Dermot Ahern was born in Dundalk and has been a TD for Louth since 1987. Prior to that he was a solicitor, and his legal experience still manifests itself in a tendency to weight words in conversation as if they were being considered for a legal document.Before being given the Foreign Affairs brief by Taoiseach Bertie Ahern (no relation) in September last year, he was Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. The latter post was more than a job for Ahern, as he has a keenness for several water sports.

So unlike many of his colleagues, he does have a life outside politics, and is arguably the most serious rock music fan in the current government. Now a key player in the Irish government’s role in the Northern Peace Process, he was recently appointed by UN boss Kofi Annan as an envoy alongside representatives from Mozambique, Mexico and Indonesia.

JACKIE HAYDEN: Minister Ahern, Why do you think you’ve been given this UN post by Kofi Annan?

DERMOT AHERN: First of all, Ireland’s record for its negotiating skills, particularly after the EU Presidency. I met Kofi Annan in December and I told him that we have always been strong supporters of the UN and we were worried that the UN reform package was going so slowly and asked was there anything we could do to help. I followed that with a visit to Kofi Annan and his team in New York in February and again offered our help, mentioning that thirty of our ministers would be in the capitals of the world on March 17th and we could use them to promote the UN reform package. He said he would appreciate that help. So when our ministers went abroad I ensured they were properly briefed and asked them to raise the matter in the various capitals they visited. Since then there’s been a lot of tick-tacking between our UN Ambassador Richard Ryan as to how we could fit in and then they suggested this offer.

It’s quite an achievement, given that you’ve only held the Foreign Affairs brief for about six months.
Yeah, but I have to admit that some of our meetings were quite brisk and blunt, and I think they were appreciative of that, given that in a lot of UN settings people talk around issues, but we were quite direct.

Would the bluntness have had anything to do with reservations about Kofi Annan himself?
In what sense?

He has a mixed track record. Some feel he could be more pro-active.
In any of the dealings I’ve had with him he’s had a very clear mind as to where he wants to go. He has a good team around him. I’d say a lot of the decision-making was made by Mark McMahon, his new advisor. He’s very very good.

There’s a suggestion that there be a rotating seat for smaller countries like Ireland on the UN Security Council?
I have to look at this from both perspectives. Most of what’s in the package we can agree with. But from the national point of view, and we’ve made this clear, is that we want to have input into the process, quite apart from me being an envoy. We’re relatively neutral as to which model is proposed, as long as we can be absolutely satisfied that smaller nations get a fair crack of the whip.

How would you feel if North Korea were one of those smaller nations?
Unfortunately all these hard cases are thrown up, like whether Sudan is a member of the human rights’ commission. The reform package is to ensure that those countries that are part of the process are positively disposed towards the UN and its remit and its aspirations, rather than being there just to be a destructive element. There have been instances where the worst violators of human rights were actually on the Commission for Human Rights!

Such as?
Well Sudan is a classic case, and that’s why part of the UN reform package is to ensure that countries that have a severe question mark over them are not part of the decision-making process.

Looking at your Foreign Affairs brief, I presume the so-called war on terror is high on the agenda?
I suppose a lot of what is happening at the UN now is driven by the failures of the UN to react to situations. The highlight is the Iraqi situation, where the UN process came right up against a unilateral move to go into Iraq. Even those countries who were divergent on Iraq have all arrived at the same point where we now have democratic elections there. I think the US appreciate this, but in Iraq we need much more of an involvement of the UN and also the EU, who are now offering fairly significant logistical support in relation to the building up of the judicial system and the police in Iraq. Obviously the UN personnel have to be protected and that’s one of the issues.

The elections in Iraq were achieved by the deaths of thousands of innocent people, is that a reasonable price to pay?
Well, nobody likes what has gone on in Iraq. No right-minded person would agree with the killings and war, but that’s why we’re trying to reform the UN so it can be the arbiter and the arena where these disputes can be aired.

