Unionist manoeuvring makes it difficult to see the wood for the trees. Naturally the media concentrates on attempts to convene talks at Stormont which include David Trimble for more than a day.
Trimble prefers to give the impression that the only talks that matter are between him and Tony Blair whom he visits as often and as publicly as possible.
How much of the wood can be discerned? First, let's be clear that talks at Stormont are part of the foliage. It's true that the Irish and British governments would like the public to see all the major players at Stormont, because it would be 'good for the optics' as they say. It's also true that it's important for parties to be there to provide camouflage for the real business being done elsewhere. Round table talks provide essential political theatre where individuals can preen and indulge in soliloquies for the ears of their own community. Talks behind the scenes produce the results.
Since October when Tony Blair flew in to Belfast to make his speech demanding the IRA make 'acts of completion', everyone has assumed that the results of such talks behind closed doors will be that the British and republicans will move simultaneously some time in February and in any event before St Patrick's Day. If we are to believe that Bertie Ahern was so indiscreet as to present his scenario to English journalists in November, then the Taoiseach's recipe is that there will be an announcement of a permanent end to IRA activity and a public act of weapons decommissioning. Sinn Féin will then join the Policing Board, that very act being an indication that IRA activity has ceased.
In return, the British administration here will announce the demolition of watch towers in South Armagh, a huge troop reduction and permission for IRA suspects on the run in the Republic to return north. So if this scenario takes place, all will be hunky-dory. Off to party in Washington on 17 March in time to return, resurrect the executive and start a six week election campaign for a new assembly in May?
Well no. Remember we're trying to see the whole picture not just some trees, however dense and luxuriant some of them may be. About seven months ago you first read this simple truth here: David Trimble doesn't want to fight an election in an executive with Sinn Féin. OK then, don't resurrect the executive. Just start an election campaign on 24 March. No good. He doesn't even want to campaign to restore an executive with Sinn Féin in it.
Here are some unpalatable facts the British government refuse to face. The UUP is now an anti-agreement party. Has been publicly since the last Ulster Unionist Council meeting last September. Then Trimble announced he was pulling down the executive on 18 January and presented a list of demands inimical to the agreement. Sure, there are senior UUP individuals like Sir Reg Empey and Michael McGimpsey who support the agreement. Now name two others. When's the last time you heard a UUP member endorse the agreement?
The whole British government strategy at the moment is based on a fallacy: saving David Trimble will save the agreement. The assumption they make is that if republicans make a major concession, some 'act of completion', Trimble will be able to brandish it at the DUP and his own hard-liners in an election campaign. It won't work. Did anything republicans conceded since 1998 end the attacks on Trimble? Did the IRA's two acts of decommissioning save Trimble from his own right wing? No. He was walking out of the executive before the gift of IRA intelligence gathering was handed to him.
Just suppose there are elections in May following some republican act of completion. The DUP will be fighting an election on the simple demand for re-negotiation. The UUP message will be a dog's dinner and its candidates in disarray, though watch Trimble under pressure from Donaldson edge towards the DUP on re-negotiation. Will a new assembly elect an executive? No. The reason is very simple. If you look at the UUP candidates selected, you'll see Trimble could not deliver unionist consent in a new assembly any more than he can at present. Instead, a malign combination of the DUP and UUP dissidents will control unionist consent.
The British government tries to wish away these truths about unionism. When Senator Mitchell looked at the north he identified two problems: republican violence and unionist intransigence. The British ignored the second. No one mentions that Tony Blair promised in October, to do what is necessary 'to protect the institutions from arbitrary interruption and interference' by unionists. Why not? Because the British have never given it a thought.
