Memorandum submitted by EPIC
PREFACE
Since the ceasefires in 1994, the call for truth
and justice in Northern Ireland has become a familiar cry echoing
the sentiments of many people and communities who have been bruised
and battered by 30 years on the front line of violent political
conflict. The question remains—how do the people of Northern
Ireland begin to deal with the hurts, the pain and the overwhelming
number of human rights abuses, which define the conflict?
This consultation paper emerges from a constituency
that is well aware of its own pain and suffering, acknowledges
the pain and suffering of others and wants to be involved in a
genuine process of conflict transformation that helps to improve
the quality of life of ordinary people who are yearning for the
dawn of a new day.
This desire for change was highlighted in the
statement issued on behalf of the Combined Loyalist Military Command
(CLMC) when the loyalist ceasefire was announced on 13 October
1994:
In all sincerity, we offer to the loved ones
of all innocent victims over the past 25 years abject and true
remorse. No words of ours will compensate for the intolerable
suffering they have undergone during the conflict.
Let us firmly resolve to respect our differing
views of freedom, culture and aspiration and never again permit
our political circumstances to degenerate into bloody warfare.
We are on the threshold of a new and exciting
beginning with our battles in the future being political battles
fought on the side of honesty, decency and democracy against the
negativity of mistrust, misunderstanding and malevolence, so that
together we can bring forth a wholesome society in which our children
and their children will know the meaning of true peace.[1]
This statement paved the way for a new beginning
for this constituency—a beginning that was very much shaped
and informed by the legacies of the violent conflict but also
was hopeful for "a society in which our children and their
children will know the meaning of true peace."
To achieve this kind of new society, we acknowledge
the need not only to be bold and brave but also to be honest and
realistic about who we are and what we can deliver within our
current political context.
This consultation document is an attempt to
provide opportunities for our constituency to begin debating the
issues around truth recovery. We acknowledge that people may experience
this document as being inward looking and self-reflective. It
is. It needs to be. It has to reflect the reality of where our
constituency is in its current process of conflict transformation.
Our intent is not to alienate others; our intent is to encourage
honest and challenging thinking within a constituency and to allow
others to respond critically to that thinking. As quoted in the
CLMC ceasefire statement we are not unaware of the pain and suffering
of others and are committed to the sentiments contained in paragraph
2 of the Declaration of Support in The Good Friday Agreement:
The tragedies of the past have left a deep
and profoundly regrettable legacy of suffering. We must never
forget those who have died or been injured and their families.
But we can best honour them through a fresh start, in which we
firmly dedicate ourselves to the achievement of reconciliation,
tolerance and mutual trust and to the protection and vindication
of the human rights of all.[2]
We recognise the need for all people and organisations
to access the resources needed for "a fresh start" and
we call on all relevant organisations, especially government,
to put the resources in place to help people and communities access
the help they need on their journey for healing.
This consultation document represents the beginning
of a journey—a journey that should be welcomed and supported
as part of the true process of peacebuilding within this society.
"TRUTH RECOVERY"? A CONTRIBUTION
FROM WITHIN LOYALISM
INTRODUCTION
There seems to be a growing interest in the
possibility of some kind of "truth commission" or "truth
recovery" process regarding the conflict in and about Northern
Ireland. On 27 May 2004 Secretary of State Paul Murphy announced
the start of a two-stage consultation process on the Troubles.
He said that he would be consulting victims' families, church
leaders, politicians and academics, and that the Government was
coming to the process with an open mind.[3]
In his announcement Mr Murphy said, "These
discussions will initially take the form of private soundings
which will in due course lead to wider consultation. I will also
be commissioning work of relevant international experience which
will cover the sort of processes which others have used in seeking
to come to terms with the past."[4]
This was followed by Mr Murphy embarking on
a fact-finding visit to South Africa following that country's
high profile Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
There are a number of deep concerns within loyalist
circles about these recent developments. To ensure that loyalist
concerns are not ignored and to clearly articulate that position
we have brought together a representative grouping of people from
PUP, UVF/Red Hand Commando and community work backgrounds. Two
workshops have been held so far, one in May and another in June.
