It's good to talk

Gerry Adams has been holding a series of private meetings with ordinary unionists in recent weeks. Here he writes for the first time about these meetings; about their anger, their willingness to talk and listen and their sense of abandonment by London

I met a number of unionists at separate and independent meetings last week. They were not big 'U' unionists. By that I mean they were not activists or even for that matter members of any unionist party, as far as I know. They were small 'u' unionists, probably the kind of unionists who voted for the Good Friday Agreement. Some of them, mostly middle class and middle-aged, are active in church work in Belfast. They appeared to be good people, earnest and sincere and courteous in expressing their views and attentive in listening to mine. I suppose the fact that they were meeting with the likes of me points them up as progressives or open minded about political matters. Or maybe they were a bit curious as well. It's not everyday that a Sinn Féin representative comes for dinner.

For as long as I can remember republicans have been involved in exchanges like this. Some of the discussions happened against the backdrop of great violence. Occasionally the exchanges have been very angry. I remember one particular phase of discussions with one group started off very badly indeed. We had to listen to what they thought of the IRA and the armed struggle. They heard for the first time forthright views about the behaviour of the RUC and other agencies of the state, as well as personal experience of the abuse of power by unionists under the old Stormont regime, or in local councils.

Some of those discussions were passionate. People were being killed on an almost daily basis. Some of us, including the unionists, came to our meetings after attending funerals or church services.

Now all of us who were involved in that particular project are very friendly with each other. The key to the success of that particular dialogue was that it didn't end at the angry bits. We all persisted. Coming back, meeting after meeting, meant that our discussions became a little process of their own. It became personal in the best sense of the word and all of us began to see beyond the politics and the pain. We didn't agree on all the issues. We profoundly disagreed on some, but we learned how to disagree which is quite an achievement for conflicted and polarised people in a conflict situation.

Last week's discussions had none of that anger. One of the meetings, the largest, lasted for about two hours. It was conducted in a very cordial manner with no open hostility expressed by anyone. There was a sense that change is coming, an acceptance of that and a welcome for it from some of the speakers. There was criticism of the armed campaign, particularly the bombing campaign, but there appeared to be an acceptance that this was a thing of the past. I told them that I had defended the armed campaign and while I didn't agree with everything the IRA had done it was my view that there was no other course. If you treat people badly enough for long enough, rightly or wrongly some will resort to armed actions in protest. But now there was an alternative and that had to be built upon. Some of them remarked on my interview on the Gerry Kelly Show. No not that Gerry Kelly, the other one who presents a talk show on Ulster Television. In the course of an interview with Kelly I offered up my opinion that for republicans the war was over. This seemed to have excited a lot of attention among unionists. "If" as one of them remarked, "we could believe it."

"We want to believe it", another sought to reassure me.

One of the themes that has been a constant in all of my engagements is that unionism believes (quite rightly in my view) that the British government does not care about them. One asked if I would see a united Ireland in my lifetime? And when I said yes, others expressed a similar view. They had a very acute sense that a united Ireland is on the cards. It was not a question of If. More a question of When. One speaker, a woman, opined that she would like to see a united Ireland so that everything gets settled and sorted out. There was some dissent from that view but everyone wanted to see the local assembly back on track. One or two expressed considerable antagonism towards Ian Paisley and the DUP. Others expressed concerns about losing their "Britishness". Their fear was not so much about a political loss in relation to Britain but more about the uncertainties that it could create for their way of life.

"Does the South want us?" one asked. Others expressed concerns about the economics of a united Ireland.

I don't know how representative these views are of the mainstream of unionism. They could be the silent majority. Or they could be an important but ineffectual or passive minority. Another of my engagements was with people who do have the pulse of unionist working-class opinion. Their views were equally forthright, particularly about the mood within paramilitarism, or at least some sections of paramilitarism. There is an expectation, and I will put it no stronger than that, of positive moves in their own time by the main paramilitary groups.

So there clearly is a debate going on within unionism. Part of that debate is led by the DUP and its position spelt out by the party leader Ian Paisley.

But another part of that debate, and it is impossible to measure it at this time, is taking place in the hearts and minds of ordinary unionists, much like the folk who came to meet with me. Will this amount to anything? I think it will. Republicans couldn't do enough of these meetings. It's good to talk. But it's good also to listen. From the republican or nationalist perspective, unionists sometimes behave in a most illogical and irrational way. It is easy to dismiss them. To get angry or bewildered. Or scared. The challenge is to understand why they behave as they do. It will only be possible to find that out by listening to what they have to say. And that will only happen as more and more unionists are empowered to engage with republicans.