Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 10 Mar 1994

Vol. 440 No. 3

Bomb Attack on Heathrow (London) Airport: Motion.

The Taoiseach

I move:

That Dáil Éireann unites in its condemnation of last night's IRA mortar bomb attack at Heathrow Airport, which could have resulted in serious loss of life and substantial damage to property, and calls on everybody to now commit themselves to the peace process clearly and unambiguously.

I and all the elected representatives of the Irish people in this House condemn the foolish and criminally irresponsible IRA mortar bomb attack at Heathrow Airport. I have no idea what were the intentions of those who authorised and perpetrated this attack, but they know, as well as everybody else, that a certain number of such attacks go horribly wrong and result not merely in damage to property but in human carnage with random victims.

I do not think our anger should be any less on this occasion because, fortunately, there was no loss of life. How often have we heard the leaders of related organisations profess deep regret on such occasions when there is loss of innocent life and try to pass the blame onto the civil authorities? Persistence in such attacks, when the risks and the probabilities are well known, make such expressions of regret utterly hollow. The only test of sincerity is for all such attacks to stop forthwith.

Each day 2,500 Aer Lingus passengers pass through Heathrow Airport and there are other passengers on other flights to and from Irish airports, also including a comparable number on the shuttle to and from Belfast. Hundreds of thousands of people of all nationalities and all ages also pass through Heathrow each day. The loss of human life, regardless of nationality, does nothing whatever to advance any political cause, indeed it tends to dishonour it in the eyes of the world. The vast majority of the Irish people want nothing whatever to do with this manner of making a political argument and regard such actions as utterly repugnant. It is time that the people concerned listened to the voice of Irish democracy if they ever wish to be accepted as a true part of it.

In political terms such actions as last night's are not merely criminal; they are also stupid and politically naive. Many people, for example, have very legitimate criticisms of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which was renewed last night. Actions like last night's simply cut the ground from under those making the case for reform. Actions like last night's have no contribution to make to moving forward the broader peace process. They simply make attitudes more rigid and reinforce a common determination that democratic society will not yield in any way to violence.

Let there be no illusions. There is a place at the negotiating table only when violence ceases for good, not before. That applies both to the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation and to participation in all-party negotiation. In any case, none of the political problems of Northern Ireland can be resolved bilaterally between the British Government and Sinn Féin to the exclusion of the Irish Government and the other democratic parties in the North.

The chairman of Sinn Féin, Mr. Tom Hartley, yesterday called for gestures of goodwill to move forward the peace process. What sort of goodwill gesture was the bomb attack at Heathrow? Where is the evidence of Republican goodwill? This House utterly rejects attempts at political blackmail. Those who talk at great length about their commitment to peace must demonstrate their bona fides by deeds as well as words.

The Joint Peace Declaration of 15 December 1993 has removed the last semblance of justification for political violence. It has removed any conceivable justifiable cause for continued armed conflict. The only reminder that the bombs last night provide unfortunately are further evidence for the widespread belief that the continued activities of the IRA are one of the main causes of the continued conflict.

A fair and honourable framework for a democratic resolution of the problem of Northern Ireland without coercion and without physical force vetoes on any side has been laid out in the declaration. In the tree months I have heard no coherent case made against the declaration. Nor do I believe there is any genuine failure to grasp or understand its implications, some of which may be disliked. Its terms have been amply clarified by both Governments at this stage. We in this House do not recognise that there is any valid electoral or any other sort of mandate North or South for continued violence. People cannot expect full recognition of their democratic role when they are associated with, or involved in justifying, anti-democratic activities like the bomb attack on Heathrow. The time has come for a clear decision on peace to be made and for an end to prevarication and procrastination.

Democracy is indivisible. If parties want to play a full part in the democratic process and to take part in direct negotiations, armed struggle by associated organisations must be definitively disowned and ended clearly and unambiguously. That is the unanimous will of this House, representing two-thirds of the Irish people on this island.

The two Governments remain fully committed to the peace process and to the Joint Declaration which will not be changed or discarded. I remain confident that peace will sooner or later be embraced by all as I do not believe there is any real alternative. It can be clearly seen that violence is the biggest cul de sac of them all. In the meantime, we are continuing to work with the British Government to speed up progress in the talks process and to enable their full-scale resumption.

