many unionists would attend and make submissions this time. Nobody is asking the unionists or the British people to think our way. This is not what dialogue is about. It is simply a case of sitting down and talking things through. One will fail many times, but nothing succeeds like sitting around a table, thinking matters out, failing and trying again. Unless the two Governments set a target in that direction, we will take the wrong road and the situation will worsen.
We must make a commitment to the people in the South and North that the talks must start. A date must be decided, without any preconditions attached, when people can sit around a table and acknowledge their differences. There are huge divides. I accept that Protestants and Northern unionists are different from nationalists. However, this does not mean we cannot sit around a table. It involves discussing a relationship. How many relationships break down and come together again? Divisions exist but compromises can be found. Nothing succeeds like looking at a situation from both points of view and reaching a compromise.
There must be compromise. Nobody expects to gain everything. Mr. Trimble should accept sooner rather than later that he will not win everything. The situation touches every man, woman and child in this country and in the North. Jobs, investment and tourism will be affected. The man in the street wants peace and he is saying there should be talks and compromise. The leaders must reflect this. It is the way forward and we can get down to serious business as soon as a date for talks is set.
I thank Senator Ormonde for sharing her time. Events of the past two weeks have saddened and disappointed every right thinking person in this land as no cause is greater than peace in any society. The benefits peace has brought to this land in the past 18 months have been enormous. I urge all those involved to commit themselves to a return to peace; not to do so would be disastrous for everybody.
When I learned on Friday, 9 February, of the London bombing and the statement from the IRA that its ceasefire was over, I was shocked that we were once more faced with totally unnecessary loss of life and injury of innocent people and that the courage and good work of so many in building the peace process could be undermined in this way. I take this opportunity to offer my sympathy to the families of the victims of the London bombings over the past two weeks. As on so many occasions in the House, I condemn this senseless loss of life. The terrible reality of a return to violence, as shown in these bombings, must make us all the more determined to rebuild the peace process. It will not be easy but all involved must show courage and be prepared to make concessions.
Peace is worth everything. It took great courage on the part of many to give us 18 months of peace. Had all parties followed the example of Deputy Albert Reynolds, John Hume and Gerry Adams, peace would be a permanent reality today. The current breakdown in the peace process rests with those who stood in the way of all party talks. Talks hurt nobody. After 18 months of peace all party talks never commenced, as new barriers were erected in that period. This is unacceptable. It would be unforgivable if the process were to fail, with people to be condemned to a return to violence.
The British Government has once again, as on so many occasions in Irish history, misjudged and failed to show a real understanding of the Irish situation. When the IRA called an end to its military activities and the loyalist paramilitaries did likewise a historic opportunity presented itself. However, the British Government placed preconditions to talks, such as decommissioning, never agreeing in practice to the terms of the Downing Street declaration.
Senator Mitchell presented an excellent report. However, the British Government opted for the proposal by the unionists for elections, which guaranteed nothing. Peace will only emerge from all party negotiations. Early elections in Northern Ireland will not serve this purpose. By their nature, election campaigns only harden positions, especially in Northern Ireland.
Over the past week we have again seen a great demand for peace. North and South, people have demonstrated their wish for a peaceful future. The future of the peace process stands in great doubt. I appeal to all the political parties in Northern Ireland and the British Government to set an immediate date for all party talks and to the IRA to restore the peace process.
The talks must be all inclusive and Sinn Féin must be part of the process, with all doors kept open. It is only by talking that the process will be kept alive. Everybody will have to make concessions and take risks. Our young people and history will thank those who take risks. If only one life is saved it will make it worthwhile. The loyalist parties and their leaders, Gary McMichael and David Ervine, have shown tremendous maturity. Had the main unionist parties shown the same openness and willingness to talk we would not be in the position we are today.
There have been great economic benefits from the peace to both sides of the Border, especially to the Border areas. Tourism brought prosperity to many. In addition, the Border roads were reopened, providing a tremendous boost to the Border towns and surrounding rural communities.
I urge the Taoiseach and Tánaiste to continue with their work in rebuilding the peace process. This historic opportunity must not be missed. People, North and South, deserve better. Let us get everybody talking at the one table. Exclude nobody who can play a role in bringing permanent peace to our island.
I join with my colleagues in condemning the spate of bombings that have occurred in the past fortnight and offer my sympathy to the families of those who were killed and to the injured. The Canary Wharf bomb has changed my life and that of my friends, as it has for Senator O'Brien and others like us who live in the Border counties. It has devastated our lives.
