It's routinely stated and generally accepted as a
matter of fact, and yet some wonder: does America
really still have a meaningful role to play in the
Northern Ireland peace process?
US Special Envoy Mitchell Reiss is in no doubt:
"Absolutely. I think you can't just view this moment
as a snapshot but rather, looking back over the
previous few years at the substantial contribution the
US and Irish America has made to the efforts of the
two (British and Irish) Governments and the political
parties to restore a normal society in Northern
Ireland….. At this particular moment I think we are
part good offices, cheerleader, a source of ideas and
encouragement to everybody who's involved, to try to
get everybody over the line so we can restore the
Assembly and have local government."
I put the question for a variety of reasons. Sure, at
summits and on set-piece occasions the Taoiseach or
the British Prime Minister will attest to America's
ongoing importance. Yet even President Clinton's role
was probably less in his second term than in his
first. Events have moved on, the world has changed
post 9/11. The Irish question, inevitably, has slipped
down the agenda. And of course the Belfast Agreement
itself changed the dynamics by imposing a direct
burden on the local parties, thus reducing the role of
outside facilitators.
Ambassador Reiss agrees: "That's absolutely true. The
distance we had to travel was clearly much further in
the past. Where we are today is a product of that
success." However he still hears from both governments
and across the political spectrum the desire for
continuing American involvement, and appreciation in
particular for the role of President Bush, "given all
the other things on his agenda, for him staying
involved and allowing the US to help."
I also put the question for a particular reason,
namely Sinn Féin's apparent antipathy to Mr Reiss's
own involvement. In his recent Irish Times interview
Gerry Adams told me to "pay no heed" to the
Ambassador, the republican charge being that Mr Reiss
has further reduced American influence because of the
position he has taken on the vexed question of
policing in the North.
The man talent-spotted by former US Secretary of State
Colin Powell packs a mean diplomatic punch. First
gently suggesting it's never totally useful " to have
a discussion through the media", Mr Reiss responds: "I
think what Gerry Adams said about my not having any
authority in Northern Ireland is absolutely correct,
and that the key decisions are going to be made by the
political parties and the two governments. But I think
it's also correct to say that the United States does
have a fair amount of influence, and it's how we
decide to use and leverage that influence that defines
the role we play in the peace process."
Sinn Féin's complaint is that he has chosen to use
that leverage by way of a ban on Mr Adams fund-raising
in the States as part of an overt attempt to force the
pace of the internal republican debate on the policing
issue.
Again, the diplomatic language doesn't quite mask the
Envoy's fairly uncompromising stance: "I'm not going
to speak for them or how they interpret events. As
I've explained on a number of occasions, this really
isn't about fund raising at all. It's all about giving
the decent, law-abiding people in republican and
nationalist communities the type of police service
they deserve, so that they're not confined to
ghettoes. It's about policing, it's about normality,
about having a police service that reflects the
personality and the wishes of people of the
communities."
Sinn Féin would doubtless say they are the better
judge of how to conduct the debate with that end goal
in mind than Mitchell Reiss. "Well, they certainly can
say what they like. But I think I've heard it from
enough people in these communities, and from others,
that I think the people in these communities are a
little ahead of where the party (Sinn Féin) is. And Al
Hutchinson (the Oversight Commissioner) gave a report
the other day in which he said there is no reason for
Sinn Féin any more not to join the Policing Board and
support the Police Service of Northern Ireland
(PSNI)."
Yet republicans are apparently perplexed by an
American stance they say is at odds with the declared
position of the British and Irish governments.
Specifically, and intriguingly, they say Mr Reiss has
shaped a position rendered irrelevant by their prior
agreement or understanding with London as to how the
policing issue can be resolved over time. And indeed
we've heard reports in the past week that Northern
Ireland Secretary Peter Hain is pressing the Envoy to
lift the fund-raising ban.
