In the second of a series of interviews with key figures in the peace process, ahead of Monday's planned return of the Northern Ireland Assembly, Sinn Féin president Gerry Adams talks to Frank Millar, London Editor.
Despite deep misgivings about the strategy adopted by the Irish and British governments, Sinn Féin will be at what Gerry Adams calls "the [ Peter] Hain Assembly" when it convenes at Stormont next week.
Months of negotiations lie ahead, and we know what republicans hope to see at the end of the process. But before the hard bargaining gets under way, I put it to the Sinn Féin president that his party's influence is in fact diminishing, and that he may have to settle for considerably less than he achieved in the Belfast Agreement back in 1998.
Mr Adams acknowledges "that would certainly be a concern" if it proved the case. "Our objective is straightforward. We will make a serious effort to create the conditions where the DUP become part of the powersharing arrangement in the terms of the Good Friday agreement.
"There aren't any other acceptable terms . . . We go in with a good will and will make a big effort, and I've actually been telling republicans we should suspend our scepticism about the DUP.
"In terms of the process, this is probably the last effort there's going to be in the lifetime of Ian Paisley to get this straightened out, and the Paisley deal is the best deal. So let's see if we can get that."
Yet there are reasons for thinking Mr Adams might be disappointed. Sinn Féin has lost in David Trimble a willing unionist partner; doesn't it now face in Dr Paisley a leader mandated to reverse what unionists regard as a process of concession-making to Sinn Féin?
"Let's see. I don't underestimate the difficulties for unionism, nor the fact that the DUP had its position on these matters. But the DUP are now the leaders of unionism and they now have a responsibility to figure out the best way forward.
"Of course the DUP will try to figure out a way forward which is best for unionism.
" But there will be no return to majority rule. There can be no situation where the inequalities which were inherent within the six-county state can be accepted.
"There is a whole raft of measures in terms of the Good Friday agreement which have to be delivered on, and the DUP has a veto only over one, and that is whether they will participate in the powersharing arrangements or not.
"I would like to see them participating. But if the DUP decides it's not going to be part of this, that's its decision. Sinn Féin will continue to do what we are doing in terms of trying to proceed with reform and modernising . . ."
As, I observe, they've been forced to do for a long time now, given the suspension of the institutions for longer than they ever operated. Indeed, isn't this the point? Sinn Féin is now dealing with a DUP which is confident, not least because they believe the republican movement has lost the leverage that came from the IRA campaign. Like the British state, the DUP also calculates that the IRA can't now go back to "the war" and thus that Sinn Féin's influence is diminished the longer peace takes root?
Mr Adams doesn't flinch, recounting the familiar charges about the UDR, security force collusion in sectarian killings, and what he sees as a state of denial within the unionist leadership "for the situation which developed into conflict", before issuing his challenge: "We should be pleased that the war's over. If we're thoughtful about this, and I think there are people in the DUP who are thoughtful about this, the last 30 years wasn't good for anyone, particularly in terms of those who were bereaved or who have injured family members. But without the last 30 years, had unionism been allowed to continue, the situation would just be desperate."
Even the unionists he appeals to will hear in this a defence of the IRA's work over those years? Mr Adams says "they shouldn't be surprised at that" while insisting: "Let's not go into refighting the war."
Except that unionists still see him as the enemy. They distrust where he's coming from and where he wants to take them.
Their constitutional purpose is inimical to his. They will naturally seek the best terms. And again, they're more confident now - courtesy of the end of the war and, incidentally, assurances from Peter Hain and Dermot Ahern that the alternative to powersharing will not be joint London-Dublin authority.
With the territorial claim in Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Constitution gone, and the principle of consent established, unionists might think relatively benign Direct Rule plus a bit of North/South co-operation is something they can live with? They've nothing to fear have they? "And Sinn Féin continues to grow across the island," comes the reply.
"Sinn Féin's going to continue to be an influence which will radicalise and popularise these broad republican concepts. Now, we can sort of divide across the island - orange in this little northeast corner, and the rest of the island becoming increasingly green - or we can try to find accommodations and I think the Good Friday agreement is a good accommodation."
In terms of helping the DUP to an accommodation, does he accept the Belfast Agreement's assertion of Britain's sovereignty in Northern Ireland, subject only to the principle of consent?
"I would put it in slightly different terms. I accepted the Good Friday agreement, I was part of the group that negotiated it.
"We're for the agreement. If the agreement doesn't work, all the elements in it are still necessary to bring about the type of rights-based society which is required.
"One of the significant dimensions of the agreement which is very clear is that the British government has said that it will only stay there for as long as the majority of people want . . . like a couple deciding they will get divorced, but will wait until the children are grown up.
"It isn't as British as Finchley. It isn't the absolute commitment to the Union. It isn't the same arrangement as there is for England, Scotland and Wales.
"Does it go as far as republicans would want it to go? No, but it is still a sizeable movement forward. And, you see, we have to stop shaping ourselves in the shadow of Britain."
But doesn't that expression speak of Mr Adams's profound and continuing failure to understand the nature of unionism? Unionists don't see themselves living "in the shadow of Britain" but rather in the country, and under the government, of their choice?
But no: "Unionism is much more paranoid about the Brits than I would ever be, feels much more insecure about the Brits than I would ever be."
Unionism, he says, can decide to maintain a "not an inch" approach, look after what are seen as unionist concerns "and continue with this living in the shadow of Britain" or "be genuinely confident and try to work out an accommodation".
Supposing Dr Paisley was confident enough to contemplate an accommodation, isn't it certain he would require Sinn Féin's upfront endorsement of the Police Service of Northern Ireland?
Mr Adams maintains his traditional line, asserting that Sinn Féin will resolve its attitude to the PSNI "when the British government completes the commitments they have made" on the issue. But will that be good enough this time?
President George Bush's envoy Mitchell Reiss says it is a requirement of any party seeking to enter government that they support the police? Mr Adams advises: "Do not heed what Mitchell Reiss has said. Mitchell Reiss will not be sorting these matters out."
DUP chief whip Nigel Dodds also says endorsement of the PSNI is "a prerequisite" for any party sitting in government anywhere in the UK? "Well, let's talk about these issues," he offers.
But Dr Paisley almost certainly won't see much to talk about. Does Mr Adams really think the DUP leader will sit in government with Martin McGuinness, a Sinn Féin Deputy First Minister who doesn't support the police?
He insists to the contrary "the big issue is whether Ian Paisley will go into a powersharing government". But say he is prepared to do so, and policing emerges as the DUP's bottom line?
"Well, the issue of policing has to be resolved anyway." Yes, and I might have been told that in any one of a number of interviews since the Belfast Agreement.
This debate has been going on for years. Can it be resolved at least in principle by November?
Like any politician Mr Adams can "talk the talk". However, while the DUP may remain sceptical, longer term students of the republican "process" will almost certainly find his answer instructive.
"Policing may be a necessary element in the resolution of the outstanding matters to do with the Assembly. But policing needs to be dealt with anyway, if there was no Assembly. If there was none of this issue you have articulated bearing down upon the process, policing still needs to be resolved."
So will Sinn Féin step up to the plate? "There is no issue that is not capable of being resolved, including the issue of policing, that's the best answer I can give you. If the DUP cast about for reasons why they will not be involved in powersharing, that's their choice. But I think we have clearly said the policing issue needs to be resolved.
"Given the British government propositions to resolve it - and they've agreed to proceed on those - that will then bring the onus back on Sinn Féin, so that's going to happen anyway in my view."
Tomorrow: Frank Millar talks to Peter Hain, Secretary of State for Northern Ireland