The declaration will remain the basis for peace and for finding a political settlement in Northern Ireland. I call on everyone to recognise the utter futility of attacks such as last night's and to join in addressing the real and difficult challenge of making progress by political means and by democratic persuasion.

Mr. J. Bruton

I thank the Taoiseach for agreeing to my proposal that this House express, on an all-party basis, its condemnation of this new low in the IRA terror campaign. The Heathrow bomb attack maximised the international embarrassment of Ireland and of all who are proud to call themselves Irish by inconveniencing and putting at risk the lives of travellers from all over the world using one of the world's busiest airports. One must consider in particular the fears of tourists and infrequent travellers some of whom may have been on their way through Heathrow to visit this country.

The Heathrow attack by the IRA increases the likelihood of broad political support for the renewal and rigorous enforcement of the Prevention of Terrorism Act in Britain as it affects the Irish community living there. This IRA attack will result in the maximum harassment of Irish people, from the North and the South, living in Britain and, because of the pressures on the police, will further increase the risk of miscarriages of justice.

This IRA attack on Heathrow has demonstrated that the so-called peace process as envisaged by the Republican movement is not a peace process but a war. This war process of the Republican movement is accompanied by hypocritical speeches which incant the word peace without showing any discernible intention of making peace. The Heathrow bombing yesterday was part of the armed struggle of the so-called Republican movement. All Sinn Féin councillors and candidates for office, both here and in Northern Ireland, are bound by a Sinn Féin Ard-Fheis resolution to give support to this armed struggle, of which the Heathrow bombing was a calculated part. That resolution remains in place. Avowed supporters of this armed struggle are allowed to speak on Irish radio and television and granted visas to visit the United States, unhindered by any negative representations from the Irish Government. I am looking forward, now that section 31 has been suspended, to seeing Sinn Féin spokespersons on television unreservedly condemn this attack on Heathrow.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Mr. J. Bruton

So far such Sinn Féin persons as have appeared on the media have refused to condemn this attack. I call on Mr. Adams, Mr. Hartley, Mr. McGuinness, Mr. McLoughlin and all these recently discovered household names in the Republican movement to use their access to the mass media, for which they agitated for so long, to say in plain and simple language without any need for supplementary questions or prevarication that they condemn without reservation this appalling attack which put at risk the lives of thousands of tourists and travellers from all over the world passing through this great cross-roads of the world, Heathrow Airport.

What possible contribution to the good name of Ireland or to the rectification of any injustice could this cold and calculated attack be? These people have their chance to speak and to condemn but so far they have remained silent. I am worried that the hopeful prospects that followed from the Downing Street Joint Declaration are now evaporating. As every day passes party positions in Northern Ireland are moving further apart. I regret the apparent Unionist reluctance to re-engage in the three strand talks process as it is only in a three strand context that all the problems can be addressed. We need a radical departure to get this faltering process back on track.

A vacuum is opening up and it must be filled by constitutional politicians taking responsible action. Politicians on this side of the Border should take the lead. That is why I propose that an all-party commission of the Dáil parties be established to undertake two separate but interdependent tasks. The first is for those on this side of the Border to identify the steps that must be taken to enhance the Nationalists' identity in Northern Ireland in the cultural, social and political life of that part of the island. Evidence should be taken in the Dáil by that commission from Northern Nationalists on matters such as the status of the Irish language in schools, in public offices and on all public signs throughout Northern Ireland. Their views should be taken on the teaching of history in Northern Ireland and the attitudes of the security forces on a daily basis and all aspects of daily life affecting Nationalists in Northern Ireland where the principle of equality of esteem is not being fully met.

Political structures are, of course, important and participation by politicians is important but many other aspects of daily life affect people who never wish to become politicians, where improvement can be made to the equality of esteem of both communities in Northern Ireland.

North-South links could also be studied by such a body and practical ideas could be put on the table. I regret that in spite of all the talk on North-South links, the Irish Government has so far tabled no proposal in Strand II of the BrookeMayhew talks process in regard to North-South co-operation.

