Beyond the handshake: grasping for peace in Ulster.

All the world now knows that British Prime Minister Tony Blair has shaken the hand of Gerry Adams, the very visible head of Sinn Fein, the political wing of the IRA. It was a dramatic and potentially significant moment, representing a profound reversal of long-standing British policy. But U-turns of this sort are becoming popular in Northern Ireland. The most recent ones have brought the Nationalists and Unionists to the negotiating table.

This past summer, the British army and the RUC (the Northern Ireland police) allowed a Protestant march through a Catholic area of Portadown at 4:00 o'clock in the morning, having led many to think the Orangemen would be stopped instead. The ten-hour blockade that followed kept Catholics from their local parish and three Masses had to be canceled. Finally an open-air Mass was celebrated surrounded by British army vehicles. To the soldiers and police officers, the priests offered the sign of peace, a gesture not appreciated by all members of the Catholic congregation.

The Orangemen were the next to do a U-turn: They called off their most contentious marches just before July 12, the annual celebration of the Protestant victory in 1690 at the Battle of the Boyne. Then the IRA did a U-turn by declaring a new ceasefire, their second, on July 20.

Then David Trimble, leader of the largest Unionist party, climbed on the bandwagon. Having resolutely maintained that he would not talk to Sinn Fein until actual decommissioning of weapons had started, Trimble returned in October to the talks in Belfast and sat down at the conference table with them. In doing this, he says he is not talking to Sinn Fein, but confronting and exposing them; but it looks like one more U-turn and a very important one.

Trimble has played an unusually intelligent game since the July IRA cease fire. He gave no commitment for several weeks on whether or not he would talk to Sinn Fein, and said he would have to consult widely before making a decision. He publicly met the Catholic archbishop of Armagh, Sean Brady, itself a first. During that period of consultation he convinced enough of his parliamentary colleagues that if they pulled out of the talks, the British government would impose something worse than any outcome of talks in which the Unionists participated.

By joining the negotiations, Trimble has snatched the moral high ground from Sinn Fein leader Adams, at least to the extent that Trimble has avoided the charge that the Unionists are simply negative. And he may well be able to split those who want unification with Dublin over the "principle of consent." The principle of consent was spelled out in the 1993 Downing Street Declaration and signed by the British and Irish governments. It specifies that there will be no change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland as a British territory without the consent of both the people of Northern Ireland and of the Republic of Ireland, voting separately. The largest Nationalist group, John Hume's Social Democratic and Labor Party, has also accepted the principle, but Sinn Fein has refused to do so. Its view is that only the whole people of Ireland voting together can decide the status of any part of the island.

Voting together or separately: What difference does it make? For Sinn Fein it means that the Irish will be recognized as an independent people only if they are allowed to vote together. It is for such dubious political ideals that the IRA have been killing people for years - against the expressed will of the Irish people. Nonetheless, Gerry Adams has shown great skill in persuading the IRA to accept a second ceasefire. He will need all that skill to persuade Republicans as a whole to accept the principle of consent as understood by Dublin and Hume. If Adams fails, two things are likely: Trimble will split the Nationalists and the IRA will go back to violence.

Related to the principle of consent is the issue of respect for Nationalists within Northern Ireland. This may sound vague to outsiders, but Nationalists list a series of issues where they are not treated with respect. These include the Orange marches in Nationalist areas, biased policing practices of the RUC, the need for new North-South structures which Nationalists now see as a way of recognizing their Irish identity, and the release of prisoners. These will be the main battlegrounds in the talks ahead.

The key new factor in the situation, and one that has played a part in all these U-turns, both good and bad, is the new British government. Before last June's election Tony Blair, the first Labor prime minister in fifteen years, looked like a cheap soap salesman. Since taking office he has shown himself to be determined, intelligent, and tough, and he has been greatly helped by his Northern Ireland Secretary Mo Mowlam. And unlike former Prime Minister John Major, Blair is not beholden to the Ulster Unionists for a parliamentary majority. Furthermore, the recent referenda in Scotland and Wales, in which Blair won support for devolution - a more decentralized relationship with London - suggest that the U.K. as a whole is going through a period of real change.

The British government at last seems determined to use its considerable leverage to move each side in Northern Ireland forward. For now, the picture looks very positive. Nearly all the parties are at the table. It might be risky but I would bet a few dollars that there will be a new local parliament in Belfast by this time next year. Northern Ireland will still be part of the U.K., there will be some North-South structures in areas like tourism, and Nationalists and Unionists, each with a veto, will be making most of the executive decisions in Northern Ireland - together. If this happens it will be real progress.

Brian Lennon is a Jesuit working in Northern Ireland. He is author of After the Ceasefires: Catholics and the Future of Northern Ireland (Dublin: Columba 1995). He is currently working on a book on reconciliation in South Africa and Northern Ireland.