POLITICS
Unionists should vote to stay out of the wilderness
BRUCE ANDERSON
impossible to predict the outcome of Satur- day's Unionist Council meeting. Many of the delegates were still having a vigorous internal debate, unable to decide whether to vote with their hearts or their heads. But it did seem unlikely that David Trimble could equal the 57 per cent vote which he secured in earlier sessions and easier cir- cumstances. If he does win, it will be a per- ilously narrow endorsement. It is easy to make the case for a 'No' vote. Those who do so can enjoy the emotional satisfaction of taking a clear, principled stand, while the Yesses are condemned to inhabit a low ground of ambiguity and corn- Promises. But those tempted to vote 'No' on Saturday should ask themselves one basic question. If they win, and once the cheers subside, what happens next? The answer is brutally obvious. Unionism would be so splintered as to be incapable of acting as an effective political force. It would also be leaderless; a 'No' vote sacks David Trimble, and there is not an adequate replacement. Ill-led and racked by divisions, Unionism Would be in no position to make its case. It Would be confronted by an uncomprehend- ing and hostile world. , Mr Blair, who is largely to blame for Mr nimble's difficulties, would bear a heavy responsibility if Saturday goes wrong, but he Would not feel it. This Prime Minister thinks that blame is for other people; he would. Merely give way to exasperation. So the pan- nationalist front — Washington, Dublin, John Hume, Sinn Fein — would be in a position to exert maximum pressure on a British govern- ment which would have little inclination to resist. , The Unionists would have no counter- ve vautng force. Starting on Monday, the new rsion of direct rule would be Unionist- averse even by previous standards; it might c(I, ill cklY become indistinguishable from joint '-'°11clon/Dublin) authority. u . Arguments from weakness are always t,npalatable, and there are moments when they ought to be resisted. 'Peace at any !rice' is a fool's ma/dm as well as a coward's 7.oV; those who adhere to it generally dis- er that however humiliating a price they ,P.aY, it is insufficient to avert war. There are L'Ircumstances in which the Unionists would _ue.._eright to resist, but not now. Far from Trimble ring his Party a Danegeld peace, David Possible has secured as good a deal as was on the two crucial questions. The first is weapons. It is now clear that the IRA regarded decommissioning as a negotiator's ploy, not a serious commitment. It was confirmed in its cynicism once the British government threw away its most valuable bargaining counter: the release of terrorist prisoners. To the Republican move- ment, decommissioning equals surrender, and it is not only Ulster's Protestants who march under the banner of 'No Surrender'.
But the IRA's offer on arms inspection is a significant instalment of surrender. It also indicates that Messrs Adams, McGuinness et al. have no intention of ending the cease- fire. As Sean O'Callaghan has put it, 'If, in 1940, Winston Churchill had allowed for- eign inspectors to examine RAF planes, installations and runways, would anyone . . . [have believed] that he really intended to wage war?'
If the IRA had handed over six rusting pre-war machine-guns, many Unionists would have felt triumphant, despite the weapons' inconsequence. But the offer on inspections is a Rubicon concession: a major step on the road to decommissioning. It is no wonder that there are reports of gloomy Republican faces in the Felons' Club in West Belfast. Their dismay is justified. This is a time for Unionists to rejoice, not to dis- miss the pilot who weathered the storm.
The second question is the RUC. Here, Mr Trimble was equally effective; he appears to have succeeded in excising the worst aspects of the Patten Report. The powers of the police ombudsman, the dan- gers of local political control leading to operational paralysis, the even graver risk that a new police reserve with minimal recruiting standards could enable the paramilitaries to infiltrate the RUC: according to well-sourced reports, all of these envenomed proposals have been drastically modified in the direction of common sense, and the RUC name is to be preserved as part of the police force's new title. There are also suggestions that Peter Mandelson and his ministers — who, at least in private, have long since stopped pretending to defend the Patten Report encouraged Home Office policing experts to scrutinise the Patten proposals. The out- come helped increase the pressure on No. 10 to respond to the Unionists' objections. This may be a blueprint for something, said the experts, but not for a police force. Admittedly, we still do not know the final shape of Mr Mandelson's proposals. It would be premature to proclaim a victory on the basis of newspaper leaks, just as it would be naive to embrace Peter Mandel- son's offer and trust him to take the right decisions, especially as he may not still be in Ulster to do so. Equally, many Unionists cannot bear the thought of the Sinn Fein ministers returning to office, and taking every opportunity to goad Unionists.
But that is a secondary issue, especially as compared to the RUC's future. Does anyone believe that a fragmented Unionist party, devoting most of its energies to a civil war against fellow Unionists, would be in a better position to fight for a decent police force than David Trimble would as First Minister, with the prestige of that office plus a democratic mandate? Mr Blair has conceded that it was, perhaps, unwise of him to try to issue diktats to the devolved governments in Wales and Scot- land. If necessary, those words could be quoted back at him by the Unionists. Whatever the theoretical position, it would be hard for a London government to impose policy changes which are unaccept- able to the Unionist party — and if such an attempt were made, the Unionists could always walk out of the Executive, which would force its suspension.
By voting 'Yes' on Saturday, Unionists would not be making an open-ended com- mitment to an appeasing agenda. They would merely be indicating a cautious will- ingness to return to the Executive, on the basis of firm undertakings. If those were later dishonoured, the Unionists would still have the right to reconvene and vote for a walkout, and, in such circumstances, it would be quite likely that David Trimble himself would be proposing the motion, with every hope of commending it to world opinion.
Throughout this week, the Northern Ire- land media has been telling the 860 Union- ist delegates how important they are. For once, the media is telling the truth. If the Unionist party stays united under a leader of stature, those 860 people will continue to be a formidable obstacle to the enemies of loyal Ulster. But if they vote 'No', then by next week their voices will count for noth- ing. Their hopes will be dashed; their worst fears vindicated. A 'No' vote would lead Unionism into an indefinite exile in the political wilderness.
Previous page
