Sir, - Vincent Browne (Opinion, March 17th) rightly said that the "impasse in the North cannot be allowed to persist". Reminding us of previous initiatives that had been allowed to falter, he warned that the present peace process could also unravel and he set out concrete suggestions for a resolution to the problem.
While sharing his concerns as to the "uncontrollability of events" - particularly in the light of the appalling murder of Rosemary Nelson - and not wanting to distract from the problem, I feel I must point out what I believe to be a serious error in one section of his column.
I refer to the paragraph where he states that "the IRA was coaxed into a ceasefire in August 1994 by the promise that its political arm, Sinn Fein, would be in all-party talks on a settlement once the guns went silent. Immediately after it had agreed to that, a new condition was introduced, decommissioning." Could Vincent Browne explain how he arrives at such a premise? Where is the evidence that decommissioning was a "new condition" introduced after the ceasefire? Is it not in fact true that, rightly or wrongly, decommissioning has been on the political agenda since at least 1993? That it was not picked up by our national media doesn't alter the fact that it was a genuine concern of most unionists both before the ceasefires and afterwards.
As one example of this I cite an interview with Rev Martin Smyth MP (UUP) on LM/FM radio on May 30th, 1994 (three months before the IRA ceasefire), prior to a public talk he gave in Navan. The interview clearly shows the distrust felt by unionists towards Sinn Fein, but it also shows that there was a willingness on the part of the UUP to enter talks with Sinn Fein provided the republican movement (a) received a mandate, (b) renounced violence and (c) could show that it had "turned from violence for good" - i.e., in his words, "when arms dumps were given over". One wonders, in the light of what transpired after the 1994 ceasefire, just how much consultation had been entered into with mainstream unionism (as opposed to the loyalist parties) before that ceasefire, and how a key concern of many unionists was seemingly ignored. Who made the promise concerning all-party talks on the basis which Mr Browne set out: the British Government or the unionists?
The decommissioning issue stayed on the political agenda and was included in the Good Friday Agreement because it represented a genuine concern held by many people. Sinn Fein signed up to that agreement, yet the IRA has made three statements saying it will not decommission. Can we blame the unionists for not trusting? A clear statement from the IRA that the war is over would clearly help build confidence and might indeed resolve the impasse, as Mr Browne suggests, but if decommissioning "doesn't amount to much", why can't it be made? - Yours, etc., Julitta Clancy,
(Meath Peace Group), Parsonstown, Batterstown, Co Meath.