De Chastelain confident all weapons put beyond use

IN his opening remarks, Gen de Chastelain said it was vital that the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning told it “only as we saw it. We do not believe it is for us to editorialise.”

Saying that some questioned the secrecy, he pointed out that "getting armed groups to put aside their arms voluntarily, without the perception that the act is one of humiliation and blame, is not simple."

Turning specifically to his recent engagement with the IRA over the past number of weeks, he said that the IICD had "observed and verified events to put beyond use very large quantities of arms which we believe include all the arms in the IRA's possession."

He said they had also made an inventory of them. In 2004, the Irish and British security forces supplied estimates of the quantity of arms held by the IRA. He said what had been decommissioned "is consistent with these estimates and we are satisfied that the arms decommissioned represent the totality of the IRA's arsenal."

He said the Commission would not release the inventory until all decommissioning (ie the loyalist side of the equation) had been completed.

He then described the arms a full range of ammunition, rifles, machine guns, mortars, missiles, handguns, explosives. He then answered questions from the media.

Q: Unionists are going to be sceptical? Has the IRA kept weapons for defensive purposes?

A: We put the question to the IRA, are we getting everything? We did so because in the estimates we received, there was a range of items. We had to be sure that what we got was what they had. They assured us that that was so. We believe that for a number of reasons.

One, the arms that we saw put beyond use, and which we catalogued, relate to the estimates that we have been given. There is another reason. There was a lot of ammunition. Most was still in manufacturers' boxes with the seals intact. A lot wasn't. It was loose, either in belts or in individual rounds. It seemed clear to us that this ammunition had been collected over a period of time from individuals, perhaps from caches, perhaps from active service units. Not only that, a large number of items like time-power units, ballistic caps, that sort of thing.

Q: Has it taken place in a way that weapons can never be used again?

A: We have made the point that all the arms have been decommissioned according to the legislation, which renders them permanently inaccessible or permanently unusable.

Q: Did the amount of arms correspond exactly with estimates? And how did it compare with previous acts?

A: Greatly more. We made the point during the first three events that we still had a great deal of work to do. That became evident during the last few weeks. We have said that the arms decommissioned are consistent with the estimates. They cover broad ranges. They are that. They are estimates. They take account of a number of factors. Much of this stuff is very old, much of it came 20 years ago. Some of it has gone to paramilitary groups that have broken away from this organisation. Some may have been lost. We are convinced that the arms are consistent with the estimates and they are gone.

Andrew Sens: A vast amount of material has been taken out of politics. It's gone. It really is an immense amount.

Q: What quantities were in the estimates of the governments? Are you totally dependent on the IRA without any independent evidence?

A: Estimates took account of a possible range. I am not going to go into the details of the estimates. They were given to us by the security forces in confidence. (On trust), we have no way of knowing for certain that the IRA has not retained arms. But it is our understanding and belief that they were sincere when they said that. It could be that, a number of years from now, someone stumbles across something in a field. Is that possible? Of course it is.

Q: Would not you saying that three tonnes of semtex was destroyed be more visible, more proof?

A: It might be more visible and it might be more proof. But we can't say that because they can't say that. (The security forces) believe there is a certain range of stuff. Items have been used. Rounds have been fired in training. Some ammunition was found after the estimates were made. I don't think anybody knows for sure. Frankly, I think that some of these paramilitaries don't know for sure.

They have told us they have given us everything they have. And we believe them.

Q: Are the unionists questioning your integrity and calling you and your colleagues liars?

A: I would say for myself no. We have a long-standing relationship with the DUP. We have welcomed their advice. I understand why they are concerned why we have had to work in such secrecy. (People) want to know this stuff is gone and why take the word of these three foreigners? I would tell you that, if we didn't have that confidentiality, I don't think we would have had any events. We spent a lot of time since we started with the IRA representative in 1999 making the point that, unless things are visible, people are going to doubt us.

They (the IRA) have made the point that they have reasons for doing things the way they want.

Our task is simple and straightforward: deal with the arms. More openness would be better for us. They have made it clear that that was not going to happen.

Q: Why should they believe you?

A: Because we are telling the truth.

Andrew Sens: Why would we lie?

Q: Why did you believe them?

A: We got secondhand (information) from the security forces that IRA members in the last month were scouring the country to get this stuff. What we saw when we worked on it on the days that we worked on it convinced us they were telling the truth.

Q: What about the loyalists?

A: I do not know. Both opened consultation with us in 1999. They have both since broken off contact with us. It's been a number of years since we talked with the UVF. More recently, the UDA has talked to us but not in terms of decommissioning.

Q: What kind of weapons?

A: The kind of weapons are the kind you have been seeing on TV for the past 24 hours in the museums of recovered weapons. Yes, there were improvised weapons that we put beyond use. The vast majority were commercial type of arms, heavy machine guns, AK47s and the like.

Q: Do you trust them?

A: The word trust is important. Our relationship with the representative has been a very focused one and it has been professional. We have not veered into politics and their views or our views. A lot of that time was to try and engender a degree of trust between them and us. So far, we have both abided by that. When they tell me that's it and I have the evidence of my own eyes to support that contention, I say I believe them.

I have been trying to say very loudly that we have no doubt about it. The question is 'do we only have your word for it?' The answer is yes. We would not give you that word if we had any doubts. We have nothing to gain.

Q: Any photographs taken?

A: Not aware of that.

Q: What's different now from October 2003.

A: We were still in the process then. We are not now. (Not to break trust with them) I could not go into detail (then). You guys had a field day with that.

Andrew Sens: There is one huge difference. This time when we said to them 'is this everything?', they said 'yes, this is everything'.