A Tangled Web

DUISBURG DUPLICITY



This was recently emailed to me - thought it might be worth sharing with our readers. My conclusion ; the more things change the more they stay the same. Trust and unionist politicians .....mmmm...





" considered response to Duisburg, by the Ulster Independence Committee (circa 1989) - published in "Ulster Patriot"



It is difficult to determine what was discussed and what was not discussed at Duisburg. Allegations have been made, and firmly rejected by Rev lan Paisley,

that full negotiations took place in which a power-sharing devolved parliament supported by a

referendum in both Northern Ireland and Eire was agreed in principle. As it is impossible to prove or disprove these allegations, it is perhaps a better exercise to concentrate on the common ground that exists between the participants and examine the serious implications that flow from this.



All those in attendance - Jack Allen for the OUP, Peter Robinson for the DUP, the SDLP's Austin Currie and Gordon Mawhinney of Alliance—have admitted that the Anglo-lrish Agreement was discussed and both Unionist delegates agree that ways were explored to enable formal talks between the constitutional parties to take place. This aspect of Duisburg will be considered first.



THE UNIONIST PLEDGE

At the outset we would remind ourselves that the Unionist leaders, in their opposition to the

Anglo-lrish Agreement, frequently pledged that their terms for negotiations on Ulster's future were the suspension of the Agreement and the closure of the Maryfield Secretariat. The Unionist representatives at Duisburg have stated that they remained true to this

pledge and hence that no negotiations took place. Mr Allen and Mr Robinson would appear to have a fairly unique understanding of what the word negotiation connotes. I would suggest that the widely accepted meaning of this word and the one contained in most dictionaries is, 'to talk to achieve an agreement'.



THE NEGOTIATIONS

On this basis it is clear that Messrs Allen and Robinson did negotiate at Duisburg and did attempt to reach an agreement, not as already conceded on the future form of government for the province, but, as will be seen, on a solution which would have enabled the Unionist Parties to fudge their undertaking to the Ulster people not to enter formal talks on Northern Ireland's future until the aforementioned terms had been complied with. Mr Allen is on record as saying

that there was no Duisburg Agreement. This is probably true, but it should not detract from the fact thatUnionists went to West Germany in an endeavour to reach an agreement. Just because the participants were unable to agree a deal was not, as the exchanged Unionist Document reveals, through a lack of trying on Mr Allen and Mr Robinson's part.



UNIONIST DOCUMENT

In consequence of Duisburg, unionists and nationalists exchanged documents setting out each other's respective position on the Anglo-lrish Agreement. The Ulster People should be deeply concerned about the contents of the Unionist Document, for it proposes that if the next meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference is announced for a distant date, this will be enough to enable negotiations to take place. Notice the abandonment of the Unionists' pledge not to participate in discussions until the Anglo-lrish Agreement is suspended and the Secretariat closed. It is then recommended that during the initial talks, a media blackout would be imposed and the Unionist leaders, "Would circumvent any other questions by stating it would be inappropriate to comment as by must first consult colleagues." The Document goes on to express the view that if the press are allowed to analyse whether unionists have

made concessions and force unionists to defend the talks, this "...would cause agitation amongst partysupporters which would not be helpful for constructive dialogue." Is it therefore unreasonable to suggest that the Unionist parties are bent on deception by being quite prepared to keep the full facts from the Ulster public?



NOT JUST ROUTINE

Attempts have been made to play down Duisburg, claiming that it was nothing more than a routineseminar that all politicians attend from time to time. If it was purely routine, why were the participants discussing such an important matter as the possibility of future full scale negotiations? If it was only an insignificant meeting why were contacts between the parties sustained for the following four months and why did the parties later produce and exchange position documents? Above everything else if Duisburg was so unimportant why was it kept secret?



ELECTION MANIFESTO

Mr Molyneaux has indicated that he hopes contacts with the SDLP will continue. This is playing into JohnHume's hands, for the SDLP objective is to get unionists talking while the Anglo-lrish Agreement remains intact. It should also be remembered that neither the OUP or DUP have a mandate to enter discussions with the SDLP in an attempt "to negotiate the Agreement out of existence," as Mr Robinson has put it, for there is no reference whatsoever to such a tactic in either the 1986 or 1987 Westminster election manifestos. At a general level Duisburg has revealed the real purpose of the much praised achievement of Unionist unity. We now see that this unity was not designed to put Unionists into a stronger position whereby the

Anglo-lrish Agreement would be more effectively resisted, but rather, to ensure that when Mr Molyneaux and Mr Paisley's representatives have secretly compromised Ulster's future, there will be no unionist party available to blow the whistle on Unionist duplicity and shout 'traitor', a role traditionally fulfilled by the DUP because the parties of unionism will be united in their deceit.



DISHONEST AND UNPRINCIPLED

The only conclusion that can be drawn from Duisburg is that Unionists were attempting to find a form of wordsthat would allow them to circumvent their pledge to the Ulster electorate never to negotiate until the Anglo-lrish Agreement was suspended and Maryfield closed. This dishonest unprincipled approach shouldnot surprise anyone, for it was not that long ago that Unionists having publicly promised never to talk to the NIO or to Government Ministers while the Agreement remained in place, were nevertheless able to find a form of words that enabled them to do just that.

The UIC believes that Westminster is committed to aUnited Ireland and will continue to adhere to that long term goal, whether or not the local political parties can agree on a system of devolved power for the province. Ulster's only option is therefore this objective by advocating Ulster Patriotism, a philosophy which is opposed to the perpetuation of the divisions that exist in our country between the Unionist and Nationalist communities and instead aims to create the conditions and circumstances by which the two communities can evolve into one community, united in its support, commitment and affection for an Independent Ulster State.