Irish News, 28.6.2001
It is time to make politics work
PLATFORM
By Gerry Adams MP
President, Sinn Fein
THREE weeks have now passed since the elections and many people will have had
the opportunity to absorb the meaning of the rise in the Sinn Fein vote in the
north and the Nice treaty result in the south.
There has been much comment on both these issues and it is now appropriate that
I should outline the Sinn Fein view of these developments and the pending
resignation of David Trimble as first minister.
I will deal with the Nice treaty result first. While the rejection of the
government’s position was undoubtedly a disappointment to both coalition
parties and others who called for a Yes vote, the government’s response to the
people’s decision has been entirely inappropriate.
The taoiseach should have made it clear that the implementation of Nice cannot
go ahead because Irish citizens have refused to ratify it by referendum. Could
anyone imagine any other European government being lectured to in the way the
Irish government, and by extension as the Irish people, were this week by EU
Commission President Romano Prodi?
What is required is for the government to accept and to deliver on the mandate
it has been given. Anything less is unacceptable. To suggest that there can be
re-runs of the referendum until the government gets the result it wants is
totally wrong. By rejecting the Nice treaty, the electorate has halted the
process aimed at creating a two-tier European Union and a European superstate.
The onus is on the government to respond to these concerns, particularly in
relation to the Rapid Reaction Force, sovereignty and the loss of an EU
commissioner.
The northern elections
The electoral gains for Sinn Fein have been seized upon as an ultimatum to the
IRA to surrender its weapons and for Sinn Fein to be held responsible for David
Trimble’s self-imposed resignation. These demands ignore the Good Friday
agreement, the election results and the Sinn Fein mandate – which was a clear
endorsement of the manner in which we have been handling the peace process
including the arms issue.
Furthermore, some of those who are most vociferous and strident on this issue
actively worked against Sinn Fein in the elections. Most of the editorial
writers supported our opponents. Senior representatives of all the main parties
in the south campaigned against us in our constituencies. This is their
entitlement of course but they cannot have it both ways. They have to respect
our mandate and our rights and entitlements as citizens and as elected
representatives. They have to support the Good Friday agreement as negotiated.
Instead, they appear to be making the surrender of IRA weapons a precondition on
the rights of citizens. Not only is this a breach of the Good Friday agreement
but it is also patently counter productive. For both these reasons those who
have moved to this position should move back to the Good Friday agreement.
A strategy for dealing with weapons
For my part, I believe that the issue of weapons will be successfully resolved.
Certainly, from the Irish republican perspective, I believe that the gun will be
taken out of Irish politics. In saying this, unlike others, I am also very
mindful of all the other guns which infect our politics and which are in
loyalist and British hands and now in daily use. Sinn Fein, acting upon our
obligations under the Good Friday agreement and because we are genuinely
committed to a peaceful Ireland, have worked at developing a strategy to create
conditions for putting weapons beyond use. If we had not, or if the IRA had not
responded positively perhaps there would be a legitimate point to the stridency
of those who are attacking our party on this issue. But we do have a strategy,
though it is not our responsibility alone to devise one, and we have explained
it in some length to both governments, the Ulster Unionist Party, the SDLP and
others. The development of this strategy and the strength of the recent Sinn
Fein vote clearly could encourage others within republicanism to accept the
merits of our approach. But the near hysteria and the irrational
misrepresentation of what our vote means is hardly persuasive. My own view is
that there is a party political edge to the irrational demands from within the
parties with a nationalist electorate. They are using this issue against Sinn
Fein in what I believe to be a futile attempt to arrest the growth of Irish
republicanism.
Mr Trimble’s mistake
Mr Trimble’s position is an entirely different matter. Having fought an
election campaign on a platform of what the UUP delivered, he is now about to
throw all that away. Even the effect his resignation will have on would-be
investors, on tourism, on the economy, on community relations and all issues in
which he has proclaimed an interest – his resignation just does not make
sense.
It particularly doesn’t make sense in terms of achieving his two stated
objectives – ‘devolution and decommissioning’. His assertion that the IRA
only acts under pressure is an obvious invitation for that organisation to prove
otherwise – the same as it did with Brian Faulkner, Roy Mason, Margaret
Thatcher and others who made the same mistake that Mr Trimble appears to be
committed to making.
The UUP can no more pressurise the IRA than the IRA can pressurise the UUP.
Politics must be underpinned, not undermined. So Mr Trimble’s threat will not
work. But if he is determined to resign then resign he will, compelled by his
own logic and tactics. Whatever he proves to himself or his supporters, many
nationalists and republicans, who want this process to work, will conclude that
the current leaders of unionism are not up to the challenge of living on equal
terms with their neighbours.
