The joint paper by the two governments on a road map for the future of the Northern Ireland peace talks is a grave disappointment. It is clearly not as far-reaching as the Framework Document and contains within it the potential to cause major problems for the IRA ceasefire.

The best spin being put on it is that it was done to assuage unionist fears and, in particular, to keep the Ulster Unionist leader, Mr David Trimble, sweet on the talks. In fact, one source close to the peace process called it "a saucer of milk" put out for Mr Trimble to keep him engaged in the process.

While the Government has denied there is any clear bias in the document, the headline in the London Times, "Future As Seen By Blueprint Decidedly Orange", is seen as an accurate reflection.

The fact that Mr Trimble had a private meeting with the British Prime Minister, Mr Tony Blair, on its contents; that it was leaked to the pro-unionist Daily Telegraph on Saturday; and that the Northern Secretary, Dr Mo Mowlam, allegedly gave details of it to loyalist prisoners to induce them to stay in the Stormont talks give it a clear pro-unionist bent.

Certainly, Mr Trimble was not slow in showing his satisfaction, saying he had got rid of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and replaced it with a document far more friendly to his aspirations.

But did it have to be so? Did the Government surrender vital ground which will be very difficult to recoup in the weeks and months ahead?

One of the cliches of the talks process has been that only the British government and Sinn Fein take every word seriously which is written down in documents. Given the British tendency to analyse every phrase, it is clear that they will regard this document as a foundation stone for what lies ahead.

Equally, Sinn Fein will find very little satisfaction with this document. It is a considerable step back and while it has not voiced its dismay publicly, it is clear from private conversations that it now sees a very rocky road ahead.

The paper comes at a time when the 32-County Sovereignty Committee is seeking to gain maximum advantage, and attempting to bring over discontented Sinn Fein supporters. This document serves as a recruiting poster for it. It is clear that the 32-County Sovereignty Committee could develop an armed wing. It would be a serious mistake to underestimate its potential if the talks bog down.

There has also been a tendency to assume that Mr Gerry Adams and company continue to be in complete charge and that the IRA ceasefire is rock-solid. That has proven to be the case so far but, given that the two ceasefires were heavily based on the Framework Document, the different emphasis in this new paper is a troubling sign.

Why did the Government move away so decisively from the Framework Document specifically in three key areas: the totality of relationships; executive cross-border bodies; and the equality agenda?

The Framework Document, which underpinned the IRA ceasefires, promised specific cross-border bodies with executive powers. The new document is nowhere as explicit. The language is fuzzy. "A North/South ministerial council to bring together those with executive responsibilities in Northern Ireland and the Irish government in particular areas. Each side will consult, co operate and take decisions on matters of mutual interest."

Effectively, that is already the case with the Maryfield Secretariat in Belfast composed of Irish and British civil servants, and the frequent meetings of ministers from both governments which were established by the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

The Government currently has purely a consultative - as opposed to an executive - role in Northern Ireland. The new language does not make it clear that this will change. The Framework Document had clearly established the principle of Dublin having executive as well as consultative powers in decisions.

Some of the other language of progress from documents over the past decade or so, for instance, is also compromised. The "totality of relationships" is a phrase long interpreted as referring to the all-Ireland dimension of the problem of Northern Ireland. But in the new document it has been neutered to include relationships between the British and Irish governments, the Northern Ireland administration and the devolved institutions which are currently being established in Scotland and Wales.

Mr Trimble, not unreasonably from his perspective, calls it a Council for the British Isles. What it seems to be is a useless talking shop.

Then there is the strange use of the words "equity of treatment" where the more robust term "equality of treatment" should have been used for the section dealing with confidence-building measures.

Equity is defined as something that is "just, impartial and fair". Just or fair treatment is not the same as equal treatment. In fact, the term "equity of treatment" has no meaning whatever in the context of confidence-building measures.

This document, by leaning so far in the unionist direction, has compromised a delicate balance. What is needed is deep and sweeping change in Northern Ireland for a fair and equal society. This document is not a promising starting point.

There is a tendency abroad to believe that minimalist change will suffice in Northern Ireland. In this scenario, each side can get by with minimal changes to existing structures. This is what this document seems to suggest. It would be a grave mistake, however, to believe that such minor changes would succeed.

It is customary that the British view whatever paper they agree with the Irish Government as their high-water mark in negotiations. In this context, what is currently on the table could be negotiated downwards for nationalists. That scenario would be disastrous on this occasion. The Government needs to negotiate back to the Framework Document and beyond if there is to be any chance of a long-term peaceful settlement.

Tweaking at the edges, which is what this document purports to do, will just not work.

Niall O'Dowd is the founding publisher of the Irish Voice newspaper in New York