A careful reading of the two governments' recently released joint declaration confirms one's first speed-read impressions. Nothing much new here that we haven't heard about already. In fact, if we view the Good Friday Agreement as the equivalent of an organisation's corporate strategy, then this document is the business plan without the costing.
Five years after the event mind you, but to be fair a lot of the Good Friday recommendations such as the assembly have already been set up. But in terms of progressing policing, human rights and justice elements there is nothing new and the only sensible response is to say 'Yes, just do it.'
The relatively new bits of the declaration, and even then there has been so much preliminary discussion that one's heart hardly lurches with surprise, is the commitment of the British government to amend legislation so that in future they will relinquish power to suspend the assembly.
New also is the proposal to set up an independent monitoring body. Its terms of reference will be to monitor and report on the carrying out of the commitments relating to the ending of paramilitary activity and the programme of security normalisation.
I think the governments missed a real opportunity here. Instead of simply monitoring, the four appointees should also be charged with a positive enabling role so that they are obliged to engage with those responsible for ending all paramilitary activity and for security normalisation. In this way they could come to understand the difficulties inherent in this process. Their terms of reference could include the authority to require other bodies to help solve the problems that prevent normalisation. It is worth repeating, at the risk of boring regular readers of this column, that it is practically impossible for an ex-prisoner or ex-paramilitary to find a proper, well paid, legitimate job. Unless someone with sufficient power does something to remove the barriers currently preventing these people from finding gainful employment we will continue to drive many of them into illegal activities, and consequently inhibit their normal integration into society.
While the joint declaration held no surprises either in content or in the benign fatherly tone, on the other hand, the much anticipated and talked-over IRA statements of both April 13th and May 6th certainly are worth careful reading. Almost gone (but then you can't quickly change the literary style of a lifetime) is the hectoring, fatherly style so beloved previously by P O'Neill and in its place is what could be interpreted as humility and a genuine willingness to change. Read the words – address concerns, genuine interest in building, definitely set aside arms, offer sincere apologies and condolences.
The statement also says: "We do not claim to fully understand unionist perceptions. But we are prepared to listen and to learn."
On the assumption that this statement was sincerely meant, the IRA, I presume, will now listen to the very clear message from unionists that they want P O'Neill to utter the magic words that the war is over.
What is so difficult about saying these words? Come to think of it, there were times during the conflict when Prime Ministers were adamant that the IRA campaign was most definitely not a war, and that all those engaged were common criminals. In fact, the hunger strikers died to make the point that they were fighting a war. Now that we have a Prime Minister who seems at ease with the war terminology, it might be a good idea for the republicans to grasp the moment and to sign the whole conflict off with this simple but profound and much longed for statement.
While we are on the subject of words, was it not possible for Tony Blair to use a bit of ingenuity in his response to the first IRA statement? For example, he could have said, "I take your statement to mean that there will be no more paramilitary activity, training, targeting etc, etc (section 13 of the Joint Declaration) Please clarify if this is not what you mean." This approach would have put the onus on republicans to, either by their silence concede his meaning was correct, or alternatively, be forced to explain what exactly they did mean.
So, to date we have the two governments pledging what they will do to further the peace process. We have the republican statement about its commitment. While Mark Durkan has not produced the formal written word, he has not defaulted in his positive verbal commitments to the future.
The big gap in the declarations is the failure of the unionists to put pen to paper.
We know what they want everyone else to do. We know what they don't want. What we need is to know is what their positive contribution to peace is going to be.
