Direct rule has many dangers

In February last year, when Peter Mandelson suspended the Northern Ireland Assembly because of a crisis on (what else?) decommissioning…

In February last year, when Peter Mandelson suspended the Northern Ireland Assembly because of a crisis on (what else?) decommissioning, a senior Irish official said to me: "We may reach the point when the most honourable course for the two governments will be to put the Executive on hold indefinitely, while expressing deep regret that the politicians in Northern Ireland are not yet ready to run a devolved administration." If that were to happen, he continued, the power-sharing Executive should be seen as a brave experiment.

All the political leaders in the North deserved praise for their courage in having taken difficult risks but, for the moment at least, there were simply too many divisive issues to be resolved and too little trust to deal with them. Hopefully, at some later date when the two communities felt more confident, it would be possible to try again.

On that occasion the politicians, with a lot of help from Messrs Blair and Ahern, did agree to reinstate the Executive. This time around, as Dr John Reid faces the decision whether to start a review of the Belfast Agreement, there is much less room for manoeuvre. In the absence of any significant move on IRA weapons, both governments are already contemplating a return to direct rule, probably with Dublin having a greater say.

As the world and his wife have remarked, the world has changed utterly since September 11th. It is deeply uncomfortable to see Gerry Adams and David Trimble outside Downing Street accusing each other of endangering the peace process, at a time when the American Defence Secretary is telling the world that the United States is now able to carry out round the clock strikes against Afghanistan and the al-Qaeda group responds by warning that "the storm of the (hijacked) planes will not stop".

READ MORE

The new reality is that Tony Blair is now deeply engaged in a dangerous war, as one of the chief architects of the grand coalition against terrorism. The British Prime Minister is unlikely to have the time, let alone the enthusiasm, which he has devoted to Northern Ireland in the past.

It isn't only Tony Blair who is losing patience with the dreary steeples of Fermanagh and Tyrone cluttering up his world vision. The Taoiseach has other things on his mind, like the failing economy, job losses at every turn, the forthcoming general election. One has the impression that he is already moving to sideline Sinn FΘin.

What is the point of next weekend's State funeral for Kevin Barry and his comrades if not to remind the voters that the politicians of this State (and in particular Fianna Fβil) are the legitimate heirs of those who fought for Irish freedom? There is still time for a move by the IRA which, we are told, could transform the situation.

Maybe.

But the level of mistrust between Sinn FΘin and the unionists is now worse than at any time since the signing of the Belfast Agreement. Officially, the UUP leadership stands by the line that a statement from Gen de Chastelain which provides solid evidence that the process of "putting arms verifiably beyond use" has begun would be enough to avert another crisis. Privately, even moderate unionists say that, even if this were to happen, it would be difficult for David Trimble to go back into an executive with Sinn FΘin because "nobody in the unionist community believes them".

On the Sinn FΘin side the mood is equally sour. The party's Ardfheis, held in Dublin a couple of weekends ago, was depressing. Over and over again one heard the current mantra: "The unionists will never change. Even if the IRA handed over all its weapons, Trimble and the other would find another excuse not to share power with Fenians." Given this level of animosity on both sides, a return to direct rule might seem the least bad option. Tony Blair wouldn't be the first British prime minister to wonder whether Northern Ireland might not benefit from a period of benign neglect.

But there are dangers implicit in such a course. The first is that whenever there is a political vacuum in the region, it is quickly filled by sectarian violence. We have seen this already this year in the faces of terrified children making their way to school in Ardoyne. Whatever happens in the days and weeks ahead, it is important that every effort is made to keep the politicians on all sides talking to each other.

The really sad aspect of all this is that Northern Ireland's politicians, when they put aside the contentious issues that divide them, can and do work together very well. Earlier this week, when the Assembly debated the unionist motion to exclude Martin McGuinness and Bairbre de Br·n from office, the air was full of accusation and recrimination. Within minutes, when normal business resumed, Gregory Campbell of the DUP was courteously replying to representatives from all parties about transport issues in their constituencies.

The one part of the Good Friday agreement of which the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland approves is a devolved administration run by local politicians. Nobody wants a situation where health, industrial development and so on are handed over to ministers who fly in from Westminster with little knowledge of local conditions.

To save the Executive and the Assembly will require first, Gerry Adams and then, David Trimble to stretch their constituencies yet again. But both men must know that this is preferable to a return of direct rule.

mholland@irish-times.ie