In the first of four interviews with key figures in the peace process, ahead of next week's planned return of the Northern Ireland Assembly, Dermot Ahern, Minister for Foreign Affairs, talks to Frank Millar, London Editor.
Next Monday sees the recall of the Northern Ireland Assembly, tasked to appoint a power-sharing Executive by November 24th. The British and Irish governments insist the deadline is absolute. However many suspect London and Dublin have got their timing wrong and that the politics of next year's election in the Republic might prove the undoing of this latest devolution initiative.
And there is one other potential obstacle, little discussed in detail, yet every bit as complex as the negotiation of the Belfast Agreement itself. Even assuming the Rev Ian Paisley might be tempted to conclude a power-sharing deal with Sinn Féin, does Dermot Ahern accept that the DUP leader would first require Sinn Féin to endorse the Police Service of Northern Ireland?
Mr Ahern makes clear "the policing issue wouldn't be a pre-condition" for a November deal, before recalling that both parties appeared content to put the issue "in the middle distance" when negotiating around the "Comprehensive Agreement" proposals in autumn 2004.
There is of course a question as to whether the parties were negotiating for real back then. But be that as it may, many would say had that deal gone ahead it would have come quickly unstuck precisely because it did not contain a resolution on policing.
Yet my sense is that the Minister shares Mr Hain's expectation that it might only be resolved in the context of the future devolution of policing and justice powers?
"That would be our view," Mr Ahern confirms: "But I agree with people that it follows as night follows day that if parties are going to go into an executive there has to be an understanding that there is a move toward full acceptance of policing."
The problem with this scenario is that there appears a considerable time lapse between the darkness and daylight?
"What I'm saying is Sinn Féin have work to do, and they accept that," says Mr Ahern, adding that he always agreed with Séamus Mallon "who said policing would be the key issue in any resolution".
Yet Mr Mallon might argue that by successfully delaying a resolution, policing is the issue Sinn Féin is now using to complete the destruction of the SDLP?
Mr Ahern doesn't think so: "Sinn Féin recognise they need to move on policing. Equally, others need to recognise that Sinn Féin have to be part of that policing hierarchy."
I put it to the Minister that he would not sit in government with anybody who did not, as a matter of first principle, support the Garda Síochána.
He instantly confirms: "No I wouldn't."
So why should any unionist politician sit in government with people who refuse to support the PSNI?
Mr Ahern is clear cut: "You're not dealing with like with like between the South and the North."
What's the difference?
"You're dealing with 35 years of history, the very strong suggestion that over 35 years people within the security services had been involved in some criminal activities . . . You haven't got that in the Republic, you're dealing with a normal democratic society and I think it's unfair to equate the two."
Mr Ahern volunteers the same applies to the political question - why should Sinn Féin be considered eligible for government in the North while rejected in the South? Again: "You're dealing with a normal democratic society in the South, whereas you're dealing with a situation as per the Good Friday agreement where it's accepted by the vast majority that the only way forward is by cross-community partnership. The Patten proposals were all designed . . ."
But they've all been implemented, surely? "No they haven't been fully implemented, but they were designed to bring us to a stage . . ."
Which substantial pieces of Patten have not been implemented?
"The parties haven't totally subscribed," replies the Minister: "For instance, Sinn Féin aren't part of the Policing Board."
But that's hardly Patten's fault? "I accept that."
So which parts have not been implemented? "The point I was making was that there are still gaps in that parties have not fully implemented Patten."
Does the Minister accept that Patten has been implemented? "I think you'd have to leave that to the Oversight Commissioner."
I wonder if the implication is not that the SDLP has been stupid about all this, and actually jumped too soon? The Minister is making no such suggestion. Yet a nationalist or republican reading this interview might want to know his judgment as to which of these parties has got it right?
"I can't speak for either party," insists Mr Ahern: "Given the fact that I personally have been very supportive and requiring of people to support the PSNI, despite all the history . . ."
