There was once a time back in the 1980s when Eibhlin Glenholmes was described as Britain’s most-wanted woman – identified with the IRA war and the focus of a headline extradition battle that played out on the streets of Dublin.
In the intervening years she melted into the republican background, not someone for the public stage.
But, in measured words spoken in an interview with me last week, she set the boundaries within which the IRA might use the word sorry.
“I have no qualms about apologising for any hurt,” she told me in an interview for UTV News.
“I regret that the conditions existed in which my life and the lives of many people of my generation were changed irrevocably by the armed struggle.
“And I regret that so many of our lives were lost,” she said.
I knew the answer to my next question, but still I asked it: You’re not saying that the IRA war was wrong?
“Absolutely not,” Eibhlin Glenholmes responded.
“We didn’t go to war – war came to us.”
This interview was a response to the recent article penned for An Phoblacht by Declan Kearney – Sinn Fein’s national chairperson; an article that challenged republicans to recognise the “healing influence of being able to say sorry for the human effects of all actions caused during the armed struggle”.
And Glenholmes and other republicans are prepared to do just that – acknowledge the human hurt of war.
Writing anonymously on this website, another republican reminded us that we are now forty years on from 1972 – the worst year of the conflict in terms of deaths; a year remembered for two days in particular, but a year of many other Bloody Days.
“The basic principles of modern republicanism must embrace all the cultures on this island if we are to improve the lives and conditions for everybody,” the republican wrote.
“In order to do so we must heal the hurt of the past and build trust amongst former adversaries and allow a political debate to take place that will guide us towards the future,” the post continued.
“For republicans, we will of course seek to persuade for a United Ireland.
“I think Declan Kearney’s article is a genuine attempt to bridge that gap between us all, and to challenge republicans and others to take a walk in someone else’s shoes and see the hurt and pain that we have inflicted upon each other.”
For a few weeks now, I have been thinking about the word sorry, about its meaning and use.
And, writing on this website, the Presbyterian minister Rev Lesley Carroll, a member of the Eames/Bradley Consultative Group on the Past, reminded us of both its worth and limitations.
“It is also true,” she wrote, “that sorry is not enough and for some people it will never be enough and can never be enough.
“Sorry doesn’t repair the world,” she continued. “Sorry doesn’t bring back that which has been lost.
“Sorry doesn’t right the wrongs and rebuild the broken. The limitations of ‘sorry’ have to be acknowledged, even if it is the hardest word,” she wrote.
But she also described the “transformative power” of saying sorry and identified it as “a humanising word”.
“We should not forget all that sorry acknowledges,” she continued.
“That there was one offended against, that hurt has been caused, that there is recognition of harm done, that there is repair needed and this is an offer for that repair to begin.”
The wars of this place have left many people broken, and the debate that is opening out needs to go beyond what the IRA did, and what it should now say.
It cannot be about one side’s sorry.
In a recent discussion programme on this website one of the UDA’s leaders Jackie McDonald described what political unionists and loyalists fear about this discussion.
“There are a lot of skeletons in the cupboard,” he said.
“It’s about who are the guilty parties.
“It’s not just the IRA, or the UDA or the other paramilitary groups,” he continued.
“There are a lot of skeletons in the cupboards.
“There are a lot of things that have been done wrong.
“And if everybody was to hold their hands up and admit it [the fear is]that the IRA would probably come out of it smelling like roses more than anybody else,” he said.
No one will come out of any examination of the past smelling like roses.
But McDonald is right, it is not just about the IRA, the UDA and other paramilitary groups.
As I’ve written many times, it is about governments, churches, media, security forces, intelligence services, political unionism and many others.
And while there are questions for Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness and the IRA, those are just some of the questions.
I can’t remember the last time a unionist politician named a UDA or UVF leader publicly to ask about their activities, orders and actions - and I wonder why.
Have they forgotten their names? Do they not know their names?
Loyalists have responded to the Kearney article and are engaging in this debate – not just McDonald, but John Howcroft, Alistair Little, Frankie Gallagher and the former MLA and PUP leader Dawn Purvis.
On this website, she wrote: “Political unionism has a responsibility to provide leadership and engage in these discussions.
“And passing the parcel of blame in the hope of scoring a point will make it all the more difficult when the time comes to eventually lift the rock.”
There are no points to be won, and there are difficult conversations to be had, some of them about to begin off stage.
Last week Seanna Walsh, who read the historic IRA endgame statement in 2005, reminded us that after the gunfire there is “all sorts of damage that we are going to be attempting to put right in the years ahead”.
And Lesley Carroll is right.
Sorry is a humanising word and it is a good way to start.
19 Comments
Interesting piece Brian and I appreciate your continued chipping away on this issue. It is vital.
However the issue of unionist-London-loyalist collusion is comparatively well established - Cameron has openly said there was collusion in Pat Finucane’s murder. The UK has apologised for Bloody Sunday unreservedly.
