Memorandum submitted by the Community
Relations Council
ISSUE
"Healing the Wounds: Ways of Dealing with
Northern Ireland's Past": Evidence from the Community Relations
Council (CRC) to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.
INTRODUCTION
CRC welcomes this investigation by the Northern
Ireland Affairs Committee and the opportunity of making a submission
on the very important issue of "Ways of Dealing with Northern
Ireland's (NI) Past". There are few subjects of greater significance
in contemporary NI than the question of how society might attempt
to deal with the legacy of conflict and violence. Over many years,
CRC has sought to support efforts for reconciliation. Since 2002,
we have also acted as the Intermediate Funding Body for victims
and survivors groups. This latter role, in particular, has made
CRC acutely aware of the sensitivities and extreme difficulties
associated with the issue at hand.
CRC currently operates two grant programmes
which specifically address the needs of victims and survivor groups,
these are the Victim and Survivor Core Funding Scheme and the
Victim and Survivor Groups Development Grant Scheme. The Victim
and Survivor Core Funding Scheme currently supports 46 victim
and survivor groups. This scheme has a budget of £3 million
and runs from April 2003-March 2005. The Victims and Survivors
Groups Development Grants Scheme provides project based support
funding to around 70 different organisations including those groups
also receiving support from the Core Funding Scheme. The Development
Grant Scheme has a budget of £750k and runs from June 2002-March
2005.
In making the following submission, CRC wishes
to express its concern at the short length of time allowed for
response which we consider to be inadequate given the importance
of the subject matter. Moreover, CRC feels it necessary to draw
attention to the fact, that there is an unfortunate risk that
the brevity of the response period may give the appearance that
the call for evidence is not so much a consultation, but rather,
part of a wider sequencing of events. Because the investigation
comes during a time of intense political negotiation—which
has obvious implications for the victims' sector in particular
and NI society as a whole—there is a danger that the sincerity
of this investigation may itself be questioned.
We submit this response in the hope, therefore,
that the welcomed discussion by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee
will take into consideration the timing of its investigation.
CRC is of the opinion that this discussion must be the beginning
of a much longer consultation process. Such a process, should
afford further opportunities—for as many stakeholders as
possible—to provide detailed evidence and recommendations
on this, most crucial, of public policy decisions. The following
response represents the views and opinions of CRC rather than
those expressed by any group or individual with whom the Council
may liaise.
CONTEXTUALISING THE
DISCUSSION
Reconciliation in politics, the possibility
that people, once divided, can live and work together on the basis
of clear rules, is the central goal of any democratic peace process
moving from conflict to sustainable peace. Clearly, this limited
notion of reconciliation falls far short, however, of the comprehensive
concept upon which a shared and interdependent future ideally
depends. The limits to politics mean that even if political reconciliation
can be established, many things remain to be resolved for many
people. Without recognition of past injuries, a shared future
may be too hard to contemplate. The fact that many aspects of
reconciliation cannot be enforced or legislated does not negate
the central importance of pursuing all avenues to support traumatised
and injured communities and individuals as they seek ways into
the future together. The underlying dilemma is this: a meaningful
and comprehensive reconciliation process requires us to face the
truth, acknowledge our part in it, make reparation where necessary
and grant and receive forgiveness from one another. Without any
one of these parts, reconciliation will remain unattainable.
Truth telling without reparation and forgiveness
may only deepen resentment. The easy part of truth telling is
admitting what has been done against us as individuals, as families,
as local communities, whether nationalist, unionist, protestant
or catholic, British or Irish. It will be much harder, however,
to admit what was done by us, by members of our family, by people
from our community or by the state. It may be even more difficult
to realise that we are resented by others because of terrible
acts done in our name over which we had little immediate control.
And perhaps worst of all may be the question of apportioning blame
and identifying perpetrators.
That said, justice requires the identification
of the guilty. It may be that the truth of the complex NI conflict
is too much to bear and obstructs us as we stumble into the future.
And yet without this process, the tensions and resentments of
the past will continue to shape the conditions under which politics
takes place in the future. In a context like NI, we have to confront
the possibility that reconciliation, while essential, is nonetheless
difficult. The people of NI and those who have been actors in
the conflict—both directly and indirectly—may be forced
to confront the messy difficulty of drawing an imperfect balance
between the requirements of trust to enable a stable public and
political life and the impossible horizon of full reconciliation
in politics.
