On Tuesday, history will be made when Dr Ian Paisley assumes the leadership of a power-sharing Northern Executive with Sinn Féin as his principal partner. It will work - so long as people don't expect too much at the start, he tells Frank Millar, London Editor.
Iif it's any consolation to Martin McGuinness, the Rev Ian Paisley won't observe the niceties with me either on this occasion. "I'm not getting into all that hand-shaking business," he bellows in greeting at the House of Commons. We will return to this, for the personal and human dimensions would seem crucial in any genuine process of peacemaking. And a settled peace is what the DUP leader believes will result from next Tuesday's unprecedented events at Stormont.
That famous "hand of history" will sweep across Lord Carson's statue at the Parliament Buildings again as the Big Man - watched by British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Taoiseach Bertie Ahern - assumes the leadership of a compulsory power-sharing Executive with Sinn Féin as his principal partner. It is not as he would have devised it. Respected commentators also suggest the Good Friday model might serve better as an instrument of conflict resolution than of good government. Despite such reservations, can people be confident it will work? "I think they can be confident it can and will work if they don't expect too much from it at the beginning," Dr Paisley replies: "I mean, with this hype in the country - and there is a hype, which everybody acknowledges - they might think this thing was going to work miracles. We will get back to our debates and a lot of divisions. But - with everybody saying 'we must make it work, we're going to get nothing else from the British government at the moment' - I think the tools we have, while they may not be the best, are tools that could do the job, with goodwill and energy."
And is he satisfied that all parties in the new government are fully signed up to exclusively peaceful and democratic means, and to the principle of consent? "I believe they are," he affirms. "I also believe they realise it will not be like the last time, and that if any person doesn't keep to the [ ministerial] pledge of office, they will forfeit the right to be there. I think they see now that the British government will say that the people that kept their pledges will carry on, the people who have not kept their pledge will leave."
Can he really be confident of that? "I am. I believe that's what would happen. I think everybody that's in it realises that's what would happen. There are [ exclusion] mechanisms that could be used, and I think would be used, because I don't think the people of Northern Ireland would tolerate that. I think the degree of tolerance they've given in the past is over. And irrespective of what their previous actions may have been . . . I think the people now expect a new day, new platform, new faith, and 'you'd better keep to it'."
When did he decide he could trust Sinn Féin on this? And how important was its decision to endorse the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI)? The unionist leader confirms this was a crucial test. "Having been brought up in Northern Ireland, I understand republicanism," he says: "Republicanism believes that Britain is an intruder in a country they've no right to be in. Therefore, they believe the police, representing the British government, British laws and the British court jurisdiction, are their enemy. They looked at the police as a legitimate target to be killed and murdered and blown up. Now that has changed, and will be changed by solemn resolution by everybody who takes part. They will have to declare they are going to support the Northern Ireland police."
So, endorsing the police is acceptance of defeat for republicanism? "It is, certainly. It's more than that. It's a change in the overall republican thinking. Before, they never would - it would be like selling their birthright to say 'yes, I acknowledge that man is a policeman, he's entitled to be here and he's entitled to get me to keep the law'." Does endorsing the PSNI render the IRA redundant, in his view? Or is the continued existence of its army council still a problem? "I think they know that the army council has to go. To a degree, the army council has gone out of activity. I think it's fair to say the army council is not acting as a militant operation at the moment, and never will . . . As I have said, if they want to have an old boys' club, they can have it. But they can't have an army directed by an army council in Northern Ireland."
Sinn Féin's motion made support for the PSNI conditional on a timetable for the devolution of policing and justice powers. Does Dr Paisley think that was mere pre-election rhetoric? Or does he see devolution of these powers happening? "Oh [support for the police] has happened," Dr Paisley asserts. "When they take that pledge, they're not going to be pledging it in those words. The pledge is to the rule of law, and they will lend their aid to the rule of law as it is carried out by the PSNI, without condition."
That said, the First Minister-designate would like to see the day when the people could assent to the transfer of policing and justice powers, possibly even on his watch. And he is confident the IRA will not prove an obstacle to that: "I don't think the IRA/Sinn Féin or whatever you like to call them feel there is any other road for them. There's nothing to go back to. And we've said we don't want to go back to living in a defence fortress all the days of our life."
When did Dr Paisley finally decide he could trust the peace process, and that republicans were for real? His, he says, was a strategy "to deal with the things that were evident", one of which being that republicans did not support the police. "How can you have any form of self-rule except [by supporting] the police? So I started a campaign that said the attitude to the police must be repudiated and a new attitude to the police must come about." He would claim victory through "constant reiteration", although he says Blair and Ahern didn't support him at the outset and were reluctant to force the issue.
