The IRA brand name will continue to exist, even if IRA Inc ceases, writes Gerry Moriarty, Northern Editor.
On the face of its statement, the IRA now accepts that there is only one active Óglaigh na hÉireann, and its commander-in-chief is President Mary McAleese rather than the head of the IRA army council.
It is a potentially major statement which in the months ahead could put wind behind the sails of the becalmed political process.
The IRA brand name will continue to exist, of course, and those of its members who wish to remain involved must be given work to do - whether political, commemorative or genuine community activity. But, again trusting to the wording of this announcement, as of 4 pm yesterday the IRA is no longer an active paramilitary force.
If the apparent promise of this statement is matched by delivery then there is a real chance of a power-sharing government returning to Northern Ireland by the spring or autumn of next year.
With the IRA, it is always well to get the caveats in early.
Some observers have queried the legitimacy of the statement, arguing that apparently it was not sanctioned by an IRA convention. And DUP MP Jeffrey Donaldson says that unionists have too much "bitter experience" of the IRA to get over-excited. Nonetheless, this is an IRA statement with the P O'Neill imprimatur, and whatever about the arcane nature of the IRA constitution, it would be an act of monumental bad faith and betrayal were it to be reneged upon.
SDLP leader Mark Durkan said that the statement was "clear, clean and complete". Ian Paisley, in turn, complained that it lacked transparency. So which is it? The statement says from the outset: "All IRA units have been ordered to dump arms. All volunteers have been instructed to assist the development of purely political and democratic programmes through exclusively peaceful means. Volunteers must not engage in any other activities whatsoever." And, further down, it adds sternly: "Every volunteer is aware of the import of the decisions we have taken and all Óglaigh are compelled to fully comply with these orders." That seems clear.
If the statement does not mean an end to "punishment" shootings and beatings, the exiling of those the IRA deems undesirable, the spying, the targeting, the surveillance and so on, then the IRA and the dictionary it employs will lack all credibility.
The statement does not spell out a commitment to cease criminality, but that was never going to happen, because the word "criminality" is not in the IRA lexicon. However, to any reasonable person, the statement must mean an end to the robberies, the smuggling, the money-laundering - and an end to IRA Inc, so to speak.
Tony Blair was impressed with the statement: It marked a "step of unparalleled magnitude", he said. So was Bertie Ahern. "The war is over," said the Taoiseach.
Maybe this time the IRA statement should not be underestimated by way of understandable scepticism and cynicism, notwithstanding recent memories of the murder of Robert McCartney, the Northern Bank robbery and alleged multi-million-pound international money-laundering.
We are told that this was not an easy project for Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness to conclude. Some IRA members may walk away from the organisation into retirement; others of a more ideological bent may continue the "struggle" elsewhere. The numbers who plan to shift allegiance must be manageable, however. Otherwise why would Adams and McGuinness - always extremely cautious in matters relating to potential splits - have engineered this ostensibly clear and unilateral statement? The pledges in the statement must be tested over time, of course. For devolution to return to Northern Ireland, the IRA must live up to its word.
The two governments, the political parties, the security services on these islands, the decommissioning body, the Protestant and Catholic clerics who are to be witnesses to disarmament and the four members of the Independent Monitoring Commission (IMC) - the ultimate arbiters of whether the IRA is now a superannuated force - must be in a position to definitively say that the IRA is honouring its commitments.
These bodies and individuals could play a crucial role in convincing the main sceptics, the DUP and the Ulster Unionist Party, that the IRA is serious this time. Understandably mindful of what the IRA and the peace process did to his predecessor, David Trimble, the UUP leader, Sir Reg Empey, reflected initial unionist feelings when he said unionists had been "burned so many times before" and would not be conned again.
The IMC is to report on IRA activity in October and January. If both reports show that the IRA is off the scene, then it will be back to political horse-trading.
To help manage the time between now and next spring and to keep republicans sweet the governments will over the coming months deliver on issues such as demilitarisation, an effective amnesty for IRA fugitives on the run, the Irish language, human rights issues etc. There is also likely to be British government movement, possibly legislative, on policing, which is not mentioned in the statement, to help republicans make the final leap to totally acquiescing to the dispensation of the Belfast Agreement.
That could bring us up to Christmas or January, although it will take longer to fully resolve policing. After that, the serious political haggling should begin. And remember, most of this work is done. Any new deal essentially will be along the lines of the collapsed December one, when Ian Paisley, given certain conditions, was prepared to be the DUP's First Minister alongside Sinn Féin's Deputy First Minister, Martin McGuinness.
The possibility of agreement would then chiefly hinge on the Doc. We got a little of the Paisley bombast yesterday, but essentially his line was that if the IRA delivers the DUP will reciprocate. But when is the key, and will it involve additional conditions which, in republican eyes, would be tantamount to the IRA hoisting the white flag? That is what Dr Paisley was talking about last December when he demanded a ritual "sackcloth and ashes" humiliation of the IRA. That simply won't happen. And neither will he get photographs of decommissioning.
There will be lots of bumps along the way between now and next spring. But if the IRA delivers, as promised, and if Dr Paisley can put political pragmatism above his fundamentalism, then sometime next year the political ship could be sailing again.