Thursday-Friday, 10-11 April, 2003
Saturday-Monday, 12-14 April, 2003
Thursday-Sunday, 17-20 April, 2003
Sunday, 20 April, 2003
Monday-Wednesday, 21-23 April, 2003
Wednesday, 23 April, 2003
Thursday-Saturday, 24-26 April, 2003
Saturday, 26 April, 2003
Sunday, 27 April, 2003
Thursday-Friday, 10-11 April, 2003
Stalemate as Govts withold implementation plan
Blame game clouds efforts to advance process
By RM Distribution
Fresh uncertainty has arisen over the British government's intention to fully implement the 1998 Good Friday Agreement following its failure to make a promised declaration containing an implementation plan at Hillsborough Castle outside Belfast yesterday [Thursday].
The British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Irish Taoiseach Bertie Ahern had been expected to finally unveil their implementation plan to end five years of political wrangling between the political parties and the two governments over broken promises on policing reform, demilitarisation and human rights.
However, the plan was changed at the last minute, and the international media which had gathered outside Hillsborough Castle was instead briefed that the IRA was to blame.
Although the IRA was not a signatory of the Good Friday Agreement, an attempt was made to make it the scapegoat for the governments' failure to implement the Agreement. The media was told the IRA was planning what was described as an inadequate response to their implentation plan.
Bertie Ahern then travelled to London for further talks before joining Tony Blair ar a joint press conference at Downing Street last night.
The two leaders said they had worked "immensely hard" on the implementation document. "There are outstanding issues," Blair conceded. "The two governments are in complete agreement, however, about the right way forward."
Clarity and certainty was needed to move the peace process forward, they insisted.
Mr Blair said he and Mr Ahern would be in contact with the pro-agreement parties overnight and that the deadlock could be overcome. Time is urgent, Mr Blair said, although difficulties could be "ironed out".
Responding to the Mr Blair and Mr Ahern, Sinn Fein Chairperson Mitchel McLaughlin MLA said that, on the fifth anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement, one thing was beyond dispute -- the Agreement had not been implemented in full.
"The two governments should now tell us how they intend to implement the Agreement," he said.
"The Taoiseach and Prime Minister have spoken about clarity and certainty. They should publish the Joint Declaration immediately to ensure that there is clarity and certainty on the two governments' position. This would allow everyone to make their own judgements on this."
He said that critical issues remain to be resolved, including a timeframe for the transfer of power on policing and justice, the suspension of the institutions, the absence of any clear commitment from the Ulster Unionist Party that it will work the institutions in a sustainable way; and the attempt to introduce sanctions against Sinn Fein, which he said were clearly outside the terms of the Agreement.
Nationalists are aware that the publication of the implementation plan does not in intself represent an "act of completion" as it provides no real commitment or assurance that the British government will fulfil the promises outlined. They will recall previous joint declarations whcih have proven worthless in the past as British political will to wring changes in the North of Ireland faded in the face of unionist intransigence.
Indeed, much of the ongoing negotiations are dedicated to undoing the damage wreaked on the Good Friday Agreement by former British Secretary of State Peter Mandelson and his legislation to dilute policing reform and suspend the North's political institutions.
'Certainty' is one theme which will have arisen in talks today between Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams MP, the party's Chief Negotiator Martin McGuinness MP and US Ambassador Richard Haas this afternoon.
Mr Adams said he believed that Mr Haas was "very familiar" with all of the issues and the difficulties confronting the negotiators.
"Sinn Fein's focus in on making the Good Friday Agreement work - of getting it implemented in full," said Mr Adams. "That is what we collectively agreed five years ago. That is what people want."
Ulster Unionist leader David Trimble, who briefed party members on the situation at a meeting of his executive, accused republicans of holding the peace process "to ransom".
But Mr Adams said that there were no new negotiations taking place.
"Our discussions with the two governments on the measures needed to implement the Agreement are in my view now finished. There are critical issues, which have yet to be properly dealt with.
"But in our discussions with the governments we told them several days ago that the negotiations are concluded. There is now, therefore, no reason or excuse for the governments to delay the publication of their plan - their Joint Declaration - setting out how they intend to complete the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. Then let others respond to it, including the armed groups, including the IRA."
"But we should not lose sight of what this is about. It is about implementing an Agreement that guarantees peoples rights and entitlements. These are not concessions to be given or held at the behest or veto of any one else, whether a government, a political party or an armed group."
Mr Haas said after the talks that "acts of completion" were needed and unionists had to be reassured.
"We need statements as well as deeds that clearly both symbolise and truly reflect changes in the situation on the ground," he said.
He said he had urged Mr Adams and Mr McGuinness "to use their influence to try and persuade the IRA to say and do things that would mark an historic transformation in the situation.
"I also urged Gerry Adams in his capacity as president of Sinn Fein to say things which resonate with rank-and-file unionists."
Mr Haas added that time was "of the essence".
"There is good reason to feel some urgency, and I urge them to do everything within their political power to persuade people in the IRA leadership to do what I think needs doing," he added.
Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness will hold a meeting with Bertie Ahern in Dublin tomorrow [Saturday] while British government spokespersons in Belfast and Dublin confirmed discussions are continuing to break the latest impasse in the peace process.
"It is looking like the timing is just not right," a British spokesman confirmed. "However we are not giving up hope. We would hope to be able to resolve this by the weekend."
Saturday-Monday, 12-14 April, 2003
IRA make peaceful intentions known
SF urges governments to publish declaration
By RM Distribution
It is a highly delicate time in the Irish peace process.
In an unpublished statement delivered to the Irish and British governments, the IRA last night set out its intentions regarding the Irish peace process.
The two governments are today studying the statement, which details the IRA's current disposition, future intentions, and attitude to a continuation of a process of putting its arms beyond use.
In a statement simulateneously released to the media, the IRA leadership said that following approaches from others [understood to be Sinn Fein's Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness] it had "closed" on the statement, which it was ready to issue publicly in due course.
The statement confirms that intensive and serious negotiations that are taking place between the IRA and the two governments, with Sinn Fein negotiators serving as a conduit in the talks.
The move comes after a weekend of intense top-level contacts between the two governments and the Northern parties in a bid to break the deadlock holding up the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement.
The governments are now being fervently urged to take the next step by publishing their proposals for the implementation of the Agreement. Such a move had been expected on Thursday, the fifth anniversary of the Agreement, but a joint declaration by the British and Irish Prime Ministers was dramatically postponed at the last minute.
This led to fresh doubts and bitterness over what has been billed as a potentially historic climax to five years of wrangling over the Agreement.