However only last week the Dublin establishment tried to gag a former senior RUC officer who said that the Taoiseach had blocked Garda cooperation in the RUC investigation into the Narrow Water bombings.
Enda Kenny campaigns on Pat Finucane but has ignored requests to meet Kingsmills families for 10 months now. Those gunmen enjoyed safe haven in the ROI; the Garda knew who they were and what they had done. Does Enda believe in a hierarchy of victims?
Dublin has never accepted any responsibility for collusion with the IRA despite factually providing a safe haven for them for decades, refusing extraditions and letting IRA roam free to strike across the border.
Do we need to mention the arms trial(s)? Nobody denied Irish ministers were importing guns for the IRA. They were acquitted on other grounds. Minister Blaney went on record to say he and others helped create PIRA.
It is well established that the same cabinet deliberately split the OIRA to create a more traditional IRA that would forget Marxism and focus on nationalism and attacking the British state prescence in Northern Ireland.
I am not judging how moral the IRA campaign was. And I think there are very good reasons for Unionists and London to come clean on collusion. But why do you never mention, in your campaigning, the difficult questions still hanging over Sinn Fein leaders about their past? Tilt!
Surely you will have more credibility across the community if you address the same questions to Dublin as you do to London?
I have never heard you raise the Dublin dimension in recent times on Nolan or in the piece above.
Would be interested to hear to explain why you never mention this dimension?
I doubt that much progress can be made in bringing both communities forward by tipping out all the UK dirty laundry but pretending Dublin doesnt have any.
The knowledge of what actually happened and the resulting pain runs no less deep among unionists than it does among nationalists. There is no future without parity.
My position is very clear. I have written many times that there is no point in a half-truth process. Nor, in my opinion, is there any point in a blame process that only looks at Adams-McGuinness and the IRA, with the loyalists bolted on. In the article above I wrote:
“[Jackie] McDonald is right, it is not just about the IRA, the UDA and other paramilitary groups. As I’ve written many times, it is about governments [meaning British and Irish Governments], churches, media, security forces, intelligence services, political unionism and many others.”
In response to your post, I agree the Irish Government has questions to answer, and you raise a number of them in your contribution to this discussion. Will we ever get the truth? The answer is No - not from any side, never mind every side. Elsewhere on this website you will read a comment from me that the two governments are not interested in this process, because they fear it could come to their door or the door of the security forces. I also agree with you that collusion is not just within the narrow frame of State-loyalists. The Army was running an agent within the IRA internal security department who interrogated other agents prior to execution. On another matter, you raise the Kingsmill families. They should be met and heard. What happened was slaughter and the IRA should answer the questions being asked of it. If I was asked in any interview the questions you raise, I would answer as outlined here. I wouldn’t normally respond to an anonymous post, but your questions are fair, and that is why, this time, I’ve replied.
Thanks for your comments Barney
I would just appeal, as a friend of the peace process and all the good work that you *are* doing, that it does not in future require active questions be put to you in interviews for you to spell out that *DUBLIN* has equal responsibilities in the collusion truth process in comparison to London.
Otherwise I think there is a possibility that your explicit focus on London-Belfast-Loyalist collusion may have a counterproductive effect among certain sections of the community that I am sure you would much rather bring with you.
Hi Barney, I bet you thought I had gone away but no I’m still here, watching the debate unfold with interest and due care. As I have stated previously this is a very emotive and sensitive conversation that we must take care with for the impact that it may have on those still hurting, a Pandora’s box.
I have found NPOV ‘s contribution and comments refreshing and welcome, there maybe those who say this is churning the same old same old up again but it is where our community is at and thats where we need to start, ‘Dublin has never accepted any responsibility for collusion with the IRA, nobody denied Irish ministers were importing guns for the IRA, address the same questions to Dublin as you do to London? This is what our community needs to hear but also from our political leaders who are mandated to speak. NPOV should ‘come out’ and speak, what you are saying is what needs to be said.
As a Unionist I must ask, where is Political Unionism? It’s not that we don’t have politicians who are not well informed or who are not articulate enough, Jeffrey Donaldson, DUP who I believe is responsible for engaging Loyalism and involved in conflict transformation processes is more than capable and a man who I have a lot of time for, is a man who I would like to hear speak of these things. Michael Copeland an MLA for the UUP in East Belfast who would appear to have a lot to say on the ground but is missing in action. Come on Michael, speak up. Gregory Campbell who can be blunt at times but I believe can convey the underlying mood of Unionist communities should speak. Danny kennedy, has lived in the ‘Hell’s Kitchen’ of the trouble’s can speak from personal experience, don’t leave this conversation to a marginalised few, it is a valid conversation and it should be taken up by our political leaders. This conversation isn’t going to go away you know. Unionist should have nothing to fear, we are not looking for enquiry after enquiry but we are looking for something. If we continue this conversation we might just find out what and that is not a bad thing.
