ON March 14th, in remarks at a ceremony in New York City, hosted by Irish America magazine, I suggested a way forward on Northern Ireland.
I urged Prime Minister John Major and Labour Party Leader Tony Blair to make a reasonable commitment that if the IRA restores its ceasefire, then Sinn Fein will be admitted to the Northern Ireland peace talks when they resume on June 3rd, with no further pre-conditions. I specifically urged the IRA to restore its ceasefire - unequivocally and immediately - based on such commitments.
In a March 29th interview with the BBC, the Labour Party's Shadow Secretary for Northern Ireland, Mo Mowlam, indicated that Sinn Fein would be admitted into talks on June 3rd if the ceasefire is immediately restored. I welcome Dr Mowlam's statement as evidence of the Labour Party's commitment to an inclusive talks process. In fact, it is hardly a "new policy". As the London Independent noted on April 1st, Dr Mowlam was simply stating the Labour Party would abide by a commitment previously given by Prime Minister Major's government to the Irish Government but never fulfilled.
THE vast majority of Irish-Americans want the IRA to restore its ceasefire immediately. Violence is not the way forward in Northern Ireland; it never has been in the past quarter century, and it never will be. But in the real world of 1997, the only real hope for an immediate end to IRA violence is for Sinn Fein to be represented in the talks on the future of Northern Ireland.
The IRA will have no credibility if it simply turns ceasefires on and off. Part of the hesitancy of the IRA in restoring the ceasefire now is likely to be its understanding that when it does so, it must be for good. We must also recognise the deep level of distrust within both the IRA and the unionist community. Sinn Fein was previously given a commitment that a ceasefire would get it into talks. But it never happened in 17 long months. So Sinn Fein's scepticism about any new commitment is understandable. On the other hand, unionists will have legitimate doubts about the sincerity of the next IRA ceasefire, since the first ceasefire was eventually broken. With that kind of negative thinking on both sides, there is little room for more than one more ceasefire, so all of us have to make it count.
Now seems to be the time. Sinn Fein has often indicated the key to restoring the ceasefire is the assurance of an entry date to talks for Sinn Fein. Dr Mowlam's statement gives the assurance, which is rightly qualified, of course, on the ceasefire being genuine. By calling the ceasefire now, there is ample time - eight weeks - to establish the requisite confidence before the talks recommence in June.
Some say that calling ceasefire during the run-up to the elections would be a cynical electoral ploy. Howe ever, when it comes to restoring the ceasefire and, ending the meaningless violence and killing, who can deny that sooner is better than later? Calling a ceasefire just after the May 1st election would leave only half the time - four weeks - to build trust. That goal must be as important to Sinn Fein as to anyone else. Why not act now?
An immediate restoration of the ceasefire would no doubt give the next British government a feeling that progress can be achieved in Northern Ireland and that Sinn Fein and the IRA are willing to do their part.
Also, the next Prime Minister certainly will be in immediate contact with President Clinton. If a ceasefire has been in place long enough, the opportunity for progress on Northern Ireland would likely be very high on their agenda, and I and many other Irish Americans would certainly encourage it. If there is no ceasefire by that time, or only a recent ceasefire, Northern Ireland will understandably be lower on that agenda.
Another reason to restore the ceasefire now is to help prevent further violence from the loyalist paramilitaries. Their ceasefire has clearly showed recent signs of further disintegration. An IRA failure to take this confidence-building factor into the account in the approach to, and timing of, a restoration of the ceasefire could well be tragic if the loyalists return to violence.
SINN Fein has legitimate other concerns about the talks process. These can and should best be addressed in the talks, but in any case, not in advance of a ceasefire.
A major concern is that once in talks, the most intransigent participants will seek to drag the process out. A time-table is surely an issue which should be addressed at the resumption of talks. In addition, the people of Northern Ireland are likely to demand speedy progress and will hold their elected officials accountable if they fail to deliver such progress.
A further concern is that if Sinn Fein is admitted to talks on June 3rd, unionist politicians will refuse to participate unless the IRA hands in some weapons.
Many, including myself, have noted the phoniness of the so-called "decommissioning" issue as a tactic to prevent inclusive negotiations. The handing in of weapons in advance never happened in other peace processes, and it won't happen in Northern Ireland. Decommissioning is a legitimate issue which the parties must address, but it is only one of many issues to be considered and resolved as part of the overall process of agreement. The public, the majority of the participants, the governments, and the international community will not support a process artificially held hostage to any further preconditions.
Such concerns on both sides are legitimate, but they do not justify further delay or further violence. I urge the IRA to restore its ceasefire immediately, so that all of us who support fair talks can credibly argue for Sinn Fein's admittance to the talks on June 3rd.
