The Sinn Féin chairman, Mr Mitchel McLaughlin has claimed the main threat of violent opposition to the Belfast Agreement and political progress is emanating from "within unionism".
In a provocative critique of unionist attitudes to the Belfast Agreement and to their nationalist neighbours Mr McLaughlin said unionists must demonstrate proof of their bona fides to nationalists. He again applied the new republican lexicon of referring to "unionist" paramilitaries rather than loyalist paramilitaries.
Mr McLaughlin said he could name a number of individual unionists who had very progressive attitudes to the need for change, but remarked that there were others who didn't fall into that category. He also spoke of the inevitability of a united Ireland.
Within hours of the agreement being signed on Good Friday 1998 the Ulster Unionist leader, Mr David Trimble started trying to "unravel it", he told an audience in Balbriggan, Co Dublin, last night during a discussion entitled Nationalists Under Siege. Residents from north Belfast and the Short Strand attended the meeting.
"At every important juncture in the process since its inception it has been the Ulster Unionists, not as you might have expected the DUP, that have led the charge to prevent the implementation of key aspects of the agreement - such as policing, demilitarisation, equality legislation, criminal justice review etc.," he said. "At the same time the daily violent onslaught by unionist paramilitaries on the nationalist community barely elicits a comment unless these same unionist leaders are pressed on the matter," added Mr McLaughlin.
"If the unionist attitude to change were to be brought under close scrutiny I believe it would clearly identify the main threat of violence in opposition to change as emanating from within unionism. The time has come for unionist leaders to tell nationalists and republicans if they will honour the principle of consent when, not if, a majority in the North favours Irish unity.
"Will they encourage peaceful acceptance of the democratic wishes of the majority of the people of Ireland or will they continue to be ambivalent about unionist paramilitaries or obstructionist about peaceful and democratic constitutional change? It is not acceptable that these unionist leaders, who are so loud in their denunciations of republicanism or so dismissive about Irish society, be allowed to avoid answering these questions.
"Given the history of unionism, nationalists are entitled to seek and receive proof of unionist bona fides. When can we expect a confidence building initiative from within unionism?" Mr McLaughlin said that "David Trimble's insulting remarks about the 26 counties on at least two occasions in the last twelve months certainly does not portray any degree of political maturity or informed progressive thinking".
"The best example of resistance to change in unionist thinking is its attitude to power sharing at local government level. In the 26 district councils in the North, those with an outright unionist majority have no structured system of power sharing," he added.
Meanwhile, former SDLP Finance Minister, Mr Seán Farren, said while Sinn Féin was correct to say that the multiparty talks aimed at ending the political stalemate were not operating to a single issue agenda of the IRA, that republicans also had a role to play in achieving a breakthrough.