At the one-day event in May we looked at some of the challenges
facing any "truth recovery" process, as highlighted
by the South African TRC. Drawing on experiences from other parts
of the world, information was provided on a wide range of factors
involved in the design of a "truth commission". An initial
exploration of the fears/barriers/costs regarding such a process
for Northern Ireland also took place, and there was an opportunity
to discuss potential benefits of "truth recovery".
This initial exploration underlined the fact
that there are many serious "fears/barriers/costs" that
are uppermost in people's minds. The half-day meeting in June
was therefore devoted to fleshing out some of these concerns.
This Preliminary Consultation Paper aims to reflect the discussion
held at these two meetings. Given the many issues that are involved
in "truth recovery" we realise that further discussion
will be required. Following further discussions in the autumn
and having received feedback from within our constituencies to
the Preliminary Paper we hope to produce a public Consultation
Document by the end of 2004. This Document will not only serve
as our contribution to the wider debates regarding a truth commission
for Northern Ireland, but it will also provide a clear challenge
to any attempts to impose a "truth" process.
FEARS/BARRIERS/CONCERNS/COSTS
Current political context: "the conflict
is not over"
There is an obvious concern about the timing
of any "truth process": How can a "truth recovery"
process work in a political context where a clear, final political/constitutional
settlement has not yet taken place? Those advocating truth commissions
often claim that these processes help deeply divided societies
to deal with a painful past. In the context of Northern Ireland,
however, the painful political conflict is not yet past. Brian
Feeney quoted in an Irish News article states, "There have
been about 40 truth and reconciliation processes around the world
in places like South Africa and Peru. The only time they have
worked is when the conflict has definitely come to an end. That
is not the case here."[5]
Discussion during the above-mentioned meetings
stressed how volatile the political situation still is in many
parts. People in loyalist areas feel their culture and future
to be under threat by a "republican war" carried out
by politics and propaganda. In fact it was stated that in some
areas the sectarianism on the ground is now worse than it was
10 years ago prior to the announcement of the ceasefires. The
initial optimism and goodwill generated by The Good Friday/Belfast
Agreement has all but evaporated in loyalist areas.
In this kind of unstable, unsettled political
context, a "truth process" that attempts to open up
old wounds runs a real risk of re-igniting violent conflict instead
of helping society to move beyond the Troubles. Many wounds are
still too raw for a "truth process" to have a realistic
chance of succeeding. Under such circumstances, any "truth
process" runs the risk of indoctrinating a more "militant"
younger generation with hatred and providing justification for
continuing conflict.
Size of population: "the intimacy of the
conflict"
Given the small size of the population of Northern
Ireland (around 1.5 million people), in which a huge proportion
of those affected by and those participating in armed conflict
come from specific areas such as West and North Belfast, there
is a concern that "everybody knows one another". If
someone was to make a public statement about his or her past activities
there will be no place to hide. Not only will that person face
high risks in terms of personal safety, but his or her family
will also be endangered.
The individual and family costs of someone disclosing
past activities are increased by the fact that on this island
people tend to have very long memories. Once someone is branded
with having done something seen to be wrong, their children and
even grandchildren may have to live with the long-term legacy
of those past actions.
Uncovering "truth"—vulnerability
of loyalists
Loyalist activists/ex-combatants/paramilitaries
are particularly vulnerable to a "truth process" for
they have never enjoyed the same level of legitimacy in their
community as have republicans. While loyalists don't feel that
"we have to make excuses for the fact that many of us were
prepared to take up arms to defend our community against the threat
of armed republicanism, given the inability of the state to provide
adequate protection", experience has shown that pro-state
paramilitaries typically have more difficulty justifying their
actions than those who disguise theirs with the language of a
"liberation struggle against a colonialist regime".
