Damian O'Loan (Paris): Wednesday marked the launch of the much-hyped report of Northern Ireland's Consultative Group on the Past, including its “outrageous” proposal to award £12,000 to all victims of the Troubles, regardless of their, or their families', contribution to the conflict.
It has been rejected by the dominant unionist DUP; Sinn Féin are unhappy with the truth recovery proposals; one of four members of the Commission for Victims and Survivors, former newsreader Mike Nesbitt, suggested it “was likely to divide families;” the Ulster Unionist leader has called for the proposals to be withdrawn; even the cross-community Alliance party were outraged, though leader David Ford acknowledged “many positive recommendations.” Not a great reception then.
This headline-grabbing proposal has indeed deflected attention away from the heart of the issue. I will consider some individual proposals, but let's begin with the essential: Northern Ireland does not have the mechanisms in place to deal with its past, and the devolved Assembly, with the help of the British and Irish governments, must create them. Rejecting this report may suit those who wish to close the chapter on the past, believing it can be divorced from the future. They are wrong, and their view places us all at risk. At some point, this will require constructive engagement on all sides, not just creativity in hiding shameful secrets.
To begin with, let us consider the £12,000 single payment. It is in harmony with the relevant definition of victimhood as written in law:
’(a) someone who is or has been physically or psychologically injured as a result of or in consequence of a conflict-related incident;
(b) someone who provides a substantial amount of care on a regular basis for an individual mentioned in paragraph (a); or
(c) someone who has been bereaved as a result of or in consequence of a conflict-related incident.’
This definition does not equate victimhood with innocence. That equation is dangerous, and while various leaders may wish to define what negates innocence to the extent of negating victimhood, the failure to agree on one Victims' Commissioner suggests they simply are not capable of this nuanced compromise. They need to be. Perhaps this proposal should be scrapped – it provides too easy an excuse to dismiss the report entirely. The difficult work of finding agreement on a question central to lasting stability can then begin.
The report does contain other interesting proposals to deal with major issues. It is too easily forgotten that 'peace' in Northern Ireland is not peace enough for those exiled by paramilitaries to return. There are also those exiled by paramilitaries post-1998 who today cannot visit certain parts of the North. Eames and Bradley vaguely suggest “helping those exiled from Northern Ireland during the conflict to return.” It is a timely reminder that the absence of violence masks an ugly current of threat.
The mistaken perception that republicanism has forever renounced violence is also tackled:
“The Group therefore recommends that the Commission should, at the end of its work, challenge the people of Northern Ireland, including political parties and whatever remnant or manifestation of paramilitary groups remain, to sign a declaration to the effect that they will never again kill or injure others on political grounds.”
Perhaps this challenge could be undertaken at the beginning of the Commission's work, for we still live under the threat of armed loyalists, for whom the British government allows seemingly infinite patience, and dissident republicanism. This would mobilise public support for peace and opposition to violence, thus engendering a greater public stake in any ensuing peace.
Lord Eames and Denis Bradley also propose an end to troubles-related inquiries, as well as historical investigations carried out by the police's HET and the Police Ombudsman. They fail, though, to insist on any legislative replacement having powers equal to, or greater than, those organisations. The long-suffering Finucane family, explicitly mentioned, have refused investigation because the Inquiries Act of 2005 would permit secrets to be kept. Not dealing with the legislative framework is a failure that will help the British government to continue a policy found to contravene its Right to Life obligations.
A further proposal states that “the Legacy Commission would examine themes arising from the conflict which remain of public concern, such as specific areas of paramilitary activity, or alleged collusion. This thematic examination would take place without public hearings.” There should be no doubt that Eames and Bradley accept that more information could be provided to victims were the threat of prosecutions lifted. This may become the smokescreen that denies justice to many; for those who given up on justice, it may be welcome.
This is a complex report that goes to the core of conflict resolution and the future stability of Northern Ireland. To dismiss it lightly is to deny the obligations our society is under. If those obligations are to be respected, it will require unprecedented discussion and compromise. We don't have a choice.
