Maestro of spin avoids the clashing of symbols

The difference between a "leak" and a "spin" was evident in advance of the Northern Secretary's House of Commons announcement…

The difference between a "leak" and a "spin" was evident in advance of the Northern Secretary's House of Commons announcement on the Patten report. A "leak" is an accurate, if sometimes selective, revelation of the contents of a confidential document or meeting; a "spin" is a distorted version of the reality and is disseminated for a political purpose.

Early in the week it was being put about that the name of the RUC would be retained, in parallel with a new title such as the Northern Ireland Police Service - the name recommended by the Patten Commission.

This comes into the category of "spin", because it subsequently emerged, from usually reliable sources, that the British Cabinet had already decided, on the recommendation of Mr Peter Mandelson, to opt for a single new name, which would be the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

No less than choosing names for children, picking titles for police forces is an activity with many pitfalls. Patten Commission members considered and rejected PSNI because of a fear that it would become known in common parlance as "Pizny". Mr Patten opted instead for the Northern Ireland Police Service, or NIPS, but heaven knows what fate that name would have suffered in the rough playground of common speech.

READ MORE

Then there was the badge. London was reportedly keen on the idea of having the crown beside the harp, instead of, as at present, on top. There is also a sprig of shamrock on the RUC badge, and some versions of the story had all three symbols side by side. It is understood Dublin lobbied hard for implementation of the precise terms of Recommendation 151 of the Patten report, which urged that the police service "should adopt a new badge and symbols which are entirely free from any association with either the British or Irish states". By all accounts, Dublin was not lax in pointing out the particular emphasis given to the recommendation by the use of the adjective "entirely".

Anyone who understands the psychology of nationalism knows that wearing the crown is not a prospect that appeals even to its most apolitical and mild-mannered adherents. Retention of the crown, even in parallel with the harp, would not improve the chances of nationalist recruitment to the new force. It appears that Dublin went to great pains to explain this during the lobbying process.

The discussion, some sources called it "haggling", continued until quite a late stage. Finally, Mr Mandelson announced that the matter would be addressed by the new policing board. This means it is likely the symbol eventually agreed will be absolutely apolitical, as in the case of the Assembly which employs the innocuous but pleasant emblem of the flax plant, with which Northern Ireland is famously associated.

Symbols matter in Northern Ireland but nobody thinks about them in the new Assembly because the embellishments and embroidery are neutral (the statues of Craig and Carson are another day's work.) Elsewhere in the North, Union flags, Tricolours, and kerbstones painted red,white-and-blue all send a message of exclusion or defiance, and in their own way serve to exacerbate community tensions. So Mr Mandelson was wise to allow for the possibility that neutral, uncontroversial symbols can be created for the new police service. He had already shown considerable creativity of his own by arranging for the RUC to receive the George Cross, which he yesterday described as "a fitting acknowledgement of their sacrifice".

It was a difficult day for unionist leaders, perhaps the most painful yet in the process of adjustment to the new political realities. Nationalists, and even most republicans, have long since passed through the pain barrier of realising and accepting that partition will stay as long as a unionist majority so desires. The price of that was equality within a new dispensation and the changes in policing were arguably the most important element in the package. Dropping the RUC title in favour of a new name was a dramatic symbolic change. The practical steps towards revamping the police service are more modest, gradual and long-term, but they could well mark the beginning of an inexorable movement towards quite radical change.

There is some questioning, in the aftermath of the Commons announcement, as to whether unionists made a wise choice in putting their main focus on decommissioning, instead of, say, defending the RUC. A good, sustained political campaign could have resulted in a less full-blooded implementation of the Patten report by the British government. Most of the unionist eggs were, however, already placed in the decommissioning basket. High-level RUC sources took the view that decommissioning had no security value, because weapons handed over today could be replaced tomorrow, but unionism carried on regardless.

Now the moment of truth is approaching fast. The overhaul of policing will be used by unionist representatives to increase the pressure on the IRA for an arms gesture in time for Gen de Chastelain's next report - due by the end of this month. All the available indications are that, unless some brilliant wheeze can be worked out by one of the mandarins from Dublin or the Northern Ireland Office, decommissioning this month is probably a non-starter.

This suggests that the peace process is heading inexorably towards another crisis. In the absence of decommissioning there will be enormous pressure on Mr Trimble to lead his party out of the Executive, resulting in another review along the lines of the Mitchell deliberations last autumn. The prospects for a successful outcome to such a review would be extremely bleak. Mr Trimble's internal party difficulties obliged him to impose a new deadline for decommissioning which was not, as far as is known, part of any agreement worked out under Senator Mitchell's chairmanship.

Hence the republican camp is likely to be extremely wary about entering a new process of negotiations since it feels that the unionists "double-crossed" them last time.

Alternatively, Gen de Chastelain may come up with soothing words in his next report which could tempt the unionists to postpone their political divorce from the executive until May, the only explicit decommissioning deadline in the Belfast Agreement. However, this is not a suggestion which can tactfully be made to unionists until the fuss over the Patten report has abated.

Meanwhile, the new ministers are working hard at their portfolios and there is an air of industry and activity about the new Executive that makes it almost indistinguishable from a normal government. However, the Assembly needs to get its teeth into some serious legislation before it becomes another political beargarden in the worst traditions of Northern Ireland.

Outside contacts are also continuing - Mr Trimble meets the Taoiseach and opposition leaders in Dublin today and last night, Mr Seamus Mallon dined with Senator Mitchell in Rome at the residence of the US ambassador to the Holy See prior to his audience with the Pope today.

However, it was not clear that anyone was talking to those who have the real power to make or break the peace process at the moment - the members of the IRA and the Ulster Unionist Council. On the other hand, there is probably no point in talking to them unless someone can come up with some fresh arguments.