This ideological schism appeared most recently in a war of words between Senator Edward Kennedy and Northern Ireland Secretary Peter Mandelson. Kennedy wrote in the Washington Post this month that the Patten report "must not be diluted" as it is "the compromise" on requirements for future policing structures. He drew attention to the flaws in the UK's pending legislation, specifically the curtailed powers of the Policing Board and the Oversight Commissioner, and the lack of neutral names and symbols for the new force. Mr. Mandelson quickly responded that Kennedy was "out of touch," "out of date," and that he "sees everything in Northern Ireland through the spectacles of one side alone."

In the aftermath of Mandelson's rebuke, Kennedy can take solace in the knowledge that if he is "out of touch" so is President Clinton, the Democratic and Republican parties, the U.S. House of Representatives, members of Parliament and the Irish government, the Patten Commission itself, and respected human rights organizations. All have publicly urged full implementation.

The diagnosis, of course, is that these individuals and organizations are not "out of touch." Rather, they represent august international opinion that appreciates the Commission's deliberations and is concerned by the British government's current efforts to water down its recommendations in the interests of short term political considerations.

Amidst this debate, it is helpful to reflect on the core goals for the new police service. These were astutely described this summer by Lord Falconer of Thoroton during the House of Lords' second reading of the police bill. In his opinion, the force will need to be effective and efficient, accountable to the community it serves and responsive to its needs, representative of the community, and focused on a human rights-based approach.

The Commission's analysis to this end was thorough, rigorous, respectful, and international in composition and scope. Its report delivered on Lord Falconer's goals.

The British government's police bill (due next month for legislative finalization) has short-changed many accountability principles as envisioned by Lord Falconer, Sen. Kennedy, and others.

Of particular concern are

1. a lack of reference to international human rights standards,
   
   
2. provisions limiting the ability of the Policing Board and the Ombudsman to review ongoing police operations and to investigate police practices and policies, respectively, and
   
   
3. the reduction of the Oversight Commissioner's role to merely overseeing changes already proposed or decided by the government.

In essence, Patten's balanced prescription for change has been compromised in efforts to retain powers for the Secretary of State and the Chief Constable, and to hand out political plums as the peace process stalls.

It is also well to reflect on Lord Desai's reminder that the Commission was mandated by the Good Friday Agreement, "an international agreement ... signed not just by the UK Government but also by the Government of the Republic of Ireland and the active support and presence of ... the United States." In that light, the failure to implement Patten will be a disaster on many levels.

First, without a Patten-blueprinted new police beginning, future Northern Ireland generations will be doomed to flaws in the new force's transparency, accountability, and composition. Second, a ripple effect will be felt by the people of Ireland and England, who, out of a mixture of apathy and weariness, want the nightmare of the Troubles to be consigned to the past. Without proper policing changes, however, a linchpin to Northern Ireland's divide will still be in place.

Failure regarding Patten will also have international ramifications. Given the tremendous efforts of President Clinton, George Mitchell, and others on Northern Ireland issues, and the anticipated contribution of new Oversight Commissioner Tom Constantine, many informed Americans will justifiably question the merits of this involvement if the British government fails to get the job done right on policing. If this occurs, the perception in the United States, Ireland, and abroad will be that the UK failed to live up to its end of the GFA bargain.

If current trends continue, the UK will reap what it sows. It will accomplish the ephemeral benefits of passing the bill, assuaging Tory and Unionist concerns, and providing succor to David Trimble's embattled efforts to lead moderate Unionism. However, long after current political leaders are gone, the new police force will be serving a future generation in Northern Ireland. If its defects, as currently proposed, are not quickly remedied, the past will be prologue.

Publisher: James J. Brosnahan, Esq.-Brosnahan is a senior partner with Morrison & Foerster llp. He is a former president of the San Francisco chapter of the Irish American Bar Association. As a trial lawyer, he traveled to Northern Ireland in 1996. In 1999 he returned there as part of a Lawyers Committee for Human Rights investigative mission. This year, on behalf of the National Institute for Trial Advocacy, he visited Belfast to teach trial procedure to Northern Ireland lawyers. He has attended high-level discussions at the White House regarding Northern Ireland affairs.

Editor: Dan VanDeMortel-VanDeMortel is a paralegal with Morrison & Foerster llp, SanðFrancisco. He has traveled to Northern Ireland with the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights and has volunteered for the Committee on the Administration of Justice (a Belfast-based human rights organization). He regularly writes about Northern Ireland human rights topics.

Assistants: Judy Burgin, Leslie Cassidy, Molly Feerick, Steven Frankenstein, Richard Gilbert, Danny Ngan, Hank Roberts, Tessa Robinson, Sylvia Sequeira, Cecily Shores, Patricia Stich Regan, Jean-Luc Szach, Helen Wentz, Mary Whitten