It is one of those newspaper headlines that catches the eye; those words on the front page of The Sunday Business Post – IRA prepares for historic apology to all its victims.
The context in which this news report is set is the Martin McGuinness handshake with the Queen, his follow-up speech at Westminster and the republican reconciliation initiative that is being developed by Declan Kearney.
How close are we to that predicted IRA apology – and would it be delivered in the name of that organisation?
To answer those questions we need to think in a much wider frame – and retrace the republican footsteps not just of the past few months, but past few years.
It was Kearney, the Sinn Fein national chair, who introduced the word ‘sorry’ into this reconciliation discussion, not as an apology for the IRA war, but rather to acknowledge the human hurt caused by all armed actions.
His thinking was part of an article penned for An Phoblacht and published at the beginning of March, and since then, this new reconciliation discussion and debate has opened up and opened out.
Kearney will tell you that it should not be reduced to one side’s sorry or to that one word, however important and however difficult it is to say.
In its endgame statement of July 2005, the IRA leadership spoke the following words: “We reiterate our view that the armed struggle was entirely legitimate.”
On the basis of that statement, we can understand that any use of the word sorry will not be a retreat from that sentence or that belief.
Kearney is talking about sorry in a humanising context to acknowledge hurt, not to de-legitimise the IRA campaign.
This is not about sackcloth and ashes.
Both Kearney and McGuinness, in interviews on Radio Ulster and on RTE television at the weekend, stressed what should be the collective nature of saying sorry; that it is about every side, and the many sides.
“Many people need to say sorry,” Kearney said in a Sunday Sequence interview with presenter Mike Philpott – “and that includes the British Government, other parties, as well as all the combatants who were involved in the war.”
Unionists would, of course, add the Irish Government to that list.
That republicans are discussing all of these matters is not surprising and not new.
Back in March, the respected and influential Belfast republican Eibhlin Glenholmes told me she had “no qualms about apologising for any hurt”.
But she was not saying that the IRA war was wrong: “Absolutely not,” she told me.
“We didn’t go to war – war came to us.”
Within those comments, and what is being said by Kearney and McGuinness, you get a sense of what is possible, and what is not.
Others will have to speak – and not just loyalists, but those in governments/politics and security/intelligence who are trying to ignore the current conversations.
This should not be a blame debate, but rather a grown-up discussion that steps outside the simplistic narrative of goodies and baddies.
Church figures such as Harold Good and Lesley Carroll are talking to Kearney and other republicans, as are Lord Alderdice, Alan McBride, Sir George Quigley, the loyalists Jackie McDonald and John Howcroft and others.
This is where the grown-up talking is happening.
Another UDA figure, John Bunting, has indicated his willingness to join in and a few days ago acknowledged the McGuinness/Queen handshake as confirmation that the wars are over.
Political unionists and the governments need to get involved and should not be allowed to hide behind the curtain hoping to escape the stage and any blame for what happened here and elsewhere over a period of several decades.
What republicans are prepared to say will depend on what others are prepared to say, and when/if they are prepared to say it.
I have heard nothing to suggest any imminent development.
Whatever happens, there will not be a statement from the IRA leadership.
Both Kearney and McGuinness made that clear in their weekend interviews.
Referring to The Sunday Business Post report, Kearney said: “This is a story about which I know nothing…The IRA has left the stage. The IRA no longer exists. In other words, the IRA can no longer speak.”
Those who were part of that organisation can.
But reconciliation, healing hurts, answering the questions about the wars, trying to make sure these things never happen again, asks for an effort and an initiative that reaches out much wider than the republican community.
If people want to hear a republican sorry that deals with the many hurts and armed actions, that speaks to combatants as well as non-combatants, then they are going to have to think and talk about how that can be made possible.
This is not just about the IRA.
It is about all the wars – seen and unseen – all the hurts, all the actors and all the sides.
It is about big thinking and different thinking; not just about what happened, but why it happened, and it is about stepping into the shoes of others.
Remember this.
The longer people hide from this conversation and its many challenges, then the longer all of this will take.
26 Comments
Your comment after the war , what war Mr Rowan? it was a terrorist campaign.
Hi Margaret – The ‘wars’ I write of are those described in the following small number of examples.
Senior Intelligence officer speaking 2005: “The Provisional Movement is a broad church…You have everything from people on a political wing who never served militarily, through [to] military doves now, who appreciated that the best that they were going to get in the war with us was a draw. We realised that too; thoughtful police officers and soldiers realised it as well…We are all going to have our little victories against each other, but, bluntly, you couldn’t go on with a life of Loughgalls one day, and Airy Neaves and Mountbatten the next day.”
Then there is the war described in a recently disclosed British Government document from 1972, which includes the following…”If the Army did not now attack the IRA the probability was that the UDA would”. It revealed that the Secretary of State would make a statement to the House of Commons to “announce the Government’s intention to carry on the war with the IRA with the utmost vigour”. That document also read that “the Army should not be inhibited in its campaign by the threat of court proceedings and should therefore be suitably indemnified”.
