By all accounts when the Taoiseach meets Tony Blair today (Wednesday) the only concrete outcome is likely to be legislation at Westminster to establish the Independent Monitoring Body (IMB). It's a bad idea – not just legislation, no, the whole IMB is a bad idea.
Here's why. The idea's based on unionist prejudices, it will make matters worse if the British administration here tries to work it, it's the product of last year's thinking so doesn't address any present crisis, it can't achieve any purpose because it's unworkable in the sense that if the IMB has to be invoked, then the purpose for which it is being set up has ceased to exist. That's just a few reasons for starters.
Time to explain. David Trimble asked for a monitoring body, a request rightly resisted by John Reid, Britain's proconsul at the time because of the implication that Trimble didn't trust him to decide if the IRA had broken its ceasefire. There's more reason to resist it than that however. The notion of a monitoring body is nothing more than another manifestation of Trimble's supremacy reflex jerking. It's part of his 'house training' programme.
Edward Said, the academic writer and commentator on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, has analysed the same offensive attitude in Israelis. As Mr Said points out, the emphasis in the 'road map' currently being pushed by the Bush administration is on Palestinian performance.
Ariel Sharon decides the criteria for Palestinian authority entry into peace negotiations and he will permit them if they reach certain performance standards he has laid down. If not, he walks away.
The unionist demand for a monitoring body was based on the same thinking. Unionists set the criteria Sinn Féin must meet to be in an executive and will allow them in if they comply with the performance standards set out.
If SF behave in the way unionists think proper, then they're allowed into an executive. Everything is based on the assumption that the only problem is SF. No mention of unionist intransigence, resistance and continuing refusal to share power, as in Lisburn, which gave rise to the problem in the first place. SF have to reach a list of performance targets. All unionists have to do is turn up.
Yes it's true that there's a lot of stuff in the IMB annex about the timetable for British demilitarisation but note the complete hypocrisy.
If the British don't comply – as they won't for they do what they like – what happens? Nothing, zilch, zero, nada. On the other hand, if SF don't perform to unionists' liking, unionists walk away and the executive collapses.
Which brings us to another point. The IMB is unworkable and, as unionists rightly point out, deceitfully designed to con them. It's naive to imagine any IMB recommendation will persuade unionists to enter an executive. Suppose there were an executive and some unionist party complained about spotting a prominent SF member at a riot and demanded an investigation? There's no chance the IMB, composed of British, Irish from north and south and US members, will recommend throwing SF out of an executive. Nor will any secretary of state propose a motion to do so. What happens? You've guessed it. Unionists decide SF are bold boys and girls and walk out anyway. Back to square one.
That's all academic of course because there'll be no executive until unionists have decided republicans have carried out Tony Blair's acts of completion as detailed in the Joint Declaration.
In short, if an executive is ever formed there will be no need for an IMB because there'll be nothing for it to monitor. It will have no function because the reason for its existence will have disappeared. When will unionists take such a decision? At Tibb's Eve folks, which as you know is neither before nor after Christmas.
Meanwhile the British government has moved the goalposts on the on-the-runs (OTRs). Now the provisions will only be implemented, altogether now, 'in the context of acts of completion'. Here's what the British signed up to for OTRs on August 1 2001 in the 'Proposals for the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement'. 'The governments accept that it would be a natural development... for such prosecutions not to be pursued and will as soon as possible, and in any event before the end of the year, take such steps as are necessary to resolve this difficulty so that those concerned are no longer pursued". So why was that OK in 2001 and not now? Answer: it wasn't OK in 2001. The unionists wouldn't allow it. They can block anything. So why the IMB if unionists don't like it? Don't laugh. Blair thinks it'll help Trimble.
