It is a sign of how far republican leaders have travelled towards constitutionalism that most observers were stunned by yesterday's IRA statement.
The new IRA ceasefire; the suspension of punishment beatings; Sinn Fein's expression of sympathy after Princess Diana's death; the abandonment of a "united Ireland or nothing" stance and Gerry Adams's comments that he was seeking to "renegotiate the Union" had all combined to suggest that republicans were serious about peace.
Now the clouds of doubt have returned. Sinn Fein politicians were not taken unawares by the announcement. The interview with the Provisional spokesman appeared in An Phoblacht, Sinn Fein's weekly newspaper. It would have been endorsed by the IRA's ruling Army Council and all senior Sinn Fein figures would have been aware of its publication in advance.
That does not mean they approve. Sinn Fein leaders realise the statement will increase distrust of their intentions and cost them the moral high ground, for a time anyway. However, unity is all-important in the republican movement and the IRA's comments are primarily aimed at its own grassroots.
There is increasing dissatisfaction with the peace process among the republican base, particularly in Border areas. Some dissidents have defected to the Continuity IRA, which pledges allegiance to Republican Sinn Fein. The IRA statement will help mollify some militants and reassure them that a "sell-out" is not on the cards. Ever since Sinn Fein signalled approval of the Mitchell Principles last year, there has been grave disquiet among hardliners.
Anyone signing up to the principles is effectively making a commitment to exclusively peaceful means and accepting that the status of Northern Ireland will not be changed against the wishes of a majority.
The parties agree to "abide by the terms of any agreement reached in all-party negotiations and to resort to democratic and exclusively peaceful methods in trying to alter any aspect of their outcome with which they may disagree". It is widely acknowledged that any future settlement will inevitably uphold partition. So, by agreeing to Mitchell, the IRA would effectively be agreeing to abandon its goal of Irish unity and to lay down its arms forever.
???ein can accept the principles," argues a party member in west Belfast, "because Sinn Fein has not been involved militarily in the conflict and doesn't plan to take up arms in the future either."
But the IRA's constitution, the Green Book, commits it to a 32county socialist republic and to continuing "armed struggle" until there is a British withdrawal.
Among republicans, the IRA's statement isn't viewed as a problem. Sinn Fein's national chairman, Mr Mitchel McLaughlin, yesterday said Sinn Fein and the IRA were separate organisations and couldn't be held accountable for each other's political positions.
But unionists and the British government don't see the situation like that. Sinn Fein can argue that it enters talks as a party with an electoral mandate, but everyone else views it, first and foremost, as the IRA's political wing. ein can't deliver the IRA, it's not worth talking to," a unionist politician says.
Unionists are demanding that Sinn Fein be expelled from talks, but a British government source says that, if Mr Adams "handles himself well" and reiterates his party's commitment to the Mitchell Principles when negotiations open at Stormont on Monday, the peace process might just remain on track.
So long as the IRA ceasefire remains safe, Sinn Fein might just get off the hook. However, the IRA statement signals difficulties in the longer term. How will the IRA ever be able to accept the settlement which eventually emanates from all-party negotiations if it can't even endorse the Mitchell Principles?
There are fears among many observers that, despite the IRA's current ceasefire, we are just postponing the moment of doom. Judging by yesterday's statement, the IRA leadership is still not ready to make a historic compromise.