Yesterday on the Order of Business the Taoiseach quoted the editorial in the Irish News about how the IRA has betrayed the people of Ireland. The word “betrayal” is exactly right. It applies to all the hopes so poignantly held by the people in both parts of the island and beyond that the cruel shadow of violence was being lifted and that they could once again enjoy their birthright of peace. It applies to all those here, in Britain, in the United States and elsewhere who took political risks to build bridges into democratic politics for the republican movement. It applies also to those within the republican movement who, I sincerely believe, made great efforts to lead their movement out of an ever more futile and murderous cul-de-sac. It applies to the stated goals and ideals the republican movement professes to serve.
At a time like this it is very difficult not to succumb to anger and despair. No one can avoid feeling these emotions and the more one has worked to better the situation the more keenly they will be felt. At the same time we must recognise that these emotions, however understandable, are bad counsellors and policies made in their shadow are unlikely to be wise. It is at such times that a calm and steady assessment is important, particularly for Governments, which must make the hard decisions. Let us therefore review the many constructive points which have been made here today.
At the top of any list of generally agreed positions is the acceptance, held firmly and without question on all sides in this House, that violence is morally wrong, without political justification, incapable of producing any solution and it must be resolutely opposed by all the security means at our disposal and all the political resources at our command.
It follows clearly that no tactic of mixing violence and politics can be tolerated. No amount of ballot boxes can hide the armalite. Any society which tolerated the armalite with one set of ballot boxes would sooner or later end up with an armalite with every ballot box. I am certain that Sinn Féin can point to no moment, before, during or after the ceasefire, when this principle was not the bedrock and explicit basis on which successive Irish Governments have had dialogue with it.
A second area of near universal agreement is that the solution to the Northern conflict must be pursued and can be found only through political dialogue and the fullest possible application of the principle of concent. A united Ireland imposed without the clearly expressed agreement of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland would be a flagrant breach of the principle. It would be the very opposite to a solution and it is simply an inconceivable option for most people on this island, North and South. It quite literally will never happen. Anyone who pretends otherwise is either grossly deceived or grossly deceiving — whether the claim comes from a Nationalist quarter to foster unreal illusions or from a Unionist quarter to stoke the old fears the better to manipulate them.
At the same time, political consent is not a concept which stops at the Border. As Deputy Harney spelled out in her contribution this morning, Unionists who invoke it in the direction that suits them, namely as a protection against being forced into a united Ireland, have also a duty to respect it where it may not suit them, namely the need for new arrangements to which Nationalists in Northern Ireland can give their consent. Much of the misunderstanding which Unionists complain of in the South or internationally stems from their persistent failure to act upon this point, which most observers see as a sheer practical necessity as well as being a requirement of fairness.
It is broad common ground also that a political solution must address all the key relationships and ensure parity of esteem and just and equal treatment for the identities and aspirations of both traditions and both communities. Unionists cannot be marginalised in their own country, and neither can Nationalists. Equality and mutual respect are not just moral ideals — they are in practical terms the only ground on which the two communities can reach a stable equilibrium.
It is common ground also that the Stormont talks have, potentially at least, all the ingredients necessary for meaningful negotiations. They are inclusive in intent and could become so in practice subject only to decisions which lie in the hands of the republican movement itself. They address all strands. They have a comprehensive agenda with all issues unquestionably on the table. They have outstanding chairmanship. They can be the vehicle for a meaningful accommodation, if the political will is there all round.
The parameters of such an accommodation are well understood between the two Governments. They enjoy, broadly speaking, bipartisan support in both Parliaments and therefore represent something close to a settled consensus between the wider Irish and British democracies. Anyone who accepts all the existing realities and not just those of them it is tactically expedient to acknowledge will conclude that any likely accommodation will be recognisably in the mould described in the joint framework documents.
Today's debate helped to remind us how many solid reference points we have in terms of agreed common ground. These points of agreement did not always exist. Many are from lessons learned from mistakes and bitter experience.
