Address by The Rt. Hon. David Trimble MP MLA to The Irish Association for Cultural, Economic and Social Relations,
Trinity College Dublin

Friday 28th March 2003

Madam Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is always a pleasure to address the Irish Association particularly on the 65th anniversary of its foundation. I continue to admire its work, born as it was very much in the Northern unionist community. Through difficult years the Association has made a quiet but valuable input, keeping open channels of communication, and continues to make a serious contribution to the establishment of better understanding between the two parts of our island. It is a record of achievement of which you can be justly proud.

Five years ago, as First Minister Designate I spoke to the Association in Co Wicklow in the aftermath of the negotiation of the Belfast Agreement. It was a moment of great optimism for all the people of this island, North and South, and I recall the warmth of the reception that evening.

The failure of paramilitaries
Some of you will feel we meet today in more disheartening circumstances. The Assembly has been suspended for over six months now. Hopes about restoration has been raised and dashed more than once since then. Much of the optimism in society five years ago has dissipated. But we must not despair. The Ulster Unionist leadership has kept the process initiated by the Agreement alive and that leadership, tested as it has been by the general election in the UK in 2001, remains firmly committed to the ultimate success of the Agreement. We may be closer than ever before to vindicating the hope that animates the Agreement.

We are on eve of a great decision which the Republican Movement has to take. As Prime Minister Blair said back in November: "What is the thing that has made David Trimble get out of the Executive? The existence of paramilitary activity. What is the thing that prevents unionist opinion coming behind an Agreement that in the end is perfectly good for the people of Northern Ireland? Paramilitary activity."

My message tonight is straightforward: I have worked day in and day out to make a success of the Belfast Agreement. I have fought for it within my Party, and within the community. I have not given up on it. I believe it has the potential to transform Northern Ireland and relations on this island. But I would be failing in my duty if I did not emphasise why we have a problem; why the optimism has dissipated.

Let me recall again that Wicklow speech. It was based on two key principles. First, that now we have a remarkable opportunity to create a pluralist Ireland based on the acknowledgement of legitimate difference. In that speech I recognised much has been done but it is unfortunate that there are occasional lapses. Modernisation on both sides of the Border is to be encouraged. Engagement with the outside world is to be encouraged. That is why I was surprised that on St Patrick's Day that The Irish Times - a paper for which I have great respect - felt this was the right moment to reprint de Valera's St Patrick's Day address of 1943, redolent as it was of a parochialism and narrowness of vision.

Secondly, I said that republicans had to come to terms fully with the rules of the new dispensation. I quoted Stephen Gwynn, for 10 years Nationalist MP for Galway, who writing of the time of Partition, explained why unionists were so suspicious and tough-minded. He said: "Sinn Fein honeycombed the British service in Ireland with persons who thought it honest to conspire actively against the Government which paid them. One cannot expect [unionists] to have forgotten that nor blame them for acting on the memory."

When I spoke those words that I was referring to bad faith rooted in the Troubles of the early 1920s. But history has, tragically, repeated itself. The current situation is worse than the 1920s, for Stormontgate has happened several years after the Belfast Agreement for which the people on this island voted for overwhelmingly.

As de Valera said in somewhat similar circumstances, "The ultimate court of appeal for deciding disputed questions of national expediency and policy is the people of Ireland." The Republican Movement so long as it defaults on its obligations, it is in contradiction with the view of the people of Ireland.

I am sorry that much of Southern opinion has not fully grasped the destabilising impact of the Stormontgate saga. Thousands of people - not just the political elite - have been told that they were being spied on and that their details are in the hands of the Provisional IRA. These are the people that we expect, in the main, to vote for, work for and sustain a political compromise. Frankly, I find it demeaning to discover that I was being spied upon. I find it perhaps even more concerning that when I and Mark Durkan have encouraged spokespersons for local communities to dialogue over differences at Belfast interfaces, such meetings were used by republicans to gather information on loyalist participants

The dangers to policing
We cannot deny that this complicates the whole debate on policing. When we read reports in the press that senior republicans have called on their supporters to infiltrate the police, a shudder runs through respectable society. I am a strong supporter of the view that all sections of our community should have ownership of the police. I have made it clear again and again in Parliament how committed I am to young people from the Catholic community coming forward to join the Police Service.

