Reports obtained from:
(1) Sunday Business Post, (2) The Independent, (3) Irish Republican News
(4) Irish Examiner, (5) Andersonstown News
Sunday, 12 December, 2004
Friday, 10 December, 2004
Thursday, 9 December, 2004
Wednesday-Friday, 8-10 December, 2004
Northern talks logjam could be the worst yet
By Tom McGurk
Once again, we have fallen between the shadow and the substance. Despite the spin in political circles that a final agreement in the North is still within reach, the logjam may actually be worse than it has ever been.
It is more than ten years since the IRA announced its first ceasefire and more than six years since the Good Friday Agreement, but still the exit strategy can't be found. Last week's events have made it more complex than ever. The agreement resolved the modalities of decommissioning but gave way to the argument about the principle.
Astonishingly, now that the principle has been conceded by the IRA, the agreement about the modalities has broken out anew. We have moved from the crisis of action to the crisis of symbolism.
And should anyone have any doubts about the primary significance of symbolism to Irish Republicans, let them reflect on what caused the civil war.
After the bloodbath, Eamon de Valera had to push the Bible away and sign his name, while claiming that there was no oath to be found there at all.
Given this historical penchant, the demand that the IRA photograph its own decommissioning was always going to be a futile and idiotic exercise. What most concerns this IRA generation is how to exit the long history of Irish republicanism with its head held high and its historic raison d'Átre largely rewritten.
In this context, can one imagine how welcome pictures of its decommissioning would be? Where in the history books might they go? Perhaps opposite the photograph of Bobby Sands?
The public spectacle that the act of decommissioning was to become was, of course, on the insistence of Ian Paisley.
Ever since he arrived on the scene, he has always recognised the value of ‘theatre' for his electoral purposes.
This is the man who broke up a meeting of the Presbyterian Synod, who had to be hauled out of the European Parliament after insulting the Pope and who paraded Ulster resistance and gun licences on a hillside in Co Antrim.
For years, Paisley and his ‘stunts' have been part and parcel of the North's miserable misfortune. And it's in these circumstances that the IRA recognised the photographs as another ‘stunt' in the making.
However, if the IRA is hoping that any act of total decommissioning on its part can be achieved without Paisley's spin on it, it is going to be sitting on rusting guns for a long time. By definition, the Sinn Féin political exercise in the North will be on hold for even longer.
There is, of course, a simple solution to this problem that would not only end the decommissioning logjam but would also enable the IRA to move into the history books in the way it wants.
That would involve the IRA acting unilaterally and decommissioning now, of its own volition. Through the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning, and strictly under the terms already agreed, it could fulfil its obligations and completely disarm.
John de Chastelain could publicly confirm that the weapons were destroyed in accordance with the itinerary, as agreed between the Irish and British security forces. The DUP then wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
In these circumstances, and given the undertakings that the DUP has already given in the talks, what political space would be left for its non-cooperation after such a unilateral act?
What the IRA has been trying to do since 1998 has been to use weapons decommissioning as away of empowering Sinn Féin within the political settlement.
It may have been a clever idea six years ago but, given the political crisis it has created ever since, how clever is it now?
Are the weapons not an albatross hanging around Sinn Féin's neck?
If what is required is a level playing field of democratic politics where nobody can hide, what is the point of continuing to leave the vantage point of the weapons there for Unionists of whatever shade to hide behind?
There is the further important question of Sinn Féin's voters in the North. Why should their democratic rights to exercise their growing electoral power within the North be contingent on an organisation - the IRA - over which Sinn Féin itself insists it has no authority?
Those who voted for Sinn Féin have the right to insist that the democratic mandate they gave the party is exercised without the imprimatur of the IRA, an organisation over which it cannot hope to have any control. And that doesn't just apply to the North.
If we are to reach a general election in the Republic with the status quo in the North still unchanged, the possibility of southern Sinn Féin voters sharing in some coalition arrangement is predicated on the same dilemma.
