“This is the reality of the situation..”
Sinn Féin refused to attend the announcement of an interim report by the Consultative Group on the Past in Belfast today – the full report is expected in the summer. The BBC report picks up on Co-Chairman Lord Eames’ comments, “We cannot ignore that, in fact, the state sometimes acted illegally. If we are to move out of the past in a healthy way then the state itself needs to acknowledge its full and complex role in the last 40 years.” and Co-Chairman Denis Bradley’s, “The scale of the use of informers throughout the conflict corroded the fabric of our communities and the constant pressure now exerted for information about informers to be revealed only serves to further undermine the well being of communities to a degree that could be poisonous. Would the republican community like to have to tell an ageing mother that her martyred son was actually an informer? That is what full disclosure could mean.” Of more concern might be those who are still alive.. We already know what the Police Ombudsman thinks about “drawing a line under the past..” And it’s been suggested that Sinn Féin and the DUP intend to rely on their four Victims Commissioners to deal with those poisonous foundations. Adds Full text of the speech here.
And from the Consultative Group’s press release
Denis Bradley said, “Many people have put their faith in the Criminal Justice system delivering for them. Even while knowing people would only serve a maximum of two years under the early release scheme, it was important for them that justice was seen to be done. We sympathize with this desire for justice.
“However it is difficult for us not to listen to those experts who are telling us that the reality is that as each day passes securing justice becomes less and less likely. In many historic cases witnesses have died, exhibits are no longer credible or have disintegrated over time. This is the reality of the situation.”
And also
In his closing remarks Denis Bradley said, “As a group we are committed to addressing the legacy of the past in a way that will promote a greater goal of reconciliation within and between our people. We recognise that reconciliation remains an elusive and contested concept.
“For some of us this will mean being reconciled to the fact that our future is together, that we do share the land and its resources and a common sense of belonging to this place.
“For all of us it will mean bringing a new measure of common purpose reflected in greater cohesion, sharing and integration in our communities. We have no choice. There is no better future without a shared future; there is no shared future without reconciliation.”
Time then to undermine those old certainties..
Adds The full text of the speech addresses a wide range of groups and organisations but this, in particular, stood out.
In all our consultations it is unclear if Republicans truly appreciate the depth of hurt that exists in the Unionist community.
Republicans claimed they were targeting State forces in the guise of RUC/UDR members. Unionist communities, particularly in rural border areas, saw such tactics as deliberately killing fathers and eldest, or only, sons to drive Protestants from their homes and land. We have heard many stories from these communities who describe their experiences in this way – as at best raw sectarianism and at worst ethnic cleansing.
They believe Republicans have not come to fully understand the hurt that still exists and they need to acknowledge and appreciate the damage they did to the prospect of reconciliation between our two communities.
Indeed if the aim of the Republican struggle was to unite Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter, the brutal logic of their violence undermined this aim. The reality of the depth of division that has been caused between neighbours – who now need to share the future, needs to be acknowledged. Regardless of the uniform, the cause, countrymen killed fellow countrymen. While we realize Republicans have embarked on a process to address some of these issues we believe more needs to be done – apologizing to non-combatants just isn’t good enough.
From the Sinn Fein link above.
“Nationalists and Republicans will not accept the British government attempting to portray themselves as innocent bystanders in this conflict. The British government directly and indirectly through their surrogate murder gangs were active participants in the conflict and any process of truth recovery must reflect that reality.
Know what?
This time the shinners are right.
“We cannot ignore that, in fact, the state sometimes acted illegally.”
Does Eames mean just the agents of one state or is he open to the notion that the agents of more than one state were embroiled in actions that led, directly and indirectly, to serious injury, death and destruction?
