Can Ian Paisley understand that many Catholics in
Northern Ireland would find it difficult, indeed
repugnant, to wake up one morning and find him as
their First Minister?
There isn't the slightest hesitation before his reply
comes laughing back: "I think I wouldn't be the
unionist I am if they didn't... I mean, I have said
that personally to Bertie Ahern, and his whole cabinet
when I met them. I said 'you are bound to be against
me because I am against you. We're not sitting here in
friendship or eceumenical kisses... We're sitting here
because we are opponents on a vital issue."
The leader of unionism is in rude good health and high
humour. But before answering my questions he wants to
address some vital issues by way of reply to Minister
Dermot Ahern's interview in The Irish Times last
Tuesday.
Dr Paisley rejects what he considers Mr Ahern's
presumption in "setting the parameters" within which
he must work. "And the first parameter is the
important question of the police. How do you support
the police? Joining the Police Board is not an act of
supporting the police, because you can go onto the
Board without making any statement whatsoever, you can
carry out your own plan of operation to further what
you have in mind, and you are not supporting the
police. But we are being sold that the best thing is
to get Sinn Féin to support the police and the best
way to do it is get them to join the Board. That is
not supporting the police at all."
Minister Ahern and Secretary of State Peter Hain have
said the DUP must not raise policing as a new
"pre-condition" to power-sharing. Is that what he's
doing?
"I resent very much them saying I am putting forth
preconditions. These are the conditions I set out in
all my talks with them. I fought an election on it. I
won my majority on this very issue. And the issue is a
simple one. Number one, there could be nobody in the
government of Northern Ireland except they accept the
forces of law and order. And by accepting them, they
hand to the state all the information they have on
lawlessness."
So this issue will have to be resolved if there is to
be an agreement in November?
"Yes. Except we have the police issue resolved there
is no way forward. The talks have no future until
everyone who's going to be in the government of
Northern Ireland is a complete and total supporter of
the police. That doesn't mean he can't criticise
police activity. But he's not going to be planning
activity against the police, he's not going to
withhold information, he's not going to use his
position on the Police Board to tip off fellows to
clear the country...."
Since they clearly want the issue resolved every bit
as much as him, why does he suppose Prime Minister
Blair and Taoiseach Ahern are not demanding this of
Sinn Féin at this stage? "I think they've been told
strongly by Sinn Féin they're not getting it."
The SDLP and the British Government have been
intrigued by comments made by Sinn Féin president
Gerry Adams in this series, and seem to anticipate
movement. However, time to park this debate and move
forward, or, rather, back to my first question. I
advanced it by way of an invitation to Dr Paisley. As
is evident from what has gone before, much of the
political discourse centres on his views about what
republicans have still to do. The invitation is to
consider what Mr Blair would call "the big picture"
from the other end of the lens, and how far
republicans have already travelled even against the
continuing backdrop of loyalist terrorism. In the
ninth year of the second IRA cessation, and following
confirmation that their "war" is over, does Dr Paisley
recognise the situation is already transformed beyond
recognition?
"Yes," he replies, before adding the qualification. In
the Commons recently he challenged Mr Hain: "I said
'who is it that brought about those changes? Was it
your policy or was it my policy?' Our pressure had a
lot to do with it, our pressure was successful. Then
you say to me throw it all in now. You don't throw
away successful policies, you pursue them."
Dr Paisley has anticipated me. I remind him that when
he addressed the opening session of the (Peter) Brooke
talks in 1991 he warned: "No political agreement short
of the impossible, that is surrender to the IRA's
demand for a 32 county republic, will cause the IRA to
go away." Thus he said no political agreement would
give Northern Ireland peace. I put it to him, many,
including disillusioned republicans, think he has
succeeded beyond his wildest imaginings. No
constitutional compromise is demanded of him, much
less surrender. He has the peace he never thought to
see, and the opportunity now to cement it with
political stability. The obvious question – in terms
once posed to unionists generally by the Progressive
Unionist Party's David Ervine – is whether he is going
to grasp defeat from the jaws of victory?
"No, because the ultimate victory is a foundation upon
which we can build democratically." The DUP leader
contends "a democracy" cannot be built on what he says
"is lacking" in the Belfast Agreement, and refers to
his proposals to the British Government for change.