When the news of the bomb emerged on Friday, 9 February, I was at a meeting in Monaghan. The meeting started on a joyful note at 8 o'clock. After the news filtered through the meeting resembled a wake. These feelings have not lifted. In public and in private, people talk about the peace and the joy they felt during the course of the past 18 months.
People from the middle and northern parts of County Monaghan would have traditionally gravitated towards Armagh and would have shopped there. This came to a halt in 1969 when they were afraid to cross into County Armagh. In the past 18 months people took up their old habits and were travelling to Armagh to shop, an activity we did not decry as they were travelling to their local town, enjoying the simple pleasures of wandering around the streets and buying goods without fear.
The situation was similar in Belfast. A section of the people in County Monaghan gravitated towards Belfast as their natural shopping area. They were able to resume this during the cease-fires. One met them on the streets of the city. It was incredible and a wonderful experience to see them mixing with the northern people again after 25 years.
This has now gone and the peace we had has been sundered. Even though there were no bombs in Northern Ireland, the barriers are going up again. The armies are taking up their familiar positions and the little freedoms we had are no more. What has happened since last Friday week has had a far reaching effect.
There are three other speakers offering and the Tánaiste is due to speak at 5.45 p.m. Can we arrange a distribution of time accordingly?
In order to facilitate the House, the change of speaker should take place at 5.25 p.m. This leaves 20 minutes to 5.45 p.m. I am prepared to share this time with Senator Roche.
I am prepared to cut back on my time to facilitate the House.
I want to give people a graphic description of what has happened since last Friday week. Last Monday I was visited by a German national who is living in Patrick Kavanagh country — Inniskeen in County Monaghan. He has spent a substantial amount of money changing the format of his house and building a tourist centre there. During the course of last week he received many negative faxes from Germany reminding him that because the bomb had gone off in London they would not be sending people to his house this summer. That was devastating news for him because having raised loans to put a facility in place, he is now facing ruin.
The same story concerned another house 15 miles away in the heart of County Monaghan where a larger amount of money has been spent in the last 12 months putting a facility in place. Very heavy loans were taken out for that project and bookings were coming in, but I hesitate to think how that family will manage to cope now. It is incredible. Many of our hotels and guest houses which have made substantial investments over the last few years can ill afford it.
Many people have been making large investments since the peace process was agreed. In addition, plans were being made over the last 18 months for future investment. I was involved in one such plan with a gentleman who left Dublin Airport last Thursday week having spent two days with me in Dublin. We had more or less agreed an investment of about £3.5 million for the Border counties. The following Monday, however, the message I received from that source was: "Forget it for the moment".
I was in Belfast on a number of occasions last summer and each time I went I did some research. I discovered that you could not get a hotel bed there throughout the summer unless you had booked far in advance. I investigated three times and found that to be the case. Belfast was reaping the benefits of peace in the most tangible way. People there were able to put profits in the bank and consider the possibility of building up their businesses for the first time in 25 years.
I found that incredible and we all know that the scene in Dublin was brilliant also. To a lesser extent, across the country there was an improvement. The Border counties — Monaghan in particular — earned the least amount from tourism. Friends of mine in Monaghan have been making investments on the basis that peace was going to continue. Those investments would have paid off and lifted our tourism earnings. Now, however, I am devastated to think that will not happen and that those people will have sacrificed their efforts for nothing. It is an incredible worry.
Those are the practical things we can learn from what happened in the last week and a half, but it is sad that you cannot get the message through to those who really matter. The Government fully understands the implications, but it is hard to get it through to the provisional IRA and the unionists in Northern Ireland.
I understand the unionist position in so far as they have a guarantee that what they have they will continue to have until such time as a different majority appears in the North, and in those circumstances there may well be a change. I suppose it is difficult for them to talk because once they agree to talk they will be compromised straight away. Whenever you start bargaining you must be in a position to withdraw from your position. If I were a unionist I would probably hold their views, and I can understand their position. As nationalists in this House we understand the nationalist position as well. We also understand the awful gulf there is between the two positions.
There is a depth of prejudice in Northern Ireland which most Southerners do not appreciate. We talk about the divisions there but I have first hand experience of them. For example, I know that when Northern Protestants are in your company in Dublin or elsewhere they generally do not wish to talk about religion or politics because it is unpalatable for them to do so. Their position is difficult and they do not want to discuss it. We understand the positions that people have but we want peace and peace demands that people move from their positions.
The first basic principle we must get right is the position that existed before last October. If both Governments can agree we will have a basis for pushing forward. It will be slow, terribly painful and we will need endless patience, but unless we get unanimity at that level we will go nowhere.