The second task of the all-party commission, which is interdependent on the first, would be to study simultaneously Unionists' concerns, particularly their worries about Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution. The Unionists' concerns need to be heard clearly on this side of the Border.

The all-party commission could look at alternative wordings to those Articles of the Constitution. This work, done on this side of the Border, would be useful in preparing the ground for the eventual outcome of the three-strand talks process when we will have to consider definitive changes to Articles 2 and 3. By looking in advance at Unionists' concerns about these Articles, while at the same time looking at Nationalists' problems in Northern Ireland, we would be showing a balanced approach and creating the conditions for acceptance by both communities of the adjustments necessary to meet the concerns of the other. This process on this side of the Border on an all-party basis would help create broad acceptance of the constitutional changes we will eventually have to make. It would also convince Unionists that we are really serious about this matter and would encourage them to be more full-hearted in the interim in getting back into the talks process.

The establishment of the all-party commission would put the emphasis on making practical progress by constitutional methods and would avoid the situation where constitutional politicians, who have a democratic mandate from the people, seem to be hanging on every word and syllable of people who have never been elected about the possibility that they might be about to adjust their position in regard to their continued support for the murder campaign.

Those of us who are elected have to take a back seat while everybody is waiting for the word from Gerry or some other gentleman who is not an elected representative. That is not good for democracy. It is not right that by our inaction we create a political vacuum that puts those people, whom it would appear support yesterday's bombing at Heathrow, at centre stage. Let us occupy that ground by taking action. I propose that an all-party commission that would look simultaneously at Unionists' and Nationalists' concerns and come up with a proposal to deal with them would be more likely to be accepted because their viewpoints would be addressed.

The proposed all-party commission could be put to work during the four month period between now and the European elections as it would appear that no inter party talks will take place in Northern Ireland on the three-strand basis. We should be using that time to do something constructive on this side of the Border. It would assuage the growing pessimism about the process and would demonstrate that constitutional politicians and not men of violence ultimately set the political agenda.

The all-party commission would pave the way for the wider forum on peace and reconciliation proposed by the Government. We must have all constitutional parties in Northern Ireland taking part in that forum if it is not to institutionalise rather than reduce the division between the two communities on this island. An all-Nationalist forum would be a step backwards and not a step forward. I believe that the all-party commission I am proposing, by addressing both Nationalists' and Unionists' concerns, would increase the likelihood that Unionists would be willing to take part in some way in Government's forum when it is ultimately established. I put this proposal forward as something supportive of what the Government is trying to do. I realise it is difficult for a Government to accept a proposal from the Opposition party but if we are to make progress in regard to Northern Ireland we will have to accept other people's ideas.

I give the Taoiseach credit for signing the Downing Street Declaration and I hope he will show a willingness to accept the proposal I am making in good faith. My proposal is that this House agree to establish an all-party commission on Northern Ireland to consider the concerns of both Unionists and Nationalists so that the vacuum now being filled by the IRA will be filled by constitutional politicians working in public to find a constructive settlement to this difficult issue.

Mr. M. McDowell

I support the motion proposed by the Taoiseach. The mortar bombing of Heathrow Airport yesterday amply demonstrates that the Provo murder campaign will continue in support of the Provo agenda unless it is faced down by democratic politicians. The policy being pursued by the Government on Northern Ireland since the Downing Street Declaration was signed, which this party values, is failing badly. The Government is making a fundamental strategic error in its dealings with the Provisional movement.

It was an error to allow access to the airwaves without a renunciation of violence, although I concede the policies pursued in the United Kingdom undermined the policy conducted in this State. It was an error to use the language of the Provisionals such as demilitarisation which implies an acceptance that they had legitimate belligerent status. It was an error to undermine the British opposition to the granting of a US visa to Gerry Adams. It was an error to signal an open-ended time-frame for a decision by the Provisionals and it was an error to engage in a pretence at clarification which only encourages the view that negotiation by another name is possible.

