Impasse On Decommissioning

Sir, - I am continually amazed at the failure of commentators on either side of the Irish Sea to perceive the true nature and…

Sir, - I am continually amazed at the failure of commentators on either side of the Irish Sea to perceive the true nature and depth of the decommissioning issue in the North. Like the iceberg which sank the Titanic, the full dimensions of this issue may be hidden from view, yet it is big enough to rip the heart out of the Belfast Agreement. Reading your Letters page, with its reference to a mere "impasse on decommissioning", one might imagine it was essentially a technical problem, one that can be sorted out by negotiation and goodwill on all sides. Well, it's not and it can't. Decommissioning is an issue at the very heart of the conflict in Northern Ireland because it raises the question of state legitimacy. Decommissioning applies solely to illegal weaponry, as is defined by legal authority. But who is the legal authority in Northern Ireland and who says IRA weapons are illegal weapons? On these wheels the conflict turns. The legitimacy of the Northern Ireland state is rejected by the mainstream nationalist community, as well as by republicans and many others.

The chief organs of that state - the police, courts, etc. - have never been fully accepted as legitimate either. It is this "legitimacy deficit" that has fuelled the conflict for over 30 years. This is the reality that the peace process addresses. The whole thrust of the Belfast Agreement is to build legitimacy for a new Northern Ireland, based on a new consensus of agreement and respect. By its nature this is a historic shift, operating on a gradual timescale. Over time, and as the agreement takes hold, we can expect the secondary though equally vital parts to fall into place - a new police service, a new legal system, cast-iron commitments to justice, equality in all areas of state policy, and, yes, decommissioning too. As the new Northern Ireland will be for the first time a fully legitimate authority, earning respect from all, dumping arms and - surely more importantly - closing down the organisational frameworks which sustain armed conflict may be little more than a formality. Given time, everything is possible; but insisting on immediate arms "hand-overs`' to as yet unreconstructed and therefore illegitimate authority may well bring the whole agreement crashing down. - Yours, etc.,

Michael Morgan, Glenhill Park, Belfast 11.