................................................................................
ON THE RECORD
SEAMUS MALLON INTERVIEW
RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION BBC-1 DATE: 15.2.98
................................................................................
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Good afternoon Mr Mallon.
SEAMUS MALLON: Good afternoon.
HUMPHRYS: Are you really saying that it is
possible that tomorrow morning you will argue against Sinn Fein being excluded
from the Talks?
MALLON: I will not make any position until I
hear the evidence. The only evidence that we will get is from the Secretary of
State and the Irish Government. Under the rules of procedure it is for the two
governments to take the initiative in this matter. They are the people with
access to the evidence, to the intelligence and to the background information
in relation to this. So until we hear that from the Secretary of State and the
Irish Government, I believe it would be wrong to pre-judge the situation in
either direction. I think natural justice would demand that we wait until we
hear that before we give a definitive position.
HUMPHRYS: So in other words,if, tomorrow
morning Mo Mowlem and the Irish Government say : Yes, we have looked at what
the RUC has found, and we are satisfied that there are grounds for excluding
Sinn Fein from the talks, you would go along with that. That's what you
need,for them to tell you that they are satisfied?
MALLON: Well, I would resort to the rules.
Actually the rules of procedure laid down by the two governments. It's in a
House of Commons command paper that each party in this circumstance would have
to show that it had demonstrably failed the Mitchell principles. No, it will
have to be demonstrated that that is the case. I do not know the quality or
the quantity of the evidence that the Secretary of State may have or the Irish
Government may have, but ultimately the parties are in a position, the
political parties, where they will have to guided by the two governments.
HUMPHRYS: Right.
MALLON: And in those circumstances the parties
will be aware that there are two things at stake here. One is the moral core
of the whole political process and these negotiations, which have got to be
protected. The other is the political imperative to try and get a political
settlement which is as inclusive as possible. There's the dilemma that we're
faced with. We have got to ensure that the political imperative doesn't become
political expediency, and we have got to ensure that that moral core is there,
because without it then we're into a quagmire of expediencies which will not
further the cause of getting a settlement.
HUMPHRYS: It doesn't sound to me as if you're
saying you would demand incontrovertible proof, because of course
incontrovertible proof is impossible to come by, except in a court of law, and
clearly you can't expect that by tomorrow morning. Therefore what you're
saying is, if London and Dublin say, the London and Dublin Governments say:
we're satisfied that demonstrably they have failed this test, you would say
okay.
MALLON: Demonstrably is the term I think, even
in a court of law, incontrvertible proof is not the term used. The standard of
proof is beyond reasonable doubt. So that I think while we're dealing with a
quasi-judicial process here, we have got to be absolutely careful about the
words we use. Let's use the word that is used in the command paper and the
rules of procedure, that is demonstrably, and then I think if we do that then
we can both serve, both the moral imperative that is there, and the political
imperative that we all face.
HUMPHRYS I used the word demonstrably of course,
because that was the word used by your leader on television a few hours ago.
MALLON: I think incontrovertible was the word
used.
HUMPHRYS: I'm sorry - incontrovertible - I beg
your pardon. I'm confusing my incontrovertible and my demonstrably.
Incontrovertible is the word that John Hume used on this programme - on this
station a few hours ago.
MALLON: I think the term demonstrable is the one
that will be the key word in relation to our own rules, the position of the
Irish Government and the position of the British Government, and I think in
terms of that we have got to wait and see what they say to us. We have got to
ensure that we do protect both the democratic requirement here and the moral
imperative that is there, and in doing that we're going to all have to walk a
tightrope. We have got to do the proper thing, we have got to do the right
thing. If that proper thing and the right thing takes a certain amount of
courage, then we'll have to show that courage.
HUMPHRYS: And if you show that courage and Sinn
Fein are excluded from the Talks tomorrow, what happens then? Do you -
because of course if they're not, the Ulster Unionists are going to walk out -
that is as sure as God made little apples. Are you then prepared to sit down
and talk and do a deal with the Ulster Unionists?
