The resolution of the procedural wrangle over Senator George Mitchell's chairmanship of the Northern Ireland peace talks will, no doubt, be greeted with relief by both the Irish and British governments. It is too simplistic to suggest, as some Ulster Unionists have said, that the talks would have collapsed if the Mitchell issue was not resolved; this underestimates the steely determination of both Dublin and London to drive the process forward. But the spectacle of a distinguished international peacemaker, like Senator Mitchell, taking his leave of the talks and returning to the United States would have dealt an immense psychological blow to the peace process. As it is, the talks are back on track with substantive discussions scheduled to begin next Wednesday.
The Ulster Unionist leader, Mr David Trimble, is entitled to much of the credit for this turn of events. Mr Trimble who has been portrayed - not always unfairly - as a prisoner of unionist history, showed an admirable sense of leadership and resolution. His decision to break ranks with his erstwhile unionists in the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) and Mr Robert McCartney's UK Unionists, is fraught with obvious political dangers. But the evidence of conflict resolution in South Africa, in Bosnia, in the Middle East, is that peace is only possible when political leaders are ready to break old moulds and take some risks.
Mr Trimble now finds himself in a position where he could exert significant influence in the talks process. But he could also be vulnerable - if the wider unionist community judges that there is some legitimacy in the Rev Ian Paisley's assertion that the Ulster Unionist leader was party to some kind of `sell out'. After his party's showing in the recent elections, Mr Trimble is not best placed to fight some of these battles and the recent intemperate remarks of his colleague, Mr John Taylor about Senator Mitchell do not inspire full confidence in those around him.
Mr Trimble's task now is to convince mainstream unionist opinion that he has, indeed, secured a significant diminution of Senator Mitchell's role. He is fortunate that the British government, grateful for Mr Trimble's work in securing the necessary breakthrough, will probably be anxious to bolster his position in whatever way it can.
From the Government's perspective it is, of course, critically important that the main thrust of the Dublin/London agreement on the role of Senator Mitchell remains in place. But there is a difficult line to straddle here: the Government must know that it has nothing to gain from any weakening of Mr Trimble's position. All things considered, there appears ample room for some compromise in which Senator Mitchell retains his "over arching" role as chairman and the participants in the talks enjoy some right, however limited, to examine his role. The peace process had already overcome much stiffer hurdles.
It may be that the peace process, courtesy of Mr Trimble's leadership, is entering a new phase. The predictable filibustering and grandstanding, which marked the opening of the multi party talks has already faded in the memory. It is time for all the parties, in Mr Trimble's own words, to "settle in for the long haul".