THE New York Times is warning Britain against requiring "a lengthy delay" in responding to what it calls the IRA's "truce proposal".
An editorial headlined, "The IRA edges toward a truce" says Britain "is right to demand that the IRA demonstrate a commitment to non-violence". The editorial advises this "should not require a lengthy delay in responding carefully but positively to the truce proposal.
"To needlessly squander what looks like a promising new opening for peace would not serve the interest of anyone, least of all the war-weary people of Ulster".
The editorial says the British government and the "Ulster Protestant" parties are right to insist on assurances that a new ceasefire will be more durable than the last one, and not simply a tactical move to get Sinn Fein into talks".
Sinn Fein will have to accept Senator George Mitchell's compromise formula on the timetable for paramilitary groups to surrender their weapons.
The editorial says the approaching holiday period "provides an opportunity to test the sincerity of the IRA proposal". "Sinn Fein "could be allowed to meet during the holidays with the British and Irish governments and all Northern Ireland political parties, Roman Catholic or Protestant".
By the time regular talks resume early next year, "it should be clear whether the IRA ceasefire is dependable and durable". While unionist parties might initially refuse to sit with Sinn Fein, "if the ceasefire proves real, public opinion in Ulster, which strongly favours peace, would eventually drive them back to the table," the editorial says.