DRAFT SUMMARY RECORD OF OPENING PLENARY SESSION -
TUESDAY 1 JULY 1997 (14.07)
Those present:
Independent Chairmen
Senator Mitchell
Mr Holkeri
General de Chastelain
Government Teams
British Government
Irish Government
Parties
Alliance Party
Labour
Northern Ireland Women's Coalition
Progressive Unionist Party
Social Democratic & Labour Party
Ulster Democratic Party
Ulster Democratic Unionist Party
United Kingdom Unionist Party
Ulster Unionist Party
1 . _The Chairman_ convened the meeting at 14.07. He commenced by saying that the Plenary had been scheduled originally for 11.00 today but late last week some participants had contacted the Chairman's office seeking a later start time so that they could be permitted to attend a Battle of the Somme memorial service at the City Hall during lunch-time. _The Chairman_ said that on foot of this request, his office had contacted every participant and no objections had been raised. This was why the Plenary was now beginning at 14.00.
2. Moving on to the previous weeks minutes\, _the Chairman_ proposed that these be deferred for approval until the next meeting of the Plenary\, whenever that would be scheduled. This was agreed. _The Chairman_ then continued\, pointing out that the Government's paper on decommissioning had now been distributed to all participants. He said be believed all participants had now reviewed its contents and suggested that as a means of beginning the proceedings\, he would ask each Government to make a statement\, then allow each party an opportunity to comment on the paper without interruption on the first round. This would then be followed by an opportunity for participants to raise questions and give preliminary responses on the paper or any other aspect of the issue. _The Chairman_ asked whether the participants were content with this approach.
3. _The DUP_ intervened saying it wished to have guidance at this point as to whether a debate would be held on the decommissioning document today and\, if so\, how long would that debate last. Alternatively would a debate take place the following day and would there then be\, or at some point shortly afterwards\, a determined and deliberate attempt to reach a decision on the proposals? _The DUP_ recalled the SDLP's challenge at the previous Plenary regarding the tabling of its own (the DUP's) proposals on decommissioning and stated it was happy to rise to this by tabling those proposals today. The party said its proposals required no debate but did require a decision to be made on them.
4. _The Chairman_ responded\, stating that in respect of timing\, this depended largely on how long initial comments might take and how long the Governments then needed to give consideration to the points raised. _The Chairman_ said his own feeling was that the decommissioning issue ought to be resolved in a timely fashion and\, in this sense\, the DUP's suggestions led him to consider that the Chairmen should undertake a series of meetings with the participants in order to gain views on how to reach a resolution of the issue over the next few weeks.
5. _The DUP_ said it was in some difficulty with the proceedings thus far. The party said it had sat in the House of Commons last week when the Prime Minister had said there would be no changes to the Governments• proposals. _The DUP_ said that the Chairmen should stand by the two Governments' position in relation to no further changes or amendments being made to the document and hence no further clarification being necessarily afforded to Sinn Fein. This was the only way of proceeding with the issue if the party was to believe the "take it or leave it" attitude to Sinn Fein from the British Government.
6. _The Chairman_ emphasised to the DUP that he had not used the words "change" or "amend". He said be believed he had suggested a basic common sense proposal. This would take the form of an oral explanation from both Governments. The remaining participants could then comment on the document. _The Chairman_ asked whether the DUP was suggesting that the parties couldn't comment on the document? This procedure\, however\, had been successfully deployed on several occasions during the past year and there was nothing different in the Chair's proposal this time. _The Chairman_ asked whether the DUP was proposing a contrary approach?
7. _The DUP_ said it had no problem with participants making comments. The question was if there was a debate on the proposals could participants change or amend them? _The DUP_ said it believed the document could not be changed but it still wished to know whether amendments to it could be tabled. _The Chairman_ said he believed this was the case. _The DUP_ asked whether this was the view of the Governments? _The Chairman_ stated that it was up to the participants themselves to decide how they wished to proceed with the document. _The DUP_ again stated that it believed the document was now presented in a form which could not be amended or altered.
