March 6, 2003
HILLSBOROUGH TALKS - RICHARD HAASS, INSIGHT

MIKE NESBITT

How welcome will our politicians be, given they'll be bringing the same old baggage and washing the same old dirty linen?

RICHARD HAASS

I think that's too negative, with all due respect. What was just accomplished at Hillsborough was quite impressive by any measure, by any yardstick and your politicians will be most welcome as will community leaders from Northern Ireland and others. 

I think there's a perception here, and I hasten to add, an accurate perception from my point of view, that quite a lot has been accomplished. There's extraordinary potential in the current situation. So the idea that people would be most welcome seems to me entirely warranted.

MIKE NESBITT

What has been agreed, because we haven't seen the document, we haven't been told?

RICHARD HAASS

Well, I'm not going to sit here, as you might expect, and lay out the details. Sometimes in diplomacy, and this is one of those times, it's often best to keep many things private. There'll be time for many things to see the light of day soon enough. 

But I would simply say that I think there has been extraordinary coming together on some of the basic issues that have really defined the core of the Northern Ireland dispute over several years. 

And, yes, there still are some, so called, sticking points but I think it's important, again to use the word perspective, where people seem to have agreed, where in fact people, to a large extent, I think, are willing to accept what was agreed between the Irish and British Governments is quite extraordinary and I think that's the key development. 

MIKE NESBITT

But asking voters here to go on trust is a big ask because there is no trust?

RICHARD HAASS

Well, first of all, voters are not being asked yet to go on trust. Now that Hillsborough has ended you're going to have a political period where the leadership of the various parties that came there, are going to be involved in the process of essentially discussing, explaining, or if you want to use a more direct word, selling, what was talked about at Hillsborough to their respective voters and constituencies and this is only natural. 

And then I would predict that by the time you do come up on elections in May of this year, the voters will have a very good idea indeed, in part because what has been released and part what you and your colleagues in the journalistic profession are able to ascertain. So I think the voters will have an extremely full and complete picture about what they're being asked to sign on to. 

So this is not going to be a matter of blind trust, but I think what we've seen at Hillsborough is putting down the foundation for which, over years, could become political trust.

MIKE NESBITT

Given your war against terrorism, given the allegations of the IRA in Colombia, is it conceivable President Bush can shake hands with a member of Sinn Féin?

RICHARD HAASS

I think it is conceivable, that Mr Bush would welcome Gerry Adams. He's spoken to him in the past, he's met with him in ceremonies in the past. We have made clear our views about Colombia and about indeed support for terrorism of any sort, that there's simply no tolerance whatsoever, and this was a point we made on September 11th of 2001, and that remains the case. 

But I think, what's going to define more than anything else the current context of this visit is what was accomplished at Hillsborough, and just as important that the promise and the potential there. And President Bush, Secretary of State Powell and myself, what we want to do is do what we can to buttress the efforts of Prime Ministers Blair and Ahern and all the work that they have done.

MIKE NESBITT

Bill Flynn, as you know, and the American National Committee on Foreign Policy were in Belfast a few days ago. Unusually frank words, and a blueprint for the future, this isn't what we expect of Americans who we believe to be facilitators. But was he testing the waters for you over next week?

RICHARD HAASS

Wel, Mr. Flynn represents an independent organisation, and indeed it's quite characteristic of the way policy is often made in the United States, where thinktanks and others, get out there with ideas. It's the market place of ideas. And they were speaking for themselves, they were not speaking for the United States Government.

But that said, I thought a lot of what Mr. Flynn and his colleagues had to say was quite accurate, was quite constructive, and I think it represents a broad mainstream American view, that the time has come to take paramilitaries out of Northern Ireland's politics. The time has come to dramatically reduce the British military presence, the time has come to deal with some of the judicial, the policing, the human rights issues, once and for all. So the kinds of ideas that they were putting forward are very reflective of the sorts of views that informed Americans hold out to.

MIKE NESBITT

As briefly as you can, you didn't mention sanctions. Do you think we need sanctions if we get a deal?

RICHARD HAASS

Well, sanctions are already in the Good Friday Agreement, the notion is already there. I think it's simply political reality that you need to have some sanctions in this case, you're not going to get unionists on board. So at the end of the day, yes, I do think you need a provision or dimension of sanctions, but that said it's got to be one that's fair, that people see is a legitimate fair minded process, and I think you'll see that's exactly what we have in this case.

March 7, 2003
HILLSBOROUGH TALKS - SECRETARY OF STATE, PAUL MURPHY, HEARTS AND MINDS

NOEL THOMPSON

There's a not unfamiliar sense of anti climax this week. There we all were breathbaited for the big announcement from Hillsborough, but it was not to be. Indeed despite the efforts of Messrs Blair and Ahern to put an optimistic spin on their thirty hours of talks, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that there is more suspicion between the parties now than there was before. In a moment I will be taking up that theme with the major parties, but first I'm joined from Westminster by the Secretary of State, Paul Murphy. Secretary of State. You are welcome to this programme.

SECRETARY OF STATE

Good Evening to you.

NOEL THOMPSON

Shared understanding does seem a rather a long way away it's more a shared misunderstanding at the moment, is it not?

SECRETARY OF STATE

Well, that's not the impression I've got having spent nearly thirty hours in two and a bit days of negotiations. There is no question in my view but there was a huge amount of discussed, debated and then eventually agreed between the parties in those two days whether it was on criminal justice or it was on policing, human rights, equality, institutions and so on. 