I hope John Major will be able to overcome the kind of difficulties which forced him into unilaterally casting overboard an agreement he made with another Government. I hope he can get back to the position he was in before October 1995 because too much is hanging on it. The prize is enormous. Most people on this island want peace, but in order to have it difficult things must be done. Both Governments must speak as one, otherwise we will get nowhere.
It is important to recognise what has happened over the last 17 months. Speaker and after has outlined, in articulate terms, the benefits of the peace which followed the ceasefire. However, I go along with the proposal indicated by Senator Cotter, which is perhaps a bit unpopular. Prejudice in Northern Ireland runs deep and anybody who does not recognise that is living in cloud-cuckoo-land.
I do not want to be cynical. I want this to sound like Realpolitik, a practical assessment of how I saw the last 17 months in Northern Ireland. I am the only Member of the Oireachtas who has an office in Belfast, so I know what I am talking about because I go up there every week. Through my work I know the day-to-day happenings there.
For the last 25 years people from the South went North to explore Belfast and Armagh where they met people who were Protestant. They discussed things like sport, television and the weather; but for the last 17 months they were able to discuss the peace process. Everyone talked about peace but it was a pity they did not discuss prejudice, religion, politics, beliefs, Catholicism and Protestantism. It is only when we understand our fundamental regard for each other and the way we see each other that we will make progress. That was done at the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation where one could see advances being made. Those of us who were lucky enough to participate in the forum all developed and learned something every time we took part in a debate. But that did not happen on the ground. I saw very little change in attitudes about the North, particularly in the South.
I did not see any movement, for example, from the Irish language lobby or from hard-line republicans. They should really be called nationalists rather than republicans because they cast a slur on the word "republican". These are the people who take the narrow nationalist line and are not prepared to move. I had many rows with Irish language lobbyists over the last couple of years, i nGaeilge agus i mBéarla, and I found that they would not move one iota. As far as the language lobbyists are concerned, if Paisley's children decided to attend school in Roscommon they would be obliged to learn Irish. That is the level of movement that is there.
Let us be clear about this. There was very little movement in attitude. People liked the peace, they liked talking about it and participating in it. They liked the novelty of shopping in Belfast and the fact the country had a better image internationally. However, not enough people asked if they could change, if they could look at the Union Jack without feeling revulsion or if they could look at the tricolour and see it as a symbol of peace — the white between the green and the orange. It has only impacted on those who are close to it — the small unionist parties are a classic example. We have all seen how they have changed. They wanted to create change and they saw that if one sits down at the negotiating table, one must immediately change.
Hard line unionists in the North are inflexible and they still have the veto because no British Government is prepared to remove it. Unionists are not even happy about the right to self-determination. They want the veto because that means they do not need to move. In any negotiations, if there is one person at the table who says they will not move because they do not need to, a compromise or consensus will never be found.
Unionists enjoyed the past 17 months because commerce was booming and it cost £105 or £110 per night to get a grade A hotel bedroom in Belfast. They were making a fortune and were happy with that. There was no pressure on them to do anything other than to maintain the situation. The peace was great because it improved commerce, nobody was in danger and there was no need for them to move forward. What they did during that period was shameful and disgraceful.
Sinn Féin, in which we placed our trust, were brought into the political system and delivered the ceasefire. It moved and changed, but not enough, as we have seen in the past week. It has not moved into constitutional politics in that it has not moved away from its background as a military organisation. Sinn Féin does not have the strength to cut itself off from the IRA by condemning it. Rather than condemn that, we should understand and accept it. If Gerry Adams has no influence over the IRA, then he is no good to us. If his condemnation of the IRA means that he has less of an influence over it, then at least we may understand it whether we agree or disagree — I disagree fundamentally with it. There is no point whinging about this. We must recognise that it no longer has the authority.
Sinn Féin has got away with murder over the past month — I do not mean that literally. It has not accepted the forum document or, I believe, the Mitchell report and it was effectively being squeezed on both sides. John Major put the ball at Sinn Féin's feet with his comments on elections, which were embarrassing to the Irish Government and which undermined it. It was a return to the failed political strategies of the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s which resulted in the Troubles. He was going to reinstitutionalise the same forum through elections. The idea of elections in the North without full nationalist and republican participation is a move backwards.
