Do you want to go straight to a particular resource? Use the Jump Tool and follow 2 steps:
Look for the pages that have the shortcut code symbol Quill - Jump To Icon (e4242)
Jump To
e4242
You can click this icon to copy the jump to url to that page to your clipboard, ready to paste into emails, notes, documents or research papers as needed.
This can usually be found in the top hero section of overview,
delegations visualize, session visualize, event visualize, commentary collection, commentary item,
resource
collection, and resource item pages.
Enter the shortcut code for the page that you wish to search for.
Retrieving full text, please wait
These papers were digitized by Dr Shelley Deane, Annabel Harris, Isha Pareek, Antoine Yenk, Ruth Murray and Eleanor Williams. We are very grateful to the library and archives staff at Bowdoin College for all their kindness and help in assembling this material, particularly Kat Stefko and Anne Sauer.
[{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"DRAFT RECORD OF OPENING PLENARY SESSION - MONDAY 29 JULY 1996 (18.47)"},{"insert":"\n\nThose present:\n\n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Independent Chairmen"},{"insert":"\nGeneral de Chastelain\nMr Holkeri\n\n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Government Teams"},{"insert":"\nBritish Government\nIrish Government\n\n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Parties"},{"insert":"\nAlliance Party\nLabour Party\nNorthern Ireland Women's Coalition\nProgressive Unionist Party\nSocial Democratic and Labour Party\nUlster Democratic Party\nUlster Democratic Unionist Party\nUnited Kingdom Unionist Party\nUlster Unionist Party\n\n1. The meeting commenced with the participants joining with the Chairman in expressing condolences to Senator Mitchell who had earlier left to attend the funeral of his brother in the USA.\n\n2. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" (Mr Holkeri) emphasised the achievements of the day's discussion. Some common ground had been established on the agenda issue, however differences remained, and it was not in his view possible to overcome these in the short time available before the summer break. He proposed that the Plenary should be adjourned until Monday 9 September on the basis that participants would, in the meantime, reflect upon the agenda issues. He invited comment upon this proposal.\n\n3. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"DUP"},{"insert":" drew attention to a document given to the press that morning which stated erroneously that the rules of procedure had been unanimously agreed. The DUP was concerned about both the release and the misrepresentation of the document and about the criticism directed at the party by other participants during discussions on the grounds that it had been delaying proceedings. Those same critics were now supporting a very lengthy recess. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"DUP"},{"insert":" said that the promise of the two Prime Ministers to address the decommissioning issue right at the beginning of the process seemed to have gone by the board. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"DUP"},{"insert":" proposed that a committee be set up now to report on the issue. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" expressed regret for the typing error in the document and reminded participants of the confidentiality of the discussions (Rule 16). The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Alliance Party"},{"insert":" questioned why the hitherto proposed date of 3 September for resumption had now become 9 September. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" said that this was at the request of most of the participants. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Alliance Party"},{"insert":" said that it was willing to continue working on the agenda.\n\n4. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"UKUP"},{"insert":" endorsed the DUP position and assured participants that there never had been any intent on its part to delay proceedings. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"UKUP"},{"insert":" considered that decommissioning was the real issue and when the opportunity had now arrived to address important issues such as the status of Northern Ireland and decommissioning, some participants were looking for time-out. Those issues would have to be faced and would remain crucial to the pro-union participants.\n\n5. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"UUP"},{"insert":" said it welcomed this morning's decisions. About a week ago a shopping list had appeared in the press of issues to be resolved before the summer recess. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"UUP"},{"insert":" had considered that public expectation had been unnecessarily and unwisely heightened and the Irish Government had been identified with this undue optimism. