THE whole country is devastated by the breakdown in the peace process last Friday.

The majority of victims in any conflict like Inan Bashir and John Jefferies' who died and the 100 who were injured, are uninvolved civilian workers who do not deserve such injustice and violation of their human rights. The cost to the city of London may be £100 million, but the real cost to the people of Ireland, North and South, with a return of violence, will be proportionately much greater.

Over the past 17 months, people have had an opportunity to enjoy what peace is like. As a result, almost no one wants a relapse into the violence of the last 25 years. Do the IRA give the people of Ireland no say and no rights in the matter?

The idea of John Hume - for a nationwide referendum - has a relevance, because the people should be able to decide not just on a political settlement, but to self determine what methods they wish to see used in pursuing it.

The IRA in August 1994 made peace with the Irish Government and people, not with the British government. The present Taoiseach has been fully briefed on what passed between the Irish Government and Sinn Fein as the basis for peace.

All the specific practical items and commitments were fulfilled by the Irish Government, following the ceasefire, to the best of our ability, and Fianna Fail, both in government and since, have acted at all times to maintain the spirit of the nationalist consensus for peace, a consensus now broken.

The government of Albert Reynolds acted politically in concert or certainly in consultation with the two Northern parties on the Nationalist side. In the few weeks since John Major's announcement on January 24th of an Elected Body, Nationalist Ireland was acting together, with the sympathetic interest of the US Administration. Did other members of the Nationalist consensus, who feel terribly let down, have no right to be consulted about the resumption of the IRA campaign, or was consensus meant to be just a one way street?

The promises made on all party talks in 1994 were those on the public record, in paragraphs 4 and 10 of the Downing Street Declaration, in explicit public statements by Prime Minister John Major and Northern Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew, and in the British government's clarification of Sinn Fein questions of May 1994, even though the replies were not entirely satisfactory.

The quid pro quo by the British government for an end to violence was the very public offer of participation in talks. Republicans chose not to accept the Downing Street Declaration, and preferred instead to seek to tie down agreement on those matters that were within the power of the Irish government, such as meetings with the government, the timetable for the Forum, attitude to prisoners, as well as the degree to which political positions among Nationalists coincided.

The Taoiseach Albert Reynolds and the Irish government and any one speaking on their behalf could not, and did not, give any additional unilateral guarantees in relation to the timing of the start of talks, but would have restated in faith their best assessment and position. Talks had to be convened by the two governments.

We are disappointed to find that the many absolute Sinn Fein commitments to an exclusively democratic way forward have in effect been repudiated by the IRA.

Gerry Adams at his meeting with Albert Reynolds on last Tuesday apparently told him that the breakdown would not have been his choice. Sinn Fein colleagues have said that they were no longer winning the arguments. The peace process was constructed slowly and with great difficulty over a period of many years by John Hume and Gerry Adams and their colleagues in the North, and by Fianna Fail in Government under Charles Haughey and Albert Reynolds.

It was a great achievement by all concerned. Many of us are distressed by the thought that so much hard work should be in danger of being blown away, and that short term tactics have been substituted for long term strategy. We do not understand why the political efforts of the Sinn Fein leadership and of Nationalist Ireland over the past 17 months should be written off as a failure or regarded as inadequate.

For the first time, the Republican areas of the North were brought into the political mainstream. Representatives of their communities were listened to as never before.

The Nationalist consensus for peace was a powerful instrument for political change that has been prematurely discarded, before it has been properly tried. It would have done far more to unite the country in the broadest sense of the term over the next 25 years than any amount of violence.

The powerful coalition in America behind the peace process are deeply disappointed. Over the last year, we all had a major political battle on our hands, fighting British government obstruction of the peace process, and the uncooperative attitude of the Unionist parties to talks. Why could we not continue to fight the battle through the political process? Why did IRA action have to fracture the Nationalist consensus?

The IRA may have been sceptical in August 1994, but they signed up to a complete cessation of operations and a definitive commitment to the success of the democratic peace process. As I said in the Dail on Tuesday, the commitment sought was one equivalent to a permanent cessation of violence. "Definitive" means "finally fixing or settling something", "conclusive".

Martin McGuinness confirmed that the ceasefire would hold in all circumstances. There was no conditionality in the statement, because the Taoiseach Albert Reynolds made it abundantly clear that no conditionality would be accepted, if Sinn Fein were to enter as full and equal partners into the democratic process for all purposes, which involved meetings with the Irish government and the participation in the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation in the first instance.

WE fully accept that the peace process has been badly mishandled over the last year by the British government, and have repeatedly said so. They showed no generosity, no recognition or appreciation of the huge step both the IRA and the Loyalists had taken.

There was no political or other reward of a reasonable nature, and far too much pandering to right wing Tory ignorance on Ireland. The British government either did not know or did not care that they were subjecting the peace process to almost intolerable strain. Many of them might wish now that they had paid more attention to the lone and despairing voice of John Hume in the House of Commons on January 24th, when he attacked John Major's sidelining of the Mitchell Report in favour of the Unionist proposal for an Elected Body.

A tremendous effort is now going to be needed to get the peace process back on track. It cannot be solely dependent on a political agreement between the two governments to move rapidly to all party talks, though that would help, provided there is a guarantee of full cooperation from the political parties.

I assume that both communities in Northern Ireland, including the churches and the business sector, will be bringing home forcefully to political leaders the need for greater dialogue, progress and compromise.

We have to find a way that will lead immediately and directly into full all party peace talks without further preconditions. It is vital in the present situation to maintain channels of dialogue.

While there is much merit in the suggestion of proximity talks, we face a new problem as to whether Gerry Adams or anyone else in Sinn Fein can speak politically for the IRA, or give authoritative guarantees on their behalf. That is why we see the appointment of Senator Mitchell as a peace envoy as absolutely essential. He alone can speak to, and has the trust of, all parties to the conflict, as both governments have ruled out on principle the requisite level of communication. His six principles and recommendation of phased decommissioning are needed so that we do not fall back into the rut of old arguments which have delayed the peace process so much up until now.

Intense political argument will continue in Northern Ireland for a long time to come.

A political agreement, as presently understood, may take some time to achieve. We indicated to Sinn Fein before the ceasefire our assessment that it could take anything up to five years. Patience will be required. No negotiations can take place on the basis that one or more parties are reserving the right to have further recourse to violence.

The Republican Movement today faces a parting of the ways. It can break away from the rest of Nationalist Ireland and pursue in isolation a renewed paramilitary path, or it can work together politically with other Nationalist parties for a comprehensive political settlement.

The overwhelming majority of our people would implore them to go no further down the present track and to recognise that, without their renewed and wholehearted commitment to the democratic process, Ireland as a whole and its prospects for the future will be perhaps fatally weakened.

Fianna Fail wants to include, not exclude, but what we can do requires co operation, not a go it alone approach.