But is there any reason he can see why somebody should still refuse? "You'd have to ask those people who are not doing that," Mr Ahern tells me: "They continuously articulate, with some clear evidence . . ."
Yes, but we knew all that at the outset, that's why we had Patten. And the Irish Government endorsed the SDLP's decision to accept the PSNI. Mr Ahern accepts that. So, is there a legitimate policing dispensation available to the Catholic community in the North, or not?
"There is," is the Minister's unequivocal reply, before adding he does not think Sinn Féin could join the policing board before endorsing the PSNI: "No. I think it has to be with the clear ultimate goal of accepting that these are the people who will enforce law and order."
Without raising difficulties for the management of the process ahead, the Minister also expresses confidence that this is the direction in which Sinn Féin is ultimately headed: "I think to be fair, if they are to make a decision to join the policing board it will clearly show there's a sequence of movements to happen.They've always been strategic in that way."
What then of Dr Paisley's possible strategy for the process ahead? We've already identified what unionists consider the double standard, whereby they are encouraged into government with Sinn Féin while the parties in the Republic keep them at arms length. Why would Paisley do it? The Minister reminds me we are "not dealing with like with like", and I get the point that coalition is prescribed for the North by "the template" that is the Belfast Agreement. However, we are surely dealing with the same underlying democratic principles in both states - the core issue being whether the republican movement has turned its back on violence and fully embraced exclusively peaceful and democratic means. Why would any unionist embrace Sinn Féin in government while Irish ministers are about to fight an election saying they are not fit or to be trusted in government in Dublin?
Mr Ahern replies sharply: "We're not saying they're not candidates for government."
No, isn't it rather that they're not considered fit for government? "We haven't said they're not fit for government."
The point being that they're just not candidates for Fianna Fáil? "Yeah, that's the point we've made time and again."
Why not? "One very big reason is that they're an extreme socialist party, they've no like policies with us, they want to increase corporation tax to 17 per cent which would send everything out of this country."
How could they be bad for the Republic's economy yet good for that of Northern Ireland? "Again you go back to the premises upon which the future of Northern Ireland is set down, the Good Friday agreement and the principle of partnership government."
Mr Ahern may cite economic reasons but I put it to him that other Ministers like Mr McDowell and Mr O'Dea cite the continued existence of the IRA and its constitution as inimical to membership of an Irish government?
"I think it's fair to say if you look at what Michael McDowell has said in relation to any of the recent Independent Monitoring Commission reports it is in the context of the ability of Sinn Féin to participate in government."
Mr McDowell hasn't resiled from other statements he has made about the republican movement in relation to its activities in the Irish State? "No, but I think it's fair to say a lot of the utterances of Michael McDowell are couched in terms of the political scene in the Republic, let's be straight about it."
So Gerry Adams is right to say much of this is electoralism? "Well, what's wrong with electoralism?" demands the Minister: "Parties have to put out their stall, and we do."
I suggest what might be wrong with it is that Southern politicians are playing politics with the issue, while solemnly telling everybody in the North they have to abide by different rules.
"We have them [ Sinn Féin] as part of our democratic system," argues the Minister.
And they are elected to the House of Commons and the North's district councils, and can participate as they wish, I counter. Mr Ahern is adamant: "We deal with them purely in the political realm."
But is that true? The Minister for Justice certainly sees them as a threat to the State? "No, he doesn't say that in relation to Sinn Féin, he says that in relation to the IRA."
Does Mr Ahern consider the IRA a continuing threat to the State? "No, I do not. The security advice I receive is that the IRA are in effect gone out of the scenario, that what is clear to our security services is that there is a complete and unequivocal move to politics."
Like every other democrat, Mr Ahern says he "would love to see the IRA disband" while not thinking it possible because some people "will say that's a bridge too far."
But like Dr Paisley he is hopeful of seeing them become "an old boys society" and asserts: "In effect that's what's happening."
If Sinn Féin go into an executive with adherence to the policing service, he concludes, "it follows that they are recognising that the IRA are off the scene once and for all."