HAVING been wrong footed by John Major's unilateral endorsement of an electoral process as the way into all party talks, Dick Spring is fighting back and invoking United States support.

But the Tanaiste is not having an easy time of it. For two weeks now, the two governments have openly disagreed over whether negotiations should flow from elections, or elections should flow from negotiations.

Not only that, the terms of an electoral process are a source of contention, and David Trimble refuses to meet the Government to discuss the matter.

It is as close to political stalemate as has been seen for years, with Sinn Fein and the Government knocking on a firmly closed door that the unionists refuse to answer. And, as the first weak buds of political recovery show for the Conservatives at Westminster, there is an understandable reluctance by John Major to rock the unionist boat.

But nothing ever stays still in politics. If you are not making progress, you lose ground. And that spells danger for a fragile peace process. In those circumstances, when the declared "firm aim" of the two governments to secure all party talks by the end of February is no longer credible, a new element had to be introduced.

Mr Spring did it in London when he slapped the idea of Dayton style negotiations down on Patrick Mayhew's desk. The unionists had captured the high ground with their proposal for an electoral body as the political talks and the ton, Mark II.

The Dayton Accord sets up particular vibrations in the United States, where it is regarded by President Clinton as one of his major international successes. In most American eyes, bringing peace to former Yugoslavia is little different from bringing peace in Ireland. And who could object to the application of a proven talks formula?

THE proposal was that all relevant parties would be invited to a two day negotiating session at Stormont, under the aegis of the two governments, at the end of February. They would not have to meet face to face, but they would be in the same building would discuss all the outstanding political issues and the two governments would be in control of the overall management process. Dublin would not be directly involved in Strand One matters and there would be no international dimension, as with the Mitchell report.

Within hours, the proposal was being presented on British television as an alternative to the electoral process and was being given the thumbs down at Westminster. With Mr Spring half way across the Atlantic on his way to the White House, John Bruton went on RTE to clarify the position.

The incident reflected the degree of distrust and disagreement which now exists between the governments. For it was no coincidence that Mr Spring disclosed details of the strategy hours before he left for Washington. It was equally significant that no reference to a Dayton style approach it was contained in yesterday's agreed communique.

Within hours of Mr Spring's proposal for all party "proximity talks" at Stormont becoming public, Willy Ross of the UUP was declaring "not in my lifetime" and Ken Maginnis was damning it as "a mischievous distraction". It reflected an inflexible unionist reaction which was evident in Mr Trimble's refusal to discuss the electoral process with the Government, on the grounds that it was an internal matter, and when he resurrected Washington 3 as a precondition to all party talks.

ON the fringes of this action, Ian Paisley thundered that "no right thinking unionist with a mandate would go to such a Dayton conference". The DUP leader's statement identified the political straight jacket a futures election is in danger of imposing. For what UUP politician would campaign against the fundamentalist, intransigent approach of the DUP?

It is interesting to note that a gap has already opened up between the Ulster Unionists and the British government. Before leaving Dublin yesterday, Sir Patrick said the governments had agreed an election was "a proper matter for discussion within the political track". On whether Washington 3 would remain a British government precondition after an election, quoted the Mitchell report to the effect that decommissioning should take place in parallel with negotiations.

A lack of consistency has developed in recent UUP statements as pressure builds on the party to proceed to early all party talks There is some evidence to suggest that the UUP has not thought out the implications of an electoral process.

Rather than operating as a two year general discussion forum as had been originally intended, it now threatens to lead into early all party talks.

Moves by the unionists to guard against such an eventuality has caused some resentment at Westminster, where bilateral support for an electoral process was provided to John Major two weeks ago. The rejection of the Dayton model by unionists will add to that disquiet.

Michael Ancram described Mr Spring's proposal for getting into multilateral talks as "at best premature". But it was not dismissed out of hand. There is a clear realisation in London that, with US backing, the idea could yet develop legs.