Sir, - As one of those who not only voted for but also actively campaigned for the Good Friday Agreement, I feel some disappointment now, not with the text or the spirit of the Agreement, but with the behaviour and words of some of the politicians and paramilitaries who seem unable or unwilling to live up the commitment they made to the people of Ireland last April.
When I went out to vote "yes" last May I was under no illusions. Like so many others, I understood clearly that it was only the beginning, that there would be many difficulties ahead, that the problems would not go away just because we all signed up to a document. While recognising its flaws and inadequacies, I felt that, given the nature and the depth of the conflict, it was the best - perhaps the only - hope for building a fair and lasting peace on this island and achieving a means whereby we could live and grow together, respecting our differences.
I still believe that. But I also believed that the talks participants who negotiated this compromise really did mean what they said in the Declaration of Support - in which, recognising the "profoundly regrettable legacy of suffering" they committed themselves to a "fresh start" and firmly dedicated themselves to the "achievement of reconciliation, tolerance and mutual trust". Were these just pious aspirations for some of them?
How can reconciliation and mutual trust be built without genuine dialogue between nationalists and unionists, but particularly between those unionists and republicans who support the Agreement? Equally, how can they be built when one paramilitary group persistently says "no" to the decommissioning of the weapons of destruction, while their political representatives, who aspire to ministerial office, consistently deny the need to even make a gesture of good faith?
In a strict literal reading of the Agreement, decommissioning may not have been a precondition to the formation of the executive, or North-South bodies, but in the context of a real impasse, surely the spirit of the Agreement requires some movement, some genuine sign of good faith that will give the necessary space to the other side? Such a gesture would not be seen as surrender, or a "concession to unionists", but simply a response to the will of the people for this Agreement and its institutions to be permitted to work. - Yours, etc., Julitta Clancy,
Batterstown, Co Meath.