Ulster
Sir: We find Richard Cecil as ambiguous as he is articulate. While we have no reason to question his bona fides we feel that we must take him to task for his article (May 11). "We must govern in Ulster," he says. Indeed we must; but in what way? It would appear that he equates 'governing" with a "more determined . .. anti-terrorist drive backed by a more robust policy." Isn't Richard Cecil (the ex-soldier) merely reiterating — albeit couched in political language — the claim of the military solution?
What Lord Richard forgets — or at least fails to acknowledge — is that any solution to the Ulster 'conundrum' must be political and not military. It must have the backing of the majority of Ulstermen, and we believe that the Sunningdale agreement has the backing of the majorityof the people of Ulster. We share Lord Richard's Op
timism, although for different reasons. We believe that Sunningdale can and will work.
We find it remarkable that his article should fail to include any mention of the Power-Sharing Executive, just as we find it illuminating that the apocalyptic talk to which he refers should come from the United Unionist Party; the senior members of which party (sic), by their political obduracy and intransigence in 1968-69, played no small part in precipitating the present holocaust.
Richard Cecil's cri de couer simply echoes the cry of the United Unionists. It is the cry from the political wilder
ness, from behind the pale of political power; and it betrays the petulance which underlies all criticism emanating from that particular political quarter.
Adrian Mannering Simon Godfree School of Social Sciences, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton.
Previous page
