Northern Ireland Peace Drive in Doubt as Dublin Rebuffs Election Plan

British Prime Minister John Major’s proposal for elections in Northern Ireland drew a strong rebuff from the Irish government Thursday, throwing into question the future of the tortuous quest for peace.

Elections suddenly replaced arms surrender as the biggest sticking point in the search for a way to end sectarian violence in the British-controlled province.

Irish leaders, who have worked with Major in a joint peace initiative for the past two years, said they had not been consulted in advance about Major’s call to elect a body that would provide the foundation for all-party talks.

Irish Prime Minister John Bruton complained that elections would delay an agreed timetable between Britain and Ireland for talks among parties representing Northern Ireland’s pro-British Protestant majority and its mostly nationalist Roman Catholic minority.

“That will create distrust, perhaps unjustifiable distrust, but distrust just the same,” Bruton said in Strasbourg, France, where he was attending a session of the Council of Europe parliamentary assembly.

Irish Foreign Minister Dick Spring was also critical of Major for proposing what Spring warned could be a “cul-de-sac.” Ireland has never favored elections because, as an internal Northern Ireland matter, they would effectively reduce Dublin’s leverage in the peace process. Neither Bruton nor Spring, however, rejected elections out of hand.

By contrast, Sinn Fein, the political arm of the Irish Republican Army, gave a flat no, calling elections an unacceptable prerequisite for all-party talks. Some moderate parties in Northern Ireland were also critical, but an election as a confidence-building measure won strong support from parties representing the Protestant majority.

Major made the election proposal Wednesday in a speech in Parliament, reacting to the recommendations of an international commission headed by former U.S. Sen. George J. Mitchell (D-Maine).

The British government, supported by the loyalist parties, had insisted that Sinn Fein could participate in talks only after surrender of weapons from the IRA, which waged guerrilla war against the British government for 25 years before declaring a cease-fire Sept. 1, 1994. Sinn Fein refused, saying that disarmament should be part of an overall settlement.

The Mitchell commission flew in the face of the British position, finding that--however desirable--there is no realistic chance of disarmament before negotiations. Talks could begin once all parties made an irrevocable commitment to peaceful democratic principles, and gradual disarmament could take place while negotiations continued, the commission recommended.

In what one British analyst called a “real reversal of policy,” Major backed away from his government’s long-standing requirement of some disarmament before talks.

That is still the preferred British solution, Major told Parliament, but he proposed a new strategy, accepting for the first time that talks could begin without prior “decommissioning” of arms.

Rather than immediate talks favored by the IRA and the Irish government, Major called--without specifics--for elections that would then provide the negotiators in talks. At that point, Major said, “it is possible to imagine decommissioning and such negotiations being taken forward in parallel.”

In the aftermath, the focus of political comment shifted to the proposed elections. “It’s amazing how fast decommissioning as an issue has disappeared,” said an official close to the Mitchell panel.

Sinn Fein calls the election proposal a delaying tactic and an attempt by Major to assure support from unionist members of Parliament, where his majority is razor thin. Major Protestant parties, however, have signaled that they could accept negotiations with Sinn Fein in an elected body, even if the IRA continued to refuse to disarm.