ON Tuesday I was in London when John Major made his first public response to the proposals drawn up by John Hume and Gerry Adams which, the two men believed, could bring about a new IRA ceasefire. Part of the reason for my trip was to attend a gathering to honour David Astor, editor of the Observer during that newspaper's glory days.
Many of those who had argued and written on great political issues over several decades - South Africa, the Middle East, the end of the Cold War - were there. I wish I could say that they were agog with curiosity about Northern Ireland, what the British government should be doing to try to move the peace process forward. It wouldn't be true.
A few people asked me, with genuine sympathy, about Bernadette McAliskey. They recalled the young MP arriving at Westminster like a flame, the power of her eloquence. How had she and her family survived the terrible troubles of close on 30 years?
Apart from that the North was barely mentioned. It was as though, like a perennially delinquent child, it seemed kinder and more tactful not to ask about its progress. It was budget day. I had not realised that John Major's first comments on Mr Hume's document came just before Kenneth Clarke's budget speech, eagerly awaited as a pointer to the Conservatives' election prospects. This ensured, deliberately or otherwise, that there would be minimum coverage of the Prime Minister's reaction to proposals which the Irish Government, among others, believe could lead to an "unequivocal restoration" of the ceasefire.
The political talk focused, to the exclusion of almost every other subject, on the prospects for the general election. I've found this to be the case recently wherever British politicians and commentators are gathered together.
Against this background it is not just the Ulster Unionists that matter. Certainly both of the major parties want their votes in the lobbies, Labour as much as the Conservatives. Mr Blair has pledged that he will not bring down the government over Ireland" but he is quite prepared to court David Trimble's support in other debates and for this, presumably, there is a price to be paid.
But as well as this, John Major is desperate to avoid making his own backbenchers unhappy. The last thing he needs now is the threat of a revolt on Northern Ireland.
The Tanaiste, John Hume, even some of those speaking for Sinn Fein, remain determinedly optimistic that John Major has not rejected the SDLP leader's latest proposals. They are hopeful that when the British response is published in full there will still be some room to manoeuvre. That may happen.
ON balance, though, it seems more likely that the British preoccupation with the forthcoming general election is now an unavoidable political reality which politicians in this State have to accept. In other words, a viable policy for the next six months or so has to take account of the fact that there is unlikely to be any political movement, let alone risk taking, by the British government this side of the poll.
The challenge for the Government of this State is to devise a strategy which will make it possible for Gerry Adams to preserve the present fragile equilibrium until the political climate is more propitious. There is hope that will happen when a new government with a decent majority is elected in Britain.
In the past, when I've talked to members of the republican movement about this, and to some constitutional politicians in this State, I've been told that it is unrealistic to hope that it may be possible to maintain the uneasy situation, somewhere between peace and war, in this way. That, they say, is not how an organisation like the IRA works. These people argue that this is a defining moment of decision.
Either the IRA calls a ceasefire, renounces violence and Sinn Fein is brought into talks which will remove the gun from Irish politics, etc. Or, because the sense of frustration and mistrust among grassroots activists is so intense, sporadic acts of violence will be almost inevitable. This will lead to a deteriorating situation of sectarian conflict, which the peace party within the republican movement will not be able to control.
Obviously there is a very real danger of this happening. But it does not have to be inevitable.
At the very least, we have to do all we can to try to prevent it. There are alternatives to the stark choice presented above. The best case scenario, outlined in this newspaper yesterday, would be for the IRA to seize the initiative and call an immediate ceasefire.
This would not only create enormous pressure on the British to bring Sinn Fein into talks, it would also transform the prospects for the general election in Northern Ireland, greatly lessening the influence of the unionist bloc of MPs.
But if that does not happen, and I accept that it is unlikely, there are compelling reasons for patience. Gerry Adams and those close to him are both politically sophisticated and tough minded. They must know that it is in their interest to sit out the present uncertainty in Britain. At last Saturday's Sinn Fein conference in Athboy, Co Meath, the discussions were held in private. But, talking to delegates outside the hall, one could not but be struck by how serious and thoughtful they seemed.
THERE was none of the aggressive swagger and surly antipathy to the media which has often characterised such gatherings in the past These people are engaged on a serious project and they are in it for the long haul.
The priority now is to ensure that this is not jeopardised by an escalation in the IRA's campaign. Bertie Ahern is right when he focuses on the need to rebuild "an exclusively democratic nationalist consensus". This not to threaten the unionists but, as the Fianna Fail leader stressed, to provide a credible alternative to violence, and thus restore a sense of confidence in the political process and in the value of political development in the ghettos of Derry and Belfast.
Some of the omens are propitious. The re election of Bill Clinton as President offers the hope of a sympathetic hearing in Washington. The shape of a settlement that could bring lasting peace is now clear and many people in both communities want to see progress towards it.
It is depressing that the exigencies of British domestic politics have slowed that progress to the point where it seems nonexistent. But, if we can only summon the necessary patience, that situation, too, will change. The alternative is too bleak to contemplate.
We have seen in recent weeks that if this conflict gathers renewed momentum, it will claim another generation of young Irish men and women, some of them the brightest and most idealistic of their group. That must not be allowed to happen.
