The necessity of finding a way through, and therefore faith in the possibility of doing so, has always been the driving force behind the peace process, writes Martin Mansergh.
The probability of each important step actually being made has always been poor, viewed through the prism of past failure. The realists and the reductionists, while usually right, have often failed to anticipate the turning points, when the balance finally tipped towards a positive outcome.
Twenty-five years of conflict were studded with initiatives designed directly or indirectly to bring about peace, not always emanating from governments. Many had a powerful and productive influence for the future, yet failed at the time.
The peace initiative that Albert Reynolds took over as Taoiseach between 1992 and 1994 and that was his principal service to Ireland could easily have suffered a similar fate. Others shared ownership and responsibility for its inception and development. His force of character pushed it over the first hurdle.
To achieve completion, the peace process has needed to negotiate three hurdles; the achievement of lasting ceasefires; agreement on a comprehensive political settlement; and last, and just as difficult, its implementation. The challenge has been to gather sufficient momentum to overcome each obstacle.
The overriding moral imperative has been to end the killing. Moralistic considerations, preventing political contact at any level with those who directed the paramilitary and associated political campaigns, where they blocked a way out, had the capacity to prolong conflict, which needed some agreed basis to be brought to an end. But the timing of any such opening needed to be carefully chosen. Should those most involved be given credit or blamed for changing their conduct? Few people believe the argument that in 10 years there has been no real change, and that everything is as bad as ever.
At the other end of the spectrum, the letter pages of the Irish News contain a stream of criticism from persons mostly identified with dissident politics, claiming that republicanism, by definition, revolutionary, militaristic and élitist, has been abandoned, and/or that the republican base has been betrayed.
They forget that republicanism began as a constitutional movement, with the founding of the Society of United Irishmen in 1791. They still utterly fail to grasp the central tenet of Wolfe Tone's doctrine, which is that the means to independence involved uniting different traditions, instead of treating that as an incidental by-product of separation, desirable but in the short term expendable. Third, they ignore and despise the real and lasting achievement of Irish republicanism in the 20th century, the creation of a successful and democratic republic in by far the greater part of Ireland. The essence of republicanism today is about inclusive, participatory democracy, without crude majoritarianism.
Since Lemass, the Republic has sought to engage with unionism, while recognising, tardily perhaps, since the development of the Troubles its responsibilities towards northern nationalists, independent of support for a united Ireland.
At the meeting between Albert Reynolds, John Hume and Gerry Adams on September 6th, 1994, it was acknowledged in a brief statement that peace could not be achieved without the participation of unionists. While the governments have responsibilities, which they must exercise in the case of default by the parties, it is fantasy to suggest that progress can be imposed by bypassing either or both main traditions in Northern Ireland.
There are many ways of marking change. In October 1994, Gusty Spence, formerly UVF, went a lot further than the republican movement in expressing abject and true remorse for the deaths and injuries caused by loyalist organisations. While moving and eloquent, the value of the apology was somewhat undermined, when most activists made it clear in later interviews that they had no regrets about what they had done, and by the level of ongoing attacks, albeit less than before.
The other way of changing is to forgo the noble sentiments but to make the break with the past by deed. Despite much improvement, ugly incidents make it painfully clear that completion has yet to come all round.
For the IRA ceasefire to be declared, a US visa had to be procured for Joe Cahill, so that he could be on hand to explain it to Irish-American supporters. Precisely because of his past, his support for the peace strategy was all the more valuable. When he died, his funeral significantly was not a military one. Albert Reynolds was entitled to attend in recognition of Joe Cahill's support for the peace process. Sensitivity towards the families of victims must always be shown, but contributing to a situation where there are many fewer such victims in the future, and preferably none, is also important.
The month that has passed was a reminder of the 25th anniversary of a horrific day of the Troubles, when Lord Mountbatten and family guests on holiday and 18 British soldiers were blown up. The irony of blowing up the man, who in 1947 oversaw the biggest British withdrawal, from India, within a fixed time-limit, was lost on the perpetrators.
The remarkable thing about this month's negotiations, given the parties centrally involved, is that there is any serious chance of success at all. The progress potentially attainable is of huge benefit and significance, in terms of lifting a burden off the communities, and will bring great political credit on all the parties achieving it, regardless of their past track record. If the talks fail, there could be a long wait for another bus. As Albert Reynolds used to warn, "opportunity comes to pass and not to pause".
Yet of all the fall-back options, if this month's negotiations do not succeed, a return to armed conflict is, thankfully, not one of them. That is the major achievement of the past 10 years. By going further and making a complete success of conflict resolution, Ireland and Northern Ireland have, as former President Clinton argued on his recent visit, something to offer the world. There is little to be afraid of and much to contend for.