John Major is impotent because politics is the art of the possible. For him to survive in Parliament he needs the Ulster unionists and he must adopt this particular line to keep them on board. There will be no pressure on unionists as long as John Major's Government is in power in Westminster. The Irish Government cannot say that, but that is the situation. Tony Blair went to Belfast and said that he agreed with the policies of the Government. That simplistic broad sweep of the brush did nothing to move things forward. We do not want parties which have the same view but support for a move forward. Mr. Blair has handled this very badly. As somebody who would support what the British Labour Party is trying to do, I am not sure I would trust Tony Blair as Prime Minister to move the unionists. I have seen no indication of this to date.
There must be all party talks, which have resolved conflicts over the past number of years, whether in South Africa or Bosnia. Sinn Féin and the Conservative Party have not been able to deliver. This and the previous Government have discharged their responsibilities with distinction and public representatives should be proud of them. I would defend them anywhere, in particular the two Taoisigh, the Tánaiste and the leaders of the other parties.
The IRA is now setting the agenda — it sets off a bomb and we react. I believe there will be no resolution to this until the IRA begins to talk to somebody. The Government must open negotiations with those who are at the centre of this. I believe the Government was right to break off political relations with Sinn Féin — it was impossible for them to do otherwise as there were no other options. We now must recognise that it is the army council that is calling the shots and it will keep this going or will stop it. We must recognise that these people can do this — they are not subject to democracy or to the people, but to their own whims. They are calling the shots and deciding to take or endanger lives daily.
Movement must be made to meet the IRA army council. The Government, through senior civil servants, should attempt to make direct contact with it and it should state its intentions so that we are not in the same position as other groups which will not sit at the table. To find a resolution, everybody must come to the table. If we have learned anything over the past 17 months, it must be that the IRA is part of the scenario. A person who says they cannot speak for the IRA cannot take its place. The IRA must be represented at the table, however unpalatable that is to unionists or to us. The IRA is calling the shots and we must recognise that and make contact.
I fundamentally disagree with the scenario painted by Senator O'Toole that this sovereign Government elected by the people should sit down at the point of a gun——
I did not say that.
These people apply their politics through the barrel of a gun.
I did not say the Government should sit down with them.
Civil servants represent Government. I can understand the Government doing business with Sinn Féin, which is open, active, stands for elections and campaigns on issues. Although we may disagree with it, we can understand from where it is coming. The army council of the IRA was described by Bowyer Bell as the secret army. Nobody knows where these people come from, how many there are or their agenda. If the republican army decided to hold a convention in the Point Depot, it could sell 5,000 tickets to the public because we are talking about only a handful of people, albeit a deadly handful because they have in their control explosives capable of extracting a terrible toll on men, women and children.
This army council is obviously not the army of 99 per cent of the people of this island. We have an Army, the national Army; its Commander-in-Chief is the President of Ireland, Mary Robinson. So who are these people? Who gave them the right to decide to destroy this country once again? Did they vote? Was the result five to four or six to two or what? What was the vote when they decided that they would disrupt in the most awful way the hard won peace in this country over the last 18 months?
There are no answers. The secret army decided to make a political point by courageously killing an Asian shopkeeper and his assistant. This is what they voted for — that they would place a bomb in the heart of London which was destined to kill people. Why did they do it? They will say, presumably, that they wanted to speed up the process or to teach Mr. Major a lesson. However, these secret people took the decision in a room somewhere; they decided to kill a few people to speed up matters. Let nobody suggest that we sit around a table with those people.
We worked with Sinn Féin on the basis that if they were not representatives of the IRA, they had such an association and contact with them that they were conduits of opinions held within the IRA and its secret army council. Gerry Adams says they are not. As Senator O'Toole said, they are either in this business or they are not. The reason this Government and previous Governments not just opened Government Buildings to them but had doors throughout the world, from Washington to Australia, opened to them was because they thought they were dealing with substance and not shadows. I am not sure yet what is the truth of the situation. All I know is that Sinn Féin is the only game in town at present; we are practical politicians and they are the only people with whom we can deal. However, these bombs and this army council vote decided that all the work done to date — Hillsborough, the Downing Street Declaration, President Clinton's efforts — should go for naught in order to make a political point.
Nobody I know of who is interested in this problem felt otherwise but that John Major was making a mess of this. He put forward the decommissioning proposal. I accept Deputy Albert Reynolds' word that it was not a precondition to the peace and, as I did before, I applaud Deputy Albert Reynolds' efforts. History shows that John Major is wrong. If one looks at recent history, particularly at the history of colonies under the control of the British Government, there has never been a single occasion where they demanded decommissioning prior to peace talks.