It is against this backdrop that any discussion
of truth and reconciliation in Northern Ireland must take place.
The over-riding principle is neither instant truth nor superficial
reconciliation, but the consistent and persistent promotion of
a peaceful future together over the violent and divided past.
In practice this will require pragmatic compromises in pursuit
of a future where both truth and reconciliation will be possible
and meaningful. At any given point, many well-intentioned people
will come to different conclusions about the next steps: what
is important, is to recognise that all of us are wrestling with
a dilemma, which will not be resolved or healed in a single gesture,
but will require many different steps and actions over a long
period of time.
THE PURPOSE
OF ANY
PROPOSED PROCESS
Although the generic concept of dealing with
the past is to be welcomed, there is the question of why? For
what purpose should a process be developed and what will be the
foreseeable outcomes?
There is no agreement in NI about the causes
of conflict and the definitive identification of both victims
and perpetrators. There is a broad recognition, however, that
the death and destruction of past decades were a tragedy which
must not recur, and, indeed, there is already broad consensus
that no community or group in society has a monopoly on suffering.
It is from this broad basis that any process or initiatives could
for dealing with the past could begin.
Any process that aims to deal with the past
will require clear rules, a clear understanding and political
agreement of any judicial consequences which will result and the
agreement of all political parties and the media to respect the
sensitivity of the evidence presented. Justice after violent conflict
is highly sensitive. In the absence of a respect for the suffering
of all of the bereaved, injured and traumatised, there is a serious
danger that truth telling will expose the most vulnerable to humiliation
and further trauma. Reconciliation will not be served by such
a scenario.
While there is no simple answer to the demands
of justice, any process must be clear about judicial and legal
consequences attached to any process. Otherwise, both fears and
expectations may be inflated with disastrous long-term consequences
for confidence in official processes.
Any body create and charged with the tasked
of examining the legacy of the past and the promotion of reconciliation
must have:
— international membership and enjoy
the confidence of both conflicting traditions in Northern Ireland
and the wider international community;
— must be given a wide remit and guaranteed
independence;
— consider the financial implications
and the requirements of additional resources;
— a clear and defined judicial standing;
— set guidelines regarding the possibility
and costs of reparations;
— consider all aspects of safety, care,
and the need to support and/or prevent re-traumatisation of those
who have already been bereaved or injured as a result of the past
conflict.
In the considered opinion of CRC, we realise
that there may be no single approach that guarantee communities
and individuals have closure and healing of their experiences.
As such, it may be necessary to consider a multi-layered, multi-dimensional
process that encompasses and cut across the whole of society.
Indeed, given the nature of the NI conflict it may be necessary
to consider a process that has a remit within a number of sovereign
jurisdictions.
THE SCOPE
OF ANY
PROPOSED PROCESS
Since the beginning of the what is colloquially
referred to in NI as "the Troubles" approximately 3,585
people have been killed and 40,000 people have been seriously
injured. It is also the case, however, that the majority of the
citizens in NI have felt the impact of "the Troubles"
on their daily lives and continue, as a result, to live with the
legacy of sectarian division, intermittent civil strife and the
ongoing threat of violence. How to deal with this difficult legacy
is, undoubtedly one of the most fundamental questions facing society.
There may be a tendency—when attempting
to devise a process for dealing with the past—to focus (at
least in the first instance) on those who have suffered immediate
loss. CRC recognises this and would like to express its support
for many of the demands made by victims and survivors groups.
Yet, we also feel it important to draw attention to the significance
of providing a much wider vision. The NI conflict has affected
many citizens in many different ways: through loss or injury to
friends, neighbours, family or work colleagues; loss of home or
business; taking on responsibility for orphaned children due to
loss of parents; exile, internal displacement etc. Any new initiatives,
which seek to deal with the past in a systematic and strategic
way, must acknowledge and take account of such different experiences.
An extensive consultation process carried out
by the Healing Through Remembering Project—supported by
CRC—highlighted the need to recognise that the whole of
society has a responsibility for dealing with the past. The project
sought over a two-year period (including analysis of over 100
submissions) to document what appropriate mechanisms might be
developed for remembering by all those affected by the
conflict. In keeping with the findings of this research, CRC is
of the opinion that any proposed process for dealing with the
legacy of violent conflict must provide opportunities for all
the key players and stakeholders in NI to participate. These stakeholders
must include a broad range of actors, such as, the UK and Irish
governments, victims and survivors, paramilitary groups and their
members, and private citizens.