We should not really be surprised that in the new approaches and in the political risks we have taken in the quest for peace we are still refining our road maps and our reference points are less clear. We must find our bearings in a situation that is still fluid and open to change for better or worse. As democrats we have a duty to encourage those who may be beginning to understand the futility and poison of violence to commit themselves exclusively to the political path. Any peaceful future must of necessity emcompass that change. As democrats we have also a duty to ensure that our dialogue does not in any way compromise our democratic principles and institutions. What we are offering and all we will ever offer is a bridge into the democratic arena whose basic ground rules are unchanged, the same for all and incompatible with any hint, much less threat, or use of violence.
The peace process was rightly called a process. Fundamental change, such as exchanging a culture of violence for one of exclusively democratic commitment, is rarely instantaneous. Setbacks and disappointments are only too likely. These must be seen in the context of the wider question of the overall direction of change.
Apart from the moral opprobrium earned by IRA actions since the breakdown of the ceasefire, they are putting an emphatic question-mark over this issue. They are progressively widening the credibility gap which Sinn Féin must overcome if it is ever to deal as a fully accepted democratic player among all the other democratic players. They are refurbishing the suspicions and hatreds which even the most hardened paramilitary must recognise as threatening the welfare of both communities and the basic values of both.
The Government has consistently sought to maintain a careful balance between giving the necessary encouragement to those who are genuinely seeking a transition from violence to peace while at the same time ensuring that this cannot be exploited by those whose purposes could well be the opposite. Consistent with that, we have both maintained our guard and refrained from slamming any door gratuitously.
It goes without saying that the security measures necessary to counter terrorism from every quarter remain and have always been maintained in full force. Garda actions, and some significant successes, speak for themselves in that regard. I mention it only because sometimes one hears statements or interviews implying that involvement in the peace process must mean some degree of indulgence to those in violation of the law. That never was and never will be the case.
Secondly, we have constructed a political process which will accommodate Sinn Féin on certain specific terms, but, if those terms are not met it enables all those who do abide by the necessary democratic ground rules to do business without them and to demonstrate clearly that violence carries no political veto.
It is a matter of regret and concern to the Government that the rate of progress at these talks has been disappointingly slow. Contrary to some recent and rather astonishing statements by some Unionist spokespersons that this is because the two Governments had a foot on the brake while waiting for Sinn Féin, I want to state clearly that the Government and all other participants except the three Unionist parties have been seeking eagerly to get into the substantive phase of the negotiations since 10 June. The main stumbling block in the talks so far has been the shadow of the decommissioning issue which, intentionally or otherwise, is being developed by the Unionist parties into a hurdle that the republican leadership would find it impossible to clear.
The Government has made clear that we see decommissioning as an essential part of any comprehensive peace settlement. We have shown by our actions, including the preparation of legislation, that everything that lies in our power will be done to further that objective. However there is little point in us, or anyone else, pretending we will do things on decommissioning that are not in our power. Our security forces have had a "decommissioning policy" from the beginning, to do their utmost to detect and confiscate illegal weaponry. They will leave no stone unturned in this respect in the future.
We must not however confuse this necessary exercise with the wider ambition to persuade those who have so far eluded detection, to disarm voluntarily. That wider goal can only be achieved through an inclusive process of negotiation and with the co-operation of those who hold the weapons. That is a political challenge, and it is for the Unionist parties as well as the others to create the political climate where it can become a reality.
The report of the International Body offered an impartial, objective and carefully balanced analysis of how the decommissioning issue might be handled. We have from the beginning urged all parties to accept the report as the basis for movement forward out of the quagmire in which we have been bogged down. We succeeded, in June, in reaching agreement with the British Government on this issue, and the joint proposal we published on 1 October is firmly grounded on the necessity of commitment to the implementation of the Mitchell report in all its aspects. In this context, it is regrettable that the Ulster Unionist Party seemed last week to retreat from its earlier acceptance of the report and to reinstate a precondition close to Washington 3. However, I welcome Mr. Trimble's assurance, in a speech delivered on Saturday, that "we cannot now... return to prior decommissioning". We look forward to exploring the scope for flexibility which may exist and to moving rapidly forward.
On a wider scale, it would be absurd for the negotiations to break down over an issue which remains, for as long as there is no IRA ceasefire, entirely hypothetical, given that the need for decommissioning to be mutual eliminates the possibility of loyalist action at this time. It is equally paradoxical that the political process should for so long have been dominated by an issue which elevates military hardware to a place of primacy, and gives the paramilitary quartermasters an unprecedented role in the pace of the political process. Surely the time has come to move on at speed to the real issues which so urgently need to be confronted and which have been spelled out by many speakers earlier today.