There was a tremendous amount of discussion, as I say, but also of agreement and I think there is a shared understanding. Of course there were a couple of variations that the Governments decided that they would have to take the initiative, because there are difficult decisions for all sides to accept. But in terms of what I experienced on Monday and Tuesday I can't agree with you.
 

NOEL THOMPSON

Well Mary Harney of course in Dublin says that the talks have been a exercise in what she called trust and optimism, but surely the fact that the Governments are having to take their own initiative on such an important issue as sanctions shows that trust is simply non-existent. 

SECRETARY OF STATE

Trust is existent and I repeat that I thought that the direct engagement between the major parties, indeed all parties in the Hillsborough talks, was seriously significant. I haven't seen that sort of engagement ever since I have returned to this job from October last year. And I think that was hugely important so that there is a growth in trust and a growth in confidence. 

I'm not suggesting there is not anything else to do. Of course there is. We've got a long way to go in many respects in some of the areas. But generally speaking the talks at Hillsborough resulted in a definite move forward and I think of course that there are areas which are difficult, difficult for republicans and nationalists, difficult for unionists and loyalists to accept but it was always thus. 

The Good Friday Agreement was a compromise and everybody from whatever persuasion found something difficult. But never the less we made that agreement. 

NOEL THOMPSON

But isn't that ..

SECRETARY OF STATE

And that same sort of spirit of willingness to engage and to compromise was there at the beginning of the week.

NOEL THOMPSON

Isn't the central weakness that some observers talk about when it comes to the agreement, that when it comes to a hard tax, when it comes to something like accepting the bona fides of the republicans on the unionist part, or the republicans accepting that unionists are serious about shared goverment. That's where it falls down. That's why there has to be this issue of sanctions.

SECRETARY OF STATE

That's where the key is. I agree that you have to ensure that the mistrust goes. I entirely agree with you on that, and of course sanctions is an importance issue for particularly unionists, not exclusively, but particularly unionists. In the same way of course there are other issues which republicans would like, which would be difficult the other way around. You know there's no question that whether it's OTRs, which is a difficult thing for unionists, sanctions is a difficult thing for republicans and there are other parties with their own difficult issues. 

Of course they are there, but at the same time the Governments have to take the initiative in certain areas so as to include that we move the process forward. I think that the opportunity that now lies ahead for the people of Northern Ireland to move forward is enormous, I really do, and I know that the parties are going to engage with their memberships in the weeks ahead. That's why we ensured that the elections had to be postponed by a few weeks, so that we could allow parties to consult with their members.

NOEL THOMPSON

But Secretary of State, on this issue of sanctions, David Trimble says it is a deal buster. If there are no sanctions there is no deal. Gerry Adams says it's a mechanism for instability. How will you reconcile those two conflicting demands?

SECRETARY OF STATE

As I said I think it is a matter for the two Governments working together to put into place a mechanism which can ensure that the two sides can at least acquiesce in what it is that has to go in terms of that particular aspect of the talks. 

NOEL THOMPSON

Secretary of State can you give some clue as to what shape that might take. I mean there are rumours your Government is considering dropping the cross community requirements for example in the Assembly, should a sanctions motions be introduced. Is that a runner?
 

SECRETARY OF STATE

I don't think I ought to go into that sort of detail because that actually doesn't help at all. The point is that all the parties who were in Hillsborough on Monday and on Tuesday know the shape of the agreement. 

They in fact know the details of it too and of course parts of it are difficult but we've got have these guarantees for all parties within the process, otherwise then the trust will continue to be lacking. And so it's clear that although sanctions is an important issue for unionists, we have to accept that it is a difficult one for republicans and that's why the Governments decided to take the initiative in that respect. 

I think, anyway, that if this whole deal goes forward and acts of completion are obvious on both sides, then there won't be any need for sanctions because we will be going forward in a totally new political climate in Northern Ireland.

NOEL THOMPSON

Can you convince Sinn Féin of that?

SECRETARY OF STATE

I hope I can, I hope that everybody accepts that we have to have a different type of political culture culture. That's key to it in any event. We know that we've come a awful long way since the Good Friday Agreement and the Good Friday Agreement itself came an enormously long way from what had happened before, and that's why I'm confident because I know that parties are willing to move. 

They understand it's hugely difficult, of course I know that too, and that sometime we have to take hours and hours and hours, sometimes days, weeks and months of negotiations and discussions to resolve issues. And if it wasn't like that it wouldn't be real anyway, because of the part of Northern Ireland.

NOEL THOMPSON

At what point do you believe there must come a move from the IRA. At what point in the next four weeks would be best for that move to come from the Government's point of view? 

SECRETARY OF STATE

From our point of view, of course, we have said that we plan to publish the details of what we were discussing in Hillsborough sometime in April, beginning, middle April and I would expect that, you know, we get some idea as to what would happen with the regard to the IRA at about the same time. 

The idea is that all of us will complete the membership consultation by around the beginning, middle of April that would coincide with the publication of the documents. We would then expect details of acts of completion and at that stage it's thought again we could do with consultation with individual party memberships and after that we go directly into the election campaign itself.

Program: The Politics Show - Jeffrey Donaldson
Date & Time March 9, 2003
Subject Hillsborough Talks

JIM FITZPATRICK

Jeffrey Donaldson, the Hillsborough deal, what would be your number one concern about what you know of it?