8. _The UKUP_ said it thought the Governments proposals had been presented on a similar basis to that of an Order in Council. In other words the document was now laid and could not be amended. The party said it had then heard\, earlier in the day\, that the UUP leader had submitted a lengthy list of amendments/alterations directly to the Prime Minister. _The UKUP_ said it would rather have seen these amendments being conducted through the talks process. What had happened smacked of the situation which the party had described the previous week whereby important discussions and decisions taken elsewhere simply came back to the talks for rubber stamping. _The UKUP_ said that such issues must be dealt with within the talks process\, by the party representatives and the representatives of the two sovereign Governments. The party said there could not be continuous appeals to Caesar over the heads of the participants. Nothing was happening within the talks process\, but it was happening elsewhere leaving the talks a farce. _The UKUP_ said that what had to be discussed must be discussed in the talks to the benefit of all participants. Moving on\, _the UKUP_ said that if the handling of the Governments proposals was addressed properly\, it saw no reason why it should only take a few days\, rather than a few weeks\, as had been suggested by the Chairman. The party said that one could reach a resolution of the document by holding today's discussion and further ones on Wednesday and the following Monday (7 July) since all the arguments on the issue had been aired before everyone over a lengthy time period\, through written submissions\, proposals\, bilaterals and trilaterals. The party said the issue was now down to deciding whether paragraphs 34 and 35 of the International Body's Report could be accepted. What was left were simply finite and succinct points which could be determined quickly. To suggest that the discussion went on until the end of the month was simply not acceptable. _The Chairman_ asked for any other comments on his proposal.
9. _The DUP_ said it hadn't yet received a response from the Governments to its earlier question regarding amendments. _The Chairman_ said he would call on the Governments to proceed\, followed by the remaining participants on the basis outlined previously. Following completion of this\, all the participants would then decide how to proceed to the next stage and what that next stage should be.
10. _The British Government_ commenced its remarks by welcoming the Irish Foreign Minister and his colleagues to their first plenary session. _The British Government_ said that as there had been some comments recently about its signing up to the Mitchell Principles\, despite the assumption that the hand-over of Government was a seamless process\, it now wished to highlight that it was now signing up to the Mitchell Principles. Referring to the decommissioning paper\, and to the DUP's earlier questions\, _the British Government_ said it was its understanding that the document prepared presented possible conclusions for consideration by the participants. _The British Government_ said it wished to commend the document to all participants on this basis. Parties were however free to provide alternative proposals to enable the issue of decommissioning to be determined within the conference room.
11. _The British Government_ continued referring to its remarks at the Plenary on 3 June when it had stated that everyone now had an opportunity to re-launch the negotiations with fresh impetus and a renewed sense of purpose and determination. _The British Government_ said its goal in the negotiations was a comprehensive\, lasting political settlement which had the broad support of all parts of the community in Northern Ireland. If that goal was to be achieved within a credible timescale everyone must commence substantive political negotiations no later than this September. _The British Government_ said it also made clear on 3 June that it was determined to facilitate the necessary agreement on the issue of decommissioning to the satisfaction of the participants in order to make it possible to set a firm date for the start of substantive negotiations in the 3 strands. _The British Government_ said the Irish Government had given a similar commitment to all of this. The joint paper circulated on 25 June also gave these commitments.
12. _The British Government_ continued saying that the joint paper represented an attempt to build on the considerable efforts which had been made in the months since last October to find a possible basis for agreement on this important\, and sensitive subject. _The British Government_ said it recognised that the Chairman and his colleagues and many of the participants worked long and hard and with a measure of success to identify some common ground on this issue. The joint paper sought to build on the progress already made and take account of the clearly expressed views of the various parties. Accordingly the two Governments put forward\, for consideration\, a set of possible conclusions which they believed could win general support. _The British Government_ said it wished to commend these proposals to the parties. For its part\, along with the Irish Government\, it said it would be happy to explain and discuss these proposals in plenary or bilateral meetings as seemed most appropriate. Any of the participants might have points of concern and clarification and\, if so\, the British Government would be ready to inform. It hoped\, however\, that it would be possible to move to a determination before too long.
13. _The British Government_ said the possible conclusions were based squarely on the Report of the International Body. The two Governments saw no other way in which the issue could be resolved on a generally satisfactory basis and hence urged the acceptance of their proposals as outlined in paragraph 8 of their document. _The British Government_ said that if Sinn Fein joined the negotiations it envisaged a process in which there would be due progress on decommissioning alongside progress in the substantive political negotiations\, generating a progressive pattern of mounting trust and confidence. Continuing\, _the British Government_ said that in practical terms\, the necessary enabling legislation to facilitate decommissioning was already in place in both jurisdictions and the two Governments proposed that the Independent Commission\, recommended by the International Body\, should be established alongside the launch of the 3 strands\, with a remit to develop draft schemes for decommissioning and put itself in a position to facilitate actual decommissioning as soon as practicable. _The British Government_ said it suggested the establishment of a Liaison sub-Committee of Plenary to liaise with the Independent Commission and a distinct sub-Committee to monitor progress on the other confidence building measures mentioned in the Report of the International Body.