Then there is the UDA statement of November 2007: “The Ulster Defence Association believes that the war is over and we are now in a new democratic dispensation that will lead to permanent political stability…”
I have heard Prime Ministers, politicians, soldiers, police officers, republicans and loyalists all use the term war, and there were many wars.
You choose a different description, and that is your choice.
Whatever description is applied does not remove the need for answers – and there are many questions for the many different sides, including those who participated and played in what is often called the “dirty war”.
Brian Rowan
All,
Word play is a great thing that generates so much emotion.I write with the experience as a born, reared & raised West Belfast man who joined HM Field Army and served in overt & covert operations during Op Banner between 1985 – 94. I have been injured in the conflict and lost relatives to PIRA action. As a former professional soldier I did not view the conflict here as ‘war’. In war I had fast air, artillery, mortar support with unrestricted rules of engagement that permitted me to win the firefight and kill the enemy – such conditions did not prevail in Northern Ireland. At best while in ‘green army’ the conflict was a policing operation where our role was to simply support the Police in the protection of life & property in an entirely reactive personae. At best while in ‘covert ops’ the conflict, for me, was a game of analyzing intelligence, and devising a response where our duty was to capture people engaging in acts of terrorism (from any side) within the rule of law. The latter has been nicknamed the ‘dirty war’ but I personally never received any command that deviated outside the rule of law.
Soldiers are not trained to shoot to injure. They are trained to shoot to kill. Whether in overt or covert ops if engagement with gunmen occurred, our duty was to aim at the main mass of body & fire until that person stopped being a threat. Imaginations that a soldier would shoot to injure are mere fiction or Holywood film clap.
The security forces (Army / RUC / UDR) where accountable for 367 deaths during the conflict and that accounts for around 10% of those killed during our period of recent troubles.
245,000 military personnel served here during the period of recent troubles and I have no doubt that within that number mistakes where made by some. We are human, not robots, and human frailty means errors will occur and it did on occasion.
Changes in successive HMG have also played out to ground level where individual egos and possibly private agendas sent certain operations down a wrong path, for example the decision making process or direction on tactical response in the build up to Bloody Sunday or the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The Army and HMG have shown the capacity to apologize when the record of history shows them to have been incorrect.PIRA and Irish Republican groups where accountable for 1926 deaths during the recent period of conflict or around 54% of those killed. Such infliction cannot be morally justified because 701 of those deaths where the security forces with the balance being civilian. I accept that from the political stance of Irish Republicanism Armed Struggle can be justified. Post partition through to the early 70s the socio-economic in Northern Ireland did actually create a set of circumstances that, in my view now, made internecine conflict from within the minority community inevitable. I actually find it incredulous that Stormont did not see it coming but then hindsight is 20-20.On that basis alone (and there are many other reasons) I do not believe there will ever be a collective apology for armed actions by the leadership of PIRA-Sinn Fein because the political legitimacy (regardless of ethics or moral stances) was there to wage a guerrilla campaign.Not withstanding, individuals within PIRA where sectarian, some ASUs where socio-pathic and some operations went completely pear-shaped killing civilians. Not everyone embraced the principles of the United Irishman and so an unflinching, unconditional admission in Republican ranks that not every action was ‘great for the cause’ should be borne out from that Movement to address past reality.Stating ‘sorry’ for those actions (that where so terribly wrong on all levels) would not compromise the Political justification for Armed Struggle?John Alderdice raised Legacies of the Past: Around 1900 of those killed where civilians and I do believe that all those who where protagonists in the conflict have a political and moral responsibility to face that fact, today – unarmed Civilians.
The difficulty in establishing a way of dealing with the past is that some of the relatives of the civilian dead are blinded by their loss – their grief has become a bitter hatred while others demand justice, some demand revenge, some truth and some simply wish to forget it all and move on with their lives. Can an established body actually deal with such a vast array of emotion?
Truth commission’s have been muted for some years however any such body must simply be about discovering the truth i.e. an honest account to ease the pain of those who endured loss. A truth commission remit cannot be about justice or revenge because that is the responsibility of the Legislative Power, DPP or Police.
As stated in my opening paragraph, the socio-economics of the late 60s-70s led to me becoming an active participant to the conflict. I have been injured by PIRA and I have lost family and comrades to PIRA action. Some would view me as a victim but I don’t see myself as such – I was simply riding the wave of life that circumstance placed on my shoulders. Of one thing I am certain – this period of conflict is over and while we should not forget the past, neither should we permit it to erode the opportunities of today during which we can make our future. Internecine conflict is a travesty, and I personally believe we need to adopt a view of ‘that was then, this is now’ and evolve as a people.’Sorry’ will come, from all, one day.Glenn J Bradley.
With the IRA having officially left the stage, no longer existent, defunct, and therefore devoid of a voice; although there is some debate around the suggested timing of 7yrs ago, as the IMC continued to report on the IRA in 2008 (4 years ago) and spoke of it at that point of ‘withering away’; it now seems the prospect of any ‘sorry’ or ‘apology’ has passed from an organisation capacity, to rest firmly on the shoulders of the ordinary volunteer or former combatant, thus holding out the prospect of individual sorrys, individual truth processes and individual authentic reconcilliations as oppossed to a collective version.
