WHAT EVER happens at Drumcree and other potential trouble-spots during the next week or two, the situation in Northern Ireland is different and more hopeful than it was a year ago.
The difference is Tony Blair. When the Taoiseaeh, Mr Ahern, travels to London today he will meet a British Prime Minister who has already demonstrated his determination to achieve a settlement that offers the hope of peace in Northern Ireland. It is particularly important to stress this because of what could happen in the days ahead. If it proves impossible to broker a compromise over Drumcree, then the likelihood is that we will be overwhelmed once again by the images of the marching season: fear, loathing and denunciations all round.
But whatever happens at Drumcree must be seen in the broader context of what Mr Blair is trying to do in Northern Ireland. In an article in yesterday's Irish News Gerry Adams wrote that the decision on whether to allow the Orange marchers down Garvaghy Road would send a strong signal about the new British government. To repeat the mistakes made last year "would say to nationalists that unionists rule whether it is on the streets or at the negotiation table".
I would suggest that this simply isn't true. What happens on the streets during a demonstration and what happens in negotiations are not the same, though the first may, of course, adversely affect the second. On the streets there is mass protest often ending in confrontation; in the negotiating chamber there is argument and debate leading to compromise and an agreement which may not give any side all that it wants but is, hopefully, broadly acceptable to all.
SINCE Tony Blair came to power he has surprised some of us, myself included, by the political energy he has devoted to Northern Ireland. We do not need to examine very closely why this is so. Like most politicians, the new Prime Minister is probably motivated by a combination of emotion and harsh practicalities. There is no reason to doubt his sincerity when he talks about bringing the chance of a decent life to ordinary people. But he also wants to get Northern Ireland settled, out of the way, off the agenda.
Tony Blair is a moderniser. He sees himself as a leader for the next century. He is offended by this squalid, anachronistic quarrel in Britain's back yard and embarrassed that nobody has been able to solve it. Whenever he appears on the world stage the ghastly, dreary steeples of Fermanagh and Tyrone loom out of the ancestral mists to ruin the impression he is making.
At the EU summit in Amsterdam last month, when he was being hailed as the harbinger of new hope from Britain, he had to interrupt his triumphal progress to deal with the Lurgan killings. Whenever he meets President Clinton, there is Northern Ireland cluttering up the agenda.
Mr Blair has, from the start, operated a clear dual strategy. On the one hand, he has taken considerable risks to try to bring Sinn Fein into talks. He was angry and shaken by the Lurgan killings but has not allowed this to deflect him from the task of getting a new ceasefire.
In this, he has shown himself more resolute than either John Major or John Bruton. He has gone further than any previous British leader in attempting to meet Sinn Fein's real concerns, particularly on the problems of decommissioning and whether these will impede progress on the talks front.
But Mr Blair has a second and equally important objective in Northern Ireland, to retain the confidence of the broad unionist community. "Keeping David Trimble on board" is how this is usually expressed. The Labour Party leader made this clear when he spoke in Belfast on May 16th. The pro-union tone of what he had to say upset a lot of people in the republican community but Northern Ireland Office sources explained that the speech was crafted with great care. On the one hand, the Prime Minister expressed his personal commitment to the union; on the other, he reopened contacts between Sinn Fein and British officials.
Since then, despite the Lurgan killings, Mr Blair has persisted in his efforts to bring Sinn Fein into talks. But if this does happen, the operation will be worthless if the Ulster Unionists walk out. The Rev Ian Paisley and Bob McCartney have already said they will not sit down with Sinn Fein without a hand over of weapons. David Trimble seems to be just about "on board", but he is under pressure.
It is in this broader potitical context that any decision about the Drumcree march shouted be seen, at least by the Government. What if Tony Blair (well, the Chief Constable of the RUC in consultation with Mo Mowlam, but you know what I mean) decides that the lesser of two evils politically is to allow David Trimble to be seen to have a success on this occasion by allowing the Orangemen to march down the Garvaghy Road? How will Bertie Ahern react if the Prime Minister argues that such a decision might even be helpful in the longer term to the peace process?
HERE is a better and more politically shrewd course out of this impasse. Bob McCartney has already suggested that the Orange Order should reconsider its position and, if the right to march is upheld in principle, forgo that right for this year. If such a gesture were made, he argues, "the moral and political benefits to the Union would be enormous."
We all recognise instinctively that he is right. Praise would shower down on the Orange Order at home and abroad. Unionists would be lauded for their magnanimity and restraint.
The same option is open to Sinn Fein. A plea from Gerry Adams to the Garvaghy Road residents to allow the Orangemen to march would go a long way to wipe out the obloquy of the Lurgan killings. Short of an IRA ceasefire, it is hard to think of anything that would so effectively rehabilitate Sinn Fein in Washington and London and with many, many people in this State. It won't happen, of course. Gerry Adams, like David Trimble, would argue that such a gesture would lead to his forfeiting the trust of his own community.
Sooner or later both men are going to have to climb out of their respective trenches but, at this moment, they are imprisoned by the politics of the tribe. The Government must not fall into the same trap. Representing Northern nationalists is one thing, but this is a crisis when the two governments must be seen to be working together to achieve a compromise seen to be reasonable by the majority of people in both communities.
The rights of the nationalist community will be secured when negotiations take place which lead to a lasting settlement. That is what Bertie Ahern should be working for in the days and weeks ahead.