Mr Reiss maintains: "I'm convinced, persuaded…… that
there is no difference of opinion at this moment
between the British, Irish and American governments on
the issue of policing. Everyone recognises how
essential this is to getting a normal society in
Northern Ireland." In terms of the fund raising ban on
Mr Adams, "The British and Irish governments have
always stated that this is an internal American
decision. We've had consultations on this all along.
On my recent trip to London and Dublin we discussed
the matter at some length. So I think the story that
appeared recently (in the London Times) that there was
a disagreement between Secretary of State Hain and
myself was wildly overblown."
Looking ahead to the latest British/Irish "deadline"
for a power-sharing deal at Stormont, does Mr Reiss
think the policing issue can and should be resolved by
November 24? "I certainly hope so," he replies,
interestingly without the usual British/Irish caveat
about it being a requirement but not a precondition:
"I think it's important to recognise the steps Sinn
Féin has already taken and some of the work they are
doing internally with their own constituency. I think
they need to do it for their own reasons, regardless
of whatever the governments say, what other parties
say. Sinn Féin needs to do it on its own for its own
constituents. I think they understand that, and for
whatever reasons they do decide to do it it will be a
very good day for the people of Northern Ireland."
But when London and Dublin say it's not a precondition
for a devolution deal come November, does America
stand four-square behind them? "We're always
supportive of the governments," he replies: "Again, as
I've said before, I think Sinn Féin need to do it,
they're moving in the right direction, we just want
them to follow through."
The worry for many people is that even if Sinn Féin
resolves the policing issue, the DUP will simply find
fresh obstacles. I also have the sense that Mr Reiss
might be worried by a DUP tendency to make-up and set
subjective tests as they go along. Is he saying that
Sinn Féin signing-up for policing should be seen as
the last act, so to speak, of republican
decommissioning? Again, Mitchell Reiss says he doesn't
want to presume to know the DUP's position, while his
own seems clear: "I will say that I've been encouraged
by the objective criteria they have set out for
joining a government with Sinn Féin. The two issues
Peter Robinson articulated when he visited the US in
April was a commitment to supporting the police and an
ending of IRA criminality. I think those are
completely reasonable for the DUP to stake-out and
again, if they should be met, then I can't see any
reason why the DUP wouldn't be willing to stand-up in
Stormont immediately."
I note Mr Hain thinks republicans have to all intents
and purposes already passed the test, with the
historic decision now to be made by the DUP. Mr Reiss
in turn notes the potential importance of October's
Independent Monitoring Commission report if
convergence is to be secured with Dr Paisley: "I don't
think the DUP is quite where Peter (Hain) is at this
point. I hope they will be after the October report."
Worryingly for the DUP, perhaps, Mr Reiss also appears
robust in support of Mr Hain's approach to the 'Plan
B' alternative spelt out by Taoiseach Bertie Ahern and
Prime Minister Tony Blair in April, when they spoke of
their obligation to provide "joint stewardship" of
Northern Ireland in the continued absence of
devolution. Ultimately, he says, Stormont's closure
would not be to the benefit or credit of either the
DUP or Sinn Féin. And he maintains "there are risks
for both parties" if the stalemate prevails on
November 24 and persists for any length of time
thereafter.
Any possible allowance for "injury time" after
November strikes me as interesting in light of renewed
speculation that the DUP "modernisers" now think May
next year their best bet for delivering a deal. My
immediate difficulty, however, is to see the risk for
Sinn Féin in a 'Plan B' which would inevitably be seen
as a "greening" of Direct Rule if not a prototype for
some form of Joint London/Dublin Authority. Mr Reiss
disputes the contention that Plan B as defined is all
"carrot" for Sinn Féin and "stick" for the DUP, and
argues both sides will lose from a sense of their
collective failure: "It really depends on what form
Joint Stewardship takes. But I think there's a larger
sense that decisions will be taken by people other
than Sinn Féin or any of the political parties in
Northern Ireland, and I can't see how that's anything
but uncomfortable for leaderships that have staked
their reputations and careers on being the stewards of
their own people."
