................................................................................
ON THE RECORD
RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION BBC-1 DATE: 26.5.96
................................................................................
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Well, Mo Mowlam, you've acknowledged
that the pressures on the Government from the Unionists have threatened the
peace process to a certain extent. Hasn't it proved to have been a mistake to
follow the Government's policy so slavishly?
MO MOWLAM MP: Two points in response to that
immediately. One, I haven't said that they've been wary of the Unionists.
They're much more wary of the Unionists' Right-wing in their own Party. I think
that's the biggest problem that the face initally. They've still got a
majority of one, and it's their own Party that our bi-partisanship has actually
helped them not to become dependent on that very strong Unionist right wing in
their own Party. When you say we've slavishly followed the Government: we
followed the Government critically at times - constructively, hopefully I
think - for the simple reason that our Party policy of unity by consent as
shown in your film is one of the options outlined in the Anglo-Irish Agreement,
outlined in the Downing Street Declaration. Our policy has remained there.
What has changed is the position of the Government and the basis of where we're
now looking to move towards an agreed settlement. So it's been constructive
but critical, but I don't think it's been slavish.
HUMPHRYS: Well, you've said, you've referred to
Parliamentary arithmetic.
MOWLAM: Yeah.
HUMPHRYS: You've said that their majority down to
one - I quote from something you wrote in the New Statesman I think, the other
day - "The process of being driven more by Parliamentary arithmetic than ever
before" In other words - the Unionists.
MOWLAM: But I think, the only point - it's a
minor point and I don't want to labour it - is that not necessarily the small
Unionist parties in the House. The real problem as we saw with the Elections
Bill when it went through for the elections that are now taking place. When
that was going through the House the opposition came a lot from their own
backbenches. And, one of the things that we've said to the Government is that
our position we believe is principle because it's one of the options in their
own policy documents, and also it makes the arithmetic of their own Party and
the smaller Parties less relevant. That's what we're trying to do.
HUMPHRYS: So in a sense you're protecting the
Government from it's own right wing?
MOWLAM: Yes. I don't have any trouble with
that. If as a result their own right wing is out here, wanting a totally
Unionist agenda, what we want them to do is to continue to work with the Irish
Government. When they've worked together they always do better. We want there
to be a North/South reconciliation, we want there to be some kind of devolved
assembly, we want both traditions to be taken into account. We have some very
clear principles that guide us, which are now part of the Government's
position.
HUMPHRYS: Alright. You've-you've said you have
not been slavishly following-
MOWLAM: That's right.
HUMPHRYS: -the Government's line. But, let's
take the Mitchell Commission and its report. Now you were absolutely clear
about Mitchell. Throughout the process you-you respected the man, you
respected the job he was doing. You said when he reports we must follow his
recommendations because this is an independent man who is doing a thoroughly
good job on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland. And, yet, when the
report came out and Mr Major rather pushed it to one side in the House of
Commons, and said: What we will do is go down the Election road, you
instantly leapt up - Mr Blair instantly leapt up - and said: Yeah, we'll do
that as well.
MOWLAM: Well, Mr Blair leapt up - and said on
January the twenty-fourth - and I remember it very distinctly - what he leapt
up and said was: If there is broad agreement between the two Governments and
the Parties for what is recommended, then we will go with it. Secondly you
mustn't forget that it was probably - five months before? - a good example of
us not slavishly following the Government - five months before, when we'd been
in the logjam over decommissioning. We weren't getting anywhere. I'd made a
speech in Northern Ireland saying let's look at an electoral indexation five
months before Mitchell came out. So, an electoral indexation would have got us
to the point where the Parties could have talked.
HUMPHRYS: Well, that may be-
MOWLAM: So that's why in a sense the elections
were part of a way forward. And, let me just make one final very quick point.
One of the other differences was that what the Government was really doing with
Mitchell, was they were coming off the hook of decommissioning. We all know
that. They had the problem of demanding decommissioning before and it wasn't
going to happen. What the Government was doing was shifting from that
position. Now we could have stood there and said: Oh, gaw, look what they're
doing. They're coming off the position, how terrible, how awful. But by
coming off it and hiding in a sense behind the elections initially I think they
actually helped move the process forward, because they got off a position that
they weren't-wasn't progressing things.
HUMPHRYS: You say Mr Blair made the point if there
was broad agreement. But the fact is there was not broad agreement on the
business of elections - quite the opposite. You must have known, you must have
known, that it would mightily upset the Nationalists - not just Sinn Fein, but
the SDLP as well - and yet he went ahead even though there was the risk -
subsequently some might say borne out - that it might endanger the ceasefire.
MOWLAM: On your final point I don't know.
HUMPHRYS: No, of course.
MOWLAM: -and your film suggested that. We'll
never know that for sure.
HUMPHRYS: We'll never know that for sure, but
there was always that risk.
