Mr David Trimble and Mr Seamus Mallon yesterday struck a workmanlike stance, addressing issues of North-South co-operation and considering the departments which will operate under the Northern Ireland executive. But these matters, important as they are, remain secondary to the critical issue of when the executive itself is to be brought into being. It has been clear for some time that the October 31st target-date would not be met. The concern now must be to avoid any lengthy slippage and to take whatever measures may be necessary to prevent the political situation from deteriorating. Any loss of impetus in the process is potentially serious.
It has been generally accepted since the emergence of this impasse that the letter of the Belfast Agreement supports Sinn Fein and contradicts Mr Trimble's stance. In his closely-argued article published yesterday in this newspaper, Mr Martin McGuinness quoted the appropriate provisions which, on the face of it, oblige Mr Trimble to proceed with the setting up of the executive, in spite of the lack of progress on decommissioning. But Sinn Fein's careful legal rehearsal of the agreement collides head-on with the harsh realpolitik of Mr Trimble's political fate if he yields at this time. And the arguments on both sides are overshadowed by the stark declaration - twice - from the IRA that it will never decommission its weapons.
"The republican constituency can go no further" Mr McGuinness declared in his article. He listed, quite properly, the positive measures which the "republican constituency" has put in place to advance the peace process thus far. But in respect of decommissioning, the reality is that the same "republican constituency" has not indicated its willingness to move at all. Without ever disposing of a round of ammunition or a gram of explosives, they have let it be known that they cannot even subscribe to a timetable for the achievement of the object, set down in the agreement, that all paramilitary weapons should be out of commission by May 2000. This stance is not realistic politics or negotiation.
The reality of Sinn Fein's position is a matter of some conjecture. It may be that it is unable to exercise as much influence as it would wish over the IRA. Now it declares that Mr Trimble's refusal to proceed with the executive reflects a strategic decision to delay the implementation of the agreement. It is Mr McGuinness's personal opinion, he wrote, that Mr Trimble "has changed his position on the agreement since Good Friday. "In effect" he says, "a unionist veto on progress has been resurrected". As propaganda this analysis may sell to Sinn Fein's own supporters. But it does not reflect the reality as it is understood by the two governments and by the other principal parties in the Assembly, that Mr Trimble is genuinely committed to implementing the agreement. The Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, is quite sure that Mr Trimble is confronted with enormous political problems and that Sinn Fein has more room to manoeuvre in the present impasse than the First Minister.
If Sinn Fein persists in the view that Mr Trimble is simply being obstructionist, it is difficult to see how progress can be made without grave - possibly fatal - risk to Mr Trimble's position as First Minister and as leader of the Ulster Unionists. Perhaps this is what Sinn Fein wants, calculating that with the unionists further divided and in disarray, its own influence in the new political landscape would be enhanced. But it is far more likely that if David Trimble falls, the entire structure envisaged in the Belfast Agreement will fall apart. A dangerous game of brinkmanship is being played and to bring it to an end there must be compromise on all sides. Sinn Fein still shows no understanding of that reality.