So why didn’t we come out and argue against the US doing what they did in Iraq? Why say nothing? We allowed planes to land at Shannon which were going to murder people in Iraq that you now regret the US murdering.
We made it quite clear that we supported the UN resolution and that we didn’t support the war in Iraq. Ultimately, the UN confirmed the legitimacy of the presence there, but we had a debate and the parliament of this country okayed the use of Shannon. To a certain extent we were caught in a position where this had been the practice for decades, no matter what party was in office, during other war situations. It would have been a pyrrhic move if we had withdrawn the Shannon facility, in that the Americans would have gone elsewhere. We would have been one of the only countries …. even Germany allows flights in, even though they, like ourselves, did not support the coalition forces going into Iraq. It wasn’t a very palatable decision, given the fact that the initial going in didn’t have UN sanction.

Doesn’t that mean we have to bear some responsibility for those deaths in Iraq?
No. None of the troops passing through were armed in any way. There was an absolute guarantee that none of those planes were carrying weapons, only personnel. There was a recent allegation that one plane was used for people detained in Guantanamo, but we got guarantees from the Americans that none of the planes that used Shannon were for people going to Guantanamo.

Don’t we have a contradictory attitude to terrorists abroad compared to terrorists here?
I don’t think so, but that’s why at UN level we’re trying to grapple with part of the package (to include) a definition of terrorism which, in very blunt terms, is any killings of innocent people. We would condemn that here in Ireland and abroad.

Michael McDowell’s claim that Gerry Adams is on the IRA Army Council makes him a terrorist, but you’re happy to deal with Gerry Adams!
Michael McDowell has his own briefings from the Department of Justice and, a bit like the Taoiseach, I only get a briefing every so often. No one has ever said to me, from our security forces, that Gerry Adams is a member of the IRA Council.

But would the word of the Minister For Justice not be enough?
To be honest, he gave his opinion. As far as I’m concerned it’s really irrelevant. You can’t really compare what’s going on in Iraq with what’s going on here. The people voted so that people like Gerry Adams on the nationalist side and others on the Loyalist side would move away from violence and from having private armies to a situation where their political ideas would be promoted by totally democratic and peaceful means. Whether Gerry Adams is or is not on the IRA Council really isn’t the issue, because it’s a secret society and no-one will ever know. We won’t ever be able, probably, to prove it unless he puts up his hand and says “I’m on the IRA Council”.
We would need witnesses in a court of law to prove it. Our security advice is strong in this instance that the IRA leadership and the Sinn Fein leadership are intertwined. Their decision-making process is more or less the same. So whether somebody is actually at an IRA Council meeting, or whether they absent themselves from meetings when perhaps difficult decisions are made, is really irrelevant. We’re satisfied that there’s an interlinking, they’re different sides of the one coin. So it doesn’t matter whether Adams or McGuinness or Martin Ferris are on the IRA Council, if we’re told by our security forces that they are satisfied that decisions have the imprimatur of both leaderships.
If there are two different attitudes coming from the Government, yours and McDowell’s, what are the people supposed to think?
Just because we are part of the Government we’re not all robots! Michael McDowell gets a daily briefing on all of these issues. He’s privy to much more information than I am in this respect. But I have to deal in the area of politics where Adams and McGuinness and others have been part of negotiations for the last eighteen years at least, met by political leaders of all hues, and we have a situation where we’re at the final hurdle, and we come back to the key remaining issues, the end of paramilitarism, criminal activities and decommissioning.
So we have to overlook what they might have done in the past in order to go forward?
Yes. If everybody was to look back all the time to thirty years of violence we wouldn’t get anywhere. That’s why, as Tony Blair said recently, you have to have a bit of “creative ambiguity” in order to move this thing forward. But there comes a time, as he said, when the days of “creative ambiguity” are over, in that we’re now down to the acts of completion, to deal with all the issues that were on the table and have no remaining issues. The DUP can’t deal with decommissioning arms. My party can’t deal with it. It’s up to Sinn Finn and the IRA.
Do you yourself agree that the days of “creative ambiguity” are over?
In relation to these issues, absolutely. We accepted that full decommissioning was on the table. Our security forces told us that from their information it was available. We told them individually and bluntly before the documents were published on 8th December that as far as we were concerned, if Sinn Fein and the DUP were to go into Government with each other they had to have a policing service that both communities and both political parties would adhere to and would promote and use. But the Northern Bank raid, the McCartney murder and other instances have highlighted more than ever that if they are to go into government there needs to be a commitment that they’ll work the policing arrangements.