MOWLAM: There's always been that risk and that
risk up to the breakdown of the ceasefire was always there. So, in terms of
there being opposition to the elections - absolutely right - and the SDLP and
John Hume were right. They were worried that entrenching in an election would
make things worse.
HUMPHRYS: So you made a mistake surely?
MOWLAM: No, I don't think we did, for the simple
reason that it would have been hypocritical of us - having suggested and
electoral indexation five months earlier - to actually not use that as a
mechanism for moving towards - what you rightly said in the beginning of this
parr - was to the talks on June the Tenth.
HUMPHRYS: Even though your partners in Northern
Ireland were opposed to the idea?
MOWLAM: Even though in the end what we needed to
do was get the Government off its position - which had been on for months -
that we were logjammed on: the decommissioning issue. What this allowed us to
do - and that's why I'd suggested it five months earlier in a slightly
different format - was that it actually allowed people to talk, which is where
we've got to be. And that's what elections allowed us to do.
HUMPHRYS: Alright, that is as you say where we've
got to be. Now we can't get to that position unless and until there is another
ceasefire. You are quite clear about that. But let's assume that the
ceasefire is called literally at five minutes to midnight the day before the
talks are due to begin. Would you then say: Right, Sinn Fein must be allowed
into those talks
MOWLAM: Yes.
HUMPHRYS: Even though people like Ian Paisley,
many others-Many other Unionists would say: That's a ruse, it's just a device.
They don't mean this. This is just a way of getting into the table.
MOWLAM: But what we have to do is to say: Okay,
we've got the precondition of the IRA calling a ceasefire to facilitate Sinn
Fein in the talks". We're all clear on that, the British government, the
Labour Party, the Irish government. That is a necessary step for them to
take. If we then get into five to twelve on the day before the talks and say:
Okay, prove it. We want it in triplicate, in writing. This is how we want it
explaining, we're back to the problems we've had for the last eighteen months.
What is important in what you're saying is that if you get the ceasefire - and
we must get it for the talks to be inclusive and have some meaning - is then
when we get into the talks what the British and Irish are now heavy in
discussion about and is absolutely crucial is how we deal with the issue of
decommissioning, and how the process of those talks develop.
HUMPHRYS: Let me come onto that in just a second.
But, you would expect the Unionists, would you, under those circumstances - at
a five minutes to midnight ceasefire statement - you'd expect the Unionists,
all of them, to join in the talks?
MOWLAM: Well, I would say that there was no
longer any reason why Sinn Fein cannot be included in the IRA Army Council had
announced that.
HUMPHRYS: But that is not a good answer to the
question is it? I mean has Trimble - David Trimble - suggested to you that he
would be happy with that for instance?
MOWLAM: Well, David Trimble and others have the
question over the Mitchell Six criteria, which is where the debate that you're
bringing up comes into play. If we get a ceasefire, we take that as a
ceasefire and then we move into the talks process on June the tenth. Then, the
question becomes the issue of decommission, the commitment to the democratic
and Constitutional process. So, in a sense, the problem that you're raising
and saying the Unionists would find this very difficult. I think, will arise
at ten o'clock on June the tenth, if we manage to get them all there. That's
why how we agree to the Six Mitchell principles of non-violence, democratic
ways forward - that becomes central.
HUMPHRYS: Right. So, let's assume that we are now
in that situation - everybody - Sinn Fein, the Unionists, the whole table, as
you say - let's hope so. Now the Unionists want the IRA to agree to give up
their guns before anything else is discussed. Are they right? Do you agree
with that position?
MOWLAM: No and I think most of the British and
Irish Governments agree with me, now. We've been in this position for the last
eighteen months. We've been in a position where the Unionists said there has
to be decommissioning before talks. We've had Sinn Fein arguing no
decommissioning 'till the end of the process. What was the whole point of what
Senator Mitchell - who was in your film - coming across and having the Mitchell
Report, which, basically, said: if you can't have it before and you can't have
it after, common sense tells you that during is the way to do it.
Now, I think, during the talks that the
question is addressed in parallel is possible.
HUMPHRYS: So, you would, literally, hive them off
to another body, or would there be - and, these things actually do matter,
don't they?
MOWLAM: They matter terribly.
HUMPHRYS: I know, it sounds a bit detailed but
nonetheless, the devil's in the detail. A committee of the main body of talks
or a completely separate organisation? In other words, two parallel talks.
MOWLAM: Well, all I would say, first, is that it
has to be addressed. It can't be body-swerved. So it's got to be there and as
John Major has said we can't then let it become a hurdle and it's that
difficult balance. The direct answer to your question of whether it's hived
off or to a sub-committee, I don't know which would be the best mechanism and
I'm only avoiding your question, in the sense that what we need is a mechanism
that wins the confidence and trust of the Parties involved. You and I can sit
here and say: well, we think this is the best system.