Pete, you might like to link to FULL TEXT OF KEY NOTE ADDRESS
Until we have clarity and some insight on Britain’s full role in the conflict Victims groups and Commissions unfortunately are wasting their time. How can they get at the truth if the British government covers it up and blocks it at every turn. Unionists need to take off the sectarian Orange blinkers, open their eyes and realise that successive British administrations were up to the oxters in murder and violence and were NOT the honest broker they keep telling us. This includes IRA victims as well as Loyalist because, as we have seen, Britain’s security services had compromised the IRA & Sinn Fein and a lot of Republican operations were obviously known to the spooks before they happened. We KNOW that they TOTALLY controlled, armed and financed Loyalist groups fully directing their campaign. What role did they play with the IRA? Whitehall obviously has a lot to hide with the introduction of the Inquiries Bill and the binning of the Cory, Stalker and Stevens reports. The Rosemary Nelson inquiry is also being hindered while the Bloody Sunday Inquiry will probably absolve Britain too. Any inquiry set up Britain is a waste of time as it is Britain that sets the terms, rules and restrictions. How stupid do they think we all are here or is this just another example of their TOTAL contempt for the ‘unruly Irish’? It is now accepted that there was some form of ‘unspoken’ official state assassination policy within British political and security ranks. It wasn’t that long ago that the Spanish government of Felipe Gonzalez fell and ministers were prosecuted because of their role in setting up State murder squads that murdered Basque Separatists. I have just heard the Unionist response on Talkback and it is pathetic but predictable. They more or less absolved the British State from any wrongdoing so if Unionist citizens are looking for the truth of why their loved ones died they won’t get any help from their own politicians.
Thanks Nevin.
Didn’t see that when I posted the original.
Typical whitewash of the english governments involvement in murder and mayhem and only the pain causded the unionist community seems to really matter.
Results as predicted I guess
for the “mistrust” which still permeates unionist communities, read “paranoia” … everybody was out to get the paragons of democratic virtue; and republicans must apologise for rebelling against the unionmist utopia one-party fascist state which enslaved and oppressed catholics: the protestant state for a protestant people! what a load os shit, whitewash a-la widgery. big bad republicans, tut tut.
only the pain causded the unionist community seems to really matter.
Can’t believe you read the whole address by Lord Eames, Steve.
“We cannot ignore that, in fact, the state sometimes acted illegally.”
“We cannot ignore that, in fact, the world really is flat.”
nothing like stating the bloody obvious.
Perhaps Republicans can show deluded unionists how to get to the truth when Adams and McGuinness tell us about their involvement in the struggle and open up the files of SF/IRA.
Anybody got a clue as to when, on the whole, we stopped hating the Germans and the Japanese for the misdeeds of their leaders?
Ulsterfan
Do you honestly believe that the IRA keeps files and paperwork?
My arse
Then lets get digging and see exactly what war the english prosecuted against its own citizens
Interesting address. I wouldn’t really say your post does it justice.
Firstly, they’ve clearly decided to attempt a narrative of the modern Troubles. Given their terms of reference:
“To consult across the community on how Northern Ireland society can best approach the legacy of the events of the past 40 years; and to make recommendations, as appropriate, on any steps that might be taken to support Northern Ireland society in building a shared future that is not overshadowed by the events of the past.”
they might just have recommended this narrative be agreed by the parties at Stormont. A brave step then, but perhaps a risky one.
On the content, a few things stand out:
“An open and democratic criminal justice system is vital to a civilized society but the judicial process is a crude instrument to use when dealing with a conflict such as we have experienced. It often doesn’t deliver what people seek or bring about the healing that they long for.
We understand how the piecemeal approach to the past has emerged and that those who crave the truth will explore any available avenue to get it. However there are other ways of seeking truth that do not include long drawn out judicial processes. What we need is our solution to our problem. This will form an important part of our report and recommendations.”
The right to a fair trial is internationally recognised and “our solution” would be foolish and criminal to deny this. The right to truth for families of various atrocities isn’t suitable for this kind of amateurish, experimental language. This is extremely concerning.
“[we] will liaise closely with the Commissioners for Victims and Survivors as they develop their work programme, to ensure these welfare needs are met”
They clearly aren’t going away.