How those combatants will view this development remains to be seen, as it now firmly puts the emphasis onto them for progressing the ‘big sorry debate’ as it has been billed. Can any of those former members, many who still continue to deny their involvement, role or complicity, really speak to access some of the truths people require or provide explanations, when they are now effectively gagged to speak for the IRA, and can only profer an individualised account, rather than a collective one.
This development is certainly interesting, and it removes the ability of the individal to hide behind the comfortable facade all too readily offered of ‘that’s a matter for the IRA to answer’, cause there is no IRA to ask as there is no IRA to speak, so who will answer?
Hi John, Have any of the combatant groups fully disappeared? That’s a debate for another day. Your main point is about who answers the questions of the past. I don’t think that is going to be left to individuals – nor should it. While the IRA no longer speaks as an organisation, there is still a republican leadership and that leadership is driving this reconciliation initiative. I don’t think any of us believe that individuals are going to line up in some public process to tell their war stories, and that leaves the question: How is information and explanation best achieved? I think it is in the type of private interlocutor mechanism used in decommissioning and in the search for the remains of the disappeared. Those interlocutors could bring questions to those best placed to answer them across the many sides and then deliver the answers. If individuals want to record their stories/experiences/hurts, then that story-telling should be assisted. To address your final sentence, there is a republican leadership to ask, to speak and to answer. And I know you accept and understand that this is only one part of the asking, speaking and answering.
Margaret, thanks for your post. There is an ongoing battle over what one should call what is commonly labelled ‘the Troubles.’ I recall one Secretary of State, John Reid saying to me in the course of conversation “you’ve just come through a murky dirty little war on all sides here.” Reid was not being selective in what he said. He meant the rôle too played by governments and the security services.
In the course of our Peace Process we regularly had to invent new models. There were no simple precedents for us to follow. Some of us remember the long period of “Talks about Talks” during which the Talks Process itself was devised. The development of the 3-stranded talks based on addressing 3 sets of historic disturbed relationships was ground-breaking, but it took time to invent it, and meantime there were many who were understandably sceptical. We are at a similar point again as we explore difficult conversations on reconciliation. We need to invent a new way of having such conversations. I have gone and looked at the Truth and Reconciliation Commissions in South Africa, Peru, Chile and elsewhere and I remain to be convinced that they have achieved sufficient for me to recommend that we should copy any of them. However I have believed for a long time that some kind of instrument is necessary to deal with the legacy of the past. Let’s keep working at this, not just for the sake of those who went through it, or for this generation, but to try to ensure that our children and grandchildren don’t have to carry the burden.
Brian,
“We reiterate our view that the armed struggle was entirely legitimate. On the basis of that statement, we can understand that any use of the word sorry will not be a retreat from that sentence or that belief. ”
On the basis of that belief, it is difficult to envisage an apology that will have any vestige of sincerity. The concept of an apology is universally recognised as a manifestation of one’s remorse. Moreover remorse is understood as,’.. an emotional expression of personal regret felt by a person after he or she has committed an act which they deem to be shameful, hurtful, or violent.’
The absurdity of caveating an apology with an affirmation of legitimacy becomes all too apparent when intellect and the moral compass are free to function outside of the distortive discourse of the ‘peace process’ where ethics are trumped by,’… grown-up discussion that steps outside the narrative of goodies and baddies.’ Implicit in this, of course, is that critique is infantile.
In accordance with your logic, you leave little room for objection to or sanction against, for example, my assaulting you perhaps even killing you or a member of your family. Subsequently I want to say sorry in the interests of reconciliation but with the qualification that what I did to you was entirely legitimate.
Robert,
To address your first point. I have heard nothing to suggest that the IRA will apologise for its armed campaign. So, I have no reason/information to understand or assume or suppose or think or believe that it will step back from that sentence in its 2005 statement: “We reiterate our view that the armed struggle was entirely legitimate.”
The possibility of the word sorry being used by republicans has been discussed/debated across this website and further since the Declan Kearney An Phoblacht article in March. There are those who share your view that sorry without remorse or to admit wrong would have no value. Others argue that sorry is a humanising word and would have value in acknowledging hurt. There is no one opinion.
When I refer to the “goodies and baddies” narrative I am talking about the tendency to blame only those who went to jail – those from the republican and loyalist communities – for the conflict and ignore all other actions. Where do we apply the terrorist label in the ‘Stakeknife’ case? A paid agent who is part of IRA internal security is involved in the culling of other suspected agents – involved in their interrogation and preparation for execution.
What questions emerge from the British Government document of 1972 recently discovered by the group Relatives For Justice? The document includes.
– “If the Army did not now attack the IRA the probability was that the UDA would.”
– The Secretary of State would make a statement in the House of Commons to “announce the Government’s intention to carry on the war with the IRA with the utmost vigour.”
-The document also reads that “the Army should not be inhibited in its campaign by the threat of court proceedings and should therefore be suitably indemnified.”
