|
|
|
|
|
Northern Ireland still faces challenge of implementing peace
The Telegraph 09 April 2008
Ten years ago on the afternoon of Good Friday an Agreement was made in Belfast. It commonly takes its name from the day, but I am uncomfortable with the usage as it appears to clothe this very human endeavour with divine sanction.
The Agreement tried to settle the constitutional status of Northern Ireland and issues about its governance, matters which had led to terrorism for decades and political instability for longer. It did not deal conclusively with every issue; several particularly difficult matters were left for the next phase. Understandably, Senator George Mitchell, who had chaired the talks, said that while getting the Agreement was difficult, implementing it would be harder still.
For two potentially contentious matters, an early-release scheme for terrorist prisoners and the disarmament of paramilitary groups, the Agreement specified a two year period after the Agreement for implementation. While there was no explicit linkage, it was open to the government to say to the paramilitary groups that they would only get their prisoners out in parallel with disarmament. No doubt the paramilitaries would have protested that this was too big, too quick, a step for them. But such protest did not merit much credence.
The day before the Agreement, republicans were expressing total opposition to a Northern Ireland Assembly only to move quickly to fighting elections on a positive ticket and taking their seats. They proved their political adroitness. They subsequently proved they would never move on something difficult for them unless it was made necessary for them to do so.
Government weakness on continued paramilitary violence together with its failure to enforce disarmament caused a steady loss of support among unionists. My efforts to get the government to toe its own line and failing that to apply what pressure I could, achieved limited results. Eventually the mishandling of the process resulted in the collapse of the Assembly in October 2002 and a shift of support from the moderate Ulster Unionist party to the more extreme Democratic Unionist party.
In the end, republicans overreached themselves. A $26.5m bank robbery and a brutal casual murder directed by a local IRA gang boss caused widespread revulsion - particularly marked in the Irish Republic.
That together with the damningly honest reports of the independent commission to monitor paramilitary activities, the creation of which had been fought every inch of the way by the Northern Ireland Office, resulted in the republican movement completing decommissioning and declaring an end of paramilitary activity.
The pressure exerted by President Bush’s special envoy who caused the occasional visa to be refused and conditions to be attached to others, despite protests from Downing Street, probably contributed more than the latter’s soft words.
Then, after minor adjustments to the Agreement, an administration headed by Ian Paisley, the DUP leader in partnership with Sinn Fein’s Martin McGuinness was formed. To some this was inexplicable – Paisley was the implacable opponent of any expression, political or otherwise, of the Irish Catholic identity.
But the change could be tracked over the years since 1998. DUP attacks on the Agreement’s constitutional provisions had failed to gain any traction among unionists. Their opposition to the novel structures of the Northern Ireland Assembly had not prevented them from taking ministerial office, though they saved face by not attending Executive meetings.
After a campaign of total opposition to the Agreement in the 2001 elections failed, they shifted to the more successful line of claiming to be able to negotiate a “Fair Deal” in 2003. They may even have believed then that it would be possible to achieve a significantly different deal.
Four years later it was clear to all bar one of their elected representatives that there was no alternative to the fig leaf changes on offer. The one new element that Paisley could justly point to in 2007 was an undertaking by republicans to support the legal system including the police in Northern Ireland as presently constituted. His critics say the DUP have adopted the position of the Ulster Unionist party. The DUP rejoinder is that they have been more robust. I think they are continuing to pursue our objectives in more favourable circumstances.
The administration inaugurated last year has survived. A poor local government result, however, brought to a head discontent within the DUP with Ian Paisley’s leadership. Now approaching 82, his grasp has weakened. The obvious good rapport between him and Martin McGuinness that had them dubbed the “chuckle brothers” grated on too many.
Paisley has announced he will stand down in May. It is expected that the leadership will go to Peter Robinson, working in close association with Nigel Dodds. Both are capable and have considerable experience. But they have hitherto always stood beside or behind the “Big Man”. How they will fare by themselves with, possibly, an invigorate opposition from unionist ultras, remains to be seen.
There are other problems. The administration inherited immediate problems in education and with the reform of the water service and of local government generally. Very little has been done on any of these.
We have the highest per capita public expenditure of any region. The public sector contributes a higher proportion of the local economy than anywhere else in the British Isles – being nearly double that in the Irish Republic. We need a major shift from the public to the private sector and a more competitive local economy. All that has happened in the last year is a fruitless rattle of the begging bowl.
The quality of life has improved enormously for many, but the violence has left a legacy in terms of victims and community relations. These issues can only be approached in terms of now having the best basis on which to build for the future.
The new Assembly did legislate for the appointment of a Victims Commissioner. Four Commissioners, however, were appointed, presumably to ensure someone to fight for every viewpoint. It looks as though carving up the public cake will take priority over building a better future. Mark Durkan, the SDLP leader, put it succinctly when he asked if the parties that gave us the worst of our past can give us the best of our future.
The change in DUP leadership may affect the devolution of policing and justice which was clearly part of last year’s deal. Then Paisley proclaimed that republican support for policing meant that the IRA had gone out of existence. Now the DUP demand that the “army council” disband, an unprovable demand. It would be better to simply say that while the verbal support for policing and the republican presence on policing bodies is very welcome, the words need to be matched by deeds. Republican assistance in resolving recent murder cases where there are strong grounds for suspecting that republicans were involved would do more to create the necessary public confidence than anything else imaginable.
Finally, there are those other issues which will not be devolved. Defence, foreign policy, taxation, public expenditure, the broad thrust of public and social policy are all the purview of Westminster, where all but two Northern Ireland MPs are double hatted as Assembly Members and many triple hatted as Ministers as well.
It may be interesting to see for how long the electors are content with largely absent representation - indeed to see for how much longer they remain content with a party structure that reflects an age which may now be ending.
(09 April 2008)
Link to the article on The Telegraph website.
» Return to Speeches Directory
|
|