Republican News · Thursday 21 August 2003

Confidence or trust?

BY MITCHEL McLAUGHLIN

Over the last number of months since the suspension of the political institutions and the subsequent cancellation of elections we have heard much talk about the 'loss of trust' between the parties to the Agreement. There have been accusations bandied back and forth about who or what is responsible for this 'loss of trust'. Regularly we hear politicians, church spokespersons, political analysts and anyone that wants to voice an opinion tell us that we must 'rebuild trust'.

But the fact of the matter is that there never was any basis of trust between the parties to the Agreement. Political opponents and political enemies who never trusted each other negotiated the Agreement. In fact, the Agreement was negotiated without the Ulster Unionist Party ever once speaking directly to Sinn Féin. No handshakes between equals to a partnership deal. That is the measure of the lack of trust that existed when the Agreement was negotiated.

So when Tony Blair says the reason for the crisis is a 'loss of trust' between the parties - it is a cop out. When David Trimble says that republicans betrayed the trust of Ulster Unionists - it is a cop out and he knows it. When Mark Durkan attempts to score political points by pointing to alleged republican activities as the reason for the 'lack of trust' - it is a cop out. Trust could have been the foundation but in fact was never the basis for the Agreement.

So what is the truth? The Agreement was reached based on the 'confidence' of the parties that they had each achieved the best Agreement possible in the circumstances for their respective constituencies.

But unfortunately, the Good Friday Agreement could not reconcile mutually exclusive expectations. The unionist leadership have attempted to cling to a status quo position whilst republicans and nationalists were looking towards a process of change based on equality and parity of esteem. It is the ever strengthening 'confidence' of the nationalist and particularly the republican constituency that the Agreement - fully and faithfully implemented - will provide the vehicle that will enable us to achieve our political goals through exclusively peaceful and democratic methods. That is why we are committed to pursuing its implementation in all its aspects.

On the other hand, the unionist political leadership's 'confidence' in their ability to maintain and strengthen the status quo through the Agreement is diminishing. If they were, for instance, 'confident' when they negotiated the Equality Agenda in the Agreement that it would not weaken the Union, why are they now attempting to frustrate its implementation? Because they recognise that with a society in which everyone is treated equally, the raison d'Ítre of partition - dominance by one section of the population over the other - will be gone forever and the logical progression from that position is Irish unity.

They see the changes that are occurring in every aspect of life - social, economic, political, electoral and demographic. The unionist community have not, as of yet, produced a leader who will recognise and come to terms with the inevitable constitutional implications. If it is otherwise, then the unionist community, through its political leaderships, should have the 'confidence' to embrace the Agreement in all its elements, go back into the institutions and allow the process to develop unhindered. But we may need to be patient until such a leadership emerges within unionism.

In the meantime, what of the two governments and in particular the British? The 'hand of history' was never more firmly on Tony Blair's shoulders. He can prevent the creation of a dangerous political vacuum that will inevitably be filled by those ill disposed to the entire Peace Process. He can announce without further delay a definite autumn date for Assembly elections. Or he can destabilise the situation by continuing to deny the peaceful and democratic right to vote. History will be the judge.