All of what happened needs to be examined and explained, and not just what happened, but why.
This is the grown-up conversation I ask for in the hope that what happened will never again be repeated by any side.
I’ll ignore your last paragraph.
Brian Rowan
Acknowledging that you are responsible for causing the suffering of many families and for the death of their loved ones, is not the same as saying sorry; no matter how much you want it to fit.
Acknowledgment, and a willingness to accept responsibility, would be an important step forward and would be a more honest statement to make if you hold the view that your actions were legitimate acts of war and therefore justified. Although it would also be the case that many violent acts would fall short of any justification.
Sorry, carries with it the recognition and acceptance of wrongdoing, and an acknowledgment and owning of the wrong done to others.
To say sorry to a family for causing their suffering, and then to tell them that you were justified in causing it, is to add to their suffering and does nothing to help heal or humanise. It would be better and more humane to say nothing at all, than to engage in such an act that could be felt as another act of violence against the family. It is unlikely that the wishes of the families will be respected by those who are pushing ahead, with their overwhelming desire to give voice to their version of “sorry”.
It has been suggested that “we not get caught up on any one word” in this debate, and of course that is because those driving the debate don’t like the questions being asked regarding the word which was first used by Declan Kearney; “sorry”.
Martin McGuinness and Declan Kearney say that there needs to be a collective nature to saying sorry. I can’t help but think it sounds too much like the line in the movie Backdraft, “you go, we go”. Surely if saying sorry is coming from a place of genuine concern regarding the suffering of those you intend to say sorry to, then it would not be dependent on what others are prepared to say.
If the republican movement is going to say sorry or acknowledge the suffering they caused, and the desire to do so has been stirred by the human heart, and not just a case of the intellect recognising that this sounds like a good idea, and there could be political value in it; then no matter what others are doing, or not doing, should not be a factor in their decision making.
I hope it is not going to be another media circus like the handshake, no matter how important many think it was.
It is true that there is a collective responsibility, and an individual one regarding our conflict, but that is a different conversation.
Barney, it is so grown-up that anyone who dares to disagree have been labelled as “just a skeptic” or lacking in vision as to what could be! There are many people who have decided not to engage in this debate because they sincerely believe it is another political move on the republican chessboard. There are also many people who may fear that to engage in the debate would be a betrayal of their loved ones who were murdered.
I agree Barney that political Unionists and governments should not be allowed to hide or escape facing up to their role in the conflict, and should be accountable like many others, but again that is different conversation.
I repeat, if the republican movement is going to acknowledge or say sorry (two different things) then they need to make that decision because they have come to the conclusion that it is the right thing to do. Not because of what others may or may not do. Republicans brought this latest debate onto the page, and now they want everyone else to engage. People will make their own journey, in their own time,in their own way, whether that is individually or collectively. How can you make political Unionists engage in the debate if it is not something that is in their hearts to do? Unless of course, you just want it to be an academic, politically expedient thing to do, which satisfies the agenda of others. Would this really be of value?
“…everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of human freedoms – to choose ones attitude in any given set of circumstances, to chose ones own way.” Viktor Frankl
Having read your article carefully Alistair I have concluded that it merits serious scrutiny by Republicans. Any student of Republicanism has had to treat seriously any and every step taken by that political movement over the past three decades: witness the political growth in the catholic nationalist community and compare it to the glaring absence of a corresponding grassroots political representation in deprived working class communities like the Lower Shankill, The Village and Sandy Row in the Belfast area.
The leadership of Unionism continues to prop up a grammar school system of education which is as far out as the lighthouse in terms of relevance to young children in socially deprived working class protestant districts.
That system is militating against children in poor protestant areas regardless of where the fault-line rests. The facts speak for themselves. A study of the statistics in areas like Rathcoole, Kilcooley, the Village, Sandy Row and so on, brutally illustrate that young people from these areas are not gaining access to high-end well resourced grammar schools.
Is anyone trying to say children from these areas are less intelligent than children from the Malone area of South Belfast where 80% plus of children are making their way into grammar schools? Structures, money and parenting are all relevant. It one accepts my thesis that children from Rathcoole are no less intelligent than children from the Malone area of South Belfast then ask yourself what is holding children in poor protestant working class areas back? It seems to me only a radical approach to address this deficit will start to correct this inertia.
Just yesterday I heard former high profile republican Danny Morrison outlining the breadth and scope of the West Belfast summer Festival programme. The scale of community leadership necessary to deliver such a programme on limited financial resources, should not be underestimated. Where is the corresponding, cultural, political, social and educational festival absorbing and exploiting the talent and indigenous fibre of Protestant North, South, East and West Belfast? I don’t have to point up the advantages to the whole protestant working class community of a community driven and inspired festival along the lines of the West Belfast Festival which engages with contrary and like-minded opinion.
Such a platform provides people like you Alistair with a platform to interrogate the Declan Kearneys of this world on their notions of reconciliation. I am in no sense taking away from your ongoing efforts as an individual, to be healing and remedial as you outlined previously here on eamonnmallie.com.