Frankie - I knew you hadn’t gone away, and I want to stress that it’s crucial that loyalism is heard in this conversation. This is a huge issue that is being discussed and debated, both on stage and off stage. And, on this page, you will have read recent, important, contributions from Lesley Carroll and David Latimer. Acknowledging hurt - and the possible use of the word sorry - are the difficult next steps in this process, and not just for republicans and loyalists. You ask, where is political unionism in this conversation, and others are asking the same question. There have been times in the past, as this process has developed, when loyalists have had to help political unionists along the way. Entering the negotiations together in 1997 is one such example. Maybe this is another moment when they need help.
Thanks Frankie
I dont think there is any need to apologise for raising these issues onto the agenda for discussion.
If we are building a future TOGETHER then we need to work at being straight and fair with each other.
We CANNOT apply one definition of collusion to London-Belfast-Loyalism and then a totally different definition to Dublin-PIRA.
How will that build trust, justice? Resentment and hatred more like, for subsequent generations. Declan Kearny said that trust had to come before reconciliation. Too many people know too much.
As for what political unionism is doing on this subject, changes are afoot.
The deal appears to be to hermitically seal the past 40 years as a Northern Irish tragedy, with no London or Dublin dimension in whatsoever. You don’t hang out our dirty laundry, we won’t hang out yours.
As for Kenny and Finucane, it appears the Taoiseach has either cut himself a minor side deal or else he has not fully signed up yet.
What do the NI political parties get out of this? Continued power and funding with international kudos.
Are these the prices we must pay for stability going forward? I don’t think I am qualified to answer that question. Maybe, but my instinct is that this approach will store up problems for the future. Eventually.
NPOV
I have been following the ‘sorry’ debate for a while now. In broad terms people seem to believe that the Declan Kearney article and comments were genuine and intended to open debate on issues not yet examined. Of course there are people who will always approach these matters with heavy doses of scepticism, sarcasm and general negativity as seen on posts elsewhere on these pages, but those who do wish to contribute or even constructively criticise should fire away.
Last year I was party to inviting one former British paratrooper and one former member of the Royal Anglian Regiment to Belfast to meet with the families of the West Belfast community - particularly the Ballymurphy Massacre relatives. The two also met former members of the Republican movement who had taken action against these regiments during the early and mid seventies.
In general terms the former soldiers voiced their regret at their activities here and in general terms the families accepted them and their regrets at the activities. There was no asking for clarification of this or that word; no ‘what exactly do you mean by…’ stuff. What took place was a genuine display of humans acknowledging the harsh facts that what they were party to in the past hurt others and they were sorry for that.
It was an experience I am glad I was party to. I saw genuine expression of feeling and general acceptance that the two were telling their truth.
I am not sure that any more could have been done for the families or that much more could have been said by the former British soldiers. Families did not pursue them about their individual activities, who they had beaten up, shot dead or wounded. However I do think the interaction helped relatives a little bit to have met these men and heard their stories and feelings about that era in our history. I thank the Community Relations Council for assisting us with that project.
I am not sure if the situation above could work in a reverse situation, as I think that the discourse on our conflict does not allow space for the non state actors in the conflict- i.e. former IRA personnel to be viewed on a par with the British forces. Our demonization by the media will take a long time to dissipate. This of course veers this topic towards ‘legitimacy’ but that is a discussion for another day. While I park that issue here, it is a vital component for future discussion.
I sat on the Interim Victims’ Forum for almost two years and during that period I met regularly with individuals and representatives of groups related to former British military, police personnel and victims of various activities during the conflict. In general these were very civil people carrying a lot of grief and hurt due to the loss and or injury to themselves or relatives. They knew my background as a former republican activist and life sentence prisoner.
Without revealing actual details of our discussions I can reveal that the issue of ‘sorry’ is not straightforward for some victims and survivors. In fact I would suggest that ‘sorry’ is not what they want. It could constitute part of it. I have the strong impression that they want facts about the deaths or injury; they want to know ‘why him?’, ‘why then?, ‘why not the other person who lived nearby?’. This is what I heard on the Forum and I fully understand these questions being asked. My response to them was that if individuals did wish to pursue those questions I would do what I could to assist finding answers for them. No one took me up on that.
Last week Barney Rowan asked me during a TV interview if I could express that I am sorry for death or injury to the British forces who had served here and I said ‘yes’. The discussion moved on. I of course could and would fully qualify my answer when appropriate, and Barney understood that, but he did not engage in petty pursuit of precise detail.
If individuals or groups wish to pursue this issue in a constructive manner then we in Coiste na nIarchimí are willing and able to engage with them – wherever and whenever they wish. We represent the political ex prisoners of the IRA and fully support the peace and political processes.
