Reply to Bruton on consent
Recent remarks by John Bruton directed at Sinn Féin have been
replied to by spokespersons for the party in the past week. On
Monday 3 March Bruton addressed the issue of consent and accused
Sinn Féin of seeking to coerece unionists. On a more positive
note he called for a timeframe for talks. We carry here Sinn Féin
Vice-President Pat Doherty's response.
The question for all of us who want to see a real peace process
of negotiations is how this can be achieved now. Anyone genuinely
interested in rebuilding the peace process will be encouraged by
the Taoiseach's renewed commitment to substantive talks but to be
truly substantive these talks must also be inclusive.
As Mr Bruton is aware Sinn Féin is the chosen representative of
15.7% of Northern voters. Sinn Féin has not excluded itself from
talks. We have consistently asserted the rights of our voters to
have their views articulated in any talks about their future and
will continue to do so.
There is a danger that others, who have blocked the movement to
negotiations, will take increasing comfort from some of Mr
Bruton's comments and not only interpret them as a slacking off
of the Irish government's resolve to secure a meaningful process
which has the potential for real change, but will also use them
to create a new precondition.
Mr Bruton's comments demanding that Sinn Féin ``reconsider its
position on the issue of consent'' and linking consent to the
question of decommissioning must be challenged. Sinn Féin's
position on the issue of consent is clear. We have consistently
said that the consent and alleigance of unionists is needed to
secure a peace settlement.
Consent cannot be misinterpreted or twisted to provide a veto to
unionists. There can be no veto over negotiations nor over the
outcome of negotiations. Veto is a negative concept. We have seen
how unionists have used the veto to prevent talks starting and
have even used it to halt any progess in the Stormont talks since
June. To assure unionists a veto over talks and their outcome
means that talks will never go anywhere.
The positive principle of consent, of seeking consent, of
negotiating consent, of agreeing consent, cannot be distorted in
advance of negotiations, into a unionist veto over negotiations
or their outcome. Furthermore holding a different view on the
interpretation of consent, or any other issue, is not a threat of
political coercion and it is disingenuous to make such a claim.
The Irish government's position is that there can be no
predetermined outcome. To misuse the issue of consent in this way
renders meaningless the search for agreement through
negotiations. The means of measuring agreement is clearly a
logical follow-on from the reaching of agreement. It should
therefore, await the necessary political process of democratic
negotiations.
Sinn Féin's position is that the urgent necessity to rebuild the
peace process should not be closed down because of imminent
elections. Mr Bruton in suggesting that a timeframe or calendar
for talks would be sensible has identified one of the issues that
must be addressed if a credible talks process is to develop. I
hope this singals Mr Bruton's willingness to give the pro-active
leadership that is required if we are to rebuild this process.