SENATOR Mitchell's cool and finely judged exercise in the art of the possible poses an acute challenge to the core philosophy of traditional militant republicanism.
Can this deep rooted tradition finally face up to the reality indeed ultimate necessity of fundamental change, contemplate the step by step dismantling of the trappings of war and agree to unite behind its skillful political wing in the pursuit of its basic objectives by peaceful, democratic means?
It is indeed a painful question for the traditionalists, those who believe that prolonged subjection to oppression and injustice confers a right on those so oppressed to respond in kind.
Can they accept that the night to take up arms in such circumstances (a right maintained by most democratic societies) is not open ended but must continually be reassessed and re evaluated, and that if an opportunity presents to try unarmed struggle in pursuit of unfinished business, there is a deep ethical obligation to attempt it?
Can they even accept moral considerations aside that new circumstances, both national and international, may actually have created powerful new opportunities to advance by exclusively non violent means a cause perceived as just?
For constitutional nationalists there is no problem and no issue here. For Sinn Fein, acceptance of the six principles in the Mitchell report should be feasible (with one or two fine points of difficulty which could cause serious problems).
But for the IRA there are major obstacles in this formula. It raises sharply once again certain key questions. Is the IRA accountable to Sinn Fein, or is Sinn Fein accountable to the IRA? Does the tail wag the dog, or vice versa?
Is the highly successful political campaign of Sinn Fein, which has focused and internationalised the Irish question, the primary force which now drives republicanism? Or do the proponents of armed struggle carry the real power?
Republicans and nationalists alike will he looking closely at the parliamentary response of the British Prime Minister to the Mitchell report. It will be judged churlish, insensitive and ungenerous in limiting the future to two narrow options prior decommissioning, or elections to a negotiating body.
Both have been vigorously rejected by republican spokesmen. The SDLP, through Mr John Hume, has vehemently opposed the elected body concept, and this certainly explains his sharp reaction from? Major in the Commons.
Senator Mitchell's report, after all, had merely noted the idea of an elected body. In a carefully qualified comment, the report said "If it were broadly acceptable, with an appropriate mandate, and within the three strand structure, an elective process could contribute to the building of confidence."
While the tone of the British Prime Minister's statement may have been dictated by considerations of domestic political expediency, he may well have blunted the powerful moral and rational force of Senator Mitchell's report by his very limited interpretation of the options it presented.
It could be argued that the full leverage and political potential of the Mitchell recommendations could have been realised if Mr Major had chosen to push the situation actively forward towards all party talks.
A decision, even in principle, to do just that on foot of the Mitchell report would place enormous pressure on Sinn Fein to affirm its commitment to the six Mitchell principles so that the party could rightfully claim a place at the table. By extension, such a commitment by Sinn Fein would also call the unionists' bluff and greatly weaken the logic of their basis for resisting talks.
It is inexplicable why Mr Major has chosen so precipitately to limit the options. He, or his advisers, must have appreciated that this would devalue, and even emasculate, the entire North of the International Body. Proponents of conspiracy theory will conclude that this must have been the deliberate intention a cynical and depressing scenario.
Is it now too late to take another course? The broad commitment in the Anglo Irish Joint Communique to starting all party talks by the end of February has not yet been revoked. But has it been superseded and in effect shelved by Mr Major's hasty espousal of the elections option? The interaction between the two governments in coming days and weeks will be telling in this regard.
Sinn Fein and the SDLP, of course, may choose to regard yesterday's Commons statement as largely parliamentary posturing. They could decide that the most sensible course for them would be to concentrate, regardless, on the precise recommendations and principles set out by Senator Mitchell with the aim of wholeheartedly endorsing them if at all possible.
Such a course would certainly earn maximum credibility and respect.
Unionists had much to be satisfied with a crucial report urging paramilitaries to renounce violence, and a strong pledge from Mr Major to establish an assembly.