14. _The British Government_ said it envisaged that all participants would commit themselves to work constructively and in good faith with the two Governments and the Independent Commission to implement all aspects of the Report of the International Body\, including the compromise approach to decommissioning envisaged in paragraphs 34 and 35. If the "possible conclusions" were agreed\, they could not subsequently be re-negotiated and any further party invited to join the negotiations would need to affirm its acceptance of these commitments. Above all\, the "possible conclusions" and the covering paper setting out the position of the Governments placed a renewed emphasis on the role of the two Governments in respect of the decommissioning of illegal weapons. The two Governments give a formal joint undertaking to do all they could to ensure that the decommissioning issue was resolved to the satisfaction of the participants as an indispensable part of the process. Both Governments pledged themselves to work to achieve due progress in the substantive political negotiations. Both would seek to carry the whole process along with energy and determination.
15. _The British Government_ said there were many further points of detail in the joint paper which it was sure all parties would wish to study carefully. It looked forward to hearing the parties' initial contributions today to which the two Governments would be happy to give a preliminary response\, and then deal with any further points raised\, perhaps initially in further discussions with each. _The British Government_ said it would be urging them to reach agreement on the basis of these carefully crafted proposals. In its judgement they met all legitimate concerns. The time had come to reach a determination on these matters. The document went a long way to removing the obstacles which had arisen over the last 12 months. _The British Government_ said it commended the proposals set out in this joint paper as providing a reasonable and realistic basis for resolving the issue of decommissioning and moving onwards in the negotiations.
16. _The Irish Government_ thanked the British Government for its words of welcome. It said it looked forward to working with all the parties to produce a valid and worthwhile settlement in Northern Ireland. _The Irish Government_ said it was happy to present the paper which it and the British Government had jointly tabled in a determined effort to bring to a conclusion the opening address on decommissioning\, and to enable everyone to proceed into 3 stranded substantive negotiations. _The Irish Government_ said that before coming to the paper it might be appropriate for it to set out\, very briefly\, the broad lines of the policy which it would be pursuing in relation to the negotiations\, and to the question of a political settlement for Northern Ireland. It said that\, in recent years\, a remarkable degree of consensus had developed in the Republic over the fundamental principles which must govern its approach. These principles\, and the implications which flowed from them\, were set out in the Joint Declaration\, the Framework Document\, and the draft report of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation. _The Irish Government's_ negotiating position would be squarely based on these documents\, and of course on the six principles of peace and non-violence\, set out in the Chairmen's Report\, the total and absolute commitment to which it was happy to re-affirm. Continuing\, _the Irish Government_ said that from time to time there were\, inevitably\, differences in emphasis and nuance between the approach of the previous Irish Government and its views in opposition. More fundamentally\, however\, it wished to assure everyone that\, on the key questions\, it would be guided by the same basic documents and by the principles enshrined in them.
17. _The Irish Government_ said it would enter the substantive negotiations seeking a genuinely new political dispensation\, based on equality\, parity of esteem\, respect for human rights\, and consent. New structures must be based on partnership: between individuals and communities in Northern Ireland\, between the North and South\, and between Britain and Ireland. As Prime Minister Blair had rightly said\, the outlines of a settlement were reasonably clear\, even if many of the details would be fiercely fought over. The priority\, as a Government\, was to create a lasting peace on the island based on justice\, friendship and co operation between the peoples of different traditions. Immediately\, _the Irish Government_ said it wished to secure a final and lasting cessation of violence\, through the unequivocal restoration of the IRA cease-fire. It had always resolutely opposed violence\, from all sources. There was and could be no justification for it morally\, politically or even in the republican movement's own terms. It was completely and utterly inimical to the values and interest of the overwhelming majority of the people of Ireland. Equally\, however\, it had long recognised the need to construct a path out of violence and into democratic politics for those who genuinely wished to avail of it. The Joint Declaration created the basis for a definitive movement in that direction. The negotiations offered the best chance in at least a generation for meaningful and comprehensive dialogue on the many issues which everyone faced. It wished to see Sinn Fein take their place at the table\, and represent the views of those who supported them\, but Sinn Fein knew exactly what must happen if they were to join the process. _The Irish Government_ said that a fair and reasonable set of assurances had been offered to them as regards their entry to the negotiations\, and as regards the seriousness and honesty of the two Governments approach. This opportunity to participate with everyone else in the construction of a political settlement must now be seized\, without further delay or equivocation.