Now that his decision is made, and given the current all-round spirit of generosity, would Dr Paisley accept that he owes something to those who went before, such as David Trimble? Not a bit of it. "I took the line that it was a terrible pity for unionism that unionists ever agreed to share power with people who were still terrorists. I was consistent all through on this matter."
SO HE NOlonger regards Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness as terrorists, and accepts republicans have turned over a new leaf? "To a degree that we have seen, yes. But I would like to see the army council come to an end and there are some other things I would like to see. But we're on a road, and we're not going to turn back, that's what I feel about it."
In the same search for generosity, McGuinness says we would never have reached this point without Blair. Does he agree? "Oh, I think he worked hard at it, he did. But if he had adopted sooner what he had to adopt in the end . . . He tried to have forms of words that suited everybody, and I could not accept them."
In his other ministry, Dr Paisley will have spoken of the house divided against itself being unable to stand. Can devolution offer Northern Ireland a settlement, when the DUP thinks to use it to consolidate the union with Britain, while Sinn Féin sees it as transitional to Irish unity? Isn't the reality that republicans will use the institutions to pull the North ever closer to the Republic? "Not while I'm around," he declares contentedly.
Nor is he embarrassed to be pushing for corporation tax levels similar to those in the Republic, despite my suggestion that this is fundamentally an anti-unionist position. "No, it's not because we have suffered as a result of what has happened, and we are entitled to everything we can get so that we can be competitors of the southern part of our island."
It's reported that Dr Paisley has taken to calling McGuinness "the Deputy". If not embarrassed, is he in denial about the fact that the Sinn Féin nominee is in fact co-equal to him as First Minister? He tells me I have this wrong too. "He's the Deputy First Minister. He's not co-equal," Dr Paisley insists, before acknowledging that "there is jointery" to the Office of First and Deputy First Minister and that the system can work only by agreement. "There is jointery, though it's not what people think," he concedes, before adding: "But I think it will work out . . . There are places that he would not go, and there are places that I would not go." Where would he not go as First Minister? "Well there are things I wouldn't go to. Say the Pope came, I wouldn't go to a Mass service." But shouldn't he be First Minister for all the people of Northern Ireland? "Well I might be. But that doesn't mean I have to throw away my religious beliefs." So where would he go, then, to spare McGuinness's blushes? "I said to the Deputy, 'there's places you wouldn't go' - I wouldn't expect him to go to Buckingham Palace. He's a Member of this House of Commons and he won't even sit in it."
How did he feel when he first met Adams and McGuinness? "I didn't feel too good. I said that. I said I'd have to swallow my spittle. Let's be absolutely clear, these things do not go away in a moment." I'm pressing because, apparently, there will be no handshake to seal the deal. Doesn't a peace process at some point require exactly such a basic, human gesture? Dr Paisley is insistent: "I think that is nonsense. We've had handshakes over deals before and it's been theatrical folly." I observe that he's right up there with the best political actors, as he hints of what might yet pass: "All things being equal, I wouldn't be holding back. But I believe I have to show that we must get to the end of this path. We're not at the end of the path but we're on our way."
GIVEN THE DECISIONShe has had to make, would Dr Paisley have any difficulty if Bertie Ahern were to invite Sinn Féin into government after the General Election this month? "No I wouldn't," he replies laughing. "I taunted him with that before. I said, 'why not bring them into your government?'. But now [ the Taoiseach] says he doesn't like the theology of their politics." But it wouldn't worry him? "Oh, if they bring them in, I would probably mock them and say 'we showed a good example'."
Given the price he's had to pay for devolution and staying within the United Kingdom, would he not have been better to have taken his strength and negotiated directly with Dublin? Would a united Ireland really be that much worse? He may have changed somewhat, but Dr Paisley won't be tempted down that path: "I think the union runs into the core of the Ulster people. As republicanism is part of theirs . . . I think you have to realise there are things embedded in you by birth, by religion, it's probably in our genes." But he also wants to repeat what he said on his recent trip to Dublin, "that we do not need to build hedges between us, that we can be friendly neighbours". And while in Northern Ireland that means unionists and republicans acknowledging their political and religious differences, he predicts, "we can also show as genuine and honourable people that we can live together".
New order: Ian Paisley on . . .
Meeting Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness:
I didn't feel too good . . . I said I'd have to swallow my spittle
Bertie Ahern inviting Sinn Féin into government after the General Election:
I taunted him with that before. I said, 'Why not bring them into your government?' If they bring them in, I would probably mock them and say, 'We showed a good example'
The Pope visiting the North:
I wouldn't go to a Mass service. I might be [First Minister for all the people]. But that doesn't mean I have to throw away all my religious beliefs