Belfast TelegraphFriday 28, March 2008
"I did not facilitate meetings between Sinn Fein and the DUP last year. " This is the email sent on behalf of a journalist on November 18 2005. It contained a response to questions I had sent him about suggested meetings involving the DUP and Sinn Fein."As a journalist, working in a competitive, dangerous environment, I talk to people from all sides, all the time. I will never reveal sources in relation to my work. My position on that principle will not change," the email continued.
I was not expecting him to discuss his sources with me - nor did I ask him to do so.
My questions were put because I had been told of contacts between the DUP and Sinn Fein during the negotiations of 2004 - and of the role of a journalist.
It is the same backchannel that Tony Blair's former chief of staff Jonathan Powell makes numerous references to in his recently published book - Great Hatred, Little Room - Making Peace In Northern Ireland.
In his writing, Powell reveals that Gerry Adams told him about his party's contacts with the DUP - something Powell said the British already knew about, including that the contact "passed through a journalist".
This happened in the early part of 2004.
Email sent to reporter Brian Rowan from the DUP's Timothy JohnstonPowell has considerable detail on the backchannel, much of which confirms what I was told in 2005.
One of my sources told me that the Irish Government was reporting details of the contacts to the British Government in the course of 2004.
And two sources confirmed the role of a journalist in those contacts - sources whose information I had depended on in crucial moments of the peace process.
On Friday October 14, 2005, I put the suggestion of the contacts to senior members of both Sinn Fein and the DUP.
In one meeting I got blank looks and in the other, I recorded in my notes, " big denials".
Timothy Johnston put the DUP's position to me in writing on November 21, 2005:
"With reference to your email I have already told you that no such meetings took place," he wrote.
"The position of the Democratic Unionist Party in relation to dealings with Sinn Fein has always been clear and unambiguous," he continued.
"The party was not and is not involved in negotiations/meetings with Sinn Fein.
"The party leadership have not at any time sanctioned or had knowledge of any meetings at any level between anyone from Sinn Fein and anyone from the DUP or anyone acting on behalf of either or both.
"As no such meetings took place the rest of your questions are not relevant," he wrote.
The email also warned: "The party, or any members named, would not hesitate to take action through the courts and/or press/media regulatory bodies as appropriate in order to correct any inaccuracies which may appear and will use this and other previously sent correspondence as an indication of prior warning having been given."
On that same date, another source said there had been meetings in 2004, they involved "senior figures" on both sides and that the contacts were about "demonstrating seriousness" in relation to the negotiations of that period.
Sinn Fein's written response to my questions read: "This story, like so many others at key points in the peace process, emanates from sources who are opposed to the peace process and is designed to create difficulties.
"Sinn Fein does not intend to engage in this negative agenda which is about undermining the search for agreement."
Details on the contacts did not emerge from sources that could in any way be described as anti-peace process.
The Taoiseach's Office in the Republic was also careful how it responded.
"In the ten years that the Taoiseach has been involved in the peace process a great number of people and parties have assisted in terms of progressing issues in Northern Ireland. It has not been our position to comment on these matters."
Jonathan Powell has now written in some detail on this matter - and he writes with considerable authority.
It reminds me of the IRA-British Government backchannel denied for so long but exposed in an explosion of information in late 1993.
The lesson of that period is to be careful what you deny.
Sir Patrick Mayhew (now Lord Mayhew) ended up looking like a fool.
If republicans have been involved in something of this nature, then there will be a paper trail - a note of who said what, the messages that passed between the two, the who, what, when and where of all of this.
Certainly there are more questions to be answered as a result of Jonathan Powell's book.
He is a key witness in all of this - in the claim and counter claim.
In his book he writes about the role of Martin McGuinness in a process of secret or private contacts.
As I recently wrote in this newspaper, I was told of that role in 2005 - that McGuinness and his senior adviser Aidan McAteer were both involved.
The involvement of those two men says a lot - says that republicans took seriously the contacts.
It does not suggest that they believed they were involved in some maverick or freelance exercise - or that they were involved with junior players.
McGuinness, in all the heat and importance of that negotiation back in 2004, would not have shared a proposed Army Council text unless he knew who he was sharing it with and for what purpose.
Why, some ask, would you need a backchannel if the two sides were negotiating through the British and Irish Governments?
There is a simple answer - better to hear it from the horse's mouth.
I suppose, if you were in the DUP's shoes, better to hear it from Martin McGuinness than Jonathan Powell, better to be sure.
Powell has also said there was a journalist intermediary.
The DUP at its most senior level is insisting that its first direct meeting with Sinn Fein was in March 2007 - on a weekend and just before the Paisley/ Adams news conference of Monday March 26.
Peter Robinson, Nigel Dodds and Ian Paisley junior were involved in those talks - in their first meetings with Sinn Fein and Martin McGuinness.
But if Jonathan Powell is right and my sources are right - there were other contacts before then, much, much earlier.
Not involving the individuals named above - but others.
I can understand what was in it for both sides - the importance of hearing positions directly outlined, and not having to depend solely on third party assessments.
The danger in all of this is that the denial continues and the truth emerges.
Jonathan Powell has put a political cat among the pigeons.
MLAs refute any kind of dealingsPeter Robinson"There was no backchannel to Sinn Fein at all, not at any point (before March last year). There is plenty of evidence that was the case, with Sinn Fein coming out of Downing Street drawing different conclusions from us about what the Government was saying.
"The meeting he (Mr Powell) is referring to was when three of us (Mr Robinson, Nigel Dodds and Ian Paisley Jnr) were sanctioned by the party executive to meet Sinn Fein on (Saturday) March 24.
"Up until that day we had never had any meeting. I had never spoken to Sinn Fein, never met Sinn Fein, until that day."
Gregory Campbell"I am emphatically saying there was no direct contact between our party and Sinn Fein. Mr Powell is endeavouring to sell more copies of his book and in doing so has made this and other allegations. There is a straight forward way for him to make this stand up and that is for him to name the person or persons he is talking about.
"He has already shown that he is prepared to name names as he has alleged that David Trimble was involved in redrafting IRA statements so why can he not do the same with this allegation? If he does that, the person he is alleging made contact with Sinn Fein can come forward and defend themselves. I am confident that what he is inferring did not take place at all."
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}