JEFFREY DONALDSON

Well I think there are a range of concerns, but primarily what's happening here is that after the suspension of the Assembly, caused by the failure of the IRA to commit to exclusively peaceful means, caused by their misdemeanours and their breach of their ceasefires, they are now being rewarded for what they have done whilst the people of Northern Ireland have been punished by losing their Assembly. We have a raft of concessions being made to republicans in return for some kind of gesture on decommissioning. Now I think there are .

JIM FITZPATRICK

But surely that's what you've asked for, you asked for decommissioning. There's a lot of talk that they're about to do something big on it. So surely this was to be expected and should be welcomed from your point of view?

JEFFREY DONALDSON

Well on 21st September last year we actually said that what we need, and the bottom line for unionists, is not just disarmament, it is disbandment of these illegal paramilitary terrorist organisations. Now I'm not convinced we're going to get that, but we need to know that it is going to happen and that it happens now.

JIM FITZPATRICK

What are you going to do about it though, what form will your opposition to this deal take?

JEFFREY DONALDSON

Well let's wait and see what happens and whether there is in fact a deal. I have very serious doubts whether that is going to happen, given what the IRA is demanding and given the impasse that exists at present. But if there is a recommendation to put forward this deal to the Ulster Unionist Council, and it is in the shape that we have been told by the Government and has been leaked to the media, then I think there will be strong opposition to it in the Ulster Unionist Council.

I can't see the Ulster Unionist Party signing up to a deal that includes on the run terrorists being allowed to return home without facing the courts and other serious changes to the policing legislation and to significant reduction in security levels at a time when we have terrorist organisation promising a bomb a week.

JIM FITZPATRICK

But, David Trimble doesn't have control over those matters and they're not part of the deal that he's going to sign up to, OTRs, 'on the runs', demilitarisation, these are matters for the Government alone. So, you know, how can you blame David Trimble for this and does he really have to call an Ulster Unionist Council on this?

JEFFREY DONALDSON

Well I didn't mention David Trimble's name, and let's be clear about this. This is an all inclusive deal, that's what the Government told us. The Prime Minister, in the House of Commons this week said, it's on a take it or leave it basis.

JIM FITZPATRICK

Will it have to go to the Council?

JEFFREY DONALDSON

It will have to go to the Ulster Unionist Council, absolutely. That was promised by David Trimble last weekend at the AGM of the Ulster Unionist Council. There will be a council meeting and I can't see the Ulster Unionist Party buying into this kind of shady deal that offers more concessions to republicans with little by way of clarity and certainty on ending the IRA's campaign of violence and disbanding their illegal organisation.

JIM FITZPATRICK

Joining us live from New York is Neil O'Dowd. Neil O'Dowd, the politicians are heading out to Washington this week, St Patrick's Day has effectively been moved to the 13th. Now the atmosphere perhaps a little bit downbeat given that we don't have a deal. What do you expect to happen?

NEIL O'DOWD

Well I think the administration will obviously focus on Iraq this week, but I think Richard Haass, who is obviously handling this issue, will pay very close attention to what the parties tell him. There is a view over here that Hillsborough was actually very successful, there's some regret that a final deal wasn't put together. But I think the view from the American administration is that this is still a win, win, situation and anything that Richard Haass can do when the parties are over he will certainly do.

JIM FITZPATRICK

Do you expect to see any major moves while the parties are in Washington?

NEIL O'DOWD

Not really, no. But I do think that there will be some very deep analysis with White House people about what exactly, where the direction of the peace process goes at this point. There is a feeling here that we're only, maybe, one more meeting away from a final deal that will be put by the British and Irish Prime Ministers. So from that point of view I think there's a lot of confidence that this week will improve matters rather than hinder matters.

JIM FITZPATRICK

So what really can come out of Washington, for instance we have the Chief Constable, Hugh Orde, there. Are we expecting a meeting with him and perhaps Sinn Féin?

NEIL O'DOWD

Well, I don't think that there will be many (unclear) meeting. This is a very sensitive time in Washington and I think the focus obviously will be overwhelmingly on Iraq from the White House. But I do think that, in terms of the American involvement in the peace process which has been such a central role going back to President Clinton and George Mitchell.

I think Richard Haass is now about ready to say that he and his administration will step up to the plate and become deeply involved, particularly in any last minute wrangling over outstanding issues. So I think that's one of the things that this administration right now is prepared to do.

JIM FITZPATRICK

What do you think the IRA will do next and what impact do you think the wrangling said and Ulster Unionist Council may have on that?

NEIL O'DOWD

Well, I think it's obvious that there's a deal on the table. The Ulster Unionist Council has been disagreeing with, you know, increasing vehemence internally between David Trimble and Jeffrey Donaldson. It always amazes me that Jeffrey used to come to the US, maybe eight, nine years ago, and present himself as a great liberal unionist. Now he's obviously gone over to the other side. But I think any objections that they have to the IRA ending its campaign are completely ridiculous.

JIM FITZPATRICK

Do you believe the IRA are poised to end their campaign though?

NEIL O'DOWD

Well, obviously there's a deal on the table, it's almost there. Obviously a big part of that will be the IRA ending its campaign which a (unclear) have done and I think the notion that unionists will turn down the end of the IRA campaign after over 30 bloody years in the North will be inexcusable and I think will go down very badly.

