`Ulster holds its breath as Trimble agonises," read the Financial Times headline on July 22nd, 1997. "Ulster holds its breath for guns report," read the Independent headline on January 21st, 2000. "Ulster holds its breath as clock counts down again," read the headline in Tuesday's Belfast Telegraph. It seems a great pair of lungs and the patience of a saint are primary requisites for Northern politics.
The fault lines in the present bout of political asphyxia have been too predictable. The UUP will not respond to the governments' peace process as long as no "actual" decommissioning of IRA weapons has occurred - Ulster says no.
The Rev Ian Paisley described the package as "disastrous" and called on Mr Trimble and his negotiating team to resign - Ulster says never.
The SDLP stopped short of fully accepting it - nationalists dither. Sinn Fein pledges to approach the document critically but in a constructive frame of mind - Republicans riddle.
A recent leading article in the Guardian said: "Like the worst kind of student, Northern Ireland seems addicted to the looming deadline: without the adrenalin rush of a race against the clock, the province seems unable to concentrate its collective mind."
The most disappointing thing about the current bout of rhetoric, allegation and accusation is that it has blinded the parties to the fact that so little now stands between them. Institutional stability, a commitment to the democratic process, an equitable policing system and decommissioning of arms are all very attainable now. Will they be attained? We can but wait and see. As the two nationalisms shadow-box, peace and the Good Friday agreement hang in the balance. Ireland simply can't afford to lose the agreement.
I have written here before about the extent to which the agreement is the only just means of resolving the conflict. It's up to the parties now and the extent to which they can turn away from the cul-de-sac politics of blinkered nationalisms, both Protestant unionist and Catholic nationalist.
The fact remains, the three key outstanding elements to the agreement: policing, the institutions and demilitarisation will simply have to be dealt with. The Irish and British governments' proposals contain the clear way forward on these issues.
It seems that if unionists are going to have a problem with one aspect, then nationalists must have their own problematic aspect, and vice versa. It's an age-old bargaining stance, but repetitious and at this stage without much credibility.
Furthermore, the issue of decommissioning is for the de Chastelain commission to decide upon. The general and his colleagues in the commission have decided that "based on our discussions with the IRA representative, we believe that this proposal initiates a process that will put IRA arms completely and verifiably beyond use". All other interpretations are not tenable. It's simply down to the general, who is, after all, independent. The people gave him the authority, now let us heed him and get on with it.
The Northern parties, all of them, should remove the blinkers and give the process a chance.
A couple of weeks ago while in Uganda to observe the general elections there, I was surprised to find that the political parties are actually banned there because of their role in stoking up hatred and conflict. Parties there were formed along tribal, sectarian lines and brought the country repeatedly to civil war and conflict. In a referendum last year the people actually rejected a return to a party system.
Is it a valid question to ask if the party system has failed in Northern Ireland? Is imposed direct rule or imposed joint authority the next step if the Northern parties, in refusing to look beyond narrow, parochial nationalism, fail to save the Good Friday agreement? One would certainly hope not.
We have all to start looking beyond nationalisms. It is a process which has begun, at last, in the south. In the past, I think, many of us in Fianna Fail, for example, confused republicanism for nationalism. As a result we played it down throughout the Troubles, as the forces of nationalism ripped thousands of families asunder.
The myth went around that at consecutive ardfheiseanna the text "The Republican Party" kept getting smaller and smaller. That wasn't the case although it is true to say that as the republican marque became synonymous with violent nationalism we were far less vocal in asserting it.
Post ceasefire, post Good Friday agreement, however, I think that is changing. Republicanism can now be reasserted. The 200th anniversary of the 1798 rebellion, and the work of historians such as Daire Keogh and Kevin Whelan, brought home to many of us on the island, just how republicanism can transcend the religious and social divisions on the island. In a multicultural, multi-ethnic Ireland where poverty, homelessness, inequality persists, republicanism is eminently relevant in shaping our responses. The opposite to Ireland should no longer be England, Brits and Prods, but poverty, inequality and racism.
That process, still in its infancy down here, has to occur with vigour in Northern Ireland or else those six counties will remain a political Jurassic Park.