In all these errors it is a matter of regret that the Taoiseach has played a leading role and must take political responsibility. It gives me no pleasure that this failure was predicted, that the approach now being adopted to the Provisionals was challenged, and that the Government's failed policy was chosen and implemented in the face of the facts and in the teeth of historical and political logic. The Government should understand that the Provisionals will not embrace the Downing Street Declaration. Unless the Provisionals can see a tangible and painful downside to continuing their present strategy of violence coupled with propagandist politics it is illogical to expect them to end that strategy.

The centre stage position in the political process accorded to the Provisionals by the Government and the media suits them well; it is a reward in itself and carries no downside. In politics being centre stage is upside; marginalisation is the dread of every politician, even those who combine murder with politics. The Government's approach carries no threat of marginalisation for the Provisional movement and by putting in abeyance all other forms of political activity on the Northern issue we are sending a clear message to the Provisionals that they are in no danger of being marginalised or excluded from any other political agenda.

When the leader of the Alliance Party, Dr. John Alderdice, came to Dublin and took the courageous step of indicating his willingness to participate in the proposed Forum for Peace and Reconciliation he specifically warned the Taoiseach that the Unionist position on the Downing Street Declaration was under strong internal pressure and was likely to crumble. He suggested that the Government should demonstrate there was a process and an agenda which could be pursued independently of Sinn Féin but unfortunately the Taoiseach ignored this advice.

The recent Unionist retreat, although regrettable, was predictable and predicted. They have given up on the process because it was represented by Dublin as a process that was centred on Sinn Féin participation and, therefore, predicted on rewarding Sinn Féin's political agenda in exchange for a cessation of violence and because they suspect that the Government's real agenda is some form of joint authority. There will be no reengagement by the Unionists this side of the European elections and probably the marching season. The reality is that the Provisionals have now created a political and propaganda space of considerable size, of at least six months duration, which would implode immediately if they renounced violence.

The Provisionals are determined to bring about the de facto negotiations on the issue of ultimate British withdrawal from Northern Ireland. That remains their sole political agenda. They remain convinced that Britain will signal withdrawal, either long term or short term, leaving the Unionists to come to terms with the rest of the people on this island. That agenda ignores the inevitable political reaction of the Unionists, that is, if violence produces such results for Nationalism it can do the same for Unionism. Such thinking is the stuff of which another Bosnia is made.

Yesterday at the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs Mr. Roy Bradford, a former Unionist Minister, told us that the only available stick is cross-Border cross-community internment. He was wrong. The internment option is fraught with risks. To sustain a settlement it might in certain circumstances be justifiable but to sustain a political vacuum it would be a ghastly mistake.

Rather than hope that some new security initiative will suddenly and abruptly curtail the Armalite element of the Armalite and ballot box strategy both Governments would be better advised to confront the other element of that strategy, the continuing participation of the Provisionals in politics. If both Governments made it clear that, say, from January 1995 the democratic process at every level on both sides of the Border, from local authorities to national parliaments, from access to the media to participation in public affairs, would be denied comprehensively to those who combine politics with murder the Provisional movement would be confronted with a real choice as distinct from the bogus debate which they are pretending to conduct.

No one has the right to combine democratic politics with murder and violence; no democracy should have recognised this right and those democracies which have allowed people to combine murder with politics in the past, such as Weimar Germany, have paid the price in the long run. What the Provos need is a clear indication from democratic politicians that the days of the Armalite and ballot box strategy are coming to an end. If they want to concentrate exclusively on violence let them do so but they will realise the futility of this. Democratic politicians should now close the door to those who intend to combine murder with politics into the indefinite future if they are not given their way.

If the only alternative to abandoning political violence was abandoning the political process and engaging exclusively in paramilitarism the Provisionals would have to doubt whether they would have any future. In that context the question of internment might then arise.

In short, the great value of the Downing Street Joint Declaration is that it forms, in political terms a backdrop in which both Governments can put it up to the Provisionals: choose violence or politics but rest assured we will deny the political option to those who do not renounce murder. This is an offer the Provos can hardly refuse.

The Armalite and ballot box strategy has thus far worked well for the Provos and the reason is that democratic politicians have tolerated that strategy in what is now evidently the forlorn hope that the political side of the Provisionals would grow out or away from the violent side of that movement. They cannot and will not because it is the physical force principle that has created and sustained the political face of Provisionalism and without that factor there simply would be no message to be delivered next year at the Killenarden Community Centre, if a meeting is held there.

