DENNIS KENNEDY,
Sir, - Frank Fitzpatrick's letter of February 5th, while welcome as about the only response so far from your readers to your series on unionist thinking, illustrates some of the reasons why discussion of the Northern problem, even on a purely intellectual level, seems to progress so little.
The tendency to label all arguments put forward as either unionist or nationalist does not help, hindering any careful analysis of the actual points made. Thus Mr Fitzpatrick seems to include me as "a leading intellectual unionist", and to take my views, as he sees them, as part of unionist thinking.
I have to point out that, while born in the North, I am an Irish citizen, have been, in the past, a long-term resident of the Republic. I have never had any connection with any unionist party, and have not been a unionist voter. Being highly critical of nationalism, and seeing virtue in the preservation of the constitutional status quo in Northern Ireland do not make one a unionist in the sense in which Mr Fitzpatrick obviously uses that term.
So let's take strictly on their merits some of the points raised. He writes that I take the view that even the aspiration to unity by peaceful means is a threat. I ask him to re-read my article. I said no such thing. I was questioning Brian Feeney's assertion that nationalists had replaced their demand for unity with acceptance of legally guaranteed rights within the UK, by pointing out that unity was still the key objective of nationalist parties, and, indeed, of the Irish Constitution.
I find it disturbing that he lists the marginalisation of "physical force republicanism" - i.e. terrorism - among the "very considerable benefits" gained by unionists from the Belfast Agreement, as if this were some concession to unionists. Surely this is not a political gain, but a gain for society, for civilisation.
It is a pity to see old 1930s slogans from very different circumstances cited in today's debate. Craigavon's ungenerous claim of 1934 was not made redundant by demographic change - it was made redundant over the past half-century by significant changes in both nationalism and unionism. The sentiment it embodied was discarded by mainstream unionism 30 years ago, as part of that grouping's considerable adjustment.
Both sides have engaged in self-analysis and adjustment in recent decades, but it is not at all clear that nationalism has gone much the further. The very concept of territorial nationalism, of "the Irish people" is totally outdated. Nationalist difficulty in accepting the symbols of the United Kingdom, even though under "consent" they recognise its legitimacy, suggests that more painful readjustment is needed.
The great gaps in perceptions of the North are often revealed more in what is implied than in what is stated. Mr Fitzpatrick ends by asking what can be done to assuage unionists without reversing the gains in human and political rights of Northern nationalists. What gains did Nationalists make in human rights in the Belfast Agreement? Or, to put it another way, what human rights were they denied pre-1998? What political rights did they gain?
They gained power-sharing, but power-sharing is not a generally recognised right of any political party, or indeed any minority. It does not operate in the Republic. Even so, no significant part of unionism wants to deprive nationalists of it.
Republicans, with the IRA still in business, are accepted into government in the North. In Dublin, on the other hand, the serried ranks of nationalism refuse to allow the same. In this regard the problem with unionism is that it has been too flexible, not just in principle, but for its own good. The burden of saving the Belfast Agreement, warts and all, rests as much on nationalist shoulders as it does on unionist - if not more. - Yours, etc.,
DENNIS KENNEDY, Belfast 7.