The negotiations in practice (1999)

The talks got off to an acrimonious and inauspicious start with sessions dominated by the issue of rules of procedure. The unionist parties were resentful that the British and Irish governments had published a set of ground rules on 16 April and appointed the three independent chairs without consulting them. They argued that this set the precedent for the governments to control the talks. Consequently the first day was characterised by delay and uncertainty as the unionist UUP, DUP and UKUP parties rejected both the ground rules and the appointment, in particular, of former US Senator George Mitchell as the senior independent chair. The arguments regarding the rules were more than just pedantic points about procedural preferences. They were about the working ethos of the process and its political potential.

Doubt and suspicion were heightened by the unfamiliar format for negotiations which was designed to ensure the involvement of up to ten parties as mandated in the election of May 1996, including those with even very marginal electoral support. Provision was made for Sinn Féin’s inclusion in the negotiations at the invitation of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on the basis of a reinstatement of the IRA ceasefire.

There was anger and embarrassment as the independent co-chairs were not allowed to assume their duties. Media attention focused on unionist resistance to the appointment of Mitchell and their insinuations about his intended role. However, he and his colleagues were installed when the UUP, having made its point that it would resist any suggestion that proposals could be imposed on the parties, rested its objection. In return the two governments accepted that the talks participants would negotiate and agree rules of procedure for the negotiations themselves.

Those preliminary negotiations were conducted without agreed rules, with Mitchell effectively managing the proprieties with the confidence of all the parties. At this stage no time constraints were imposed on contributions in plenary meetings, and many arguments were long-winded and repetitive. It was inevitable that some parties would labour their attitudes to the ‘peace process’ and background events in this induction period of the negotiating process.

The independent chairs facilitated these negotiations more actively than they facilitated the substantive negotiations. They sought proposals from parties, provided comparative tables to guide discussion and used bilateral meetings to ease things forward. As total compromise did not emerge voluntarily, Mitchell ended up shuttling and brokering with his own compromise drafts on the still disputed points. Under the rules for the rest of the negotiations that he helped to establish, Mitchell did not play as direct or decisive a mediation role again.

The arguments revolved around the role and remit of the independent chairs; how comprehensive the agenda could be; whether or not parties had the right to raise issues free from veto; the principle of inclusion of parties ‘related’ to paramilitary groups on ceasefire; whether or not decommissioning was to be a ‘term of entry’ for Sinn Féin; and the construction of a mechanism to secure agreed decisions where consensus proved impossible. The formula adopted was ‘sufficient consensus’ which stated that a decision could be adopted if a majority of the representatives of each community, unionist and nationalist, were in agreement.

The adoption of agreed rules represented a more significant achievement than was recognised. It followed a very difficult summer with crises over Orange Order (the Protestant society linked to the UUP) parades and the resulting resignation of the SDLP from the unionist-dominated Forum, the elected body which had been established to provide a pool from which the negotiating teams were drawn.

The manner in which the rules were adopted is worthy of note. Even with the parties’ own adjustments and compromises and the mediation of the independent chairs there was still no unanimity over all areas of the rules. However, the DUP accepted a procedure under which the section of the rules on decision-making by sufficient consensus would be voted on first. This method was then applied to the other sections of the rules which meant that the DUP could record its opposition but not block procedures which it did not like – what Peter Robinson of the DUP termed a ‘good loser’ approach.

Problems did not derive from the number of parties involved and unproductive bilateral meetings show that having a smaller number of parties would not necessarily have improved communication. Indeed earlier talks involving four parties suffered from a similar syndrome.

The large number of parties in fact helped communications on several counts. The negotiations were more inclusive, with the widest span of democratic representation ever involved. This helped to differentiate the process from previous failed initiatives and underlined that ‘ownership of the process’ was not just for the larger parties. The multi-party negotiations were in keeping with the likely composition of any new elected institutions which were expected to comprise more than just the bigger parties. The larger number of parties helped with the problem of language in the negotiations. In previous negotiations parties had tended to be very precious about their own terminology and quite jealous or suspicious about the language of others. In practice the larger number of parties generated a wider range of language and induced more flexible attitudes to innovative and variable terminology.

