Will Major speech make the difference

EVEN AS David Trimble and the Ulster Unionist Party recoiled in Belfast from the language used by the British prime minister in his Irish Times article on decommissioning and all party talks, John Bruton was adding to their concerns in Dublin.

The Taoiseach insisted that Mr Major's "brief article" should be read in conjunction with his own Finglas speech of two weeks ago, which had been so well received by Gerry Adams. The assurances he offered to republicans at that time, Mr Bruton said, were based in large measure on agreements which involve both the Irish and British governments, which already existed prior to the making of that speech".

At the same time, the Tanaiste lent his reassuring voice to the chorus calling on republicans to abandon the Armalite in favour of the ballot box. Mr Major's contribution had been "helpful", Mr Spring said, but with conflicting signals coming from the republican camp, he stood ready to review the situation with the northern secretary next week.

In the drive to secure an unequivocal restoration of the IRA ceasefire, all nationalist eyes were on Mr Adams and on the reaction of the IRA to Mr Major's overture. The "hard men" had not received all they asked for and the spectre of decommissioning loomed. But had they been given enough?

The Fianna Fail leader thought Mr Major should have been more explicit in his approach. In the Dail, Mr Ahern welcomed the "conciliatory and constructive tone" of the article, but he questioned why the Framework Document had not been mentioned as the basis for a political settlement.

He regretted the absence of a shorter timeframe for the talks and he hoped the article would "be received in a positive spirit and will be further built on by the two governments".

MR AHERN'S incremental aspiration is the sort of thing that worries unionists. They see betrayal everywhere, a slippery slope leading to absorption and Dublin.

From Mr Trimble's point of view, building on Mr Major's statement in the middle of a northern election campaign would be as helpful as a hole in the head. Especially as Ian Paisley has embarked on a fundamentalist rant, condemning British treachery and trickery along with subversion by the pannationalist front.

As the opposing northern factions zeroed in on the decommissioning element of Mr Major's address, Mary Harney warned that excessive analysis or a war of words could endanger the peace process. The Progressive Democrats leader welcomed the conciliatory tone of Mr Major's comments and his assurance that the decommissioning issue would not block all party negotiations.

She identified the failure of the IRA to reinstate its ceasefire as the biggest obstacle to all party negotiations.

She identified the failure of the IRA to reinstate its ceasefire as the biggest obstacle to all party negotiations.

Mr Bruton seized on the Dail comments as evidence of a democratic consensus that conditions justifying a restoration of the IRA ceasefire had been fulfilled. He drew attention to the fact the clock was ticking on a timetable for elections and for talks which was set and immutable. Such an opportunity for republicans might not come easily again on June 10th, he warned.

Mr Major, he insisted, "could not be more committed" to finding a solution in the proposed negotiations. Across the Atlantic, the United States administration and the United States Congress had adopted a bipartisan approach to solving the problem.

If the present opportunity was "frittered away because Sinn Fein cannot participate because the IRA will not have a ceasefire," Mr Bruton said, the damage would be incalculable.

It was all very gentle and reasonable. Very political, rather than hectoring. He explained Mr Major had not responded to his own idea "for "an indicative timeframe for talks" because the parties themselves should "own the negotiations". It would be up to them to decide a timetable for negotiations, within the framework already set by legislation of "approximately a year, with the possibility of renewal".

They must be the ones," said Mr Bruton, "as they are the ones who will be doing the negotiation, to set the timeframe for themselves so that they feel ownership of that timeframe and a commitment to achieve the objectives, immediate and ultimate, within that timeframe.

AS FOR the recent assurance he had given to republicans about the way in which negotiations would be conducted, Mr Bruton said these were not "solely based on my authority or the authority of the Government".

They were based "in large measure on specific agreements negotiated between the Irish and British governments which are on the public record". These, he said, involved the Framework Document and the ground rules for talks.

It was all very important and it was reassuring for republicans. But the issue at the centre of the IRA's use at the centre of the difficulties decommissioning and George Mitchell's proposals that political discussions and arms decommissioning should advance in parallel, was not addressed.

Here be dragons. The democratic consensus at Leinster House favours the Mitchell report and parallel decommissioning. All parties recognise the difficulties republicans will face in abandoning the armed struggle without precipitating an internal crisis.

The IRA has resisted the destruction of any of its weapons in advance of a political settlement and the democratic road demands compromise. An irresistible force is about to meet an immovable object.