Tag Archives: Monitoring

Editorials: Legacy, Finding our niche, Monitoring

Editorials, Nonviolent News, , , ,

Legacy: At least a little, nearly too late

‘Being left a legacy’ can be a pleasant part of the more unpleasant aftermath of a loved one’s death. But in Northern Ireland ‘legacy issues’ are the painful aftermath of thirty years or more of violent conflict. As an INNATE poster states, “The past is not water under the bridge – It is water filling a reservoir”. https://innatenonviolence.org/wp/posters/ There is nowhere that dealing with the aftermath of violent conflict is easy or pleasant and the path to dealing with it has been tortuously slow in Northern Ireland.

The Stormont House Agreement of 2014 remarkably achieved considerable support across the board on dealing the issue, although not unanimously (e.g. opposition from the Ulster Unionist Party). In a situation where ‘our’ victims are more important and more tragic than yours, getting relative agreement and buy in to a collective process is extremely difficult but vital in going forward. The structures of the 2014 agreement on dealing with the past looked a bit complicated but were a relatively comprehensive take on what was needed.

And then the British Tory government reneged on the agreement and failed to implement it or its spirit. Worse was to come when in 2023 the Conservatives introduced their very own Legacy Act, purportedly to be ‘realistic’ but actually to protect British soldiers and the British state from unwelcome publicity about their role in the Troubles, with an end to prosecutions. It had, in contrast to the 2014 agreement, support from no one in Northern Ireland apart from British Army veterans; this was an amazing piece of arrogance and self-interest by the British government in relation to Northern Ireland.

The recent agreement on legacy between the British and Irish governments takes us back close to the 2014 agreement but with different infrastructure. A Legacy Commission with independent oversight is being set up out of the 2023 Legacy Act’s ICRIR/Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery. A 2024 document from CAJ https://caj.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/CAJ-Reform-of-ICRIR-Report-November-24.pdf can be used for reference in examining the new structure. An Independent Commission on Information Retrieval will be set up on a cross-border basis. Inquests which had been halted by the 2023 Legacy Act will resume and there are other details to the agreement.

In the mean time there have been eleven largely wasted years when the families of those killed have grown older or died, and 2014 was itself sixteen years after the Good Friday Agreement. In the period since 2014, inquests were one feature which had worked in retrieving truth – and those had also been removed by the Tories’ 2023 Legacy Act.

The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. Gráinne Teggart of Amnesty International in the North said ““We will carefully examine this framework to assess whether it fully complies with the European Convention on Human Rights and whether it can genuinely deliver for victims. For too long, families have been met with secrecy, impunity and the denial of their right to truth, this must end.” Let us hope that there is indeed light at the end of this long and dark tunnel. Northern Ireland has enough problems to deal without being anchored to the past by unresolved violent tragedies and unendurable pain for those who have suffered and their loved ones.

–

Finding our niche

The world is in such a sorry mess that it is hard to know where and what we should be doing. ‘Making the world a better place’ and not a total disaster for our descendents (literal or metaphorical) seems such a tall order that finding our own place can be difficult and what we end up doing can be accidental – perhaps somebody needed something doing some time and we enjoyed doing it and thought it worthwhile and continued (and that is not necessarily a bad way to get in to doing things).

Presumably many of those reading this will already have not only found their niche but already feel over-involved. Setting parameters to our involvement is often exceedingly difficult but is necessary for our own preservation, to avoid burnout and give us some quality of life. We should not be aiming for martyrdom.

However even if we do have our involvements, reviewing our engagement can be very worthwhile. What do we consider the most important issues around at any level (international, national, local)? Where can we possibly make a difference or at least a stand that is important? And can we balance one kind of involvement with another, e.g. working for world peace (macro level) while being involved with anti-racism or migrant support (micro level)?

There are many different kinds of personality, and we undoubtedly have widely varying interests. How can we match our individuality with what needs done? Of course doing new things and pushing out our own boundaries is good, and it is never too late to learn new skills or approaches. And it is also a question of what is already being done and what is left undone. If something is already ‘being done’ can we make a difference and push things further or are we better to set out on something new which no one is doing? Our personality and skills level count in this regard; are we happy striking out into the unknown or are we much better as part of a team?

