We can take heart from history in facing the present phase in the peace process. Throughout history, we have seen that while war can be ended overnight, the habits of war die much more slowly.
For instance, it took a very long time after the second World War even for democratic political leaders to voluntarily give up the controls in matters like prices and internal security that had really only been justified by wartime conditions.
War requires such strong controls. Peace means giving up power and allowing people freedom. This transition takes time. In Irish history, the transition from truce to peace in the 1920s was slow and painful.
When they considered themselves to be at "war", paramilitaries felt the need to impose often brutal controls in their own communities.
Like other political leaders before them, they now find it difficult in peacetime to give up this control.
For republicans, this difficulty is aggravated by their non-acceptance of the conventional police force. For all paramilitaries who retain stocks of weapons, there is the necessity to ensure these stocks do not fall into the "wrong" hands.
One need not sympathise with the methods, objectives or morality of the paramilitaries to understand the difficult dynamics of the transition they are hopefully trying to make.
Democratic leaders must show both clarity and patience in their response.
They must show clarity in setting standards for democracy.
But they must show patience with the halting transition towards full acceptance of those standards. Standards must never be fudged to buy an easy life.
But patience must be shown when the question of sanctions for breaches comes up.
This is something that is best done by the two governments together.
I do not understand why the Irish Government is allowing the British Secretary of State for Northern Ireland alone to take the decision as to whether there have recently been breaches of the IRA ceasefire.
One thing I learned when I was Taoiseach was that the Irish and British governments are at their most effective when they are working together.
In the IRA's case, it is a unitary organisation that operates and exists in this State as well as in Northern Ireland and Britain.
A ceasefire breached in one place is a ceasefire breached in all places where the ceasefire exists, unless the contrary is made explicit.
Furthermore, the success of the peace process to date has been based on the two governments acting together.
There should be no unilateral decision because any differences that emerge between governments will be mercilessly exploited by political antagonists in Northern Ireland.
A separate approach to prisoner releases, for example, would be a clear departure from the spirit of the Belfast Agreement.
I believe there is a vital State interest in any decision about the fundamental issue of what constitutes a breach of a paramilitary ceasefire. Irish democratic standards are at stake.
There is also a vital Irish interest in ensuring that any breach is dealt with in a way that shows understanding of the difficult historic process involved.
We need absolutely clear and universal standards, applying in both islands, as to what constitutes a ceasefire and as to whether a ceasefire is breached if a paramilitary organisation does any of the following, referred to in an article in this newspaper on Monday:
Kill suspected police informers or former members who have gone public and written books.
Carry out robberies to raise funds.
Carry out murders and punishment shootings and beatings of suspected drug dealers or petty criminals living in areas of strong republican or loyalist support.
Continue to upgrade its arsenal through the smuggling of modern weapons.
Recruit new members and train them in the use of arms.
Gather intelligence on potential targets in the event of a return to "war".
Run legal "front" companies to launder funds.
Clarity is required in standards on these matters. We cannot allow the concept of a ceasefire to become so diluted that we seem to give political acceptability to punishments, robberies or intimidation.
If we did we would be throwing away generations of work to build civic order on these islands of a kind that protects the weak and outlaws arbitrary justice.
Legislators cannot, with consistency, demand transparency from political parties on other links they may have, while studiously ignoring links between political parties and organisations that can or do kill people. Political standards cannot be taken on an a la carte basis if we expect people to believe in them.
But patience is required when it comes to the important distinction between standards and sanctions. The issue of what sanctions to apply is separate from the issue of what standards should be set. Patience and historic perspective must be applied in approaching the issue of sanctions at particular stages in the process.
I believe it is right to be modulated and flexible in the sanctions, if any, to be applied. It is possible to take account of temporary difficulties or internal pressures in this context, so long as there is a clear object of full adherence to fully democratic standards of behaviour. Gen. de Chastelain could be helpful in this matter.
But it is not right to be modulated or flexible about what constitutes acceptable democratic standards of behaviour by paramilitary organisations associated with political parties which aspire to be treated as normal political parties.
These standards must be clear and must be set out by elected governments. Clearly, it cannot be left to paramilitaries to determine what constitutes a breach of their ceasefire. This is why I believe the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister should make a joint statement on this matter setting democratic standards in plain language.
Once that is done, they then have scope to be pragmatic about temporary or transitional difficulties on the way towards full achievement of those standards.
John Bruton is leader of Fine Gael