If the semantics are sorted, the peace process could be back on track . . . but then this is NI politics, writes Gerry Moriarty
There was hectic activity in Belfast, Dublin and London yesterday involving the British and Irish leaders, their Ministers and the Northern Ireland parties, and all over a simple four-letter word. Here we are talking about the W-word, not the notorious Anglo-Saxon expression.
The Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, and the British Prime Minister, Mr Tony Blair, yesterday urged the IRA - or its apparent representative, Mr Gerry Adams - to state that it "will" give up paramilitary activity, not that it "should" cease so-called punishment beatings and shootings, targeting, procuring weapons etc.
The Sinn Féin president in Omagh yesterday expressed frustration at Mr Blair indulging in a game of Scrabble over the IRA's intentions. Mr Adams said he had already delivered the W-word.
"I am told he [Mr Blair\] zeroed in on me using the word 'should'," said Mr Adams. "He said I should have used the words 'will be'. I actually used those words. I said the IRA leadership has stated its determination to ensure that its activities will be consistent with its resolve to see the complete and final closure of the conflict," he said.
Problem solved then? Hardly, especially considering the suspicious way Northern politicians, particularly unionists, parse and analyse republican statements for verbal time-bombs.
Mr Blair seemed dissatisfied with the next two lines from Mr Adams's keynote speech in Stormont on Sunday: "The IRA statement is a statement of completely peaceful intent. Its logic is that there should be no activities inconsistent with this."
Which is it, "will" or "should"? was the question from the Prime Minister yesterday morning and later yesterday from the Taoiseach. The two leaders are convinced that if this semantic confusion can be clarified, then bright blue skies will shine over the peace process.
Mr Ahern said the protagonists were within a "whisker" of a breakthrough. Viewed simply, and in light of Mr Adams's apparent indifference in Omagh to which word - "will" or "should" - was used, that would appear a reasonable and accurate observation.
It would seem inconceivable, therefore, that for the sake of a common word the chance of a political resolution might collapse. But things are never that simple in Northern politics, such is the distrust and cynicism between unionists and republicans.
That's why Mr Ahern, Mr Blair and their respective senior Ministers, Mr Brian Cowen and Mr Paul Murphy, were struggling to achieve greater clarity yesterday and will continue that struggle today.
The Taoiseach and Prime Minister believe they have clarity on two of the questions posed by Mr Blair to the IRA last week: that if the Belfast Agreement is implemented in full, the IRA war will be over, and that the IRA is committed to decommissioning all its arsenals.
The remaining question - will the IRA end all activity? - is what is causing the roadblock to agreement.
If that question is not answered by the IRA, then a question mark must hang over Assembly elections set for May 29th.
And without elections Sinn Féin would be deprived of this opportunity to establish itself as the main political representative of republicanism and nationalism, if not - and it is possible - the biggest party in the Assembly. That's a huge prize that they don't want postponed.
Would they abandon this chance for historic political gains over one word? It hardly makes sense, although it must also be borne in mind that making sense was never a natural condition of Northern political warfare.
But if republicans deliver the W-word, then the elections would seem certain, even if privately Mr Trimble opposes them.
Mr Blair is meeting the UUP leader tomorrow. If the IRA finds the proper wording, it could be a stormy encounter, especially if the purpose of the meeting is for the Prime Minister to break the news that the elections are indeed going ahead as planned.
Mr Trimble could be faced with a huge decision in the next 24 hours or so. He warned yesterday that as matters stood he would not be supporting the election of a First or Deputy First Minister to an Executive in the new Assembly, and therefore an Executive could not be formed. We would be having an election to nothing.
He also raised the interesting question about the status of Mr Adams's Stormont speech answering two of Mr Blair's three questions. The governments were happy that Mr Adams's views were also the views of the IRA. But Mr Adams is not P.O Neill, according to Mr Trimble. He wanted an IRA statement, not a speech by the Sinn Féin president. Yet the current predisposition of the governments seems to be that they would be satisfied by Mr Adams acting as proxy for the IRA leadership.
Mr Trimble was vehement that what is on the table now is not acceptable to Ulster Unionists, but he did not totally rule out signing up to a deal where he could argue that under Ulster Unionist pressure the IRA had answered Mr Blair's queries, and had demonstrated its war was effectively over.
The Taoiseach in Dublin yesterday suggested how Mr Trimble should campaign in Assembly elections. In diplomatic terms, he said he could fight on a platform that he and his pro-agreement colleagues in the UUP had achieved a remarkable political victory by persuading the IRA to effectively state it was going out of business. Mr Trimble, using language that republicans would find undiplomatic, made a similar point yesterday.
"We have dragged them \ thus far. There is not much further for them to be dragged, but we intend to see that job done," said the Ulster Unionist leader.
Therefore, should the IRA engage in some more deft linguistic manoeuvring, Mr Trimble at least could face the electorate arguing that it was his tactics that finally ended the war.