TO fashion a figleaf. At first it may not seem like the hardest thing to do. But think again: there s an entire drama behind the shape, colour and size of every leaf, with the wind and the sun and the soil and a thousand other often obscure factors crowding into that little piece of biological history.
So how do you replicate all that? And as a result allow yourself to achieve something which it would otherwise be impossible to get away with like walking around in public finally, essentially, naked?
That s the dilemma which is being faced simultaneously by Gerry Adams, representing Sinn Fiin and by David Trimble, representing the majority of Ulster Unionists. There is a ceasefire of sorts in place in the North. British soldiers can patrol the streets of Belfast without feeling constantly under threat from sniper fire. Old UDR men can go about their business more or less without fear. And ordinary Catholics can sleep easily at night, free of the nightmare possibility of sectarian murder.
Appalling things are still happening with horrible regularity: punishment beatings and killings are the most obvious manifestation of the fact that the paramilitaries have not gone away in spirit. But they have been moved away from the centre of the stage, and it s vital to keep them away.
To achieve that, political progress is essential but so little has been forthcoming in recent months that the possibility of a collapse into paramilitary mayhem is becoming increasingly real. On the face of it, there is no doubt as to where the responsibility for creating this dangerous impasse lies: Trimble and the Ulster Unionists are effectively attempting to rewrite the Belfast Agreement. In that document, de-commissioning was not a precondition for the establishment of an Executive with Sinn Fiin members. In attempting to make it such, the Ulster Unionists are putting the existing ceasefire(s) at risk and they must know it.
To Republicans, the refusal to create an Executive without decommissioning is like a red rag to a bull. It suggests a return to the old Unionist mantra: Ulster says no. The Sinn Fiin leadership are only too aware that if this perception takes hold at grass roots level, then all bets are off.
It would be wrong, however, not to acknowledge that David Trimble is facing real political difficulties. It would be wrong not to acknowledge the deep emotional issues which are involved for Unionists generally, and the fact that Trimble must tread carefully and in a way that takes the wounds of the past 30 years fully into account. Logically, therefore, the question must be asked: is there anything Sinn Fiin can deliver that would make his job easier?
Rather than attempting to stare one another down like boys on the brink of a schoolyard brawl, both sides might be far better employed asking a far more interesting question: who can fashion the greatest figleaf? Who has the imagination to find the cover that would allow both Republicans and Unionists to go forward, into the power-sharing Executive that the Belfast Agreement envisaged.
With a bit of orchestration, a deal could be worked out in advance. If, for example, David Trimble were to issue a statement declaring his willingness to proceed with setting up the Executive with Sinn Fiin on board, would there be anything to prevent the IRA from responding within a matter of hours by handing over a small first instalment of weapons, which would acknowledge the principle of decommissioning?
Sinn Fiin would be within their rights to remain literal and legalistic about what the Belfast Agreement requires of them. But this issue is much less about rights than it is about re-establishing momentum towards the far bigger prizes that are on offer if the Agreement, and the ceasefires on which it is founded, hold.
The alternative is too gruesome to contemplate. Do we want a return to the misery and grief and bitterness that follow the kind of appalling crimes which have littered the recent history of the North? Do we want a repeat of Enniskillen, Greysteel, Omagh or the Milltown Cemetary?
What is genuinely frightening is that there are politicians in the North whose every utterance suggests that they would indeed opt for a return to violence, rather than reaching an agreement based on compromise. It is as if victory is still more important to the likes of Ian Paisley and Peter Robinson than peaceful co-existence.
This, in the end, is what it comes down to. The British Government, all of the major political parties in the Republic, the SDLP, the Alliance Party and the Women s Coalition have opted unequivocally for peaceful co-existence. I believe that Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness and a majority within Sinn Fiin have also crossed that Rubicon. And I also believe that it is what the majority of Unionists want though they re finding it harder to accept the full meaning of co-existence in the context.
Another time, another place, I might like to extend the figleaf metaphor here and talk about fucking for peace but a humorous finale just doesn t seem appropriate. This is a time for stretching every sinew to ensure that there is no return to war.
It s time, in other words, to get weaving.