Do you believe that the IRA were involved in the Northern Bank robbery and the McCartney murder?
From the information from our security services, absolutely in relation to the Northern Bank raid. In relation to the McCartney murder it’s quite clear there was a brawl amongst people who were members of the IRA and members of Sinn Fein and while it mightn’t have been sanctioned as the Northern Bank raid was sanctioned, what happened subsequently after the murder took place was quite clearly in the name of the IRA, which raises the question for Sinn Fein.
It’s illegal to a member of the IRA in the Republic, so after Michael McDowell’s statement people will wonder why Gerry Adams hasn’t been charged?
Because, unless he puts up his hand and says “I’m a member of the IRA” or unless we have witnesses, it’s a very difficult thing to do. That’s why there’s a reluctance on my part to say these things unless I have absolute proof.

Wouldn’t you be more comfortable about going into coalition with Sinn Fein than many of your Fianna Fail colleagues?
No. I never said I wanted to go into coalition with Sinn Fein (laughs). I’ve said quite clearly many times that their economic policy would leave a wasteland in this country. All their policy documents, including the last local and European elections, showed quite clearly that they were calling for increased spending, which in effect meant increased taxation on the people. They never say where the money is coming from and the trick with the on-going peace process is that the ordinary people don’t really examine… Ask anyone who voted for Sinn Fein in the last local elections “Do you know what their policies are in relation to income tax, capital taxes, indirect taxes, all the taxes?” Their (policies) are all on the basis of increasing taxes. If they don’t explicitly say it, you can take it for granted that by calling for the increased spending that they’re talking about, there’s only one way and that’s by increased taxation.

So the only reason you wouldn’t go into coalition with Sinn Fein is economic and not idealogical?
Yes, purely for economic (reasons), but on the basis that we would have to be absolutely certain there’s no army behind them. That’s why I said some time back, when some people put two and two together and got twenty-two, that on the basis of them ultimately going into fully democratic and peaceful means to promote their ideals, which to a certain extent are the same as my own party, that the political scenario would be much different and that’s what the people in 1998 voted for. They voted for the likes of Sinn Fein to leave behind the vestiges of an army, and that’s why we’re now at the critical issue, are they going to continue with their twin-track approach of, as Danny Morrison said, the ballot box in one hand and the armalite in the other.

So you’re not saying never to coalition with Sinn Fein?
You never say never in politics!

What about coalition with Labour? Their economic policies might be closer to Fianna Fail than Sinn Fein?
I’ve often said that a coalition of Fianna Fail and Labour would be a good coalition. My party has good relationships with the Trade Union movement, as shown over the last fifteen years or so in relation to social partnership. But I have no doubt that Fianna Fail and the PDs will go into the next election as an option for the people. Because of his attitude, Pat Rabbitte has excluded any other possibility …
Do you regret him doing that?
It’s not for me to tell another party what to do, but I believe he has closed off the options for the general public and the public should be allowed to vote in an open scenario with policies and options, but I would foresee the day when Fianna Fail would be in coalition with Labour. I can, yes, but not for the next election. I would be comfortable with that, in that the policies of the two parties are not dissimilar in relation to a myriad of issues. We would be closer in a lot of respects to Labour than we would to other parties.

The PDs seem to be taking a lot of the credit for the successes of the current Government. Does that irritate you?

I don’t think they are. We’ve worked very well with the PDs. We wouldn’t have stayed in Government for eight years without any major rows if we didn’t get on well, not just on a personal level but on a political level. And if there are any differences we’ve been able to iron them out. By their nature smaller parties in coalition will always shout a bit louder about their achievements.

Mary Harney has implied that she left the post of Tanaiste after sorting out the economy and is now going to sort out the health mess, as it were, which I thought quite insulting to the previous Minister for Health, Michael Martin.
I didn’t really hear what she had to say in relation to that … but Health is a difficult portfolio. The situation is somewhat different now with the biggest Health budget in the history of the state. We’ve thrown money at the Health problem and it hasn’t worked and now with the increased spending, and with the changed structures and the changed management if they’re allowed to be put in place, I think they could work. But only time will tell.

