In the Odyssey Centre in Belfast there is a children’s educational-entertainment or “interactive discovery” centre named W5 – standing for WhoWhatWhereWhenWhy. In this piece we are going to look at some “why’s” concerning both parts of Ireland with some very simple answers on different aspects of conflict.
Q1. Why has the conflict in Northern Ireland lasted so long?
A. Because conflict can be not only multigenerational but exist over many centuries. Despite all the changes which have taken place in life since the 17th century and the Plantation of Ulster, the two main groupings from then, cultural Catholics and cultural Protestants, continue as fairly distinct entities in the North. Of course there are ‘betweeners’ of various kinds, and opportunities for ‘betweendom’ are increasing, but they are a minority. The original conflict arose by settlers taking the land and property of the then native Catholic Irish as part of an organised takeover.
Q2. Why do ‘good relations’ and peace activists in the North believe things can change?
A. Apart from a commitment to positive change it is because they have already changed significantly since the start of the Troubles and especially since the Good Friday Agreement. The powersharing political arrangements at Stormont are not ideal, nor are they a necessarily fit for the long term, but they are a start, and are a vast change from the time of the hunger strikes, the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985, or indeed the ‘one party rule’ (elected) prior to 1972.
Q3. If peace came to Northern Ireland through dialogue, of various kinds, why have people not extrapolated from this to broader questions of conflict?
A. A difficult question. The British have certainly ignored how peace came to Northern Ireland in their dealings with Afghanistan, Iraq, Ukraine and elsewhere, and within Northern Ireland wanted ‘business as usual’, e.g. with military recruitment. Within the North, both nationalists/republicans and unionists/loyalists have not connected how peace came about with how they think of international issues and unionists/loyalists are especially prone to simple identifying with things ‘British’, including military policies.
Q4. Why do paramilitaries still exist in Northern Ireland?
A. For a variety of reasons. While participants in these may often think of them as a line of ‘defence’, others see them as a line of ‘attack’. The small paramilitary groups on the republican side are still committed to armed struggle for a united Ireland based on their belief that this is the only way, and justified by history. Loyalist paramilitary groups still exist in a much greater way; for individual members this may be a badge of meaning, identity and commitment as British – or of power and enrichment (for some leaders) through extortion and other crime.
Q5. Why have people from bodies formerly, or indeed, currently linked to paramilitarism not apologised for past violence?
A. To do so would be to disown their raison d’etre and undermine their existence. While there were some apologies at the time of the ceasefires, e.g. from Gusty Spence, paramilitaries and Sinn Féin generally refuse to apologise for using armed struggle since they regard it as justified during the Troubles. In addition, Gerry Adams and others worked to ‘take people with them’ in moving to discard the ‘armalite’ and this entailed not disowning the past. Individual incidents of violence are sometimes apologised for, but not armed action per se.
Q6. Why do those who still espouse violence (including the British state internationally) not see the possibilities of nonviolence?
A. A mixture of reasons including adherence to the cult and culture of violence (the perception of it efficacy despite evidence to the contrary) and a lack of imagination and creativity. Nonviolence is seen as weak and ineffective whereas violence is seen as the ‘strong’, natural option.
Q7. Why do a majority of young people in Northern Ireland want to leave if they have a suitable opportunity?
A. Largely because of the divisions that exist but also for economic reasons. In the Republic people are much more likely to leave because of difficulties in acquiring housing. In both cases this is a sad reflection on realities, where people leave for reasons other than ‘spreading their wings’.
Q7. Why is there not a majority for a united Ireland if cultural Catholics are now in a slight majority in the North?
A. Feeling culturally Irish may not trump uncertainties about a different kind of future, and the risks involved – better the divil you know than the divil you don’t. And some Catholics identify as ‘Northern Irish’ rather than plain ‘Irish’, and a few perhaps even as British.
Q8. Why has the Irish government, with its supposed commitment to a united Ireland, not made greater plans towards this end?
A. While some people have broached this, e.g. Leo Varadkar, there is also a reluctance to rock the peace boat in the North and a desire to let Northern ‘sleeping dogs lie’. However the uncertainties about what might eventually appear on the table do not help serious debate and consideration of the issues. In addition, most people in the Republic have not seriously considered what unification might mean – in terms of cost or political change.
Q9. Why do the older established political parties in the Republic (Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael) and the establishment support joining NATO or being a fellow traveller of same?
A. A number of reasons pertain including subservience to the USA (for economic and cultural-political reasons) and the totally false perception that to be a ‘good European’ you have to get militarily involved with EU and NATO militarism and the ‘defence’ of (western) Europe.
Q10. Why is the ‘Russian threat’ used as an excuse to advocate Ireland getting closer to NATO?
A. As well as Russian militarist expansionism in relation to Ukraine, NATO creates a divisive fear about Russian intentions and ignores the role it played itself in creating division with Russia through expansion in eastern Europe – which it had promised not to do. Aside from any international facilities (e.g. undersea cabling) which might be targetted by Russia as part of more general conflict, any danger to Ireland comes precisely because of identification with NATO.
Q11. Why does Ireland currently not not have a positive neutral stance, given its history?
A. Independent Ireland has a considerable record of positive neutral action from de Valera in the League of Nations, work for nuclear non-proliferation, military peacekeeping with the UN, and involvement in banning landmines and cluster munitions. However the establishment (in various forms) considers it should throw in its lot with the former imperialist powers in Europe as well as the USA. This shows a severe lack of both imagination and understanding of conflict and conflict escalation. See also Q9.
Q12. Why has Ireland, North and Republic, largely been a laggard in dealing with climate change issues despite the grave seriousness of the situation?
A. There are a variety of reasons. When something is everyone’s responsibility (in the world, but particularly the rich countries who have largely created the crisis) then it can become no one’s. It has not been a top issue for most citizens. And Ireland has seen itself as less at risk than others – despite increased risks of severe storm damage and the climate becoming like Newfoundland if the ‘Gulf Stream’ stops, and a worldwide cause of severe conflict.