All peace-making negotiations have their ups and downs, their fallow and fruitful periods, their vacuums and plenitudes. The Northern Ireland talks are no exception. They have taken an unconscionably long time to reach the present juncture, where the parties appear to be on the point of agreeing an agenda for substantive discussion and bargaining. All the more reason, then, to avoid unnecessary friction as the Christmas period puts pressure on all involved, especially so far as the treatment of prisoners is concerned.
Unfortunately the Government's perceived failure to communicate its intentions to release republican prisoners in this State as part of its own confidence-building programme has led to a minor crisis in the process. Loyalist parties allege the process is tilted towards Sinn Fein and subject to an unaccountable backtrack between Dublin and London which undermines the integrity of the negotiations proper. Their threat to withdraw from the talks has led to a flurry of activity by the Secretary of State, Dr Mo Mowlam, and now an offer by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Andrews, to meet loyalist parties early in the New Year.
Clearly these parties have an axe to grind, in that the London government has been much less willing to release prisoners than has Dublin. Knowing this, the Government has a case to answer that it should have been more sensitive to these concerns. But the feeling in Dublin is that the loyalists are pushing the issue for all it is worth, given their need for credibility among their own supporters, not least the prisoners themselves. They have so far had few concessions and seen little progress in the talks, even though they have been among the most committed to them. They deserve reassurance and a frank approach from the Government. It would be as well that future confidence-building gestures be better flagged in advance and better concerted through the talks process.
The demand on Monday by four MPs from the Ulster Unionists that their party withdraw from the Stormont talks is potentially more ominous. They are nearly one half of Mr Trimble's parliamentary party, however disparate a group they form. Their willingness to come into the open is significant; it must illustrate the level of pressure on Mr Trimble and possibly the reduced room for manoeuvre he enjoys on the eve of substantive talks. These four have long opposed the talks process or been most sceptical about it. So far Mr Trimble has been able to take little account of them, if not to disregard them altogether. Their intervention is not connected to the prisoner issue as such, but its timing is unhelpful, particularly since it been accompanied by a call from the party secretary, Mr Jeffrey Donaldson, for a review of the talks process as a whole. He echoes criticisms that too many concessions have been aimed at pleasing Sinn Fein.
It is a time for cool heads and rational judgments. Mr Trimble resisted agreeing an agenda which would hang over him during the Christmas break and give his critics something substantial to deal with, notably on cross-border bodies. Notwithstanding the hostility expressed by Messrs Willie Ross, Willie Thompson, Roy Beggs and Clifford Forsyth he is prepared for such criticism and can rely on the continuing support of his community for the effort to reach agreement. It should be well within the wit and political skill of the British and Irish governments to head off resignations and withdrawals in the meantime, and then to reassure all involved that they mean serious and balanced business.