Although there may be disputes between these
stakeholders with regard to the causes of conflict and the identification
of both victims and perpetrators, it is only on such a broad platform
that any proposed initiative should be based. A limited truth
telling will not promote agreement, inclusion and partnership.
Murders, injuries and the general legacy of paramilitary activity,
the actions of the UK and Irish governments, and the NI security
forces must be open to equal scrutiny. For any proposed process
to have legitimacy it must be widely recognised and accepted as
fair, evidence-based and independent.
THE PROBLEM
OF TERMINOLOGY
The terminology surrounding this issue is complex,
often multifaceted, and remains open to debate. A lack of clarity
surrounding concepts such as victim and reconciliation must be
addressed at the beginning of any proposed process, so as to guarantee
consistency throughout, agree aims and objectives. For example,
terminology relating to "victims" is contentious and
raises the question as to who will determine and make a decision
as to who is/and who is not a "victim" and what makes/or
does not make one a "victim". The same point holds for
the concept of reconciliation.
Any definition given by the UK Government alone
will be contested, if not politicised. Indeed, any definition
provided by an individual, group, organisation or state, seen
to be an actor or supportive of one or other side involved in
the conflict will most likely be open to dispute and challenge.
This initial difficulty raises further issues of concern. If,
for example, there is lack of agreement as to who is/or is not
a victim then—by default— there will also be a contest
over what constitutes "truth" and the desire or need
for any process that might seek to recover it.
Interpreting the terminology within which any
process will necessarily be bound up is a significant issue. Any
potential ambiguity may have serious repercussions for the capacity
to deal effectively with the past, and, as a consequence, could
risk undermining the legitimacy of the entire process. Bearing
this significant problem in mind, CRC is supportive of the notion
of an internationalised process that draws on lessons from other
societies. Moreover, CRC would also highlight the need to give
due consideration to the possible internationalising of the process
itself, specifically given the recognised need to ensure legitimacy.
THE VALUE
OF INTERNATIONAL
COMPARISON
The NI peace process has often been held up
as best practice model across the world. Yet, the position of
NI cannot be easily compared to other international contexts where
truth recovery processes have been implemented as part of a post-conflict
settlement. This is not to say, of course, that the positive and
negative lessons from other societies are of no value. On the
contrary, there are indeed many important reasons for considering
such experiences. The context-specific circumstance of NI must
also, however, be given due consideration.
Peace in NI has been achieved through compromise
and agreement, not zero-sum politics and victory. Moreover, unlike
many post-conflict societies, NI is not engaged in a nation-building
project. Given that constitutional status of NI remains open to
change and given that the two government signatories to the Belfast
Agreement—the UK and Ireland—are viewed by various
constituencies as being active participants in the conflict, the
question is raised as to whether or not any internal agent can
generate a process of truth-recovery which will be credible to
all. This particular set of circumstances, clearly marks NI as
being somewhat distinct from many similar processes undertaken
elsewhere.
NI faces a task of designing its own process,
which protects and supports the shared future upon which peace
and economic prosperity ultimately depend. Rather than simply
adopting models from elsewhere and proposed healing process needs
to highly contest-sensitive and specific to the needs of those
subjected the adverse affects of the most violent conflict to
have taken place in Western Europe since the end of World War
II.
There is no single transferable answer to this
most difficult of questions. Instead we must contemplate a multi-layered
process that encompasses the whole of society in different ways
which does justice to the variety of experiences. Much work has
already been done in documenting the lost lives of Northern Ireland's
violence. CRC has supported the work of Jane Leonard in the Ulster
Museum on memorials and conflict in Ireland. There is a need to
develop and encourage this work. Both national and local Museums
should be very actively encouraged and supported to tell the story
of the Troubles from many angles. Museums which do not address
the whole story risk alienating many people through omission;
reinforcing notions of partisan local government—and encouraging
the growth of "separate" versions of memory—Bloody
Sunday, Enniskillen, the Maze. A locally generated process is
an opportunity to provide a foundation for a new shared and collective
memory.
RECOMMENDATION
CRC recommends that the NI Affairs Committee
consider hosting or supporting the call for a series of public
events to accompany further consultation. Such events would enable
full and frank debate about the issue, facilitate public discussion
and debate on possible processes and help identify key participants
on the development of any initiatives forthcoming. CRC looks forward
to the outcome of this debate and will welcome the opportunity
to provide further evidence and input.
6 December 2004
| 
