A chara, You stated inter alia (editorial, February 14th) that President Clinton's Administration has this week reaffirmed its readiness to become involved in a constructive fashion ... If they (Sinn Fein) cannot deliver...it seems likely that the negotiating train will depart without them ...
If that is the case, that train must surely be the Cassandra Express. Is it not (for the tenth millionth time) abundantly clear that talks which exclude whatever party, for whatsoever reason will fail?
If the exclusion of one or another party is based on some (laughable) commitment to democratic principles, then some serious waking up needs to be done I for one, am not familiar with any significant precedents where "ceasefires" formed a substantial part of negotiating processes, for example the recognition given to the PLO by the United Nations General Assembly in 1974. Alternatively, such ceasefires have typitypically, come too late. The Dayton Agreement is notable in this regard. The sorry result there had already been effectively achieved by the warring parties. I don't believe either of these situations is seriously distinguishable from the Irish problem.
Opposers of political violence are in all probability inspired by democratic principles, or something equivalent thereto. This does not, however, legitimise the turning of a blind eye. It simply laughs in the face of democracy, for those who espouse it, to tolerate nearly thirty years of bitter conflict. What good are principles if nobody talks and the killing goes on? There are many issues on which we in the British Isles need change; not least among them is the track we are on. - Is mise le meas,
Institute of Comparative Law, McGill University,
Montreal, Canada.