Sinn Féin and the DUP seem to be inching towards a historic compromise. Or maybe not. Frank Millar in London surveys the current state of play
Has Ian Paisley finally decided he wants to finish his career as First Minister of Northern Ireland? "He's gagging for it," came the knowing reply from his colleague when I put the question some months back.
This was, as The Irish Times first revealed, the latest Tony Blair initiative to restore the Stormont Assembly, now with an "absolute" deadline for the restoration of power-sharing government. The seeming certainty of the DUP man was enough to prompt serious doubt. Yet your correspondent remained sceptical.
The Big Man has always appeared content to remain leader, as he might put it, of "the loyal opposition".
Moreover, wishful thinking about Dr Paisley's motivation has long attended his stormy career. Every few years somebody - in the Northern Ireland Office or the Department of Foreign Affairs - would float the notion that, once top of the heap and undisputed leader of unionism, incapable of being out-flanked on the right, Paisley would "do the deal" that would stick.
There wasn't much sign of it as the Assembly reconvened last May. In an interview in this newspaper the DUP leader dismissed the idea of office as motive. "Do you think I have come to 80 years of age to sell my soul?" he demanded, while listing a string of conditions, including the separation of the offices of first and deputy first minister - regarded by SDLP leader Mark Durkan as the very "partnership" heart of the Belfast Agreement.
Sinn Féin president Gerry Adams was the one who spoke of "progress" towards a united Ireland. But Dr Paisley was clear: "They cannot tell me I must take a step but it's only a step to another step and another . . . That progress is not going to descend on this Assembly."
Just last month he was telling delegates to the Conservative conference that the IRA army council still considered itself the legitimate government of Ireland - hence the continuing failure of Sinn Féin to agree with anybody else as to what constitutes a "crime". While open to the idea of unionist unity, Dr Paisley also voiced doubts about his ability to coalesce with UUP leaders who could sit in government with terrorists.
Yet it seems clear he was all the while facing both ways, playing the "blame game" with some skill, while identifying the ground on which he would finally stake his position. And in stipulating endorsement of the Police Service of Northern Ireland as the condition for Sinn Féin's entry into government he has achieved two things.
First, he has established a bottom line which the Americans support and which neither the British nor Irish governments can surely expect him to abandon. Second - should Sinn Féin oblige - he has raised the prospect for a massive advance which, in the end, eluded Mr Trimble.
It seems some in the DUP were doubtful about making policing the big requirement, lest it become, à la Trimble, "the new decommissioning".
However, a contrary view offered by one Trimble admirer is that Dr Paisley has honed-in on an implicit requirement of the Good Friday accord itself - support for the post-Patten police service - which the Ulster Unionists and the SDLP failed to enforce.
Those still doubtful about the pragmatic nature of Dr Paisley's new position might also take instruction from the complaints laid against him by leading critics like Jim Allister and Robert McCartney. Both rightly discern that there is nothing in the St Andrews Agreement, for example, requiring the disbandment of the IRA. Dr Paisley's conclusion apparently is that acceptance of the PSNI would mark the end of the ideological road for republicans and render the IRA "defunct" - though he will hardly welcome a reminder that this is the "big picture" view Mr Blair and Mr Ahern previously urged on Mr Trimble.
The question of the moment therefore might appear to be whether some compromise can be found to meet the November 24th "deadline" for nominating first and deputy first ministers - while allowing that Martin McGuinness will not pre-empt some future decision on policing by a special Sinn Féin ardfheis. However, that might be to miss the point that the highly conditional endorsements of St Andrews acceptable to both governments suggest all of these deadlines may in fact prove endlessly flexible.
Thursday night's DUP statement certainly suggests it simply intends to leapfrog this one: "As Sinn Féin is not yet ready to take the decisive step forward on policing, the DUP will not be required to commit to any aspect of power-sharing in advance."
It would even appear that that position could carry the DUP all the way into the planned March 7th election, since there is no indication yet that Sinn Féin is committed to take a final decision on policing before the planned electoral "endorsement" of the St Andrews deal - and seemingly nothing in it requiring them to do so. Thus we could be facing into yet another "election to process", surely prompting questions as to why, and to whose benefit?
Veteran peace processors on the other hand suggest the publication of the new pledge of ministerial office in British legislation due next week will square the circle - leaving no one in any doubt as to what is to happen come March 26th and the scheduled date for appointing an Executive. Some DUP modernisers likewise regarded Monday's statement by Sinn Féin's ardchomhairle as simply "holding" to a position which the Adams leadership will change in its own good time.
Dr Paisley, by contrast, detected a possible step backwards in the statement combining a reiteration of the party's long-declared position with rejection of any role for MI5 in "civic policing" of the kind defined in the St Andrews annex detailing the new arrangements for handling "national security" issues.
The two governments will trust Mr Adams bluffing, since he surely knows this is one fight with the British he cannot expect to win. That said, it would seem a curious way in which to prepare the republican constituency for arguably its most neuralgic decision of the entire peace process.
At this writing all that seems certain is that Mr Adams won't be stretching himself to resolve this issue in accordance with London's timetable - and that Dr Paisley may have to wait some time yet to discover if this generation of republican leaders ever will on his terms. The process, at least, goes on.