Republicans were again publicly berated and scapegoated by predictable elements of the British and Irish media. Leaks and spin by government sources caused considerable anger and annoyance among republicans over the weekend.
However, the potential for a significant advance has now been restored. But at the time of writing, there is still no certainty that the governments are willing to take the next step. Reports this morning indicated that London was seeking further "clarification" of the IRA statement.
Should the two leaders accept the new statement and publish their proposals, this would put the onus on Ulster Unionists to return to a restored Belfast Assembly at Stormont in advance of an election to the Assembly on May 29. However, some members of the UUP has said they will not allow this unless the IRA "disappears". A meeting of the UUP's ruling body, the Ulster Unionist Council, could be called later this month to debate a return to power-sharing.
The Sinn Fein leadership said at the weekend that the parties discussions with the two governments on the measures needed to implement the Agreement are now finished.
The party's chief negotiator Martin McGuinness said there were still critical issues which had yet to be properly dealt with - sanctions, no timeframe for the transfer of power on policing and justice, the suspension of the North's power-sharing institutions and the lack of a commitment from the UUP on sustaining the institutions.
"But in reality the negotiations are concluded," he said. "There is therefore no excuse, no rational reason for the governments delaying the publication of the plan - their Joint Declaration - setting out how they intend to fully implement the Good Friday in all its aspects.
"Everyone can then respond to that - the political parties, the unionists and ourselves, as well as the armed groups, including the IRA."
Mr McGuinness pointed out that the Good Friday Agreement guaranteed peoples' rights and entitlements.
"These are not concessions, to be given or withheld at the behest or veto of anyone else, whether a government, a political party or an armed group.
"The Good Friday Agreement is the property of the people - not the governments and the people have a right to know how the governments plan to implement the Agreement and how the rest of us will respond to it."
Last night, Sinn Fein Assembly member and Mayor of Belfast Alex Maskey added that the IRA move was "clearly an important development".
"The onus is now on the two governments to publish their Joint Declaration," he said. "Sinn Fein would like to see all statements issued."
Thursday-Sunday, 17-20 April, 2003
Unionists seeking IRA surrender - Adams
By RM Distribution
Sinn Fein has said it is not giving up on efforts to move the peace process forward despite attempts by unionists to obstruct the process with impossible demands.
As tens of thousands of republicans took part in rallies to mark the 87th anniversary of the 1916 Easter Rising, party President Gerry Adams MP said contacts with the British and Irish governments were continuing in a bid to end the impasse that has delayed the release of proposals on completing the implementation of the 1998 Good Friday Agreement.
An unpublished IRA statement on its future, passed in private to the Irish and British governments last weekend, has been described by republicans who have seen it as "unprecedented". Gerry Adams said that it contained a number of highly significant and positive elements unparalleled in any previous statement by the IRA leadership.
Nevertheless, Ulster Unionist Party leader David Trimble claimed the process was being held up by the IRA, which he provocatively described as "a couple of hundred hoods [criminals]".
He said the IRA statement fell "a long way" short of what was needed to allow to facilitate the restoration of the North's Executive and Assembly.
"I am not going to go into detail," said Mr Trimble. "That detail will, no doubt, become apparent, and when it does you will see just how far short this is."
Mr Trimble said he believed that the Joint Declaration -- a 'blueprint' for the final implementation of the Good Friday Agreement that was being developed last week by the British and Irish governments -- will not now happen. He said the governments needed to come up with some ideas for "a plan B".
Sinn Fein Assembly member, Mr Gerry Kelly, accused Trimble of attempting to prevent change in the North of Ireland.
"David Trimble's focus is on dictating terms rather than on making this process work," he said. "Unionists cannot be allowed to frustrate the peace process.
"Too often in the past the British government has allowed unionism to determine the pace of change. The rights and entitlements of nationalists and republicans cannot be dictated by unionists. The politics of veto cannot be allowed to stop progress."
Spokespersons for the British and Irish governments have suggested that, without a breakthrough, the current negotiations could be postponed until a review later in the year following the contentious Protestant "marching season".
But in the absence of a deal in the next week or so, it is understood that the governments plan that the election to the Belfast Assembly, already delayed once, should go ahead on May 29. With mandates renewed and with some of the political uncertainty removed, it is thought that negotiations leading to a fresh start could follow.
The only political party expressing uncertainty about the planned election is the Ulster Unionist Party, which fears it will lose support to Ian Paisley's DUP. However, the anti-agreement UUP MP, Jeffrey Donaldson, said the Assembly elections should proceed on May 29th next with a view to excluding Sinn Fein from the power-sharing administration.
In an indication that the Ulster Unionists are also settling in to fight an election, a leading member claimed on Saturday that they have brought the IRA to the "closest point ever to disbandment".
The claim was made by Mr David McNarry, a close ally of UUP leader Mr David Trimble. He insisted his party's "achievements" should not go unrecognised. "Our doggedness and 'stickability' have brought the IRA to their closest point ever to disbandment.
Sinn Fein negotiators have said that one of the difficulties is that the unionists have left their negotiation to the British government. They see no "clarity or certainty" around the intentions of the Ulster Unionist Party, which retains a veto over the operation of the Good Friday Agreement through its boycott of the political institutions.
Neither is there "certainty of completion" in the two governments' unpublished Joint Declaration, party chairman Mitchel McLaughlin said on Thursday.
"It is full of conditionality within a protracted process. The IRA statement is clear and unambiguous. Even the British government has acknowledged it shows the desire of the IRA to make the peace process work," Mr McLaughlin said.
"That is an unprecedented development. It should be built upon. The two governments should publish their joint declaration. The British government should lift the suspension of the institutions and move to the election of a new assembly."
Sinn Fein has argued that the human and civil rights of nationalists should not be used as bargaining tools in the negotiations. Mr McLaughlin said the governments' Joint Declaration could ensure that some of these rights finally became a reality over five years after the signing of the Good Friday Agreement.
Speaking at a commemoration in County Tyrone on Sunday, Mr Adams acknowledged that the Irish government has played a particularly active role over the recent period.
"They have persisted when others were less resilient," he said. "But one of the principal difficulties is the way that Unionists have left the main negotiations to the British. This brings a fault line into the process.
"Unionists need to stand on their own feet. We want to do a deal with them. The big question is do they want to do a deal with us at this time?
"Unionists say they want clarity and certainty from republicans. Let me tell you that what the IRA is saying to them is very clear indeed. It is unprecedented, to the point that perhaps some of you may think the Army has gone too far.
"What unionists actually want is a surrender. What we want is for everyone to keep to their commitments and for a negotiated process of conflict resolution to be brought to completion. And that includes certainty and clarity about future UUP intentions."
