IRA is halfway to acting and one more statement could avert crisis

It isn't possible for the peace process to collapse over decommissioning. Something that took years to put together cannot fall apart because of one issue. For that to happen would be a catastrophe of immeasurable historic proportions.

Since the Executive was set up, there has been a palpable sense of something real and deep happening. People who have attended inaugural meetings of cross-Border bodies, for instance, have marvelled at the businesslike way in which agendas have been agreed, issues isolated for intensive work, and practical views taken on the need for progress by ministers on both sides. Little bits of history are being made every day. How could it be undone at a stroke, when nobody involved wants it to be?

And yet it's just possible, because the one issue everyone felt would be dealt with by time, tolerance and trust has to be rushed now.

Decommissioning is an issue where there is a choice between a quick answer and a right answer. I accept the bona fides of those who need a quick answer, and I think I understand, a little bit, the psychology of those who say we have to wait for the right answer.

David Trimble imposed this deadline when he was standing with his council at the edge of a cliff. They were afraid if they jumped, they would plummet straight down. He offered his post-dated resignation to give them the courage to jump. It was a brave and decisive thing to do at the time, a gesture that deserves a brave and decisive response now.

However, on the other side, those who have been trying to persuade the IRA to start the process of decommissioning know they are dealing with an entity to which nothing makes sense if the word "undefeated" is taken away from them. In their terms, 30 years of struggle are wasted if they have to hand over a single bullet to the enemy. I can remember not thinking too much about it the first time I heard the word "decommissioning" used in its present context. It was, after all, put forward first as one of a number of "tests" that the IRA could choose to pass if they wanted to show their good faith as peacemakers. The third test of three, put forward in a speech by Secretary of State Mayhew. The concentration on just one of those tests and its elevation to a principle was so immediate that any other measure of goodwill was forgotten.

If, for example, Mayhew had called for the guns to be silent for three years, that test would have been passed with flying colours. If he had called for Sinn Fein's constitution to be changed to end the policy of boycotting democratically elected assemblies, that test would have been passed. If he had called for Sinn Fein to refrain from campaigning actively against the repeal of Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution, that test too would have been passed.

Other tests they might not have passed so easily. If they give up some Semtex now (although I don't believe they will do it at anyone else's behest), we will all breathe a sigh of relief. And no one will ask whether they are still sanctioning punishment beatings, or still training and recruiting members. It's crazy in a whole lot of ways. But we're in this situation because people of good will had to leave one final fudge. That's the point we have arrived at now.

Or almost. I still believe it is possible for David Trimble to accept a clear statement from the IRA that it will begin the process of decommissioning and deliver on its moral side of the bargain by the deadline set out in the Good Friday agreement. He knows that insisting on "product" now is the one sure way of not getting any. He knows too (and so do Sinn Fein and the IRA) that if they cannot get over this hurdle, the only winners will be the people who want to see the back of Trimble within unionism, and the people who blew up a hotel in Fermanagh on Sunday night.

If the entire process is put on ice, we will be looking at the ultimate stalemate. Unionists, with a totally undermined leadership, will not be able to go back in until decommissioning has occurred. It will never happen under direct rule. Everybody involved knows that. If the hard men win, everyone else loses. And no one has any way of knowing, in these uncharted waters, exactly what we are heading for.

That's why I assume that public servants such as Paddy Teahon, Dermot Gallagher and Tim Dalton are working around the clock. Their efforts have undoubtedly contributed already to two recent statements by the IRA in which that organisation has used language I haven't heard before.

The first statement referred, as I recall it, to the IRA seeing itself as no threat to peace and to their desire for a "permanent peace". (Do you remember how their failure to use the word "permanent" led John Major into months of delay after the first ceasefire?) The most recent statement acknowledged for the first time that decommissioning needed to be dealt with in an acceptable way and was a "necessary objective of a genuine peace process". It emphasised, however, that the issue could not be dealt with on unionist or British terms. Whether we like it or not, that's the bottom line for republicans.

Unionists have said the IRA needs to answer two questions to Gen de Chastelain's satisfaction. The first is "will you decommission?" The second is "when?"

The reality is that if David Trimble had an entirely free hand, he would be prepared to accept that he has an answer to the first question in the most recent statement. Decoded, the answer is yes. But Trimble doesn't have the freedom to accept that as it stands. He needs a clear answer to the second question, and the only answer so far available in IRA code is "we'll start decommissioning when we're ready, not when you are."

In the short time left before the legislative wheels start grinding in Westminster, all efforts are being bent towards removing the last bit of ambiguity inherent in the IRA's public position. It shouldn't be that difficult - if an organisation recognises the necessity for acting, surely they are more than halfway to acting? But, alas, this is much more about history and psychology than about language.

IT ought nevertheless to be possible to reconcile history and language. It could happen - if the IRA were to issue one more statement which built on the words it has already used, referred again to the necessity of decommissioning, explained clearly that the IRA, which now saw itself as posing no threat to peace, nevertheless understood the sense of threat felt by others; in that spirit, and in line with the progress already made in its dealings with the International Body on Decommissioning, if it stated it was prepared to meet again with the IBIC to outline a clear and certain timetable by which to put unneeded weapons and material beyond use.

Such a statement would enable the wheels to stop grinding. It would enable an independent judgment from David Trimble and his allies, and would place the onus back on them to make a judgment.

One act of vision and generosity, of the sort called for by John Hume in this newspaper yesterday, would transform the situation. In my view, it can be expressed in words for now. If we let this last opportunity slip, any form of words will be too little too late.

Fergus Finlay is a public relations consultant and former adviser to the former tanaiste, Mr Dick Spring. He was a member of the government team that drafted the Downing Street Declaration and the Joint Framework Document which led, in turn, to the Belfast Agreement.