But despite our economic successes we seem to have a health service that at times has killed people because of lapses here or there.
(Pauses) Well, you know, people … a health service, I mean, is only so good. I don’t accept that it’s killed people. People are human and make mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes, so I think it’s very wrong to portray the Health service as having killed people.

If lapses have resulted in people dying, is there any other way of putting it?
No matter what health service you have, situations will happen where people die because of human error.

Do you think our immigration policy is working?
I think it’s working reasonably well, yeah.

Wasn’t Michael McDowell’s about-turn on the Nigerian student, Kunle, something of an embarrassment?
No. I think it showed that Michael McDowell is a reasonable person. I had an instance last year where a family from this town (Dundalk) were being deported. They came to me with some religious people and teachers from the locality. They were only down the street when I ran after them to tell them I’d spoken to Michael McDowell and that he would review the case. Michael rang me later that day and said that they weren’t going to be deported because it would be wrong. I think that showed he isn’t the type of person that the media and the opposition sometimes project him to be, that he’s heartless. That was a particular case where one of the family had a severe disability.

In that case he admitted he was wrong, but in the case of Kunle he claimed in the Dail that it was a right decision.
Yeah, I mean…each individual case is different, but all I now is that in one case he showed that he was prepared to face down the recommendations of the officials, once he was made aware of it and that may have happened in this particular instance as well, I don’t know.

Would he have done the same if an ordinary member of the public had brought it to his attention?
I think so.

Last week Bob Geldof claimed that we haven’t come up to the promises we made re the amount of foreign aid we would give as a percentage of our Gross National Product. Have you a reply for him?
I think it’s disingenuous to blame the Irish taxpayer, not the Irish Government, when in the next three years we’ll spend €1.8 billion on overseas development aid. Kofi Annan wouldn’t have appointed Ireland as one his special envoys if he didn’t believe we’re coming up to the mark in relation to overseas development aid. He said that Ireland was an exemplar to the rest of the world, as did the outgoing chairman of the World Bank. We don’t tie our money to trade, as other countries do. Every time we pledge money it’s delivered. The same could not be said for a lot of other countries.
But Geldof is actually saying we promised money and didn’t deliver it.
That’s not the case. We promised to reach 0.7% by 2007. Our economic situation has dictated that if we were to do that we would have had to put in huge resources over a very short period when we had people screaming for new wards everywhere. We would have been spending a dramatic amount of money abroad on health services, when here in Ireland, for instance, we badly need a HIV aids department in one of our hospitals. So it’s a matter of priorities. We’re still committed to the 0.7%. By 2007 we’ll reach 0.5%. Kofi Annan’s report recommends countries reach 0.5% by 2009. The way we’re going we’ll reach that two years earlier. He’s also recommended that countries reach 0.7% by 2015. If we continue the way we’re going we’ll have reached that long before then. So that’s my answer to Bob Geldof.
So Bob Geldof is wrong?
Yeah. I’ve a country to run as part of a government. Bob Geldof can make his statements. I think he’s wrong. I think he should be highlighting those countries who are not performing, some well below us are a lot richer than us. We are eight in the world in gross spending in proportionate terms.
Your name has been mentioned as a possible future leader of Fianna Fail. Do you welcome that speculation?
No politician worth their salt would deny wanting to advance their career and to get to the top. There’s a hundred and sixty people in Leinster House who all want to be Taoiseach. But I don’t see my job as a means to advance myself. If I’d wanted to advance myself I probably would have stayed in the law!
What would you regard as the high point of your career in politics to date?
Being re-elected by the people. There’s nothing more energising, nothing more complimentary, nothing that gives me a greater kick than seeing people voting for me.
What’s been the low point?
Em, I suppose the time when Albert Reynolds sacked me when I was Government Chief Whip.
Did it take long to get over that?
About a fortnight! (Laughs). I decided I could sulk forever or not at all, so I decided not at all.
If I said I thought your low point might have been the Ray Burke incident when you were supposed to find out if he received money from JMSE …
(Slightly agitated) Not at all. Bertie Ahern asked me to go over to London and ask an individual had he given money or not. He didn’t ask me to investigate anything. The man told me he’d given nothing. No more than that did I do.
But Bertie then said that either he or you or somebody had been up every tree in London ...
No, Bertie said he’d been up every tree. I was asked to do one thing and that’s what I did. After that, I know nothing about whether or not that man gave money, other than what has come out since.
So who was going up trees? Was anybody?
Well, that’s Bertie’s expression.
Does it mean anything?
I don’t now. You better ask Bertie that. But I don’t regard that as a low point. I probably would rather that it hadn’t happened and that I wasn’t involved, because I’ve never taken a red cent in politics from anyone.
Have you ever been offered any money?
I have, yes. Yes. But I’ve never taken it.
What area of political life was it offered in relation to?
Oh, just general, just general. Any money that’s ever been offered goes to Fianna Fail.
Would you be the exception?
I don’t know. We’re all individuals.
You were at college with Dave Fanning.
(Laughs) I was, yeah. I hung around with Dave. He used to introduce me to all sorts of stuff, like Genesis, for example. I haven’t really had much contact with him since.
Perhaps your musical tastes haven’t kept up with his?
That’s not correct at all.
Well, what are your musical tastes today?
I’m probably the only cabinet minister who has an i-Pod. Obviously I was part of the Leonard Cohen, Elton John, Billy Joel era and all that, but I’ve graduated and I’m a big Aimee Mann fan. I have all her CDs. I even downloaded a live CD of hers over the weekend, legally, through i-Tunes, and I’m looking forward to her new album. I’ve most of the Crash Test Dummies CDs, Hootie and The Blowfish, I’ve hundreds of CDs. When my young child was only three she asked me, “Are you a TD because you have so many CDs?”
What you’re all-time favourite album?
Dark Side Of The Moon. (Laughs) …or Magnolia by Aimee Mann.
What’s your reaction to Gerry Adams’ recent statement?
It would be churlish not to welcome a statement like that. When we met Adams and McGuinness back in December and in January after the bank raid we said, “Look, this is the position. Full decommissioning, end to criminality and paramilitarism, come back to us. We can do nothing. It’s up to you.” They took umbrage at the fact that we told them to go away and reflect on it. But in effect that’s what we did, so I welcome the fact that he and they seem at least to be making moves as a result of our exhortations. But actions will speak louder that their words.