We have engaged with many other individuals and groups on many topics over the past decade on many other issues. We will continue to do so. We are willing to participate in assisting any member of the community in any way we can to embrace a peaceful and equitable future.
Le meas
Michael Culbert
Coiste na nIarchimí
I agree Barney ‘sorry is a humanising word’ and a good place to start but I think for many victims true sorrow won’t be just about about saying sorry for the hurt caused during the conflict - from wherever that hurt came from but for many people it may also require ‘sorry’ about the motive. It is difficult to disentangle the two - saying I am not sorry about the motive but I am sorry about the consequences suggests a half way house. It may also suggest that people are saying ‘very sorry about the hurt although our intentions were honourable.’ This is not to take away away from genuine debate and discussion but we may have to go further. As Michael said in his comments ‘saying sorry is not straightforward’ but through genuine open debate and discussion we may reach a better understanding of whats achievable.
Peter -You know what happens when impossible demands are made. The DUP made that mistake asking for photographs of IRA decommissioning. This is when the elastic band snaps. It was Lesley Carroll who described ‘sorry’ as humanising. When we chatted on Friday, you asked me, What next? It’s a question all of us are asking. So,what about a process that -
1/ Acknowledges hurt - using sorry as a humanising word and as a start. Accepts all wars are over, and commits to not travelling that road again.Violence is finished. 2/ Appoints international facilitators to shape an information/explanation process. Let’s not call it ‘Truth’. The facilitators meet all relevant parties off-stage to establish what’s possible. What information will be delivered by all sides, and within what type of mechanism. Within this conversation the issue of prosecutions/non-prosecutions needs to be addressed. The purpose here is to establish a ‘table of explanation’ that gives us all a better understanding of what happened and why. Importantly, it’s about ensuring it doesn’t happen again.3/ Victims. De-politicise the victims issue. Know and meet needs. I think Professor Kieran McEvoy gave us our starting point. It’s about suffering and all of us recognising everyone’s hurt.You’ve watched this process fall on its face because of impossible demands. So, let’s think about the possible and stretching the elastic band to that point.
I think it might be important for me to say just one more thing about sorry as a humanising word. It is a humanising word for both the one saying it and the one to whom it is said. So there is a levelling of humanity and a co-recognition of you like. So that in some ways takes the urgency out of the debate about how genuine it is or what it truly means for the person saying it will always find themselves influenced, effected by the eyes looking back at them. So the depth of what is intended has the potential to change even in the very articulating of it. I would want to back Barney here too when he points out that the elastic can be stretched too tight. This process can’t be about one group, whoever they might be, getting everything that they need. If only it were possible for that to happen. But it isn’t. I say it again - it just isn’t. So it is about putting steps in place and we can predict steps ahead but the truth is that each step sets out a new landscape ahead and the predicted steps might have to change. But we do need to be careful not to overstretch what is a process in which all need to engage for a robustly reconciling society to continue to develop and take on more energy. And yes it is about trying to do everything that can possibly be done so that what happened in the past doesn’t repeat itself. So it needs to be done carefully and intentionally.
Saying Sorry
When I entered into this debate I did so in
the hope, (despite some around me saying it would be a waste of time) that the
‘new conversations’ Declan talked of would actually take place. By new
conversations I don’t mean conversations that don’t allow for dissent,
suspicion, scepticism or negative thoughts. I mean conversations that are not
based on the party line, all in agreement, no dissenting voices and/or feeding
a political agenda.
The ‘creative ambiguity’ that has and continues
to be applied in an attempt to give ‘new meaning’, or should I say stretch the
meaning of sorry, seems to be increasing with each statement and passing day.
It would appear that Declan Kearney’s
desire that those interested in engaging in the debate should do so without
assumptions, suspicions and scepticism is not only unrealistic, but also very much
alive and well.
I must say in terms of assumptions I need
to respond to Michael’s comments regarding individuals who require or need more
specific details as, petty. I am one of
those people who wantsneeds a clearer understanding regarding some of the
terminology that has been thrown around. It is understandable given our past, and by
that, I mean Republican, Loyalist, and many of the other actors that Barney
Rowan refers to. It’s not as if we
haven’t all engaged at some point, in spin, misinformation, propaganda,
‘sorry’, creative ambiguity, and doublespeak when it has been deemed necessary.
Then we accuse others of being negative if they don’t trust our motives.
Please tell me this is not going to be the
response to those who voice their doubts, please tell me these ‘new
conversations’ have room for people to come as they are, with all of their suspicions,
without being judged for holding negative thoughts or being dismissed as being
petty.
I
have been asked by almost every person I’ve been in discussion with regarding
this issue, “what do they mean by sorry”? It is a fair question and for many a genuine
question. It is also true that for some it’s rhetorical, they don’t need to be
told they ‘already know’ and it’s not good! These people need to be encouraged to engage
not pushed away. So much for the ‘difficult conversations’ we are going to
have.