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"UUP"},{"insert":" said it believed that the complicated agenda questions could not be addressed in a couple of days. There was a need for a period of reflection on the agenda. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"UUP"},{"insert":" said it would be available for any bilaterals on the issue during August and hoped that some progress could be made before 9 September.\n\n6. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"British Government"},{"insert":" said that, along with other participants, it shared a feeling of disappointment about progress and had hoped that more could have been achieved before the summer break. Participants had, however, worked hard during the discussions and a summer break was appropriate. The central questions affecting the agenda remained, and would have to be faced in September. They might be better and more fruitfully addressed then and the Chairman's proposal was therefore a reasonable one in the circumstances.\n\n7. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"UUP"},{"insert":" said it would now prefer to proceed with the agenda, feeling that the proposed break was inordinately long, especially in the context of present community instability, and the need to show the community that progress was being made at the talks. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"UDP"},{"insert":" was also concerned that during the proposed break some parties might misinform the community as to where the talks had reached, and create false expectations.\n\n8. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"DUP"},{"insert":" noted that some other parties seemed to favour continuing the discussions. It also raised two requests with regard to participants receiving a record of meetings as provided by the rules and the distribution to all participants of proposals for the agenda made by the various participants. _General de Chastelain_ confirmed that a draft record of formal meetings would be issued to the participants as soon as possible. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" said he had received proposals for the agenda from three parties and these would be circulated to other participants if this was agreed by the parties concerned. He also invited those participants who had not submitted proposals to consider doing so.\n\n9. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"UUP"},{"insert":" said that the Government communique of 28 November 1995 had introduced the twin-track process as a way of making progress. In referring to paragraphs 34 and 38 of the International Body's Report the "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"UUP"},{"insert":" now questioned whether one or more of the parties had retracted from the spirit of the earlier undertaking. It said it would welcome an indication of the continued commitment to the twin-track process from these participants. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"UUP"},{"insert":" asked whether the two Governments had identified the technical experts needed, and in relation to paragraph 40, at what stage legislation had now reached. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"UUP"},{"insert":" said it suspected that the two Governments were trying to sideline the decommissioning issue and were being assisted in this by other participants to the talks.\n\n10. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Irish Government"},{"insert":" expressed satisfaction with progress to date and assured participants that both Governments were anxious to proceed with the agenda. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Irish Government"},{"insert":" rejected the inference of backtracking on the twin-track approach and considered that a great deal of careful thought had to go into the treatment of the agenda and decommissioning. It seemed however that participants could not reach conclusions on the agenda in the remaining 24 hours of the schedule and therefore a resumption on 9 September with opening statements was proposed. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"UUP"},{"insert":" intervened to ask about progress with the creation of a verification committee. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Irish Government"},{"insert":" said that work on the legislative aspect was being advanced and that commitments given would be honoured.\n\n11. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"UUP"},{"insert":" pressed the point about the verification committee. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"SDLP"},{"insert":" asked the Chairman if it was in order for participants to pose such questions to Government ministers. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"DUP"},{"insert":" challenged differentiations between Governments and other participants. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" said that under rule 24 all remarks had to be addressed through the Chairman. In relation to specific questions, it was up to participants whether they wished to respond or not. He then reminded participants that they were presently discussing a proposal of the Chair.\n\n12. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"British Government"},{"insert":" said that the work of the two Governments on the matters in question was well advanced and assured the UUP that both Governments were taking the matter of decommissioning very seriously. They hoped however to benefit from consultation with other participants.\n\n13. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"UKUP"},{"insert":" said it believed the IRA had no intention of disarming and that there was no interest in disarming the IRA on the part of the Irish Government or the SDLP. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"UKUP"},{"insert":" also stated it had no confidence in Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Constitution nor confidence in the British Government's willingness to defend Northern Ireland from the IRA. There would be no softening of the views of the UKUP in these areas come September. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"DUP"},{"insert":" challenged the Irish Government's proposal to resume in September with opening statements. In its view there would be no option but to begin with the with the sequence presently recommended by the two Governments. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"DUP"},{"insert":" then proposed that the Chairman should ask each of the participants for their views on whether to adjourn or press on with the agenda.\n\n14. The _UKUP_ said that the whole question of linking decommissioning with the talks was flawed. It was nothing more than a lure to Sinn Fein. The issue of terrorist arms was for the rule of law and not a sort of bait. The _DUP_ said that the British Government had indicated to it that the Irish Government wanted to get into Strands One, Two and Three before addressing decommissioning. As long as terrorists had weapons in their hands the people of Ireland would be held to ransom. Decommissioning should proceed now but there was nothing but silence from the Irish Government at the legislative aspects. This was a matter for the two Governments, and not the political parties, to deal with as it was a law and order issue.\n\n15. The Chairman reminded the participants that he had made a proposal, that the _DUP_ had made a counter-proposal and that it was up to participants whether they continued this week or adjourned. The _UUP_ said that they were willing to continue. The _PUP_ said that the Chairman had given as a reason for adjournment the unlikelihood of agreement this week on the agenda issues. The _PUP_ would support the Chairman's proposal in the circumstances, but suggested that each Monday and Tuesday in August should be set aside for bilaterals.\n\n16. There being no further comment the _Chairman_ asked for a vote of those in support of the DUP amendment to continue to work on the agenda issues. The DUP, UKUP and UDP supported the amendment. The _Chairman_ declared that there was insufficient consensus for the proposal and called for a vote on his original proposal. Support for this came from the Alliance Party, Labour, PUP, SDLP, NI Women's Coalition and both Governments. The _DUP_ enquired as to whether this did represent sufficient consensus. The _Chairman_ then adjourned the session for 20 minutes to reflect on this point. Upon resumption he said he now proposed to employ the power vested in him by Rule 20 to adjourn the proceedings. The _DUP_ and the _UUP_ suggested that rather than exercising his authority under Rule 20, the Chairman should put the proposal to the participants again. The _Chairman_ said that he would accept the suggestion but first requested General de Chastelain to address the participants on the matter of proposals for the agenda.\n\n17. _General de Chastelain_ said that he had received proposals for the agenda from the DUP, SDLP and UKUP and inquired if other parties would be submitting proposals. The PUP, UDP, UUP and NI Women's Coalition said that they would submit proposals. The _Alliance Party_ said that they had submitted a verbal proposal. _General de Chastelain_ then inquired if participants wished the Chairman to circulate these proposals. The _SDLP_ said it was not prepared to agree to the circulation of its proposals for the agenda until the Plenary discussions on agenda took place. The _DUP_ said that if the participants were to make an attempt to progress the agenda before the proposed resumption in September it was surely desirable for the parties to exchange proposals. The _UUP_ inquired if names should be put forward for the Business Committee. _General de Chastelain_ said that he would be in touch with participants on this. The _SDLP_ said that they would not be taking part in any meetings of the Business Committee before September.