SENATOR George Mitchell told yesterday's colloquium in Trinity College, Dublin, that he believed there was now a "historic opportunity" to end the conflict in Northern Ireland.
He said he would remain in the North "until either a result is achieved or I'm convinced that no progress can be made".
As the son of poor immigrant parents, he had been helped by many people throughout his life. Now he wanted to make a contribution to the Northern peace process and to help provide young people in particular with "the chance of a decent life, in a safe and secure environment, to get a good job, a chance to raise a family and get them off to a good start".
He continued: "These are not extravagant aspirations, but things every decent, democratic society should make available to its people. After spending 2 1/2 years in Northern Ireland I know that the overwhelming majority of people there do not want to return to the bitterness hostility and violence of the 'Troubles'."
He accepted that there were "deep differences directed along sectarian lines, with widespread mistrust - people don't believe what other people say - and hatred even".
But he was convinced that the over-whelming majority of people wanted these differences "settled the way they're settled in other democratic societies, through peaceful, non-violent, democratic processes".
Whatever about the past, he believed there was now "a truly democratic alternative" in the North, based on "meaningful, inclusive dialogue". Most people there now desired "peace, political stability and genuine reconciliation", but these could be achieved only through the democratic path.
Earlier, Senator Mitchell joked that one of the distinguishing characteristics of the US Senate was the capacity for "unlimited debate". American senators could debate "at any time, on any subject, at any length", he said, noting that this had been good preparation for him in chairing the Northern talks.
The title of Senator Mitchell's address was "America and European Democracy". He concentrated on the strengths of the US Constitution, stressing that the main objective of its framers, with their experience of living under English kings, had been "the prevention of tyranny".
The complex system of checks and balances they drew up often "sacrificed efficiency to liberty", leading to delays, and even gridlock, in government.
However, in preventing tyranny and preserving individual liberty, it had been "a truly great success".
He gave the example of the compromise which saw the US Constitution accepted by the states on the basis that the new Congress would immediately enact a Bill of Rights, which he called "the most eloquent statement of individual liberty ever written by humans".
This showed that compromise did not always produce bad results. It could even "achieve something better than the original position of each side - a message I hope to take with me to Northern Ireland tomorrow".