It was in this month a year ago that the Sinn Fein national chair Declan Kearney began sprinkling the seeds of a reconciliation initiative.
The setting was the Waterfront Hall and his party’s first ever Ard Fheis to be staged in Belfast.
Kearney urged republicans to step outside their comfort zones, “to take new and thoughtful initiatives in the interests of reconciliation”.
“We need to use new language and consider new compromises to reconcile our society’s divisions,” he said.
Then, six months later, he penned an article for the republican newspaper An Phoblacht introducing the word ‘sorry’ as a challenge to heal the hurts of conflict.
It sparked a debate – both internally and externally – about what was meant; the question, sorry for what?
That article, more than the speech a year ago, is what began the behind-the-scenes conversations with people from the Protestant, unionist, loyalist community;
People such as Rev Lesley Carroll, Rev Harold Good, the former IMC Commissioner Lord Alderdice, loyalists Jackie McDonald, John Bunting and John Howcroft, victims’ campaigner Alan McBride and others.
Those conversations, in terms of building new relationships and friendships, are, of course, important, but what progress is being made on reconciliation, on building a new future, and on answering the questions of the past?
One source – a republican – talked about “playing handball against a haystack”, another, this time in the Protestant community, describing political unionism’s response, talked about the flowers that are put in the bin as a statement of rejection.
So, there is still too much suspicion and cynicism attached to this initiative; a questioning of what the ‘Provos’ are up to.
Inside the republican community there is also a questioning of why Kearney and Martin McGuinness are saying what they are saying about Bloody Friday, Claudy and the Shankill bomb with no obvious or apparent reciprocation.
Credibility is being stretched in an initiative in which it seems political unionism’s only interest is questioning the actions and orders of McGuinness, Gerry Adams and the IRA.
Republicans also argue that narrow questioning of the past is found within chunks of the media; that, primarily, the focus is on what the IRA and republicans did wrong and the wider frame is ignored.
A future cannot be built on the sinking sands of the past, and unless there is some comprehensive answering of that past, then the future will always be unstable.
So, it is not just about Adams, McGuinness and the IRA; the questions to them and their answers.
It is about questions for everybody, all sides – republican, loyalist, political, governments, security, intelligence, media, churches and others.
It is about all questions or no questions. This is the choice, and the decision to be made.
If we want to quiz Adams, McGuinness and the IRA, then we must expect the return questions and be prepared to give the answers.
At a recent summer school in Cork and in the presence of Alan McBride, Declan Kearney said there was no excuse for the human loss and suffering caused by the Shankill bomb.
Amanda Fullerton was also part of that panel discussion. Her father Eddie, a Sinn Fein councillor, was shot dead by loyalists during a supposed truce in 1991.
That period of the early 1990s saw a surge in loyalist killings; by re-armed organisations using weapons smuggled and supplied by Ulster Resistance.
Yet there is nothing like the same political and media focus on those events; those killings within which the Fullerton story is a part.
In his party conference speech last weekend, UUP leader Mike Nesbitt said: “Whatever needed fixed in this country in 1968 or 1969, no one needed to die.”
Almost four thousand people lost their lives, many more were injured, and what happened, happened.
Part of this building towards a new future, has to be an examination of not just what, but why; an examination of that statement Mr Nesbitt made at the weekend.
If we go there, into that type of process, then it will be every question, for every side, at the same time, with the same rules.
The continuing Price/Adams saga on London bombs and the ‘disappeared’ shows the need for a structured process on the past; a process for every question and not just some of them.
The reconciliation talks are happening and continuing, but they need direction and focus.
This cannot become more talking in circles – talking that goes nowhere.
7 Comments
I suppose we all have our own personal interests. In my case I would like to see those who gave the orders, sat back while bombs were planted and innocents lost their lives being held accountable. In my view I see Adams, McGuinness and those who were high up in the IRA getting of scot free, with their constant denials or washing their hands of all dirty deeds with the lament “the IRA no longer exist we can’t answer that”.