Thursday-Sunday, 17-20 April, 2003
Analysis: Ambiguity - Oiling wheels of progress
By Jim Gibney
If there is one big lesson coming out of the peace process over the last ten years, it is words like 'certainty' and 'clarity' are not part of the creative lexicon that conflict resolution requires if it is to be successful.
Can anyone point to a period over the last ten years when such words were used and they helped the peace process here?
Words like 'clarity' and 'certainty' are part of the fundamentalist's political dictionary. They derive from an arrogant mentality, which assumes legitimacy and moral superiority.
Demanding such words causes crisis and paralysis. They clog the peace process engine up with gunge. They box people into a corner. Pursuit of such words or their equivalent encourages intransigence by those seeking their use and by those burdened to produce them.
They imply a 'deadline' mentality to solving political problems. There is no deadline when it comes to making peace.
How does a deadline work when you are trying to build new relationships, political and personal after hundreds of years of conflict?
At what point can republicans say to the British government we are 'clear' and 'certain' about your intentions? Will we ever be able to say this to the British this side of waving them goodbye from Belfast's dockside?
Are we to stay our hand in terms of developing the peace process until we are provided with 'certainty' and 'clarity' from the British government about: policing, demilitarisation, truth about the use by them of loyalists to kill nationalists, to mention only a few issues on which they have failed to deliver.
And what of the unionist parties? Do we sit on our hands while we demand from them and get with 'clarity' and 'certainty' acceptance that their sectarian policies from 1921 until 1972 created 1969, the modern IRA and the subsequent war?
Do we refuse to talk to loyalists because they have refused to provide us with 'clarity' and 'certainty' when it comes to their arms?
At what point do we draw breath and say 'Ah yes we have finally arrived at a station of 'clarity' and 'certainty'? Is it ten years, twenty, thirty? Is it when the relatives of those who were killed or injured during the conflict have passed on, when the events of the last 30 years really are history and can be treated dispassionately?
It is a guessing game. And while we are trying to work it out, the situation which requires stability and forward momentum begins to unravel and deteriorate.
Those who are making the word demands should ask themselves the following questions. Did the IRA's cessation of August 1994 emerge from a clear and certain background? Did it collapse 18 months later against such a background? And what of its re-emergence and maintenance since August 1997?
The same arguments also apply to the loyalist's ceasefires.
All of these developments took place in the mist of uncertainty and a lack of clarity.
How could it be otherwise?
War, of course, has its certainties: people killed, families traumatised, gaols bulging with young people.
There is nothing like walking in a cortege behind a person who has been killed because of the failure of politics to concentrate the mind. There is plenty of 'clarity' and 'certainty' in a graveyard.
That I can do without. Give me the language of ambiguity. It has served the people of this country well over the last ten years. It has oiled the engine of the peace process. Long may it continue to do so.
Thursday-Sunday, 17-20 April, 2003
International backing for Agreement
By RM Distribution
A group of Australian MPs and trade union leaders have this week put their names to a letter sent to British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Taoiseach Bertie Ahern urging that the Good Friday Agreement be implemented in full, the institutions be restored, and the Assembly elections proceed on 29 May as planned.
"We were profoundly disappointed that your governments did not issue your Joint Declaration as planned last week," they wrote. "We were eagerly looking forward to the Declaration as a vital consolidation of the Peace Process and as the mechanism through which the guns can finally be removed from Irish politics and the conflict resolved peacefully through the political process."
The MPs welcomed the IRA's announcement of their intentions as courageous and calle don the governments to respond positively and publish the Joint Declaration immediately.
PALLONE URGES BLAIR TO DO MORE
New Jersey Democratic Representative Frank Pallone Jr made a statement in Congress earlier this month urging President Bush to influence the current peace process during meetings with Tony Blair.
"It seems the two Prime Ministers are planning to unveil an emergency formula that they hope will break the impasse and put the power-sharing government back on track," he said.
"While this is obviously good news, I worry that Prime Minister Blair will not go far enough to ensure that there is a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. Mr Blair must take immediate steps in providing all residents of Northern Ireland the basic rights they deserve."
Pallone stressed the importance of a Bill of Rights and called on Blair to also address the issues of policing and the military presence in the North.
Unionists attempt to get elections suspended again
By Sean Mac Carthaigh, Sunday Business Post
Ulster unionists and their supporters in the media have already begun a campaig n to have the North's assembly elections suspended for a second time.
Sources in Dublin and London say they are unlikely to succeed and that the governments will concentrate instead on heaping blame on the republican movement in an effort to boost the UUP and the SDLP at the polls. The elections are due on May 29, after which the North will settle down for the annual pantomime of the Orange "marching season". This, with the formal review of the Good Friday Agreement operation scheduled for September, means that no significant progress can be made until October.
That month will mark the first anniversary of British Prime Minister Tony Blair's oft-quoted "acts of completion" speech. In that address, the New Labour leader swung behind David Trimble, saying he would not implement fully the rights and entitlements of the North's Catholics under the Good Friday Agreement, unless Sinn Féin and the IRA were willing to go much further than what was negotiated in that agreement.
Alone among mainstream newspapers, The Sunday Business Post said then that Blair had overplayed his hand, predicting that the IRA would not disband - and certainly not at the behest of Britain.Today,the prospect of the IRA issuing the humiliating "We surrender" statement required by David Trimble is less likely than ever.
Equally improbable is the notion of Sinn Féin joining the North's policing board. The Stevens report has proved what everyone already knew - that for many years the RUC Special Branch systematically orchestrated the murders of nationalists. Some of those implicated are believed to be within the ranks of the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI), perhaps in its upper echelons.
With the best will in the world, it could take years to decontaminate the PSNI as it exists today - and there is little evidence of any such will.
At the heart of the problem remains the appearance that the majority of unionists are still in "White South Africa" mode, unwilling to turn the page and welcome change.
Political analysts recall that abare 52 per cent of the North's unionists supported the Good Friday Agreement in 1998, even after a massive propaganda campaign, with guest appearances from Bono and US President Bill Clinton.
One source has said that Trimble's public support for the Agreement was clinched only by a secret threat by Blair that if he did not call for aYes vote, Blair would extend the referendum to Britain. This has always been a nightmare scenario for unionists,who understand only too well that almost everyone in Br itain regards them as Irish, and would relish the chance to ditch them.
The unionist approach, both of the UUP and DUP, is straightforward. They want to copperfasten the gains they have made (the removal of Articles 2 and 3, the IRA ceasefire etc), refuse to cooperate with the Good Friday Agreement, use the resulting stasis to turn the upcoming review into a renegotiation, revert to direct rule and dig in.