18. _The Irish Government_ said it was also vital that the process moved ahead into serious and substantive negotiations. Those who had not been present around the table over the last 12 months had perhaps the advantage of appreciating the full extent of the bafflement and disillusionment of the public - North and South alike - at the failure to make real progress. _The Irish Government_ knew full well that the issues under discussion were sensitive and highly difficult. Nevertheless\, the prize sought - of lasting peace\, agreement and reconciliation - was so great that it would be quite tragic\, and inexcusable\, were the process to fail even to address the real political questions that had to be resolved. As Prime Minister Blair had said\, let's get down to the substance without further ado or prevarication. It was with a view to moving\, in that spirit\, into real negotiations that the Irish Government had presented the joint paper on decommissioning. This was agreed between the British Government and the outgoing Irish Government. But the present Irish Government was fully consulted on its terms in opposition and now\, in office\, it wholly endorsed it. _The Irish Government_ said it remained fully committed to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations\, but it was its view\, as it was that of the International Body\, that it was unrealistic to expect that decommissioning would be achieved other than in the context of comprehensive and inclusive negotiations.
19. In the paper tabled\, _the Irish Government_ said that both the Governments offered a formal joint undertaking that they would do all they could to ensure that the decommissioning issue was resolved to the satisfaction of the participants as an indispensable part of the process. It would be appropriate that others\, too\, asked themselves how they could best contribute to the achievement of the twin goals of political agreement and decommissioning. What was clear was that the stalemate of the last year had brought neither of these two goals one inch closer. _The Irish Government_ said that process had to surmount this long standing impasse now. The people it represented would not tolerate any continuation of the impasse in which the negotiations had been stuck for so long. All had a responsibility to make progress here. The Chairman intervened at this point to ask for respect for those speaking. Continuing _the Irish Government_ said that the decommissioning paper was the result of intensive discussions between the two Governments. It represented a carefully considered and\, in its view\, balanced set of proposals on how to proceed. It was based firmly on the Report of the International Body\, which it continued to believe represented the best\, and the only realistic\, basis on which to proceed. _The Irish Government _said the paper was structured in two parts. The first of these set out the position of the two Governments and it was clear that all participants would not be involved in the achievement of decommissioning in the same way. The two Governments recognised the responsibilities they had\, in particular\, to carry the process forward so as to build confidence among participants without blocking the negotiations. _The Irish Government_ said it also recognised its responsibility to act so as to ensure that appropriate mechanisms were in place to make sure that the modalities of decommissioning\, as set out by the International Body\, could be implemented without delay at the appropriate time. To this end both Governments had also enacted the necessary legislation. No delay in this process would be due to any failure by the two Governments.
20. _The Irish Government_ said it also recognised\, once again\, the importance of the six principles of democracy and non-violence as a necessary starting point for the negotiations\, and the necessity for all participants\, including any party which might join at a later date\, to subscribe to those principles - as all now present had done. It would likewise require any party newly arriving at\, or returning to the negotiations to subscribe to any commitments entered into by participants as part of the conclusion to the address to decommissioning. The second part of the paper proposed a set of conclusions on items 2(a)-(c) of the agenda for the remainder of the opening plenary\, to which all participants were invited to subscribe. These conclusions were largely based on the propositions advanced in the first part. They set out a series of commitments to be entered into by participants\, current and future. They provided mechanisms for achieving further progress on decommissioning. The terms of reference for an Independent Commission\, and for a Committee of the Plenary with two liaison sub-Committees\, one on decommissioning and one on confidence building measures\, were also proposed.
21. _The Irish Government_ said it remained convinced that the way ahead lay in the implementation of all aspects of the Report of the International Body. It urged all participants in the negotiations to commit themselves to work constructively and in good faith with it in efforts to secure such implementation. _The Irish Government_ said it had proposed mechanisms through which this objective could practicably be achieved\, and which would facilitate the necessary interaction between progress in comprehensive and inclusive political negotiations and progress on decommissioning. _The Irish Government_ said it joined the British Government in commending the proposals to the participants and urged their acceptance as a basis for resolving the address to decommissioning as envisaged in their joint communique of 28 February 1996. The Irish Government added that in relation to the questions regarding amendments etc it agreed fully with the strategy and comments offered earlier by the British Government.