The IRA's statement last Thursday said that it wanted to “support a comprehensive agreement by moving into a new mode which reflects our determination to see the transition to a totally peaceful society'‘.
That's all very well, but of even greater significance in the statement is its usage of the phrase “an overall agreement to create a political context with the potential to remove the causes of the conflict'‘. Is it not blindingly obvious that one of the remaining “causes of the conflict'‘ is the continued existence of these armouries of weapons?
If the IRA looks back, it will see for itself that the unilateral decisions it took in the past were actually the ones that fundamentally changed the political agenda.
First, there was the unilateral decision to agree to a ceasefire in the first place.
Then there was the decision to begin weapons decommissioning at all. From each of these unilateral choices flowed the change that became the peace process politicisation. Once again, it is within its power to free the logjam and act unilaterally about its own weapons.
In the long run, there are no guarantees as to how Unionists will work the new process, and the weapons game is truly useless in this context. Republicans should look to their own strengths, like the rising nationalist political and economic power in the North, as the ultimate harbinger of how political Unionism will have to react. That power cannot be decommissioned.
Copyright © 2004 Sunday Business Post
Blair and Ahern dance to Paisley's tune
By Paul T Colgan
The British and Irish governments are dancing to the DUP's tune.
One thing was clear during Tony Blair and Bertie Ahern's marathon press conference in Belfast last Wednesday: both were backing the call for photographic proof of IRA decommissioning.
As they were bombarded with questions on whether the IRA had “reneged'‘ on a decommissioning deal, they were at pains to stress that no such arrangement had ever been agreed.
But it is now apparent that the two leaders believe that republicans should meet the DUP's demand for visual confirmation of IRA disarmament.
The position adopted by the governments had been expected by Sinn Féin. Saving Private Trimble has become Saving Private Paisley.
All the Northern parties, the two governments and even the Bush administration have pressured Sinn Féin in recent days in a bid to force an IRA U-turn on the ‘Polaroid moment'. The DUP can now call on a range of new allies to back its argument for visible decommissioning.
The governments believe that the DUP is interested in a deal, and are willing to concede the party's key demands. By publishing their joint proposals, Blair and Ahern are hoping to prove the DUP's power-sharing credentials and shame republicans into giving the party what it wants.
Just as last year's joint declaration was conceived to bolster the position of Ulster Unionist leader David Trimble as he went into Assembly elections, the current government pressure on republicans is designed to shelter the DUP from the blame game.
If the name-and-shame approach fails to force the IRA's hand, the governments will pin their hopes on a decisive DUP electoral victory. With the British general election looming next spring, the DUP can relax in the knowledge that Blair and Ahern will do little to paint them as the bad guys.
London and Dublin will pave the way for a DUP victory over the UUP in the hope that a resounding win will embolden Paisley to be more reasonable in his dealings with Sinn Féin.
Observers claim such an approach is deeply naive, and the strategy of DUP appeasement is a potentially dangerous one. The decision to publish the proposals could easily backfire, observers believe, as many grassroots DUP members will have found them unacceptable.
Nationalists have said that the joint proposals are not as damaging to the Good Friday Agreement as they had originally feared.
A raft of changes to the Assembly has been mooted, but observers believe none of them will stand in the way of effective power-sharing if the DUP chooses to work the institutions on a equal footing with Sinn Féin.
The joint election of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister has been scrapped; the DUP and Sinn Féin, as the two largest parties would simply have to nominate candidates to the positions.
A new ministerial code has also been suggested to prevent the DUP from engaging in the sort of non-cooperation that plagued the previous administration.
The British government also plans to repeal the Northern Ireland Act of 2000, which enables it arbitrarily to suspend the political institutions whenever it chooses.
It is difficult to see how the DUP could tally these changes with its vaunted claim that it was out to destroy the Good Friday accord.
