Dan Keenan, Northern News Editor, assesses the value to the peace process of yesterday's IRA statement of apology
How one views yesterday's IRA apology to families of "non-combatants" killed and injured by it depends on where one stands.
The republican movement insists the statement is significant. Unionists are sceptical, in varying degrees, and have never put much faith in IRA words. The two governments will see the apology as helpful both in terms of timing and content.
The statement acknowledges that the deaths of innocents flowed from the IRA's actions, not just in Belfast on July 21st, 1972 - which came to be known as Bloody Friday after nine people were killed by IRA bombs - but throughout 30 years of the Troubles. It further states that the approaching 30th anniversary of that day, with its lingering images of the mutilated being shovelled away while further explosions rocked the city, is the appropriate time to make amends. Consequently it offers "sincere apologies and condolences" to the families of all the non-combatants killed and injured by the IRA.
In a key section of the statement, the IRA says: "The future will not be found in denying the collective failures and mistakes or closing minds and hearts to the plight of those who have been hurt. That includes all of the victims of the conflict, combatants and non-combatants."
Clearly looking to the future, and to a place for republicans in it, the IRA's words remain tinted with justification of its campaign.
There is no apology for the killing of combatants, nor is there acceptance that what happened on Bloody Friday was wrong - only recognition that innocents died as a result of that "IRA operation".
In this, it is similar in tone to the apology offered by Gusty Spence at the announcement of the loyalist ceasefires in October 1994. He offered sympathy to relatives of the innocents, and left it at that. Nearly eight years later, the IRA has done the same.
Downing Street officials insist they knew nothing of the IRA statement until shortly before it was released. Perhaps their claims should be viewed against a backdrop of increasing pressure on the peace process. Violence in Belfast, Castlereagh, Colombia and murders of alleged drug dealers have placed further strain on the Belfast Agreement and pushed unionists to demand a clearer line from No 10 as to what precisely constitutes a ceasefire.
Aided by the Tory spokesman on the North, Mr Quentin Davies, unionists were attempting to turn up the heat on Dr John Reid in the Commons last night on precisely this issue. At the same time, Mr Tony Blair is considering a statement, now expected next week, in which he will outline what is and what is not an IRA cessation.
No matter how much some unionists dismiss the apology, there can be little doubt that the burdens of Dr Reid and Mr Blair became noticeably lighter when the statement was released.
While Mr David Trimble has been able to see off recent tackles from his own truculent MPs, the state of the Ulster Unionist leadership in the face of looming Assembly elections and falling confidence among unionist voters is alarming both governments.
In that context last night's statement was particularly welcome. It can now be laid alongside two acts of decommissioning by the IRA and the words of Belfast's Somme-commemorating Lord Mayor, Mr Alex Maskey, as further evidence of progress in the transition to constitutional politics.
But this is proving to be a long transition and the timescale is worrying many on both sides of the Irish Sea. As is normal with IRA statements of good intent, there is always scope for unhappy and suspicious unionists to attack. This they have done - some of them.
For those who believe no transition to acceptability is possible, this statement is little more than a further example of deplorable cynicism from a bunch of late-in-the-day political converts who will do just about anything to purchase legitimacy.
But dismissing such concerns as the predictable rantings of unionist nay-sayers won't wash much longer.
The Belfast Agreement achieved what it could, but fudged what it couldn't. One such fudge was the issue of the IRA campaign: was the war really over or was the cessation a tactic to facilitate the gaining of further political clout? For many unionists that question lay unanswered in Castle Buildings on Good Friday 1998, and remains unanswered now. Talk of transition is wearing thin and grating dangerously on the nerves of those ordinary unionists whose votes will be needed next May to sustain this process.
The carefully chosen words in the IRA statement also hint at the task facing republicans. "We remain totally committed to the peace process and to dealing with the challenges and difficulties which this presents."
If this includes republican challenges and difficulties, then there is hope that this statement will preface further peace-making efforts.