Members of the Ulster Unionist Council will today determine whether the desire of the great majority of the people of this island for a peaceful, creative and inclusive political settlement, under the terms of the Belfast Agreement, will be given effect. It is a heavy responsibility. On their decision hangs the long-term well-being of the sundered communities in Northern Ireland and the quality of the relationships that can develop between nationalists and unionists on the island. It would be a great error of judgment for the Ulster Unionist Council to reject the political accommodation so painstakingly devised over 11 weeks by the pro-Agreement parties under the chairmanship of Senator George Mitchell and with the support of General John de Chastelain of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning.
There will be little enthusiasm on the part of rank and file Ulster Unionists for the arrangements on offer because they require executive power-sharing with Sinn Fein in advance of the decommissioning of IRA weapons. That represents a change in party policy. But it has come about under intense pressure from the British, Irish and US governments. And it is accompanied by assurances that if the terms of the deal on offer are not implemented, the new institutions will be suspended. In other words, if the IRA fails to deliver on decommissioning it will not fall to Mr David Trimble and his ministers to call a halt. The governments will suspend the executive and the blame for political failure will be laid squarely at the door of republicanism.
More important than these assurances is a growing realisation within the unionist community that there can be no return to the comfortable hegemony of the past and that their long-term interests will be best served by the Agreement under the leadership of Mr Trimble. Such is the approach of the business community. And a group of 300 Protestant and Catholic clergymen lobbied this week for its implementation. An opinion poll found that 70 per cent of unionist voters in all constituencies favoured the step-by-step approach now on offer, even as the No campaign gained ground within the UUC. Of course there are doubts and unanswered questions. The bona fides of republicans are, understandably, being subjected to critical scrutiny. But, ultimately, the decision comes down to political judgment and trust in the party leader.
What is being asked of the UUC today is an endorsement of the only constructive mechanism available. There is no political alternative, other than a return to the antagonisms and sterility of the past. Council members should consider dispassionately the tactics that have been employed by Mr Trimble's most vociferous enemies. The willingness of the Rev Ian Paisley and his Democratic Unionist Party to take their seats when a power-sharing executive is established should be noted. As always for the DUP, pragmatic politics dictates final action, no matter what hyperbole may be employed at an earlier stage.
Certainty, single-mindedness and blunt speaking have, for generations, been regarded as attributes of strong and competent leadership in Northern Ireland. But saying No - and little else - has damaged the unionist cause in recent years. Mr Trimble, as an increasingly skilful politician, has learned that lesson and worked to shape the political agenda. He recognised that old certainties cannot survive in a society in flux, no matter how much some people might wish it. That was the core message of the Belfast Agreement, signed by the two governments and the pro-Agreement political parties some 19 months ago. It was an accommodation overwhelmingly endorsed by the people of this island in separate referendums. Since then, differences and disagreements over timing and the sequencing of events have bedevilled political progress. The opportunity now exists to put the Agreement back on track.