One shared tactic to avoid difficulties in dealing with specific substantive issues was to review widely all the issues or ‘surf the agenda’. When the ‘substantive negotiations’ finally started in October 1997, the chairs decided to take each of the Strand One and Strand Two agenda items in turn, normally meeting one day per Strand each week. The intention was to allow parties to air and share all the issues that mattered to them and to gain some measure of the approach being taken by others. Parties were invited to submit papers on each item on which they were entitled to speak in the large negotiating format.

The parties’ contributions and exchanges centred more on what they were not prepared to compromise rather than on what they were willing to accept. With limited written submissions from some, conflicting historical analyses and a shortage of actual proposals this ‘surfing the agenda’ exercise had little substantive value. It did, however, mark some sort of graduation in the negotiation process with parties starting to get a sense of how serious others were about given issues. Some significant points were made and with some passion. The importance of good listening was now more apparent and relevant – at least to some.

In early 1998 signs of ‘chemistry’ became evident as parties and personalities got back to each other’s points or ideas in other than negative tones. It is not entirely clear why this was so but a number of developments may have helped. Responding to the difficulties during and before the recess, the two premiers in January prepared their own ‘heads of agreement’ paper similar to the ‘key issues’ drafts on the table before the recess. The aim was to give the resuming negotiations some measure of focus as the proposed May deadline came closer. 

At this stage the smaller negotiating format was used but with only two assistants allowed in support of the two representatives per party. Some parties fielded different negotiators according to the issue under discussion with the effect of giving mixed messages at times. Parties canvassed their various proposals, concepts and models but, more importantly, with some tactical exceptions, they explored each other’s ideas, seeking further explanations or offering explanations for their own reservations or objections. The SDLP and UUP eventually had language proofing sessions where they could identify and explain for each other their sensitivities about the sort of terms they were respectively using or likely to use. These sessions lapsed into discussions of substance but this was hardly a problem in the circumstances. 

Sessions in London and Dublin (three days in each city) in this period were dominated by the exclusion of the UDP in London and Sinn Féin in Dublin because of breaches in the ceasefires. Although the intended benefits of a change of scenery were not realised, one of the most significant and poignant personal contributions of the talks process was made in London by Reg Empey of the UUP when he struggled to show some appreciation of the attitudes and calibre of the republican negotiators, and asked for something similar for unionism. The genuineness of the terms in which he spoke had an impact on the other parties that they tried to reciprocate. In bilateral talks, as well as rehearsing arguments on the issues, parties were sharing constituency sensitivities and exchanging thoughts on how the negotiations could be advanced to a productive climax.

The government-ordained 9 April deadline was needed. With the deadline in place parties began to press on the issues which had not been substantively pursued in the negotiations to date. They stressed issues and ideas of particular importance to them such as policing, prisoners, civic forum, decision-making and safeguards, and the UUP returned to the decommissioning question. It was recognised that policing could not be properly addressed in that negotiating context and that some form of commission should deal with it. Predictably, most parties went into public relations overdrive in this period which added to the impression of intractability.

However, what was needed was reflection on what was being said and on options that would as far as possible meet the requirements of the parties. For example, an informal ‘homework club’ evolved within the SDLP in which a small group of party members met to discuss options, test them against party requirements and against those of other parties, redraft them for better acceptability and workability and even produce alternative versions to have in reserve for the conclusive negotiations. SDLP party member Seamus Mallon told this group at the time to ‘let the others draft their press releases, we have to draft an agreement’.

The rapid development of proposals at this stage is exemplified by the emergence, only weeks before the deadline, of the concept of a binary office of First and Deputy First Minister, in which all functions would be exercised jointly. There was also concern that key decisions in the proposed assembly should have cross-community support. This led to a proposal for the adoption of ‘parallel consent’ under which a majority of both unionists and nationalists would be required for such decisions.