“in fact, the State sometimes acted illegally”
This is perhaps the most important sentence. An eventual motion in Stormont could require the Unionist parties in particular to endorse this as part of a wider settlement, and that would mean an arm of British government recognising the state’s illegal acts in Parliament. Hardly a whitewash. Especially if SF eventually passed a motion at Westminster.
If SF had been expecting that, I’m almost surprised they didn’t go for that alone. But using Victims’ groups to hide your shame or embarrassment is a little pathetic I think.
All in all, the speech and narrative were cautiously even-handed, respectively addressing the two sides of the conflict. While completely in line with the approach of consociationalism, not particularly visionary. I think the approach is to say little enough to allow agreement possible. I’d say more openness and honesty, balanced with more concessions, would be better.
Still too early to speculate on the eventual content, but an interesting, by turns insightful and disappointing, discourse.
steve
I am surprised you consider all Irishmen to be citizens of the English/British State.
Did Republicans not consider themselves to be apart( Sinn Fein and all that nonsense)
If they did not give allegiance to that State how could the Brits declare war on its own citizens?
The Consultative Group on the Past has been established as an independent group to seek views across the community in Northern Ireland on the best way deal with the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland.
They met with victims and survivors from here and from the South yet, apparently, had a deaf ear for those from the East. I voted for the Agreement partly because it embraced all of the relationships that are important to us. This Hiberno-centric approach adopted by the Consultative Group is IMO unfortunate as well as being anti-Agreement.
The full text of the address is a well written and careful attempt at an even handed analysis of what I suspect people think and probably sets out well what people I know who were victims in the unionist community would think. I suspect it is probably also a fair attempt at explaining what republicans think.
In that: in its attempts to be all things to all men and indeed in the responses so far to it I would suggest lie proof of the folly of this whole enterprise.
Whilst unionists will accept that there was collusion, as the speech indicates we feel it was utterly unacceptable and believe it was limited. We also describe the IRA campaign as utterly and nakedly sectarian. Both of those positions are going to be directly gainsayed by republicans. As such there is very little chance that this report will promote reconciliation. Whilst I doubt it will lead to blood on the streets as I believe Willie Fraser predicted, I strongly suspect it will simply stoke bitterness.
The revelations of informers etc. will be just the same and I have no desire to have some sort of schadenfreud of seeing elderly republicans told their sons were informers.
I have suggested this before but I will again say that if Eames and Bradley really listened to what was said they could come to a radically different conclusion. That is that this process is not going to help but is indeed going to hinder reconciliation here and that the greatest contribution they could make would be to bury this report in the depths of the ocean where it would never bee seen again and then Eames, Bradley and the others might agree not to talk about it.
Such a conclusion would, however, require more insight and lateral thinking that I deem these people possess.
I am left wondering whether or not they can be so naive (indeed stupid) as to think their report will help. Unless of course the are simply so fond of the limelight and so caught up in the supposed importance of their task and their own vital importance to Northern Ireland that they are now taking part in what is becoming a vanity project for them.
Either way from whatever (probably good) motives they operate, I have little doubt they will do harm. I also no confidence that they have the true wisdom not to proceed with their folly.
Turgon.
Your position is untennable. The facts are that it has already been made public knowledge that collusion was not limited as you are determined to insist, despite clear evidence to the contrary.
Unionists are in for a shock when the depth of links between the security forces and paramilitaries – including the IRA – is eventually revealed.
Sources close to the body looking at how to deal with the past say they’ve been taken aback by information they’ve come across
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/article3318649.ece
With the above information, including link to the newspaper it was published in, how can you continue to allow yourself to believe a clear untruth?
FAFKABO,
You prove my substantive point, which is indeed exactly why I put my comment about collusion in there. You are focused on security forces collusion but seem to have little cognisance of the fact that unionists perceive the IRA campaign as utterly sectarian and indeed frequently as ethnic cleansing.
I am sure you are as utterly certain that there was massive collusion as I am certain the IRA was utterly sectarian and involved in ethnic cleansing.
You help prove my point that if this body seeks to bring about reconciliation it will, if it publishes its report do precisely the opposite. As such if its authors had true wisdom they would not publish it for many years if ever.