JIM FITZPATRICK

Is it contingent though on what happens at an Ulster Unionist Council meeting or are the IRA, in your opinion, prepared to move on otherwise?

NEIL O'DOWD

Obviously the IRA and Sinn Féin, the British Government, the Irish Government, have all been dealing with each other. There is obviously two different deals, there's one for the devolution of Government back to Northern Ireland but it's also the issues that Sinn Féin and the British and Irish Governments can discuss, such as demilitarisation, policing, judicial affairs. Basic things that do not need the (unclear) of the Ulster Unionists.

JIM FITZPATRICK

Jeffrey Donaldson, you've heard what he said there. Effectively as far as his analysis is concerned, the Ulster Unionist Council is now irrelevant in this process?

JEFFREY DONALDSON

I think Neil O'Dowd will eat his words very soon because he knows that this process goes nowhere without unionists. It's typical of people like Neil O'Dowd, they arrogantly try to pretend that the unionist people and their representatives don't exist in Northern Ireland, but he should know that we're still a majority here and that our views will count and that there won't be a Stormont and an Executive re-established without unionist consent. The principle of consent is supposed to be at the heart of this process, but if Neil O'Dowd is suggesting that this process continues without unionists then he's living in cloud cuckoo land.

JIM FITZPATRICK

But, as we've said already, the key points on OTRs, demilitarisation, justice, policing, all these matters can be resolved between the Government and Sinn Féin. Are unionists going to be left in position of howling in the wilderness?

JEFFREY DONALDSON

We certainly won't be doing that. The problem for this process has not been unionists, it has been the republican movement, their failure to commit to exclusively peaceful means. You know, every time we have a crisis people like Neil O'Dowd come on and tell us that the IRA are about to make this move, or that move, or the other move, how does he explain the gun running from Florida, the events in Colombia?

 How does he explain the IRA breaking into Castlereagh police station? How does he explain the fact that the police were with me last week telling me that the IRA were targeting me, targeting David Trimble, targeting other unionist politicians at a time when they were in the Government of Northern Ireland? If this happened to Neil O'Dowd what would he think, would he trust the IRA?

Program: The Politics Show - Martina Purdy
Date & Time March 9, 2003
Subject Hillsborough Talks

JIM FITZPATRICK

Now, casting here eye over the last seven days, here's our political correspondent, Martina Purdy, with the week that was.

MARTINA PURDY

Shared understanding or shared misunderstanding? Tony Blair and Bertie Ahern left Hillsborough with confusion in their wake. Whether a shared understanding emerges by April is anybody's guess. The Hillsborough news conference came not on Pancake Tuesday but at ten minutes past midnight Ash Wednesday. No Pancake Tuesday flop to ponder, just the appropriate start of the season of sacrifice and penance. So is P O'Neill going to give up all his weapons for Lent with just a memory to comfort him on Easter morning? 

Are the Ulster Unionists going to be in a forgiving mood if the republican penance is sincere? Or is the Homer Simpson nightmare, as Mark Durkan put it, going to continue? 

For those who don't watch the satirical cartoon Homer Simpson isn't the Portadown unionist but I watched with interest this week the reaction of his wife, Marge, as aliens came to abduct her. She said she totally and utterly rejected what was happening, but would go along with it on the basis she had no choice. Now that's the strategy some politicians may be preparing to adopt.

Program: Noon News, Radio Ulster
Date & Time: March 9, 2003
Subject Hillsborough Talks
 
 

SARAH DOBSON

The Secretary of State, Paul Murphy, says the political talks at Hillsborough last week have provided the basis for further progress. But speaking on Sunday Sequence he said paramilitary groups must now help to build further trust.

SECRETARY OF STATE

I think that people went away with an expectation that things were now moving in a way that we haven't seen for about six months. What I'm saying though is that as we go forward in the next number of weeks, obviously the expectation that further things can happen, in terms of paramilitary activity, is very important and at the core of all this of course is the issue of trust.

Program: Inside Politics - David Ford, Bob McCartney
Date & Time 1:10 p.m., March 9, 20038
Subject Talks

MARK DEVENPORT

Unless your name happens to be Rip Van Winkle, it's unlikely that you've failed to notice the 30 hours of discussions which took place this week at Hillsborough Castle. Tony Blair put off the Queen and the Russian Foreign Minister to keep the oil burning inside the castle until midnight on Tuesday. 

David Trimble left early, but appeared to get what he wanted on potential sanctions against republicans and a delay to the Assembly elections. Voters will now go to the polls on May 29th, not May 1st. Anti Agreement unionists cried foul, but the British and Irish Governments hailed what they'd achieved as the basis for a breakthrough. One participant was the Alliance leader, David Ford, whose party holds its Annual Conference today. 

I've been discussing the outcome of the talks with Mr Ford and I began with the controversial topic of 'on the run' paramilitaries. I put it to him that his party haven't achieved their objectives, which had been linking 'on the runs' with those exiled from Northern Ireland by terrorists.

DAVID FORD

What we have achieved is a clear understanding that it has to be a judicial process, and there are references in the papers that we have seen which refer to the exiles as well, and it's quite clear that the context of doing anything about those 'on the run' is in the context of acts of completion. 

Now we can't talk about acts of completion and end to all paramilitary activity unless we're also ending the practice of exiling, and unless paramilitaries are going to make it clear that those who have been exiled are free to come home.