While unionists have always been able to rely on Britain as their guarantor, it must come a pleasant surprise for them to find Taoiseach Bertie Ahern and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Brian Cowen, acting with Tony Blair as their negotiating proxies.
The two governments are now committed to a strategy of blaming republicans for not acceding to unionist demands, attempting to split Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness from their republican support base and minimising the Sinn Féin vote.
But it is unlikely this will have the desired effect on nationalists,who are in a position to monitor each day whether or not unionism is actually open to change.
Far more sinister than the "blame Sinn Féin" electoral strategy is the possibility that the British actually want the IRA to disband, and are not merely acting as an agent for unionists.
No serious analyst doubts that the IRA has ended the guerrilla war against the British forces. IRAveteran Joe Cahill said so at last month's party ard fheis.
What may now be in doubt is the British commitment to peace. In recent months, the British have once again proved their willingness to use violence for political ends - directly through the PSNI, such as the orchestrated raid on SF's assembly offices, and indirectly, through loyalist killer gangs.
British forces in the North maintain full combat readiness, while the standing army in Britain can be mobilised and deployed in Ireland within hours.
With the marching season approaching, many nationalists would regard any move by the IRA to disband at this time as an unforgivable act of recklessness.
On the streets, of course, the other issue of concern to Blair, that of punishment beatings, is inextricably linked to policing and justice.
The hallmark of the RUC's attitude to nationalist areas wasits focuson "security". Thieves, hoodlums, drug dealers - and, on at least one occasion, even a rapist - were given free rein as long as they passed on snippets of intelligence to the police. Local people simply demanded that the IRA restore some sort of order.
After 30 years of this, nationalists will need to see with their own eyes the proof that the PSNI is capable of behaving as a police force. So far, they have not.
Police officers, with their "Windscale-to-Sellafield" new name, still drive around in heavily armoured vehicles, brandishing pistols. Video evidence from Belfast has shown them sitting in their Land Rovers while dozens of nearby loyalists throw rocks and pipe bombs at Catholic homes.
The PSNI's case was not helped when,on one recent occasion, an Irish government official was trapped inside the nationalist enclave. He was later in a position to contradict the usual farrago ofofficial lies about the incidents.
The scapegoating of Sinn Féin, the intransigence of unionism, the support for the unionist veto by the Br itish government, the revelations that the British orchestrated the murder of Catholics they didn't like, the casual betrayal of Irish interests by the Irish government, the subsequent alienation of nationalists . . . it all sounds rather familiar.
Those with a memory for detail might also recall that last time we were here, the North's Catholics did not turn on the IRA and rush out to vote for the SDLP.
Copyright © 2003 Sunday Business Post, Ireland
Monday-Wednesday, 21-23 April, 2003
Blair plays orange card
SF anger at 'reckless' comments on talks
By RM Distribution
Martin McGuinness has reacted angrily to comments made by the British Prime Minister at a media briefing on Wednesday morning.
Sinn Fein's Chief Negotiator said he was dismayed by the approach of Tony Blair and by his ability to be "reckless in many ways with what is a very difficult and very sensitive situation". He was critical of Tony Blair's decision to state publicly his interpretation of the IRA statement given to the two governments last week and angry at the accusation that the IRA statement was unclear. "There is a difference between clear and unambiguous and what is unacceptable to David Trimble," he said.
"I am extremely disappointed that the British Prime Minister is prepared to come out on the public airwaves and give his interpretation of what the IRA said. I don't think that that is conducive to a proper, respectful negotiation," said McGuinness.
"I think he needs to ask himself, whether or not the approach that he has adopted is conducive to getting the type of result that, I think, this process needs."
McGuinness was responding to a briefing in Downing Street at which Blair publicly posed three questions about the IRA's statement.
Those questions were:
When they say they support the Good Friday Agreement and want it to work, does that mean that if the two governments and all the other parties fulfil their obligations under the Good Friday Agreement and the Joint Declaration, that means the process is complete and there is final closure to the conflict?
Blair claimed the questions were very clear and that the process needed clarity and not ambiguity. David Trimble responded predictably, saying that he agreed with the Prime Minister and that if an election took place in May without a clear statement from the IRA, then there would be a "crash".
Martin McGuinness rejected the accusation that the IRA statement was unclear, and said he found it interesting that the British Prime Minister would use the terms clarity and ambiguity.
"Myself and others within the Sinn Fein leadership have sought clarity from the British government on a number of issues dealing with the Joint Declaration, and it's clear that the declaration is conditional, qualified, and at best a process towards implementation. We have sought clarity from David Trimble on the sustainability of institutions, we cannot get clarity from him on a date for the transfer of powers on policing, we couldn't get clarity from him on the establishment of a North-South inter-parliamentary forum, on the whole issue of a single Equality bill, and a Human Rights bill.
McGuinness said he believed that the IRA statement had clarity.
"The reality is that the IRA statement is clear and unambiguous, the difficulty is that Tony Blair appears to be saying that it is not acceptable, those are two different concepts.
McGuinness also expressed frustration with David Trimble, saying the UUP leader wanted a personal victory.
"The unionists have been saying for 25 years that there was no war. The real dynamic of this process is divisions that exist in unionism - that is the battle that is being fought out. David Trimble has decided - and unfortunately the two governments have decided to go along with it - that he needs a victory over the IRA, so that he can march in triumphalist fashion to the elections on 29 May. I don't think that that is the way to resolve the conflict in this country and anybody who thinks that needs to re-evaluate their contribution to this process."
He added that he did not think unionists could be pleased.
"Trimble told us in recent months that words from republicans were meaningless, and the attitude within the constituency that I come from, and the rest of the North, is that nothing satisfies these people.
"The issue of decommissioning was a perfect example of this. I broke people's hearts on that issue. We all thought that the unionists would see the decommissioning that took place, embrace it and run with it, and what do they do? They put it in their pocket and started making more demands.
"In my view, no matter what the IRA says over the coming days, it's not going to be enough for Trimble, and I don't think that that's a game that should be played with this process."
When the interviewer pointed out that he appeared angry, McGuinness said: "Yes, I am very angry. I am angry that we have a British Prime Minister going on TV and revealing important aspects and dimensions of very sensitive negotiations.
"At the end of the day, he lives in London and I live in Ireland, and I have a responsibility to real people here who have been denied their rights and entitlements for far too long. Now we have to listen to an approach suggesting that those people will not see the publication of the Joint Declaration.
McGuinness said the implementation of the Agreement should not rest upon the dictat of the unionists.
