SHOULD Northern Ireland be an issue in the general election? On Tuesday. Sam McAughtry, the Belfast writer and independent senator, appealed to politicians in this State not to drag the peace process into the campaign. His remarks, which seemed to he directed mainly at Bertie Ahern, suggested that any political comments down here are likely to anger people in the North and thus damage the search for reconciliation and peace.
Mr McAughtry has been a doughty fighter against prejudice and sectarianism. As a senator he has tried to make us face unpalatable truths and his comments on this occasion deserve to be taken seriously. If what he is saying is that the North should not be used in this election in a way that might further inflame emotions that are already running very high then, of course, the overwhelming majority of people will agree with him. But I'm not at all sure that he is right if he is arguing that there should be a ban on all debate as to how the possible alternative coalitions might handle the peace process in government.
The received wisdom is that bipartisanship on the North is the only responsible policy. Because all the major parties are agreed on the fundamental ground rules for a settlement, there seems to be a fear that any disagreement, let alone criticism of how aspects of the peace process have been handled, will be interpreted as giving comfort to the extremists on one side or the other. But the situation in the North, the terrible dangers that loom in the weeks and months ahead, constitute the most serious problem with which any incoming government will have to deal. Its capacity to handle other issues successfully - the economy, unemployment, crime - will be adversely affected if the politicians cannot succeed in retrieving peace and making progress towards a stable settlement in the North.
We have seen all too clearly over the past week another lurch towards the abyss of sectarian conflict. To suggest that the peace process should be off limits during an election campaign, when politicians will debate every other issue, is like telling the passengers on the Titanic that they will be given information about all the facilities on the ship except the lifeboats.
BOTH of the potential coalitions at present on offer to the voters have strengths and weaknesses in regard to the North that need to be subjected to scrutiny during the election campaign. Let us take the largest and, at least to judge by its current rating in the polls, the most favoured group first. There have been, over a long period, great differences between Fianna Fail and the Progressive Democrats in their whole approach to the North. Bertie Ahern, like Albert Reynolds before him, has been much more proactive in seeking to keep the tattered peace process going, not least by keeping some channel open to Sinn Fein.
He has been swift to correct the impression given last week that he would be prepared to talk to the Sinn Fein leadership in the absence of an IRA ceasefire. But this is an election period. Overall, he believes that Sinn Fein must be involved in talks if there is ever to be a lasting settlement and, to this end, every effort should be made to support Gerry Adams in his attempts to bring about another ceasefire.
Mary Harney and Michael McDowell have traditionally been much more sceptical about the Sinn Fein leadership. The PDs have inclined to the view that the Irish Government should be making greater efforts to win the trust of the unionists. Despite the efforts to smooth over these differences between the two parties, it remains very difficult to see how a joint approach to the North would work smoothly in a Fianna Fail PD cabinet. Who would control policy? Bertie Ahern has already said that he intends to give Albert Reynolds an important role and it's probably true that, as the man who presided over the achievement of the original ceasefire, he would command considerable confidence among Northern nationalists. But how would this appointment play with the unionists, or with the British come to that? What would it mean for the Progressive Democrats? Even if Mary Harney did not get her wish and become Tanaiste in a government led by Mr Ahern, she would still expect, presumably, to be centrally involved in formulating Northern policy and in any talks on a peace settlement.
That raises another issue and one which has to be considered in assessing the record of the Rainbow Coalition on Northern Ireland. Who, of all the politicians and parties on offer, is best equipped to conduct what are bound to be extremely complex and difficult negotiations with the British. For the moment, there is, understandably, a feeling of almost euphoric hope that the new government at Westminster, the energy and intelligence which Tony Blair and Mo Mowlam have already demonstrated in relation to the North, will inject a new momentum into the peace process. But, as Peter Barry reminded us on RTE yesterday, the interests of the United Kingdom and Ireland are not identical. There will be serious differences and real tensions in the long process of negotiating a settlement. Who are the politicians who have demonstrated the greatest skills in this testing diplomatic arena?
ANY people would argue that Dick Spring who, as Tanaiste, has had responsibility for the day to day handling of Northern policy has performed well in extremely difficult circumstances, particularly given the breakdown of the IRA ceasefire and the hopeless weakness of John Major's last days in government. The hope now is that the formidable skills of his Department will be deployed more fruitfully, given the arrival of the new regime in Belfast. But against that, there have been strategic mistakes and errors of judgment in the Taoiseach's handling of the peace process.
The most serious of these was his decision to go along with Sir Patrick Mayhew's approach to the problem of decommissioning IRA weapons - Washington 3 - a step which sources close to Sinn Fein believe fatally undermined the position of Gerry Adams in dealing with the IRA. John Bruton has had his moments. He has behaved on occasion with great dignity and resolution and it may be that no Irish government could have brought the peace process back on track, given the lack of commitment in London and the deteriorating situation in Northern Ireland.
These are just a few of the issues which, it seems to me, it is reasonable to raise when considering how the various parties which are offering themselves in this election might approach the problems of Northern Ireland. It should not be necessary to restate it, but the most urgent moral and political imperative is for an end to the violence, starting with an IRA ceasefire. If we could get that it would offer hope, perhaps even the necessary grace for the whole community to halt the terrible spiral of killing which has once again brought suffering to so many innocent people.