Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 4 Dec 1996

Vol. 472 No. 4

Northern Ireland: Statements.

The Taoiseach

I welcome the opportunity afforded by this statement to report to the House on the current situation relating to Northern Ireland.

All of us in this House, and indeed all parties involved in efforts to reach an honourable and generally acceptable accommodation, have one aim in common. We remain fully committed to an inclusive process of negotiations on exclusively democratic terms and, if at all possible, to conducting the negotiations against a totally peaceful backdrop.

Differences, when they arise — whether in this House or elsewhere — relate not to where we are going but rather how we get there. For some time now the twin objectives of Government policy have been the establishment of a truly inclusive process of negotiations and the earliest credible restoration of the IRA ceasefire. That is where we are going. Now let me talk about how we get there.

The history of the past 25 years has shown one thing clearly. Unless both Governments travel together on the same road and towards the same destination, progress is simply not possible. The problem we are grappling with is immensely complex. In the first place it is a problem involving the people who live in Northern Ireland. Beyond that, it is a problem for the two Governments. It is not an Irish problem. It is not a British problem. It is a joint problem and, therefore, requires the Governments to take a joint approach. It is against that background that both Governments have created the basis for the restoration of the ceasefire and inclusive negotiations. That basis is contained in two agreed documents: the joint communiqué issued by the Prime Minister and myself on 28 February this year, and the Ground Rules for Substantive All-Party Negotiations published on 16 April last.

There are three important points to be made about these documents. First they are agreed by both Governments. Second, they are public documents. Third, they post-date the breakdown of the ceasefire through the murderous IRA attack in London's Docklands. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Ground Rules document are particularly relevant. That, then, is the agreed basis for moving forward.

There is, of course, the human element. It is a matter of fact that trust has been broken. When the IRA declared a ceasefire in 1994, it was presented on the basis that it would last. It did not. We must also take account of the fact that it was generally expected Sinn Féin would participate in negotiations within a reasonable but undefined period. That did not happen. The Unionist community who, it is probably fair to say, never trusted the IRA ceasefire are now particularly distrustful not just of the republican movement but perhaps of the process as a whole. That is the background against which we are working as we head into next week's Anglo-Irish summit. It is a background which recognises that there is an agreed basis for progress but which also recognises the need to deal with the issue of trust.

Since last February, the Government has worked hard to bring about an unequivocal restoration of the 1994 ceasefire and, on that basis, a fully inclusive process of negotiations. We have engaged closely with the British Government, with John Hume and others and I still believe that a co-ordinated approach offers the best prospects for a successful outcome.

The Government will, therefore, continue to work with the people to whom I referred with the aim of securing a definitive and clear understanding on Sinn Féin's admittance to negotiations in the wake of an unequivocal restoration of the IRA ceasefire. In particular, it is vitally important that there should be a clear understanding on the timing and means of that party's entry to talks in such an eventuality.

My Government's position on this whole issue remains as it always has been. Our approach has been informed throughout by the joint position of the two Governments as set out in the February communiqué and the ground rules paper. This means that if the IRA clearly called an unequivocal ceasefire, in words that are believable, and provided there is adherence to both the cessation and the Mitchell Principles, then Sinn Féin should be admitted to the talks. In practical terms, given the imminence of the Christmas recess this might have to be on resumption of the talks in the New Year, but there could be room for useful reciprocal confidence building contacts in the interval.

All roads, however, lead to an unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire, which should, of course, never have been broken. Its restoration now would reopen the road to the inclusive negotiations to which both Governments have given their commitment. I appeal for it to be done without delay. I want to make it absolutely clear that there is no justification now, nor has there ever been, for paramilitary violence from any quarter. Violence deepens divisions in an already deeply divided society like Northern Ireland. Only democratic and peaceful means can bring about, and nurture, the essential process of healing and reconciliation.

At the same time, however, we cannot ignore the political considerations and positions involved in trying to secure an unequivocal restoration of the IRA ceasefire while not raising unnecessary suspicions on the Loyalist side. For this reason both Governments are engaged in intensive contact with a view to developing our respective positions on the basis of the ground rules and the February communiqué. That work will be continued in the coming days. The two Governments must build on the substantive areas of agreement between us. These would include an openness on both our parts to work towards proposing adoption of an agreed indicative timeframe for the talks as one way to constructively advance the negotiations. The British Prime Minister and I will, next week, review the situation generally, including the prospects for substantive progress in the multiparty talks.

Turning to the multiparty talks, the Government remains convinced that the current impasse over the handling of the decommissioning issue can best be resolved on the basis of all participants agreeing to work constructively and in good faith to implement all aspects of the Mitchell report. We believe that a breakthrough can be achieved provided the necessary determination exists on all sides.

