Ireland: new leader, old problem

October 19, 1995

New York Times

September 11th 1995

The peace process in Ireland is at a dangerous stage. Ten days ago, with a summit meeting planned between the Irish and British prime ministers, progress seemed possible. The two governments had arrived at a draft statement that did not mention disarming the Irish Republican Army, the main obstacle to the all-party talks that could cement the shaky year-long peace. But it was soon clear that the issue was still unresolved.



The Irish government asserted that an unequivocal commitment by the IRA not to resort to violence would be acceptable. The British government appeared divided, with its Northern Ireland Secretary, Sir Patrick Mayhew, saying some weapons would have to be surrendered before all-party talks could begin, and another senior official, Michael Ancram, saying the British Government had "never looked for the surrender of arms."

Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams interpreted the contradictory signals as a smokescreen aimed at creating a rift between the republicans and the Irish government. Distrust prevailed, and the meeting between the Irish Prime Minister, John Bruton, and British Prime Minister, John Major, was called off.

Both sides are intransigent. The British say they cannot back down on the arms issue without losing the support of Protestant loyalists who want Northern Ireland to remain British. Mr Adams says any surrender of arms-given that it was an IRA initiative to forswear violence-would be unacceptable to the IRA. Along with other Sinn Fein leaders, he believes the British are hiding their inflexibility behind the unionists' fears.

In another worrisome development, the Ulster Unionist party elected a new leader on Friday. Upper Bann MP David Trimble has not seemed inclined to compromise. He defended the unionists who wanted to march through Catholic neighbourhoods this summer, exacerbating tensions between the two communities. Both the Irish and British governments need to bring him into the peace process. Mr Adams has offered to meet him. A proposal to delegate the issue of disarming to an international commission would allow both sides to save face. But they must approach it with new commitment. The British must get their diplomacy under control and renounce brinkmanship. Sinn Fein must signal its willingness to keep looking for an acceptable formula to move the process on.

irish independent (dublin)

September 11th 1995

david trimble must be given time to find his bearings. It is one thing to be a backbench heckler with a fine turn of phrase. But those qualities will not lead a large section of the unionist people through a time of change.

Mr Trimble has the reputation, and the record, of a hardliner, and conventional wisdom has it that it is better to do business with such a man because when he says "Yes" he knows he will not have to subdue a rebellious party. But whether Mr Trimble will ever say "Yes" to anything coming from London or Dublin remains to be seen. The quicker he starts talking to Mr Bruton and Mr Major the better for the peace process.

But Mr Trimble is not the only hardliner in the North. If all the reports are correct (and they have not been denied) then it was a hardline attitude by Gerry Adams which scuppered the meeting between the Irish and British premiers; despite being kept well informed about the progress of discussions between Dublin and London he stepped in at the last minute and allegedly told emissaries from the government that if the deal went ahead there would be bodies on the street.

Since then Mr Bruton has indicated that the process can be carried on without Sinn Fein and Mr Adams appears to be trying to soften his approach to an international commission on arms. The whole process has become confusing, but we all cling to the hope that the general peace will continue in the North-only "general" because of a spate of sectarian burnings and organised paramilitary punishment beatings on both sides.

For the moment, however, we are into a period of re-assessment, during which governments will try to come to terms with new developments and men like Mr Trimble and Mr Adams will find that it is never enough to say "No" when change is in the air.

news letter (belfast)

September 12th 1995

although the change is more evolutionary than revolutionary, there is no doubt that mainstream unionism is undergoing metamorphosis, and not before time. In truth, unionists have been far more pliable in the past 20 years than they have ever been given credit for. Yet it can be argued that change has been forced upon them rather than been a product of any desire to progress and develop, and to build bridges without also having to burn them.

But now unionism is irrevocably moving forward in a way that is both assured and imaginative, and the greatest irony is that the candid, self-assured spirit in which a new form of unionism is being nurtured, was born on the day when the British and Irish governments published Frameworks for the Future.

That was when the leaders and would-be leaders of the Ulster Unionist party realised that their response to events in the period since the Downing Street Declaration had been wholly inadequate. The culmination was David Trimble's election to the leadership, which, far from being a setback to the emergence of a new unionism, was in fact the final proof that the need for change had been recognised by the party faithful.

His election is bemoaned only by those who want to consign unionism to oblivion. Already, by deftly guiding both governments back to what they agreed about all-party talks in the Downing Street Declaration, and agreeing to meet Democratic Left leader Pronsias De Rossa, he has outflanked political rivals and surprised those foolish enough to swallow the Irish Times description of him as a sort of Heinrich Himmler.

For those who want proof of the new unionism, it is all around us. Last night, John Taylor, a leading member of the UUP, went into an Orange Hall in the loyalist stronghold of Whiterock and espoused the need for the secularisation of the Unionist party.

The extent of its links with the Orange Order, which has its own role to play in the life of the Protestant people, is but one of the many shibboleths to be confronted by new unionism. If nationalism and, dare we hope it, republicanism are equally committed to wrestling with their own tarnished history, there will be hope for future generations.