MARK DEVENPORT

So you would expect the question of the exiles to be included in any definition of a halt to paramilitary activity which will be put into this document that the British and Irish are due to produce next month?

DAVID FORD

Yes, I mean, as you know Alliance has been extremely concerned in the past and the Government seems to have a definition of ceasefire which is solely dependent on not attacking economic targets and not attacking the security forces, and republican paramilitaries have been free to attack Catholic drug dealers and vice versa on the other side. We believe a ceasefire means a ceasefire in all aspects and that also has to include things like street rioting and exiling.

MARK DEVENPORT

You believe that you've scored a political victory, if you like, by getting the Government to move from giving a bald amnesty to paramilitary fugitives to making it a judicial process. But if it was your brother, your sister, your father, your mother, who had been killed during the course of the troubles and somebody came back without spending a night behind bars, that would appear to walk and talk like an amnesty wouldn't it?

DAVID FORD

Well, I think when you see that at least one very high profile prisoner has been returned to prison for breaching his licence it proves that the early release process was not an amnesty. What we've been concerned to do is to see that the 'on the runs' are dealt with in the same way as the Agreement provided for the early releases, and we all know that that was a hugely troubling thing. I know people, neighbours and friends, who nearly voted 'no' on the specific issue of early releases and eventually they swallowed hard and accepted it was part of the price to pay for a long-term settlement. 

I think we have to deal with the 'on the runs', but we have to make sure that we deal with them on the same principle as the early releases were dealt with, and that means there has to be a court hearing, there has to be a finding of guilt, if appropriate, there has to be a sentence and a release on licence, and I think those who have accepted the early release programme will be able to accept that. But I know it's going to be very difficult for many people.

MARK DEVENPORT

Moving to the Hillsborough talks on the broader front. For those who weren't inside Hillsborough Castle it appears a bit of a curate's egg, not a complete agreement but the Government seeking to push ahead. I mean, do you think the Governments will be able to make their proposals fly?

DAVID FORD

That is a difficult question and I said immediately at the conclusion on Tuesday night, or the early hours of Wednesday morning, that we actually had failed to do what we were supposed to do there. We'd failed to reach an agreement there and in effect we don't even have a shared understanding because, by the nature of so many pieces of paper flying round the different circles, we don't even have a sharings of documentation, never mind a sharings of understanding. 

That's something that has to be resolved very speedily in the next few days and I certainly will be talking to the Government about that. But what is clear is that we have made some significant steps forward, what's not clear is whether they're enough, and there is a real danger that half agreement can unravel very quickly because we've seen it happen that way in the past. 

That's why we need to ensure that the two Governments keep at it, engage with the parties and most of all, that we see speedy action on the part of those who have the biggest obligation first of all, the paramilitaries, who have to do something about the acts of completion.

MARK DEVENPORT

Would you expect republicans to acquiesce to the sanctions regime even though they don't like it?

DAVID FORD

I think the lesson of Good Friday is that everybody acquiesced in parts of the package, parts they didn't like, and it was seen as an overall package which could move the process forward. I think that's the only way in which we'll be able to manage this process arising out of the Hillsborough talks, is that people will have to look at the package in the round, and I think the indications are that people will be prepared to do that. Obviously I can't second guess what other people's final decision will be.

MARK DEVENPORT

Isn't chewing away at the cross community principle in terms of actually triggering any exclusion from Government of any parties seen as in breach of its obligations, handling unionists a potential weapon for instability, Sinn Féin would argue ?

DAVID FORD

Well I think you could argue that if you want to argue against it. The practical reality is that we currently have instability in that the only sanction which exists under the Agreement requires a cross community built in the Assembly, and we proved last autumn that the SDLP were not prepared to use it against Sinn Féin. 

I think in those circumstances it's absolutely essential that whilst we may seek to produce a graded range of sanctions, we may seek to introduce some sort of conciliation process. At the end of the day there has to be a final sanction which can be made to stick, and it appears to me that the only way we can get assurances to the wider community of that is by placing that responsibility with the Secretary of State.

The potential threshold that would require a significant number of MLAs to make a referral to the Secretary of State is, I think, high enough to deter any silly games and I also think we have to rely on the Secretary of State telling people to stop playing silly games, if they do so, but to take seriously any serious referrals. But the most important thing is to get such an atmosphere that people know that might happen, and they actually get down to engaging in the process of politics which they've been supposedly signed up to for the last five years.

MARK DEVENPORT

And now the election date as it stands is May 29. Some politicians are indicating that if there isn't a complete deal it could be put off again. Do you think that's possible and what would be the implications?

DAVID FORD

Well, we have made a clear statement that we believe the date was May 1st and should have remained May 1st. I did say during the Hillsborough talks that if there was a deal and parties were asking for time to sell that deal, a delay of a few weeks would be understandable. What we appear to have is the delay of a few weeks without actually the commitment from parties that they will use those few weeks to sell the deal. That seems to be taken on trust by the Government at the moment and we will see whether that trust is justified. 

I think however any suggestion of a postponement beyond May 29 is absolutely out of the question. There can be no question that the election must now happen on the revised date and it must go ahead regardless of what antics are going on within different parties.

MARK DEVENPORT

Some commentators believe that when the election does go ahead, the parties on either edge, Sinn Féin and the DUP, will prosper and the centre ground, including your own party, will be decimated?