Loyalism needs and deserves a proper platform upon which to raise its voice consistent with the tone struck by you in your latest post on this website.
Having listened to a representative spread of voices aired on RTE, the day the Queen shook hands with Martin McGuinness I was struck by the welcome articulated for this development. What was even more significant was the absence of bitterness directed at McGuinness, particularly because of the proximity of those voices to the ghosts of the IRA bomb attack on Frizzell’s Fish Shop just yards away, and despite these people being fully aware from where Martin McGuinness was coming.
The point I am making is that quite often our mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters and young people without crying from the roof tops are ready for change away ahead of politicians or those of us who think we know what is happening in our society.
Alistair, a blind man on a galloping horse knows being prescriptive for others is not conducive to persuasion.
Brian, like you I read the Sunday Business Post story with
some scepticism. Obviously the Declan Kearney intervention in the pages of An
Phoblacht a few months back and follow-up elsewhere (including on this site)
underlined the fact the senior Republicans were thinking long and hard about
the relationship between apologies and reconciliation. The suggestion however
that Republicans would ‘go it alone’ on this would seem unlikely to me.
Although they have shown themselves capable of surprising the other players
with bold moves, by and large most major initiatives on the part of Republicans
have appeared to come at the end of a very careful and calibrated process of
deliberation.
Off the top of my head, I think effective apologies with regard to the past in
Northern Ireland would require (from all of the actors)
(i) careful drafting (words are crucial and there will only be one shot at this
(subsequent public additions or redactions would be disastrous) – as you
suggest, balancing human empathy with victims of all persuasions, not
simultaneously alienating such victims by justifying the legitimacy of past
violence – all while not alienating one’s own constituency and the past sacrifices
which they and their families have made in pursuit of their respective causes – these and other elements are the challenge. Wordsmith was a key feature of the peace process so this is not insurmountable
but it’s a challenge that shouldn’t be underestimated.
(ii) timing (when to do it and linked to what).
(iii) choreography with the other actors (the state, loyalists, unionists etc.)
and a sense of how key sectors will respond – the more such ducks are lined up
in advance the better. Of course the risk of trying to get all of the ducks
lined up in advance is that, as Beckett suggested, you may end up ‘doing
nothing, it’s safer’. Certainly in terms of the current Secretary of State’s
approach to the past the sense of masterful inactivity is overwhelming. At some
juncture, as at other key moments in the transition, Republicans or Loyalists may
decide on this that it is right to ‘jump first’ rather than wait for the State or others,
time will tell.
(iv) follow through – will it be linked to other initiatives e.g. truth
recovery or is apology in lieu of truth in which case its effect will be
diminished.
Intuitively I would expect that the kind of conversations
you are talking about involving Republicans and other actors are part of that
process of deliberation within and beyond the Republican movement but I suspect
it has some way to go.
.
Kieran – I agree about words and timing and getting those things right. This is something you get one chance at. Alongside any words that might emerge there also has to be a process through which information flows – the questions and answers. I have argued that we should stop calling it ‘truth’ and should set out to get as much information/explanation/understanding of events as possible, and from all sides.
You have also heard me argue that people such as yourself can help design that process, and I hear what you’re saying about the “masterful inactivity” that characterises the government approach.It is also important that what Gerry and Alistair are saying below is heard. This is a conversation and debate of many different opinions. One of the points raised by Alistair is that: “There are many people who have decided not to engage in this debate because they sincerely believe it is another political move on the republican chessboard.”That comment is not made to undermine or strike a negative note, but to highlight a fear and suspicion that has to be addressed. What is also clear is that these conversations/discussions are at a beginning – not at a point where people have made their minds up about what to do and when to do it. I reported in the Belfast Telegraph Thursday July 5th on a meeting between Declan Kearney, Alex Maskey and the loyalists Jackie McDonald, John Bunting and John Howcroft. The loyalists are interested in what republicans are thinking, but also know that they, and loyalism in a much wider sense, will have a contribution to make to any process.That meeting was facilitated by the former Methodist President Harold Good, who in the Belfast Telegraph article comments: “Like many journeys we set out not knowing exactly where it is going to take us. But in sharing the journey with others it leads you into a new understanding and relationship, which opens up as yet unseen possibilities. If there is to be a sorry it comes out of that building of a new relationship of mutual trust and the acknowledgement of the hurt of each and of all. Sorry is never one sided.”Our host Eamonn Mallie has been chatting to me about recording another programme for the site on all of the above, and when we have something worked out we will post details.Thanks again Kieran for your latest contribution to this discussion.
This “sorry” idea is an European thing isn’t it? Who else on earth does the “sorry” routine? The Chinese..no. The Africans….no. Americans….no. Russians….no. From where I live it seems such a silly and political beast. What does this behavior accomplish? Are the dead suddenly risen or all tears wiped away? In fact to me it lessens the worth of those who died, in that somehow a few magic words can make up for the loss and sorrow of the families. Does saying the magic word “sorry” make up for the murder of Majella O’Hare or those who were killed on Bloody Sunday. No, it doesn’t now does it. What is needed is justice, equality and freedom for all. Only those things can even start to make up for the loss of life. Remember you British soldiers that when you aim a gun at someone and kill that person the bullet first passes through a mother’s heart.
