Curiouser and curiouser. That is the only way to describe the argument between Downing Street and the SDLP over the British New Year honours list. This started with the announcement that 67 people in Northern Ireland had been given awards, ranging from a knighthood for Reg Empey, one of the UUP's leading negotiators in the talks leading to the Belfast Agreement, to more humble honours for services to the disabled, youth in the community and other deserving causes.
As always, the overwhelming majority of these honours went to members of the unionist community. Individual nationalists have accepted awards, but usually when these have been given to recognise the work of some institution or charitable body. It is extremely unusual for a nationalist politician to figure in either the New Year or the Queen's Birthday honours list, although there have been obvious exceptions. Gerry Fitt is now a respected member of the House of Lords, though whether he would now consider himself a nationalist is open to question.
This year, however, Downing Street broke with tradition to let it be known that honours had been offered to nationalist politicians but had been turned down. A spokesman for Tony Blair said that in a year when a special effort was being made to recognise that many people had worked so hard for peace in Northern Ireland, the Prime Minister did not want it to be thought that honours had been offered to only one side.
That begs the question of why other unionist politicians, who worked at least as hard to achieve the Belfast Agreement, were not similarly rewarded. John Taylor, for example, or David Ervine or Gary McMichael.
The immediate revelation, that nationalist politicians had been approached, sparked off a flurry of denials and recrimination. Prominent members of the SDLP came forward to say that they had been offered no honours by the queen of England. Eddie McGrady reproached Downing Street for releasing information which was "bound to create totally unnecessary division".
Unionists accused the SDLP of hypocrisy and humbug. By signing up to the Agreement the party had "accepted the jurisdiction of HM the Queen in Northern Ireland" and this had been endorsed by the overwhelming majority of the nationalist community. By refusing to consider accepting the honours graciously offered, the SDLP, it was argued, had behaved contrary to the new spirit of peace and reconciliation.
But what awards, if any, were on offer? John Hume, sounding extremely annoyed on RTE, insisted that no member of the SDLP had been approached. He had checked with the Northern Ireland Office and had this confirmed. The party's policy is that such honours are "imperial". This, too, is the view of Sinn Fein, whose spokesman was frankly astonished at the idea that any of its members might have been approached.
Yet the idea persists, not only in Northern Ireland, that it might have been gracious on this occasion to reconsider the whole issue. Nobody, at least that I have heard, has objected to the honours given by the British government to Senator George Mitchell and his co-chairmen of the Stormont talks, Gen John de Chastelain and Harry Holkeri.
Several commentators have made the point that John Hume is, quite rightly, proud of having been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Later this month the SDLP leader will travel to Atlanta to accept the Martin Luther King Award, which is perhaps of even greater significance, given Mr Hume's lifelong commitment to the ideals of the American civil rights leader.
But there are serious political reasons, which Downing Street should understand, why the awards offered by the British government in the New Year's honours list do not fall into the same category as either the Nobel Prize or the Martin Luther King Award. It isn't simply that the British honours have an "imperial" character, as evidenced in the description of various ranks of companion to the British Empire. At least as important is the fact that the SDLP is an unashamedly nationalist party, which aspires to a united Irish republic.
The whole peace process in Northern Ireland has been structured to achieve an accommodation between two directly conflicting political traditions, unionism and nationalism. The Belfast Agreement is not designed to turn unionists into nationalists, or vice versa. Many, many weeks and months were spent to ensure that equal respect was accorded to these diverse loyalties. We still have a long way to go before the full text, let alone the spirit, of the Agreement is fully implemented, and the problem of decommissioning could still prove insurmountable.
It may be that the best the political leaders of nationalism and unionism will be able to achieve is some kind of honourable standoff, which leaves the way open for progress in the much longer term and avoids a return to violence. Bertie Ahern knows very well that both the government of this State and the SDLP could face great pressure in the coming weeks to set up the new executive and to exclude Sinn Fein, on the grounds that there has been no gesture by the IRA on decommissioning.
It is in this political context that the SDLP's anger over the New Year honours list must be considered. The primary function of that party is to represent the interests of constitutional nationalism in Northern Ireland. For 30 years it has held the line against violence and carried the majority of the Northern nationalist community with that view. Now it is likely to be engaged in an increasingly tough contest with Sinn Fein for the political leadership of that community. Thanks to John Hume's contribution to the peace process, the party performed extremely well in the Assembly elections. The SDLP leader could top the poll in June's European elections; but this cannot hide the fact that there are difficult times ahead. The SDLP leader has to decide whether to hand over completely to Seamus Mallon. There are some talented politicians in the second generation, but the party's organisation at grass-roots level does not match that of Sinn Fein.
These are some of the reasons it is crucially important that the SDLP should continue to be seen by its own community as a strongly nationalist party. It cannot afford to be perceived as having moved, as a consequence of the Belfast Agreement, to some smudgy middle ground. What is worrying is that Downing Street does not seem to have understood why this is important.