In a significant initiative, the Ulster Unionist leader, Mr David Trimble, has held out the prospect of restoring the executive in the North, provided the IRA convincingly demonstrated its commitment to exclusively peaceful and democratic means.
The former First Minister refused to go into specifics on his offer to consider a renewed attempt to reinstate the institutions suspended on February 11th, but he appealed for republican leaders to engage in genuinely serious discussions on the matter.
The UUP leader gave an extensive briefing to reporters at the National Press Club in the US capital yesterday morning under the heading, "On the Last Lap of the Northern Ireland Peace Process".
"At the moment the tactical posture of republicans appears to be one of disengagement," he said. If the institutions were to be restored, he would have to persuade his party colleagues that this time things would work.
"Inevitably people are going to say to me, `it didn't work last time, why do you think it's going to work this time?' and at the moment, I have no answer to that question."
The republican leadership had to give a clear and credible answer this time. "We can't rely as we did last time on ambiguous language; we can't rely simply on expectations or hopes."
He continued: "I am prepared to recommend to my party that we try again. I am prepared to go back to the party and say `let us have a fresh sequence', but I can't do that just simply in the abstract, I can only do that in circumstances where there is good reason to believe that this time it will work, and at the moment I am not in a position to do that.
"But it would be oh so easy for the republican movement to make it clear that it is going to work, not just putting the institutions in place and forming the executive but the fundamental assumption on which the agreement is based, namely that people who hitherto have been involved in paramilitarism and terrorism are going to put that behind them on a permanent basis, that the war is over and there will never be recourse to violence again, and to say that in a manner that carries conviction and to show by their actions that they are actually putting that into effect.
"A mere assertion which isn't reflected in terms of people's actions isn't going to carry credibility." Asked if a declaration by the republican movement that the "war" was over would be enough, Mr Trimble replied in careful terms: "Obviously it would be significant if they were, even just to say that in their view, the conflict is over."
He added that such a statement would need to have credibility, and actions spoke much louder than words. The question was an abstract one at the moment because republicans "are not saying anything to us about what they might do, what they could do, what they want to do".
Republicans had "got to get back to the table" so that the detail of a fresh sequence of events could be explored.
"There is a bit of a problem about good faith, in a situation where we thought people were dealing with us in good faith and then we found that they did absolutely nothing in the crucial period towards fulfilling the expectations that they had created.
"Now I am not going to be overly prescriptive as to how that problem is resolved but I think it is important to realise that there is a problem."
When it was pointed out that the Taoiseach believed decommissioning in advance of an executive was unlikely, Mr Trimble said: "Last November in the Mitchell review we weren't looking for arms up front. We went up front first in the expectation that they would follow. The critical thing is, if you look at a sequencing in the future, is it going to work?"
Asked if he was prepared to espouse the position that the IRA should declare that violence was finished and arms would be dealt with further down the road, Mr Trimble said: "I am not going to be specific on this." He had dealt with the matter in broad terms, the detail would have to be dealt with in discussions.
Commenting on the events surrounding the suspension, Mr Trimble said: "The IRA did convey some message to de Chastelain. What that message was I do not know, nor, I would suggest, does anybody else know except possibly the Irish Government."
The UUP had been unable to obtain clarification from Gen de Chastelain as to what the IRA meant by saying it would consider putting arms "beyond use" in the context of "the removal of the causes of conflict".
"De Chastelain said to us that he was not at liberty to add anything to the report."
Mr Trimble said the second de Chastelain report issued on the day of suspension was ambiguous. "We would need to know what the substance was." But he added: "I am afraid there is very little to go on."
He said the main reason there had been such a focus on decommissioning was that "over the years, the paramilitaries have shown no sign of disbanding, no sign of ending permanently their terrorist campaign".
The focus would have been different if paramilitary organisations such as the IRA had said in forthright terms after the signing of the Belfast Agreement: "Our campaign is over, the war, as it is called, is over, we have no intention of ever resorting to violence again, we will of course during the implementation of the agreement deal with the weapons issue and all the other issues."
In the Mitchell review, "Adams and McGuinness were saying to us that the best possible context in which decommissioning could be achieved would be if we proceeded to form the administration, have devolution and have the Northern Ireland executive up and running".