A little more than two weeks after Omagh, a tentative optimism has re-emerged in the task of establishing Northern Ireland's new democracy and securing a complete and lasting peace. Alongside it, there are disquieting tinges of doubt as to how the threat of violence is to be countered in both jurisdictions.
The Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister have let it be understood that they have a strategy to bring Sinn Fein and the unionists around the table to shape the proposed Executive. It is assumed that it will be up to Mr Ahern to secure movement from Sinn Fein and that it is for Mr Blair to work on the unionists. There is no magic formula which bypasses the need for both parties to compromise. It may be that the visit of President Clinton will help to create the context in which such movement can begin.
The process of prisoner releases in the North which starts next week will see up to 17 convicted men go free immediately. For unionists it will be another galling concession. But the return of these men to their communities will represent a significant triumph for the Sinn Fein leadership. It will offer a timely opportunity for Mr Adams and his senior colleagues to make the long-sought declaration that the era of Provisional violence is finally ended. That, in turn, could afford Mr Trimble some political space to open dialogue with Sinn Fein on its role within a future Executive. If it takes the President of the United States to bang heads together to achieve this momentum then so be it.
This week will also see the Oireachtas and the Westminster Parliament recalled to pass the packages of emergency legislation. That the measures will pass into law is not in doubt. Yet among some commentators, in some legal circles and possibly among some politicians, a hesitancy has grown with each passing day which has been reinforced by declarations of ceasefires and rumours of ceasefires. It follows a logic which says that stern security measures should be eschewed because they are likely to create sympathy for those against whom they are directed. And, as Mr Martin McGuinness stresses, there have been so many miscarriages of justice there is a risk that the innocent may suffer with the guilty.
These are not spurious considerations. But they do not outweigh the necessity of providing both jurisdictions with the legal and security instruments which will ensure that there cannot be another Omagh. It would be reckless and naive to assume that even in the aftermath of ceasefire declarations there may not be another fascist rump willing to bomb innocent civilians or assassinate key figures. It is essential that the democratically-mandated security forces have the powers to take such people out of circulation. Mr Trimble's fear that the proposed legislation may not prove itself "judge-proof" cannot be dismissed. If there is a weak link in what is proposed it is that Mr Blair has balked at restoring the capacity to intern without trial. At present the argument for internment is not proven and its implementation would carry risks. But a time and circumstances could develop in which it would be the lesser of two evils.
Powers such as these are unwelcome in any democracy. But it is essential that they are available - if not for use at this time. Mr Bruton is on firm ground in criticising those in office for not responding earlier as the `Real IRA' campaign of car-bombing got under way. But the Government has shown courage and resolution with these measures and wisdom in providing that they will lapse in two years unless renewed.