Sir, - Mary Holland's views on the expulsion of Sinn Fein from the talks (February 19th) are, as always, sensitive to the delicate nature of political decision-making. She makes a case for not imprisoning parties within a straitjacket of principle, such as the Mitchell Principles, when flexibility may be the only way to secure a peaceful outcome. She may well be correct that the end can justify means which many would find morally repugnant. Equally, it may well be correct that the demands of politics are often at odds with the demands of righteousness. At any rate, hers is not a position that can be lightly ignored.
There is something, however, in this week's events, something which is potentially of vital significance to a positive outcome to the talks, which her specific focus obscures. It obscures the possibility that, when the immediate drama has subsided, unionist confidence in the process could be substantially improved, for the following reasons. First, the solidity shown by the Irish Government may diminish the apprehension that, when Mr Ahern speaks of being leader of nationalist Ireland, this means, in practice, the Irish prime minister underwriting an agenda whose outer limits are set by the (nonnegotiable) demands of Sinn Fein. Challenging Sinn Fein on the requirements of democratic procedure was a very effective way of revealing to unionists that leading the Irish nation could mean something else - namely, that Mr Ahern's role is to specify the practical limits of nationalist ambition and to define the boundaries of what political behaviour is acceptable to extend those ambitions.
This may help to allay popular Unionist suspicion about the intentions of the Irish Government and encourage the view that it is pursuing a policy of stability and not, as some Unionists claim, an ideological crusade. If it is necessary as part of a settlement to construct communities of practical interest on the island of Ireland, then the principled behaviour of the Irish Government this week has made the acknowledgement of that necessity a little bit easier for Unionists.
Second, Seamus Mallon's exemplary and honourable leadership on this issue is one which demands complete respect and should be acknowledged by unionists. The expulsion of Sinn Fein is immensely dangerous for the SDLP. It knows well how easily it may be used against the party and how vulnerable it can be to the (unfounded) charge of aiding and abbetting discrimination against nationalists in Northern Ireland.
The clarity of Mr Mallon's position should encourage Unionists to re-examine another deep-seated fear - namely, that no agreement with the SDLP can be sustained because it is in the interests of that party to appease republicanism rather than to co-operate with Unionists. If the parties to the talks are serious about a settlement and serious about selling that settlement to their respective electorates, then there ought to be some encouragement from the courage and good faith shown by Mr Mallon this week. Of course these are only intimations of the positive and it would be ludicrous to suggest that, of themselves, such things can expedite agreement on those serious issues which still divide the parties. Irrespective of the politics of spectacle - at which Sinn Fein excels and of which the media are a part - it is worth applauding integrity when one finds it. - Yours, etc.,
School of History, Philosophy and Politics, University of Ulster at Jordanstown, Newtownabbey, Co Antrim.