I am old enough to remember the British occupation of Aden. I am old enough to remember watching Mugabe and Nkomo on television as they entered Lancaster House when the British wanted to do a deal on Rhodesia. Even though there was an army in the field there was no decommissioning; the subject was never discussed. I am old enough to remember General Grevas, who led EOKA on the island of Cyprus. I am old enough to remember when the British Government arrested Archbishop Makarios, imprisoned him on an island and took him from the island to Buckingham Palace to sign the deal. There was no decommissioning then either.
Why is it different with us? Why do they always apply different standards to us? I do not know. All I know is that this bloody army council gave John Major game, set and match. It gave credence to a demand that should never have been made. It gave credence to his propaganda that if there was no decommissioning the IRA would use those arms if the political argument did not go their way. The IRA has given him his case. Whatever brilliance this army council has it is not in the realm of strategy.
It is not in politics.
That is for sure. It would have been far better off if it had placed its trust in people such as Gerry Adams and others in Sinn Féin rather than try and hasten the process by the use of semtex. I applaud the work, the effort and the long haul on the part of the former Taoiseach, Deputy Albert Reynolds, the Tánaiste, Deputy Dick Spring, the present Taoiseach, Deputy John Bruton, Garret FitzGerald, Charles Haughey and all the other people who brought this process to the point where we thought we had achieved at least a permanent cessation of violence. The test for Sinn Féin is the test of relevance; the test for unionists is the test of generosity and the test for the Irish people is perseverance.
The bomb that went off at Canary Wharf was a tragedy not only for those who died and their families but for those who were injured and their families. It was a tragedy for the men, women and children of Northern Ireland. It was a tragedy for hope on this island.
I agree with much of what was said by my colleagues. Responsibility for the bombs lies irrevocably with a small group of men — the army council of the IRA — who have no mandate from anybody. Culpability as opposed to responsibility lies elsewhere. It lies primarily with politics because it is up to politicians to show leadership. There has been a singular and extraordinary lack of leadership in the last 17 months.
The momentum went out of the peace process when Deputy Albert Reynolds was removed from office. I said as much at the time. I accept that a political movement should be more than one man but I believe that his removal unfortunately changed the pace. When historians look back at this they will note as much, not because there was any less passion among the people who followed in Government but because necessarily there is a hiatus when one Administration is changed for another. There was a hiatus at that time and irreparable damage was done to the cause.
The British Government must bear a special amount of culpability. The analysis being made now should have been made in this Chamber month after month and day after day for the last 17 months. We must carry a great deal of blame because we have tolerated mediocrity and the absolutely intolerable, people playing politics with something that is more valuable than anything else — peace.
Throughout the 17 months the British Government raised prevarication to an art form. First, we had the endless, mindless and stupid debate about the word "permanent". After three or four months, when the semantic difficulties began to look really silly, they invented a new problem — decommissioning. There is no historical precedent in any of the unfortunate colonies from which Britain has been driven over the last 60 years for putting down a precondition of decommissioning. If we are blameworthy for anything, it is for not carrying that message louder than we did.
There was the opportunity for the British Government to extricate itself from the hook of its own making through the Mitchell commission. The Mitchell report was a fine document; it provided the opportunity for the British Government to come back on board. What did the British Government do? It found a new hook on which to impale itself — elections. It fell lock, stock and barrel for the unionist argument.
Unfortunately, not only did we make misjudgments throughout that period but the most extraordinary misjudgment was shown by the leadership of the IRA. As the last speaker said, whatever capacity they have, they certainly do not have much skill in politics. They handed the game, set and match to Mr. Major.
We realise now what we have lost — we have lost something beyond value. There is no point our dancing to the British tune and starting to condemn Mr. Adams and his colleagues. They took an honest risk for peace. In the Seanad election campaign, on a wintry night before Christmas 1993, a Sinn Féin councillor told me that the politicians of the South will take risks for peace, but that Sinn Féin was risking more than politics. He told me they were risking their heads. We did not give those people enough credit.
After a good start the British fell by the wayside and over the last year and a half we have witnessed the triumph of mediocrity and complacency. This weekend thousands of Irish people will demonstrate for peace and I will be among them. It is sad that we in Irish political life did not encourage those people to take to the streets over the last 17 months to ask politicians on both sides of the Irish Sea what they were doing to advance the cause of peace.
The Tánaiste has suggested there should be proximity talks and, although I frequently disagree with him, I agree with him and Senator O'Toole that there must be all-party talks without limitations or preconditions now. We must drag everybody who cares about peace and those who care less about peace to the table and we must do it soon. It is critically important that the political leadership on this island from all the democratic parties, particularly in the South, should have a single concerted programme. We should exercise an intolerant attitude to anybody who thinks of any more ways of prevarication or any more excuses. It is only by talking that we will have peace.
