It was a very long time ago, but I can still remember the first time I was called a ‘fenian lover.’ It’s the sort of comment you don’t tend to forget! Anyway, it was in early November, 1972, a few days after a government Green Paper on the future of Northern Ireland had suggested that any new political settlement must include both power-sharing and an ‘Irish Dimension.’
I was studying A Level politics at the time and that Green Paper was the topic of discussion. I made the case for power-sharing, arguing that it would never be possible to talk about ‘normal’ politics if a significant minority believed they were being deliberately excluded from the political institutions. I also argued—albeit with less enthusiasm—that if the Irish government was able to underwrite the settlement in Northern Ireland it would help to undermine the policy and tactics of the IRA.
One of my classmates, someone who had been a close friend since primary school, looked me in the eye and said, “I can’t believe that you are such a fenian lover.” I actually thought he was joking, deliberately trying to provoke me because he knew I enjoyed a good argument over politics. But he continued, insisting that the SDLP was just a cover for the IRA and that they only wanted into politics so that they could destroy Northern Ireland.
What really rattled me, though, was that every single one of my classmates agreed with him. It was extraordinary how anti-SDLP, anti-Catholic they were. These boys were all around sixteen or seventeen and were all from comfortable middle-class backgrounds: where had all that hatred come from?
But from that moment on my political beliefs were shaped by an acceptance that Northern Ireland would only, could only attain political stability if the political representatives of both communities worked closely, harmoniously together. I also believed that if the Union was to be strengthened then unionists had to find better ways of promoting it. It always seemed to be defined in negative terms, rather than positive ones and always came across as a philosophy which excluded, rather than embraced.
So no big surprise, then, that I supported David Trimble’s strategy twenty-five years later—even though I knew it would almost certainly result in a government which included Sinn Fein. I remember, too, standing in an Orange Hall in May 1998 (I was the guest speaker) explaining to a 200-strong audience why I would be voting yes in the pending referendum. It was a boisterous meeting, with some very heated and some very unpleasant exchanges within the hall.
My former school friend was there, now a very successful businessman. We hadn’t exchanged more than a few words since we left school in 1974, but I made a point of trying to speak to him when the meeting ended. There was no handshake from him, just a one line response to my greeting: “I see, Mr Kane, that you have moved on from being a fenian lover to being a terrorist lover, as well.” No sign of mellowing, there!
Given that background (as someone who has supported power-sharing, the Irish Dimension and even Sinn Fein in government) why do I have so much trouble with the concept of ‘reconciliation’? More specifically, why do I have so much difficulty with the reconciliation strategy presently pushed by Declan Kearney, supported by opinion formers within loyalist paramilitarism, and encouraged by supposedly ‘key’ figures across our very vaguely defined civic society?
The fact is that I don’t believe Sinn Fein is sincere. This is from the 1992 Sinn Fein policy document, Towards a Lasting Peace in Ireland: ‘..implicit in the public political posturing (of the British Government) is the suggestion that the responsibility for dismantling partition lies largely with Irish nationalists and their powers and ability to persuade an appropriate percentage of unionists that their best interests lie in a reunited Ireland. This is but a shallow attempt to displace responsibility for resolving a situation which was wholly manufactured by Westminster and whose disastrous consequences are almost wholly borne by the Irish people. No amount of public political posturing can change that.”
Twenty-one years later and Sinn Fein has adopted that ‘shallow attempt’ as an official, orchestrated strategy: and no amount of ‘political posturing’ from Kearney and Sinn Fein’s strategists can change that. This isn’t anything to do with reconciliation and no amount of background chatter about ‘dialogue,’ ‘conversations,’ ‘healing’ and ‘new thinking’ is going to make a difference to that fact.
I think what worries me most, though, is that the whole concept of ‘reconciliation’ has been shaped and fashioned by those who run the ‘peace process industry.’ To paraphrase the feminist Kate Roiphe: “The speakers are committing Orwell’s cardinal sin of surrendering to the words; they are letting the approved language of the ‘peace process’ orthodoxy take over their own experiences. And the cost is to the true meaning of what the rest of us have been through. The individual power of each story is sapped by the collective mode of expression. The details fade, the stories blend together, sounding programmed and automatic…as intimate details are squeezed into formulaic standards, they tend to be wrought with an emotion more generic than heartfelt.”
Also, I do find it hard to take seriously the self-serving soft words of terrorists from both sides; particularly after I read the recently published extracts from Gusty Spence’s private papers, in which it was revealed that the UVF and IRA (including Martin McGuinness) had secret meetings in the early 1970s to discuss who counted as ‘legitimate targets’ for both sides. Yet now some of those same people are lecturing the rest of us about the importance of reconciliation!
I get very angry when those of us who express reservations about a so-called reconciliation process—which has to be acceptable to terrorists, apparently—somehow find ourselves in the position of being viewed as some sort of dinosaurs whose attitude could drag us back to the ‘bad old days.’ How could we go back to those days if the IRA and most loyalist groups have, or so we are constantly told, bought into the settlement?
