Despite deep misgivings about the strategy adopted by
the Irish and British governments, Sinn Féin will be
at what Gerry Adams calls "the (Peter) Hain Assembly"
when it convenes at Stormont next week.
Months of negotiations lie ahead, and we know what
republicans hope to see at the end of the process. But
before the hard bargaining gets under way, I put it to
the Sinn Féin president that his party's influence is
in fact diminishing, and that he may have to settle
for considerably less than he achieved in the Belfast
Agreement back in 1998.
Mr Adams acknowledges "that would certainly be a
concern" if it proved the case: "Our objective is
straightforward. We will make a serious effort to
create the conditions where the DUP become part of the
power sharing arrangement in the terms of the Good
Friday Agreement. There aren't any other acceptable
terms.. We go in with a good will and will make a big
effort, and I've actually been telling republicans we
should suspend our scepticism about the DUP. In terms
of the process, this is probably the last effort
there's going to be in the lifetime of Ian Paisley to
get this straightened out, and the Paisley deal is the
best deal. So let's see if we can get that."
Yet there are reasons for thinking Mr Adams might he
be disappointed. Sinn Féin has lost in David Trimble a
willing unionist partner, and now faces in Dr Paisley
a leader mandated to reverse what unionists regard as
a process of concession-making to Sinn Féin?
"Let's see. I don't underestimate the difficulties for
unionism, nor the fact that the DUP had its position
on these matters. But the DUP are now the leaders of
unionism and they now have a responsibility to figure
out the best way forward. Of course the DUP will try
to figure out a way forward which is best for
unionism. But there will be no return to majority
rule. There can be no situation where the inequalities
which were inherent within the six county state can be
accepted. There is a whole raft of measures in terms
of the Good Friday Agreement which have to be
delivered on, and the DUP has a veto only over one,
and that is whether they will participate in the power
sharing arrangements or not. I would like to see them
participating. But if the DUP decides it's not going
to be part of this, that's its decision. Sinn Féin
will continue to do what we are doing in terms of
trying to proceed with reform and modernising..."
As, I observe, they've been forced to do for a long
time now, given the suspension of the institutions for
longer than they ever operated. Indeed, isn't this the
point? Sinn Féin is now dealing with a DUP which is
confident not least because they believe the
republican movement has lost the leverage that came
from the IRA campaign. Like the British State, the DUP
also calculates that the IRA can't now go back to "the
war" and thus that Sinn Féin's influence is diminished
the longer peace takes root?
Mr Adams doesn't flinch, recounting the familiar
charges about the UDR, security force collusion in
sectarian killings, and what he sees as a state of
denial within the unionist leadership "for the
situation which developed into conflict", before
issuing his challenge: "We should be pleased that the
war's over. If we're thoughtful about this, and I
think there people in the DUP who are thoughtful about
this, the last thirty years wasn't good for anyone,
particularly in terms of those who were bereaved or
who have injured family members. But without the last
thirty years, had unionism been allowed to continue,
the situation would just be desperate."
Even the unionists he appeals to will hear in this a
defence of the IRA's work over those years? Mr Adams
says "they shouldn't be surprised at that" while
insisting: "Let's not go into re-fighting the war."
Except that unionists still see him as the enemy. They
distrust where he's coming from and where he wants to
take them. Their constitutional purpose is inimical to
his. They will naturally seek the best terms. And
again, they're more confident now – courtesy of the
end of war and, incidentally, assurances from Peter
Hain and Dermot Ahern that the alternative to
power-sharing will not be joint London-Dublin
authority. With the territorial claim in Articles 2
and 3 of the Irish Constitution gone, and the
principle of consent established, unionists might
think relatively benign Direct Rule plus a bit of
North/South cooperation something they can live with?
They've nothing to fear have they?
"And Sinn Féin continues to grow across the island,"
comes the reply: "Sinn Féin's going to continue to be
an influence which will radicalise and popularise
these broad republican concepts. Now we can sort of
divide across the island – 'orange in this little
North East corner, and the rest of the island becoming
increasingly green' – or we can try to find
accommodations and I think the Good Friday Agreement
is a good accommodation."
