The circumstances surrounding the breakdown of negotiations on the final acts to implement the Belfast Agreement seem more positive now than they were a week ago.
This follows the IRA's decision, albeit belated, to publish two statements late on Tuesday night. The first was its private position paper given to the Irish and British governments on April 13th; the second a new statement confirming that Mr Gerry Adams's clarifications accurately reflected the IRA's position. These statements cast a new light on the current state of the peace process.
Any public scrutiny of the first statement, which the IRA "closed on" at the height of the negotiations on April 13th, makes the case for the clarifications sought by Mr Tony Blair on the IRA's future intentions. He was not engaged in mere word play.
The British Prime Minister wanted further clarity on putting all arms beyond use, bringing a complete closure to the conflict and ending all paramilitary activities in the context of a Joint Declaration that the British military presence in the North would be brought down to pre-1969 levels in three stages. As is well documented now, the president of Sinn Féin, Mr Adams, provided two satisfactory answers in an attempt to supplement the vague and conditional commitments from the IRA.
The final call was made by the two governments a week ago to conclude negotiations when the IRA was not prepared to confirm that Mr Adams was speaking with their authority. And there was the further complication that neither Mr Adams nor the IRA would set out the activities to be ended by republicans.
The release of the new second statement by the IRA on Tuesday night resolved one of these issues. The IRA stated unambiguously that Mr Adams's answers "accurately reflected our position". It will be for historians to judge whether that sentence, had it been forthcoming a week earlier, could have enabled the two governments to proceed further in their negotiations.
For all of that, the IRA's decision to put both statements on the public record is helpful. Its public apology for killing and maiming of "non-combatants" is also welcome. A combination of their statements comes within a whisker of what is required from the IRA to fully implement the Belfast Agreement, guarantee stability to the political institutions and allow the elections to be held. All that is required is for the IRA, or Mr Adams publicly on their behalf, to list the military activities which will come to an end.
The time for word games is over. Having made the two statements, it is damaging confidence and stretching credulity to imagine, as the IRA does, that they can be withdrawn.
The challenge facing the two governments is to start implementing aspects of the Joint Declaration within the constraints of the security situation. But one set of declarations cannot be pocketed without the other being put back on the table.