Sir, - I am both appalled and puzzled by the lack of logic in Seamus Mallon's article (Opinion, February 18th). Having admitted that it is hard to understand how the IRA "could have believed that its perfunctory engagement with the de Chastelain commission" would have satisfied anyone, he then goes on to argue that they should return to the General to "explain their propositions". Not, you will note, to announce a start to decommissioning, but merely to "explain" what they mean by the deliberately vague terms which pepper P. O'Neill's statements.
In return for this gesture Mr Mallon argues that the British government should lift the suspension of the institutions, push ahead with the Patten proposals on reform of the police, speed up the process of demilitarisation and publish the Criminal Justice Review. In other words, the IRA have to do little more than produce yet another semantically torturous statement on what their real intentions may or may not be and in return the Ulster Unionists will establish another Executive with Sinn Fein while the British government implements all the other important parts of the agreement.
And not once in his article does Mr Mallon suggest that the SDLP would side with the democrats to exclude Sinn Fein if the IRA are proved, once again, to be congenital liars.
The IRA have had since August 31st, 1994, to offer a gesture on decommissioning. All we have had though is intelligence reports that they have been recruiting, training, stockpiling and targeting. And it is precisely because they continue to go about the business necessary to retain and maintain their terrorist capability which convinces unionists that a return to the "armed struggle" remains an ongoing tactical option for the IRA. What sort of basis is that for a lasting political settlement? - Yours, etc., Alex Kane,
Belfast BT9 5NN.