DAVID FORD

That seems to be a rumour which has been going round for some time, Mark. I think, you will know, that the Alliance Party prides itself on having some of the best amateur psychologists around and we have made some fairly good predictions of elections, including the predictions we made at the last general election, and the action that we took to stop disaster then. I think there's no doubt that Sinn Féin are growing considerably.

I have doubts whether the DUP are actually going to overhaul the Ulster Unionist Party, but I don't think that the fact that those extremes are growing, is necessarily saying, that what you define as the centre, is all going to suffer, because I believe we've also seen a reaction, certainly speaking locally, I have seen a reaction in my constituency against the anti-Agreement antics of unionists in South Antrim.

I think there is some evidence that we may be back to a repeat of 1987, the general election after the Anglo Irish Agreement of November '85, and on that occasion the Alliance vote strengthened, as did the extremes, at the expense of the Ulster Unionists and the SDLP. I know that we will be out presenting our case for building a united community and getting away from the tribal mentality which says, you have to support Trimble and Durkan because they're nicer than Paisley and Adams. That is no way to run constructive politics in the future. We will be judging Trimble and Durkan on the achievements, or rather the lack of the achievements of the Executive they led, and we'll be putting our distinct viewpoints, and we'll be seeking votes all across Northern Ireland on the basis of that.

MARK DEVENPORT

After any election you could well find yourselves under enormous pressure again, potentially to become temporary unionists, and 

DAVID FORD 

The pressure this time might be to become temporary nationalist actually, Mark.

MARK DEVENPORT

Well either, but to change your spots and whilst you've said you won't redesignate again, won't there be a natural build up of pressure from those within the community who have voted for you and who want stable Government, for you to do whatever it takes to sustain Stormont?

DAVID FORD

There's two different things you've just talked about. One was stable Government and the other was sustaining Stormont. We made it quite clear that when, 14 months ago, we saved the Agreement, because that's what we did in November 2001, we saved the Agreement when nobody else would or could save the Agreement. But we made it perfectly clear that changing our designations was a one off and it would never be done again. 

There's only one aspect of the Agreement that doesn't work when implemented precisely as the Agreement specifies, and that's the designations and the tribal voting system in the Assembly, and we have made it quite clear that the ambition of the Alliance Party is to build a united community. 

So we will not be changing our designation. I think, I have now told the Prime Minister that six times, and I think it's five times with the Taoiseach. I don't know how many more times I have to tell them, but since they haven't used this opportunity to address designations, they will have to address it come June and they needn't expect the Alliance Party to prop up designations, because we won't.

MARK DEVENPORT

That was the Alliance leader, David Ford. Ever since the delay to the election was announced, anti-Agreement unionists have alleged that the Government had decided to mess with the calendar of democracy because it was frightened of the verdict unionist voters would deliver on the Agreement. 

The UK Unionists are also holding their conference this weekend. So I began by asking their leader, the barrister, Bob McCartney, if he thought the delay might be subject to a legal challenge.

BOB MCCARTNEY

I don't think so. I think it's a political decision but it does cast a lot of doubt on the integrity of John Reid who told a Northern Ireland High Court judge, the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal and the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, that the date fixed for this election was 1st May 2003. To resile from that may be a political decision, but one only made under enormous pressure.

MARK DEVENPORT

The legislation which will actually allow the date of the election to be changed is due to come up for debate in Parliament in the coming days, as I understand it. Would you expect all unionists who term themselves anti-Agreement, be they Ulster Unionists or DUP, to oppose that?

BOB MCCARTNEY

One would hope so. 

MARK DEVENPORT

And would (unclear)

BOB MCCARTNEY

I would expect that they would.

MARK DEVENPORT

In terms of what was done, I gather that you have some serious reservations, not only about the election date, but also about the whole notion of an International Monitoring Body?

BOB MCCARTNEY

Well quite clearly, this idea of establishing a Monitoring Commission with representatives from the United States and the Republic, as well as from Britain and locally, is, in my view, a clear violation of Strand 1. Strand 1 was to deal with internal matters, but here we have two foreign Governments having a say in the internal affairs of Northern Ireland, contrary to the spirit of Strand 1. 

It is therefore a clear violation. I also have objections to it, if we look at what has gone before about commissions. The de Chastelain Commission has cost £5m, done absolutely nothing, no reflection on the General, it just hasn't worked, and the Parades Commission has created more problems than it has solved. This proposed Commission is another complication added to provide fudge and to allow David Trimble to escape by claiming that he has now imposed some form of sanction, or a mechanism for imposing sanctions which, in my view, is completely contrary to the Agreement and, secondly, will not work. 

But, he will no doubt beat his chest and say, he now has sanctions. But then David Trimble told me, each time I raised the matter on the floor of the Assembly, that the original Agreement imposed no sanction on, political sanction, on Sinn Féin if the IRA didn't decommission (sic). He said, oh no, and Empey also, oh it was there. If it was there, why are they now seeking a mechanism to impose something which already existed?

MARK DEVENPORT

But if you have the US Government playing a role in a Commission of this kind, won't it, in practice, no matter what the principles of the Agreement might say, in fact it's just increased the pressure on the IRA and ensure something which probably most people out there want, which is that paramilitary activity is brought to a halt?

