Analysis: Suspicion grows over governments' faith in Belfast Agreement, writes Frank Millar, London Editor
Would the Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, now find Sinn Féin an acceptable partner in government?
The question comes courtesy of British Prime Minister Mr Tony Blair's famous "acts of completion" speech of a year ago.
Following last week's decision to cut Mr David Trimble adrift, it is at best unclear whether that speech remains the operational basis of the British/Irish endeavour in Northern Ireland.
However, it is the essential text for understanding why the Ulster Unionist leader was unable to conclude his devolution deal with Sinn Féin president Mr Gerry Adams - and why next month's Assembly election may well result in the "mess" foreseen by Mr Ahern.
On October 18th, 2002, Mr Blair said: "To this blunt question: 'how come the Irish Government won't allow Sinn Féin to be in government in the South until the IRA ceases its activity, but unionists must have them in government in the North?' there are many sophisticated answers. But no answer as simple, telling and direct as the question."
Can Mr Ahern answer it now? Is the Taoiseach satisfied that the republican movement's transition from terror to democracy is "complete" as understood to mean "whole or concluded ... fully carried out" and brought to "a perfected state?"
If so, he would presumably have no difficulty confirming that, should he need their votes after the next election, he will happily count Mr Martin Ferris and his fellow TDs into a new Fianna Fáil-led coalition.
An affirmative answer to this question might just have a positive impact on perceptions in Northern Ireland.
But it would certainly come as something of a surprise to many citizens of the Republic who share the confusion and doubt of many of their Northern brethren following a combination of IRA and Sinn Féin statements last Tuesday which brought none of the clarity and certainty previously demanded by London and Dublin.
In the immediate aftermath of the Hillsborough debacle much attention has reasonably focused on the part played by Mr Trimble. However, the leader of unionism - and this is something for those who would supplant him to ponder - has been reduced to the role of supplicant in this process.
So if Mr Trimble can be accused of lowering the bar and taking too much on trust, how much more culpable are Mr Ahern and Mr Blair?
It was the Prime Minister after all who cancelled the May election for want of a direct and convincing reply to this question: will the IRA end all paramilitary activity?
And it was Mr Ahern with Mr Blair who spelt out what that had to mean in paragraph 13 of the British Irish Joint Declaration.
In order to re-establish the trust necessary to restore devolution, the declaration stipulated: "Paramilitarism and sectarian violence must be brought to an end, from whichever part of the community they come.
"We need to see an immediate, full and permanent cessation of all paramilitary activity, including military attacks, training, targeting, intelligence gathering, acquisition or development of arms or weapons, other preparations for terrorist campaigns, punishment beatings and attacks and involvement in riots.
"Moreover, the practice of exiling must come to an end and the exiled must feel free to return in safety. Similarly, sectarian attacks and intimidation directed at vulnerable communities must cease."
It has become a truism of this process that the IRA will never define itself in the words offered by others, least of all the British government or unionists.
The expectation, nonetheless, was that it would find the language to indicate that all of the above activities were at an end.
Indeed, it was obvious that such headline-grabbing declarations of immediate and future intent would be absolutely necessary if Mr Trimble was to persuade the unionist electorate to trust to years more of "process" leading to full implementation of the Belfast Agreement and the devolution of policing powers to the Stormont Assembly.
Readers may feel they heard none of the required specifics from Mr Adams or the IRA last Tuesday.
Yet the Taoiseach could presumably give an affirmative answer to that question - is Sinn Féin now an acceptable partner in government? - because he, like Mr Blair, thinks the terms of paragraph 13 have been met.
Specifically, he considers them met by this statement by Mr Adams: "Actions and lack of actions on the ground speak louder than words and I believe that everyone - including the two governments and the unionists - can now move forward with confidence."
It is entirely possible Mr Adams intends these words to mean that the terms of paragraph 13 are accepted in full by the entire republican movement.
Nor is it necessary to think Mr Adams disingenuous in persisting with complicated formulae which help him better manage his internal constituency.
Moreover, the statements of last Tuesday indisputably take republicans into new territory and mark a significant advance from the IRA's position of April 1998.
However, it is hard to credit that either government thought such coded messages would translate into a credible narrative for Mr Trimble to sell to literal-minded unionists thinking to hear that the IRA's war was over.
Nor can London and Dublin be surprised by unionist reluctance to believe the proposed Independent Monitoring Commission is the future instrument to bring recalcitrant republicans to heel when Mr Adams describes its very appointment as a breach of the Belfast Agreement.
As for the lack of transparency over the latest act of IRA decommissioning: Mr Ahern has let it be known he knew this was a problem of such an order that he was reluctant to travel to Belfast last Tuesday.
What we do not know is what this is meant to mean, or why the Taoiseach has chosen to impart this information.
If he was loathe to travel, did he ever suggest to Mr Blair that they should not?
If he knew transparency was a potential deal-breaker why didn't he impress his view on Gen de Chastelain long before the IRA took custody of him last Monday night?
If everything turned on de Chastelain's report why not postpone Tuesday's proceedings for 24 hours?
Why, above all, allow the election announcement to proceed if he knew the absence of a Sinn Féin/Ulster Unionist deal would likely result in "a mess" on the other side of polling day?
Some cynics detect an exit strategy in the making here for Mr Blair as well as Mr Ahern.
Beyond the decision to cut Mr Trimble adrift over the election - and that is what they did - the suspicion is growing in some quarters that the two premiers have virtually written-off the Belfast Agreement, and are resigned to a long hiatus in the political development of Northern Ireland.
As one Westminster observer put it last night: "It might be a mess but, to coin a New Labour phrase, at least it will be the people's mess."
Given their past extraordinary commitment to the process, the two leaders would furiously deny any such suggestion. However, without the deal they thought necessary to enable the election to take place in a positive atmosphere, Mr Blair and Mr Ahern have chosen to put the onus on the people of Northern Ireland.
They need not be surprised if the people are in no mood to thank them.