Public confidence in current efforts to achieve political agreement would undoubtedly be greatly increased if there was clear and speedy movement to substantive three-strand negotiations. There are many issues of profound importance within each of the three core relationships which need to be addressed and I hope that negotiations on such matters can be commenced soon.

The Government has always appreciated the constructive and helpful role played by the United States in our collective efforts to secure the necessary forward movement. President Clinton and his Administration have been kept apprised of recent developments. The President shares the desire of both Governments for a successful outcome to the ongoing efforts aimed at securing inclusive and substantive negotiations against a background of peace. I took the opportunity with Vice-President Gore in Lisbon this week to express my appreciation for continuing American support. It certainly remains my firm view that with good will and determination on all sides, the twin objectives of a credible ceasefire and fully inclusive talks can be realised.

The polarising effects of this year's marching season underscore the urgency of the task facing us all. There has been extensive intimidation. There has been damage to property, Orange halls and Protestant places of worship as well as to Catholic churches and schools. An equally sinister manifestation of violence has been orchestrated interference with people's right to worship. All these actions are profoundly wrong, contrary to the most basic civil and religious liberties and clearly point to the overriding need for the primacy of politics to be firmly re-established. The most effective way to achieve that is through inclusive all-party talks against a background of peace and leading to an agreed settlement to which Nationalists and Unionists, Republicans and Loyalists could give their support and allegiance. I assure the House that I and my Government will continue to do everything we can, in co-operation with others, to bring that about.

As 1996 draws to a close, we must look forward with determination to the challenges and opportunities that await us all in the New Year. Let us all redouble our efforts to make 1997 the year in which a new chapter is opened on the way in which all the peoples of these islands coexist in an environment of peace and tolerance.

Mr. B. Ahern

I thank the Taoiseach for giving the House the opportunity of a short debate. His meeting next week with the British Prime Minister may well be the last chance of restoring peace in Northern Ireland this side of a British general election. He therefore has to be clear and focused about what he is seeking. He also has a duty as President of the European Council to try to secure worthwhile progress on important European issues at the forthcoming Dublin Summit.

Northern Ireland is bedevilled by an almost complete breakdown in trust. The British Government and the Unionists in effect accuse Sinn Féin and the IRA of not ever having been serious about the August 1994 ceasefire, and want stronger guarantees next time. Sinn Féin and a sizeable section of Nationalist opinion attribute the breakdown in considerable part to British bad faith in stalling for 17 months on convening inclusive all-party talks, which were promised by them. The challenge posed by John Major on 9 January 1994 on the David Frost programme was put in the simplest terms: "Will the IRA give up violence in order to enter into talks in the democratic process?" The IRA gave up violence but the promise to enter into talks was a mirage.

On top of the mutual distrust and occasional acts of IRA violence, there has been a virtually sterile and often confrontational talks process at Stormont. After six months, negotiations have got almost nowhere, further undermining faith in democratic politics. On the streets of Northern Ireland, there has been a degradation of community relations, with appalling scenes outside a Catholic Church and the continuation of brutal punishment beatings. All of us fear the havoc that the amount of naked hatred could wreak, if there is one act of violence too many. In this dangerous and volatile situation, all of us who are genuinely working for peace must stand together. We must persuade those parties who can do most to transform the situation to act, recognising that it is difficult to get anyone to move in isolation without some gurarantee of corresponding movement on the other side. That was the whole purpose of John Hume's praiseworthy initiative.

The IRA needs to be clear that when it restores its ceasefire this time it will be for good and that it cannot be broken under any pretext. When Sinn Féin sign up to the Mitchell Principles, it will have to be in good faith on behalf of its entire movement. The IRA has to renew the definitive commitment it made to democracy in August 1994, and be prepared to show that this time it means it to hold in all circumstances. All must recognise that achieving a political settlement in Northern Ireland and greater justice for the Nationalist people may be not merely difficult in the short-term but impossible. Even in those circumstances, exclusively peaceful strategies must be pursued. In the long run, natural forces, a democratic consensus and a reform agenda with a new British Government under the Anglo-Irish Agreement can achieve more progress than any renewal of paramilitary violence.

The demand I would have most reservations about — and one I have mentioned in this House on numerous occasions — is the one for a short timeframe. No one in the IRA should delude themselves that setting a timeframe for talks and its subsequent expiry without agreement or even progress will create a renewed mandate for its armed struggle. Those who demand unmistakable evidence that armed struggle is over for good are right and I am not referring to the question of decommissioning here, which is secondary. That was Fianna Fáil's clear position in 1994 and since. The peace process will only work, if everyone, the two Governments, the Northern parties, and above all republicans and loyalists, are prepared to absolutely commit themselves to peace and democracy. If all the IRA is prepared to offer this time is a rather more obvious tactical ceasefire, it will not work. No democrat will tolerate an alternating de facto armalite and ballot box strategy, and I speak on behalf of by far the largest republican party. The only basis on which all of us are prepared to work with and include Sinn Féin is an exclusively democratic one.

