THE Sinn Fein paper published yesterday for the Belfast talks says that the party's objective is "an end to British rule in Ireland". It also states that "Sinn Fein is not threatening the unionists' heritage or identity". It apparently sees no tension at all between these two statements. I wonder how deeply it has thought through its position in preparation for the talks it has so long sought.
The problem is that the republican movement, despite months of apparent internal debate, has not even yet come to recognise that it is the unionist people, not the British state, who are the real British presence in Ireland. The British state, in the Framework Document, has already said that it has "no selfish strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland" and that it will not "prejudice the freedom of the people of Northern Ireland to determine its future constitutional status".
On that basis, the British state is not standing in the way of a Northern Ireland majority deciding to bond more closely with the rest of Ireland. Sinn Fein either does not believe the sincerity of these British government declarations or has chosen to ignore them.
Although Sinn Fein says it does not accept any role for Britain in Ireland, it does call on the British state to play "a crucial and constructive role in persuading unionists to reach a democratic agreement on the issue of Irish national reunification". In other words, Sinn Fein does accept a British government role as long as that role is being exercised in a direction that it acceptable to Sinn Fein.
This is an illogical position for any nationalist to adopt. If the object is self-determination, and if Sinn Fein believes unionists are Irish, on what basis is Sinn Fein asking the British to "persuade" one section of Irish people but not another?
All agreements, to work, must be based on mutual respect. There must be respect by nationalists of unionists and vice versa. Unionists should accept the necessity of all-Ireland institutions as a recognition of the Northern nationalist identity.
Equally, Sinn Fein should recognise that acceptance of their British allegiance is essential to any valid nationalist respect for the unionists' identity.
The failure to see these realities and the persistence by Sinn Fein with the mistaken analysis that "British sovereignty" is the (my emphasis) root cause of the problem will lead Sinn Fein down an unproductive cul-de-sac in the talks.
More importantly, if grassroots republicans have not been led towards openness to a changed analysis of the problem, and are still being led to believe that all that is needed is "one more push" and their original objectives will be achieved, then the result will be dangerous frustration among republicans. We have unfortunate experience of the form that expression of frustration among republicans takes.
The Irish Government has an obligation to inject realism, based on the agreed analysis contained in the Downing Street Declaration and the Joint Framework Document, into expectations from the all-party talks. Fundamentalism, no matter how politely expressed, offers no solutions to a divided society like Northern Ireland.
I agree with Senator George Mitchell that the decommissioning of mindsets is even more important than the decommissioning of weapons. During the Forum in Dublin, the other parties there sought, without success, to change Sinn Fein's mindset on the fundamental issue of how to deal with the unionist reality in Ireland.
Sinn Fein's paper of yesterday shows no movement in thinking by Sinn Fein since then. I hope that face-to-face talks with unionists will achieve the change in Sinn Fein's analysis that face-to-face talks with others in the Forum clearly failed to achieve.