As Senator Magner said, if one looks back over the history of the post-colonial period it is intriguing to note that the only thing that resolved any conflict was talk. Ultimately, talking is the only way to resolve differences. We should be less tolerant than we have been in the past of those who would prevaricate. I wish success to the political leaders involved in trying to put together what has been fragmented. The Oireachtas must indicate its continued anxiety, frustration and anger at anybody who stands in the way of peace.
Acting Chairman
Senator Taylor-Quinn has only three minutes.
I am sure the House would agree to give more than three minutes to Senator Taylor-Quinn — an extra five minutes perhaps.
Acting Chairman
Is that agreed? Agreed.
If we go a little late——
Acting Chairman
Speakers have already facilitated others by speaking for just ten minutes over the last hour.
My name has been with the Cathaoirleach's office since yesterday evening and I was meant to be the first speaker from this side of the House. I hope the "old pals' brigade" carry on in relation to the application of Standing Orders ceases.
Acting Chairman
The Senator was absent when I was calling the speakers.
I wish no reflection of the Chair. I was meant to be first but I had other matters to attend to at the time.
We need peace on the other side of the House.
This is an important debate and we are anxious to hear what the Tánaiste has to say in light of developments since the statements began yesterday. The importance of dialogue must be stressed at all times — dialogue between all parties at all levels. It is particularly important that Sinn Féin is given every encouragement from every quarter to impress on the IRA the futility of its actions and to encourage it to do everything to restore the ceasefire, so that proper discussions can recommence and Sinn Féin can engage in all-party talks.
I compliment the Tánaiste, the Taoiseach and the Government on the manner in which they have responded and for the good work they have done. It must have been extremely annoying for the Tánaiste, given the progress he had made in the US in relation to the proximity talks proposal, to find all the work scuttled by the Canary Wharf bomb.
A number of questions could be asked of Sinn Féin. Does it approve of the bomb? We gather it does not. Although it has not stated it publicly, we can deduce that it disapproves of the bomb. What influence does Sinn Féin have with the IRA? I believe it has substantial influence and it is important that we give it every encouragement to influence the IRA to desist from its current actions.
We can only deduce from its acts that the IRA had no understanding of what is politically essential to bring about a peace agreement; it does not understand the background work that is needed or the level of support it had in the Government, the US Government and among the public for the ceasefire. With the Canary Wharf bomb the IRA made it extremely difficult to get to all-party talks.
There is an onus on democratic parties, particularly the nationalist parties, to impress upon the IRA the importance of political dialogue, to steer it towards the democratic process and, eventually, the electoral process. That will involve a certain amount of education but, above all, dialogue. I appreciate why the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and senior members of the Government cannot enter formal discussions with Sinn Féin at this point. However, members of the various political parties can engage in discussions with Sinn Féin and should do so.
It would be remiss of us not to compliment the unionist paramilitaries for having shown a good level of restraint since the bombings occurred. We should not underestimate the common sense views emanating from the leadership of the parties close to the unionist paramilitaries — they are in stark contrast to what Mr. Trimble and Mr. Paisley have been saying. These people come from the middle ground of unionism in Northern Ireland and should be listened to more carefully. They may have a lot more in common with the nationalist community and the Sinn Féin supporters in Northern Ireland than with their unionist counterparts such as Mr. Trimble.
Returning to the pre-ceasefire position may not necessarily be in the interests of advancing the peace process. We have to think of new ways and means to move forward. We have to attempt approaches that may not have previously been tried to bring the process back on track.
Having had the privilege of opening this debate yesterday, I am glad to have the opportunity to make some concluding remarks. It has not been possible for me to be present for every speaker but I have been kept informed of the proceedings and I intend to respond to a number of specific points.
Over and above the individual statements which have been made, it is of key significance that this House, in conjunction with Dáil Éireann, has provided a focus for national debate on the tragic events of the past 12 days. It has examined how we should seek to rebuild the peace and to work with renewed determination to seek agreement on this island and between Ireland and Britain. This has underscored the real and active commitment of the Irish people, expressed through their elected representatives, to the peace process, and their determination that the opportunity it presents to us will not be squandered or destroyed.
I am grateful to Senators for their expressions of support for the work that I personally, and the Government as a whole, are engaged in. In particular, I welcome the constructive contributions which have been made, both in this House and in the Dáil, by Members of the Opposition. I think they have struck the right balance between emphasising the national solidarity, to use Senator Manning's term, which exists on fundamental principles and on the basic approach adopted by the Government, and fulfilling their duty to probe and question the Government.