Thank you for your help even if it was unintentional.
as I am certain the IRA was utterly sectarian and involved in ethnic cleansing.
Turgon, seriously wise up.
Paul,
It seems thanks are due to you as well. Eames Bradley said that unionists regard the IRA campaign as sectarian and at times ethnic cleansing. You seem to utterly reject this position.
Indeed reconciliation does not seem to be likely to be helped by this group. It seems to provoke exaclty the opposite.
No real surprises with the comments posted here today. Turgon, I’m a unionist and I know there was collusion. I would also be surprised if the IRA didn’t know just how riddled it was with informers. But, do you know something? Not one of you lot has been big enough to admit thaty the last 40 years was a nasty, squalid little civil war and no one’s hands are really clean, not the Brits, not the unioist parties, not the naitonalists, not the republicans, NO ONE’S! Geddit? If oyu all want to be taken seriously then the first thing you need to do is say that we were all involved in turning this place into a basket case and all of us have a responsibility to sort it out. Let our children and grandchildren argue over the historical rights and wrongs when we’re all dust. The victims should get due support but we don’t need dozens of victims organisations to do it. I gave a Eames a hard time when he came to my part of the world and I htink the Commissionis right to say if one side has to ‘fess up and air it’s dirty linen then all sides have to. Get on with fixing this place, not constantly trying to drag us down. As for the TUV- some of your members are fully paid up fascists and gangsters- your no better thna the rest of us so get off the high moral ground- it ain’t yours
Damian
“I wouldn’t really say your post does it justice.”
Everyone’s a critic. My post was noting the announcement of the interim report and the reaction – with my initial thoughts on that. When the actual address was available it was added and is linked for all to read.
“They clearly aren’t going away.”
When the Consultative Group produce their final report in the summer they will depend on an extension of their remit not to go away.
Turgon
It’s an interim report.
The group have merely mapped out the different stories being told and noted where they think there are difficiencies in those stories – such as with the story told by ‘Republicans’ that I noted above.
They are also tasked with finding a way through those, often competing, stories.
To damn them, as you do, before they have produced any recommendations at all is to future ill-advisedly.
Those poisonous foundations are there. Ignoring them is to no-one’s benefit – as some of the links in the original post demonstrate.
Turgon.
The subject of this thread is state involvement in murder, not the IRA’s campaign.
In case you didn’t know it, I am also a unioist who believes that the IRA were enagaged in a sectarian campiagn, but that’s not the issue being discussed here.
The state that both you and I want to be alligned with has been involved in the murder of our fellow countrymen and our neighbours.
What say you?
Pete
It doesn’t happen often but I completely agree with you here. Right now people are criticizing a report that is still a few months from being published based on their interpretations of a few media statements.
And I also feel that even learning some half-truths are better than living with downright lies or ignorance. I see any truth-based process as being not just a finger-pointing exercise about what did happen but an opportunity to determine what didn’t happen. Right now anybody can go to the media and make all sorts of allegations and rumour-mongering about anybody or anything, which end up being treated as gospel truth.
Pete Baker,
I agree it is an interim report and I believe that it was as even handed as it could be. However, that is my very point. No matter how good the report is it will stir bitterness and anger, open old wounds: use whatever clichés one wants.
As such (and I think the responses so far bear me out) the best thing for Eames Bradley to do would be to bin the whole thing and give up or at least not publish it for many, many years.
I do not think they will do that and I hope the reason they will not is that they are too foolish and myopic to see what a bad idea their commission is. Alternatively (and they are meant to be intelligent people) they are too fond of the limelight to admit that their project is disastrously flawed and although they did not set it up, the best thing they could do would be to stop it.
graduate,
Thank you for the rant. As you are a graduate (and I do not doubt much better qualified than I am) maybe you can see what I am trying to say re the Eames Bradley.
Incidentally in terms of collective responsibility: no I do not get it. I do not get that I am responsible for killing people or for supporting killing people. I do not get that the the majority of nationalists / Roman Catholics have anything at all to apologise for either. Their’s is a legitimate aspiration for a united Ireland. Provided they did not support killing people to get it they have absolutely nothing to apologise for.