HUMPHRYS: Sure, but we know what David Trimble
says, don't we? I mean he said it again in The Observer this morning. He
wants weapons to be handed over and I quote him. "Within the opening session,
which may last for days or weeks. We want to see it - and it's an odd word to
use - but we want to we actual product coming forward." And, by product he
means guns and semtex. "Within the opening session" - quite clear of that.
MOWLAM: Well, it depends, then, how you define
the opening session, how you define the mechanisms.
HUMPHRYS: Before you move on to anything else is
quite clearly what he's saying.
MOWLAM: Fine but this is what I think the
British and Irish Governments ought to try and sort out before we get to June
the tenth.
HUMPHRYS: But is that what you want?
MOWLAM: I want there to be a mechanism where
decommissioning is addressed, where the issue of decommissioning is considered
by all the Parties and talks continue at the same time. Now, I don't know
whether that's one week, two weeks, two months because it's not up to me, in a
sense to set it...l
HUMPHRYS: Sure, but when you say-
MOWLAM: If we can get the Parties to compromise
- which is what it will take - round a mechanism.
HUMPHRYS: But, when you say you want it addressed
- that's one thing. You've got to have a single sentence that says: well,
we're going to talk about decommissioning, at some future stage. You will have
addressed it. That's not what the Unionists want. They want something
physically handed over. Or, at the very least - let's assume that Mr Trimble
doesn't mean that, literally - they want a commitment, a timetable on June
the thirtieth, we will hand over fourteen tonnes of semtex, or whatever it
happens to be.
MOWLAM: But, John, you've just said two very
different things now.
HUMPHRYS: Well, I'm offering you the alternative.
MOWLAM: Fine.
HUMPHRYS: I'm trying to find out which of those
you, yourselves, support.
MOWLAM: I want the one that will get the support
of the Parties in the talks.
HUMPHRYS: But, you know what Trimble, what Mr
Trimble wants.
MOWLAM: And I know what the Nationalists and
the Republicans want and they are...
HUMPHRYS: Alright.
MOWLAM: ...completely contradictory. So..
HUMPHRYS: So, your own position is you don't care
which way it goes, so long as...
MOWLAM: My first point is that it has to be
addressed - you can't avoid the issue and it has to be more than a kind of
one sentence. You know, we think, it's a wonderful thing. There has to be a
strong commitment to it.
HUMPHRYS: Right, but you don't mind - and, this
is crucially important - whether weapons are actually handed over?
MOWLAM: I think there has to be - during the
time of the talks - some clear commitment in relation to weapons. Now whether
that's half an ounce of semtex on June the thirtieth, as you suggest, or
whether it is an external body where arms are put in, independent of
everybody - either of those are fine. But let's talk with the Parties and try
and get a mechanism that they can all agree to.
I'm not avoiding it. I'm trying to give
you...because I think it's by talking and negotiation that we're going to get
the answer to what has been the problem for the last eighteen months.
HUMPHRYS: Let's look at what your position is now,
then vis a vis a united Ireland. It's been quite clear, in the past, what the
Labour Party has stood for. It's no longer clear.
MOWLAM: Well let me make it clear for you,
then. Since 1981, as your film showed, our policy has been unity by consent.
That hasn't changed.
HUMPHRYS: But, you have been persuaders for a
united Ireland. You have been in the jargon 'green'.
MOWLAM: Fine, it can be labelled as 'green' and
we were persuaders - absolutely right. But, what has changed is two things.
Firstly, our basic position hasn't shifted but many of the criteria that
defined that basic position - reconciliation between the North and South,
British/Irish Governments working together, respect for both traditions - all
that has now become part. The context has changed. All that has become part.
HUMPHRYS: But Labour's position hasn't changed.
You are still the 'green Party' in relation to Northern...you are still - very,
simple question in a very limited time, I'm afraid - you are still persuaders
for a united Ireland. No?
MOWLAM: I said 'persuaders' - no because for the
simple reason that I bodyswerve 'round 'green'. I bodyswerve 'round
'persuaders' because, as you well know, language in Northern Ireland gets
owned very quickly. And I think if there's a Government going to be able to
talk to everybody, don't use language that people that own.
HUMPHRYS: So, you do not have a position on
Northern Ireland?
MOWLAM: We are facilitators..
HUMPHRYS: Of course.
MOWLAM: ...as opposed to persuaders for unity
by consent. Consent has to be - as we've just talked about in terms of
weapons - that has to be earned and won between the Parties. By unity, there
needs to be reconciliation between the North and South. The principle is still
there. The world's moved on in the last seventeen years and we're there ready
to play our part.
HUMPHRYS: Mo Mowlam, thank you very much, indeed.
MOWLAM: Thank you.
...oooOooo...
|