BOB MCCARTNEY

No, I don't think it will do that, Mark, for this reason. The British Government have two arms to its policy. One is a process of gradual disengagement, the other is to ensure that there is no continuance of mainland terrorism, and in pursuit of that policy Sinn Féin have always got to be included which is why, at the end of the day, Sinn Féin will never ever be given a red card. I mean the experience of the last four or five years when we have had judgements in the round as to whether there have been violations of their ceasefire, when murders of people like Charles Bennett have been categorised as 'internal housekeeping' and not a violation of the ceasefire. 

When, despite monuments to continuing terrorist activity like Colombia, Castlereagh and Stormont, this Government is still willing to give them greater and greater scope. Let me give you one example, Mark. In response to Saddam Hussein, what did our brave Prime Minister say? He said, no drip feed, we must have immediate, public, total and complete disarmament by Hussein.

Yet we have a terrorist organization that has murdered 3,000 British citizens, that has mortar bombed Downing Street, that has attempted to assassinate an entire British Cabinet, they've already had five years to disarm and Mr Blair's talking about giving them another three and pardoning or amnesty for terrorists on the run. That is a measure of a man and it is a measure of a policy which will include Sinn Féin no matter what they do.

MARK DEVENPORT

Now a lot of your criticism is directed at David Trimble, but I wonder what view you think the DUP will take as the year progresses, maybe on the other side of an election because you do note in your speech to your conference that the Ulster Unionists and the DUP, in your view, are both devoted to devolved Government?

BOB MCCARTNEY

Well there is no doubt about that. Both of them are absolutely devoted to devolved Government. The DUP say that they are devoted to a different type of devolved Government which they hope to renegotiate. But that must be seen against two things. 

One, if Tony Blair and Mr Ahern manage to persuade Trimble to do a deal, this side of an election, Blair has said quite clearly in the House of Commons, there will be no renegotiation of any Agreement, presumably including any amendments, so that if the DUP are elected as the major party they will have either to conform to what has already been agreed or leave. In a sense the election has become, to a degree, irrelevant. 

What is very important is stopping, within the next four weeks, David Trimble from doing that deal on the basis that 70% of the pro union community no longer support him, and the deal itself is flawed, particularly on this aspect. Trimble and Empey and co claim that they will only agree to the sanctions part, but what the Government do in relation to prisoners on the run, policing and everything else is a side deal, not a matter for them. 

They cannot distance themselves from those things. The deal is a package, they will only get their sanctions in whatever a fudged form it arrives, on the basis that they have nodded or acquiesced or consented to the Government doing it, and the only way they can show their descent is by saying, if you do it, we're not going back in and they love the place so much they will never do that.

MARK DEVENPORT

Do you see the whole question of 'on the runs' as the Achilles heel of any deal?

BOB MCCARTNEY

Well I think it must be and no matter how you dress it up, as the Alliance have done, as some form of Judicial Commission, they come in, they surrender, they say we're guilty, we did murder the 11 people at Enniskillen, or we've committed some other atrocity and the judge says, well I'm giving you 12 months imprisonment, but because you belong to a group that is on ceasefire you'll go home immediately. I mean a rose, is a rose, is a rose and an amnesty, is an amnesty, is an amnesty.

MARK DEVENPORT

You make the point that the Government's saying it won't renegotiate the Agreement. Doesn't that mean that the whole thrust of the DUP's election campaign which is, vote for us and we'll renegotiate, rings a bit hollow?

BOB MCCARTNEY

Well certainly if Mr Blair sticks to what he said, it's not just what he said when you read the text. If you actually witnessed him saying it, he said it with a great deal of determination even vehemence, and he knows that if he permits a crack in this, the whole thing will collapse. If he does a deal, he will drive it home and he will drive it home with the assistance of America and the Republic of Ireland.

I think that the DUP's prospect of renegotiating the Agreement is small. What are they going to renegotiate? They're won't renegotiate the RUC back, they won't renegotiate away Cross Border Bodies. They won't renegotiate the prisoners back in again. They may possibly renegotiate some alterations in the d'Hondt system, though that is questionable. I just wonder what is going to be renegotiated and I look forward to them telling me so that perhaps I can support it.

MARK DEVENPORT

That was Bob McCartney of the UK Unionists. 

March 10, 2003
Program: TALKBACK (DAVID TRIMBLE)
Subject: PRE-US PRESS CONFERENCE

 DAVID TRIMBLE

I am going to be saying to them that I explained to them how Irish republicans played a game of brinkmanship at Hillsborough Castle last week and put at risk the initiatives the Prime Minister had taken by stalling and prevaricating. But at the end of the day their foot dragging was fruitless. 

We believe that they are now engaged in a covert attempt to unravel the understanding that was so painfully arrived at last week, but they are not going to succeed. They know that they do have to decommission in an open and verifiable manner and that means that what they do must be seen and we cannot be expected to rely again merely on General de Chastelain's words about this. 

They also know that a statement relating to the ending of their so called war is essential in order to rebuild confidence and they know too that there will be tough sanctions if their friends in the IRA revert to their old ways. Absent anyone of those three elements and their actions will be ineffectual. They know what they have to do and they know that it is required sooner rather than later.
 

Now in the United States later this week, myself and Sir Reg will explain in detail what we believe has to happen and how the Bush administration can help democrats. Ideally, we would like Washington to deliver a blunt, unequivocal message to Irish republicans, and I would suggest to the administration, that if Sinn Féin and the IRA fail this final test then the United States should reconsider its whole approach to them. 