Unionist sources are already suggesting that many DUP supporters will be “shocked'‘ by the details of the proposed deal.
Most of Paisley's followers had invested their total faith in his ability to secure an honourable deal, choosing to ignore media coverage which suggested he was actually conceding considerable ground to nationalists.
Now that the ins and outs of the package are laid bare, there are likely to be some uncomfortable moments ahead for the DUP leadership.
“While the DUP has obviously got what it always wanted - not having to go into an election having done a deal - they have conceded on a number of areas,” said an Ulster Unionist source.
“On policing and justice, they have gone far further than anything we'd have agreed to.
“The prospect of Northern MEPs and MPs being allowed to speak in the Dáil is also completely anathema to us. We see it as a breach of sovereignty - it would have been a deal-breaker,” the source said.
He said the DUP had clearly signed up to the Agreement, and significant sections of the 1998 document remained untouched.
“They're going to have a lot of difficulty with their grassroots. You just can't magic away - having said in 2003 that you are going to destroy the Agreement - that in 2004 you explicitly accept the fundamentals of the Agreement,” he said.
However, some nationalists are concerned that, while the new proposals are not as bad as previously thought, they contain several hidden veto opportunities for the DUP.
The SDLP has warned that the election of the new executive will come down to a 50/50 vote in the Assembly.
The SDLP claims that the DUP can use the vote to block the nomination of nationalist ministers it does not like. A failure to win consensus in the Assembly will lead to fresh elections.
While the DUP is not likely to use this more than once, nationalists are concerned that the threat of such a move will pressure Sinn Féin and the SDLP into nominating ministers to the DUP's liking.
“There's a lot that the DUP have bought into which we like, but we're not going to pretend that there aren't problems here,” said an SDLP source.
The DUP appears to have made gains with respect to the operation of the North-South bodies.
Under the proposals, the power-sharing executive would have a central role in the preparations for North-South meetings. Draft North-South decisions would be circulated to all the executive ministers ahead of any meetings.
According to the document, “any member of the executive would have the right to seek an executive discussion on such a paper'‘.
Some observers believe that the measure would allow the DUP to frustrate the smooth operation of the North-South institutions.
A review of the all-island bodies is also planned. While some nationalist sources suggest that the review will actually enhance cooperation between Dublin and Belfast, they also concede that the DUP may use the opportunity to undermine the North-South dynamic.
Nationalists are sceptical about the DUP's power-sharing bona fides.
Some suggested that, even if the deal were to get off the ground, Sinn Féin and the SDLP would be engaged in “a battle a day'‘, with unionists keen to frustrate their equality and North-South agendas.
They claim that the principle of joint governance would rankle with the DUP, regardless of what the IRA does.
However unlikely the photographic proof of IRA disarmament, a photo of Paisley and Sinn Féin chief negotiator Martin McGuinness together is even more unimaginable.
Copyright © 2004 Sunday Business Post
Adams warns of IRA 'dissent' over offer to give up arsenal
By David McKittrick, Ireland Correspondent
Sinn Fein's president, Gerry Adams, warned yesterday of dissent within IRA circles over a republican offer to decommission the IRA's entire arsenal as part of a new peace deal.
Mr Adams said that there was "huge trauma" within the republican movement about the IRA offer, which the organisation confirmed yesterday following publication of a joint British-Irish document aimed at a new agreement restoring power-sharing government in Belfast.
An IRA statement said that all its members would be given "specific instructions not to engage in any activity which might endanger that new agreement." The organisation spoke of "moving into a new mode" reflecting a transition to a "totally peaceful society" and declared: "The IRA leadership also decided that we will, in this context, conclude the process to completely and verifiably put all our arms beyond use."
The language has been hailed as hugely significant by the British and Irish governments, but the projected deal stalled when the IRA refused to agree to a demand from the Rev Ian Paisley for photographs of acts of decommissioning.
