Madam, - Dennis Kennedy's article in your edition of September 9th demonstrates unionist political paranoia and the paucity of what passes for unionist analysis.
Mr Kennedy's view is that the Belfast Agreement is "an instrument to resolve the problem within the bounds of British sovereignty". However, not content with his firm opinion on the subject, he warns: "The suspicion remains, not just among unionists, that [republican and nationalist] parties see the Belfast Agreement as part of a transitional process leading to the ending of British sovereignty, and that they will seek to exploit the process to that end. Such suspicions helped the massive erosion of trust which brought about the suspension of the Assembly."
So, it wasn't decommissioning, then? Unionists are suspicious of what their opponents "see" and this leads to a "massive erosion of confidence". Is this serious political commentary or merely an excuse in advance for the actions of some of the more unstable elements within unionism?
The political perspectives of republicans and nationalists inevitably "subvert" the state of Northern Ireland, since they aspire to form a union with the rest of the island. For unionists to complain about this is to complain about the reality of the state unionists have created (Mr Trimble's famous "cold house" for nationalists). It seems Mr Kennedy is not content merely with trying to circumscribe the behaviour and activities of his opponents. He wants to control the expression of their political thought and aspirations as well. - Yours, etc.,
NIALL MEEHAN, Offaly Road,Cabra, Dublin 7.
Madam, - It is rather unfair of Dennis Kennedy to expect that the price of unionist "trust" in the Belfast Agreement should be nationalist abandonment of the desire for an independent, united Irish state. The fact is that while the path to attainment of this ideal has been the subject of unending debate in the nationalist population for the past two centuries - from O'Connell to Parnell, De Valera, Collins and Adams - the central aspiration has been remarkably constant over that time.
The Belfast Agreement is intended to present both traditions with a political avenue to express their national aspirations. One of the key roots of the violence of the past has been the deliberate suppression of nationalist aspirations, from the removal of Tricolours on the Falls Road to gerrymandering against nationalist candidates. We all know where that led.
Nationalists have put their overwhelming trust in a re-formatted Stormont. If such a display of trust in the very institution that betrayed them for 50 years is possible, surely it is not beyond the generosity of unionists to accept that nationalists do not have to press the self-destruct button in order to win unionist approval.
It seems unionists no longer want nationalists to simply give up their swords, but to fall on them as well. - Yours, etc.,
COLIN R. COOPER, London SW19.