There is a positive political agenda which needs to be implemented and there is a potential settlement available based on the cornerstone of the majoritarian principles set out in Article I of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Within that principle a viable settlement requires that Northern Ireland be transformed constitutionally into a society owned by both communities. As long as the constitutional link with Britain is sustained by a majority it must be complemented by a set of institutional links between North and South. There must be devolution and a sharing of Executive power. The institutions of Northern Ireland, including the police and courts, must be radically transformed to pursue that end.

Incremental change will not suffice. The old pattern of Unionist irredentism must be confronted. If they are accorded as of right the maintenance of the union as long as they represent the majority in Northern Ireland the price they must pay and the price which must be exacted from them is an irreversible shift to a society which is demonstrably open to Nationalists. That process of radical political transformation in Northern Ireland will have to be sustained from outside because Unionists seem to believe — and yesterday's presentation by Mr. Bradford confirmed this — that as long as Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom its political and institutional character must be exclusively British. In that they are deeply mistaken.

Finally, the tragedy is that a failure of political judgment and will at Government level has let the opportunity which existed 12 weeks ago trickle through our fingers. The Taoiseach said that the time has come for a clear decision on peace and for an end to prevarication and procrastination. He did not say that last week, the difference this incident in London made is amazing; now, apparently, we have arrived at the momemt for decision. The Downing Street Joint Declaration has not lost its value but its value only exists in the hands of decisive politicians who, on behalf of democratic and constitutional values, have the courage and the judgment to face down violence and irredentism. So far it appears that such a political resolution is sadly lacking.

Proinsias De Rossa

I propose to share my time with Deputy Sargent.

Acting Chairman (Miss Coughlan)

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Proinsias De Rossa

The IRA mortar attack on Heathrow Airport last night is just the latest — and perhaps most ominous — sign that Gerry Adams and his colleagues are not genuinely interested in the peace process and that their prolonged process of consideration of the Downing Street Declaration is a device to keep their discredited organisation at the centre of attention. Sinn Féin and the IRA talk peace, but continue to wage war.

It is hard to imagine a more dangerous, anti-civilian action, than this attack on the busiest airport in Europe. This is the airport where 'planes take off and land every 30 seconds and through which tens of thousands of people pass each day. If one of these mortars had struck an incoming plane or hit a terminal building, the carnage would have been unimaginable. What last night's attack shows is that, at worst, the IRA wanted to kill large numbers of civilians and that, at best, they did not care if large numbers of people died.

The attack and its aftermath has all the hypocrisy that has been a feature of so many other IRA actions in Britain. Vague and imprecise warnings were given, but the statement issued by the IRA claiming responsibility for the attack, a statement issued not in Belfast, or Derry or Crossmaglen, but here in Dublin, as usual tries to blame the British authorities for failing to act speedily enough. No doubt if there had been casualties, the IRA would have attempted to divert blame and responsibility to the British authorities for "failing to heed the warning" or "failing to respond quickly enough" as they claimed was the case, for instance, in the Warrington bombings.

It was also no coincidence that this attack was timed to coincide with the vote in the British House of Commons on the renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. This was not some act of defiance on the part of the IRA, but a cynical attempt to ensure that the Act would be renewed and to undermine the position of those in Westminster who were seeking changes to the Act. The fact is that Sinn Féin/IRA do not want to see measures like the Prevention of Terrorism Act ended. Its sweeping provisions provide them with a propaganda weapon and enables them to paint a totally distorted picture abroad of the situation in Britain and Northern Ireland.

Although this was the first major attack in Britain since the signing of the Downing Street Declaration, there has been no relief for the people of Northern Ireland where the IRA has continued to bomb and murder. What it all points to is that the hard men are still very much in control of the Provos and that they do not intend to voluntarily end the violence.

You will search in vain through the acres of newspaper coverage of the recent Sinn Féin Árd Fheis to find even one word of criticism — never mind condemnation — of the continuing IRA campaign. Again on RTE radio this morning Mr. Gerry Adams declined repeated invitations to condemn the attack. Mr. Adams said it was a reminder "that the core issues have not been addressed". When this "Provospeak" is translated in plain English what Mr. Adams is saying is "do what we demand, or the violence and killing will continue".