You may wish to indulge in mental self flagellation for the problems of Northern Ireland and proceed with your own somewhat perverse view that we were all to blame. I tend to believe in personal responsibility. Hence, unless you did something immoral or evil I do not hold you responsible. If however, it gives you some sort of perverse feeling of moral superiority to accrue guilt to yourself please proceed. Ironically by placing a mental hair shirt on yourself it is you who ascend the moral high horse; one I have no wish to be on. The only moral place I presume to inhabit is the same one as all others who opposed violence and murder: somewhere a little above the gutter. Except of course for my personal religious belief on utter Depravity but that is a quite different argument.
“The revelations of informers etc. will be just the same and I have no desire to have some sort of schadenfreud of seeing elderly republicans told their sons were informers.” – Turgon
Since when did the potential to cause anguish to the parents of an accused person take precedence over the right to justice for the person who was allegedly wronged by the accused person? That’s exactly the same as saying that an outstanding rape case should not be prosecuted because a pair of doting parents will be distressed to discover that their proud son is a rapist. When did the distress caused to kith and kin of an offender become a valid expedient to deny justice to the victim or to ignore the ongoing distress to the kith and kin of the victim?
This is pure propaganda that is presented as an Irish solution to an Irish problem (meaning one that exists independently of principle, being an exceptional pragmatic expediency) or, as The Two Stooges paraphrased it, “our solution to our problem.”
It’s clear that the ‘peace process’ is to take priority over all other considerations, including ones that are fundamental to human decency such as truth and justice. Yet that thoroughly rotten little society is being engineered by the British government for your benefit.
TAFKABO,
Sorry posts crossed. My internet connection was playing up.
I thought this blog was about Eames Bradley in total not collusion. What I was pointing out was that the narratives (to use that over used word) are completely conflicting and indeed frequently contradictory.
As such Eames Bradley will always say some things acceptable to one side but utterly unacceptable to the other. On other things it will be vice versa. Hence, I maintain that the process is going to increase division and now is not the right time for it and I am dubious if there will be a right time in the foreseeable future.
My central complaint is that Eames Bradley are too stupid to see this. Or just possibly too self important and arrogant to care.
TAFKABO
“The subject of this thread is state involvement in murder, not the IRA’s campaign.”
No, it’s not. As I’ve already said.
“My post was noting the announcement of the interim report and the reaction – with my initial thoughts on that. When the actual address was available it was added and is linked for all to read.”
doctor
Indeed.
Turgon
You clearly haven’t read the links I provided, nor thought on the contents of those posts, beyond your belief that those involved in the Consultative Group are “too fond of the limelight to admit that their project is disastrously flawed”.
That is a conclusion that you have repeatedly stated without evidence or argument in the face of examples to the contrary.
Pete,
I keep saying that their fondness for the limelight is a possible explanation. As each of my posts so far has said, should you read them carefully, it may also be, indeed I hope is due to their myopia and foolishness. I tend not to put down to malice what can be explained by stupidity.
Turgon
“My central complaint is that Eames Bradley are too stupid to see this.”
You’ve been playing the man/men.
I suggest you choose a different approach to those you disagree with.
Fine,
I suggest they have completely failed to see that their approach and indeed the whole project is utterly flawed, will stoke division and impede reconciliation: whatever that word is meant to mean.
Rational argument is preferable, Turgon.
Above and beyond playing the man, that is.
And you still haven’t produced any rational argument to support your claim that “they have completely failed to see that their approach and indeed the whole project is utterly flawed.”
Whilst the links in the original post suggest otherwise [in terms of the whole project].
Indeed the problem is that this is not a subject which all the victims approach rationally.
I am going to bed and do not have the time or inclination to get the links but very many of the press reports of this group’s meetings included reports of extremely divided and divisive meetings. The one in Londonderry which from memory you blogged on being a case in point. Even the group’s own website alluded to meetings where widely and sharply differing views were put forward.
