In a brave article in last Sunday's Observer which, we were told, was written by Tony Blair during the last days of his holiday in France, the British Prime Minister made a passionate plea for the pursuit of the political process in Northern Ireland, rather than any "quick fix" security reaction to the terrible tragedy in Omagh.
In a telling passage Mr Blair wrote: "Yes, the group behind this bombing are small and the names of many are known to us. In a world dominated by terror, yes, we could, to use the parlance `take them out'. But our country is built on the values of democracy. We are winning the argument, which is why more and more people are opting for peace."
It is important that this point, that settling argument by democratic means lies at the heart of the peace process, has been put so firmly on the record. For Mr Blair has been attacked by both sides this week for the new, tough emergency measures introduced in response to Omagh partly, it seems, in response to those already decided in Dublin.
Human rights groups in the North have joined with Sinn Fein in accusing the Prime Minister of overreacting in a way likely to prove politically counterproductive. On the other hand, Mr Blair has been severely criticised, not least by David Trimble, for failing to match the severity of the measures introduced by the Government of this State. But, in refusing to go down the road of reintroducing provisions for the use of internment, Mr Blair may have given us his finest hour to date in nurturing of the peace process.
We have been here so many times before. Whenever there has been a particularly ghastly atrocity, the call has gone up for internment. On at least one occasion the Irish Government argued for its introduction, but desisted when it was made absolutely clear that the British regarded the use of it in Northern Ireland as a disaster which they had no intention of repeating.
Whatever about the moral debate, the same pragmatic arguments apply. The situation in the two parts of the island is very different in terms of people's confidence in the police and the administration of justice. Different approaches are needed. If anything, the worry must be that Mr Blair, in an understandable desire not to be seen to lag badly behind Dublin, has gone too far.
What we will have next week, if the new measures are passed as swiftly as everyone expects, will be a form of internment available on the word of a senior police officer. There are considerable doubts as to whether this will work, even here.
Writing in this newspaper last week Gerard Hogan made the point that there has been a reluctance on the part of the courts to convict on such evidence alone. Any such convictions in the future are likely to face formidable constitutional challenges. He suggested that the "open honesty of selective internment" might well be preferable to measures which undermine the criminal justice system and carry the risks of miscarriages of justice, police brutality and forced confessions.
The same point was made to me, very strongly, almost 20 years ago by a senior member of the Northern Ireland judiciary who believed it had been a grave mistake for judges in the North to agree to preside over the Diplock courts (which replaced internment), and that public confidence in the legal system had suffered seriously as a result.
At least in the Republic the argument can be made that the Garda and the courts command the confidence of the majority of the public. In the wake of the deaths in Omagh there is almost certainly overwhelming support for tough measures against those who planned and planted the bomb. But this carries its own dangers. Last week we saw a public mood which could have easily resulted in extremely ugly vigilante methods being used against Bernadette Sands McKevitt and her partner, although they have denied any connection with what happened at Omagh and have not been charged.
It is the pressure of public opinion on the police which leads to miscarriages of justice. But a major objective of any new measures must be to ensure that they do not create new innocent victims and thus, almost inevitably, a groundswell of support within what Gerry Adams calls "the republican family". This is true of the `Real IRA', which has already shown it can recruit support in this State.
The situation is even more fragile in the North. The Belfast Agreement devotes a considerable proportion of its 35 pages to considering issues of human rights, policing, the legal system and the administration of justice in Northern Ireland. It recognises candidly that both the RUC and, to a lesser extent, the courts do not command the confidence of the nationalist community and puts forward wide-ranging proposals for the development of a police service "that can enjoy widespread support from the community as a whole".
Against this background, the single step most likely to damage attempts to improve the image of the RUC, and to build sympathy for dissident republican groups, would be for the new measures to be used in a heavy-handed fashion against possible suspects. Tony Blair has assured us that this will not happen, but past experience is not reassuring.
One of the major objectives of the Belfast Agreement is to create a society in which human rights - giving that broad phrase a quite precise meaning in terms of political, religious, social and sexual equality - would be cherished in both parts of Ireland, with a respect often lacking in the past. That is why Dublin and London agreed to set up human rights commissions in both parts of Ireland, and a joint committee of representatives from each of these to consider issues affecting the island as a whole.
Even before the tragedy in Omagh, concern had been expressed by trade unions and other groups in Northern Ireland that the British government in particular was pulling back from commitments contained in the agreement on human rights and the equality agenda.
Nobody disputes the urgent need to deal in security terms with those who were responsible for the Omagh bomb in order to ensure, if possible, that such a tragedy will not happen again. But the only certain way of achieving this is for people to be persuaded, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that progress can be achieved through the political process.
If one hopeful image has emerged from Omagh, it has been that of ordinary people and politicians coming together as never before to express that conviction. As Tony Blair put it: "We are winning the argument, which is why more and more people are opting for peace." It is that, rather than the use of repressive legislation, which will secure the peace.