11 September 1997 Edition
Where Trimble fears to tread
By SEAN Mac BRADAIGH
The Ulster Unionist Party's Executive Committee meets this Saturday 13 September to discuss its approach to the Stormont talks, the opening session of which begins two days later.
David Trimble's party is expected to opt for `proximity talks' as opposed to the face-to face approach, although a complete boycott has not yet been ruled out.
None of the unionist or loyalist parties, with the exception of Alliance, attended the preliminary session of the talks on Tuesday 9 September.
It now seems that there are strong and growing tensions within the Ulster Unionst Party regarding all-party-talks and the peace process which cut across both the leadership of the party and its grassroots. There are those within the UUP who while they would rather negotiations at Stormont were not happening at all, feel at this stage that it would better to go in, while other elements prefer a complete boycott of what they see as a slippery slope towards political and constitutional change. The indications are that Trimble's leadership of the party is insecure and John Taylor in particular is reportedly snapping at his heels.
Trimble attained his leadership of the UUP through the votes of the hardline Ulster Unionist Council by virtue of his stance at Drumcree and did not receive the vote of even one unionist MP. He may therefore feel somewhat in hock to the more extremist elements within his party.
Trimble may stall in an effort to placate all sections of his party and safeguard his own tenuous leadership position. But what he needs to recognise is that opting for `proximity talks' is merely delaying the inevitable by erecting an extra hurdle for himself to jump. It would be better for him and his party to get in to round table talks now and get through the pain barrier as early and as quickly as possible.
In the meantime, before they enter any sort of talks at all, unionist tactics are to wring as many `concessions' or privileges from the British government as possible. The primary one is a further reiteration by the British of their commitment to the unionist definition of consent. That is what Trimble will have sought from British Prime Minister Tony Blair during their meeting in Downing Street on Wednesday.
While the DUP have denounced the Stormont talks and refused to have any dealings with them at present, it is belived that Ian Paisley and Peter Robinson fear being left totally in the wilderness and would be quite keen to enter proximity talks if it becomes a realistic option. Unionist mass street demonstrations and disruption are not an appealing or realistic alternative at this stage. Particularly without UVF or UDA support. Meanwhile the parties to which those organisations are linked, the Progressive Unionst Party (PUP) and the Ulster Democratic Party (UDP), need the safety blanket of UUP involvement in the talks to participate. If the UUP don't go in it seems inevitable that the PUP and UDP will also stay out.
Despite what they wish to convey, Unionist opposition to sitting down with republicans is not based on any great principle. Rather it is a tactical position adopted in order to forestall real political negotiations. We know this is the case because on a daily basis in council chambers across the Six Counties unionist councillors are talking with Sinn Féin, negotiating with Sinn Féin and even making alliances with Sinn Féin.
Unionists do not want negotiations because the political raison d'etre of unionism, as it has been since 1920, is to maintain the staus quo in the Six Counties. They see negotiations, quite logically, as the harbinger of political change and that is what they wish to prevent.
While such a negative and predicatble unionist strategy has the advantage of consistency it is not without flaws. Although the union remains in place Unionist strategy did not prevent the British government proroguing Stormont, imposing Direct Rule, signing the Hillsborough Agreement and the Framework Documents, all of which the unionists claimed were a ``sell-out'' and a ``betrayal'' of the union.
Unionist spokesmen continually say that they will not sit down with Sinn Féin because they do not trust the intentions of republicans. However, they know as everyone else does that trust is only something which develops through dialogue and negotiations. It is true that Unionists are suffering from a lack of trust, but it isn't a lack of trust in republicans. They know exactly where republicans stand on all of the major issues. Their real fear is based on their continuing and increasing lack of trust in the British government.
If David Trimble is to prove himself worthy of the accolades with which some opinion-makers greeted his elevation to the leadesrship of the UUP, he cannot forever be straightjacketed by the most siren voices within the unionist camp.
For decades unionists have pulled away from decisions affecting the future of the people they purport to represent and have sought refuge in blaming the IRA and the perfidy of the British government. Now they have a chance to take their own future in their hands and participate in carving out a solution to the problems facing us all. The prize is a peaceful, negotiated settlement and securing, for those whom David Trimble represents, an accommodation with the rest of the people of Ireland.
