The outcome of the Leeds Castle negotiations could lead to a nightmare scenario for the Irish and British governments, writes Frank Millar, London Editor.
Unless Tony Blair and Bertie Ahern obtain an early IRA statement confirming their assessment of republican intentions, the outcome of the Leeds Castle negotiations could fulfil their worst nightmare.
For even as the parties return to Stormont this morning in search of a deal permitting the restoration of power-sharing government, it is possible to divine a scenario in which the Democratic Unionists and Sinn Féin continue comfortably to "talk the talk" while refusing to "walk the walk" all the way to the next British general election.
This is acknowledged in London while at the same time the Prime Minister hopes for a positive IRA response to his and the Taoiseach's conclusion that they can now "resolve the issues to do with ending paramilitary activity and putting weapons beyond use". And it seemed significant yesterday that Downing Street was choosing not to be prescriptive about the form or precise timing of the anticipated IRA response to the governments' joint statement on Saturday.
The most obvious explanation for their caution is the suggestion emerging from senior Irish sources that an IRA statement may not now be forthcoming because it was always predicated on an agreement "in principle" by the DUP to resume power-sharing with Sinn Féin.
The Rev Ian Paisley had been told to expect an IRA statement during the course of this week. However, he is plainly not standing by his telephone in eager anticipation. As one DUP source put it to The Irish Times: "Sure if there's no IRA statement, that will only vindicate the tough stand we took on Saturday."
There should be no doubt that this source is absolutely correct in his assessment of his party's current position and standing within the unionist community in the North. Even pro-agreement unionists watched their television sets approvingly on Saturday as Dr Paisley declared himself "too old to be bluffed" and said of the putative IRA offer to be rid of all its weapons by Christmas: "We'll believe it when we see it."
Unless an IRA statement does come quickly to their aid, and Dr Paisley does "see it", the conclusion might well be reached that Mr Blair and Mr Ahern have failed to draw on the lessons of the Ulster Unionist Party's experience and conducted this negotiation as if they were still dealing with Mr Trimble rather than with the DUP leader.
For without IRA confirmation that great things are indeed on offer - complete with timetable, inventory, clarification of the verification processes to provide "transparency", and all the other details Mr Blair and Mr Ahern were unable to provide at Leeds Castle - unionists will conclude that the two leaders have again settled for the kind of "creative ambiguity" which finally did for Mr Trimble.
It should be noted in fairness that the Ulster Unionist leader himself pulled the plug on last October's failed negotiation with Sinn Féin precisely because the republicans would not release Gen de Chastelain from his vow of confidentiality about the IRA's third act of decommissioning.
And for all the venom heaped on him by the DUP, Mr Trimble would say that in real terms he maintained his "no guns, no government" policy right up to the point where he forced the fourth suspension of the Stormont Assembly almost two years ago. The essential difference of course was that - while they sometimes found him erratic and difficult, and his internal party pressures and divisions a recurring obstacle to progress - in David Trimble the Taoiseach and Prime Minister were dealing with a man whose commitment to the Belfast Agreement was not in question. Indeed some of Mr Trimble's friends think it was his fidelity to the agreement which cost the UUP last November's election.
Dr Paisley suffers no such handicap, and Mr Blair and Mr Ahern must surely have got the message by now that the DUP leader has neither the inclination nor the need to buy anything but the genuine article. The Prime Minister in particular would surely also grasp that - for all his evident enthusiasm to do so - he cannot hope to pin "The Blame Game" successfully on the DUP unless he holds the IRA to the requirements set out in his famous "acts of completion" speech in Belfast in October 2002.
If Dr Paisley avoiding the blame game is one half of that nightmare scenario facing Mr Blair and Mr Ahern, the other would be watching Sinn Féin walk free having delivered little beyond another promise. And again, while allowing that the IRA may be planning to pleasantly surprise us all, there seems every prospect that they might. For the "spin" following Leeds Castle - fuelled primarily it should be said by the Irish Government and the SDLP - will have already exonerated Sinn Féin in the minds of many in nationalist Ireland.
Without having delivered an extra bullet so far, the message is already out there that the IRA was willing to surrender all its weapons by Christmas but was stopped in its tracks by an intransigent DUP seeking to renegotiate the structures of the Belfast Agreement.
In short: without conclusive IRA moves resulting in a political deal and a return to power-sharing - or alternatively, a clear cut allocation of blame - there need be nothing arising from Leeds Castle to present an impediment to the further electoral ambitions of either the DUP or Sinn Féin.
This is certainly not the outcome Mr Blair intended. However, Mr Blair might put it up to both sides, and defy either to refuse him in a vote on his own proposed solution on the floor of the Stormont Assembly.