Memorandum submitted by the Ardoyne Commemoration
Project
The Ardoyne Commemoration Project (ACP) was
established in the aftermath of the Good Friday Agreement in 1998.
It was a community-based project made up of relatives of victims,
community group members and general residents of the area. Ardoyne
is a socially disadvantaged nationalist working class community
in North Belfast with a population of approximately 7,000. It
has witnessed amongst the highest levels of violence and fatalities
of the recent political conflict. The project set out to remember
the lives and document the deaths of the 99 people from the Ardoyne
community who had died as a result of this political conflict.
Of these 26 were killed by British state forces, 50 by Unionist
paramilitaries, 13 by various republican organisations, seven
as a result of accidental death, three remain unknown as to who
was responsible for their deaths.
Over a four-year period the ACP collated and
edited over 300 interviews, testimonies and eyewitness accounts
of relatives and friends of the 99 conflict-related deaths in
the Ardoyne community. The key principles that underpinned the
project were community participation, local control/ownership
and inclusivity. In 2002 the ACP culminated in the publication
of a 543-page book entitled "Ardoyne: The Untold Truth"
that contained the testimonies and six historical chapters contextualising
the conflict. For many participants in the project this was the
first time they had been given the opportunity to speak publicly
about the death of their loved one.
The project has been credited with providing
a space for relatives to "tell their story" and this
had an impact with regards to healing, closure, recognition and
acknowledgement. The ACP process also played a significant role
in resolving a number of intra-community conflict related issues.
While the project was credited with the above, the most outstanding
and unresolved issue was that it could not provide acknowledgement
and accountability particularly for victims of state violence.
This tends to highlight the limitations of "storytelling"
as a process in dealing with the past. For many of the participants
it was important to recognise the inter-relationship between recognition
with a need for acknowledgement, accountability and the delivery
of justice in relation to loss.
A number of issues became apparent during the
course of the research relating to all combatants that were responsible
for the 99 deaths. For the purpose of this letter the ACP wish
to highlight the unresolved issues with regards to the role played
by successive British Governments since 1969. These issues can
be summarised as follows:
1. The British State forces acted with impunity.
2. There was collusion between the British
State agencies and Unionist paramilitaries. This was structured
and institutional.
3. The British Government was an armed, active
participant in the conflict.
Evidence for such conclusions is found in the
testimonies of participants and is reflected in the detailed accounts
of the circumstances of the deaths documented in the book. For
example, of the 26 individuals killed by the British State forces
not one person was arrested, questioned, charged or convicted
despite the highly controversial circumstances surrounding virtually
all of these killings. The relatives of these victims speak very
clearly in their testimonies of the need to know the truth about
the circumstances of death of their loved one and the lack of
acknowledgement and accountability afforded to them and their
families by the British State. The book also pointed out and documented
that republicans were responsible for the death of a number of
residents and that Unionist groups were responsible for over half
of the 99 victims. A key point raised in the book was that all
combatants in the conflict (British State, Unionist, Republican)
need to acknowledge and take responsibility for their actions.
Undoubtedly dealing with the past is a sensitive
issue for families of victims. If a truth recovery process is
to take place then the feelings and concerns of all relatives
must be considered no matter who was responsible for the death.
However, the situation as it currently stands is that relatives
of State violence feel that they have not been treated equally.
A good faith pre-requisite would be for the British State to publicly
acknowledge and take responsibility for its role in the deaths
of many people in the conflict. To date this has not happened,
it remains an unresolved issue and a barrier to any genuine attempt
to deal with the "legacy of the past". Without such
an acknowledgement any process will be regarded as partial and
not designed to establish the full truth. Such an approach would
be counterproductive and could be perceived as merely a way in
which to conceal the truth. If a process were to occur it could
run the danger of re-victimising the relatives hundreds of victims.
In view of the points raised above it is crucial
that a hierarchy of victimhood is not reinforced by a partial
account of the past. Moreover if such a process were to ignore
the points raised above it would show a lack of commitment and
sincerity on the part of the British State to genuinely address
"the past".
It is imperative that there is historical clarification
on all resolved issues. If these issues are not dealt with in
an open and honest manner then, as international examples clearly
illustrate, they will come back to haunt future generations and
may hinder attempts to reach a genuine and lasting peace.
1 December 2004
| 