The Ulster Unionist Party's Executive Committee meets this Saturday 13 September to discuss its approach to the Stormont talks, the opening session of which begins two days later.
David Trimble's party is expected to opt for `proximity talks' as opposed to the face-to face approach, although a complete boycott has not yet been ruled out.
None of the unionist or loyalist parties, with the exception of Alliance, attended the preliminary session of the talks on Tuesday 9 September.
It now seems that there are strong and growing tensions within the Ulster Unionst Party regarding all-party-talks and the peace process which cut across both the leadership of the party and its grassroots. There are those within the UUP who while they would rather negotiations at Stormont were not happening at all, feel at this stage that it would better to go in, while other elements prefer a complete boycott of what they see as a slippery slope towards political and constitutional change. The indications are that Trimble's leadership of the party is insecure and John Taylor in particular is reportedly snapping at his heels.
Trimble attained his leadership of the UUP through the votes of the hardline Ulster Unionist Council by virtue of his stance at Drumcree and did not receive the vote of even one unionist MP. He may therefore feel somewhat in hock to the more extremist elements within his party.
Trimble may stall in an effort to placate all sections of his party and safeguard his own tenuous leadership position. But what he needs to recognise is that opting for `proximity talks' is merely delaying the inevitable by erecting an extra hurdle for himself to jump. It would be better for him and his party to get in to round table talks now and get through the pain barrier as early and as quickly as possible.
In the meantime, before they enter any sort of talks at all, unionist tactics are to wring as many `concessions' or privileges from the British government as possible. The primary one is a further reiteration by the British of their commitment to the unionist definition of consent. That is what Trimble will have sought from British Prime Minister Tony Blair during their meeting in Downing Street on Wednesday.
While the DUP have denounced the Stormont talks and refused to have any dealings with them at present, it is belived that Ian Paisley and Peter Robinson fear being left totally in the wilderness and would be quite keen to enter proximity talks if it becomes a realistic option. Unionist mass street demonstrations and disruption are not an appealing or realistic alternative at this stage. Particularly without UVF or UDA support. Meanwhile the parties to which those organisations are linked, the Progressive Unionst Party (PUP) and the Ulster Democratic Party (UDP), need the safety blanket of UUP involvement in the talks to participate. If the UUP don't go in it seems inevitable that the PUP and UDP will also stay out.
Despite what they wish to convey, Unionist opposition to sitting down with republicans is not based on any great principle. Rather it is a tactical position adopted in order to forestall real political negotiations. We know this is the case because on a daily basis in council chambers across the Six Counties unionist councillors are talking with Sinn Féin, negotiating with Sinn Féin and even making alliances with Sinn Féin.
Unionists do not want negotiations because the political raison d'etre of unionism, as it has been since 1920, is to maintain the staus quo in the Six Counties. They see negotiations, quite logically, as the harbinger of political change and that is what they wish to prevent.
While such a negative and predicatble unionist strategy has the advantage of consistency it is not without flaws. Although the union remains in place Unionist strategy did not prevent the British government proroguing Stormont, imposing Direct Rule, signing the Hillsborough Agreement and the Framework Documents, all of which the unionists claimed were a ``sell-out'' and a ``betrayal'' of the union.
Unionist spokesmen continually say that they will not sit down with Sinn Féin because they do not trust the intentions of republicans. However, they know as everyone else does that trust is only something which develops through dialogue and negotiations. It is true that Unionists are suffering from a lack of trust, but it isn't a lack of trust in republicans. They know exactly where republicans stand on all of the major issues. Their real fear is based on their continuing and increasing lack of trust in the British government.
If David Trimble is to prove himself worthy of the accolades with which some opinion-makers greeted his elevation to the leadesrship of the UUP, he cannot forever be straightjacketed by the most siren voices within the unionist camp.
For decades unionists have pulled away from decisions affecting the future of the people they purport to represent and have sought refuge in blaming the IRA and the perfidy of the British government. Now they have a chance to take their own future in their hands and participate in carving out a solution to the problems facing us all. The prize is a peaceful, negotiated settlement and securing, for those whom David Trimble represents, an accommodation with the rest of the people of Ireland.