"I have to say I am fed up to the back teeth of British government ministers and indeed, some Irish ministers, telling us that the Good Friday Agreement cannot be implemented because of opposition coming from unionist political leaders. That is no way to pursue a peace process."
McGuinness said, however, that he remained hopeful about the process as a whole. "I think there is hope because I think we're going to succeed, e said. I think the peace process will contnue, I think republicans will continue to contribute to that and I think, no matter how long it takes, eventually we will succeed. It's a question really of when."
Gerry Kelly also reacted angrily to Blair's statements.
"It has been made clear by Gerry Adams that the IRA statement is clear and unambiguous. As you would expect it does not use British or unionist words but it does set out in clear and unambiguous terms the IRA's position. Both the British and Irish governments have recognised the positive nature of the statement and crucially the clear desire of the IRA to see the peace process work. Of course we have to have clarity and certainty in this process - and in my view the IRA statement is the clearest and most certain element in this current negotiation.
"We have no certainty or clarity from the loyalist paramilitaries, who only last week were involved in orchestrating attacks on Catholic homes in Belfast- and no attention or focus on those groups at all.
"So of course we need certainty - but certainty all round - not just from the IRA."
Peace will bloom again
Editorial, Irelandclick.com
The no-nonsense approach by leading republican Brian Keenan to the latest efforts to break the peace logjam provides the public with the first hint of why the latest Hillsborough Declaration has come to nought.
For Brian Keenan, there just hasn’t been enough progress on policing to suggest that republicans should sign up for the new force. And with the latest Stevens report highlighting the murky goings-on between Special Branch, British Intelligence and the loyalist gun-gangs, there are many nationalists who will feel equally shortchanged by the ‘new’ policing arrangements.
In his Easter comments, Gerry Adams noted that hundreds of lives have been saved by the mouldbreaking IRA ceasefire. That’s a statement which neither the two governments nor the other parties here can contradict. Yet, in pushing the IRA for yet more concessions to an embittered and embattled unionism, the governments have thrown out the baby with the bathwater.
They may not have the elusive ‘the war is over’ statement from republicans which is needed to save David Trimble’s neck but neither do they have republicans onside.
The British acknowledge that the latest IRA position paper goes further than ever before but not quite far enough. The reason for that is because the British for their part weren’t willing to move on that most vexed of questions: policing. After Stevens III, one might ask what’s so wonderful about policing here that it can’t be reformed further?
Thursday-Saturday, 24-26 April, 2003
Negotiations in public, process in peril
Discord after Blair tears up talks rule-book
By RM Distribution
Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams MP will seek to mend the breakdown in the peace process with a keynote address at the Stormont Assembly outside Belfast later today,
Mr Adams will respond to a controversial statement by the British Prime Minister Tony Blair on Wednesday in which Blair controversially brought a previously secret negotations process into the public domain.
In his address, Mr Blair queried the IRA's choice of words in a recent statement and attempted to blame the IRA for his government's failure to finally publish a Joint Declaration on the implementation of the 1998 Good Friday Agreement. The declaration, which contains measures on human rights, equality, the Irish language, cross-community policing and justice has now been shelved until the IRA states "the war is over" or uses other phrases acceptable to unionists and the British government.
Significantly, however, Mr Blair has not questioned the IRA's commitment to making the peace process work. But in an apparently ill-advised attempt to marginalise the republican movement in advance of key Assembly elections on May 29, Blair may have wasted a rare opportunity to bring some closure to the peace process.
Amid speculation that the content of the IRA's most recent statement -- which was conveyed to the two governments before Easter -- may soon be revealed, Sinn Fein's Martin McGuinness said on Saturday that the public were entitled what has transpired, urging the publication of both the IRA statement and the Joint Declation.
He said: "It's my view that the public deserve to have a sense of what the IRA put to the two governments and the leader of the Ulster Unionists (David Trimble).
"The public are entitled to have a clear understanding of the present situation.
"It will be incumbent on everybody to publish the Joint Declaration which deals with critical issues around the rights and entitlements of people."
On Wednesday, British Prime Minister Tony Blair publicly questioned the IRA's statement to the governments in what he claimed was a bid to get more "clarity" -- but republicans saw this as an attempt to force a new form of words on the IRA.
Sinn Fein leaders reacted angrily, insisting that the IRA statement was clear and unambiguous.
Mr McGuinness said it was Sinn Fein's view that the statement passed confidentially to the two governments two weeks ago was unprecedented, unparalleled and final.
Confirming that talks were still taking place between his party and the two governments, the Mid Ulster MP joined broad appeals for the Assembly elections to go ahead as planned despite the concerns of the Ulster Unionist leader David Trimble.
But speculation that the elections might be again suspended has been fuelled by the British government's insistence that the vote must be "meaningful".
North Belfast MP Nigel Dodds, of the anti-Agreement Democratic Unionists, said tonight it was clear there was "a lot of manoeuvring going on".
"The elections must take place so people can deliver their verdict on the raft of concessions pro-Agreement parties agreed to give the IRA and also on the Provos' statement."
Meanwhile Sinn Fein and the rival nationalist SDLP argued over a claim by SDLP leader Mark Durkan that the IRA Army Council was impeding political progress.
Sinn Fein national chairman Mitchel McLaughlin accused the SDLP leader of "donning David Trimble's clothes".
He said Mr Durkan was "ominously silent" in demanding "certainty and clarity" from the British government on its responsibilities to deliver on issues of human rights, policing, justice, and others.
"He has made no demands of [Ulster Unionist Party leader] David Trimble on commitments on stability of the institutions, all-Ireland Inter-Parliamentary Forum or any of the other areas in which he has been in default of the Agreement," said McLaughlin.
"Mark Durkan in his recent outbursts is sounding more like a proxy for the Ulster Unionist Council than the leader of a supposedly nationalist party."
Earlier, he accused Mr Blair of allowing David Trimble to "exercise a unionist veto over the process".
"Mr Blair is, in reality, attempting to get a statement from the IRA, which will satisfy the Ulster Unionist Council [UUP leadership] - the same council which moved into the rejectionist camp last year," he said.
"You have to ask yourself what kind of statement would be required to achieve that task."
Meanwhile, the two main unionist parties were at loggerheads. Ulster Unionist leader David Trimble was accused by Ian Paisley's DUP of being in a "state of blind panic" at the prospect of having to go to the ballot box next month.
"It is perfectly clear that Trimble is running scared and is afraid to face the electorate he has treated with such contempt over the past five years," Mr Robinson said.