But, in 1918 we already had in Ireland a police service that both communities were well represented within. It was destroyed by a campaign of violence. So the policing issue is not just one of communal representation. As the Prime Minister said in his Belfast speech of October 2002, "The concept of republicans on the Policing Board, of young republicans becoming police officers becoming police officers, while maintaining an active paramilitary organisation, outside of the law, only need to be stated to be seen as an absurdity."

Violence and the threat of violence must be removed. Again, in the Prime Minister's words, "That doesn't just mean decommissioning but all bombings, killings, beatings, and an end to targeting, recruiting, and all the structures of terrorism." These are necessary acts of completion. But the transition from the violent paramilitary past will not be fully complete until those with that past have declared their support for the police and acted accordingly. We await the Republican Movement's response. But now as at the time of the Wicklow speech the language of the Republican leadership is giving us cause for concern.

The requirements of the Agreement
Over the last five years we have been told that Sinn Fein may wish to work the Agreement politically but the IRA is not a party to it. This is the excuse offered for gunrunning and the Colombian tragedy (where it appears the IRA has indirectly contributed to hundreds of deaths through mortar and car bomb attacks). It was also used concerning the Castlereagh break-in and the Provo spy ring. The excuse is laughable and it only damages the credibility of Mr Adams and Mr McGuinness when they make statements that everyone knows are not true. On Colombia one should recall that Page 1 of the Agreement all the participants "affirm[ed] our total and absolute commitment to exclusively democratic and peaceful means of resolving differences on political issues, and our opposition to any use or threat of force by others for any political purpose, whether in regard to this agreement or otherwise."

I would also draw attention to a political point that is not stressed enough. The Agreement, in Article 33, explicitly endorses and supports the sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament over Northern Ireland based on the principle of consent. Yet republican leaders consistently ignore the implications of that core statement. We get destabilising mixed messages. On the one hand, Mr Adams will come out of Downing Street and say - laughably - that the Agreement is incompatible with British sovereignty in Northern Ireland. On the other, in New York, he admits, "I don't think we can force on unionism an all-Ireland state that doesn't have their assent or consent and doesn't reflect their sense of being comfortable." We need as an act of completion for republicans to clarify their position.

Dealing with reality
The principle of consent - that a United Ireland can only come about with the agreement of a majority in both jurisdictions - strengthens Northern Ireland's place within the United Kingdom. Prime Minister Blair has, incidentally, always made it clear that in his view imposed solutions will not work and that consent remains the key to his government's policy. It has been his consistent position dating back at least as far as September 1995 in an interview he gave to Frank Millar of The Irish Times.

The reality, therefore, is that we all must work within the context of a Northern Ireland that remains part of the UK. Some republicans fantasise that demographic change will bring about a United Ireland. Last week further census figures were released. These were even more reassuring to the unionist population than the original December figures. They showed that the figure for Catholics as a proportion of the newly-born has been falling steadily since 1985. Only for one decade - the 1980s - do Catholic newly-borns represent a majority. Prior to the release of the figures there was a great deal of speculative and ill-informed hype suggesting that Catholics are set to become a majority in Northern Ireland in a decade or so and that Irish unity was a logical sequitur. Not only is that analysis sectarian but it is just wrong. There is no prospect of a Catholic majority in Northern Ireland and, unless there is some revolution in political attitudes, there will be no majority for a United Ireland either.

Constitutional security, in my view, provides unionists with a great incentive to make Northern Ireland work, to make the historic compromise with nationalists we negotiated in 1998 work. But we need not only an end to the world of latent threat but also a shared understanding of the meaning of the political structure of the Agreement itself. I have no doubt that this is where the Irish Government stands. At the Wicklow conference Martin Mansergh, then Special Advisor to the Taoiseach, said the Agreement allowed space for those who wished to preserve the Union on the basis of a pluralist parliament for a pluralist people. I find the Taoiseach himself very clear on this point also.