It is a question many have, and will
continue to ask, until a credible response is forth coming; the longer it is
avoided, the more doubt and suspicion it will generate.
I do believe, (bearing in mind that I am
fallible) that what is being offered to date will not convince many that this
is not just another chess piece being moved on the board. I hope I am wrong.
Saying sorry has to be about more than just
wanting a problem to go away. Neither
can there be any expectation that it resolves the issue of accountability or
responsibility.
How could it not be the case that many who
have been deeply wounded, suffered the loss, death, murder of their loved ones would
not be suspicious, and need to have a clear unambiguous statement as to the
meaning of sorry? There are many other
reasons for the scepticism, suspicion and doubt as to the motives behind saying
sorry.
I along with Rev Harold Good took part in a
UTV live tonight slot regarding the issue. What struck me most of all about
taking part was the conversation that took place between myself, Rev Good and
Barney Rowan.
The conversation for me focused around the
comment made by Declan Kearney “I don’t do impossible” in the context of the
IRA saying sorry. The conversation also touched on what republicans meant by
sorry, what they would or wouldn’t be saying sorry for. I also asked what if those
who had suffered didn’t want to hear sorry, but to be told the truth? What if
saying sorry would only cause more pain and hurt rather than heal?
The Rev Good asked me if I was not
supportive of the statement made. It was then suggested that I was being
negative and cynical. Brian Rowan gave
his sense of what the statement was saying, but it was clear that there was a
degree of tension and I had a strong sense in that moment that what I was
saying and what I was asking was unexpected, especially by Harold Good. I was
annoyed and surprised that the questions and difficulties I had regarding the
statement, were being seen and understood as negative, and cynical, something
to be avoided rather than embraced as part of the debate.
This
debate should not be the sole domain of academics or those engaged in political
agendas, but about all of us. I couldn’t help but think - so much for honest
debate and saying the difficult things and asking the difficult or un-popular
questions. I definitely came away feeling and thinking that there was an agenda
at play, and a particular spin being formulated.
Barney Rowan picked up my unease and my
anger. I felt at that moment that my right to have an opinion that differed
from that which had been voiced, and my right to challenge that voice, were
being questioned. It was an important
interjection that Barney Rowan made when he said, “Alistair you say whatever
you want to say”. However, for me the
question I am sitting with and the increased doubts I am having are ‘how real
is the debate going to be, how honest and what voices will be excluded,
especially if those voices are not compliant with the needs of those who may
already be charting the course of the debate, the so called ‘different and
difficult conversations’.
The Rev Harold Good went on to say in the
interview that we should listen to each other. I didn’t get a sense of that in
our pre-interview conversation. Rev Good also said that there would be those
who will be cynical and question everything, and analyse every word. Why should
they not? They carry years of distrust
and need to be convinced. Why is it that those who are suspicious, who doubt,
who need some more meat put on the bone are being made out to be doing
something wrong? Just be thankful if
they are willing to engage in the debate in the first place. Who would really
be in the room if they were to come without their cynicism, suspicions and scepticism? If people want to be involved in the
conversation, then come as you are, with all your doubts, suspicions, and
scepticism and see where it takes us. I certainly don’t want people to feel
what I felt, which is, unless you drive this forward free from suspicion and skepticism,
you’re not welcome.
To my mind acknowledgment is not sorry.
It is possible to acknowledge the pain and
hurt caused by the conflict, war, or troubles in a very general sense.
One could even attempt to make it more
personal we (whoever that may mean) acknowledge, or more personal again, I acknowledge. However,
this is not saying sorry and acknowledgement does not require one to say sorry
to make it valid.
I do not see an acknowledgement of people
having suffered and continuing to suffer as something new; this has been
conveyed many times by almost all of those engaged in the conflict, some have
been genuine, others less so.
Surely all of this has got to be about more
than acknowledgment. I have heard some say the suffering of everyone has never
been acknowledged before, but I would argue that it has. Sorry has never been said to all before, and I
don’t believe it will be, at least a sorry that we all know in our hearts and
that doesn’t need to be altered or twisted to fit.
Let’s be honest, we all know what a genuine
sorry means, we always have, always will, so no games, either go all the way
and say sorry or don’t.
Acknowledgement does not require any notion
of wrongdoing or guilt; it simply acknowledges what one did.
I can accept that an apology, saying sorry
and acknowledging it was wrong when innocent civilians were injured or killed.
I can accept that individuals or
organization or governments can say sorry for what they did, and that they
believe it was wrong. I also accept that individual’s organisations and nations
can offer an apology, say sorry and acknowledge wrongdoing for the actions of
past generations without being directly responsible themselves.
I can accept that many believe they fought
a war and cannot, or will not, say sorry for their actions in that war against
those they seen as the enemy. However, I would have to acknowledge that many
who claim to have fought the enemy, also killed innocent civilians.