"Any further delay would be the clearest possible sign of the government's desire to play politics with the democratic process. It would be short sighted and ultimately futile," he added.
Mr Trimble has insisted the Assembly elections scheduled for next month must take place "in a positive climate". He has claimed the electorate needed to know if the political arrangements for which they would be voting could work, and has insisted the Stormont Assembly is "inoperable" without an appropriate statement by the IRA.
SDLP leader Mark Durkan said the elections must go ahead next month "come what may".
"It is five years since we have had assembly elections. Even if we have no breakthrough in the process, we must go back to the people again," he said.
"To those who argue that we would have too much uncertainty if we had elections without a breakthrough in the process, I would ask what certainty or semblance of process there would be if we had a continuing impasse and elections again postponed."
Thursday-Saturday, 24-26 April, 2003
Analysis: Elections must go ahead
By RM Distribution
Over the last week, we have heard commentators say that the holding of elections in May would be counter-productive to democracy.
Suggestions that the Assembly elections be postponed or cancelled are completely undemocratic and run contrary to a process of conflict resolution that has, as a basic tenet, respect for democratic mandates.
If we heard comments such as these in relation to any other country in the world we would be calling on the United Nations to intervene to uphold the people's right to choose who they want to represent them.
Right now, the whole world is focused on Iraq, which is being promised its first democratic elections in the wake of the US and British invasion. If Britain turns around and says that democratic elections cannot go ahead in Iraq, for whatever reason, there will be an international outcry, surpassed only by the outcry that echoed throughout the world against the war in the first place.
The a la carte attitude to democracy in the Six Counties has allowed systematic, organised and ongoing collusion between British forces and unionist death squads over many years, authorised at the very highest levels of the British political and military establishment. This system has allowed one-party rule to operate in the Six Counties for 50 years. It has prevented tens of thousands of people from choosing who will represent their opinions, and ensure their rights and entitlements.
It is time that the two governments stood by the Agreement that the people voted for five years ago, and stopped using basic democratic rights as bargaining tools. They should publish their Joint Declaration, and the British government should lift the suspension of the institutions and move to the election of a new Assembly.
Democratic elections cannot be held ransom to unionist, or any other group's demands.
The IRA isn't going to split up - both sides are agreed
By Barry McCaffrey, Irish News
Two former IRA prisoners – one who supports the Good Friday Agreement and one who opposes it – have rejected speculation of a possible split in the IRA.
The British and Irish governments last week increased pressure on the IRA, claiming a statement it delivered during talks over the implementation of the agreement did not go far enough.
On Thursday, US envoy Richard Haass said: “It’s a challenge to leadership to try and build a majority in favour, in this case, for taking some historic steps.
“I think, again, what would follow would be historic rewards, but I think we simply reach the point in Northern Ireland where the era of gradualism or incrementalism has run its course, and dramatic steps are what is required.
“Nothing less, quite frankly, will suffice. I am simply hoping that a majority of the republican movement sees this on balance as being in their interest.”
Following his comments republicans, both opposed and in favour of the agreement, rejected claims that a split might occur.
Former IRA prisoner Joe Doherty, who spent 22 years in prison, including a decade fighting extradition from America, said that any attempt to split the republican movement would be detrimental to the Good Friday Agreement and the peace process.
“I was in the republican movement when the first split between the Officials and the Provisionals took place in the early 1970s.
“So I know what damage splitting an organisation can do.
“When the 1994 ceasefire was approaching I was one of the people in the H Blocks discussing what the peace process meant.
“We were always encouraged by the leadership to debate the issues and talk things through. That was an important part of the process within the jail.”
But Joe Doherty admits that even he initially had reservations about the Good Friday Agreement.
“When the agreement was signed I read it and thought ‘is this why I joined the IRA?’.
“But I read it again and we discussed it and I realised that this was part of the compromise which we, and all other parties, have to make.
“I remember Gerry Kelly saying that this wasn’t our agreement, but it was an agreement. It is a half-way house for republicans.
“Yes, we have compromised, but we are still committed to the republican ideal.”
Warning that it was a fatal mistake for anyone to try and split the IRA, he said: “People support the Adams/McGuinness leadership because they know that the leadership is totally committed to the nationalist community.
“When I joined the IRA in the 70s things were black and white. But in this process we have to accept that things are going to evolve.
“Nationalists are frustrated that there has been no movement on policing and social justice, but at least our politicians are in there fighting for change.
“We fought from outside for long enough, now we are in there bringing people to account.
“There have been splits in republicanism down through the years and the one thing about all of them is that they achieved nothing.
“We can only succeed if we stay united and strong. I am confident that the current leadership has the strength and support to do that.”
Former prisoner Anthony McIntyre has been a vociferous opponent of Sinn Féin’s involvement in the Agreement, but does not believe the IRA will be split over any future deal with the British government.
“In my view this is nothing more that the outworking of the peace process. It was always going to go this way.
“Republicans were always going to reach a defining moment. What Sinn Féin is doing now is asking the British for more time to try and tell its constituency what this really means.”
Mr McIntyre rejected fears that any further concessions by republicans would lead to a split in the IRA.
“These people have accepted every act of humiliation which the British have demanded of them, be it going into Stormont, decommissioning or anything else,” he said.
“The republican movement is so leadership-led, that it would take a key figure to walk away before there was any split. There’s no sign of any key figure doing that.
“The grass roots have had the opportunity to shun republican leadership in the past, but have refused to do so.
“The Adams leadership is so expert at managing the republican grass roots that no-one will question them.
“There is a saying in republican circles that when it comes to difficult issues, the Adams leadership will shed a few leaves, but never breaks any of the branches.”
Copyright © 2003 Irish News
Keynote address by SF President Gerry Adams at Stormont
Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams MP MLA today gave a keynote address to senior Sinn Fein activists at Parliament Buildings. In his speech Mr. Adams said:
"The political process is the responsibility of political leaders. We created the Good Friday Agreement. It is our job, whatever about the approaches or actions of others, to make politics work, to make conflict resolution work. This is a collective responsibility. We all have a choice to make. The Sinn Fein leadership's position is clear. I believe that the IRA statement, unmatched by any from the IRA leadership in this or indeed any other phase of their struggle, points the way forward."
"Now the two governments and the leadership of the UUP have to make a choice ... The Joint Declaration and all other statements should be published. It is as simple as that. The commitments contained in all the statements, including the IRA statement, should be implemented in full. The Assembly Elections should proceed as planned."
The following is the full text of his address:
Sinn Fein's focus in the last five years has been to see the Good Friday Agreement fully and faithfully implemented.