MALLON: What I'm saying to the two governments,
and we've been saying this for some time, that because of the incident with the
UDP and their expulsion, because of this controversy and the possible outcome
of it, I believe that the type of context for continuing negotiations within
the type of format we have at the moment has been expended, that the two
governments have to refocuss the entire process. That they will have to do
that in my view,in terms of an end paper. In other words a global over-view of
what the final settlement might be, and then transport these Talks out of the
context they're in, into a very intensive session on nothing else but the
actual end global paper, so that real negotiations can be done in a specified
period of time. If that approach is taken, then it will prevent any of these
peripheral and ancillary factors, important though they are are, from
distracting from the real purpose of the negotiations, and that is to get a
political settlement that a majority of the people - a vast majority - in
Northern Ireland, can agree with.
HUMPHRYS: With or without Sinn Fein?
MALLON: I would hope that all parties are there.
I hope they are all included. (coughs) Could I go back on that John?
HUMPHRYS: Please do yes. You said that you hoped
they're all included, but-
MALLON: I would hope that all parties are
included. I hope that no parties exclude themselves by the type of actions
carried out by those with whom they are linked. I think in any set of
circumstances we need to see sight of that end paper in terms of the perimeters
and the detail of what a settlement might be. In those circumstances I believe
we could refocus the entire process, we could move into a different year and we
could move into real negotiations because, quite frankly, what has been
happening so far, they have been so soured and so poisoned by some attitudes
within them, that in effect we have been talking around the bush, rather than
trying to deal in tired negotiating terms with a final settlement.
HUMPHRYS: But I think what you are saying there is
that if they must go on without Sinn Fein, then so be it.
MALLON: Well, I am not prepared, I don't think
anybody else should be prepared to let people with guns, who have murder in
their hearts and murder of intent to derail the entire political process. And
it's not just the political parties who are involved here. There are two
sovereign governments, the British Government and the Irish Government and the
international dimension as represented by Senator George Mitchell. Now, are we
going to let a small group of people, who have arms, who will kill people, are
we going to let them derail not just our own party political process but the
position of two sovereign governments and the position represented by the White
House, via George Mitchell. I think we have got to be strong enough to stand
up to it, I think that the political process has got to ensure that it does
proceed and it should not be deflected by this or any other act of violence.
HUMPHRYS: As we speak, Martin McGuinness is
sitting in our Dublin studio waiting to talk to me. What can he say now, that
would persuade you that they should stay in those talks tomorrow. Is there
anything he can do that will give you that view.
MALLON: Well I think he should do what I am
doing and that is wait until we hear what is presented. I haven't heard the
details of what the Chief Constable has said, he has said them to the Secretary
of State. I haven't heard from the Secretary of State or from the Irish
Government as to what the nature of that evidence might be. I would suggest
that he and I and all of us, should not make any judgements whatsoever until we
hear that evidence and hear the position put to us by the two governments, then
we can make an informed judgement on that and do all that is going to be
required of the political parties and that is to give an opinion as to whether
the Mitchell Principles have demonstrably been dishonoured.
HUMPHRYS: What is absolutely clear is that two men
were murdered this past week. Is there anything that Mr McGuinness ought, as
far as you are concerned, to say about those murders - whoever carried them
out?
MALLON: Well I think put in a position and I
said this to the UDP at Lancaster House, put in the position where a
paramilitary grouping with which they are linked has carried out murders and if
they say they don't agree with them, I think they can do two things. One, is
to disavow the act of murder and without any reservation and the second thing
is to disavow those who carried out those murders. Disown them, disown them in
such a way that it will clearly show that their preference is for the political
process and the principles underline the political process rather than their
links with a terrorist organisation.
HUMPHRYS: Seamus Mallon, thank you very much
indeed.
...oooOooo...
|