Trimble trips up the choreography but he should fear the war dance

IF Gerry Adams were to swear allegiance to the queen, join the Police Service of Northern Ireland and lead an Orange parade down the Garvaghy Road, then maybe — just maybe — David Trimble might be satisfied.

But it's highly unlikely.

Mr Trimble, obviously, has a much higher standard of credence than the rest of us.

The word of two prime ministers and that of an internationally renowned independent commission is not good enough for him.

Neither is the will of the majority of the people on this island. He, it seems, believes zealously that he is the sole arbiter of what's in the best interests of Northern Ireland.

He is right, if he and the unionists still believe that they are the rightful owners of the north-east corner of this island.

The rest of the world knows differently. Under the Good Friday Agreement, power there is to be shared and that means that the elected public representatives of the entire community are involved in the process of governing the region.

David Trimble endorsed the agreement and, in fairness to him, has contributed substantially to the progress that has been made up to now.

But he has also been responsible for putting obstructions in the path of further progress by insisting on conditions that were never included in the agreement. The debacle we witnessed this week was solely down to him.

What was billed by a spokesman for Tony Blair as "potentially the most significant day in Northern Ireland since the Good Friday Agreement" turned into a political disaster.

The announcement by the British government that Assembly elections were to be held on November 26 was supposed to have been the overture to a well-choreographed routine which would have as its finale the "most significant day."

It descended into farce because David Trimble threw away the script. Perhaps there was too much hype in advance, especially from the British side, but on the other hand the indications were that the big breakthrough could happen.

Weeks of discussion and negotiations had gone on between Adams and Trimble and there seemed no doubt that the two parties were arriving at some consensus.

At the annual conference of the Ulster Unionist Party, David Trimble, in setting out the terms on which political progress could be made, accepted that it could be achieved without IRA decommissioning being completed immediately.

He also said that what was needed was a sense that paramilitarism was coming to an end.

On Tuesday, the stage seemed set for the major production.

General John de Chastelain, head of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning, announced that the IRA had not just put arms beyond use, but the quantity was larger than they had ever decommissioned before.

What they got rid of was automatic weapons, ammunition, explosives and explosive material.

"I do want to make the point that the amount of arms put beyond use was larger I would say considerably larger than the previous event," said the general who, as a former professional soldier, obviously knows what he's talking about.

A colleague of his on the commission, Andrew Sens, said: "The material put beyond use this morning could have caused death or destruction on a huge scale had it been put to use."

Before the IRA issued their statement that weapons had been destroyed, Gerry Adams had urged total support for the political process.

He went further than he has ever gone up to now: "Sinn Féin is opposed to the use or threat of force for any political purpose. Sinn Féin wants to see the guns taken out of Irish society."

In fact, he appealed to armed groups not on ceasefire, and particularly dissident republican groups opposed to the peace process.

"I appeal to them to join with the rest of us, republican and unionist, nationalist and loyalist, in taking a leap forward together and collectively build a new future based on justice and peace," he declared.

When the IRA eventually issued their statement, it included an endorsement of what Gerry Adams had said and unequivocally declared that he "accurately reflects our position."

Everything was looking great and it seemed that the doubters who were sceptical about the "most significant" status of the unfolding events were about to be confounded.

Then the petulant Mr Trimble, for the umpteenth time, threw a wobbly. He rejected Gen de Chastelain's report on the latest act of IRA decommissioning because it lacked transparency and peremptorily put the process on hold.

An adviser to Mr Trimble said it was important that the IRA release Gen de Chastelain from the confidentiality agreement over decommissioning and if republicans were not prepared to do so, then Mr Blair should release the information.

It is incredible that unionists will not accept the word of the de Chastelain commission, which was set up specifically under the Good Friday Agreement precisely to oversee the question of decommissioning.

The Taoiseach said that the decommissioning had been substantial and significant. More importantly, he pointed out that breaching the confidentiality would run the risk of bringing the entire process of IRA decommissioning to a halt.

The unionists seem to be indifferent to the rights of others built into the Good Friday Agreement, and that their own demands take primacy above all.

The IRA invoked a clause of confidentiality which prevented Gen de Chastelain from giving precise details of the amounts of weapons and arms they decommissioned. They were entitled to do that under the agreement, and David Trimble is well aware of this.

He is also aware that since they declared their intention of going on a ceasefire, they have done exactly that, and this week was their third act of decommissioning, a process to which they are committed.

It is glaringly evident to the rest of the world that they are so committed because by destroying arms and weapons and not engaging in paramilitary activity, Northern Ireland is now a much safer place in which to live.

It must also be said that in continuing to abide by the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, they are entitled to see the political progress which they expected to happen.

Mr Trimble does not have a monopoly on the agreement. Neither is he the only one with disgruntled supporters to appease, which he does by consistently trying to impose new terms and conditions.

Some day it may dawn on him that the patience of those in the IRA is being tested too much and too often.

If it ever reaches breaking point, then his insistence on putting the process on hold so often to satisfy unionists' intransigence will be a major contributing factor.