The Agreement was born out of decades of division and conflict, and almost 30 years of war. It reflects a deep desire on the part of the vast majority of people on this island to build a just and lasting peace for everyone.
The substance of the Good Friday Agreement is about the rights and entitlements of citizens. It is about a new political dispensation on the island of Ireland and a new relationship between Ireland and Britain.
It is about change - fundamental and deep-rooted change - including constitutional and institutional change - across all aspects of society.
Five years after the Agreement there has been progress. The institutions, when they functioned, did so effectively and were very popular.
While for some people, including bereaved families and victims of sectarianism, the situation is worse the reality is that for most people things are much better today than they have ever been.
We have all come a long way in recent years. A problem, which was previously described as intractable, has proven not to be so.
But we still have a lot more to do.
Important aspects of the Agreement have not been delivered on, as Prime Minister Blair freely acknowledged last October.
The purpose of the Joint Declaration and of the negotiations which Sinn Fein and the two governments were locked in for months, was to ensure that those rights and entitlements not yet in place become a reality in the time ahead.
While committed to our republican objectives it is Sinn Fein's view that the Good Friday Agreement, despite the difficulties, continues to hold the promise of a new beginning for everyone.
I believe we have now reached a defining moment in that endeavour.
The Joint Declaration commits to progress across a range of issues and indeed significant progress in some areas; albeit on a conditional basis. It also contains other difficulties, some of which are wholly unacceptable to Sinn Fein. We have made this clear to the two governments.
The two governments, for example, intend to introduce sanctions aimed at Sinn Fein and the Sinn Fein electorate, which are outside the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. These sanctions would contravene the safeguards built into the Agreement and are unacceptable.
Let us be clear about the Joint Declaration. The commitments given by the two governments, and especially the British government, in the Good Friday Agreement and the Joint Declaration, if and when acted upon would see the commencement of a process. This could see the implementation in full of the Good Friday Agreement.
The Joint Declaration is not an act of completion. It is, at best, a commitment to a process towards completion.
Nor is there any certainty about the UUP's position or its intentions in respect of the stability of the political institutions, a timeframe for the transfer of powers on policing and criminal justice, or the establishment of the north/south inter-parliamentary forum and so forth.
There is no certainty from the Unionist paramilitaries.
There is no certainty about the positions or the intentions of British securocrats.
But despite these very real and serious difficulties, it is Sinn Fein's view that on balance the Joint Declaration presents an important opportunity to move the process forward.
Consequently, the IRA leadership was persuaded to take yet another initiative to support and give space and momentum to the peace process. A draft text and other concepts were passed to the two governments and the Ulster Unionist Party. There followed a period of sustained leaking and misleading briefings to the media about this.
Then on April 12 the two governments, in a public statement said that it is important that all parties and groups join the governments in upholding and implementing the Good Friday Agreement in full. They also said that fulfilling the promise and potential of the Good Friday Agreement is a collective responsibility.,
So there was agreement that the basis for definitively ending conflict - conflict resolution - is a collective one.
On Sunday, 13 April, Martin McGuinness and I gave the two governments the final copy of the IRA statement.
This detailed statement setting out the IRA leaderships view of the current phase of the peace process was accomplished in the most difficult circumstances. It contains a number of highly significant and positive elements unparalleled in any previous statement by the IRA leadership, either in this or in any previous phase of their struggle.
A copy was also shown to the Ulster Unionist Party leadership.
The two governments have publicly recognised the many positive aspects of the IRA statement, the obvious progress and, crucially, the British and Irish governments said that the statement shows a clear desire to make the peace process work.
Such an IRA statement and such a response to it would have been unimaginable ten or even five years ago.
The IRA statement sets out the status of the IRA cessation, its future intentions and its attitude to the issue of arms. It also makes clear the IRA's resolve to a complete and final closure of the conflict, and its support for efforts to make conflict a thing of the past. This is unequivocal.
On the 23 April the British Prime Minister publicly raised three questions about the IRA statement.
Mr. Blair asked first, whether activities inconsistent with the Good Friday Agreement, such as targeting, procurement of weapons, punishment beatings and so forth, were at an end; second, whether the IRAs commitment was to put all arms beyond use; and thirdly, whether the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement and commitments in the Joint Declaration would bring complete and final closure of the conflict.
I have stated in the course of the extensive private contacts that have taken place with the governments my belief that the IRA statement is clear on the issues raised, but for the public record, my answers are as follows.
Firstly, the IRA leadership has stated its determination to ensure that its activities will be consistent with its resolve to see the complete and final closure of the conflict.
I have already acknowledged in my address to the Sinn Fein Ard Fheis, and at other times, the difficulties caused for the pro-Agreement unionists and others by allegations of IRA activities in the recent past.
In particular these have been cited as an excuse for the suspension of the political institutions and the current impasse in the Good Friday Agreement process.
Sinn Fein is, with others, an architect of the Good Friday Agreement. Martin McGuinness and I have raised allegations of IRA activity with the IRA leadership.
Mr. Blair has also raised these issues in one of his questions.
In my view the IRA statement deals definitively with these concerns about alleged IRA activity. And any such activities which in any way undermine the peace process and the Good Friday Agreement should not be happening.
The IRA statement is a statement of completely peaceful intent. Its logic is that there should be no activities inconsistent with this.
Secondly, the IRA has clearly stated its willingness to proceed with the implementation of a process to put arms beyond use at the earliest opportunity. Obviously this is not about putting some arms beyond use. It is about all arms.
And thirdly, if the two governments and all the parties fulfil their commitments this will provide the basis for the complete and final closure of the conflict.
Sinn Fein's peace strategy has always been about bringing an end to physical force republicanism by creating an alternative way to achieve democratic and republican objectives. We have negotiated, and campaigned and argued to have the Good Friday Agreement implemented not only because that is our obligation, not only because it is the right thing, but also because it fits into a strategy of creating an alternative to war and a means of sustaining and anchoring the peace process.
The IRA statement contains another key element. Some time ago the Ulster Unionist Party leader publicly stated that he would not call a UUC meeting to discuss his party going back into the institutions until after the IRA had acted on the arms issue. For its part the IRA had set its engagement with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning in the context of functioning political institutions.
There was also deep scepticism within the republican constituency because there was no indication that the UUP would reciprocate even if the IRA moved on the arms issue.
This stand off had to be broken.
So, despite the suspension of the institutions the IRA leadership authorised a third act of putting arms beyond use to be verified under the agreed scheme by the IICD. This act was timed to facilitate the Ulster Unionist Party holding a UUC meeting. This followed a suggestion by me that I would point up this difficulty in a public statement. Mr. Trimble was to respond to this with a public commitment that he would recommend to his party that they actively support the sustained working of the political institutions and other elements of the Good Friday Agreement.