22. _The DUP_ said it had listened earlier to the affirmation by the new British Government to the six Mitchell Principles and had heard the Irish Government do likewise. It said it understood the Chairman now had a duty to perform. _The Chairman_ sought clarification from the DUP. _The DUP_ provided clarification for the Chairman\, suggesting that on past occasions\, the Chairman had indicated his satisfaction with those affirming their commitment to the six Principles. _The Chairman_ then indicated his satisfaction with the two Governments earlier statements.
23. _Alliance_ welcomed the new Irish Government delegation to the talks. The party said it had always held the position that the Report of the International Body was the only realistic and practical way forward in dealing with decommissioning. _Alliance_ said the Report of the International Body should be implemented in full. The party said it welcomed and supported the joint Government paper and urged others to do likewise. _Alliance_ continued saying that the issue of decommissioning was only relevant if and when those groups and bodies who held arms etc were involved in the political process. The party said that such involvement was highlighted in the Joint Declaration document in 1993 with the foundation stone of any involvement being a permanent end to violence from those involved in such activity. In these circumstances\, _Alliance_ said\, parties who committed themselves to the Mitchell Principles could join with the two Governments in the way ahead. The key issue was\, however\, that an end to violence had not occurred. Instead everyone's confidence had suffered from a tactical and cynical cease-fire and from the threats of further violence. _Alliance_ said everyone's confidence had also suffered from those political leaders\, connected to paramilitary groups\, being either unwilling or unable to condemn the violence perpetrated by their associates. One thing was clear from all of this\, violence and democracy didn't mix\, they only produced a volatile cocktail and unless violence ended then the process was only going to mirror the "wheelbarrow" theory ie that the opportunity for a successful outcome would always be in front of those desiring it but never attained.
23. _Alliance_ said both Governments had to address the critical aspects of the proposals - could a permanent end to violence be achieved? What about the position and confidence of all those peaceful ordinary people in Northern Ireland\, whose plight had been recently highlighted by the present Presbyterian Moderator\, as never throwing a stone or been involved in any violence. Was there sufficient confidence for them in the contents of the document? _Alliance_ said it believed the goal of decommissioning was achievable but it also believed the Governments should defend\, more robustly\, the implementation of the Mitchell Report and the six Mitchell Principles. _Alliance_ said it was only through these that everyone could work together to build trust\, confidence and a lasting political settlement. _Alliance_said it was content with the paper and content with the Mitchell report. What had to be done now was to build confidence around these to move the process forward.
24. _Labour_ also welcomed the new Irish delegation. Having been absent for the past few weeks it said it was interesting that certain developments had now taken place. Labour said it accepted the Governments' paper. There was however\, a need to show a commitment from everyone around the table to pursue the objectives contained in the document. _Labour_ said it was always asked about the position of Sinn Fein coming into the talks. The party said it was the responsibility of all participants to facilitate this. The party said it commended the leader of the SDLP for his statement in the House of Commons on 20 June and congratulated Mr Hume on his leadership skills. It also suspected that similar leadership would be shown by the UUP leader\, perhaps following his recent visit to South Africa. _Labour_ said there was a need to deal with the issue in question. The party agreed with Alliance's earlier comments regarding the peaceful people of Northern Ireland. The party said it had never believed that Sinn Fein/IRA wished to come to the talks table. It was a case now of hopefully moving forward on decommissioning - but the party said it believed the IRA would never decommission. This statement was not made as a result of being a late convert to this position. The party had always maintained this view. The important issue now was not to spend time debating the minutiae of the Government's document. It was time to buy the tickets\, board the settlement train and get it moving.
25. _The NIWC_ welcomed the new Irish delegation. The party said it was somewhat concerned about the fact that business tabled at the Forum on the previous Friday appeared to precept discussion of these issues today. The party said it was concerned with the effect the business of the Forum had on the negotiations and had noted this. The party drew the Chairman's attention to Article 3\, Section 3 of the Northern Ireland Entry to Negotiations Act 1996\, which stated that the Forum "shall not have any legislative\, executive or administrative functions\, or any power to determine the conduct\, course or outcome of the negotiations". _The NIWC_ said it believed the proceedings was going over old ground and asked the Chairman to note what it saw as an important point.
