The report of the international body has been laid before the House of the Oireachtas today. The Houses will recall that the two Governments established the international body last November, with a mandate to provide an independent assessment of the decommissioning issue. The report of the international body was presented to both the Irish and British Governments simultaneously on Monday, 22 January, and launched this morning at a press conference hosted by the body in Belfast.
Before I address the content of the report, I would like on behalf of the Government, and I am sure on behalf of this House also, to express our warm appreciation to the chairman of the international body, Senator George Mitchell, and to his colleagues, former Prime Minister Harri Holkeri and General John de Chastelain. The three members of the body and their staff have displayed enormous commitment, skill and energy in the discharge of their difficult mandate. The Irish and British Governments and the peoples of these islands have every reason to be profoundly grateful to them for the service they have rendered to the cause of peace. I take this opportunity also to place on record our thanks to their respective Governments for the practical and moral support they have given to the work of the body.
The essential goal we seek through the twin-track process is to bring the parties around the table. The ceasefires are an unprecedented opportunity to resolve a tragic conflict on an exclusively peaceful and democratic basis. The democratic process, and the future welfare of all our people, will be poorly served if we allow this opportunity to be lost. The report puts the choice before us very simply. It states:
This is a critical time in the history of Northern Ireland. The peace process will move forward or this society could slip back to the horror of the past quarter century.
For some time there has been a dangerous impasse between two deeplyheld and opposing views: was decommissioning the prior condition for political progress, or, on the contrary, was political progress the prior key to decommissioning? The two Governments launched a twin-track approach, aimed at replacing that essentially sterile and circular debate by a search for complementary progress on both fronts.
The time-frame allocated to the body was extremely short, reflecting the urgency of the Governments firm aim of launching all-party talks by the end of February. In spite of this pressure, the body consulted very widely, and I believe its report shows that it used that process to establish a very impressive grasp of the situation and of the difficulties involved.
It is also clear from the report that they have gone to great lengths to be fair to all viewpoints and to acknowledge the genuine concerns on all sides. This report, represents the unanimous and impartial view of three very distinguished individuals, from very distinct backgrounds. It offers all of us a clear and very practical road map to the negotiating table. It sets out the guidelines necessary to ensure that the negotiating process is fully democratic and untainted by any threat or use of force. We accept it without reservation.
The body, with its valuable outside perspective has helpfully drawn attention to some positive factors in the present situation which those of us who are totally immersed in it may sometimes be inclined to undervalue. They point to the strength of the deep consensus behind the peace. The very widespread acceptance of the need for total decommissioning, including by former paramilitaries, offers a potentially valuable starting point for the search for an acceptable solution to this problem. They also remind us of the need to give due weight to the sustained observance of the ceasefires, notwithstanding the reprehensible killings and beatings which they so strongly condemn. Our understandable concern with the problems we still need to solve should not blind us to the great gains already made.
I was particularly impressed at this morning's press conference by Senator Mitchell' passionate appeal to avoid a point-scoring approach to his report. This was, he reminded us, a matter literally of life and death. I hope his appeal will be heeded by all and that the report will be given the careful and positive consideration it so clearly deserves.
I welcome also the focus in the report on the underlying issue of trust, or more accurately, the lack of trust, for which the decommissioning debate is in many ways an over-simplified code. The body has very skilfully sought to disentangle the different components of the problem, and to treat each in the appropriate way. It recognises that the lack of trust is an essentially political problem and must be addresed by political means.
The six principles it sets out are a stringent and challenging test of commitment to democratic and peaceful methods, including during and after negotiations. Accepting and honouring them would be a very persuasive test of the commitment required under Article 10 of the Downing Street Declaration.
However the body also recognises that there are genuine practical problems arising from the existence of unauthorised weapons which must be resolved as an essential part of a process of total and verifiable decommissioning. These are set out in a realistic and flexible way, leaving many of the details, quite properly, for subsequent negotiation and agreement.
The report of the body replaces the polemics which had sprung up around the so called "Washington Three" debate with an alternative, more logical, and ultimately more promising approach. To solve both aspects of the problem in the way they suggest, is ultimately to solve the problem as a whole. That is the crucial point for both Governments, not whether it must be achieved in one step rather than two, or according to one particular prescription rather than another.
While the body was anxious to stay within its remit, it nevertheless usefully listed a number of further confidence-building measures which, while not the subject of formal recommendations, are flagged for the attention of the parties. I believe all these issues should be on the agenda for talks. That includes the proposal for an elective process which, as the report points out, would have to be broadly acceptable if it is to contribute to confidence — or even, I would add, if it is to happen at all. That consideration means that it is for those who support the idea to persuade those who do not. The talks process is there for that very concept.
The next step is for the two Governments working on the basis of the report and addressing also, of course, the various other issues in the political track to intensify still further the round of preparatory talks so as to achieve the launch of inclusive negotiations. Both Governments remain fully committed to the firm aim and time frame set on the November communiqué in this regard.
The report sets out, in very direct and straightforward terms that every citizen can understand, the unanimous view of the body on the way forward. I hope it will be widely read by the public at large. Even more, I hope all the parties will avail themselves of the opportunity it offers. The Unionist parties would gain, perhaps most of all, from an agreed settlement which protected their position and heritage. Political impasse is dangerous for everyone. I believe many Unionists recognise that.
The process of negotiation now on offer contains guarantees for the Unionist community at every level. The principles set out by the body guarantee that any attempt to use force or to threaten force will be incompatible with the basis of talks, and will be rejected. The Unionists themselves, by participating in talks, will be able to monitor compliance with that directly. Second, they have the guarantee that the outcome will be subject to what Prime Minister Major called the "triple lock", including the most stringent possible test of democratic validation, through the process of referendum.
A refusal to negotiate, given all of these safeguards, is only too likely to be decoded as a refusal even to acknowledge the existence of problems for the Nationalist community. That attitude has taken a heavy toll in the past, and I hope we can all put it definitively behind us. Negotiations in relation to Northern Ireland are not a luxury, and not a favour for any one side to grant or withhold. They are quite simply a necessity, if we are to have a better future for all. Both Nationalists and Unionists have the duty to listen to each others proposals carefully and constructively across the table, and to seek a just and honourable accommodation of their differing view points.
The report points the way, but acknowledges that only resolute action by the parties themselves will produce progress. It challenges all sides to take the necessary risks for peace. The greatest tribute we can pay to the body for their dedicated work will be to rise to meet that challenge.