British govt backs General over IRA disarmament
The British government has total confidence in disarmament body chief General John de Chastelain’s role in verifying any future move on IRA weapons, a junior minister insisted today.
Northern Ireland Office Security Minister Ian Pearson told MPs that the British government had total confidence in the integrity of the general.
However, he acknowledged the concerns that unionists had about the transparency of any move by the IRA in the future to empty its arms dump.
Mr Pearson was asked by Ulster Unionist MP Lady Sylvia Hermon: “How exactly is the (British) government going to address the problem of the deficit of confidence in the unionist community?”
She also asked if General de Chastelain was the best person to verify any weapons move by the Provisionals.
Mr Pearson responded: “As a government we have total confidence in the integrity of General de Chastelain.”
But he added that there needed to be greater transparency in future arms moves.
“That is something that is under discussion,” he said.
With Northern Ireland politicians deadlocked over how to restore power sharing in the North, the quality of an IRA arms initiative and statement on its future intentions are seen as being crucial to the revival of the Assembly.
The British government was today also due to receive a report from the Independent Monitoring Commission on paramilitary activity which was also seen as being important in creating the right mood music for any deal.
The four member Commission, which monitors paramilitary activity and the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, was expected to highlight continued loyalist and republican activity.
However, unionists and nationalists were eager to see the level of IRA activity as well as the extent of loyalist activity.
Conservative MP Michael Mates asked Northern Ireland Secretary Paul Murphy about the minimum requirement of the British government for any visible act of weapons decommissioning by the IRA.
However Mr Murphy wasn’t willing to be drawn into defining what was required but insisted that there had to be sufficient transparency to guarantee unionist and nationalist confidence in the disarmament process.
