The chance to say 'yes'

The British and Irish governments have commenced another round of talks in the North. The governments protest that these talks are not for the optics. That they are serious. That real business is being done. And that they are trying to facilitate discussions between the Northern parties.

In fact the two governments are pandering to the DUP. That party has seized the recent non-Independent Monitoring Commission report as another excuse not to share power. My attitude to the IMC is a matter of public record – I set it out in this column a few months ago. In essence the governments are in breach of the Good Friday Agreement because they have handed over to John Alderdice and his cronies the authority to make recommendations which undercut the rights of citizens in the North. They have bestowed upon a British Secretary of State the authority to act on these recommendations in a clear breach of the Good Friday Agreement.

The establishment of the IMC is another example of tactical short-termism by the two governments. At that time, the British government was keen to placate David Trimble and the Irish government had its own reasons, which were mostly about slowing down the electoral growth of Sinn Féin in the South.

The IMC is not an orphan. No matter how much the governments may seek to distance themselves from its pulp fiction reports, the IMC is the child of the British and Irish governments. They cannot be surprised if it throws a lifeline to the DUP. So why do I say that the governments are pandering to the DUP? It's fairly straightforward. A number of concessions have already been made to that party without it giving any indication of any commitment to power sharing. Arguably some of the concessions might be cosmetic, but that misses the point – it is evidence of a tendency, particularly within the Northern Ireland Office, to give unionism as many sweeteners as possible in order, it is claimed, to suck them in to power sharing. That won't work.

The DUP needs to be given the chance to put their ideas to the rest of us; we have a responsibility and Sinn Féin will certainly listen attentively and respectfully to everyone's ideas.

If the current talks provide an opportunity for that, they will indeed be for more than the optics. But the main objective of these talks has to be to end the suspension of the political institutions within a short time-frame. That means the governments have to set a public time-frame for this phase of the discussions. At that point, the illegal suspension of the institutions needs to be lifted and the mechanism for electing the executive needs to be triggered. That is what is required under the terms of the Agreement. There is no allowance for any other course of action. Nor should there be, but it's also the only way to create a context in which the DUP may – just may – have to consider being part of that new dispensation.

Endless talks about talks; talks that take a break for the St Patrick's Day exodus to the USA or for Easter or even – and its closer than we may think – a break for the Orange marching season, all fit entirely into the agenda of rejectionist DUP elements.

Foreign Minister Dermot Ahern's suggestion that we should all wait until the next IMC report plays to this agenda also.

At the moment the DUP don't have to make a decision. And, by the way, the purpose of ending the suspension of the institutions is not to put it up to the DUP just for the sake of it – the objective is to get the DUP to say 'yes'. However unlikely this may sound – if the governments don't put the question in a positive context, they'll never get a positive answer.

At the most recent meeting between Sinn Féin and the two governments at Hillsborough, I spelled out to them again how Sinn Féin dealt with this issue in Belfast.

When Sinn Féin first went into Belfast City Council, our representatives suffered dreadfully. Some of them were shot. Their homes were bombed. Family members and friends were killed. Our offices in City Hall were bombed. When the party's strength grew to the point where we had the right to chair committees, the unionists collapsed all the committee structures in that institution. They established a single committee which excluded Sinn Féin to conduct the business of the Council. Had they been allowed to get away with it, that's the way Belfast City Hall would be run today. In fact no unionist party voluntarily shares power in any council in the North where they are in the majority. Where they are not in the majority, of course, they work with the rest of the parties in the power sharing arrangements.

And so with Belfast City Hall. Sinn Féin challenged the unionist position through a series of court cases and judicial reviews. We forced them to re-establish the committee system for Belfast.

Nowadays, for all its flaws, Belfast City Council does its work in an inclusive way with the DUP playing its full part according to its own lights. Interestingly enough, for the first time ever in the history of Belfast, this year's St Patrick's Day carnival will be sponsored by the Council.

And so back to the current talks. If the DUP will not become part of the power sharing arrangements, that is entirely a matter for themselves. It has got nothing to do with the IRA or even the so-called IMC. It has everything to do with a political party which does not want to be part of a process of change that it perceives to be to its disadvantage. If he is allowed to, Ian Paisley will grandstand and play games with all of our lives for the rest of his life. He's hardly likely to stop saying 'no' if the governments don't give him the chance to say 'yes'.