The IRA leadership was then prepared to act in advance of the UUC meeting and in the context of suspended institutions.
My understanding is that all of this is still doable at this time if there is a positive response from the two governments and Mr. Trimble.
Let me tell you that the Sinn Fein leadership have put in a huge amount of effort to save this process. But there is a limit to what we can do.
There is considerable unease within the republican activist base and the wider republican constituency over recent developments. The Sinn Fein leadership, while mindful of this, has not been deterred because our commitment is to making this process work. We are also conscious that other constituencies have their problems.
The IRA leadership has once again demonstrated in an unprecedented way its clear willingness to support the peace process.
I, along with the vast majority of people in Ireland, value the IRA cessation. It is the main anchor for the peace process. But let me be clear, the political process is the responsibility of political leaders. We created the Good Friday Agreement. It is our job, whatever about the approaches or actions of others, to make politics work, to make conflict resolution work.
This is a collective responsibility. We all have a choice to make. The Sinn Fein leadership's position is clear.
I believe that the IRA statement, unmatched by any from the IRA leadership in this or indeed any other phase of their struggle, points the way forward.
Now the two governments and the leadership of the UUP have to make a choice.
So what has to be done? There is no magic formula waiting to be discovered. The next steps in this process are not secret. Everyone knows what is required.
The Joint Declaration and all other statements should be published. It is as simple as that. The commitments contained in all the statements, including the IRA statement, should be implemented in full.
The Assembly Elections should proceed as planned.
Republicans have stretched ourselves repeatedly to keep the peace process on track. Sinn Fein is in this process to the end.
Nationalists and unionists, republicans and loyalists have to come to terms with and recognise each others integrity. We need to forge a real partnership that manages the changes that are taking place and builds a better future, a democratic and inclusive future.
Our collective task, in fact our collective obligation, is to make that change peaceful and constructive for all.
We have to work together to move this process forward.
That is the challenge for all of us, for Sinn Fein for the two governments and, critically, for the leadership of the UUP.
That is the way to achieve a permanent peace.
SF hits out at British demands
By Sean Mac Carthaigh, Sunday Business Post
Sinn Féin has hit back at British demands for clar ity from the IRA, sayi ng London and Dublin's unpublished joint declaration is itself ambiguous and unclear.
In an interview with The Sunday Business Post,Sinn Féin's chief negotiator Martin McGuinness said that, while Tony Blair had criticised the language of the IRA's statement, nationalists had "neither certainty nor clarity" on many essential points from the two governments.
"The joint declaration is not clear or unambiguous - it is highly conditional, it is qualified, it is protracted, and at best is a process towards implementation," McGuinness said.
"And on top of all of that, we have the introduction of sanctions, outside the terms of the Agreement and aimed specifically at Sinn Féin."
McGuinness said the "buzzword of the week" was "clarity".
"Gerry Adams and I have said that it was our view that the IRA contribution to this is clear and unambiguous. As you would expect, it doesn't use British or unionist words, but it does set out in clear and unambiguous terms the IRA position," he said.
"Both the British and Irish governments have recognised, publicly, the positive nature of that statement. Paul Murphy went into the British House of Commons and said that it showed the clear desire of the IRA to see the peace process work," he added.
But he said nationalists had no clarity or certainty from the Ulster Unionist Party on whether they would ever actually work the North's political institutions.
The Democratic Unionist Party, he noted, was publicly committed to the destruction of the Agreement, and would not elect a First Minister even if the SDLP - rather than Sinn Féin - emerged from elections as the largest nationalist party.
"During the course of these discussions, I asked David Trimble if everything went according to plan and he was able to go to the Ulster Unionist Council and achieve the support of the UUC,would he go back into the institutions to take up his ministerial responsibilities between the date of dissolution, which is Monday, and the Assembly elections, which is May 29," McGuinness said, "And he told me flatly, `No'.
"We certainly have no certainty or clarity from the unionist paramilitaries, who only this week were involved in orchestrating attacks on Catholic homes in Belfast. Of course there is no attention or focus on those groups at all."
McGuinness said that, since the partial publication of the Stevens inquiry report, nationalists and republicans were asking "very searching questions about senior people within British military intelligence and in the RUC Special Branch, some of whom were moved by [former RUC chief constable] Ronnie Flanagan into very senior positions within the Police Service of Northern Ireland".
He said Blair's insistence on "clarity" from the IRA was a "smokescreen", and that the British prime minister's questions were being posed at the behest of Trimble, whose ambition was "to humiliate the IRA".
"They are trying to get a statement from the IRAwhich will satisfy the Ulster Unionist Council - the same council which moved into the rejectionist camp last year," he said.
"A bit of advice for David Trimble: he should go and get a copy of `Braveheart' and look at the last scene, when the English try to get the rebel, William Wallace, to utter their words, and fail.
"He should recognise that that is the enormity of what he is trying to achieve here," he said.
"I would urge nationalists and republicans to recognise what is going on here,to understand the games that are being played, and to remain very calm and very cool and reflective, and to understand that the tide of history is on the side of those who want to see equality, justice, freedom and peace."
Blair's possible bedfellows
If Tony Blair decides to suspend the North's elections tomorrow, he will find himself in distinguished company. Several other leaders have "postponed" the democratic process.
Prime minister Joseph Leabua Jonathan of Lesotho cancelled his country's elections in 1970. Unlike Britain, Lesotho has a written consititution, which Jonathan also suspended, declaring a national state of emergency.
General Augusto Pinochet seized power in Chile in a CIA-sponsored coup d'etat on September 11, 1973. Fearing that his opponents would win the elections, he promptly suspended them.
General Sani Abacha of Nigeria similarly suspended his elections in June 1993, fearing that his political opponents would win the contest.
President Chandrika Kumaratunga of Sri Lanka - ormerly a British colony named Ceylon - declared a state of emergency across the entire island in early August 1998, mainly to postpone the elections scheduled later that month.
General Robert Guei suspended elections in the Cote d'Ivoire in October 2000, ordering troops to take control of the main vote-counting building and eject journalists.
Last October, King Gyanendra of Nepal suspended elections. Students of the democratic process will recall that Gyanendra ascended to the throne after he was fortunate enough to be absent when his nephew, the Eton-educated crown Prince Dipendra, 29, massacred King Birendra and Queen Aishwarya, Prince Nirajan, 22, and 24-year-old Princess Shruti, and then killed himself, in June 2001.
Copyright © 2003 Sunday Business Post, Ireland