Would any part of you think that it’s just electioneering with the British elections coming up?
Of course. I wouldn’t be a politician if I didn’t think that. I’d like to think that it’s not the case, but some people would say that Sinn Fein are past masters at maximising their electoral ability. I hope they’re not going to use, as some of their own former colleagues have said, the perpetual peace process to continue their electoral efforts, and we won’t be used in that respect.

What would be confident will happen with the peace process over the next six months?
I think there will be moves after the election to resurrect what we were trying to do in December. I think Sinn Fein want that to happen. I don’t think they appreciate the depth of feeling in the broader community about these issues having to be dealt with once and for all. Post the God Friday agreement, it’s about time they, as the expression goes, shit or get off the pot. I believe there will be moves on the end of paramilitarism and criminality and policing, significant moves. Whatever trust and confidence we had has been fairly well battered since recent events, and it must be the same for the DUP and UUP.

You use the word ‘significant’ in relation to the moves you expect, but does that imply you don’t expect full decommissioning?
I expect what was on the table back in December, which was full decommissioning, in as far as arms can be decommissioned forever. It doesn’t stop them buying arms again.
In that sense isn’t the issue of decommissioning a red herring? They can decommission every single nut and bolt today and get more tomorrow?
That’s why I said that the bar has to be higher now in relation to independent verification. For anyone to sit down with them in government there have to be clearly demonstrable guarantees and that they’re moving on the policing issue. If they’re part of a government they can’t have a private army. It’s in their interest to have a police service. They could not run an executive if there were, in the name of the provisional movement, criminal acts taking place with them in government. The DUP appreciated that the Loyalist paramilitaries would have to be cracked down on as much as possible.
If the forthcoming elections in the North lead to a further polarisation between the two communities, is that a help or a hindrance to the peace process?
I think it would be a hindrance. But you cannot cure nearly forty years of horrendous violence overnight. It will take at least a generation, if not more, for trust to be rebuilt. Politicians can sign agreements all they like, but ultimately, if you cannot get people to live side by side and trust each other…