Flexibility and trust are keys to Mitchell's approach

THE WORD "impasse" is defined as "a position from which there is no outlet a deadlock".

THE WORD "impasse" is defined as "a position from which there is no outlet a deadlock".

You have reached a deadlock, our lexicographer goes on, "when matters have become so complicated that all is at a complete standstill".

The peace process had come to just such a standstill when the Irish and British governments decided to break the deadlock, end the impasse and find a way out of the cul de sac by setting up a three man body under the respected former US senator, George Mitchell.

The report from that body was rightly praised for its lucidity and clarity the subtlety of the document was less widely noted.

READ MORE

The central issue is arms and how to dispose of them, but this is presented in the context of the peace process as a whole and how it might be advanced.

The members of the international body underwent a crash course in Anglo Irish politics. "We heard orally and in writing from dozens of government officials, political leaders, church officials and representatives of other organisations and institutions. We received hundreds of letters and telephone calls from members of the public and met with many others.

Small wonder they should conclude that although decommissioning was "a serious issue", it was also "a symptom of a larger problem the absence of trust".

In a ringing phrase they said none of the issues would be resolved if the parties resorted to their vast inventories of historical recrimination".

Mr Mitchell's experience as a judge and political conciliator is seen in the way the report isolates and narrows the area of contention by noting that all sides agree in principle with the need to decommission.

Differences on the timing and context should not obscure that fact, he adds.

He then seeks to build on that agreement about the ultimate objective by urging the parties to declare their adherence to fundamental principles of democracy and non-violence.

Now known as the Mitchell principles, they require "total and absolute commitment" to the following democratic and "exclusively" peaceful means of resolving political issues "total disarmament" of all paramilitary organisations, which must be verifiable to an independent commission renunciation of force or the threat of force to influence negotiations agreement to abide by any agreement reached and to use only democratic and peaceful methods to alter the outcome of negotiations in any way to urge the end of "punishment" killings and beatings and to take effective steps to prevent such actions.

These principles, according to Mitchell, directly address the concern of those who demanded decommissioning prior to all party talks because they feared the paramilitaries would use force or the threat of force as a negotiating tool.

"Given the history of Northern Ireland this is not an unreasonable concern.

On the issue of "full and verifiable" decommissioning, the report concludes that the paramilitaries are committed to working towards that as part of the process of all party negotiations.

Prior decommissioning was unattainable, but the six Mitchell principles offered a basis for reassurance to all parties (reinstatement of the IRA ceasefire is not mentioned because it was of course still in existence when the report was written.)

The section of the document which has aroused most controversy of late is Paragraph 34, which seeks to get around the obstacle created by the fact that one side wants a partial hand over of arms at an early stage whereas republicans have insisted there can be no decommissioning prior to a settlement.

Paragraph 34 urges the parties to "consider" an approach "whereby some arms would be decommissioned "during the process" of all party talks rather than before or after. This step by step approach could be used to build confidence in the course of negotiations.

Mitchell outlines how this could enhance the mood of the talks. "As progress is made on political issues, even modest mutual steps on decommissioning could help create the atmosphere needed for further steps in a progressive pattern of mounting trust and confidence."

These key points have been the focus of discussion between the Irish and British governments. Dublin has been trying to prevent the setting of preconditions by stressing instead the flexibility of Mitchell's approach.

Dublin sources have felt the "British side was trying to set down preconditions on arms, before they called on the services of Mr Mitchell as chairman or referee, rather than the proper approach, as Dublin sees it, whereby the parties to the talks would simply agree to deal with the issue.

The Mitchell Report says decommissioning should receive a "high priority" in the talks and that the details "including supporting confidence building measures, timing and sequencing" have to be determined by the parties themselves.

But there should be no overtones of surrender. "The ceasefires and the peace process are products not of surrender but rather of a willingness to address differences through political means.

An independent commission should be appointed to verify the decommissioning process. This process should result in the "complete destruction of the armaments".

This could be carried out by the commission or by representatives of either government, but "parties should also have the option of destroying their weapons themselves", provided this was verified by the commission.

The report concludes that success in the peace process cannot be achieved solely by reference to the decommissioning of arms".

It outlines a range of confidence building measures such as the provision of information on those who were kidnapped and presumably killed by the paramilitaries "continued action" on prisoners moves on security and on emergency legislation an "elective process" which has now taken place and further progress on social and economic development.

If there is a "spirit of Mitchell" it can be summarised in one of the concluding sentences of the report he prepared along with Gen John de Chastelain and Mr Harri Holkeri. They write "Rigid adherence by the parties to their past positions will simply continue the stale mate which has already lasted too long."