Working in good faith
I have spoken at some length about republicans. It is necessary that I say something about loyalist paramilitarism also. Our condemnation of loyalist acts of violence is no less clear-cut than our condemnation of republicans. Violence in the Northern Ireland context is never progressive. It is only destructive of lives and prosperity and acts against sensible reform. Loyalist paramilitaries have been responsible for considerable violence in recent years, much of it directed within the Protestant community. We have been trying to work with some of the saner elements and there have been some encouraging signs recently that those elements will prevail, - such as the peaceful ending of the feud, the organised handover of pipebombs to the PSNI and the UDA's declaration of a cessation of all paramilitary activity. Of course, these actions need to be followed up. The reality, thought, is that loyalist paramilitarism is marginal in political terms. That is why the focus is so often on republicans - because people vote for them in such numbers.

Of course, the acts of completion we seek would create opportunities for normalisation in very many aspects of life in Northern Ireland. The best way forward for our society is for the two sections of our community to work together in government. It is in unionism's best long-term interests. There are bitter memories on all sides but we have a responsibility to the future of Northern Ireland. That responsibility means that if there is any realistic prospect of a resolution - of a return to devolution - it has to be explored.

Not only is that in the best long-term interests of unionists as well as nationalists, but we have already proven that devolution has helped to improve the broad environment in Northern Ireland. The transformation of the economy has been remarkable. Unemployment is at its lowest for thirty years. Long-term unemployment is down 65 per cent since the Agreement. Manufacturing is up 15% - uniquely in the United Kingdom. Is it surprising that a joint Queen's/University of Ulster survey found only 13% of the population expect continued economic improvement if the Agreement goes down? This is the reality that the anti-Agreement forces in unionism refuse to face up to.

The experience of working together in government was - given the depth of past bitterness - surprisingly positive. The reason the Assembly has fallen has nothing to do with bad internal dynamics. For all its complexities, the new Stormont worked reasonably well - not perfectly, but reasonably well - as did the North-South framework. We got the structures there right in 1998.

I defy any Southern ministers that know we have worked through the North-South Ministerial Council in a constructive manner and in good faith. The difficulties that we have had in the past arose solely out of paramilitary non-compliance.

The need for safeguards
That is why we need safeguards and remedies in case of default. These would not be necessary if paramilitary organisations had done their share and kept the peace. But they have not. Because paramilitaries have continued to be active an enormous burden has been placed on the Secretary of State and the Chief Constable who have been reluctant to pronounce on individual breaches of the Agreement for fear of destroying the whole process. That is why we initially raised the idea of a monitor last spring. That idea has now returned in a more comprehensive form. This should provide security not only for ourselves but for the other parties and the Irish Government too. It is essential that this work be insulated from short-term political pressures. We would expect it to recommend appropriate action and remedy in the event of a breach.

Again, I am disappointed by the attitude of Sinn Fein. It is simply not true to say that the Agreement contains no sanctions. The sanction is there and it is a stiff one. It is contained in section 25 of the Strand One section of the Agreement. The sanction is exclusion from office. So there is a sanction. The problem arises from the mechanism. That weakness was recognised by ourselves and others in 1998. What we are seeking to do now is to strengthen the mechanism and put in remedies short of the nuclear option - exclusion from office. A sanctions regime is, therefore, entirely in keeping with the spirit of the Agreement and, from our point of view, represents the eventual delivery on the promise made by Tony Blair before the Agreement was made, promises given with the knowledge of other parties to the Agreement.

I hope sanctions will not be necessary. As Bertie Ahern has said, there will be no need for sanctions if everybody plays by the rules. I can live with that. Why can't Gerry Adams? Does the IRA not intend from the outset to keep its side of the bargain?

In the days to come we will have to see and hear explicit words and actions that put an end to all doubts on this matter.

The international situation
I have spoken at some length about the home front. It would be remiss of me not to comment on the international situation. I do so as one who is proud to be both Ulster and British. That Britishness obviously informs my view of the situation with regard to Iraq. It is not and cannot be some far away place of which we know little. The Middle East is vital for the world and it is vital that we take an interest.