I do not deny the very real emotional force of the decommissioning question has been underscored by Monday's atrocity. The fear that the republican movement might, even after the entry of Sinn Féin to talks, seek to use the language, or even the methods, of coercion and threat is understandable. So is the anxiety that even after an honourable and balanced settlement some republican diehards might return to force. I do not say these fears are unreal but when examined they can surely be put in perspective. Unionists can rely on the firm basis of principles on which the negotiations have been established, and which safeguard both the primacy of democratic means and the need for majority support for any settlement.
They can depend on the continued determination of the security forces on both sides of the Border, as well as, surely, their own continuing resilience and determination not to be intimidated. The overwhelming majority of Nationalists, on the questions of violence and of consent, are not, and will not be, on the side of the IRA, but on the side of their Unionist neighbours. Which situation is, objectively, more threatening to their security and well-being: a political vacuum filled with bitterness and recrimination, or a political settlement encompassing the principles of consent, democracy and nonviolence?
We share with the Unionists the need to be reassured on the good faith and democratic commitment of Sinn Féin before they are admitted to the political process. For as long as they do not meet the terms we have set out they will not be at the negotiating table. It is important however to recognise that inclusive negotiations against a background of peace are incomparably the best approach, and therefore should be kept as our preferred goal. If that cannot be attained, then we must do everything to make a success of the options we have. It would be perverse however to gratuitously block the routes whereby, if wiser counsels ultimately prevail in the republican movement, the truly peaceful and inclusive process we would wish to see can become a reality. Negotiations to end the conflict are in the last analysis a duty for all those who have a contribution to make. We should press Sinn Féin to meet their responsibilities and requirements in that respect, on behalf of the constituency they represent and which deserves the place at the table which the IRA has blocked. I look forward to returning to Stormont next week, at the head of the Irish Government delegation, and to working with all of those committed to democracy to prove that violence and intimidation will not blow us of course.
I will deal briefly with some specific points raised in the course of the day. A number of Deputies have referred to the recommendation by the European Parliament Budget Committee to reduce the 1997 budget for the Programme for Peace and Reconciliation. I understand all members of the European Parliament wish the agreed programme to continue and that the budget amendments are not based on any wish to halt or damage the programme. Yesterday's proposal by the Budget Committee is only a stage in an extended budgetary procedure and I am sure the difficulties are temporary and will be resolved. I can assure Deputies that the Government will do everything possible to ensure that the full funding, as agreed by all institutions of the Union, is made available to the programme.
Deputy Bertie Ahern criticised the Government's handling of the peace process and in particular the extent of my involvement. These criticisms are entirely unjustified. As far as the Government is concerned, I doubt that any previous Government has ever devoted more time to the Northern Ireland question. Neither, I would suggest, has any previous Government been in such frequent and sustained contact with the British Government in seeking to carry forward the peace process. In addition to permanent channels of communication through the Anglo-Irish Secretariat and diplomatic missions, regular contact between the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister, and between me and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Ministers and officials spend three days of every week in Belfast where they are in virtually continuous consultation with their British opposite numbers.
For anyone to claim there is little to show from such contacts is to ignore reality. What the two Governments are trying to do — to secure the negotiation of a comprehensive political settlement which is both acceptable to the Governments and the representatives of all democratically mandated political parties in Northern Ireland, and capable of securing popular approval in referendums North and South — has not been attempted before. If we want these negotiations to succeed — regardless of whether Sinn Féin is involved — we have to be prepared for a long and difficult journey.
The Government is both energetic and effective in pursuit of our policies. I find it hard to reconcile suggestions from Deputy Bertie Ahern that I am not sufficiently involved in matters relating to the North with frequent Unionist protestations that my pervasive influence is their main problem. I can assure the Deputy that I am fully engaged in Northern policy in general and in the multi-party talks in particular. Furthermore, the Government fields a highly experienced and effective team of Ministers and officials at the negotiations which, I would suggest, yields nothing in comparison to that fielded during the 1991-92 talks.