The problem Pete is that for many people this is not a rational argument. It is about the deaths of loved ones, it is about horrific injuries, hideous memories (and that on all sides). Many do not even accept the current concept of reconciliation. Some do I have no doubt but some do not. Many I know have a religious understanding of such things and it is not one which lends itself to reconciliation without repentance.
My point all along is that this is a flawed project, utterly flawed in its inception and no matter how well performed by Eames and Bradley it is so flawed that it will increase division. I remain amazed that they do not see this.
Turgon
“Indeed the problem is that this is not a subject which all the victims approach rationally.”
Which why we must approach, and argue, the topic rationally.
“My point all along is that this is a flawed project, utterly flawed in its inception and no matter how well performed by Eames and Bradley it is so flawed that it will increase division.”
And there you go again.
Rational argument, first and foremost, and play the ball.
Turgon, reconciliation is used by Eames and Bradley as though they were marriage counsellors – the process by which separated spouses are encouraged to resume their relationship and cohabitation. If you want to see nationalists and unionists as man and wife, then it makes sense to yield to the propaganda which says that the wife should not make legal action against the husband for burning the house down and murdering one of the kids because that approach encourages her to focus on the negative and not on the positive aspects of their relationship which are to serve as the basis for the renewed matrimonial vows. She should forgive and forget, suppressing any troublesome qualms she may have about past infidelities or whether or not it is right to mention to the authorities that one of her children is missing. If, however, you want truth and justice, then you have to accept that reconciliation that is built on a process of psychological repression that is facilitated by state censorship of information and engineering will not be possible. However, reconciliation that emerges from full disclosure – the only lasting kind – will be possible, and that is much more preferable. The reality is that there is no desire for truth and justice if that compromises the carefully engineered political status quo. Eames and Bradley have a political agenda of supporting the current process, much like the IMC have. If the people wanted truth and justice. then they wouldn’t have elected Sinn Fein and the DUP as the leaders of the devolved Executive (as was engineered by the British government), would they? Didn’t they see the blatant conflict of interest if electing those who were most responsible for creating victims to positions where they would be required to secure justice for the victims? Of course they saw it, but they simply don’t care. Everybody knows that, and that is the real politics that are being applied here.
Dave
It is interesting that you see republicanism as masculine and unionism as feminine, is it because you see republicans as more physically dominant?
Steve, it’s more a case that the abused party in a violent relationship shouldn’t be encouraged by the aforementioned marriage counsellors to reconcile with the abuser on the basis of accepting glib reassurances from the abuser to the effect of “I’m sorry. I promise never to hit you again.”
While I have no problem with a bunch of fascist gangsters like Sinn Fein/IRA making a declaration of non-violence if that is what the Eames & Bradley suggest, the citizens could not make that declaration without declaring that the state, and not the people, is the supreme authority.
Clearly, the people must reserve the right to overthrow an oppressive regime by violent means where no other means are available. Ireland is a democratic republic, so the power is invested in the people rather than the state. Northern nationalists cannot make any declaration that reverses that balance of power if they want to cling, even nominally, to the one of the core values of a democratic republic.
Obviously, imperial governments, such as the British government, adore declarations where the state is held to be the supreme authority and the people are subject to that authority at all times and under all circumstances – hence the British government, via their two stooges, would like to secure a commitment that violence should never be used for political ends (i.e. against the state), because such a declaration would amount to an acceptance by the citizens of the primacy of state control.
Pete Baker,
Again you ignore the emotive nature of the subject. You state that we need to approach the subject rationally yet that is your version of rationality. This process was set up for the victims and many of them are on record as saying they are not happy about it: just look at what Eames Bradley and indeed their web site comments say. Or indeed the Londonderry meeting on which I believe you blogged.
It may very well seem irrational to them that here “the reality is” that murderers will go unprosecuted.
You have also failed to answer my point about the meetings causing rows, argument and division. You know those meetings involving victims, the people the process was supposed to help.
