Sir, - Your editorial of Tuesday, January 7th is a narrow and biased view of the current political situation. You choose to attack Sinn Fein in general and Gerry Adams in particular for the erosion of the peace process when every fact over the last three years, refutes this charge. Your charge that "Gerry Adams has said no to John Major" is particularly offensive. What positive proposals from John Major has Sinn Fein rejected?
On August 31st, 1994 Sinn Fein delivered the political space for dialogue and negotiations which had been asked for by both governments. The British government through John Major and other spokespersons for that Government had given both private and public commitments to inclusive talks. It is John Major who has persistently said no to every initiative by Sinn Fein, the SDLP, the Irish Government and to the wishes of the vast majority of Irish people for an agreement worked out among all parties on an equal basis.
That opportunity for a new beginning was squandered by the British government for their own party political advantage. This has been acknowledged in articles in your own newspaper. In the face of the British governments and Unionist intransigence, Sinn Fein consistently sought to create progress but were repeatedly thwarted by the British government's refusal to move to genuine talks. This too was the experience of John Bruton and John Hume.
A second opportunity to restore the IRA ceasefire initiated by John Hume and Gerry, Adams and backed by the Irish Government was rejected. All of this is a matter of public record.
Your editorial makes a ridiculous attempt to line up John Major, John Bruton and John Hume as if there was agreement between them on what is needed to rebuild the peace process. There clearly is not. John Bruton, and John Hume, again a matter of public record, have stated their support for an inclusive talks process without preconditions. John Major again rejects that reasonable view. Sinn Fein are continuing to work to re build the peace process and as Martin McGuinness said some months ago, negotiations for a peace settlement have a better chance of success in a peaceful environment. This is not however any diminution of Sinn Fein's demand that our mandate be recognised.
Sinn Fein is a political party. We stand for election the same as any other party - on our policies and on our political record. 15.7 per cent of the electorate chose Sinn Fein to represent them at the last elections in the North (elections which John Major forced on all nationalist parties and which he declared would lead to "automatic and speedy entry to talks").
John Hume's request is for Sinn Fein to abandon our mandate to the SDLP. No political party would or could accede to such a demand.
There is a further untrue charge in your editorial that Sinn Fein has been "a sponsor of hatred and sectarianism". Sinn Fein is irreplacably opposed to sectarianism. For you to make such a charge when it is Sinn Fein and those we represent who are the targets of hatred and sectarianism is particularly offensive. This is not merely a spectre from the past, it is a reality of life for northern nationalists and indeed for any party or organisation or individual who have tried to address the causes of division and conflict. Even those who have held out the hand of friendship to unionists have been targets of sectarian abuse.
Sinn Fein has been at the centre and indeed has been a driving force in the efforts to secure a real and lasting peace in Ireland, and for The Irish Times to target Sinn Fein in general and Gerry Adams in particular at this time of difficulty is to say the least unfair. - Yours, etc.,
General Secretary,
Sinn Fein,
Parnell Square, Dublin 1.