Since 1993, successive Irish Governments have worked for inclusive institutions as a basis for peace in Northern Ireland. This week, because the IRA is afraid to destroy its weapons and unionists will consequently withdraw from the Executive, this could come apart at the seams.
There should be an informed debate about the options now.
In that sense, the article (Irish Times October 4th) by Prof Brendan O'Leary is timely. He calls for:
The vacated ministerial positions of the unionist members to be filled by others willing to serve (presumably SDLP, Sinn FΘin or Alliance members) and
Immediate elections rather than a suspension and review of the agreement.
He claims that suspension and review would be a breach of the agreement and of the British-Irish Treaty which incorporated it. I believe that Prof O'Leary misunderstands both the Good Friday agreement, and the political realities that underlie it.
As to the suspension of the institutions being illegal, I refer to Paragraph 33 of Strand 1 of the Good Friday agreement which contains the phrase, the Westminster Parliament (whose power to make legislation for Northern Ireland remains unaffected)". This phrase in the Good Friday agreement clearly indicates that there is a residual power to legislate vested in the Westminster parliament.
The Suspension Act derives from that. Article 2 of the British-Irish Treaty solemnly commits both governments to support the multi-party agreement including the phrase I just quoted. To argue that that phrase has no meaning would make nonsense of the principle of consent, which is one of the cornerstones of the agreement.
Prof O'Leary argues that the withdrawal of unionists should be met by filling their places with nationalists and that the order of Mo Mowlam that a well-formed Executive must include at least three registered unionists was a breach of the Good Friday agreement. He is wrong.
Paragraph 5 of Strand 1 of the Good Friday agreement states: "There will be safeguards to ensure that all sections of the community can participate and work together successfully in the operation of these institutions, and that all sections of the community are protected".
This clearly envisages both unionist and nationalist participation in the Executive. In the book The Blair Effect, published earlier this year, Prof O'Leary himself described the Good Friday agreement as providing for "cross-community executive powersharing" and for "mutual veto" rights.
These elements would be missing if there was not both unionist and nationalist participation in the institutions. In practical politics, power must be shared by mutual agreement. Such agreement is a voluntary matter. While very robust and specific about the resignation of unionist Ministers from the Executive, Prof O'Leary is tolerant and vague in regard to a failure of the republican movement to decommission.
He admits that decommissioning is an obligation under the agreement and that it is something for which "Sinn FΘin can be held to account". But he does not specify, anywhere in his article, how, when, or by whom that should be done. He knows well that Sinn FΘin and the IRA are as the Taoiseach put it, "two sides of the same coin".
So when Sinn FΘin entered into a commitment in the Good Friday agreement to "use any influence they may have" to achieve decommissioning within two years (ie, before May, 2000), this was no mere rhetorical flourish.
Indeed, as far back as September 24th, 1997, before the Good Friday agreement was even negotiated, Sinn FΘin had agreed that "the resolution of the decommissioning issue is an indispensable part of the process of negotiation".
IRA arsenals, many in this jurisdiction, are an affront to our sovereignty. The insistence on holding onto such arms represents a continuing threat to this State, and to anyone who disagrees with the IRA. It is a form of passive terrorism. It breaches the Constitution, which says that the only legitimate armed force is one authorised by the Oireachtas.
We all remember that, as recently as this February, Brian Keenan said that there could be a return to armed conflict if the political process broke down.
At this very late stage, it would be no more than destructive gamesmanship for the IRA to make a decommissioning gesture that would be just enough to win back some soft nationalist support, but which would not create the conditions that Sinn FΘin know are needed if Trimble is to be re-elected as First Minister with the minimum required unionist vote in the Assembly.
Prof O'Leary's suggestion of an immediate election is pure mischief-making. The SDLP is in a leadership transition. Unionist associations would select harder-line candidates. DUP and Sinn FΘin could gain many seats. A DUP First Minister willingly sharing the office with a Sinn FΘin Deputy First Minister might then be what would be needed for the institutions to work. That is not realistic politics. We have got to work with the existing Assembly, get the IRA weapons out of the way, re-establish the institutions on a sound footing, and thus give the parties the chance to establish a record of achievement before we ask them to face an election.
John Bruton is Fine Gael TD for Meath and a former Taoiseach