I am also aware that other innocent victims who were hurt by loyalists and state also deserve answers and fully support this.
It’s the knowledge that those who look at us from our television screens in their smart suits know so many answers but are unwilling to give them that hurts and sickens. Many of us are ordinary people who would have been happy to leave politics to the politicians but we have found ourselves on this nightmare roundabout where one wrong word/action finds us reliving our own personal tradgey.
You are right Barney it s time for all questions to be answered truthfully and without excuse or justification but let it happen soon before we get any older and the healing can truely begin.
Ann – thanks for your contribution here. If this process if left to politicians it will never happen because there is too much to hide on every side.
When international help has been sought in the past it has worked – George Mitchell and John de Chastelain are two examples.
But maybe there is not the political will to ask for help on the questions of the past; too many ugly truths, too much fear.
But an approach that only asks some of the questions won’t work. Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness have both said they would co-operate with an international process.
The way to test if they are sincere on this is for others to go into the same room, and I often ask who fears the past the most – republicans, loyalists or others.
Ann, I hope you get your answers, but first we need the structure within which there is the best chance of that happening.
No change ,they are sociopaths- they would not know the truth if it bit them in the behinds, lets be truthful they are full time clowns…No one is above the law- lets get serious ,the bullies are only in power to keep the peace – paid to keep an eye on them…..Keep them busy and content.
Well said Ann- those who planned incited heinous crimes against humanity must be brought to task!
With Ann’s comment I had to think hard before placing words to typescript because I, in no way, seek to add to anyone’s hurt or sense of injustice.
Ann has referred to her chagrin at seeing former members of PIRA on TV and in ‘suits’ but what of ‘the suits’? What of the career politicians here or unknown Whitehall or An t’Aire Cosanta Mandarins who aided and abetted in the violence?
There are individuals (people who should have had more sense) who incited hatred and by stealth clandestinely supported and/or armed “3rd Forces” and mainstream Loyalism. People who masked themselves in a suit but at night where up hills orchestrating insurrection and violence? People who are still in suits, and a small minority still masking their rabid sectarianism of others who don’t think politically or culturally like them yet have huge community influence?
The silence from these quarters is hypocritically damning.
Yet ‘political suits’ aided or incited both Republican and Loyalist, happy to make the ‘snowballs’ for ‘others to throw’. Today those suits live in their world of denial, blaming others, wallowing in a victim mentality and most importantly fearing truth.
The Politicians here will not do this. I am unsure if the politicians in HMG or IG care anymore having left the scene of the crime (to soon).
As I have often stated, a truth process has to begin with amnesty and outside authority to steer the ‘good ship truth’ with all participants engaging honestly – that to me must be the ‘foundation hull’ to the ships structure.
Glen…….Please direct message me. I need a contact number. Thanks.
With Ann’s comment I had to think hard before placing words to
typescript because I, in no way, seek to add to anyone’s hurt or sense
of injustice.
Ann has referred to her chagrin at seeing former members of PIRA on
TV and in ‘suits’ but what of ‘the suits’? What of the career
politicians here or unknown Whitehall or An t’Aire Cosanta mandarins who from an armchair aided and abetted in the violence?
There are individuals (people who should have had more sense) who
incited hatred and by stealth are believed to have clandestinely supported and/or armed “3rd
Forces” and mainstream Loyalism. People who are still in suits, with a small minority masking
rabid sectarianism of others who don’t think politically or culturally
like them yet have huge community influence?
The silence from these quarters is hypocritically damning.
Yet ‘political suits’ aided or incited both Republican and Loyalist,
happy to make the ‘snowballs’ for ‘others to throw’.
Today those suits
live in their world of denial, blaming others, wallowing in a victim
mentality and most importantly fearing truth.
The Politicians here will not do this. I am unsure if the politicians
in HMG or IG care anymore having left the scene of the crime (to soon).
As I have often stated, a truth process has to begin with amnesty and
outside authority to steer the ‘good ship truth’ with all participants
engaging honestly – that to me must be the ‘foundation hull’ to the
ships structure.