A familiar IRA tactic that must not be allowed to damage the peace process

It is not difficult to discern the IRA's motives for breaking contact with the international disarmament body. In a statement to be published in the republican newspaper, An Phoblacht, today, the Provisionals will try to place much of the blame on Tony Blair for the move: "The onus is on the British government and others to create confidence in this [peace] process. They can do this by honouring their obligations."

A little opaque, of course, but the statement conforms to a familiar republican tactic: when thrown on to the defensive, go back on the attack, and play the blame game for all its worth. The IRA's declaration is designed to distract attention from the series of embarrassing propaganda blows they have suffered recently, from the alleged involvement of IRA men with Colombian narco-terrorists to the supposed spying operation at Stormont.

If Unionists such as David Trimble say that they find the IRA's continued involvement in low-level punishment beatings and racketeering intolerable and can no longer serve in a power sharing executive with Sinn Fein's Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness, then, say republicans, that's fine. If you don't want us in government, then you'll lose out too. If you demand that the IRA disband, then we'll prove to you that we have no intention of doing so. You're going to feel just that little bit more intimidated because we aren't going to talk to the decommissioning body and you never know what some of the dissidents in our ranks might do. How do you like that?

As tactics go, this one is rather transparent. Having withdrawn from the decommissioning body, the republicans want to lever the Unionists into agreeing to go back into the executive with Sinn Fein in return for their re-engaging with the body, at which stage the British government would lift the suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly and executive, with Mr Adams and Mr McGuinness back in government and the IRA's position preserved.

There are a number of reasons why the British government and the Unionists will resist this tactic, not least that they have seen it before. Even now, the IRA is at pains to make clear that the 1997 ceasefire remains intact. Although it is dangerous to second-guess them, this feels like sabre-rattling.

That said, it is probably worth Mr Blair and Mr Trimble taking another look at some republican grievances. It is true that there is still much sectarian violence aimed at nationalist communities. It is true that the loyalist paramilitaries are going about their bestial business, often as not against each other. It is true that, to all intents and purposes, the war is over and republicans have virtually said as much. It might be as well for Mr Blair and Mr Trimble to recognise those facts.

Yet the fundamental question posed by Mr Trimble remains: if republicans are really set upon a peaceful path and are truly committed to the workings of the Good Friday Agreement, then why do they need the IRA, and why should the IRA stay armed and ready? Can republicans imagine life without the IRA – and, to be fair, an Ireland without armed British troops and the paraphernalia of watch-towers around the cities and countryside? It always was the IRA's turn to act. In that sense, this announcement, serious and regrettable as it is, changes nothing.