Ministers from the two governments will hold talks with Belfast parties, principally Sinn Fein and Mr Paisley's Democratic Unionists, next week in an effort to slot home what was yesterday described as the last piece of the jigsaw.
Recriminations continued between the two parties yesterday. Some sources sided with the republicans, saying Mr Paisley had been unreasonable in demanding photographic evidence, when the IRA had been willing to accept two church witnesses to decommissioning.
Others argued that republicans should, for the sake of concluding a historic deal, have given way on the point.
Mr Adams warned, however, that demands for further concessions could increase internal tensions. He said: "There are people who are proud, rightly proud, to have fought the British, people who have resisted attempts to criminalise and humiliate them."
Mr Paisley said: "Another secret act of decommissioning will not satisfy the public. I believe the IRA's reaction is proof that they cannot and will not be honest about the matter of decommissioning."
In the Commons, the Northern Ireland Secretary Paul Murphy said: "I am absolutely convinced that the day when the final piece of the jigsaw can be put in place is not far off."
Ireland's Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dermot Ahern, meanwhile, did not support republican assertions that the taking of pictures had never been a possibility.
He said yesterday: "The refusal of photographs wasn't as explicit as is being indicated, in my view. It was always part of the discussions that photographs may be necessary to convince the DUP."
The Labour backbencher Kevin McNamara said there was a legitimate interest in verifying arms were destroyed, but added: "Unionists are entitled to proof but not to trophies."
Copyright © 2004 The Independent, www.independent.co.uk
IRA statement
By Irish Republican News
The following is the full text of a statement which was issued tonight by the Provisional IRA.
More than ten years ago, an IRA cessation publicly heralded the onset of the Irish peace process. Since then, the IRA has, time and again, demonstrated its commitment to sustaining and developing that process through a series of very significant and substantive initiatives.
In the context of the work to conclude a comprehensive agreement, the leadership of Oglaigh na hEireannn decided:
to further enhance public confidence we agreed to the presence of two clergymen as observers during this process.
The IRA leadership decided to contribute in this way to a comprehensive agreement to resolve all outstanding issues, including those of concern within unionism. For his part, Ian Paisley demanded that our contribution be photographed, and reduced to an act of humiliation.
This was never possible. Knowing this, he made this demand publicly as the excuse for his rejection of an overall agreement to create a political context with the potential to remove the causes of conflict. As the IRA leadership has said before, this is a context in which Irish republicans and unionists can, as equals, pursue our respective political objectives peacefully.
We restate our commitment to the peace process. But we will not submit to a process of humiliation.
We commend our Volunteers and the wider republican base for their patience and discipline in these testing times. Our commitment, like theirs, to our republican objectives is undiminished.
We thank those who have made genuine contributions to the efforts to find solutions to ongoing problems. While acknowledging these efforts, we reiterate our view that progress cannot be made by pandering to the demands of those who are against change.
The search for a just and lasting peace is a challenging one. The IRA leadership has risen to that challenge. The British Government and the leaders of unionism must do likewise.
P O'Neill Irish Republican Publicity Bureau Dublin
North pays for Paisley’s inflexibility
By Irish Examiner
The ultimate Christmas gift that the people of the North could ever have imagined, a final end to IRA paramilitarism and the reality of peace, was yesterday snatched from them by the bitter intransigence of Ian Paisley and his Democratic Unionist Party.
The IRA had given the Irish and British Governments a commitment to undertake complete decommissioning before Christmas, to be witnessed by one Catholic and one Protestant clergyman, as well as General John de Chastelain of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning.
A statement from that body confirmed that by two acts of decommissioning, the entire stockpile of IRA weapons would have been destroyed this month.
That was not enough for Mr Paisley.
If Sinn Féin and the IRA had agreed to the publication of photographs, would that still have been enough for Mr Paisley, or would he then have insisted on being the Protestant cleric there to witness the historic act, imposing the ultimate humiliation on the Taigs?
