On this day which marks the 30th anniversary of the statement by the Combined Loyalist Military Command, my reflections are somewhat longer and more prosaic.
At the time Gusty Spence read the ceasefire statement my first emotion was a reinforcement of the profound sense of relief that had hit me 6 weeks earlier. The fact of the ceasefire didn’t surprise me as much as the previous one. Various sources, publicly and privately had assured me that it was coming. But the wording was interesting.
The suggestion that the “permanence” of the Loyalist ceasefire was “completely dependant upon the continued cessation of all nationalist/republican violence” maintained the myth that loyalist violence was purely defensive, which was manifestly false, including the actions for which Spence himself was originally imprisoned.
But the most surprising element was the concluding paragraph which went way beyond anything in the IRA statement and which I reproduce in full:
“In all sincerity, we offer to the loved ones of all innocent victims over the past twenty years, abject and true remorse. No words of ours will compensate for the intolerable suffering they have undergone during the conflict. Let us firmly resolve to respect our differing views of freedom, culture and aspiration and never again permit our political circumstances to degenerate into bloody warfare. We are on the threshold of a new and exciting beginning with our battles in future being political battles, fought on the side of honest, decency and democracy against the negativity of mistrust, misunderstanding and malevolence, so that, together, we can bring forth a wholesome society in which our children, and their children, will know the meaning of true peace.”
At the time, and since, there were many who doubted the “sincerity” of these words, and they were scant compensation to victims. It was, however, a recognition of victims that the subsequent Peace Agreement and consequent long-drawn out process has not really built upon, and indeed, with the last British government’s legacy legislation, one could argue, has been actively undermined.
But 30 years on do our children (including my own two sons) and their children (although that generation has not yet appeared yet for me and my wife) know the meaning of “true peace”?
I would argue, that the “wholesome society” aspired to in this closing paragraph has not yet developed, in part because of a reluctance to deal with the pain of victims and to bring justice to bear, because there can be no “true peace” without justice.
But that is not primarily a matter of retributive justice… the time for that is fast fading with victims, survivors and perpetrators slowly passing away. But of restorative and social justice addressing the many causes of the strife in the first place and removing both the excuse for violence, as well as addressing the shared myth of redemptive violence that too much of our society is wedded to.
The initial stages of the peace process were be-devilled by the issue of decommissioning of weapons. But we have not paid anything like enough attention to the decommissioning of mindsets.
The recently released report by the Northern Ireland Development Group think-tank “Reframing the Debate: Ending Loyalist Paramilitarism” makes a compelling case that the time is overdue for such paramilitary groups to finally leave the stage. The categorisation of those involved in such groups as either “ex-combatants”, “community workers” or “criminals” and sometimes a combination of the three, is helpful, but the implication of this report is that both the term “loyalist” and the militaristic language with which many involved in that section of society should be “decommissioned.” If they were ever useful, they are positively unhelpful now.
Those involved in this community will require help in that transition, and whilst I am sympathetic with those who believe that 30 years is long enough and that talking to those who claim to represent this community (without any democratic mandate to affirm that) is counterproductive, I would respectfully disagree. Leaving those who feel alienated by social and political changes and who have not significantly benefited from the “peace dividend” without a vehicle to voice their concerns leaves them prey to radicalising elements, and I believe that recent events bear that out. However, groups such as the LICC cannot and should not be perceived to have privileged access to Unionist ministers or political and civic leaders over and above other duly constituted interest groups.
As such I hope that others in civic society including the churches and political parties will engage with some of the ideas in this report and support its ultimate aims.
However, I have one minor disagreement with the report, in that another idea I would want to be “decommissioned” is that of what a friend called “the f-word” - “funding” loyalist groups to transition. The appeal for funding, even outcome-defined funding, of such groups is one that, in this financially straitened situation will set eyeballs rolling in every other sector of society, and reinforces the “begging bowl” caricature of the whole PUL community that goes back to the days of Harold Wilson.
I do, however, believe that there should be a wholesale strategic investment strategy, embracing education, mental health, housing, economic development and anti-poverty initiatives, addressing all areas of social deprivation, which includes most of the areas where loyalist paramilitarism is rife. And groups and people with a history in loyalism should be invested in where they are demonstrably contributing to the common good. But one of the things that must be named as an inhibiting factor in outside investment into such areas is the prominence of paramilitary trappings and celebration of violence (which is different from the commemoration of loss).
I hope it does not take another 30 years for this “wholesome society” which knows “the meaning of true peace” to emerge. At events to mark the 20th and 25th Anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement and the recent production of Beano Niblock’s “The Man who Swallowed a Dictionary” about the late lamented David Ervine, there was much deserved celebration of the role of former loyalist paramilitaries in delivering the partial peace we have now. But the time is long overdue for us to stop looking back and to start looking forward.
And with that in mind my thoughts go to another story from much further back in history. On a gable wall not far from where Gusty Spence grew up and lived after his release, there was (and perhaps still is) a somewhat mural featuring the divisive figure of Oliver Cromwell. I find it bizarre that this regicide and toxic figure from Irish history has any sort of a profile in "loyalist" culture. But shortly after his devastating campaign in Ireland in 1649, Cromwell returned to England to find that Parliament was not doing a good job of reconstructing the nation after the civil wars. So on the 20th April 1653, he stormed into the Commons Chambers with a party of armed guards and delivered a famous speech which has been used against subsequent governments on at least two occasions, saying:
“It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonoured by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice. Ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government… Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not process?”
before concluding “In the name of God, go!”
Not particularly poetic but it pretty much sums up my feelings on this subject...
Shalom
Comments