In terms of helping the DUP to an accommodation, does
he accept the Belfast Agreement's assertion of
Britain's sovereignty in Northern Ireland, subject
only to the principle of consent?
"I would put it in slightly different terms. I
accepted the Good Friday Agreement, I was part of the
group that negotiated it, we're for the Agreement. If
the Agreement doesn't work all the elements in it are
still necessary to bring about the type of
rights-based rights based society which is required.
One of the significant dimensions of the Agreement
which is very clear is that the British government has
said that it will only stay there for as long as the
majority of people want ... like a couple deciding
they will get divorced but will wait until the
children are grown up. It isn't as British as
Finchley. It isn't the absolute commitment to the
Union. It isn't the same arrangement as there is for
England, Scotland and Wales. Does it go as far as
Republicans would want it to go? No, but it is still a
sizeable movement forward. And you see we have to stop
shaping ourselves in the shadow of Britain."
But doesn't that expression speak of Adams' profound
and continuing failure to understand the nature of
unionism? Unionists don't see themselves living "in
the shadow of Britain" but rather in the country, and
under the government, of their choice?
But no: "Unionism is much more paranoid about the
Brits than I would ever be, feels much more insecure
about the Brits than I would ever be." Unionism, he
says, can decide to maintain a "not an inch" approach,
look after what are seen as unionist concerns "and
continue with this living in the shadow of Britain" or
"be genuinely confident and try to work out an
accommodation."
Supposing Dr Paisley was confident enough to
contemplate an accommodation, isn't it certain he
would require Sinn Féin's upfront endorsement of the
Police Service of Northern Ireland?
Mr Adams maintains his traditional line, asserting
that Sinn Féin will resolve its attitude to the PSNI
"when the British Government completes the commitments
they have made" on the issue.
But will that be good enough this time? President
Bush's envoy Mitchell Reiss says it is a requirement
of any party seeking to enter government that they
support the police? Mr Adams advises: "Do not heed
what Mitchell Reiss has said. Mitchell Reiss will not
be sorting these matters out."
DUP chief whip Nigel Dodds also says endorsement of
the PSNI is "a prerequisite" for any party sitting in
government anywhere in the UK? "Well, let's talk
about these issues," he offers. But Dr Paisley almost
certainly won't see much to talk about. Does Gerry
Adams really think the DUP leader will sit in
government with Martin McGuinness a Sinn Féin Deputy
First Minister who doesn't support the police? He
insists to the contrary "the big issue is whether Ian
Paisley will go in to a power sharing government."
But say he is prepared to do so, and policing emerges
as the DUP's bottom line? "Well, the issue of policing
has to be resolved anyway." Yes, and I might have been
told that in any one of a number of interviews since
the Belfast Agreement; since Peter Mandelson
introduced the legislation to implement the Patten
reforms; since the SDLP, the Catholic hierarchy, the
Irish government and Chris Patten endorsed their
implementation. This debate has been going on for
years. Can it be resolved at least in principle by
November?
Like any politician Gerry Adams can "talk the talk."
However while the DUP may remain sceptical, longer
term students of the republican "process" will almost
certainly find his answer instructive. "Policing may
be a necessary element in the resolution of the
outstanding matters to do with the Assembly. But
policing needs to be dealt with anyway, if there was
no Assembly. If there was none of this issue you have
articulated bearing down upon the process, policing
still needs to be resolved."
So will Sinn Féin step up
to the plate? "There is no issue that is not capable
of being resolved, including the issue of policing,
that's the best answer I can give you. If the DUP cast
about for reasons why they will not be involved in
power-sharing, that's their choice. But I think we
have clearly said the policing issue needs to be
resolved. Given the British government propositions to
resolve it – and they've agreed to proceed on those -
that will then bring the onus back on Sinn Féin, so
that's going to happen anyway in my view."