26. _The NIWC_ continued saying that it welcomed the initiatives taken by the British and Irish Governments to move the peace process forward. The party said it particularly welcomed the statement made by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons last week\, his clear commitment to the people of Northern Ireland and his recognition of the need to achieve an acceptable settlement of Northern Ireland's political turmoil. _The NIWC_ said it had long supported the Report of the International Body. The party said that the decommissioning issue was a symptom of a larger problem; the absence of trust. _The NIWC_ said it believed that the International Body had adopted a realistic stance with the objective of working to achieve peace in Northern Ireland. Like the two Governments\, the party's view was that if decommissioning was to be genuine\, it must be a voluntary initiative\, carried out because there was a new sense of trust in the political system governing a divided society.
27. _The NIWC_ said it felt that if peace and political compromise was ever to become a reality in Northern Ireland then everyone had to leave the realm of unilateral demands behind them and engage in real politics that put an emphasis on commitment to dialogue with each other and most importantly dialogue on an inclusive basis. _The NIWC_ said it demanded an IRA cease-fire and the maintenance of the loyalist cease-fire on the grounds of basic human rights. The party said it called for a weapon free Northern Ireland as far as was politically and humanly possible. But most of all it called for a genuine political process of substantive negotiations and confidence building measures in order to win the peaceful and equitable future that everyone aspired to.
28. _The NIWC_ said it continued to support the International Body's Report and welcomed the paper produced by both Governments. The party said it noted that the document indicated that the Chairman of the Plenary would act as the Chairman of the Plenary Committee. _The NIWC_ said it welcomed this but it had some questions relating to who would chair the two sub-Committees outlined in the document. The party said it would be happy to hear from both Governments on this and some other points of clarification.
29. _The PUP_ said it believed there was a genuine attempt being made by both Governments to move the process forward. The party said it hoped Labour's earlier comments about the IRA would be proved wrong and that there would be an opportunity for leaders of paramilitary organisations to decommission weapons. _The PUP_ said that if decommissioning was merely symbolic\, then it was just a waste of time. _The PUP_ said there were some around the table who were not afraid of the IRA - in negotiations or any other sense. The party said it had been surprised by its own performance at the talks\, given the fact that it was a small party\, representing who it did and hence not thought to be particularly innovative in debate. The party said it had been disappointed by what some other leaders had said about the decommissioning document before now. _The PUP_ said it wished to support the document\, it did not need to seek clarification from the two Governments.
30. _The SDLP_ welcomed the Irish delegation to the talks. It said it wished each of them well in their wider briefs and every success in the negotiations. The party said it wished to keep its remarks brief on the grounds that comments on decommissioning had been made almost ad infinitum. _The SDLP_ said it welcomed the Governments paper as it believed it would re-focus attention on the principles contained in the Report of the International Body. The party said that perhaps one could regret the loss of time and the opportunity to put these proposals into action already\, but the Governments' paper presented another opportunity to do so at a time when opportunities were slight. The party said that everyone had to remember that the whole community wanted to see something moving forward in the process. It said that the paper from both Governments incorporated the role and responsibilities of both or them and all the parties ie the goal being working towards\, an arms free Northern Ireland.
31. _The SDLP_ said it believed this moment was a crucial starting point in the process despite coming one year later than anticipated. It was also good to see the paper distilling some ideas mooted in the bilateral process. The party welcomed the document because its contents supported the International Body's original view on parallel decommissioning through the aspect of mutuality. The party said it recalled the former Secretary of State's remarks in a previous debate in the House of Commons when he had said that "decommissioning would be voluntary or not at all" ' _The SDLP_ said no one should lose sight of this statement. Such a position would show the strength of the political process and would become an increasing need in it. The party said it recognised and welcomed the mutual decommissioning point in the document. It welcomed the Committee proposal for decommissioning as it provided impetus on the mechanics of the issue while substantive negotiations advanced. The party also welcomed the proposal for two sub-Committees because the issue of dealing with all aspects of decommissioning was required to develop trust and confidence for all.
