Equivocation once again. It was Conor Cruise O'Brien who wrote in the 1970s that Jack Lynch needed to be able to take a political position that was visible in England but invisible in Ireland - and vice versa.
Bertie Ahern needs to be able to make a comment on decommissioning which is audible to unionists and inaudible to republicans - and the other way round.
For some time, the Taoiseach has been looking both ways on paramilitary arms, with seemingly contradictory statements following in rapid succession. But this was the first occasion where he seemed to contradict himself on the same day.
One uses the word "seemed" advisedly, because with Bertie Ahern, even more than other politicians, things are never quite what they appear to be. Let us not forget Charlie Haughey's left-handed compliment to Bertie, when he said he was the most ruthless, the most cunning, the most brilliant of them all.
The full text of Mr Ahern's lengthy interview with the Sunday Times, which was available on the Internet, reads somewhat more ambiguously than the precis carried in the printed edition.
At times Mr Ahern appears to be demanding guns up-front before Sinn Fein can be admitted to the executive but then he speaks of the need to "deal with the decommissioning issue in some form" and to "construct some mechanism" under the auspices of Gen John de Chastelain.
There is a classic of Bertie-speak when the interviewer tries to pin him down as to whether he requires a start to the destruction of weapons before an executive can be established.
"Yeah. People say `does that mean physical, does that mean Semtex, does that mean guns?' It means that the principle has to be accepted and that then whatever modalities are worked by de Chastelain, because that is his expertise to work out how it actually happens, and that is what we mean." The literary critic William Empson said there were seven types of ambiguity but here the Taoiseach may have discovered an eighth variety.
When he says "Yeah", is he just clearing his throat or being polite, or is he really echoing the unionist slogan of "no guns, no government"? Perhaps he means the latter but, if so, the rest of the answer may contradict that position because it appears only to require that the IRA accept decommissioning in principle. Later in the interview he speaks of the need for "getting some formula, some mechanism, some understanding, under de Chastelain of moving things on".
The waters were muddied even further when a Government spokesman said yesterday all the Taoiseach wanted was for the parties to "clear their minds" on how they would proceed to implement decommissioning. Later, Martin McGuinness said he had been "in direct contact" with the Taoiseach who assured him he had not said that Sinn Fein should be barred from the executive.
Two main effects flowed from the Taoiseach's remarks. They generated something close to turmoil in republican ranks and provided a crumb of comfort to the dissidents who said all along that the peace process was about securing an IRA surrender. The other effect was to make defections from the Trimble camp less likely during this week's Assembly vote on new government structures and North-South bodies - although Roy Beggs jnr has indicated a preference for voting against the Trimble line. Even the Rev Ian Paisley conceded that "on first reading" Mr Ahern's comments seemed to indicate a "late-in-the-day conversion" to the no guns, no government policy.
Journalists here are struck by the fact that both sides generally express satisfaction after meeting the Taoiseach, who seems to have the knack of being all things to all men. Yesterday's events, however, show how difficult it can be to maintain a balanced approach. The initial jubilation among unionists was giving way as the day proceeded to caution, especially after the Taoiseach's spokesman had issued his "clarification".
The mood among republicans was dark and even the assurances reportedly given by the Taoiseach that he hadn't really said what he was supposed to have said failed to assuage republican doubts and fears. Even Trimble had appeared to hint at a possible modification of his position in recent times by invoking the name of Gen de Chastelain but now, buoyed by the Taoiseach's comments, he would be back to his old hardline self, republicans said. It would also help the republican dissidents to rebuild their constituency which had all but collapsed in the wake of the Omagh disaster.
But independent observers believe it's too early to judge the long-term effects of the Taoiseach's demarche. They are reminded of the Propositions document early last year which greatly annoyed republicans but at least had the effect of keeping the unionists on board. Mr Ahern will probably be aware that a meeting of the UUP executive on Saturday was presented with a motion from Jeffrey Donaldson which was passed unanimously. It reads: "The Ulster Unionist Party stands by the commitment set out in the manifesto for the Assembly elections with particular reference to the passage that it will not sit in an executive with Sinn Fein in the absence of a credible beginning to the decommissioning of IRA weapons."
Many observers have noted how the Ulster Unionists painted themselves into a corner on decommissioning. At the same time, republican spokesmen have spelt out in very stark terms that decommissioning at this stage would lead to a massive split in the IRA and a new campaign of violence built around a fresh generation of recruits. The only people with any room to manoeuvre are the two governments: the Taoiseach was making use of that room with his weekend interview but it remains to be seen whether his high-risk strategy is going to pay off.
Or, as David Ervine said: "I hope he knows what he's doing."