Didn't the dogs on the street know that the IRA murdered Charles Bennett? Mo Mowlam was challenged at a brief press conference in Belfast yesterday morning. Dr Mowlam said that whatever about reporters she didn't take her advice from the dogs in the street. That was why later yesterday she met the RUC Chief Constable, Sir Ronnie Flanagan, and the British army commander in the North, Lieut Gen Sir Hugh Pike, to hear their assessment of the IRA cessation.
Neither Dr Mowlam nor the security heads divulged what was said at that meeting. But security sources have been blaming the IRA for Mr Bennett's murder. There would be great public surprise if Sir Ronnie and Sir Hugh - who would have the same information - did not name the IRA as his killers.
A little like Boyle in O'Casey's Juno and the Paycock, Mo Mowlam is today wondering, what is an IRA ceasefire? Boyle was merely trying to figure the cosmos, "What is the stars?" The Northern Secretary must deal with the greater dilemma of deciding what should be paramount, pragmatism or principle? Or can there be some middle ground? If principle were of primary importance in recent years then there would have been no Belfast Agreement. John Major and the British government in particular had to set aside principle in favour of realpolitik to deal with the IRA and help create the foundations that eventually led to the Good Friday accord.
But there's such a point as a fudge too far and Dr Mowlam may have reached it. Pragmatism has allowed real political movement but there comes a time when the moral imperative, however diluted, must apply.
The murder of Mr Bennett was a deeply cynical act. After the failure of the Way Forward document to get Sinn Fein into a new Northern executive with the Ulster Unionist Party it seems that the hardliners within the general Provisional republican movement had to be assuaged.
The murder reflects the tensions within the broad provisional republican movement, between those who want to safeguard the Belfast Agreement and those who believe that rather than advancing republicanism that it is being gradually emasculated by adherence to the agreement.
The pattern is apparent. It happens when republicanism feels it is being squeezed by unionism. Earlier this year, when the Ulster Unionist Party was refusing to budge on decommissioning, the IRA almost certainly murdered Eamon Collins, Brendan Fegan and Paul Downey.
The killings of Collins, himself a former IRA man implicated in several murders, and of Fegan and Downey, two alleged drug dealers, because of their backgrounds, did not trigger universal revulsion. These people and Mr Bennett, an alleged IRA informer, in a terrible sense were judged as expendable in that they could be murdered to satisfy the hard men that the IRA hadn't quit the scene.
After Mr Bennett's killing the IRA stated "there have been no breaches of the IRA cessation, which remains intact". When the IRA called its ceasefires it referred to "a complete cessation of military operations". So, in IRA thinking, it seems such a cessation only relates to attacks on the British army and the RUC. It does not apply to people within the nationalist community, or to "punishment" beatings and expulsions, it would appear.
It's a position Dr Mowlam could hardly accept.
The nature of the IRA killings this year is nothing new. In 1995 during the first IRA ceasefire, when unionism was also refusing to deal with Sinn Fein, the IRA using a cover name, Direct Action Against Drugs (DAAD), started killing alleged dealers. Again the level of public and political condemnation was less then deafening. And again the deal was to keep the potential dissidents on board.
After the second ceasefire the IRA finally went too far, even for the incurably pragmatic, when in February last year it murdered UDA man Robert Dougan. Dr Mowlam, with the agreement of the Irish Government, had Sinn Fein excluded from the talks - but only for three weeks. When Sinn Fein returned to the negotiations in March shortly afterwards the Belfast Agreement was signed.
Dr Mowlam is meeting Sinn Fein's chief negotiator, Mr Martin McGuinness, and some of his senior colleagues at Stormont this afternoon. She is noted for her pugnacious use of the vernacular. It should be a lively encounter.
But what is an IRA ceasefire? Reporters also addressed that question to Mr McGuinness in west Belfast yesterday. Better than most other ceasefires, was the tenor of Mr McGuinness's reply.
"I am one who has observed political and military situations all over the world - whether it be from South Africa to Vietnam to South America, all over the place, the Middle East - and the quality of some of those ceasefires would have led you to believe they were non-existent. We don't have that situation here," he said.
"In my view the ceasefire is intact. That is all we need to say about it," added the Sinn Fein MP.
This ceasefire, however imperfect, is better than no ceasefire at all, was implicit in Mr McGuinness's remarks. Dr Mowlam, Tony Blair and Bertie Ahern, and quite a number of pro-agreement unionists, however much it galls them, would probably also agree with this assessment.
THE Belfast Agreement will stand or fall on what happens in next month's review chaired by former US senator George Mitchell. If it is to work Sinn Fein must be involved. So, pragmatism or principle? What is Dr Mowlam to do?
It may be a tame version of principle. She may opt for a variation of her action in February last year when Sinn Fein was briefly excluded from the talks.
She could temporarily halt the release of IRA prisoners, and perhaps temporarily cancel or postpone direct British government contact with Sinn Fein. Three weeks was the sentence after Robert Dougan's murder. A three weeks penalty for the brutal murder of Mr Bennett would still have Sinn Fein involved in the review in early September.
Anti-agreement unionists would be furious. Pro-agreement unionists, judging by their relatively restrained comments yesterday, could probably just about live with it. They would argue that their position on decommissioning is strengthened by this crisis.
Sinn Fein would protest. What the IRA would do is problematic but it might also keep its powder dry in order to give the agreement one last chance. The two governments, still believing that Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness are genuine, would privately acknowledge their difficulties and push for a new compromise.
All of this will be little consolation for the relatives of Mr Bennett and the other recent victims of IRA violence.
But pragmatically, and with just a hint of principle, it may be the only chance for the agreement.