Loyalists have never accepted the argument that
the republican campaign was a war of national liberation against
a colonial power. They saw the conflict as one that involved two
communities with two different attitudes towards the state—the
unionist community, which was pro-state; and the nationalist community,
which was anti-state. It was as simple as that—a civil conflict
in which the two main protagonists were the unionist and the nationalist
communities.
The UVF and RHC were pro-state paramilitaries
in the sense that they supported the desire of the unionist community
of Northern Ireland to remain part of the British state. The republican
armed groups were seen as the physical force component of a wider
opposing force—the nationalist community. The nationalist
community that gave birth to, nurtured and sustained the republican
campaign, and that provided armed republicans with the political
rationale for their campaign, was the enemy that stood behind
the republican terror campaign and therefore was, in the eyes
of the UVF/RHC, culpable.
Pro-state paramilitaries are stigmatised for
carrying their campaign to the community that they regarded as
the real enemy for which the republican armed groups were the
cutting edge. That nationalist community was, for many young loyalists,
as responsible for their armed groups as Germany or Japan was
for their armies of aggression. That is something that neither
the state nor middle unionism will accept (at least not openly).
Consequently it is feared they will use any supposed truth recovery
process to isolate loyalist paramilitaries as criminal gangs who
operated on the fringes of the pro-British community. Why, then,
should loyalists participate in a process that could officially
write them off as criminals?
The ongoing stigmatisation, criminalisation
and even demonisation of loyalist ex-prisoners, especially within
unionist circles ("middle unionism"), clearly suggest
that it would be foolish for any loyalists who have not been successfully
prosecuted to expose any of their actions before a truth commission.
Especially in rural areas, a loyalist ex-prisoner
is marked out by the rest of the community. After release from
prison many of these former political prisoners have managed over
the years to achieve a limited degree of acceptance in their communities,
but prejudices remain just below the surface. If people are reminded
of certain past actions or if new "dirty details" were
to be exposed, the door would certainly be slammed in the face
of ex-prisoners who are trying to make a contribution in their
community or to live normal lives. Many people who are now prepared
to work with some of these ex-prisoners may no longer be prepared
to do so. For those who wish to continue their work, life could
be made uncomfortable for them.
This kind of discrimination is less visible
in urban areas given the larger concentrations of ex-prisoners,
but the negative attitudes amongst those from the comfortable,
leafy suburbs are the same as those amongst rural unionists.
In other words, any "truth" process
that would require individual ex-prisoners or ex-combatants to
give public testimony about specific past actions will most likely
contribute to the continuing demonisation of these loyalist activists.
It is very difficult for them to see any benefit from such a process
and therefore there is very little chance that they will co-operate/participate.
Families
There are specific fears about the impact of
public disclosure on the families of those "telling the truth".
Imprisonment had a huge impact on the families of loyalist prisoners.
Many of them not only had to endure the absence of a father/husband,
but were also stigmatised in various ways in the community. Children
were often taunted with "your dad is a jail bird", many
wives were followed when they did their shopping, were viewed
as "available" or "loose women", or were "looked
down upon" or pitied. People have found ways of dealing with
the hardships of partners and fathers in prison, including undeserved
guilt by association. However, they want those difficulties to
remain buried in the past now; they want to draw a line under
those times; they are not prepared to revisit those bad days.
Revisiting what was done in the past furthermore
runs the risk of not being understood by the current/younger generation.
Children today will probably find it difficult to imagine the
threats and fears that inspired their fathers to take up arms.
Once their fathers became involved in the "dirty war"
a certain hardening often took place, which will be difficult
to understand unless one has been in the same situation and political
context. Thus a "truth process" might well harm relationships
between older and younger generations in loyalist areas.
Healing?
