POLITICS

It may be repugnant, but the Unionists

are not going to get a better deal

BRUCE ANDERSON

Eighteen months later, those solemn pledges which formed the basis of Unionist consent have all been violated, in two stages. Within a year of Good Friday, 'no guns, no government' had been modified to 'jump together', under which government and decommissioning would happen simultane- ously. Now, it is 'government before guns'.

There were realpolitik arguments for all these changes, but that will not commend them to the Ulster Unionists. By instinct, they approach all great issues in two ways. They begin with a moral assessment; they then take a magnifying glass to the small print. Only after an intense scrutiny which combines pedantry and moralising will they pledge themselves to a deal. That done, they regard themselves as bound, and the other parties as equally bound.

That explains the current widespread dis- may in Unionist circles. Many senior Union- ists believe that they have been duped and betrayed by a government which is cynically colluding with Sinn Fein to do them down. That is nonsense, but it is to the credit of the Ulster Unionists that they believe it. They cannot understand how any government could be quite so frivolous and light-minded in its attitude to language as the Blau gov- ernment has been. When Mr Blair looks solemn and makes promises, they assume that he either means what he says, or that he is a diabolical liar. They do not realise that he has an entirely different approach to lang- uage. He uses the words that are convenient to him at a given moment and employs all his thespian skills to give those words convic- tion. But once that moment passes, he becomes irritated when anyone quotes his words back at him. This does not mean that

he is a liar, any more than it means that he tells the truth. It is merely that Mr Blair's use of language is far more about conve- nience than about reality.

So why should Ulster Unionists trust a Prime Minister who behaves in this way? On Good Friday, they made an agreement which had many repugnant aspects. Why should they now accept a lesser agreement, which is even more repugnant?

All those objections are unanswerable. They are also irrelevant. There is one rea- son why all Unionists should accept this deal: it is the only way to secure the future for themselves, their families, their children, and their great loyal heritage. The theoreti- cal moral flaws are wholly overshadowed by the practical moral consequences, which will be beneficial. - Any Unionist tempted to oppose Mr Trimble should ask himself one question: what is the alternative? Does anyone seri- ously believe that any British government would make Ulster a better offer? Twenty- six years ago, a similar deal was struck at Sunningdale. But a general election came too quickly. Brian Faulkner's supporters were swept out of Westminster; he lost con- trol of his own party: Sunningdale fell. Twenty-six years and 3,000 deaths later, we now have Sunningdalc for slow learners. Does any serious Unionist still believe that it was right to reject Sunningdale? Do we really want to waste another generation before negotiating Sunningdale Mark III, if that would even be possible? Were the pre- sent peace process to collapse, it would be foolish to assume that anything as good as Sunningdale would ever again be on offer.

There is only one logical position for any Unionist who opposes Mr Trimble's stance: independence for Ulster. Everything else is fantasy. Some good men, such as Jeffrey Donaldson, have seduced themselves into such fantasies but, however high-minded they may think they are being, they are guilty of crass irresponsibility. If they had their Way, they would have one consolation as Ulster crumbled around them. They would be able to complain that life was unfair. Most of the Unionists who oppose David Trimble believe themselves to be acting out of con- science and are indeed honourable men. In real terms, however, they are nihilists.

It must be hard for even the most prag- matic of Unionists to embrace Mr Trim- ble's deal with enthusiasm, but there are

consolations, the first of which was announced on Tuesday, with the award ot the George Cross to the Royal Ulster Con- stabulary: a clear indication that the gov- ernment is distancing itself from Chris Pat- ten's shameful report on the RUC. Even allowing for Mr Blair's flexible approach to language, it is surely impossible for any government to honour the RUC in such a way and then propose to dishonour its name and cap-badge.

Mr Trimble has said that, once the execu- tive is established, he will press for the rapid devolution of policing powers. There would be no harm in his fellow Unionists pressing him to go further, and insisting that he com- mit himself to withdrawing from the execu- tive if the government were to attempt to implement Mr Patten's wrecking proposals

Once there is an executive, there will be many ways in which Unionists can turn it to their advantage. There will be difficulties, certainly, but 'Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.'

There are other points on which Mr Trim- ble can legitimately be pressed. Unionists are entitled to reassure themselves that there will be a binding timetable for decommissioning, and that Saturday's concessions will be the last concessions. Government before guns — but the guns must follow in short order.

Hegel is even less popular than real- politik in Ulster, but freedom does lie in the recognition of necessity. If the Union- ists are wise, they will not only support Mr Trimble on Saturday; they will do so with their heads held high. If they give the impression that their assent is a sullen pro- cession of the defeated under the yoke. they will have only themselves to blame it their enemies' gloating is insufferable.

The deal which the Unionist party will be asked to ratify is far from ideal, but ideal- ism was never on offer. It is the best that could have been achieved. David Trimble is the finest political leader now active in British politics, combining a moral emi- nence and a practical command. Any Unionist who is inclined to distrust him would be better advised to distrust his own judgment. As I write, it appears that Mr Trimble's political skills will carry the day.

But if his party does throw Ohm over, it will have no one to replace him. The Unionists will have set off into a trackless waste, leav- ing their foes triumphant and their friends desolate.