The interference of a foreign government, namely Britain, in our nation's affairs is the primary cause of the conflict in our country. Lest we forget: the partition of Ireland was brought about by means of threat and without the consent of the Irish people.

In fact, it went against the clearly expressed wish of the people as articulated in the 1919 Declaration of Independence. As the proposed Belfast Agreement does not seek to deal with this reality, it cannot deliver a grounded, genuine peace.

Some have expended great energy in recent times trying to portray our committee - and others who recognise this proposed agreement as unjust - as being isolated. It is therefore important to outline that even some in the mainstream media are not convinced. The Sunday Business Post said "partition represented a massive injustice for the North's nationalists. What is being now mooted is a double injustice, in that it reinforces and copperfastens an earlier betrayal". The Irish News in April stated "partition was an aberration in Irish history" which it said "bred the evil of sectarianism".

Even though the agreement itself acknowledges that "a substantial section of the people in Northern Ireland share the legitimate wish of a majority of the people of the island of Ireland for a United Ireland" it proceeds to obstruct this wish by means of incorporating a unionist veto on change of any kind. Thus - even though there is a nationalist majority in 30 of the 32 counties - Irish national sovereignty, a national right, under the terms of this agreement can be blocked by a small minority of the people of the island.

Through the perversion of the consent principle unionism in effect is to be rewarded for its stewardship of injustice over the last 75 years. Just as another 70 years would have made apartheid no less acceptable, time has made partition no less unjust or divisive.

The only transitional arrangements outlined in this agreement are those which seek to change British rule in Ireland from a framework of direct rule to one of an internal assembly. There is no transition outlined for the achievement of Irish national sovereignty.

This process has seen Britain mercilessly pursue its war objectives under the banner of "peace". These objectives can be seen to be a stabilisation of British rule in Ireland and the assimilation of Republican resistance into structures which neutralise the assertion of the Irish people's right to national self-determination.

The underhand attempt in the agreement to trade basic human rights for consent to disenfranchise a section of our people and undermine the sovereignty of the nation is deplorable. The appointment of the former chairman of the Conservative and Unionist party, Mr Chris Patten, as an "independent" head of the review of the RUC speaks volumes on Britain's bad faith.

Prisoners, if they are released - and let us be clear their release is at the whim of the British and Dublin governments - will be released as "criminals". The terms of the potential releases, which exclude those who oppose the content of the agreement, show this is not a process about "new beginnings" or "looking to the future", but about attempting to marginalise those who oppose Britain's presence in Ireland.

We note this agreement is not being sold on the basis that it will bring about justice or an end to the denial of Irish people's national rights, but on the false argument that the only alternative is conflict. Let me be quite clear when I say the conflict in Ireland will be solved by negotiations, but as we all know it is the framework within which such discussion takes place that is vital.

The British Prime Minister, Mr Tony Blair, talking of the process which led to the proposed agreement, said in Israel recently "the constitutional question between Ireland and Britain was not up for decision".

We in the 32-County Sovereignty Committee urge a process of negotiation in which that question is addressed. Painful experience has shown that past strategies, which have attempted to stabilise British rule, have in fact been no more than alternatives to the only real solution that can bring about the conditions for a genuine peace, namely British state withdrawal from Ireland.

The present agreement had a predetermined outcome; no one can claim they were unaware of this. The unionist veto was enshrined in both the Downing Street Declaration and the Framework Documents.

We seek national sovereignty for Ireland, a national right, one which is cherished by all nations of the world, we will not collude in its denial to the people of Ireland by the British state.

National self-determination by definition can only be exercised free of outside interference.

The British government has clearly stated that it is the referendum in the six counties which counts, thus the two referendums can be seen to be a very unsophisticated attempt to grant the unionist veto in perpetuity. Sovereignty, a national right recognised the world over, is the framework within which genuine peace will be established.

Bernadette Sands is vice-chairwoman of the 32-County Sovereignty Committee