Tony Blair, the Wunderkind of British politics, who once felt the hand of history upon his shoulder, is fast becoming a risible figure whose most distinguished political feature is his finger of fudge.
Last Wednesday he took another risk for peace and exposed himself to questioning by three young unionists in a UTV programme from Downing Street. It was a risk too far that resulted in public humiliation for a nervous Prime Minister conforming to the description of one of his questioners as "damaged goods" when responding to a question about his unfulfilled referendum pledges to the people of Northern Ireland.
The inconsistency of the government's attitude to terrorism in Kosovo and Northern Ireland, the repeated violations of legal principle to appease terrorism; the early release of criminals such as Patrick Magee, and the proposal that Sinn Fein should have ministers in government while the IRA remains armed have all finally penetrated the British political psyche.
It is no longer just the broadsheets that expose Tony Blair to ridicule and contempt. It is the voice of Middle England, the Daily Mail, which has launched the most bitter attacks upon policies which are now seen as both politically and morally bankrupt. Even a provincial paper like the Yorkshire Post declares that, should the settlement collapse, the blame will not lie with the unionists "but with the Prime Minister for failing to show the leadership and resolve which his spin doctors would like to claim as his hallmark".
Tony Blair revisits Castle Buildings, Stormont, in much-changed circumstances from those prevailing on Good Friday 1998 and in the heady days preceding the referendum when hype and hysteria were in the ascendant. Numerous editorials now report the words of Tony Blair written on the day of the referendum in Northern Ireland's newspapers stating that "Sinn Fein could only take their seats in the new executive when the threat of violence has gone and that doesn't just mean decommissioning but all bombings, killings, beatings, and an end to targeting, recruiting and all the structures of terrorism".
This pledge and others remain unfulfilled and dishonoured, creating circumstances where the pro-Union people will simply not accept any further promises or assurances as a substitute for deeds. Yet this is exactly what the Prime Minister is going to offer.
The events necessary to choreograph a fresh raft of assurances for the once gullible unionists are now being prepared. Gen John de Chastelain and his fellow commissioners have formulated three questions for the political parties designed to elicit general agreement that decommissioning should occur by May 22nd, 2000, within the context of the overall implementation of the Belfast Agreement.
Like an endorsement of motherhood and world peace, everybody will be in favour of saying Yes, ignoring the fact that it is fatuous to endorse a date for completion when a date for commencement cannot be agreed. Moreover, as long as decommissioning need only begin in the context of the overall agreement being implemented, parties fronting armed paramilitaries are afforded a basis for claiming that, until all other terms of the Belfast Agreement are complied with to their satisfaction, no decommissioning need occur within the time frame of May 22nd, 2000.
So long as the IRA retains its weapons, the threat of increased or renewed violence will be available to Sinn Fein as a lever to obtain maximum compliance with its aims. Tony Blair's argument that any failure to resolve the decommissioning issue will mean a return to violence will continue to be valid on each and every occasion when a Sinn Fein/ IRA demand is not met.
THE second of the general's questions relates to any areas of implementation of the overall agreement that would demonstrably facilitate the decommissioning process. This could only be described as an invitation for a Sinn Fein/IRA wish list.
The democratic parties within the Assembly have fulfilled all their obligations insofar as they lie within their powers. Commissions relating to policing, the criminal justice system and other issues have been set up, and the implementation of their reports when available is a matter for government.
The ministries and cross-Border bodies and their remits have been determined, and the operation of d'Hondt is now within the power of the Secretary of State. What is patently clear is that Sinn Fein/IRA intends to retain its capacity for violence until the threat of its use is no longer necessary and the agreement has been fully implemented to its complete satisfaction.
The third question is intended to extract from those fronting paramilitary groups some form of assurance that decommissioning will take place within the timetable of May 22nd, 2000, and confirmation of the modalities to effect it.
Quite clearly, in accordance with his article in the London Times last Friday, the Prime Minister's scheme is to persuade the IRA to agree that it will decommission by May 22nd, 2000, or rather that Sinn Fein will act as its proxy in so agreeing.
Gen de Chastelain, on the basis of the responses to the commission's questions, will then provide a programme of times, deadlines and modalities for the actual process of decommissioning. According to the Prime Minister, unionists will be given a cast-iron guarantee that, if it did not happen according to the timetable, that executive could not continue.
Assurances such as those offered are unacceptable. First, there is no basis upon which a promise to decommission from Sinn Fein/IRA could be agreed.
The International Commission of Senator Mitchell, of which Gen de Chastelain was a member, reported in January 1996, paragraph 25, that "there was a clear commitment on the part of those in possession of arms to work constructively to achieve full and verifiable decommissioning as part of the process of all party negotiations".
Not only did such commitment not extend to any decommissioning during the negotiations which resulted in the Belfast Agreement, it did not cover the cessation of active planning and preparations for outrages such as Canary Wharf, Manchester and Thiepval.
Since then, the IRA has declared on many occasions that it will never disarm, and Sinn Fein leaders have declared their inability to deliver IRA agreement. What is it, therefore, about the IRA's "No" that the British government and Gen de Chastelain and his fellow commissioners do not understand?
The truth is they fully appreciate that the IRA has no intention of actually decommissioning, but if the IRA could be persuaded to utter some form of words that might be made to seem as if they would, that would be enough with which to hammer the unionists.
As for the cast-iron guarantee, it amounts only to the termination of that executive. Everything else would be up and running the moment unionists agreed to Sinn Fein's entry into government. Breaches of the timetable would, doubtless, be the subject of political judgments in the round, rather like current breaches of the ceasefire.
Meanwhile, concessions would be made to Sinn Fein on the reform of the police, as well as the criminal justice system, and the equality agenda and every other topic, in exchange for a token compliance with an elastic timetable.
Once power was devolved, the North-South council operational, the cross-Border bodies working, and the residue of the prisoners released, Sinn Fein/IRA, having achieved all its major objectives, would then lose very little sleep over Mr Blair's sanctions.
The terms of the agreement are claimed to be sacrosanct, but the agreement provides that Sinn Fein is no different from any other party and is subject to no greater duty than any other in using its influence to persuade paramilitaries to decommission by May 22nd, 2000.
Unless it can be proved that Sinn Fein has failed to use such influence, it is difficult to see how that party could ever be excluded from an executive to which it had been lawfully admitted.
The pro-Union people will accept nothing less than a substantial beginning to actual decommissioning accompanied by the phased and enforceable programme for total decommissioning by May 22nd, 2000. It is a fundamental requirement of the democratic process - as the British people and its press have, at long last, come to recognise.
Robert McCartney is leader of the UK Unionist Party
:quality(70)/cloudfront-eu-central-1.images.arcpublishing.com/irishtimes/SJQTLMCMMRC2PLALXUKEWWS6HU.png)