I have been critical of the Provisional Movement on this issue in the past. I have seen nothing since to change my mind on that criticism.
Declan Kearney says that the
Gerry, there you go again looking for those weeds in somebody else’s garden. It must be great to have a perfect lawn.
Barney
Ahh, hit the wrong botton yet again……….!!!!!!!!!
Declan Kearney says that the PIRA are no more, so they can not say sorry, whether that is true or not is another debate, but there are people who do not believe they have went away, yet another trust problem.
GlennJ, there are many different types of warfare, what went on here was not outright war as most people would understand wars. But it was a war in a different sense, a low intensity conflict. Even regular army’s have illregular units who do not fight in the war in the general sense, they fight behind enemy lines, sometimes in enemy uniforms, sometimes in civilian clothes, but they do not have a front line and face the enemy as such. They hide, carry out “sneaky” attacks and milt into the night. They are usually seen as the bravest of the brave and get medals etc.
But when people like myself carry out “sneaky” attacks against the enemy I am called a “cowardly terrorist”. The leader of your army, the British Queen, recently paid homage to the Irish “terrorists”, who fought in what is now accepted as a “war of liberation”. As I said there are many types of wars, Britain even fought a “cod war” with Iceland, the country, not the supermarket chain………
I was struck by Alistair’s point, that if the Provisional Movement really felt a need to say sorry, then it would not matter what any other group, government etc were thinking, they would just do it. It seems to me that the PRM wants everybody who was involved in the conflict to accept collective responsibility, spread the blame?
But the point is the strongest one I have seen made to date, if the PRM feel a need to say sorry then they should no matter what anybody else does.
The questions then that arises is, who are they actually saying sorry for and what? Do they have the “right” to say sorry for an organisation that no longer exist?. Are they consulting with the PIRA volunteers who fought in the conflict? And why do they believe that we should believe they are being genuine? I certainly do not believe them because of my life experience of them.
I have said elsewhere, I believe this is a political move by them, not too well thought out by the looks of it, as they are not answering the questions that probe their motives and reasoning behind this issue. They are quick to call people “nay sayers” who probe their motives, but do not answer the questions they ask. That shows to me they are not even genuine on this issue.
This is a post for information.
Friday evening July 6th 2012: Declan Kearney delivered a lecture on the theme of reconciliation in Darkley. The Festival event was organised by the Crossfire Trust.The Sinn Fein National Chair described the meeting between Martin McGuinness and the Queen as “one of those Mandela moments”.”Through that event Irish republicanism sought to extend a very conscious gesture of equality and respect to our neighbours who give allegiance to the English Monarchy,” he said.He spoke again of the private dialogue involving republicans and people from the Protestant/unionist/loyalist community – making reference to his meeting earlier this week with senior UDA figures:”Some days ago loyalist leaders spoke to me about the deep fear and suspicion in their communities and how that paralyses the expectations and aspirations of young loyalist people and their receptiveness to explore new possibilities. In some ways while the heavy lifting of the negotiations is over the complexity of building reconciliation is just starting,” Declan Kearney said.He talked of the “enormous human hurt” caused during conflict saying “republicans and unionists share a collective pain”.”Unionist political leaders have a very important contribution to make to the pursuit of reconciliation,” he said.In his closing remarks, he said: “Our peace process is unstoppable, and this next phase of reconciliation, building trust and making friends is inevitable.”How long that will take depends upon how quickly it takes us to collectively agree, to inspire more ‘Mandela Moments’ and to start thinking really big about the future.”The greatest moral and political challenge facing our generations on this island is to ensure our children and the next generation grow up in a better place than we did; to have the choice of living in a place free from fear, division and hurt, and to live in a society which prizes economic equality, social justice and celebrates difference, diversity and mutual respect.”
Barney,
No lawn at all, I live in a flat. But if I did have a lawn, it would be far from perfect I know that. But I would not be slobbering about other peoples weeds while ignoring my own.
I can not get away from thinking that this is a political move by the PRM, that thought they would get political credit for this issue.
As for my weeds again, I am picking them very slowly and painfully one at a time without garden gloves. I do not get on peoples backs unless they make public statements about clearing all their weeds at once. Who say that those who do not engage in this issue under the structures that they have set, are somehow trying to upend the debate.
Life experience is very difficult to ignore. Until I see signs that the PRM are prepared to engage on this issue at a non-political level, I will not believe a word they are saying on this issue. Until they are prepared to talk about reconciliation within the Nationalist community, I will not believe them.
All I can say about the “Mandela moment” to Declan Kearney, Martin McGuinness is no Nelson Mandela in any sense of the word.