Putting weapons beyond use
So what is Sinn Fein’s strategy for putting IRA weapons beyond use?
It is about making politics work. It is about implementing the Good Friday
agreement, not rewriting it. It is about building real politics so that people
feel empowered democratically. The length of the IRA cessations now in their
seventh year is evidence that that organisation is prepared to embrace such a
possibility. The continued silence of IRA guns, the various initiatives to
underscore this and the IRA’s engagement with the IICD are all positive and
unprecedented developments, which, if properly nurtured, will have a positive
outcome.
The UUP leader’s claim that the IRA has broken promises is totally untrue. I
know as a result of my efforts to resolve this issue that Mr Trimble’s oft
repeated and unfounded claim is counter productive.
The IRA’s promise is contained in its statement of May six last year. This
statement was a huge advance on previous proclamations of ‘not an ounce –
not a bullet’. Instead, the IRA declared that it was prepared to put arms
beyond use and it explained the context in which it would do this. The Sinn Fein
strategy aims to create that context. But of course we cannot do this on our
own. We can only do our best. But peace making and confidence building is a
collective business.
Great progress has been made in recent years. Not enough and at too slow a pace
for many republicans and too much, too quickly for others. But we must
persevere. Inevitably, as in any process of conflict resolution, there are
particular issues that for a time are the focus of controversy and difficulty.
These must be overcome and as we tackle these matters we should not forget that
despite everything, things are better, not good enough yet, but better than they
have been.
Refusing to nominate Sinn Fein ministers or preventing the all-Ireland aspects
of the agreement from functioning could not be described as helpful.
Neither is the British government’s refusal to demilitarise, or to establish
an accountable, representative civic police service which is free from partisan
political control. Moreover, where is the fair and impartial system of justice
we agreed? The effective safeguards for human rights? The right to freedom from
sectarian harassment? All of these and much more are yet to be delivered.
The Good Friday agreement is about creating a new political dispensation based
on equality and parity of esteem. How is this to be achieved by making an
objective of a peace process a precondition for the political process? How can
the two governments square this with their stated objectives to implement the
Good Friday agreement? Has the agreement become the Good Friday agreement as
interpreted by unionism, subject to continuous renegotiation, or are the
governments genuinely committed to the historic compromise endorsed by citizens
in referendums in May 1998?
The process will work
It is make your mind up time for both the Irish and British governments. Sinn
Fein will do everything it can to make this process survive and deliver.
But the governments need to consider what real progress is possible if they
pander to unionism. Do they do that, or, do they continue with the difficult and
challenging task of making this process work including the daunting work of
taking all of the weapons out of Irish politics?
I am convinced that this process is going to work. That has been my conviction
in other, even more difficult times. Whether it works with or without David
Trimble is up to him.
I have never made a commitment to Mr Trimble or indeed to anyone else that I
have not kept. That is why I do not make commitments lightly.
Both the taoiseach and the British prime minister know that.
For my part, an essential objective of the peace process is creating the
circumstances in which the IRA and other armed groups become part of our past.
Some want to see the IRA defeated. I want to see it in happy retirement. But
that goal will be easier to achieve if parties to the agreement work together.
Sinn Fein has a large mandate. We have a moral, as well as a political
imperative, to use that mandate wisely and for the benefit of all sections of
our people. Our mandate strengthens the peace process. But only if it is
respected and defended by others, not least the two governments.
Rights and entitlements
The governments cannot make the delivery of all outstanding aspects of the Good
Friday agreement conditional upon a unionist veto.
It would be far better if the institutions were in place and functioning fully
and neither government should countenance the suspension of the institutions.
But if unionists are not prepared to work the institutions, then the governments
have the responsibility to deliver on all other issues while protecting the
institutions until such a time as unionists are prepared to work them.
Citizens rights, the equality agenda, the issue of policing and demilitarisation,
justice matters, are all currently the responsibility of the two governments.
They should discharge this responsibility forthwith – despite unionist
protestations. Only in this way, by sensitively but resolutely changing the
conditions in which people live and guaranteeing everyone’s rights can we
change the way people, and particularly those who oppose change, respond to that
change. The two governments need to make it clear to everyone that they are
going ahead to deliver upon the Good Friday agreement and to create the level
playing field that it envisages. I believe this is best managed by all the
parties, collectively facing up to our responsibilities and playing our full
part. However, if for whatever reason any party is not prepared to do this, then
the governments have to move ahead.