A further concern relates to the idea that a
"truth process" is supposed to contribute to "healing"
or even "reconciliation". However, if this healing or
reconciliation requires loyalist ex-prisoners/ex-combatants to
stand up and say that they are sorry, then there is little chance
of success. During the announcement of the loyalist ceasefires
in 1994 a collective apology was offered for the suffering caused
to all innocent civilians over the last 30 years. This apology
must not be misunderstood as a rejection of the political cause
for which loyalists fought. If a situation were to arise again
where an attempt is made to violently impose a united Ireland
on loyalists, or if they felt that their communities were again
under the same levels of threat from armed republicanism, then
they would not hesitate to respond with armed resistance.
The concern is that if loyalists were to make
statements before a commission where victims were expecting an
apology, then their lack of political remorse might be experienced
as salt rubbed into the victims' wounds, which is unlikely to
contribute to healing.
A related problem might arise from moral pressure
being put on people to participate in a "truth process".
If people choose for good reasons (such as those mentioned above)
not to participate, they might be portrayed as callous, or less
than human, or insensitive to the needs of victims. Thus a "truth
process" that makes unrealistic demands on "perpetrators"
to show remorse etc, might actually widen the gap between perceived
victims and perceived perpetrators.
Whose agenda is it anyway?
There is deep suspicion amongst loyalists about
the high potential for a "truth process" to be abused
by republicans to suit their political agenda. A repeated concern
expressed was that republicans—who are seen to be very skilful
in the art of propaganda—would use a "truth commission"
as a stick to beat the British state with. As such, the process
will be a convenient instrument to blame the British state and
"its surrogates" for everything, providing justification
for their war, thus allowing them to be let off the hook. If this
were to happen it will merely add further insult to the injuries
of British/Protestant victims.
Contrary to what they claim, republicans have
been involved in many actions against civilians, in both communities—examples
include La Mon, Shankill, Teebane, Enniskillen, Kingsmills, Tullyvallen
and the Disappeared. There is little faith that republicans will
honestly expose these dirty deeds before a "truth commission".
There are also serious doubts amongst loyalists
about the agenda of the British state in some kind of "truth
process" for Northern Ireland. This recent interest is seen
as a public relations exercise without any real commitment, a
convenient, pragmatic alternative to a costly series of tribunals,
or as a way to avoid their own involvement in the conflict.
AVENUES FOR
FURTHER EXPLORATION?
During the various discussions held thus far
a number of points were raised which might be seen as potential
benefits of a "truth process". There has not been adequate
opportunity to explore these possibilities, but they are listed
below:
— How do we counter the tendency for
loyalist ex-prisoners/paramilitaries to be scapegoated? How do
we ensure that other groups and institutions, such as government,
media, churches, business and non-combatants, accept responsibility
for their role in the conflict?
— How do we stop the endless stream
of one-sided inquiries? Is there an alternative to these expensive
public inquiries, which are sapping away at the confidence of
unionist/loyalist communities? How do we address the current imbalance
in favour of republicans? Is there a better way to "put things
to bed"?
— How do we tell the story/stories
of our community, warts and all? How do we get the truth out as
we see it? This might help to counter demonisation, as well as
the overemphasis on republican stories. Unless our stories are
told, the future teaching of history will remain one-sided.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The discussions thus far demonstrate that any
type of "truth process" has little chance of succeeding
unless a clear answer is provided to this question: What are the
benefits for loyalism in any truth process?
1 CLMC Ceasefire statement; http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/peace/docs/clmc131094.htm Back
2
The Good Friday Agreement; http://www.nio.gov.uk/issues/agreelinks/agreement.htm Back
3
Dan McGinn; ORDE CLAIM "A DISGRACE"; Newsletter, 31
May 2004. Back
4
Paul Murphy; Dealing With Past To Build A Better Future-Murphy;
http://www.nio.gov.uk/press/040527a.htm Back
5
Barry McCaffrey; Truth process would be "part of conflict";
Irish News, 31 May 2004. Back
| 