Gerry, None of us know what the garden is going to look like at the end of all of this. You don’t know, I don’t know. We’re not involved and don’t have the detail of those conversations that are developing and expanding off-stage, nor can I read people’s minds and nor would I expect to read fine-detail responses to individual questions on this website. But I’ve been around long enough to know that you judge something at the end of a process – not at its beginning. There is a platform here to think out loud and to drop thoughts and ideas into the debate.There is so much discuss, to work out and work through, and it is not just about the big bad ‘Provos’. I have been speaking to a number of loyalists in recent days, and while they may not be describing the McGuinness/Queen handshake as a “Mandela Moment”, they recognise its importance and its significance in acknowledging the “other” community. I’m away now to cut the grass – the place is full of weeds.
Barney
Hi Barney,
I was just going over the posts again, I will be a bit longer in this post.
I was surprised and a bit taken aback by your dismissive response. Considering all the talk that all views are welcome, it would appear that some are not as welcome, as some would have us believe.
When you said “There you go again looking for those weeds in somebody’s else’s garden. It must be great to have a perfect lawn”. The first thing I noticed was that you didn’t even try to address any of the points that I made at all, you just dismissed the post altogether.
Could you at least point out what you mean by “There you go again”?
Also considering that most of the questions I have asked on previous post have been ignored or avoided, I have had to repeat them.
This site has the heading “The Home of Independent Thought” Yet I get the feeling that when I express independent thoughts, they are dismissed when I read “There you go again”. I put my name to my posts, or anything I write anywhere, and I am open to criticism, as we all are, when we go public. That feels more like a put down.
Declan Kearney has been repeating himself since March, yet I would not think of saying “There he goes again”
Over the years I have went through many chances, as have a lot of us, 10 years agao I started top meet with Loyalists as a rep for Teach na Failte, the INLA ex-prisoners group. I was very confrontational with them, even some years later I was still struggling meeting them.
Sometimes I wondered why am I meeting these people, I should be killing them.
I felt a betrayal of an important part of who I am, a betrayal of dead friends and comrades I still work with today.I nearly walked away from it all, such was the sense of betrayal within me.
For me, change came when I met with families of British soldiers who had been killed in Ireland.I still think of it as the most difficult weekend of my life.That led me to thinking about the hurt and pain of the “enemy”. I was asked by some of these relatives if I regretted what I was involved in, was I sorry for what I had done? I answered honestly, no I was not.
Then, after long and painful consideration, dealing with difficulties that I thought I would never have to deal with, I began meeting with people from here who had lost loved ones, most were from the Unionist part of our community, state forces backgrounds, Loyalists and supporters of who classed as the enemy.
Seeing that the these people were still suffering today just as much as when they lost their loved ones, let me see that not all pain gets easier as time goes by.
I was trying to work out where this left me political thinking. Politically I could say it was a conflict, and people died, but I, as a Republican, was not wrong for the part I played in that conflict. But at a different level I was walking with people who were still in a lot of pain, they certainly did not want to hear Republicans say that our struggle was justified, that we were right to fight, and that somehow their loved one deserved to die.
Out of all of this I have come to the belief that although there is work to be done at a political level in dealing with the past, when it comes to people who have lost loved ones or were injured, it HAS to be done at a human level. Political agendas have no role at all on this issue. There is no reconciliation with the dead. We can not ask people to reconcile with the fact that they have lost loved ones. I believe the least we can do is try to make their hurt and pain a little easier to live with.
Saying things like “Unionist and Nationalist hurt and pain is equal” are just words, even meaningless words, to those who are suffering. If the PRM are genuine on the “sorry issue” why are they debating it with other groups? surely they would just say it if that is how they feel? If it is a case of “We will say it if you say it, or we can say it together” then it is just an academic exercise for the politicos to be able to say “we have dealt with the victims issue of the conflict, lets move onto the next issue”
I am writing this as an individual Republican who is not towing the party line. It would be refreshing to hear what other Republicans have to say on a personal level and not a political level. Declan Kearney has been asked a number of times on TV and radio HOW HE FEELS on the saying sorry, he totally avoided answering the question.
Hopefully this helps people understand why I feel that this is a political move and not a genuine attempt by the PRM in dealing with loved ones who were killed, along with their lack of work within the Nationalist part of our community to deal with the hurt and pain we, as Republicans, caused.
Gerry – I am not dismissing your contribution to this discussion, which is welcome at all times. If I came across as dismissive, I apologise. You’ll read on this thread that Margaret does not like my use of the term ‘war’ and Robert has issues with what I’ve written. That’s part and parcel of these debates. This is not a cosy conversation. The point I was making is there are questions for many, and not just the IRA. You will accept there are many questions for the INLA. I accept there are many questions for the media. Will some type of process be built in the dialogue that is taking place that allows those questions and answers to flow? I don’t know, but I’m prepared to wait. It would be great for me and other journalists if we could just post our questions here and get instant answers. I know, and you know, that’s not the way these things work. Any process that sets out to deal with the past, must also include the type of work you and others have been involved in as well as allowing for story-telling by those who want to record their experiences/hurts. Trying to work all of that out will take time and patience. I know you’re on a journey – we all are. Keep posting.
Barney
Brian,
Good morning. Thank you for the response to my earlier post.