Saying sorry if genuine, contains within it
the notion or acceptance of a wrong having been committed on or against those
one is saying sorry to. Sorry in of itself is an acknowledgement of the pain,
hurt and ongoing suffering, but also a willingness to take responsibility and be
accountable for ones actions. I am not saying here that anyone person or group
is responsible for the conflict but for their actions within that conflict.
My difficulty with the comment made by
Eibhlin Glenholmes, “we didn’t go to war, war came to us” is equivalent to saying
“I’m sorry you made me do it.”
I am not convinced that one can say sorry
for injuring or killing another human being and really mean that, whilst at the
same time saying they were justified in doing it, that it was the right thing
to do. For me, this use of ‘sorry’ lacks
any sense of sympathy or empathy.
It would be an insult to say I am sorry for
your suffering, for your loss, but I believe I was justified in causing it.
Not, I believed it was right then but I still believe it to be right now. What
does one do with that? I already know what some have said.
They have said, “This will not be a genuine
sorry if it comes, but rather just an acknowledgment of the suffering caused.”
There is much still to do despite the secretary of state Owen Patterson effectively claiming that the peace process is over. In his opinion, ‘we have arrived’.
Alistair Little.
Hi Alistair, Debate is healthy. The more robust and challenging the better. Disagreement has to be welcomed. As I’ve said to you on numerous occasions, on many different topics, there is no point in “cosy” conversations. Say what you think. None of us at this time can know where this discussion is going to go, but we all need to understand that the elastic band can be stretched only so far.
Having read Michael’s post on this issue I would like to make a point or two on the visit by the two former British soldiers.
Ops, hit a button I should not have hit……..
Anyhow back to the points. Michael said “What took place was a genuine display of humans acknowledging the harsh facts that what they were party to in the past hurt others and that they were sorry for that”
In the next paragraph he stated ” I saw genuine expression of feeling and general acceptance that the two were telling the truth” What I take from this is that the two soldiers expressed their sorrow for the hurt caused, but there is no sense that the same was expressed by the Nationalists they met back to them.
I have worked with, a least one, of these former soldiers over the years. Before they had left Belfast I got a phone call from England asking would I meet them as the visit was going badly for them, they felt that what they were being told was wrong and the conflict was all the British army’s fault.
So although Michael feels that the visit was worthwhile, and it probably was for the families of people killed by the British army, it certainly was not for the two former soldiers. How these guys felt all the blame was one sided has to be addressed. As a Republican, I know what it is like to have the whole conflict blame on us, and it is not only a bad feeling, it is totally wrong.
So dealing with this issue from a political level will cause more problems than it will solve.
Also to say sorry unilaterally makes a number of big assumptions. 1 that is is wanted, 2 that you have a right to say sorry for all members and past members of the PIRA, 3 that it will be generally welcomed, 4 that saying sorry will ease the hurt caused and not increase it, 5 that people will accept that you are genuine, 6 that people will not see it as some political gimmick.
Having worked, and still do work, with people who have lost love ones, I see the hurt and pain we caused up close on a regular bases. Michael seems to think that Republicans could not do this with families of dead British soldiers when he states “I am not sure if the situation could work in reverse”, well Michael it does and is working. For years members of the former INLA prisoners group have been doing it with these families. Yet another assumption it seems…..
I have also heard Michael talk about the PIRA being the same and equal to the British army, and that Loyalists are not. I am not too sure why this is such a big thing with the Provisional’s when it comes to this issue of saying sorry. If it is about legitimacy then fine, but what has that got to do with people who lost loved ones because of Republican actions? Are you saying sorry for the hurt and pain we cause you, but you must accept that what we did was legitimate and we were an army? Can you not see the problems and difficulties that will cause these people? How sallow it will sound? or as Alistair Little put it, “we are sorry you made us do it”
These are some of the reasons I believe that this is a political move by the Provisional’s, and believe that they thought they could deal with it at a political level and get praise for it.If we genuinely want to deal with this the one way we can not do it is at a political level, we all have too much to lose.
Imagine if one of the former British soldiers had said in Ballymurphy, “I am sorry for the hurt and pain I caused you, but it was the right thing to do as I had no choice and this war was forced onto us, and as I was in an army you must accept it was legitimate”. Just a thought…………
Peace, once a distant dream is slowly making a difference in everyday life. While this is a welcome relief to the turbulence we’ve all endured true peace clearly requires something more than the absence of street violence and the end of damaging and destructive inter-communal conflict.
