What next after IRA statement

The IRA statement confirming that a method of putting weapons "completely and verfiably beyond use" has done little to move the stalled Northern Ireland political process forward.

As BBC NI political correspondent Martina Purdy writes, the coded messages have further divided the republican movement and the unionist community on finding a way out of the current impasse.

The IRA statement, sparse as it is, has not moved the political process forward.

It merely underscores what the head of the decommissioning body, General John de Chastelain, revealed on Monday.

That is, the IRA has agreed a scheme will put IRA weapons completely and verifiably beyond use.

We note the on-going attempt in some quarters to prevent progress. They should not be permitted to succeed

IRA statement

The statement also revealed that in the past five months, the IRA representative has had eight meetings with the commission resulting in the agreement on the modalities of decommissioning.

The statement also holds out the hope of further progress - promising more meetings with the commission.

The IRA has used rather bland language in this statement.

And if republicans are seething over the Ulster Unionist Party's refusal to move forward in government on the basis of the initiative, they are not showing it.

However muted the tone, there is no mistaking the reference to the UUP when the IRA says: "We note the on-going attempt in some quarters to prevent progress. They should not be permitted to succeed."

Warning

That line is also a coded message to the government - which also escaped the usual accusing words that P O'Neill reserves for the "British Government."

This is probably because the IRA was satisfied that London, like Dublin, gave the IRA's initiative a positive response.

But the message was there, and can be interpreted as a warning against suspending the institutions.

The IRA commitment to continue meeting the de Chastelain commission will be seen as positive, but the line that follows this could be taken as a veiled warning not to take this for granted.

The IRA states that the leadership will continue to monitor political developments.

Does this mean that further progress will yield the next vital step from the IRA - the actual destruction of weapons, or at least a date for it?

Concern

Or does it mean that political developments not to P O'Neill's liking will also lead to other steps - that is P O'Neill would walk away from the decommissioning commission.

That is certainly a concern in government quarters, given that in February 2000, when the then Secretary of State Peter Mandelson suspended the institutions, the IRA withdrew its statement on arms and cut off contact with the general.

The difficulty is that suspension, elections and review appear to be the only options currently before the government.

And it seems that once again London is being pulled in two directions.

Unionists appear to favour suspension, and republicans, if they cannot have power-sharing, would prefer an election.