Sir, - The "war" between the British Army and the PIRA resulted in the stalemate which led to the cease-fires of 1994. It is unlikely that such cease-fires would have come about without prior negotiation through intermediaries between the state authorities and paramilitaries concerning the conditions to make them possible. In this respect, there would probably have been no ceasefire at all without the agreement and support of the prisoners.
Distressing though it has been for many victims and their relatives, prisoner release was bound to be a consequence of any such negotiated ceasefire. On the other hand, decommissioning was not so, for the very obvious reason that no one had a victory and the state was therefore in no position to demand the "handing over" of weapons.
When a ceasefire did occur it seemed that unionism and the more conservatively minded in Britain were thrown off balance.
Peace was demanding an unaccustomed and, for some, disturbing degree of political sophistication which had not been required by "war". Prevarication, pre-conditions, amended conditions, new conditions became the order of the day, building up the frustration which led to the scandal of Canary Wharf. This, in turn, did enormous damage to the credibility of those who were urging that the republican ceasefire was genuine. Trust became a major casualty.
Even so, a second PIRA ceasefire was announced and after two years of debate and discussion, a large measure of agreement was achieved on Good Friday 1998. Nevertheless, the ink had barely dried on the agreement before an energetic - some would say over-energetic - British Prime Minister was in Belfast persuading people to vote "Yes" with reassurances concerning "prior decommissioning" which had not been included in the agreement and which - as events have shown - were not within his gift. In the event, the agreement was ratified by over 90 per cent of the voters in the Irish Republic and by over 70 per cent in Northern Ireland.
It now appears that some people may have voted for what Mr Tony Blair was urging, rather than for what was actually in the agreement delivered into their own homes. A recent opinion poll would suggest, however, that in spite of attempts to tribalise the European election, the number no longer prepared to honour their affirmation of the agreement of 1998 may not be as great as the trumpeters of doom and gloom would have us believe. In any case it seems as bit rich to listen to people in the unionist camp who have changed their minds championing the right of a minority veto when not so many years ago they equated democracy so exclusively with majority rule.
As a result of so much prevarication, obfuscation, changing of mind and repeated breaking of deadlines, it was hardly surprising that the honourable person, Mr Seamus Mallon, resigned as Deputy First Minister and that the republican movement is now posing questions about the sanctity of a May 2000 deadline for decommissioning.
Without lateral thinking on this matter there is a risk of the deadline itself becoming the issue rather than the means of ensuring that no guns are ever again used for political purposes in Ireland.
Before the legacy of Anglo-Irish and Irish sectarian history, with so much violence and bitterness on all sides, a fundamental change of attitude in our new political climate is still required. As far as decommissioning is concerned, it is necessary to address the role of the British Army, the propriety of arms held by the police, the need to re-register and re-license so-called civilian weapons as well as the means of decommissioning those held by paramilitaries. The "decommissioning of mind-sets" involves all of us, not just those who may have caused most mayhem. Furthermore, stalemate is no basis for exclusiveness. -Yours, etc., John Robb,
New Ireland Group, Ballymoney, Co Antrim.