32. _The SDLP_ recalled the British Governments earlier comments regarding decommissioning being an "indispensable part of the process". The party said no one could be in any doubt that the vast majority in Northern Ireland wished to see a process succeed whereby illegal arms could be taken out of circulation once and for all. It wasn't just about the statistics and nature of the armaments\, it was and had been about the nature of the pain suffered by so many. The party said the real challenge for the process was to ensure that the decommissioning of mind sets occurred as well as the actual arms. _The SDLP_ said the document represented a new beginning and brought a moment of decision for everyone\, irrespective of whether they were included in the present process or excluded from it. It was decision time for Sinn Fein and the IRA\, to come in or stay out. For the insiders it was a question of a new beginning or the fag end of the process. The acid test was in accepting the proposals and moving forward to substantive negotiations and proper political progress in a situation where at present the political process was becoming increasingly irrelevant. The party recalled earlier comments from Alliance in reference to the confidence of the peaceful people in Northern Ireland. The party said that surely the responsibility for ensuring that this was built upon lay with those elected representatives around the table now. The opportunity was present to undertake this and the party hoped that in moving towards achieving this the hopes and responsibilities of everyone could be fulfilled.
33. _The UDP_ said it welcomed any initiative which could move the process forward towards substantive negotiations. The party said it would like to see a determination made on the proposals. It said a failure to do so before the summer break meant everyone might as well dismantle the process now. The party said it much preferred to participate in a genuine search for agreement rather than give both Governments the opportunity to impose their particular policies which could lead to greater conflict. The party said that decommissioning had to be approached in a practical manner. It was a complex and sensitive issue. _The UDP_ said the Governments' own proposals held few surprises. The issues had already been discussed extensively but the success of any mechanisms depended on the realistic approach taken with those mechanisms. The party said\, for example\, that it would be concerned if participants expected the UDP to be the culpable party in terms of how successful decommissioning was.
34. The party said it was not prepared to be treated differently from anyone else. Decommissioning and the success or otherwise of it was a collective responsibility for all around the table. In this sense _the UDP_ said it would continue to work towards achieving the removal of all weapons but it could not be held responsible for the realities of the situation. In other words\, the party said the chances of loyalist paramilitary decommissioning while the IRA continued to mount its campaign was not a prospect. The party said it didn't believe loyalist paramilitaries would be able to co operate with the terms of the Independent Commission if the IRA's campaign continued. The party said however that despite these realities it did look forward to a speedy resolution of the issue to enable the process itself to move forward for the good of everyone in Northern Ireland society.
35. _The DUP_\, in referring to earlier comments from the Irish Government concerning its abiding by certain principles\, said that that delegation was in no position to make such comments since it didn't represent anybody in Northern Ireland. The members of it had never submitted themselves for election in Northern Ireland and had therefore no mandate. _The DUP_ said it did not welcome the Irish delegation to the process. Furthermore the main principle of unionism was violated everyday in the process conducted by the Chairman when the internal affairs of Northern Ireland were discussed and debated in conjunction with representatives from a foreign government. _The DUP_ said its position on decommissioning had been clear from the very beginning of the process. The party said that perhaps the Irish Prime Minister might speak on behalf of the nationalists in Northern Ireland but he didn't speak on behalf of those who desired that Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom. _The DUP_ said it had never forgotten the Dublin High Court ruling in relation to Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Constitution which underpinned these as a constitutional imperative for any Irish Government to continue to seek. _The DUP_ said it didn't hear anything about this claim being given up during the Irish delegation's remarks. The party said it recalled a former Irish Foreign Minister's comments\, who was now supporting the present Foreign Minister\, when he said he believed De Valera's introduction of Articles 2 and 3 was the best day's work ever done. _The DUP_ said these issues were right to the fore of today's discussions.
36. On decommissioning\, _the DUP_ said that neither it\, nor the UKUP\, nor did it believe\, the UUP had raised this issue in the first instance. The issue had been taken forward by the two Governments when they had promised at the outset that decommissioning would be dealt with first. The party said it ill became others who blamed the DUP for raising the issue. _The DUP_ recalled various past comments from the SDLP leader\, the former Irish Foreign Minister and the former Secretary of State\, all of which appeared to support the initial position of tackling decommissioning first before the party went on to quote the former Taoiseach\, Mr Reynolds who once stated that if all the weapons were decommissioned before a settlement was found\, this would be a recipe for disaster. So\, said _the DUP_\, if the IRA and the loyalists did do this\, this would be a disaster? The party said this gave a great encouragement to terrorists to hand in their weapons! _The DUP_ said the IRA was only interested in talking to the British Government about partition\, not decommissioning. This bore out Labour's earlier comments about the IRA's position on decommissioning. _The DUP_ reiterated that the leaders of unionism were not the ones who had brought this issue to the fore. The party did\, however\, expect the Governments to tell the truth in the matter.