The people's hunger for peace is being expressed in a whole range of ways, including the wearing of ribbons, letter-writing campaigns, mass demonstrations and prayer vigils. I salute the work which is being done by so many committed individuals and organisations to find ways in which the powerful emotions we all feel can be articulated. It is no surprise that the trade union movement, which has stood out through the darkest days against violence, injustice and sectarianism, is so much to the fore. The message is clear: the peace must be restored. We have too much to lose if it is not. We cannot and must not be asked to bear the cost of violence. The human toll the end of the ceasefire has already exacted, in terms of death and injury, is frightful. I join Senators in reiterating my profound sympathy for all who have been bereaved or injured.
The indirect consequences of the resumption of the campaign of violence will also be severe, not least in the economic sphere, as Senators Haughey, Quinn and Reynolds, who are well placed to comment, reminded us. I am heartened by the determination which has been widely expressed that investment plans will not be blown off course by the end of the ceasefire, but it is predictable that if violence continues there will be a negative impact on many of the initiatives which have been undertaken in the past 18 months, above all in the tourism sector. The Government and State agencies will do all in our power to minimise the damage and will continue actively to pursue all avenues of North-South co-operation, in particular.
The basic question which now must be asked is: how are we to restore the peace? This is, first and foremost, the responsibility of those who have ended their ceasefire. Self-evidently, the IRA must decide for itself what it will do. It alone is capable of restoring its cessation of violence.
The Government, with the British Government, is vigorously taking all appropriate security measures and, in so far as there is evidence of IRA or other paramilitary activity in our jurisdiction, will seek to apprehend those involved — as has been our unswerving policy over many years but the evidence of the past quarter-century is that security measures by themselves cannot eradicate fully the threat of paramilitary violence.
As to the calls made by Senator Norris and Senator Ross for more punitive measures, including internment, I fundamentally disagree with their views. Leaving to one side the strong moral and civil libertarian case against such measures, the disastrous effects of the introduction of internment in Northern Ireland in 1971 and the political complexity of the present situation strongly suggest it would not be prudent to take such steps at this time.
The IRA's activities remain utterly morally repugnant, as they have always been since the start of the conflict in Northern Ireland. The detestation the Irish people feel for their campaign has been made clear time and again. Even in terms of their own bizarre and twisted interpretation of "Irish national aims" it is hard to understand how the IRA can justify the use of political violence. As John Hume has so pointedly said, if the Irish people have a right to self-determination, they also have a right to self-determine the methods they wish to use in the exercise of that right. I very much doubt if the IRA can ever have been unsure about where the Irish people stood on this question. They can be still less so now. Nevertheless, we must continue to make it clear that we see a clear dividing line between political activity and violence. As Senator O'Kennedy rightly argued, "no nationalist has a right to impose by intimidation, threat or violence, or through deceit or subterfuge, political structures on our fellow unionist Irishmen."
The particular strength of Mr. Hume's valuable proposal for referendums, North and South, is not that the results would tell us that the Irish people want peace and dialogue — we know that already — but they would, in a formal way, strip away whatever excuses those opposed to peace and dialogue may offer. Given the importance the republican movement has always attached to its own version of ideological consistency, this would indeed be a significant development.
We must condemn acts of violence and punish their perpetrators but condemnation and punishment are not enough. Running through this and other debates has been the need for the two Governments and all parties committed to peaceful means to work together for political agreement. The conflict on our island has deep roots. Throughout the ceasefire I repeatedly stated that only by the achievement of a comprehensive and balanced settlement could the peace be underpinned. The ceasefire offered us an unprecedented opportunity to construct such a settlement.
As I said yesterday, the lesson of previous initiatives is that the prospect of real peace and lasting agreement would be greatly magnified by an end to all paramilitary violence and a matching reduction in the security response, which would in turn make possible fully inclusive negotiations. I disagree with those who, like Senator Ross, would suggest that this is "clinging to a vain hope. . . which is no longer possible".
The prospects for agreement and reconciliation would be greatly enhanced by the restoration of the ceasefire. This is not to deny, as I said yesterday, that great political damage has also been done by its breakdown. Every atrocity, and every day that passes since 9 February, narrows the room for political manoeuvre and lessens the scope for agreement. In my speech yesterday, I set out a series of questions Sinn Féin ought to ask itself, and answer, if it is serious about winning the trust and confidence of the great majority of the nationalist tradition, let alone the unionist tradition.