\n\n18. The _participants_ expressed thanks and appreciation to the Chairmen and all their staff for their services to the parties and Governments. The _Chairman_ then proposed that the Plenary be adjourned until Monday 9 September. There were no objections. On behalf of the Chairmen and staff he thanked all of the participants for their kind words. He then adjourned the Plenary session until 9 September at 10.00. The session ended at 20.48.\n\n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Independent Chairmen Notetakers"},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"1 August 1996 OIC/PS3"},{"insert":"\n\n<br>\n"}]
Explore Groupings
Grouping Name
910
48
10
911
48
5
912
48
6
Folder 02: Final Report, 22 January 1996
1605
11996
Folder 34: [Meetings, 16 December 1995–19 January 1996]
1606
471995 - 1996
Mitchell Principles
^
Folders 01-03: Record of Informal Discussions on Rules of Procedure and Opening Agenda, 12 June 1996 to 2 July 1996
43
3
04
114
141996 - 1996
08
119
81997 - 1997
11
123
131996 - 1996
01
113
211996 - 1996
Folders 01-02: Minutes from Strand Two Meetings, 10 July 1997 to 24 March 1998 [Parts 2 and 3 of 3]
44
2
01
355
91997 - 1998
Tab A
358
161997 - 1997
06
367
121997 - 1998
08
370
351997 - 1998
Folder 01: Press Statements by the Independent Chairmen, 6 June 1996 to 30 October 1997
45
221996 - 1997
14
377
311996 - 1996
17
381
201997 - 1997
19
384
351997 - 1998
23
389
711996 - 1997
Multi-Party Talks, 1996–1998
^
Folders 04-06: Minutes from Opening Plenary Sessions, 12 June 1996 to 30 October 1996
43
3
05
114
141996 - 1996
09
119
12
123
121996 - 1997
02
113
161996 - 1996
02
355
51998 - 1998
Folders 03-05: Strand Two Documents
44
8
Tab B
358
101997 - 1997
07
367
101997 - 1998
09
370
181998 - 1998
Folder 13: Relation of the Forum to the Talks, 1996
45
51996
15
377
131985 - 1996
18
381
81997 - 1998
20
384
281997 - 1998
24
389
491996 - 1996
Folder 03: [Draft Versions of the Final Report]
1605
221996
06
114
121996 - 1996
Folder 07: Record of Informal Discussions on Rules of Procedure and Opening Agenda, 3 July 1996 to 25 July 1996
43
131996 - 1996
10
119
111997 - 1998
13
123
71997 - 1997
03
113
71996 - 1996
Tab C
358
81997 - 1997
Folders 06-07: Minutes of Plenary Meetings, Review Plenary Meetings, and Cross-Strand Meetings
44
2
10
370
231998 - 1998
Folders 14-16: Pre-Multi Party Talks Background Documents
45
3
16
377
91996
21
384
91997 - 1998
Folders 08-10: Minutes from Opening Plenary Sessions, 3 June 1997 to 24 September 1997
43
3
Tab D
358
91997 - 1997
Folders 08-10: Final Agreement Documents, 30 March to 10 April (Volume 1)
44
3
Folders 17-18: Liaison Subcommittee on Decommissioning – Documents and Minutes
45
2
22
384
71998 - 1998
Folders 11-13: Minutes from Opening Plenary Sessions, 30 October 1996 to 5 March 1997
43
3
Tab E
358
61997 - 1997
Folder 11: Final Agreement Documents, 30 March to 10 April (Volume 2)
44
41998
Folders 19-22: Liaison Subcommittee for Confidence Building Measures – Submissions and Minutes
45
4
Folder 14: Decommissioning Proposals and Miscellaneous Documents, May 1997 to July 1997
43
191996 - 1997
Tab F
358
71997 - 1997
Folders 23-24: Documents and Associated Items from Fall 1996 to Winter 1997 Opening Plenary Debates
This is the draft summary record of an opening plenary session on Monday 29 July 1996 at 18.47. The Chairman proposed that plenary be adjourned until 9 September 1996 and that participants reflect on the agenda differences over the break. The DUP raised the issue of decommissioning and did not want a break. The UUP would be available for bilaterals over the break. The UUP wanted a commitment to the twin track process and asked the Irish Government about the progress of their legislation. The position of the PIRA and Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution were raised. The DUP proposal did not receive sufficient consensus and plenary was adjourned.
The Quill Project has received one-time, non-exclusive use of the papers in this collection from Bowdoin College Library to make them available online as part of Writing Peace.
This document was created by Irish and British Government civil servants in the course of their duties and therefore falls under Crown Copyright and Irish Government Copyright. Both Governments are committed to the European Communities (Re-Use of Public Sector Information) Regulations.
Subseries 2 (M202.7.2) Commission Documents (1995-1998), Series 7 (M202.7) Northern Ireland Records (1995-2008), George J. Mitchell Papers, George J. Mitchell Department of Special Collections & Archives, Bowdoin College Library, Brunswick, Maine, digitized by the Quill Project at https://quillproject.net/resource_collections/125.