To be facetious, maybe that was the other problem to which Tánaiste Mary Harney referred to in the Dáil yesterday morning.
Both Taoiseach Bertie Ahern and British Prime Minister Tony Blair had produced proposals which would have seen a truly historic day arrive. Gone would be the IRA threat and in its place the restoration of the Executive, power-sharing and a resolution of the policing issue.
Peace and normal political stability was what Mr Paisley denied the long-suffering, strife-torn people of the North who saw a new beginning cruelly whipped from their grasp.
Officially, it was disagreement over photographic evidence of decommissioning which Mr Paisley was insisting upon that wrecked the deal, or a series of photographs which the public realised he wanted.
But it is not unreasonable to question if the DUP demanded photographic evidence with the certain knowledge that it would be a step too far for people they did not want to share power with anyway.
By any measure, the IRA were prepared to ‘jump’, as UUP leader David Trimble had often invited them to do. When they did, it was into the vacuum of the “no surrender” mindset which has always been an albatross around the neck of progress there.
The Taoiseach was right when he said they were on the brink of an agreement that would have been unthinkable not long ago and that the process had surged forward.
Instead, the North’s future is shrouded in uncertainty.
Copyright © 2004 Irish Examiner
Wednesday-Friday, 8-10 December, 2004
Shock as IRA peace offer is rejected
By Irish Republican News
Sinn Fein's president, Gerry Adams, has warned of dissent within Provisional IRA circles over a republican offer to decommission its entire arsenal and stand down as part of a new peace deal.
Mr Adams said that there was "huge trauma" within his movement about the IRA offer, which was confirmed in a statement on Thursday. It followed publication of a joint British-Irish document aimed at a new agreement restoring power-sharing government in Belfast.
On Wednesday, Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern, and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, revealed the terms of the deal, which stalled when the IRA refused to agree to a demand from the DUP's Ian Paisley for photographs of its arms being destroyed.
In its statement on Thursday morning, the IRA said, prior to the collapse of the deal, that it had decided to support a comprehensive agreement -- which it said has the potential to remove the causes of conflict -- by "moving into a new mode". The IRA said it was determined "to see the transition to totally peaceful society".
If agreed, the proposals could mark a revolution for both Sinn Fein and Ian Paisley's DUP. Sinn Fein would be required to give its support to the long-despised police, while the DUP would have to share power with its perceived arch-enemies.
Mr Paisley confirmed the deal would not be signed just hours before Tony Blair and Bertie Ahern's news conference.
Mr Blair told the press conference: "I think there is an inevitability about this process which is locked in. I can't see this process going backward but I do know that it's going to require extra effort to finish the journey."
Bertie Ahern said the governments had worked on the proposals throughout 2004.
"We are not quite at that point of total success. Our work must therefore continue to secure agreement and closure and what - by any standards - is a huge, impressive, indeed a landmark package."
He added: "We believe at this point, after many months of negotiation, our efforts will benefit from wider public appraisal and that is why we are publishing our proposals."
TALKS GO ON
Talks are still continuing to find agreement on the proposals outlined by the two governments, but they appear to have been temporarily overwhelmed by the scale of the political fall-out.
Nevertheless, It is being widely argued that the talks will ultimately succeed.
Sinn Fein president Gerry Adams has challenged Mr Paisley to face-to-face talks in a bid to rescue the peace deal. The DUP has always refused direct talks with republicans.
Mr Adams warned that the marathon political process had reached a defining moment.
He said: "I'm appealing to Ian Paisley today as a leader of unionism, as a mandated political leader, to come and meet and talk to me about all these issues.
"I'm appealing to everyone not to lose this defining moment in the entire process, which some of us have worked a very long time to bring about."
He said the IRA had made a "declaration of peace" which should be pursued.
"Who wouldn't want to see the conclusion of the process to completely and verifiably put all IRA arms beyond use?," he asked.
In its statement, the IRA said demands for photographic proof of weapons decommissioning were "never possible" and accused the DUP of reducing the process to "an act of humiliation".
