By Jack Holland

BELFAST - The 71 percent vote in favor of the Belfast Agreement has laid strong foundations for a long-term settlement in Northern Ireland. But the problem remains of building the institutions on that foundation as envisioned in the agreement, beginning with 108-seat power-sharing assembly. Elections for the assembly are to be held on June 25, and promise to be bitter and divisive, especially within the Unionist camp, where the Rev. Ian Paisley-led ôNoö campaigners are claiming that a majority of Protestants actually voted against the agreement.

This has been vigorously disputed by the mainstream Ulster Unionist Party and its leader, David Trimble, for whom the campaign was seen as a struggle for his political survival. An exit poll carried out by The Irish Times indicated that 55 percent of Unionists voted in favor of the agreement. A rough calculation would suggest that a slight majority of Unionists did vote for the agreement. It is thought that of the 29 percent who voted against it, about 5 percent were Nationalists, who saw it as a sellout of republican goals. This means that the Unionist rejectionist vote was around 24 percent. Based on the fact that Protestants represent 53 percent of the North's population, this means that less than half of all Unionists voted against the agreement.

The agreement was overwhelmingly endorsed on the Catholic side, though in Belfast it was noticeable that Sinn Fein did little canvassing on its behalf. Though Sinn Fein had endorsed the agreement, the leadership saw little need to campaign for it, mainly because it was evident that a large majority of nationalists would vote for it anyway. Sinn Fein is also thought to be saving its energy for the assembly elections.

The Belfast Agreement was an extraordinary attempt to do something that has never been done before in the bloody history of Northern Ireland - build a consensus between Nationalists and Unionists on the future of the war-weary province. ôYesö supporters believe that the 71 percent vote is proof that the attempt has succeeded and that the assembly elections will copperfasten Friday's outcome. Among the ôNoö voters on the Protestant side and the small minority of Catholics who also voted against the deal, there is bitterness mixed with determination to undermine the agreement. The question is whether they have the strength to do so. Rejectionist Republican groups are not thought to be able to mount a sustained armed campaign. The main danger to the agreement for the moment lies on the Unionist side.

However, Eddie O'Grady, the Social Democratic and Labor Party MP for South Down, was confidant that the assembly elections will confirm the pro-agreement vote.

ôWe've peace virtually copper-fastened," O'Grady, speaking in the King's Hall in Belfast just after the result was announced last Saturday, announced. "The vote will be better in the assembly. The 'No' campaign was based on misinterpretation of the agreement. The assembly campaign will be based on the logic of the agreement.ö

O'Grady said he expected the campaign would result in an increase in support for the pro-agreement candidates.

Billy Hutchinson, a leading member of the Progressive Unionist Party, which is linked to the outlawed Ulster Volunteer Force, was more cautious. While he agreed that it was a ôresounding Yes vote,ö he warned: ôWe're only halfway there. It all depends on the percentages of people who get into the assembly.ö

PUP members are well aware of the ôNoö campaigners' capacity for using damaging tactics in order to blacken their opponents. According to Robin Stewart, a PUP activist from Belfast, ôNoö campaigners used ôdirty tricks.ö He claimed they put up posters in loyalist areas of Irish flags with ôVote Yesö on them. He said they told old-age pensioners that a ôYesö vote would mean they would lose their pensions. They denounced the ôYesö campaigners as ôtraitors.ö

ôThe people of Ulster have said who we are,ö Stewart said just after the massive ôYesö vote was announced.

However, such tactics are certain to be repeated in the run-up to the assembly elections.

Alban Magennis, the first Catholic lord mayor of Belfast and a member of the SDLP, also expressed concerns about the assembly campaign.

ôWhat I worry about,ö he said, ôis that the anti-agreement candidates will camouflage themselves as pro-agreement.ö Once elected, they would then try to cripple the assembly's proceedings, and prevent the creation of the envisioned cross-border bodies.

However, the calculations about the strength of the anti-agreement Unionists have to take into account the likely reaction of Jeffrey Donaldson, the Ulster Unionist MP, who came out against the agreement but who indicated that in the event of a major show of support in its favor, he would help make the assembly work. Donaldson, long a close ally of Trimble, will almost certainly swing his followers' support behind the party leader, thus depriving the ôNoö campaigners of substantial Unionist backing.

The ôprisoner factorö has also to be borne in mind. The jubilant reception given to the IRA unit known as the Balcombe Street Four - freed by the Irish government to attend the Sinn Fein Special Ard Fheis on May 10 - was critical in turning many potential Unionist ôYesö voters into ôNoö voters. The reception at the Ulster Democratic Party conference for convicted loyalist killer Michael Stone had a similar effect. This may have cost the ôYesö campaign as much as 10 percent. Had that blunder not been made, the ôYesö vote might have been as high as 80 percent.

In the forthcoming assembly election campaign, it is certain that the two governments will be careful not to make such a mistake again and that concessions on the release of prisoners will be treated more gingerly.

Overall, it would appear that the hyperbole surrounding the referenda result is for once not misplaced and that it has laid solid foundations for progress to be made on the many still contentious issues that remain to be solved