As I write at the end of a day (Tuesday) that promised major developments in the political process I am disappointed. The day started with Gerry Adams' speech containing many fine words. I desperately hoped that the events following would take matters further. The IRA endorsed his speech and gave it significance.
There were areas of Adams' speech that were unhelpful. The emphasis on the 'destination' being an Irish Republic was one. We know this is the preferred option of republicans, but Gerry Adams has accepted that all kinds of other arrangements are possible. The pursuit of unity is legitimate and some unionists are not entirely averse to such an outcome if seen as the best way forward. But republicanism includes a heavily armed organisation that by its very existence constitutes a threat. This is recognised by many nationalists and who can see that Irish unity promoted by people with guns is a non-starter. No amount of talk about (legally held) guns takes away from the fact that the IRA guns have been and can still be used in terrorist attacks.
Gerry Adams said republicans reject the 'so-called' International Monitoring Commission. In doing so he intensified concern among those who fear that resort to violence remains possible. It was specifically because of republican 'activities' that the institutions fell. The real difficulty is that republicans under the agreement can become ministers in government.
That was only tolerable in the short term and particularly when words like 'the war is over' are absent. Gerry Adams appears to accept this in saying that "Actions and the lack of actions speak louder than words".
Yesterday I waited for the momentous 'Mandela moment' that would silence unionist dissidents but it never came and instead we faced a damp squib.
Certainly de Chastlain's words about enough weapons to cause huge destruction and death being decommissioned was impressive but they were just words. We could not see it, estimate it, itemise it and the internal and external enemies of Ulster Unionists had a field day exploiting Trimble's anguish.
Grassroots unionists take a sceptical view of things at the best of times but after years of waiting for an end to the terrorism that blighted Northern Ireland for so long, there will be glee on the faces of many who say, "We told you so".
Most unionists will work with nationalists and republicans and most nationalists are ready to work with unionists, the real problem remains – guns.
That is not to suggest that I am oblivious to the difficulties that facing the republican movement in moving this far.
The IRA admitted that they do not fully understand unionists. They perhaps need to understand that it is not unionists alone who are worried about republicans in government.
The biggest doubts I heard yesterday were from within the nationalist community.
Unionists and nationalists alike want peace, an end to threats of violence and a sustainable and peaceful democracy.
What is to be done after such disappointment? It is too early to give up hope that the crucial issues might yet be resolved but this depends once again on the IRA. Releasing details of the extent of decommissioning would be helpful as would a clear indication that the war is over. David Trimble was right to suggest that every dot and tittle need not be completed immediately but the sense of the conflict being over and that the IRA is withering away as a violent organisation, must be transparent. This has not been achieved.
We face an unhelpful atmosphere for elections. Those nationalists who voted for Sinn Féin to encourage republicans down a peaceful road, may share my disappointment and decide to vote otherwise.
Confidence among unionists is likely to diminish and uncertainty and instability could threaten us. In my view either the election should be postponed or must be followed quickly with a serious root and branch review of the agreement that enables a wider section of unionism to participate – assuming they are prepared to contemplate this.
There must be a clear prohibition on those allied with violent organisations taking ministerial office. We also seem to need a practical method of making decisions that does not enshrine any vestige of sectarianism or majoritarianism. Rather decisions must not be made through dual head counts and serious consideration must be given to the preferendum approach.
This makes decisions possible but only with consensus between parties. It is based on respect for all rather than the imposition of the will of majorities of majorities and of minorities. The present system is a modified form of majoritarianism. Many other areas remain to be reformed including the need for a sense of shared responsibility among ministers.