Dave 12.36am puts it very well: this process is intensely political and looks very likely to have been designed to achieve an agenda. An agenda which the government want. An agenda of drawing a line under the past. A concept utterly flawed in its inception and outworking. After all such conflicts people remember and are very often angry, very angry, very reasonably angry: hence appealing to rationality is to miss the point completely.
By already saying that it will be practically impossible to have people brought to justice that is just going to distress relatives and increase anger. The relatives probably know this full well but to bring all these things back up again, announce that justice (on all sides) will not be served and expect this to produce reconciliation is an utterly flawed idea. Flawed that is unless one is slavishly following a specific agenda in which one does not really care about the victims but instead only cares about doing was is deemed to be politically necessary in order to “move forward” with the process and draw an artificial government sanctioned line under the past.
If it is to draw that line it may well please the governments (though there will be a bit of governmental pain about collusion) but will do nothing for victims, they very people the process was supposedly set up to help. That Eames Bradley after meeting so many people (so may of whom were victims) fail to appreciate the flawed and indeed negative nature of their project brings me back to saying they are either foolish or following an agenda set out for them by others and one designed to help the “process” and not the victims.
Pete,
Sorry to double post but you also fail to address the fact that quite a number of victims will reject the whole concept of reconciliation without repentance. Again this is a further fatal flaw in the system. One which Eames should know and understand. It may seem irrational to you but to some of the victims and indeed some in wider society that is a critical flaw which will invalidate the whole process. It is based in a specific religious analysis and however, irrational and emotive it is, I am afraid that set of religious beliefs is common in Northern Ireland.
Paul,
It seems thanks are due to you as well. Eames Bradley said that unionists regard the IRA campaign as sectarian and at times ethnic cleansing. You seem to utterly reject this position.
Indeed reconciliation does not seem to be likely to be helped by this group. It seems to provoke exaclty the opposite.
Most Unionists believe that the Earth is 4000 years old, i care only about the facts and not the perception.
You are correct Turgon i utterly reject your claim that the IRA campaign was utterly sectarian and at times ethnic cleansing. Ironically though that is exactly the description that should be given to the various Loyalist groupings, helped and guided by State forces. That is indisputable fact, not my perception.
Paul,
Perversely I suggest you and I agree on this in the one specific of Eames Bradley not being likely to help but being likely to hinder.
Let me suggest to you that it is unlikely that Eames Bradley will detail the collusion that they found. As such this will anger you as you state that collusion was a fact. If I for a moment accept your statement: do you think Eames Bradley will truly blow the whistle on the what why when and where of this collsuion? Do you think it will really call the government to account?
Since I suggest that this is most unlikely; you will not be reconciled to the government or the state forces by way of Eames Bradley. Indeed you will be further angered by the fact that all the acts of collusion have been brought up by republicans yet nothing came out of it.
Now move over to my side of the fence. Those whom I want to have named will not be named. Those whom I want to admit to and apologise for their actions will not do so. Those whom I want to admit they were indulging in a sectarian campaign will not do so.
This process is a politically motivated one and as Dave says Eames and Bradley are stooges of the government. I think what they should have done is say that their task was simply stoking bitterness (as it clearly did during the meetings) and yet was not going to solve the problem. As such it was and is counter productive and as such Eames and Bradley should have the moral and intellectual courage to stand up and say their process is utterly flawed and they would not continue with it.
“An agenda which the government want”
Turgon, I would imagine that as this was a process concocted by the two Governments the membership of CGPNI would not contain anyone likely to rock the so called peace process venture.
I’m a little surprised that they felt the need to whitewash the actions of Irish governments. An independent examination of events surrounding the Omagh bomb and possibly other attacks too would probably demonstrate that the governments in the UK and Ireland have allowed such attacks to proceed in order to protect their informants. The institutions of the states will always have received greater priority IMO than the protection of the citizens.
Pete, I fail to understand why you apparently obsess on the rational card when our actions are IMO a mix of the rational and the irrational.
Turgon, i do agree that the whole exercise is utterly pointless.
I was merely contesting one of your perceptions.