It said that Paisley's demand for a symbolic victory "was never possible" and accused him of making the demand as an "excuse for his rejection of an overall agreement".
Mr Adams refused to focus on the issue of photographs and said he wanted to stress the substantial progress that had been made by moving the DUP to accepted the infrastructure of the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, including all-Ireland bodies and power-sharing arrangements.
Republicans were dismayed, however, that numerous key issues such as British demilitarisation were not even mentioned in the proposals.
Mr Adams warned that demands for further concessions from republicans could increase internal tensions.
He said: "There are people out there who have fought against the British who are proud, rightly proud, to have fought against the British, who have resisted attempts to criminalise and humiliate them.
"They are reading this and they don't like what they are being told."
But Mr Paisley has said his party is demanding "a full photographic record" of the decommissioning process, and not just one or two photographs.
"Another secret act of decommissioning will not satisfy the public," he declared. "I believe the IRA's reaction is proof that they cannot and will not be honest about the matter of decommissioning."
Wednesday-Friday, 8-10 December, 2004
Policing issues unresolved
By Irish Republican News
Sinn Fein has said it will vet any new legislation on policing before a decision is made to change its policy at a special conference.
The proposals by the British and Irish governments for the power-sharing institutions only mentioned one aspect of the policing issue.
The "proposals for a comprehensive agreement" detailed a plan to transfer justice and policing powers to the assembly.
This would coincide with Sinn Fein president Gerry Adams recommending his party endorse the new arrangements.
However, the document did not address some issues republicans have cited as being part of the reason why they have not endorsed the new policing arrangements.
While a key demand was for control of policing and justice to be transferred to Belfast, Sinn Fein had also wanted the removal of Special Branch as a 'force within a force' and a ban on the police use of plastic bullets.
Sinn Fein policing spokesperson, Gerry Kelly, confirmed the controversial use of the killer bullets has yet to be resolved.
"As you can see by reading it Gerry Adams has said he is willing to go to an ard chomhairle and call a special ard fheis.
"We have to see the legislation before Gerry would sign up to go to an ard chomhairle.
"There is a letter on a number of issues including plastic bullets, sent separately to Gerry Adams. The issue of plastic bullets has not been resolved and we will continue to try to get them entirely banned.
"However, we have made some advance in that area with the British government and we will build on that.
"The Special Branch issue has more to do with tenure than anything else. There are issues outstanding which are not legislative."
Clara Reilly, chairwoman of human rights group Relatives for Justice, which has campaigned for plastic bullets to be banned, said:
"The banning of plastic bullets, like resolving the legacy of shoot-to-kill and collusion which lie at the heart of any settlement in terms of policing, must be comprehensively addressed."
Wednesday-Friday, 8-10 December, 2004
Key elements of the proposals
By Irish Republican News
IRA
The governments said they were confident that the Provisional IRA was willing to agree to a "full and permanent cessation of all paramilitary activity".
Secondly, the IRA was expected to set a deadline, with the international independent arms body, to get rid of all its weaponry by the end of December 2004.
The governments proposed a form of words for a statement from the IRA. This statement would declare the IRA would move into a new mode as part of the transition to a totally peaceful society.
It would conclude the process to completely and verifiably put all its arms beyond use. Finally, the IRA should declare its members have been given specific instructions not to engage in any activity which might thereby endanger the new agreement.
The International Independent Commission on Decommissioning - the people charged with ensuring paramilitary weapons are dealt with, would also make a statement.
The IICD was to say that two observers would join its monitoring of arms decommissioning, both of these being clergymen. There witnesses would be able to make public statements about the process.
A further proposal was that photographs of the weapons and material would be taken by the commission and subsequently shown to the governments and parties. This would coincide with the body's final report on the IRA and then would be published when the executive takes power.
POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS
The British government said it would lift the suspension of the Belfast Assembly and executive at the earliest opportunity. First, the parties would nominate ministers. A shadow assembly would begin work in January 2005. The full power-sharing arrangements would follow as quickly as possible - probably in February 2005, due to the time needed to pass legislation at Westminster.
The DUP were to say that that the party would be prepared to participate in the new arrangements.
The proposals include a new ministerial code which would bind the executive to the principles of cross-community power-sharing, such as equal treatment of people from both traditions, fair prioritising of policies and so on.
A revised pledge of office would seek to address similar issues. Separate measures would also be introduced to give the assembly members more power to scrutinise ministerial decisions.
Assembly members would also gain powers to approve or reject the executive when it is first formed.
Finally, the government would ditch its powers to suspend the Assembly.
POLICING AND JUSTICE
London said that if republicans agreed to support the new police service, the government could devolve responsibility for policing and justice to the assembly - ultimately leading to minister or ministers for these areas in the power-sharing body.
This move would depend on Sinn Fein calling a special party conference known as an Ard Fheis to debate policing.
The governments proposed that Gerry Adams ask his party's leadership to call the Ard Fheis. This would take place in the context of agreement between the parties and the devolution of policing and justice powers away from London.
The Ard Fheis would be asked to approve the party nominating members for the community board that governs the police service, leading the way to more members of the nationalist community joining the force.
NOT MENTIONED
There was no mention in the proposals of other issues believed to be part of a deal. These are thought to include:
Wednesday-Friday, 8-10 December, 2004
Analysis: Delaying the inevitable
By Robin Livingstone
There is no-one seriously arguing that republicans are to blame for this deal not being struck yesterday. Those who are making that argument are doing so for political reasons, that is, because it is in their interests to damage Sinn Fein: unionists, the British government, the Irish government, the usual media suspects. Interesting how things that nobody ever heard of before have a habit of taking centre stage with a swiftness that takes the breath away. And it's interesting, too, that all these things that came out of left-field came from the unionist side: permanence; decontamination periods; apologies; decommissioning; statements; photographs. Examine each of these and it's clear in hindsight that the amount of time and energy it took to get them out of the way was in inverse proportion to their importance in the great scheme of things. In other words, they were carefully selected to put back as far as possible the day when power-sharing is finally put in place in the north. How many of them have to be notched up before that much becomes clear? The pictures issue is at the same time the most laughable and the most worrying of them all.
Consider this latest barrier. The IRA is willing to say in public that it will get rid of all its arms - by Christmas - and, further, that it will instruct its volunteers to do nothing that will jeopardise the peace. In a place where the word historic has become embarrassingly devalued, this is undeniably an historic prospect. But the DUP's response is to say, we'd quite like a picture, please.
This suggestion was first made in the week before Leeds Castle, and even Tony Blair and Bertie Ahern have confirmed that republicans never wavered in their contention that this was a no-go. And yet it stayed on the agenda... and yet it was published yesterday. Which is fair enough, although we're perfectly entitled to ask why other unmet requirements - and we can be sure there was more than a few - were not published as well. Alex Maskey told an audience at Queen's this week that there are now no anti-Agreement unionists left - everything thrashed out thus far has been firmly anchored to the Good Friday Agreement. He's right, of course, because Pailsey's promise to bury the Agreement is one that he has signally failed to carry out.
It's part of a pattern. Paisley said he'd bow out of politics if the second UWC strike failed in 1977, which it did. Embarrassingly. He hoped that his supporters would forget about that, which they did. He made it his life's business to smash Sinn Fein, the results of that initiative are there for all to see. He led the charge against the Anglo-Irish Agreement and ended up with something worse. All of which means that Paisley is assiduously implementing a basic Old Testament principle in his serial refusal to let personal pride get in his way.
He prefers to be judged on results. And when he finally shuffles off this mortal coil, he will be happy if that result is to keep us mired in the past.
Copyright © 2004 Andersonstown News