We have done dark and dreadful things to each other. To our collective shame we have done unspeakable things to each other. Understandably, one side might want to blame the other side, but no one can confidently point a finger of blame towards ‘the other’ because the unavoidable reality is, we have all done wrong. No one can say his heart is altogether pure, nor can anyone say his hands are altogether clean. Tragically, everyone breathing on this tiny piece of Western European turf is a victim of difference that stretches back across trackless centuries, which has unhelpfully yielded two very different traditions that succumbed to living in virtual isolation. Not surprisingly, it has been this lack of contact that has permitted feelings of deep distrust to ferment across the corridors of time leading people on one side to deliberately disregard those on the other side as people with emotions and feelings of their own and members of the same human family.
While we cannot drag people to where they don’t want to be and accepting it will always be much easier to believe our differences matter more than what we have in common, the stark fact is, if we are not careful our children will see peace, not on our streets but in pictures and stories that offer glimpses of what briefly took place but did not endure.
Neither community wants to go back to the violence of the past. The overwhelming majority of people on the Emerald Isle committed themselves in the Good Friday Agreement to a bright new day and while this is commendable, it cannot be overlooked how it takes courage to let go of old grudges and hard attitudes and it takes faith to walk down a new road. Yet, if we really mean business about building a better inclusive future then we need to dig deep for the strength, courage and wisdom so that we can begin again and this time do it together.
Consequently, attempts to move ever closer together so that the splintered populace can change from being warring adversaries to friendly allies will only materialise when ALL SIDES agree to engage in ‘uncomfortable conversations’ which Sinn Fein’s National Chairperson rightly describes as the ‘key to reconciliation.’ Talking will undeniably hasten the day when growing numbers will be enabled to proclaim in the words of Henry Thoreau, ‘I may not agree with your politics, understand your religion or speak your language, but you are part of this community and it makes sense to embrace your differences and ask that you accept mine.’
Notwithstanding, long before discourses on the achievability of a United Ireland take place and prior to Republicans attempting to convince and persuade any section of the community of its desirability, there will be a requirement for two communities, more accustomed to living apart than together, being provided with opportunities to meet, mix, talk and accumulate reserves of trust by addressing other issues that for the Protestant, Unionist, Loyalist family are perceived to be pre-eminent.
Top of the ‘uncomfortable conversations’ agenda must surely be the emotional trauma and physical pain of everyone affected by decades of conflict. The suffering and damage visited upon individuals and communities need to be acknowledged, if healing is to take place and progress is to be made.
A great many Protestants and also Catholics are longing for a route out of the river of hurt that entraps them. Intriguingly, it is the power of forgiveness that alone can liberate people from the burden of the past. The big question is, are ALL SIDES up for engaging in this ‘uncomfortable conversation’ so as to ascertain how two different traditions can chart a clearer and higher future course? Forgiveness, it has to be said, is key to permanent societal transformation and by definition needs to be actively sought. For this to work ALL involved in the conflict need to acknowledge the pain they have caused or to which they may have contributed. Additionally, some kind of resolve not to repeat past actions will be required.
This process of forgiveness and healing involves helping one another to put down the debilitating burdens of guilt and shame, to turn to a new-shared page of history and to progressively become good neighbours. The journey may be bumpy, but the risks will be worth the rewards because, when we genuinely let others into our space, really listen to each other we don’t remain the same; we are changed by them and they by us. We are mutually enriched!
Thus, the message for every individual, every family, every community, every village, every town and every city is - this is your land. It is made for us all, so we must work together to make it the place we will be proud to live in and later hand over to our children.
As the present occupants of the place we all call home, we have in our possession the precious seeds of reconciliation. Planting these seeds will initially involve talking to one another and the first ‘uncomfortable conversation’ must be peoples’ need of forgiveness, healing and help! Moving towards a Day for Hope & Transformation that would extend ripples of release and relief to embrace hurting people across the Island would be a desirable and essential next step.
Our past may have been tragic, but our future can be distinguished, providing we work and grow in harmony, not for any particular cause, but for the greater good of all. For the purpose of building sustainable peace let our best work be the work WE ALL shall do tomorrow and may that work immediately be characterised by ‘uncomfortable conversations’ whereby resides the potential to empower and envision people emerging from conflict.
Reverend David Latimer Minister of First Derry Presbyterian Church
I think the most important thing about the Sorry debate is that so many people from different backgrounds are contributing to it.there isn’t and there never will be agreement on what sorry means because it has different meanings to different people,depending on how the conflict has affected them. The sorry word has been absent from so many conversations over the past 40 yrs I suppose we should be encouraged that it has been introduced at all. So many people have differing views for no doubt very good reasons and it occurred to me that many of us have a Treasure Map with X marking the spot on a Treasure Island,but as far as we are all concerned the X in a different spot,and in many cases on a different Island! Should we look at the Island and how we share it as the Treasure ? If we are to believe the results of recent surveys the majority of Catholics North and South are comfortable with the situation as it is,and The Republic of Ireland and Great Britian Probably have a better relationship now than at any time in living memory,why cant we be just good neighbours? I had the privilege of being in Iveagh House last night when Peter Robinson delivered his speech which would surely have given hope and encouragement to all those who heard it and who want a better,shared future for us all. I think the First Minister deserves tremendous credit for what he said and where he said it,and with Deputy First Minister Martin Maginnis there giving his support we can all move on.