Graduate,
Easily one of the best posts I have ever read on Slugger (#25, pg1 of this thread).
The day-to-day drudgery of tedious man-playing & “whatboutery” can become infuriating; your comment was, quite simply, Slugger at it’s best.
Regardless of the religuous ergo, political persuasions that we have all had foisted upon us by fate, there were inhumane acts of terrorism & suffering inflicted by both sides in The Troubles.
That each & everyone one of these was carried out under the badge of the Tricolour, or the Union Jack, cuts little ice with me.
Murder is murder. Bombing is bombing; & sectarianism is pure evil.
The sooner that both communities accept EQUAL responsibility for ALL of the heinous crimes that were committed in this Island’s bloody past, the closer we will be to genuine reconciliation.
However, I’m slightly surprised that one Sluggerite did feel the need to describe your post, as a “rant”.
Your post reflected the need to move on, while not being flippant towards all of the suffering that has occurred.
Seems far from a rant to me.
Regards,
ANO
Dave
It seems to me you have it exactly bass akwards
for 50 years unionists abused their spouse the nationalists, the troubles are merely the out working of the abused spouse no longer willing to take the abuse and fighting back.
But like most abusers when the abused fight back they want to play the innocent victim. That games busted flush every where in the world except the sectarian enclaves in nIreland
Turgon, I am sad to say the overwhelming impression I am getting from your posts on this thread is that when it comes to victims of state collusion, you are willing to turn your back and close your eyes to broken lives, broken bodies, and broken promises as anyone you castigated at this site over the Paul Quinn murder or have scolded as “sneaking regarders” of paramilitarism, be it republican or loyalist.
Collusion cost innocent lives, and collusion ruined others beyond repair.
Yet when the pain of those victims and anguish of their families contradicts your “belief” in your preferred narrative of the Troubles, you disdain even to click and read through a few links. Your immediate assumption that TAFKABO was not a unionist because he expressed concern about the extent of state collusion with loyalist violence is also disillusioning.
I think most people who support a united Ireland nonetheless now recognise that republican violence was not just a reaction to excessive use of force by the security forces and to loyalist violence — it was instrumental in stoking and intensifying it, often as a deliberate tactic of a guerrilla war against the state.
Was it inevitable that a guerrilla war against the state would morph into what would be perceived as a sectarian campaign in such a small geographic space? Tragically, I believe it was. And the resentment and distrust will take decades, if not generations, to fade away.
But equally, unionists supportive of a shared, or at least a more pragmatic and workable, future are not threatened in acknowledging that loyalist violence, state collusion with loyalists, and the excessive and oftentimes sectarian use of force by the security forces was not solely a reaction to terrorism, but directly responsible for politicising and radicalising many republican paramilitaries. That distrust too, will take decades, if not generations, to fade away.
To acknowledge the hurt, the violence, and the moral depravity of what was inflicted and what was endured in the name of republicanism, in the name of unionism, and in the name of “keeping the peace” is perhaps of even more service to the future than to the past and to the pain of victims. One dimensional narratives that focus on the grief and grievances of one community over another are useful in waging a war, but corrosive to building a peace.
My own contribution to this debate is over on Belfast and Beyond and Our Kingdom. Don’t wish to replicate it here, but among my points is that:
“… Amnesty International’s experience of truth recovery processes in over thirty (primarily post-conflict) countries would suggest that the most effective way of moving towards long-term peace, stability and reconciliation is to confront and interrogate the past and maximise the scope for justice. One does not build a solid and stable future on a foundation of half-lies and concealments.”
Excelent post Susan and cuts right through all the shite I and others throw around here and sums it up perfectly
Patrick
“the most effective way of moving towards long-term peace, stability and reconciliation is to confront and interrogate the past and maximise the scope for justice. One does not build a solid and stable future on a foundation of half-lies and concealments.”
Good points. And ones I’d agree with.
There was always a risk that the Eames/Bradley Group would instead produce a process of public counselling.
Of course, as Susan McKay highlighted previously, that would suit some just fine.
The problem, as I mentioned at the time,