It is, of course, preferable that the parties to the Belfast Agreement should talk on rather than abandon their marathon dialogue, due to resume again today. But even the campaign-hardened veterans of Castle Buildings have to stop some time. They must emerge over the coming days either with an agreed formula to enable an executive to be formed or admit to the people who gave them their electoral mandate in May of last year that they have failed, at least for the present. The talks chairman, Senator George Mitchell succeeded over recent days in imposing a high degree of confidentiality, thus leaving commentators guessing as to whether or how business is being done. A protective cloak of secrecy is probably essential if any emerging solution is not to be strangled at birth by reactionary elements on either side. But the suspicion will also grow in an extended information vacuum that the debate remains in stasis and that the parties are seeking to secure a so-called "soft-landing" while trying to avoid blame for the continuing deadlock. There are reports that the atmosphere has improved, that personal relationships have grown more trusting and that unionists and Sinn Fein members are coming to a better appreciation of each other's positions. Sir Reg Empey was forthright during the week in acknowledging the republican movement's "difficulties" with decommissioning. Sinn Fein spokesmen have dropped much of their accusatory rhetoric against David Trimble and appear to be more willing to accept his bona fides when he says he wants the executive to be formed and Sinn Fein ministers to be part of it. None of this is necessarily surprising. The phenomenon of one-time opponents bonding in a negotiation process is well-documented and it must be welcomed if it is taking place at this time.
Sinn Fein's leadership has brought the republican movement a great distance with considerable political skill and with no small degree of courage. David Trimble and his lieutenants have similarly shifted middle-ground unionism from the hopeless isolationism of the Molyneaux years, also displaying skill and courage. If both sides now recognise how far the other has come and if they are agreed on the common goal of bringing the institutions into being, then there has been measurable progress. But the fundamental problem remains. Participation in government cannot be accorded to those who remain linked to a paramilitary organisation which is neither willing to put its weapons beyond use nor to declare that it abjures the use of violence. Sheer exhaustion and weariness can be dangerous near-neighbours to desperation. There are some who say that a blind act of unqualified faith is now called for, that Sinn Fein should be admitted to government with the hope that the guns will rust in the ground. Republican leaders speak of their people being unable to make the psychological leap to seeing the IRA disarmed. They say that Sinn Fein cannot speak for the IRA and must not be politically penalised for the IRA's intransigence. It is, of course, tempting for supporters of the peace process to put away their last reservations and to buy into this position. But that temptation must be resisted. The inconvenient truth that Sinn Fein and the IRA are part of the one organic whole must not be cast aside. And while republicans have to face a psychological barrier in seeing the IRA disarm, they might be reminded that the greater majority have already had to make the psychological leap of freeing men who have bombed and shot innocent civilians and assassinated unarmed gardai and members of the security forces in both jurisdictions. The burden of compromise rests with the republicans. If they cannot respond to the challenge, the process remains at a standstill.