It can be difficult to review our own involvement for a variety of reasons including the simple one that others may not give us feedback. Sometimes we have to step back and read between the lines – and possibly even the lies. But we should also know how to take, and acknowledge to ourselves, compliments which are made about our work. And we can ask for feedback which may be important in helping us whether to continue on a particular path or not.

One choice we have to make – though it may also be made for us – is whether we work full time and paid in the field we wish to be primarily engaged politically or socially. Most of us cannot. Peace (work), for example, does not, except in very particular circumstances, pay. So we then have to work out our work/voluntary work/family balance and that can be a very difficult one to juggle if we have a partner who is less engaged and children or elderly parents who need attention and support.

We also need to consider our ‘job satisfaction’ in our involvements. Every job or involvement is likely to come with certain things needing doing which are boring or not what we particularly want to be doing. That is life. But we do need to assess both our overall satisfaction and our perceived effectiveness. It is important to state here that ‘effectiveness’ can be measured in many different ways and success (cf Bill Moyer, Movement Action Plan, for which you can word search) is not a straightforward path. ‘Success’ might be in raising an issue rather than getting it resolved to your satisfaction – we are not miracle workers.

‘Time out’ is valuable in allowing us to reflect and replenish. Speaking to friends, loved ones and colleagues may help us with our thinking. Building the future is a difficult task but it is one which can be done with enthusiasm, imagination and good humour – if we are in ‘the right place’ both physically and metaphorically. We all have our place to play and it is a team effort, even if we work apart.

May you and your involvements flourish.

–

Monitoring the situation

Nonviolent approaches are very diverse and include both activist intervention and third party conciliation, mediation or other forms of activity. One of these third party interventions is monitoring or observing situations of conflict or potential conflict but there are many different approaches within this – the range is explored in a checklist at www.flickr.com/photos/innateireland/25987023457/in/album-72157629555375796 (part of an album on monitoring, accompaniment and unarmed civilian protection) The terms monitoring’ and ‘observing’ can be used by different people to denote slightly different approaches but generally the terms are interchangeable.

Every technique or approach in life has its strengths and weaknesses. Monitoring can actually be an important tool in some circumstances both in helping avoid trouble developing and in being able to tell a relatively unbiased account of what happened if trouble did indeed develop, and possibly feed back to the parties involved what they could have done better. It has been used in Northern Ireland extensively in relation to parades as well as some other situations. The recent development of a Network of Legal Observers in the Republic [See Nonviolent News 332] is very welcome and legal observing watches the servants of the state, in this case the police/Gardaí to see whether they are acting as they should.

Monitoring is not a panacea. If bombs and bullets are flying, as they were often doing in the Troubles in the North, or there is all out rioting, monitors could potentially see some of what is happening and record it, hopefully from a safe distance, but their presence is unlikely to make a jot of difference to how people behave. Accompaniment of people at risk is another part of this general approach in what can be collectively called ‘Unarmed Civilian Protection”. This whole area however has much potential in situations of racial tension and possible attacks.

The neutrality or impartiality of monitors is an issue. For example, monitors could be deployed in situations of racial tension, attack or potential attack where the intention is to help protect those seen as racially different or at risk. However in this situation the monitors would presumably record what they saw, without fear or favour, about race rioters or demonstrators, police, any counter-protesters etc. Thus ‘on the ground’ they would be impartial but the reason for them being there would be from a desire to help avoid racial trouble or attacks. On parading issues in the North some monitoring organisations were essentially solidarity organisations with one side or another and in these cases they were not ‘impartial’ on the ground. But in any case there is no such thing as ‘value free’ monitoring – or indeed any other form of third party intervention.