It is now time for the two Governments to urgently reassess this indulgent approach to Sinn Féin/IRA. The Taoiseach said this morning that his Government is not being dictated to by any violent organisation, but it has seemed to many people over the past three months that both Governments have been driven into a state of political paralysis while a violent organisation engages in what Fr. Denis Faul accurately describes as a phoney peace process.

Mr. Adams and his colleagues have been facilitated, promoted, encouraged and provided with detailed clarification of the Downing Street Declaration. Every speech made by representatives of Sinn Féin has been parsed and analysed and given the most benign interpretation possible. Indeed, the extraordinarily indulgent attitude shown to Sinn Féin/IRA is in stark contrast to the strident and dismissive reponse of the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste to the recent proposals made by the Leader of the Official Unionist Party, Mr. James Molyneaux, for the establishment of a devolved government in Northern Ireland, backed up by a bill of rights.

I am now very concerned that unless the British and Irish Governments act urgently and decisively the whole Downing Street project will founder. The Provos have been indulged for too long. They have had plenty of time to consider the declaration and have been given all the clarification they could reasonably require. Yet almost three months on, they are still refusing to say whether they will accept the principles of the declaration, which is supported by 97 per cent of the population — and in the meantime the killing and violence go on.

I believe that the Sinn Féin/IRA leadership have decided they will not accept the declaration, but do not want to say so because they want to retain the position at centre stage which they have occupied since December. This was the clear message from its Árd Fheis; it is the clear message from the continuing violence; and it is also evident from the significant change in the Provo position articulated again on RTE radio today by Mitchell McLaughlin, from requesting clarification of the declaration to demanding direct negotiations with the British Government, and they are demanding this before they end violence. That cannot and must not be conceded. It was not conceded in the case of the ANC or in the case of the PLO; it cannot be conceded in the case of the Provisional IRA.

The Provos cannot be allowed to destroy the right of the people of these islands to live in peace, free from paramilitary murder and violence. All the opinion polls taken since December show overwhelming support for the declaration and unequivocal opposition to the IRA. Séamus Mallon remarked last week that there is a mistaken view that the Joint Declaration was written for Sinn Féin. It was not. It was written for all the Irish people.

The two Governments must stop indulging the Provos and, with the democratic parties in Northern Ireland, start building rapidly on the principles of the Joint Declaration. If Sinn Féin want to be involved, it knows what is required of it.

The overwhelming majority of people want peace. All members want peace. We want to share in the Taoiseach's optimism, but optimism will not bring peace, decisive political leadership by the Irish and British Governments will bring peace.

Mr. Sargent

I welcome this opportunity to say once more that the Green Party, Comhaontas Glas, rejects the use of violence and justification of violence from wherever it comes and abhors all acts of violence, including the mortar bomb attack at Heathrow Airport. It is important to emphasise this point over and over again so that all affected by violence in this and other countries realise that those who speak here condemn all acts of violence even though we do not suspend the business of the Dáil each time a father is shot in bed or the mother of a family from another tradition is killed as she goes about her daily business.

It is not easy to get worked up about the hard work and bridge building across borders and cities. However, as public representatives, we must not be distracted from the peace process by the bloody elements of society who put their faith in coercion, cowardly killing and bombing. It is becoming clear that the peace process will be as long and painful as the act of last night was instant but horribly painful and barbaric. It is becoming clear that if progress is to be made, it must move beyond knee-jerk condemnation. In that regard I support the efforts of the Government to bring about an end to the violence. It is also becoming clear that cross community organisations working through peaceful means are not receiving as much attention from the Government and much of the Opposition as the headline grabbing people who carry out and condone murder.

I hope the example of parties in this House will be taken up by the supporters of violence. A radical transformation of politics took place here in the 1920s when the gun was almost taken out of politics. I urge those who still follow the path of the gun to see that it is possible to live another way. It is time another transformation in politics took place on both islands and I look forward to that.

Question put and agreed to.