North Ireland Peace Efforts Losing Steam : Talks: Momentum of Clinton visit fades in deadlock over IRA refusal to surrender arms.

What a short honeymoon. Less than two weeks after a visiting President Clinton swept the Irish people off their feet and buoyed the vexing peace process in Northern Ireland, angry shouts are already drowning out the cheers.

Saying it will not surrender any of its weapons, the Irish Republican Army has replied with a ferocious “no” to Clinton’s appeal for all sides to cooperate for peace.

In response, the British government is bluntly challenging the democratic credentials and long-range intentions of Sinn Fein, the IRA’s political arm.

Neither development is a good omen for an international commission headed by former Sen. George J. Mitchell (D-Maine) that will begin hearing testimony on the disarmament question in Dublin and Belfast this week, as part of a twin-track peace strategy by the British and Irish governments.

The twin-track peace plan was created to give Mitchell a chance to break a deadlock over arms that threatens the future of the IRA cease-fire amid economic and social revival in Northern Ireland.

Under the plan, political negotiations will seek an agenda for all-party talks while Mitchell’s commission tries to defuse the arms issue.

Protestant paramilitary groups supporting loyalist parties who want Northern Ireland to remain a part of Britain have indicated they would be willing to undertake at least a token surrender of arms as a preface to all-party talks.

So, savoring 16 months of peace after 25 years of bloodshed, a war-weary Northern Ireland waited for the response of the IRA, which seeks unification of the province with the neighboring Irish Republic.

And one week after Clinton, to the cheers of both communities, went to the capital of the province, Belfast, came the IRA’s response.

“There is no question of the IRA meeting the ludicrous demand for a surrender of IRA weapons either through the front or the back door,” last week’s statement said.

Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams, who has called for immediate talks at which arms would be one topic of discussion, endorsed the IRA stand.

“Disarmament is both achievable and necessary as part of an evolving peace process, but without dialogue everything’s impossible,” Adams said.

Seeking to preserve hard-won ground, the United States is downplaying the IRA hard line lest it undercut Mitchell even before his commission can convene.

“The president believes [that] in a difficult peace negotiation, you have to keep a sunny disposition,” White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry said.

But British Prime Minister John Major’s government says flatly that there can be no peace talks invitation to Sinn Fein until some arms have been surrendered.

Major, who agreed with Irish Prime Minister John Bruton to lay aside their differences on the eve of the Clinton visit, called the IRA statement “a slap in the face” to crowds who cheered Clinton’s call for peace.

“Gerry Adams had better make up his mind what he wants,” Major said. “Is Gerry Adams the man who wants to help bring peace to Northern Ireland, or is he a straightforward spokesman for a terrorist organization who continues . . . putting a bottle-neck in the way of peace?”

Loyalist political parties representing the Protestant majority in Northern Ireland say they will not negotiate with Sinn Fein while IRA arsenals are intact.

The IRA hard line appears to be a minority position. A poll published Sunday in Dublin by the Sunday Tribune said that 45% of respondents thought the IRA should surrender all of its weapons before talks; an additional 31% thought there should at least be token surrender.

Mitchell and commission members Gen. John de Chastelain, the chief of staff of the Canadian armed forces, and Harri Holkeri, a former prime minister of Finland, will meet with leaders from all sides of the Northern Ireland conflict in Belfast on Friday.

Sinn Fein leaders will meet Mitchell, but Irish radio quoted one unnamed commander as saying that the IRA was “ruling out categorically and emphatically any cooperation or participation in the panel.”