37. _The DUP_\, at this point\, referred to the editorial of that day's Daily Telegraph entitled "the IRA gun club" and read out the contents which contrasted in sardonic terms the banning of handguns in the UK following Dunblane and the two Governments' approach to the decommissioning of illegal weapons in Northern Ireland. The party referred to the fact that gun owners would have to hand over their weapons\, under the Governments campaign in the United Kingdom\, by 1 October or face the prospect of 10 year prison sentences. _The DUP_ said the Scottish Secretary of State was showing great strength in advocating this policy. It was a pity the Northern Ireland Secretary of State wasn't following his example. _The DUP_ said that when it had last met the Prime Minister\, the party had told him that it thought it was a ridiculous situation for him (Mr Blair) to be removing legal weapons from club members in the face of a terrible incident in Dunblane while seemingly doing the exact opposite with illegal arms in Northern Ireland. _The DUP_ said everyone had to come down to the hard facts on decommissioning. There was little point in condemning politicians for taking a consistent stand on the issue. This was not on. Parties had to do what in their view was right\, not necessarily what was popular. Was it right for people to hold on to their weapons and engage in acts of violence and then be told that there would be mutual handing in of those weapons? _The DUP_ said that the CLMC and the IRA Council were outlawed bodies. Yet the process was being told that everyone had to wait until these bodies mutually agreed to hand over their weapons? _The Chairman_ intervened and called for order at this point.
38. _The DUP_ continued saying it had listened carefully to what the UDP had said and noted that that party had been honest in its comments. The question for all around the table was whether this position of mutuality was a realistic one. _The DUP_ said whether it was realistic enough or not\, the law had to take its course; otherwise those outside the law started to make the law. The party said either the rule of law was upheld or it was not. It was all right saying that the Republic of Ireland repudiated violence but the party knew the womb from which the Provisional IRA had been born and this had been the womb of Fianna Fail. _The DUP_ said it was no wonder that the present Irish Government was not in a hurry to get the guns out of the IRA's hands. The party said there would never have been a Joint Declaration or an Anglo Irish Agreement and so on if the Irish Government hadn't ridden on the backs of the IRA. _The DUP_ said that these comments might be unpalatable for some\, but they had to be said because people had to face up to reality. As long as the IRA had arms\, it would use them. The party asked what were arms kept for? They were kept to do business with.
39. _The DUP_ said that many newspapers polls had been organised to take account of peoples views on a range of issues over the last number of months. When it came to running a poll on decommissioning\, the majority of the people had wanted decommissioning dealt with at the beginning. But instead of dealing with it first and moving on\, the process was still no further on. _The DUP_ said it believed that the Governments wanted to see the decommissioning of democracy and not arms. The party said it was surprised that the Plenary had not taken up its earlier suggestions because the whole issue of decommissioning needed a definite determination quickly. If the Governments were honest at all in this situation they should see that a debate should take place. It didn't need to be a long debate. _The DUP_ said it could be settled by the following Monday at the latest. The joint paper\, however\, was a recipe for confusion and chaos and the fruit of a farce. _The DUP_ said that the Prime Minister had stated that the British Government wasn't going to negotiate with Sinn Fein. But the DUP knew what the three issues were\, courtesy of the Government's aide-memoire released the previous week to Parliament. The party said that Sinn Fein had been successful in getting all three (a) that substantive negotiations would be completed by end of May 1998\, (b) that a six week time limit be established to verify a permanent cease-fire\, and (c) that decommissioning should not be allowed to become an obstacle to substantive negotiations.
40. _The DUP_ said that in relation to (b) it had to be remembered that if the IRA called a cease-fire\, Sinn Fein could immediately enter the talks facilities with a Plenary being called at an appropriate moment to allow them to affirm their commitment to the Mitchell Principles. Following an adjournment of the process until September\, Sinn Fein could join the talks proper. The difficulty in all of this was how did either Government know whether it was a permanent cease-fire? What would happen to this scenario if decommissioning occurred beforehand? _The DUP_ referred to that day's Belfast Telegraph article which carried the story about the UUP leaders' lengthy document seeking clarification on the decommissioning proposals with the Prime Minister. The party said it would have very much like to have heard what was contained in the eight page paper. If the UUP had asked for a dump of arms up front\, then the party welcomed it. _The DUP_ said it would also welcome the UUP's insistence that the decommissioning issue be dealt with in the manner originally intended.
<br>
