Sir, – I have to respectfully disagree with Professor Paul Bew’s comments to the Burren Law School that the Belfast Agreement was elitist (Home News, May 6th). It is difficult to see what justifies such an assertion.
It is almost impossible to imagine more inclusive negotiations. Ten parties and two governments were directly represented while representatives of civil society (business, trades unions and community groups) made frequent presentations to negotiators, mostly supportive of the process. Before being finally ratified the agreement was endorsed, North and South, in referendums by overwhelming majorities. The subsequent St Andrews Agreement did not alter the essential elements of the original.
The Belfast Agreement was no surprise imposition. Its basic framework and general contents had received considerable public debate long before negotiations commenced. The Opsahl Commission (1992-3), which had held extensive hearings across the North, broadly anticipated the agreement’s main outcomes. Furthermore, the large media presence throughout the negotiations ensured the public was well informed as to progress or otherwise in the process.
The claim of elitism is extremely dangerous since it suggests that the Belfast Agreement was shaped and imposed by a small group of politicians and that the people were kept in the dark. It also gives weight to spurious arguments that the agreement has bestowed no benefits on some communities. Patently the agreement’s prime purpose was to provide for constitutional certainty, and political stability through partnership, within a framework that respects the identities, and the human and civil rights of all.
Economic and social issues are now the responsibility of those charged with implementing the agreement. If they fall short it is not necessarily the fault of the agreement. – Yours, etc,
SEÁN FARREN,
(SDLP Negotiating Team 1996-98),
Mill Square, Portstewart.