I get even angrier when some clergy suggest that it’s my self-professed atheism which makes me a little less understanding, a little less tolerant and a little less generous in my outlook. People who have, for whatever reason, chosen to forgive terrorists are no better and no worse than those of us who find it impossible to forgive and forget. We each make our own choices when it comes to forgiveness. But it is appalling that those who find it hard, maybe even impossible to forgive, are increasingly seen as obstacles to a ‘lasting, genuine peace.’
My unionism has withstood the activities of both the IRA and Sinn Fein propaganda. I have no difficulty with Sinn Fein continuing their propaganda campaign and their ‘Uniting Ireland’ project. That is their choice.
But I do have difficulty with Sinn Fein attempting to pretend that their primary motivation in all of this is ‘reconciliation.’ Their be all and end all is a united Ireland. Again, that’s fine. But reconciliation between unionist and nationalist cannot be built around the reunification of Ireland for, as I keep arguing, reunification represents the end of unionism. Similarly, I’m not sure how reconciliation between unionist and nationalist can be built around the permanency of the present constitutional status quo. For so long as Ireland remains partitioned then for so long will there be a republican campaign against it.
How, against that background, do you achieve reconciliation? I’m not sure you can: particularly when our political institutions are built on a carve-up based on mutual veto and contradictory visions.
This is what Peter Robinson said last week: “Whereas once politicians sought to gain power by pledging to oppose other parties, last year both the DUP and Sinn Fein increased their mandates by promising to work together for the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland. We may not share the same long term constitutional aspirations, but we have learned that we must work together to address the everyday issues that face our people now.”
Is this hard evidence of a reconciliation process in action? I doubt it. I think the DUP and Sinn Fein have simply settled for a process which might best be described as amicable polarisation. It suits both their interests to convey the very clear impression that they are delivering the sort of political stability which is required to attract tourists, investment, employers and PR spectaculars from the worlds of sport and entertainment.
But that’s not the same as copper-fastening a process of integration in which the barriers between Protestants/Roman Catholics and Unionists/Nationalists are brought down and replaced with a turquoise agenda for blending orange and green. Again, we all know that come the next election we will have the same old battles: the DUP won’t say so in explicit terms, but they will let it be known on the doorstep that the only way to avoid the possibility of a Sinn Fein First Minister is by voting DUP. Meanwhile, Sinn Fein will conduct their own doorstep battle in which they will encourage their core vote, new votes and the greener end of the SDLP that the political/psychological trophy of the First Minister’s post is within their grasp.
Actually, the moment you will know that the DUP and Sinn Fein are serious about a shared future is when you see the footage of Peter Robinson and Martin McGuinness jointly campaigning in East Belfast and Mid-Ulster. But don’t be holding your breath or placing your bets—it won’t be happening.
Reconciliation can surely only begin by bringing together former enemies and directing them towards a common ground from which they do not and cannot threaten each other. But it seems to me that Sinn Fein want something significantly different:
- A process whereby they can de-toxify their reputation and legacy within ‘a section’ of the pro-Union community;
- Produce a mechanism which enables them to hijack a truth and reconciliation process and justify their terror campaign;
- Provide evidence for their core vote (and dissident republicans, too) that the unity project is alive, well and moving forward;
- Persuade an increasing vote south of the border that Sinn Fein is an honest, thoroughly democratic party, which wants to create a united Ireland which will be good for everyone.
Now, while this may make a perfect propaganda strategy for Sinn Fein, it doesn’t actually answer the problem of reconciliation within Northern Ireland. Of course, that shouldn’t surprise anyone, because Sinn Fein has no interest in a reconciliation process in Northern Ireland: particularly a process which might encourage the softer end of nationalism to accept the ‘authentic mammon’ of peace in Northern Ireland rather than run the considerable risks which would probably accompany the ‘bogus god’ of Irish unity.
A majority of people in Northern Ireland support the Union, of that fact I have no doubt. Also, if there was a border poll tomorrow I have no doubts, either, that there would be a surprisingly high majority in favour of retaining the Union. Would it ever be possible, I wonder, for Sinn Fein to rethink their reconciliation strategy and focus it entirely in Northern Ireland? Instead of constantly selling the merits of an untested, unknown united Ireland, how about selling the merits of a united Northern Ireland? How about working with the DUP and others to agree a common agenda for Northern Ireland and produce a Programme for Government which is built around a twenty-five year plan for economic growth, social integration and a genuinely shared future? How about convincing the rest of us that they really can make Northern Ireland work, rather than lecturing us about their age-old right to a united Ireland?