‘I’ll ignore your last paragraph’
‘To engage is not to acquiesce.’ The context, you may not like the context, I created in my final paragraph, casts you in the role of a victim. I can hardly feign surprise or disappointment that you balked at confronting what is analogous to Sinn Fein’s public position.
Your assertion that, ‘All of what happened needs to be examined and explained, and not just what happened, but why,’ is curious given your personal inclination towards evading the ‘ uncomfortable conversation’ that would be created by engaging me.
‘Robert has issues with what I’ve written..’
It would be more accurate to conclude that the public is ill served by what you are not writing Brian. Contrary to journalistic instinct you passively indulge a debate that covets ambiguity over clarity and semantics over substance. It currently pervades your writing and analysis.
‘Back in March, the respected and influential Belfast republican Eibhlin Glenholmes told me she had “no qualms about apologising for any hurt”.But she was not saying that the IRA war was wrong: “Absolutely not,” she told me.“We didn’t go to war – war came to us
.”Within those comments, and what is being said by Kearney and McGuinness, you get a sense of what is possible, and what is not.’
.’This is very reminiscent of the tosh that preceded IRA decommissioning .
‘There will be no decommissioning either through the front or the back doors. This is an unrealistic and unrealisable demand which simply won’t be met” IRA statement 1995.
‘I can categorically state the only time the IRA will decommission, we will decommission in agreement with a government of national democracy, a government that derives from the first Dáil. That’s when we will decommission—never, ever before.’ Brian Keenan
‘It is about big thinking and different thinking; not just about what happened, but why it happened, and it is about stepping into the shoes of others.’
The smart money maybe on it being about strategic thinking and expansionist thinking; about Sinn Fein stepping into the shoes of Fianna Fail. .
Like
Reply
Brian,
Good morning. Thank you for the response to my earlier post.
‘I’ll ignore your last paragraph’
‘To engage is not to acquiesce.’ The context, you may not like the context, I created in my final paragraph, casts you in the role of a victim. I can hardly feign surprise or disappointment that you balked at confronting what is analogous to Sinn Fein’s public position.
Your assertion that, ‘All of what happened needs to be examined and explained, and not just what happened, but why,’ is curious given your personal inclination towards evading the ‘ uncomfortable conversation’ that would be created by engaging me.
‘Robert has issues with what I’ve written..’
It would be more accurate to conclude that the public is ill served by what you are not writing Brian. Contrary to journalistic instinct you passively indulge a debate that covets ambiguity over clarity and semantics over substance. It currently pervades your writing and analysis.
‘Back in March, the respected and influential Belfast republican Eibhlin Glenholmes told me she had “no qualms about apologising for any hurt”.But she was not saying that the IRA war was wrong: “Absolutely not,” she told me.“We didn’t go to war – war came to us.”Within those comments, and what is being said by Kearney and McGuinness, you get a sense of what is possible, and what is not.’This is very reminiscent of the tosh that preceded IRA decommissioning .’There will be no decommissioning either through the front or the back doors. This is an unrealistic and unrealisable demand which simply won’t be met” IRA statement 1995. I can categorically state the only time the IRA will decommission, we will decommission in agreement with a government of national democracy, a government that derives from the first Dáil. That’s when we will decommission—never, ever before.’ Brian Keenan ‘It is about big thinking and different thinking; not just about what happened, but why it happened, and it is about stepping into the shoes of others.’It’s about strategic thinking and expansionist thinking; It’s about Sinn Fein stepping into the shoes of Fianna Fail. .
Hi Barney,
No need to say, dare I say it……sorry……….
I was surprised at the way you wrote the reply. I have not seen you do this with any other poster. The throw away remark, “There you go again”, to my thinking, just dismissed my post.
As you know I am writing as an individual Republican. I do not speak for the Republican Socialist Movement. Although I am a member of the RSM, anything I write I do so on my own. I understand that people might see my writing as a reflection of the RSM , but it is not.
You also know that when this “sorry” issue came up I posted in relation to the INLA past, I wrote about the difficulties the ex-prisoners group were facing in dealing with the past of the RSM. So I am not too sure why you brought the INLA’s past up as if I was just saying that the PIRA were the only ones to answer about the past. They are not.
It was the Provisional’s who are the ones that went public on this issue. I have said why I think they did it, said why I don’t believe them, yet nobody from that group has even tried to answer what I, and others, have asked, why not?
They, like you, say this site is not the place to answer the difficult questions, if so, why did they go public at all. I fully understand why sometimes talks are better done away from the public’s gaze, but they then should have started the debate/talks away from the public gaze instead of announcing it in a public fanfare expecting people to see it as “historic, Mandela like, seismic, etc, etc” pick which one you want. They brought it into the public arena, yet now want to go private with it or avoid questions being asked of them, or bad mouthing those who disagree with their public announcements.
I have said I would like other Republicans to post here on this issue as individuals, their own personal thoughts rather than the party line, whichever party they might belong to. I hope some of them do, it might give a better feel of Republican thinking around an issue that needs widened. I would also ask the same of Loyalists, State Forces and victims.
it means nothing saying sorry -action speaks louder than words.