ON FEBRUARY 15th, six days after the breakdown of the IRA ceasefire, Gerry Adams said "The absence of [all party], the negotiations led to the breakdown [of ceasefire]. The commencement of negotiations, therefore, provides the way forward. Any new process must contain copper fastened and unambiguous public assurances that all party talks, [involving Sinn Fein] will be initiated by both "governments at the earliest possible date"
However persistently they protested otherwise, the point of the joint communique issued in Downing Street last Wednesday, February 28th, was to provide such copper fastened and unambiguous public assurances that all party talks will begin on June 10th next.
John Bruton said in the Dail that afternoon "Regarding participation in all party negotiations, both governments are agreed in paragraph 5 [of the joint communique] that Sinn Fein participation is dependent only on a restoration of the IRA ceasefire"
The joint communique was a considerable diplomatic achievement by Bruton. Unfortunately the exercise fell short of the "copper fastened and unambiguous" public assurance that all party talks involving Sinn Fein would begin on that date.
At the press conference in Downing Street that followed the publication of the communique John Major was asked "Is Sinn Fein going to be accessed to all party talks conditional on one thing only the restoration of the ceasefire or, are there going to be other preconditions or what they would describe as stalling tactics?"
This was the key question. Bruton sought to answer it in the Dail a few hours later with his assertion that the "only" precondition was the restoration of the IRA ceasefire.
However, Major had other ideas. His response to the question was "We set out quite clearly in the communique ... that there has got to be a ceasefire and then at the outset, at the moment the discussions between the parties begin, there has got to be a discussion about the Mitchell report in all its aspects paragraph 30 [on the need for Sinn Fein to reassure other parties of their commitment to exclusively peaceful and democratic means] and the related aspects, dealing with adherence to the principles [of the Mitchell report] and dealing with the question of decommissioning to the satisfaction of the parties, so that begins as the first item on the agenda."
So that, although technically all party talks would begin with only one precondition (a resumption of the IRA ceasefire), the talks would not get off the starting blocks until four further preconditions were met. These are (i) a discussion of the Mitchell report "in all its aspects" (ii) Sinn Fein reassuring other parties of their commitment to exclusively peaceful and democratic methods (iii) commitment to adherence to the six principles stated in paragraph 20 of the Mitchell report to the satisfaction of all the parties, and (iv) discussion of the Mitchell suggestion on what is known as "parallel decommissioning", again to the satisfaction of all the parties.
These caveats make a nonsense of the commitment to all party talks involving Sinn Fein only on the condition of a resumption of the IRA ceasefire. Indeed, if they are to stand, they guarantee that there will be no all party talks even if there is a ceasefire. And of course they ensure that there will not be a ceasefire, at least until they are removed.
The requirement that "at the moment the discussions between the parties begin", that there has to be a discussion of the Mitchell report in all its aspects, even on its own, would make progress on all party talks virtually impossible. Just think of the leeway this would give to the Ulster Unionists to nit pick through the report "in all its aspects", aspects yet unseen and never intended.
Then added in the requirement that Sinn Fein reassure the other parties of their commitment to exclusively peaceful and democratic methods. How could this be done with parties determined not to be reassured? Equally, how could Sinn Fein satisfy parties determined not to be satisfied of their commitment to the six Mitchell principles? And as for parallel decommissioning.
The IRA has stated there will be no decommissioning before agreement on an overall settlement. This is unsatisfactory and menacing, but it is a reality, and the Mitchell commission's brief was to find a way through the impasse between that refusal and the British and unionist insistence.
The Mitchell commission's resolution of this impasse was the recommendation requiring all parties to the negotiations to commit themselves to the six principles. Reintroducing the decommissioning precondition at the outset of all party talks clearly frustrates the whole purpose of the Mitchell report and makes a nonsense of the purported acceptance of the report.
IT IS true that the Mitchell commission did refer to parallel decommissioning. This comes in paragraph 34 of the report. It states "The parties should consider an approach under which some decommissioning would take place during the process of all party negotiations". Clearly, there can be no reasonable opposition to the proposal to "consider" such a proposal, but to make this a new precondition to progress on talks is quite a different matter.
And, as John Major has stated it, agreement on parallel decommissioning would become a precondition of progress beyond "the moment the discussions between the parties begin". He said that "there has got to be a discussion dealing with the question of decommissioning to the satisfaction of the parties".
We know full well that "the satisfaction" of the two main unionist parties will require at least a start to decommissioning and then further phased decommissioning during the course of the talks", a more intractable impasse than that which gave rise to the Mitchell commission in the first place.
Bruton tried to soften this in a part of the text he read a few hours later to the Dail it is evident from the script that this was a late addition. Dick Spring tried to soften it further the next day. He said "Decommissioning is by no means the only item on the agenda, nor should the commitments we seek be exploited to avoid serious negotiation on the many other questions to be addressed". But what worth have such protestations from the Taoiseach and Tanaiste when Major says the opposite, or appears to?
There is a way around this. It is as follows a new public assurance that, given an electoral mandate and acceptance of the Mitchell six principles, all party talks will go ahead that while decommissioning will be discussed at the outset of the talks, agreement on that will not be a requirement to progress to other issues that a clear statement of acceptance of the Mitchell principles will suffice and that talks will proceed without procedural or other roadblocks of any kind, irrespective of who threatens not to turn up.
We have been "tantalisingly close" to a permanent cessation of violence. No surrender of genuine principle is now required to copper fasten that. But political will and determination are required.