Memorandum submitted by Community Foundation
for Northern Ireland
RESPONSE TO THE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION FOR NORTHERN
IRELAND CONSULTATION ON DEALING WITH THE LEGACY OF THE PAST—
SUMMER 2003-WINTER 2004
1. Over the July-September 2003
period the Community Foundation for Northern Ireland carried out
a study of 58 of its funded groups to ascertain their views about
peacebuilding—and more specifically about dealing with the
legacy of past divisions and conflict.
This latter set of questions focused on:
— What issues arising from dealing
with the legacy of the past presents us with current challenges?
— What form might any process of Remembrance
take?
— Can Remembrance issues be disentangled
from formal justice/legal approaches?
— What is the role of Human Rights/Civil
Liberties issues in peacebuilding?
— What is the best way of addressing
these issues to ensure a sense of community ownership?
The composition of groups interviewed included:
— 18 Community Organisations
— 4 Community Arts Groups
— 6 Groups representing Victims of
the Troubles
— 10 Women's Groups and Networks
— 9 Support and Issue-based Organisations
While the majority of respondents were based
in the Greater Belfast area (32) there was a geographic spread
of the remaining interviewees.
2. In addressing the issues related to the
legacy of the past it was found that the very sensitivity of the
discussion made it difficult to disentangle any clear lines of
response. There was a certain reluctance expressed at the thought
that people's emotions, hurts and ghosts might be used in a mechanistic
manner as a democratic tool to "move the process on".
There was a recognition that remembrance is
complex and diverse, and cannot be driven in a centralised manner.
On the one hand individuals must heal at their own pace; on the
other hand there are those individuals that wish to live their
lives without being a survivor or a victim. The reality remains
that there are a thousand ways of remembering—many of which
are already ongoing—and everybody is different, with different
experiences.
3. When asked specifically about certain
approaches to remembrance it was established that:
(a) A Storytelling Process was generally
acceptable. However, it was felt that it was essential to have
good facilitators and an effective support mechanism in place.
This requirement is to be balanced by enabling the process to
be situated in contexts which make people feel comfortable and
in control.
(b) There was less agreement over the potential
of Physical Memorials to contribute positively to dealing with
the legacy of the past. It has felt that physical memorials can
be divisive, and are at risk of being vandalised (or becoming
an issue of controversy) which can add to the hurt. A number of
interviewees did, however, feel that there was a place for such
memorials. A number of groups were already maintaining memorial
gardens.
(c) The concept of Museum Collections was
equally controversial The question was posed as to how to ensure
a balance with regard to this approach, although it was recognised
that young people might benefit from learning about the Troubles.
The most controversial issue related to the use of old prisons
as a Museum of the Troubles. There were strong views both for
and against.
4. When the issue of Truth and Remembrance
was raised, those that responded largely did within their understanding
of the operation of the South African Commission for Truth and
Reconciliation. Within this context, a diversity of views was
reflected:
— The fact that victims might see the
process as letting perpetrators "off the hook".
— The possible re-trial (albeit on
a moral basis) of ex-prisoners who had already served terms of
imprisonment.
— The reluctance of those people who
had been involved in political activities (particularly in the
1970s and '80s) to come forward if they have not been apprehended
to date.
— The general feeling that the British
Government would not participate openly and honestly in such a
process—and hence would undermine any potential healing/reconciliation
outcomes.
Notwithstanding the above views, there were
a number of respondents that felt that some process was required.
There was a degree of cynicism about the cost-effectiveness of
Judicial Legal Inquiries, although, again, the point was made
about the amount of money spent in extracting evidence from State
sources.
5. Other suggestions in terms of remembrance
included:
— Educational approaches to the Legacy
of the Troubles.
— Living Tributes—such as charitable
funds for peacebuilding etc.
All underpinned by the need for an acknowledgement
by both communities and the British and Irish Governments of the
hurt suffered.
6. Over the past year—2004—the
Community Foundation has continued to engage with this issue,
and to discuss the implications of Transitional Justice approaches
with a range of its funded groups through the means of its Peacebuilding
Seminars and other gatherings. On the basis of this more extended
work a number of different parameters of the Truth and Reconciliation
challenge is becoming apparent. These include the following:
— There is the demand for "truth"
with regard to State(s) actions while it was engaged in the conflict.
There is a feeling among some sections of the community that the
State(s) has been hypocritical and patronising in its approach.
The declared motivation for this approach is that individual families
affected require the truth, but as importantly the truth must
be exposed to ensure that any State abuses do not happen again.
— There is the call for both discussion
and historical settlement over the "causes of the conflict"—ie
the relationship between the Stormont administration and various
sections of the community in Northern Ireland pre 1969.
— There is the demand made by sections
of the community for the actions of paramilitary forces to be
examined and explained. This is particularly true in the area
of the killings; and/or wounding of "non-combatants";
although the killing of off-duty UDR/RUC members is also an important
area, with the latter being acutely sensitive where it is linked
to alleged socio-economic factors.
— Finally, there is also a considerable
constituency that feel that any formal Truth and Reconciliation
process will only defeat the object of the latter, and stir-up
further animosity. This is certainly a concern reflected by certain
Loyalist groups.
7. The Community Foundation for Northern
Ireland would argue that any Truth and Reconciliation approach
must be:
(b) Seen as a process over time (with much
depending on a stable macro-political framework);
(c) Premised on an acknowledgement by all
parties to the conflict (including Governments) of their responsibility.
Furthermore, the approach should be:
— Victim-centred, but not victim specific;
— Collective rather than individual
in focus;
— Inclusive in nature (it must not
promote either a hierarchy of victims or of perpetrators); and
— Forward looking ie what lessons can
be learned for the future.
It is also important that the process drawn
on international good practice, while recognising that there are
already useful local initiatives in place, such as the Healing
through Remembrance group.
8. It is crucial that the objective of societal
reconciliation is not reduced to any formal Truth approach, since
the task of reconciliation must be much broader and deeper than
this in practice. Nevertheless, arguably an inclusive Truth initiative
may help to establish an informed basis for future reconciliation.
The Community Foundation favours a long-term perspective of a
shared society in Northern Ireland rather than any concept of
separate (even if peaceful) co-existence.
9. After the experience of the Bloody Sunday
Inquiry, which is one of the most expensive in British legal history,
the Community Foundation would favour more imaginative, community-based
approaches (while accepting the validity of the Public Inquiry
approach in very specific circumstances). However, these do need
to be adequately resourced and supported. It is also felt to be
important to achieve a certain synergy between those organisations
that are interested in promoting a multi-dimensional approach
to the challenges of Truth and Reconciliation.
10. Finally, we would support the argument
put forward by Brandon Hamber ("Remembering to Forget: Issues
to Consider when establishing Structures for Dealing with the
Past"):
"If any country is to come to terms with
its past and successfully turn its attention to the future, it
is essential that the truth of the past be officially established.
It is impossible to expect "reconciliation" if part
of the population refuse to accept that anything was ever wrong,
and the other part has never received any acknowledgement of the
suffering it has undergone, or of the ultimate responsibility
for that suffering."
However, while accepting this perspective, the
Community Foundation for Northern Ireland is under no illusions
about how difficult (and sensitive) the process will be in practice.
| 