Equally it is true, if we can believe the IRA, that the launch of all-party negotiations would lead to a renewed cessation of its violent activities. For the last 18 months, the Government has been working to bring about such negotiations. Our progress may have been uneven, and slow, but it was real and continuing even as the Canary Wharf bomb was being planned and planted.
We have continued to work intensively with the British Government to put together a package of options which would allow for early and guaranteed movement into all-party negotiations. Such negotiations are necessary in their own right, as I have spelled out, if we are to come to a political accommodation. They are not a sop or a means to appease the IRA. Irrespective of the views or actions of the IRA, negotiations are required at the earliest possible moment. We need to have a specific date on which they will begin, because further procrastination on any side is simply unacceptable. Clearly, if launching all-party negotiations, and fixing a date for them, leads to a renewal of the IRA ceasefire, then that will be immensely welcome in its own right and will also be beneficial in terms of the likely success of the negotiations themselves.
As the Taoiseach said in the Dáil yesterday, agreeing a specific date for all-party talks is the best route to follow with a view to restoring the ceasefire. There is no conflict between the peace process and political progress. Our two objectives — all-party negotiations and a restoration of the ceasefire — can and should be mutually supportive. The Government has indicated that it would be in a position, on the restoration of the ceasefire, to resume full political contact with Sinn Féin. It is clear to the republican movement what it must do if its political representatives are once again to play a full role and to play their part, without further obstacles, in negotiations involving the two Governments and the parties.
I set out yesterday, as in the Dáil last week, the basic elements of the approach we are taking to the current discussions with the British Government. We need to reach agreement, as soon as possible, on how to offer the Northern parties a reasonable route into negotiations which takes account, in a balanced and sensible way, of all of their interests and concerns. We cannot force them to the table: at the same time, the two Governments need to offer strong and focused leadership.
In agreeing on the basis for negotiations, as in negotiations themselves, nationalists need to respect the analysis and proposals put forward by unionists. It goes without saying, of course, that the same is true in reverse.
The question of an elective process has been highly divisive. Several contributors to this debate, including Senator Henry and Senator McGowan, have set out, cogently, the difficulties this proposal creates. I personally share a number of these anxieties. At the same time, we must be prepared, in a spirit of compromise, to see whether there is any way in which the elective process can, in fact, help us along the route and be integrated into the preparation of negotiations. This is basically, and as a matter of common sense, for the Northern parties, which would be called upon to contest any election, to decide. Nevertheless, because it is common ground that an elective process can only work if it leads into three-stranded negotiations, the context and broad outlines of such a process, if not its finer details, have obvious implications for all participants in those negotiations, including the Irish Government.
It will also be necessary to work out a range of other matters relating to the organisation and management of negotiations. These have already been the subject of several preparatory meetings between the Governments and the parties, and there is a large body of precedent from the 1991-92 talks, but there are still many details to be arranged.
The possibility of a dual referendum, which I mentioned earlier, is another matter which might be discussed and resolved, as has the role which the Mitchell report might play. On our commitment to bring about negotiations as soon as possible, some form of intensified multilateral dialogue is required, however it is labelled. We believe that this approach is probably the only workable way of clearing up many of the misunderstandings which exist about procedural issues and reaching a sensible compromise package which can deliver all the parties to the table.
The Government, in addition to its intensive work with the British Government, is also maintaining very close contact with the Northern parties and with other significant figures on the scene. I look forward to meeting Senator Mitchell again tomorrow and take this opportunity once again to pay tribute to the continuing close interest and commitment of President Clinton and his Administration, which continues to be an invaluable resource for peace.
As I said yesterday, I hope I will soon meet David Trimble. Following our most recent exchange of correspondence, my office has once more been in touch with his. I am puzzled, as I am sure are Senators, by newspaper reports suggesting that there may be some difficulty with my proposal that at our meeting we discuss how to proceed to all-party negotiations on a three-stranded basis. It seems self-evident that how all of us with political responsibility for the achievement of peace and agreement are to proceed forward to negotiations is a matter we have a right, and indeed a duty, to discuss together.
The Government also remains in contact with the loyalist parties, whose continuing positive role, not just in maintaining the loyalist cessation of activities but in contributing to the political debate during the past 18 months, was rightly praised earlier by a number of speakers, including Senator Gallagher and Senator O'Sullivan.
In conclusion, this debate has helped to manifest once again the total opposition of the Irish people to the use of violence in our name and their determination that it must come to an end once and for all. Equally, we are aware of the urgent need for all-party negotiations if the conflict which has bedevilled us for so long is to be resolved. I pledge that the Government, with the support of this House and the Dáil, will continue to strive to that end.