Analysis: Trimble had to be protected, writes Gerry Moriarty, Northern Editor.
The British and Irish governments made one point abundantly clear in recent days - it's about the Belfast Agreement, stupid.
That's why we are caught in the familiar arid landscape of recrimination and stalemate with the two governments and the Ulster Unionists blaming republicans and republicans blaming David Trimble, Tony Blair and Bertie Ahern. We will wander in this desert for some time to come.
The IRA went close to declaring that its war, in all its facets, is over. It just didn't stretch that extra inch to satisfy the governments and the UUP that all its facets, as outlined in paragraph 13 of the Joint Declaration, means an end to "punishment" attacks, exiling, procuring weapons, etc. Republicans complain that the British Prime Minister, with the Taoiseach as an accessory, is being held hostage by Mr Trimble's refusal to face the electorate.
They characterise Mr Blair's policy as "save Dave at any cost to democracy". The DUP, who like Sinn Féin had most to gain from elections, would support this view.
There is some truth to this, but the governments argue, the realpolitik goes beyond such simplicities. They believe that Mr Trimble is the anchor of pro-agreement Ulster Unionism. Ditch Trimble, and you ditch the Yes wing of unionism and if the Yes crew sinks below the waves then it's a case of, bye bye agreement. There was much that was positive in the April 13th IRA statement released on Tuesday night, but there was also a problem of language, according to the governments.
For instance on the issue of activities the IRA said, "We are resolved to see the complete and final closure of this conflict. The IRA is determined to ensure that our activities, disciplines and strategies will be consistent with this." That seems like a firm commitment, but Dublin and London wanted more. Does "activities, disciplines and strategies" mean an end to kneecapping and forcing people out of Northern Ireland, they asked? They also welcomed the next paragraph in the statement: "Furthermore, the full and irreversible implementation of the agreement and other commitments will provide a context in which the IRA can proceed to definitively set aside its arms to further our political objectives.
"When there is such a context this decision can be taken only by a general army convention representing all volunteers." But again the governments complained of the commitment being hedged with qualifications, conditions and what an IRA convention might or might not decide. What ever its merits it would be ridiculed in the unionist heartland, and just as there could be no agreement without republicans neither could there be an agreement without unionists.
Ulster Unionists also said that the IRA had delivered promising, apparently explicit words in the past, about being absolutely committed to the peace process; yet that did not prevent so-called punishment attacks, Stormontgate, the Colombia allegations, and intelligence gathering as Special Branch headquarters.
The up-to-date statement accompanying the April 13th statement was of more significance.
In recent weeks Mr Adams was persuaded to interpret the April 13th statement as apparently meaning that the IRA was committed to decommissioning all its arsenal, that its conflict would be over with the implementation of the agreement, and that it would end all activities that undermined the peace process.
One of the problems was marrying that interpretation to the April 13th IRA statement. The IRA, The Irish Times was told - although this is disputed by Sinn Féin - was not prepared to make that linkage last week, a point confirmed by Northern Secretary Mr Paul Murphy yesterday. Nonetheless the IRA in Tuesday night's statement said that Mr Adams's clarifications "accurately reflected our position".
So, therefore why not accept that Mr Adams was stating the IRA's war was over? After all, to quote a US administration source, the type of language used by Mr Adams would be interpreted by virtually all Americans as meaning just that.
Why couldn't the British and Irish governments have a similar take on it? Things are different this side of the ocean, said Dublin and London. Ulster Unionists could not wear what was on offer because it did not provide specifics. It's back to deadlock and lack of trust between the main political groupings here. The fact is that the governments accepted that notwithstanding Mr Adams's clarifications being subsumed into the most recent IRA statement that pro-agreement Ulster Unionism would be hammered if elections went ahead without copperfastened guarantees.
With the DUP and the Donaldson/Burnside wing of Ulster Unionism in the ascendant and Mr Trimble defeated and heading for the House of Lords then that effectively was the end of the Good Friday accord.
Neither Mr Ahern nor Mr Blair were going to allow such an unfolding.