We are all thinking of the thousands of servicemen in the Gulf. Among them are two Irish regiments: the Royal Irish Regiment and the Irish Guards. Consequently, well in excess of 1,500 people from Northern Ireland-and, indeed, a not insignificant number from the Republic of Ireland-are deployed there.

We should have no doubt about the nature of the regime in Iraq. It is an anti-Semitic nationalist dictatorship. We should have no doubt about the threat, about the wars they have been started, or about the weapons of mass destruction that have been accumulated, and which continue to be there. There was a material breach before Resolution 1441, and there was still a material breach when military action began.

If Resolution 1441 is right, ensuring compliance with it is also right.

The paradox of the situation before last week was that the peaceful, diplomatic route was credible only if a major power was ready to use force, if necessary. That approach was no longer tenable when the French said that they would veto a resolution whatever the circumstances. The French believe that they should lead Europe, and that Europe should be another pole of power in the world-a challenge or a rival to the US. In itself that is a dangerous objective, they discovered however that that was not the view of the majority of European countries.

I have to say I am distressed by the degree of anti-Americanism that has been expressed over recent weeks and the personal hostility to the President. The record is clear, I think, especially in the period since 11 September. The US has moved slowly, deliberately and proportionately. That is the evidence of the past year and a half.

But, more than that, we need to consider the instability of the Middle East region as a whole. We need to think about the causes of that instability, and about how we can resolve the situation there. The region has failed to deal with the challenge of modernisation. We need to ask why modernisation has failed. This is a bigger issue than Saddam and it has nothing to do with Islam as a religion. How can we change the culture in the Middle East and the orientation of those authoritarian states because, until we do that, we will not achieve stability?

In the modern world, we face danger from what are called rogue states, terrorist groups and weapons of mass destruction. As a consequence of the cold war, there is a lot of expertise and matériel floating around the world that is not as well guarded as it should be. The events of 9/11 have concentrated minds on the matter.

When the Bush Administration was elected, it's intention was to make a conscious move away from being the world's policeman and to focus on the domestic situation. 9/11 changed all that. There was a deliberate decision not to follow the world-weary scepticism that lurks in corridors of the State Department and the Foreign Office. The policy is one not of conservatism but of liberalism, in philosophical if not party political terms. It is one of spreading values and using tactics designed to prepare the way for change and to inculcate the democratic values that are innate to the human personality. If it is possible to turn the Middle East into a zone of peace and prosperity that would be an enormous step forward for our world.

Defending liberal values
The spirit of the Belfast Agreement was about embedding peace and democratic values. The United States is doing the same thing, with British help. It is a liberal democratic venture.

Because he has difficulty swallowing some of the core aspects of the Agreement it comes as no surprise to me that Gerry Adams and his colleagues line up with the Kim Jong- Ils, the Mugabes and the Saddams, with some of the worst regimes in the world. I don't believe that is what the Irish people want and I don't think that is the policy of the Irish Government. Not for the current Irish Government the gross, hilarious hypocrisy of Caoimhin O Caolain's amendment in the Dail last week calling on all states in possession of weapons of mass destruction put them verifiably beyond use.

Thirty years after Ireland's EU accession a great deal of Irish society is trying to redefine Ireland as a modern European country. EU accession was about Ireland integrating with the wider world and while I understand the Irish desire to identify with France and Germany, does Ireland want to line up with Old Europe or New Europe? These are not questions for me to answer, merely to raise.

The Republic today, after 30 years of membership of the European family of nations, is a different Ireland. On our side of the Border we are trying to make Northern Ireland anew. I am confident we can get there. I am less certain about when we will get there.

For our part, unionism remains open to new relationships, changed relationships. We have demonstrated that Ulster Unionists are ready to embrace new relationships within Northern Ireland so long as it is done with integrity.

Post-Agreement Ireland, North and South, offers the prospect of a brighter future for the next generation than was the case for the last. There is the potential for unparalleled prosperity, peace and justice for all. I think members of the Irish Association appreciate that. It is time now for those who have been foot-dragging to seize the potential for progress.

ENDS