"We have said, 'at the end of the day the IRA gives up
all its arms, the IRA genuinely has no more truck with
criminality, the IRA supports the police and called
for its people to support the police ... You do all
that, but that is not sufficient. We must be able to
build upon something that is a democracy, and we
haven't that'. Now they promised they would change the
Agreement in the way we suggested it could be changed,
so that we would have a firm democratic foundation,
because you can make a quick deal and then, when you
start to build, you'd be on sinking sands."
Dr Paisley confirms this means provision for
"collective responsibility" in any Executive, "and
especially the fact that you cannot forever be stuck
that you have to get agreement between two diverse
agencies. There's bound to be a time when we have to
go to a majority weighted vote. I am prepared to have
a weighted majority. I'm prepared to go as far as any
real democracy goes, but I'm not prepared to tie my
country in with people who at the end of the day want
to destroy it."
I'm not sure where that leaves Sinn Féin. Does he mean
they want to destroy his country? "Yes, their aim is
a 32 county Ireland and they're not going to give that
up." But it's as a legitimate political aspiration?
"Ach.." Imagine if I had told him in 1991 we'd be
sitting in his office in these circumstances... with
Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Constitution gone, Sinn
Féin having already worked a partitionist Assembly,
the principle of consent established. In the terms in
which he addressed those Brooke talks – nobody is
asking him to go into a 32 county state. What he's
being asked to do is have a power-sharing
administration within the United Kingdom?
"Yes but that government must not be an interim
government. They cannot tell me I must take a step,
but it's only a step to another step and another
step... I mean Adams made that clear, that we're on a
progress (to a united Ireland). That progress is not
going to descend on this Assembly. And I do not see
this Assembly ever being a real true democracy unless
changes are made."
But these changes don't preclude Sinn Féin being there
as members of an executive? "No, provided the other
questions of the police and all are dealt with." On
one specific, he has previously said he would not
accept the concept of co-equal First and Deputy First
Ministers. Is that an absolute position? "I can't see
how you could have an absolute position with that
(arrangement), that before you can get agreement you
have to have the agreement of a person who has already
said 'this is only a step'. I mean they talk about the
peace 'process'."
But doesn't he think they're bluffing? I mean, he's
already claimed success for his policy? "Yes, but to a
degree, we're not out of the woods yet." In this
respect Dr Paisley records particular concern about
the closures of military bases West of the Bann, and
the proposed seven council reform of local government,
before declaring his fear that events are actually
moving toward "a re-partition of Northern Ireland."
So he's not yet satisfied as to where the political
process is taking Northern Ireland? "No," he confirms:
"I am shrewdly suspicious of the British government, I
don't put my faith in the British government." And in
seeming warning against any temptation to go behind
his back, he adds: "I think the British government
would like somebody else where I sit, and would make a
deal. Well I intend to sit on and sit tight.... I'm
not interested in office. Do you think I have come to
eighty years of age to sell my soul? No, I'm not. What
I'm interested in is to have a broad base of democracy
on which we build, and then, come hell or high water,
that edifice is going to stand."
Does the IRA have to disband? "I think they have, yes,
I don't see any use for them otherwise. But the whole
organisation of the IRA as an army..I say that that
must change and we can't have them."
He's going to be accused of raising a whole list of
impossible demands. "I know that. But I haven't said
anything I haven't said before and they are on
record."
Yet here he is the undisputed leader of unionism. He
fears no man. Why not sit down and negotiate the terms
face-to-face with Gerry Adams? "Because my principle
says to me you don't negotiate with terrorists." And
that's how he still sees him? Despite everything?
"Yes." Whatever he says about him, Gerry Adams
acknowledges "the Paisley deal is the best deal" if it
can be had. "But you know why? He knows I can
deliver." Exactly. "Well to be in my position and know
you can deliver makes me more careful. I'm not going
to take one step that's going to in any way hinder my
power to deliver."
Yet he's been to the Bush White House, and he agrees
terrorism is not an option in the post 9/11 world.
Isn't that his greatest assurance? But no: "My
assurance is that there's a God in heaven, a sovereign
God, and he works in a mysterious way."