The US is poised to fight a war, what I believe to be a just war against a Fascist dictator in the Middle East, a war that Irish republicans oppose. The US is right to pursue Saddam Hussein but Sinn Féin side with the Iraqi tyrant and against the United States. 

And why? I think we should know. 

Do they think Saddam is not such a bad guy? Do they think that he is just misunderstood? Maybe they don't believe he murdered and tortured and terrorised his opponents and ethnic minorities within his own country? Maybe they haven't noticed the two unprovoked wars of aggression that Iraq has launched on its neighbours.

So these are the people who are going to the United States claiming that their position has some credibility.

Program: Mark Durkan live outside Castle Buildings
Date & Time March 10, 2003
Subject: Talks 

MEDIA

What assurances are you keen to hear from the Secretary of State?

MARK DURKAN

Well, we are here to make very clear to the Secretary of State our determination to continue to make the sort of progress that we were making last Monday and Tuesday. 

We want to make sure that the sort of understandings that we had reached then (unclear) that other parties aren't able to come back and nibble at those understandings because the danger is that we closed gaps last week but because we didn't close the deal people will try to re-open those gaps in different directions on different issues and the process can't afford that.

MEDIA

Obviously a key issue for unionists and for Sinn Féin is that of sanctions. You have laid out 10 points, what is the key issue for you (unclear) Criminal Justice.

MARK DURKAN

We made big progress last week on criminal justice because we have been making it clear for well over a year now that there is a big gap there between, not just ourselves and the British Government, but between the British Government and the criminal justice review recommendations arising from the Agreement. We went a long way to closing those gaps last week and not entirely to our satisfaction but big progress was made and we want to make sure that that holds. 

We are also made progress on making sure that the new agenda (unclear) that the SDLP has spelt out going onto the next wave of changes and the next wave of the transition to a whole new profile on policing and we made sure that that was included in the drafts as well. 

But what we want to do is to make sure that all those bits of progress actually hold, but also we want to make sure that there is a joined and balanced and well rounded approach to this declaration because this is something that has to work, not just for the SDLP but for the whole pro-agreement interest.

MEDIA

What about sanctions, it is not such a key issue for you but one you are not totally happy with, are you convinced that there will be some sort of implementation body in charge of this issue?

MARK DURKAN

We are not at all happy with where the Governments have been on the issue of sanctions. Certainly the sort of drafts that were being shown to us last Tuesday seem to us to be not at all well thought up, not at all well written up and not really worked through in any serious way and we don't see how they are actually workable. 

There is a much better approach available and it is an approach that has been advocated and spelt out by the SDLP, an approach that says where there are problems you turn those problems into solutions, you don't turn them into crisis, an approach that makes sure that whatever the problem is, whatever the default might be in any area of implementation there is a way of dealing with it. 

Instead the Governments seem to be wound up in a process that is not about resolving default but parties finally involved with each other and that is only going to create a whinge-whinge situation whereas what the SDLP want is a win-win situation in terms of the total implementation of the Agreement for everyone.

MEDIA

You say the other parties have been nibbling away, or that is one of your worries, isn't that what you are here to do as well nibble away as well?

MARK DURKAN

No we are not here to reverse any understandings that we reached with the Governments. So on those areas where we reached clear understandings and clear conclusions we want to make sure that those hold and in those area where we have made it clear that we were not at all happy with the approach of the Governments such as sanctions and clearly there wasn't a shared understanding across the parties in relation to sanctions, we want to make it clear to the Governments that they should move from the path they have chosen and opt for (unclear) the issues will be dealt with on their terms and on their merits and all the problems will be resolved (unclear).

Program: TALKBACK (DAVID TRIMBLE)
Date & Time March 10, 2003
Subject Pre-US Press Conference

DAVID TRIMBLE

I am going to be saying to them that I explained to them how Irish republicans played a game of brinkmanship at Hillsborough Castle last week and put at risk the initiatives the Prime Minister had taken by stalling and prevaricating. But at the end of the day their foot dragging was fruitless. 

We believe that they are now engaged in a covert attempt to unravel the understanding that was so painfully arrived at last week, but they are not going to succeed. They know that they do have to decommission in an open and verifiable manner and that means that what they do must be seen and we cannot be expected to rely again merely on General de Chastelain's words about this. 

They also know that a statement relating to the ending of their so called war is essential in order to rebuild confidence and they know too that there will be tough sanctions if their friends in the IRA revert to their old ways. Absent anyone of those three elements and their actions will be ineffectual. They know what they have to do and they know that it is required sooner rather than later. 

Now in the United States later this week, myself and Sir Reg will explain in detail what we believe has to happen and how the Bush administration can help democrats. Ideally we would like Washington to deliver a blunt, unequivocal message to Irish republicans, and I would suggest to the administration, that if Sinn Féin and the IRA fail this final test then the United States should reconsider its whole approach to them. 

The US is poised to fight a war, what I believe to be a just war against a Fascist dictator in the Middle East, a war that Irish republicans oppose. The US is right to pursue Saddam Hussein but Sinn Féin side with the Iraqi tyrant and against the United States. And why? I think we should know. Do they think Saddam is not such a bad guy? 

Do they think that he is just misunderstood? Maybe they don't believe he murdered and tortured and terrorised his opponents and ethnic minorities within his own country? Maybe they haven't noticed the two unprovoked wars of aggression that Iraq has launched on its neighbours. 

So these are the people who are going to the United States claiming that their position has some credibility.