Jackie - and that’s what is important, that so many people from different backgrounds are becoming part of this discussion. From the UDA/UPRG background, there have been regular contributions from yourself, John Howcroft in north Belfast and Frankie Gallagher in the east of the city.Earlier this week, I replied to Frankie that it is crucial that the loyalist voice is heard. I think we are all learning more about the word sorry; about its worth and limitations, and we don’t know yet how it is to be used and how many of the different sides will be prepared to say it. I think it’s important to keep saying that this is not just about loyalists and republicans. Frankie wrote about political unionists being “missing in action” in this conversation. They need to find their place in this discussion, along with the British and Irish Governments, security forces, intelligence services, churches, media and others. To borrow a phrase from another post, everyone has dirty laundry. Let’s not hang it out just for the sake of it, or to embarrass. The big challenge now is to join-up the conversation, for all of the speakers to step into the room. And the more who do, the more they will challenge others to do the same. This piece of work needs the big thinkers on all sides, and it also needs to hear from those who have been hurt the most in all our communities.
The potential contained in Declan Kearney’s opinion piece in AN PHOBLACHT has certainly garnered the interest of many people and has made headlines in the mainstream media as well as blogosphere. It has featured on news and current affairs programmes on BBC, UTV and RTE. The signifcance of it appearing in An Phoblacht has been widely noted and Declan’s thoughts regarding increased dialogue and engagement with the wider unionist and Protestant community and all the challenges this will present is certainly the focus of much discussion in republican circles.
I totally agree with Declan that republicans need to be courageous and help shape an authentic reconciliatiion process. All of this may indeed take us outside our political comfort zones but republicans do need to address ‘legacy issues’ and the continued suspicion of ourselves within the wider unionist community.
Sinn Féin President, Gerry Adams recently writing for a Uniting Ireland publication stated: “Irish republicanism comes from that long and honourable republican and internationalist tradition that began with the united Irish society 200 years ago, most of whose leaders were Presbyterians”
Wolfe Tone is referenced when the Sinn Féin President quotes Tone on the need for “a cordial union among all the people of Ireland, to maintain that balance which is essential to the preservation of our liberties and the extension of our commerce.”
He further states that for Irish republicans: ” this is our starting point - a belief in a new union - a cordial union of all the people on this island. To live free and independent as equal and inclusive citizens in a new Ireland.”
This weekend, all over Ireland, republicans will reflect on the inclusive message of the 1916 Proclamation of the Irish Republic while seeking to reshape the Ireland of today; putting an end to past divisions and resolving outstanding differences while building through reconciliation a new partnership and unity between people.
As Gerry Adams also states: “Irish republicans have re-imagined Ireland. We want to to persuade others to re-imagine what that new Ireland can look like.
“A society - a new Republic - that is democratic, inclusive and based on equality.”
David Adams is correct when he states in his Irish Times column on March 22nd headlined ‘Sinn Féin’s clarity over bridge building is impressive’ that Declan Kearney” makes crystal clear that the all-island state as envisaged by mainstream republicans will indeed be genuinely reflective of, and sympathetic to, all of its peoples”. Let the uncomfortable conversations begin.
Paul - welcome to eamonnmallie.com and the debate. Both the potential and the challenge in this conversation are captured by Rev Harold Good in his latest post at the bottom of this page when he describes it as “one of, if not the most important conversations we could have within this post conflict period of our peace process”. He also describes the challenge of shared responsibility, writing:
“To accept our own responsibility is to challenge the other about theirs.”
There are those who are reluctant to join this discussion, but the conversation is opening up. In a news piece in yesterday’s Belfast Telegraph I quoted John Alderdice saying:
“The possibilities of this are ground-breaking, and for me there is enough evidence of good faith in the last twenty years of engagement with Sinn Fein that we must also take the next steps down this path and see where it takes all of us - not just republicans.”
The conversation has continued on another page on this website on an article I wrote about the continuing armed actions of dissidents. On that page, our host Eamonn Mallie asks where the politicians - unionist and nationalist - are in this conversation. Someone else used the term “missing in action”. There will be those who won’t step onto the path because they fear the ugly truths along the way, and others will tiptoe onto it only when they think the ground is safe, and has been well tested by others. Jackie McDonald writes elsewhere on this website that he “can’t see all of those involved in the conflict putting on their hiking boots…and turning up at any agreed rendezvous point”.
But Harold Good is right - “To accept our own responsibility is to challenge the other about theirs.”
Those who have been left in the blocks on this conversation should remember that when you run with the slowest runner, you finish last.