This year, in this Republic, we celebrate 75 years of Irish democracy. Its full realisation has been gradual, but we can look back with pride on how far we have come. We can also look forward to the progress we all want to make in deepening our democracy and making it work better for all our people. The attempts to reform and democratise Northern Ireland, dating from the civil rights movement, one of whose founders is a Government Minister, have also made some progress, though not nearly enough. North and South, we have "the freedom to achieve freedom", if violence can be put behind us, even though it will not be an easy road. A direct or indirect attempt to coerce Unionists would be a profound and historic mistake, regardless of provocation and intransigence. We all know that violence leads only to death, misery and destruction.

The Taoiseach must persuade the British Prime Minister that, if republicans show themselves willing to give the type of commitment we all demand, they have a right to be admitted to talks in the New Year. The Nationalist people of Northern Ireland have democratic rights that have been trampled upon for far too long. Neither the Unionists nor the British Government have any right or discretion to exclude, deny or delay full talks participation to any democratically elected and committed party, however much they may dislike their past.

In its fundamentally unsatisfactory reply to John Hume, the British Government gave every impression of trying to temporise and delay, the same disastrous way it did for 17 months, because of its precarious situation at Westminster. To make participation in talks subject to intelligence assessments is totally unacceptable. So-called intelligence sources have just come up with the ludicrous and insulting notion that a senior US diplomat working with Senator Mitchell had a liaison with a senior republican she had not even met. Giving any role to secretive and unaccountable organisations with their own agendas amounts to placing an absolute discretion in the sole hands of the British Government.

I urge the Taoiseach, when he goes to London, to make the following clear to the British Government. An early and definite date must be set for inclusion in talks, if the IRA and Sinn Féin are prepared to make specific commitments about the irrevocable character of a new ceasefire, underpinned by the appropriate behaviour and by signature of the Mitchell Principles upon entry into talks. The Taoiseach should also make it clear that the date in late January to be set is for a full plenary session, with any bilaterals, successful or not, to be completed before then. If the British Prime Minister refuses to tie himself down to any such commitment, the Taoiseach must make it clear publicly that provided the basic conditions are satisfied the Irish Government will insist on Sinn Féin's inclusion in plenary talks as a matter of democratic principle. He will have the support of all in this House if he does so. I accept what I am asking requires political courage and risk taking for peace, but it must be done. It is time for the Irish Government to once more play a driving role in the peace process and to be in the loop rather than on the sidelines.

It will be suggested there is no point if some or all of the Unionist parties may walk out, even though many in the wider community, especially business people, are anxious to see a negotiated settlement. That difficulty, or other difficulties of a similar order, will have to be faced because neither Government can condone or collude any longer with an attempted Unionist veto on the right in principle of all sections of the Nationalist community to be represented at peace talks.

Peace is of equal benefit to all. Some parties have made a much greater effort for peace than others, including John Hume and the SDLP, the Alliance Party, the loyalist parties and the Women's Coalition. What have the Unionist politicians and some of the backbench Tories done for peace, except demand surrender? It is about time they made a similar effort for peace, instead of some doing all they can to make continued conflict inevitable, in the hope of some ultimate elusive military victory or in the hope that the need for a fundamental new accommodation between the communities will go away. If Unionists want Northern Ireland to survive, and to become a viable political entity, they have to start trying to win the consent of Nationalists. What is deeply destructive are attempts by either side to get their own way without making any attempt to seek through dialogue, the consent of the other.

We need a stronger sense of civil responsibility. Political and other leaders as well as communities must stand out against sectarianism. There should be no false equation of the right to march without local consent through a particular area, with the right to attend one's own church without persecution, which is one of the most fundamental of all civil and religious liberties.

I hope the Taoiseach and Prime Minister will say something strong about recent events. Equally, every influence must be brought to bear to stop the appalling punishment beatings, which are a gross violation of human rights carried out by members of paramilitary organisations. They represent the ugly and unacceptable face of both republicanism and loyalism. It is possible to stop them, if the will is there. The unacceptability of the police is no excuse for savage barbarity against members of one's own community.

I wish the Taoiseach well in the next few days as he prepares for the Summit, an important event for the country and for Europe but I wish him particularly well next week in his efforts to try to restore peace. In the course of this session we have had many debates on the North and we on this side of the House have continued to be constructive and supportive.