Let me make one thing very clear: I don’t seek to deny Sinn Fein their ultimate goal of a united Ireland. I still think there would be enormous, maybe even insuperable problems attached (including widespread violence and instability), but if a majority vote for it—then so be it. But I would urge huge caution in pushing for unity with a campaign built around pretend reconciliation, pretend concern for unionists within a united Ireland and a rewriting of history that produces a pretend and entirely fictional historical narrative.
Reconciliation begins at home, in your own backyard. It begins with all cards on the table and with a determination to bring people together rather than drive them further apart. It begins with an acknowledgment that majority opinion must have some value. It begins with a willingness to act in the common interest of all. It begins with a common goal and common agenda. It begins with total honesty.
My goodness me! We still have a very long way to go.
7 Comments
Alex, you make no concession whatever to how what the unionist establishment did prior to 1969 on nationalists engendered the reaction of the IRA and fuelled the initial phase of its campaign. Of course, once the conflict began what one protagonist did then provoked a reaction from other protagonists but you absolve the state from all sin. And poor you were the only one sinned against and can’t forgive. The most likely reaction therefore from a republican like myself is only to be reminded of unionist hypocrisy and cant. Incidentally, I really loved the originality of your conclusion - you will accept us if we become little unionists. (And thanks for allowing us to continue to aspire.)
Hi Danny
Republicans will continue to aspire to one thing, and unionists to another: which is why it will remain enormously difficult to reach anything which can genuinely be described as reconciliation.
This is my personal perspective—no more and no less, yet I suspect that it is not entirely unrepresentative of unionist opinion.
I have, in previous pieces over the years, acknowledged that unionists didn’t exactly make it easy for non-unionists in Northern Ireland and I say in this article that I didn’t understand where all the anti-Catholic attitude of my school friends had come from.
But nor did the IRA help matters by mixing terror with politics—particularly when it seemed pretty clear that SF was up for an internal settlement and negotiations from a fairly early stage.
Reconciliation is often possible when former enemies agree boundaries and fashion a common agenda and future for the country they are co-governing. I see no hard evidence of that in NI—-hence my scepticism about reconciliation here.
Regards,
Alex.
Underlying Alex’s well constructed argument is real fear that genuine fraternal relations between the two traditions in the north will soften the edges of soft unionism further. He recognises that distance and segregation is neccessary to maintain this artificial separation between neighbours. He is right to say it would be the end of Unionism as Unionism requires disengagement to survive. I’m sure younger generations will see the futility of Alex’s position. The surrounding sea has swamped the citadel and the walls will inevitably dissolve and fall.
Good Morning ‘Credulous’
Bearing in mind that SF’s Uniting Ireland project refers to the need to persuade just ‘a section’ of unionism, then yes, I would have some concerns about what you describe as ‘soft unionism.’ That said, I have previously made the point that SF is also worried about the soft end of nationlism—that section which is happy enough to keep the Union rather than risk the changes which could accompany unity.
My primary point, though, is that reconciliation between the fixed positions of unionism and republicanism is unlikely—-which explains why we have conflict stalemate, carve-up and an us-and-them approach to government.
I have also argued that what NI lacks is any sign of the emergence of genuinely post-conflict parties. If that were to happen then it might prove possible for the next generation of voters to find a form of reconciliation that works for them.
Anyway, thanks for dropping by.
Alex.
Hi Alex,
My primary point is that the reason we have what you describe as conflict stalemate, carve-up and an us-and-them approach to government, in the first place is that we have a minority community on this island artificially divided from the rest of us by a government elected only by another people in another country. It is this division which perpetuates the kind of ignorance you experienced from your classmates at school. Without British interference on this island a genuine inter-reliance and mutual respect would inevitably emerge from the necessity of working together for the prosperity of all. Conflict and division would be internecine and futile. This would not mean the loss of a British identity on this island. You only have to visit Dublin to realise that the same is very much alive and well.
Regards,
JP.
Hi Alex - A process on the past should involve everyone and for the best/right reasons and should seek to provide the maximum amount of information and explanation to those who need it most. No one side should be allowed to hijack it for selfish reasons. We should stop calling it a truth process because we know that no side will deliver absolute truth. All of us should try to think outside the narrow mindset that would have those who went to prison - loyalist and republican - blamed for everything. Let us ask all the questions of all sides, including those who cheered on what happened here, those who looked the other way and others who played with the puppets and who refuse to accept any blame, responsibility or guilt.
I had not thought complacency had undone so many.
One
wonders whether one should apologise: another wonders to whom one should
apologise: another wonders what significance such an apology might have:
another wonders whether one should accept such an apology etc. It’s wonderful.
Visit the wastelands.
Walk around working class areas. Get the wakeup call.
People are
impoverished, are living in slum estates, have no work or are working for low
wages, have none or poor educational qualifications, are in poor health, the
young alienated, criminality taking root, policing under suspicion. There talk
is not of a shared future, more about any future that loosely could be called
decent.
History
repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce. It’s farcical that ethnic
division rather than crippling social need still tops the agenda of Government,
the political parties and the media.