Implementing the Belfast Agreement was never going to be easy, but surely all of us were entitled to believe that we would have progressed much further than we have, writes Seán Farren.
Anybody - including the DUP and political commentators like Frank Millar in this paper last week - who thinks that the agreement is up for renegotiation is simply mistaken.
Indeed the DUP would look pretty foolish negotiating in a room without nationalist representatives or either the British or Irish governments. The SDLP has made clear that the Belfast Agreement is not up for renegotiation.
It is not blind faith in the agreement that underlies this assertion. Any agreement in Northern Ireland would have to address comprehensively all of the key relationships and issues at the heart of the historic divisions affecting our communities, North and South. Essentially these are relationships between the communities in Northern Ireland, between these communities and the rest of Ireland and, thirdly, relationships between the people of Ireland and the people of Britain.
It was the failure of previous "settlements", notably the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921, to fully address these relationships that produced the so-called Northern Ireland problem. Essentially a British-Irish problem and never a purely Northern Ireland problem, a resolution required the wider British-Irish context provided in the Belfast agreement. It does address these relationships comprehensively in constitutional and political terms.
Constitutionally the agreement enshrines the principle of consent and sets out the basis upon which constitutional change would be effected, i.e. change from British to Irish sovereignty over Northern Ireland. It is politically irrational to argue that a new agreement - which would not address the core issues - can emerge from any new negotiation.
This agreement is what we have, it is what the people of Ireland have voted for and it is that which all of us have a profound duty to implement and to defend.
Politically, it provides institutional expression to the three sets of relationships identified above. The Assembly and its Executive provide the means by which a working partnership can be developed by representatives of the two main communities in Northern Ireland.
It is through this partnership that barriers can be broken down and a major contribution made to binding up the wounds caused by division and violence. It is also through this partnership that the talents of both communities can be used to create a sense of belonging and a sense of involvement in building a better future for all.
That this hasn't yet happened only underlines the scale of the problem. It is not a case against the means we have established to solve the problem.
My argument in defence of the agreement is not an attempt to camouflage the problems which we currently face. They are real, they are pressing and they are genuine.
THE critical problems affecting the implementation of the Belfast Agreement have all been about confidence, or rather the lack of it. There is a trust deficit which is damaging the political establishment in Northern Ireland and impeding real progress. The lack of trust is compounded by ongoing paramilitary activity both loyalist and republican and the determination of anti-agreement unionists to undermine the democratically expressed will of the people.
Trust between parties attempting to resolve a conflict as deep rooted as ours will not grow merely by working one part of the agreement, however enthusiastically. If other steps essential to resolving the conflict are not being taken or are being taken only reluctantly and under pressure, it is not surprising that serious problems arise.
So where to from here? The announcement by the IRA last night that it is suspending contact with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning is disappointing but it should be remembered that this not the first time contact has been broken. The IRA's on-off engagement with the IICD is no less discouraging than the UUP's on-off commitment to the power-sharing institutions. All parties should be required to get around the table to deal with all of the issues and to bring forward all of the agreement.
The SDLP plan to reconvene the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation is positive. The Irish people overwhelmingly supported the agreement and want to see its full implementation. The forum will offer a democratic platform in which to examine the difficulties as well as returning to unfinished business of agreement on the issue of consent among Ireland's nationalist parties.
These steps are welcome but what is required immediately is a return to the commitments freely entered into on Good Friday 1998 and endorsed in the joint referendums by huge majorities North and South. That return must be signalled in a manner that provides confidence that all commitments will be delivered and be seen to be delivered.
In the meantime, talk by the DUP and others about an alternative to the Belfast Agreement is only a diversion.
• Seán Farren MLA (SDLP) is former Minister of Finance and Personnel in the Northern Ireland Executive