Mr. B. Ahern

We could have created much argument and debate about the Taoiseach's remarks in early September and many other matters, but we did not. What the peace process needs now is leadership and that must come from the Irish and British Governments. It is in the Taoiseach's hands and I wish him well.

Mr. O'Malley

Thirty, twenty and even ten years ago there were profound divisions in this House when it debated virtually any aspect of Northern Ireland. Those divisions no longer exist. There is a high degree of agreement on all sides of the House about what needs to be done and, by and large, how it should be done.

No Government has received more support in this regard than the present Government. I will say nothing today to change that, other than to express my urgent desire and that of my party that progress be made and the frustrations in the talks which have been going on since 10 June, must be overcome. I took part in the 1992 talks and was told by somebody who took part in the same talks and is familiar with what is taking place in the current talks, that the 1992 talks were most progressive in comparison with what is happening at present. I was most frustrated in 1992 so I can only imagine how slow progress is now.

There is an absolute priority to try to establish a genuine, non-tactical IRA ceasefire which demonstrates that violence is over for good. I used the word "establish" and did not refer to re-establishing what was declared in 1994 because that is not enough. It was not a permanent ceasefire and the assurances that were given at the time, unfortunately, were not honoured. There are three requirements which, if fulfilled, would be sufficient. The three requirements are short of total decommissioning, which appears to be the cause of the present impasse.

I will enumerate the requirements first and comment briefly on them later. The first requirement is that all targeting, intelligence gathering, rearming, regrouping and reorganising by the IRA must stop immediately on the declaration of a ceasefire. Second, all punishment beatings, which rely ultimately on the threat of worse violence, must stop on the declaration of a ceasefire. Third, people who are exiled from Northern Ireland under threat of violence should have that threat withdrawn and the verdict of exile withdrawn. Unless those requirements are fulfilled, nobody can say violence is truly over even if a ceasefire is declared. A preoccupation with complete physical decommissioning is unnecessary and misses the point. Decommissioning of itself is not necessarily meaningful except as a gesture, albeit an important gesture. The three requirements I have outlined would demonstrate the sincerity of those who are prepared to abide by them.

The first requirement, that all targeting, intelligence gathering, rearming or regrouping cease, did not occur after the ceasefire of 1994. That activity continued unabated. With regard to punishment beatings, it is sobering to read in today's newspapers the figures given in the House of Commons yesterday which show that the number of punishment beatings has not just increased but quadrupled in two years. Up to 25 November this year there were 276 punishment beatings and 297 punishment beatings and shootings. Guns were used as the ultimate sanction in 21 of the 297 incidents. Apparently, that number breaks down at a ratio of about 60:40 on the republican side, but they are equally deplorable on either side. How a society could claim that peace existed if that type of activity continued is beyond me. It is reprehensible that people are still exiled from Northern Ireland and other areas under threat of violence, particularly when the exile is imposed by an illegal organisation.

To demonstrate credibility, short of total physical decommissioning, and to engender good will, it is not unfair to look at what the loyalists have done since they declared their ceasefire. In the first place, they have maintained it in spite of great provocation. Part of the reason there was more ready acceptance of the loyalists' ceasefire than of the IRA ceasefire, was the nature of the statements the loyalists made on its declaration and particularly their expressions of regret. The statements were sincerely meant if one is to judge by what has happened since then. There are many ways short of immediate, total decommissioning of weapons and explosives which could be used to demonstrate the sincerity of those who might declare another IRA ceasefire.

All is not entirely bleak in Northern Ireland, although the situation is not very encouraging. There was an encouraging development in recent weeks, the statement of the new Chief Constable of the RUC, Mr. Flanagan, who said it was his ambition that the RUC would become a politically neutral force. One takes such a thing for granted in any other democratic jurisdiction but it is something new and different in Northern Ireland and would be most welcome. If that willingness to change traditional thinking were to permeate more broadly we could anticipate a great deal of progress.

One of the most distressing aspects of current events in Northern Ireland, apart from the non-event of the talks and ongoing punishment beatings, is the extraordinarily flagrant interference with the right of Catholics to worship and the apparent inability of the authorities to uphold that right. Of all places for such a thing to happen, I thought Northern Ireland would be the last, given that it boasts the highest level of church attendance in any country outside the Islamic world.

I wish the Taoiseach well in the forthcoming Summit at which I hope some breakthrough can be made. Even though I suppose all of us, including the media, tend to focus our attention on them, there is a limit to what Governments can do.

I shall finish by reiterating something I and the leader of my party have said on many occasions, that in circumstances like these, the greatest duty is on the leadership of the more moderate factions on both sides because, from their willingness to engage in meaningful dialogue with one another in a spirit of compromise only will an ultimate solution emanate.