The extent to which monitors can intervene, and in what way, also varies considerably They are not mediators but, depending on the model involved, they might take on a limited intervention mode, e.g. suggesting a course of action to police or other parties to de-escalate a situation or avoid problems arising. Mediation Northern Ireland in its involvement had a model of passing information up the line and possible intervention by senior people. Monitor training emphasises that monitors remain human beings and if they feel that, as a human being, they need to do something which perhaps steps outside of their monitoring role then they should do it (e.g. offering protection to someone scared or at risk, if this isn’t already ‘within role’) – and any repercussions can be picked up on later.

The diversity of monitoring as an approach is reflected in INNATE’s photo album on the topic at https://www.flickr.com/photos/innateireland/albums/72157629555375796/ which includes a listing of written resources in the introduction at the start (click on ‘Read more’ and scroll down). INNATE continues to be involved in promoting and training in monitoring and is happy to try to answer any queries people have, or point them in the right direction. It is a field of endeavour which, fortunately or unfortunately given its role in relation to low level conflict, will continue to deserve attention and action.

Drumcree before ‘Drumcree’

Nonviolent News, Readings, , , , , , ,

Drumcree Faith and Justice Group and monitoring Orange parades on the Garvaghy Road, Portadown, late 1980s+

by Rob Fairmichael

Introduction – The general situation

In “Track III Actions – Transforming protracted political conflicts from the bottom-up” (Ed. Helena Desivilya Syna and Geoffrey Corry, pub. De Gruyter, 2023) Brendan McAllister gives a detailed account of the Drumcree parading dispute in Portadown from 1995 and his involvement with attempts at mediation then and in ensuing years. Brendan had become director of what is now Mediation Northern Ireland in 1992; sadly he died in December 2022. The publication of his article challenged me to write something about “Drumcree before ‘Drumcree’”, i.e. before the name of that locality became common on news media around the world. This is both to provide some context and because there is a story, or stories, well worth telling.

In 1995 the Drumcree situation of an Orange parade going through a Catholic area ‘blew up’ and in Rev Ian Paisley’s words it became not just a battle for Drumcree but a battle for Ulster. Pitched battles were fought in fields close to Drumcree church and loyalists from around Northern Ireland joined in, one way or another, seeing the denial of ‘their’ perceived right to march down the Garvaghy road as a direct attack on their culture. Once there is that much identification with a struggle, and engagement with it, there is little chance of a mediative settlement (as Brendan McAllister’s account shows). And it was a costly ‘blow up’ in terms of tension, violence, and the loss of life associated with it.

Some unionists and loyalists saw the emergence of parade disputes as a major issue around 1995 (not just Portadown but the Lower Ormeau in Belfast and Dunloy, Co Antrim, for example) as manufactured mischief by republicans and Catholics looking for issues to hit Protestants with after the ceasefires of 1994. But political parades have always been problematic in the north of Ireland both before and after partition. The emergence of parades issues at this time was simply that previously Catholics had felt relatively powerless to raise the issues concerned, particularly pre-ceasefires.

The loyalist perception of the ‘right’ to march where desired comes from a previous era when the state itself was unionist-loyalist in orientation, in the period 1921-1972, and Orangeism would have been fully facilitated by the state (though it would also have drawn on unionism before the foundation of Northern Ireland). In practice the loyal/marching orders mainly restricted marches to Protestant and mixed areas so the vast majority of marches were uncontroversial.

Orangeism is a form of cultural and political expression albeit made publicly in the form of military-style parading and effectively the marking of territory. But it is also, within part of the Protestant community – and it is exclusive in this way – a bonding exercise and the Twelfth (12th July) is, for those involved, a great celebration and gala occasion. For supporters it is also a family fun day, or morning, watching the parades, and for young bandsmen, and some bandswomen, an opportunity to impress their friends, female and male. The Twelfth is quite a spectacle along with the bonfires the night before.

However the more general issue regarding parades in contested areas is one of clashing human rights; the Orange or loyalist right to express political views and culture versus the Catholic or nationalist right not to be intimidated. Some would see Orangeism and Orange parades as religious and if so there would be issues of religious freedom involved too but I consider the religious dimension of Orangeism to be very minor compared to it being culturally Protestant. Incidentally, the service at Drumcree Church the Sunday before the Twelfth, this precedes the parade or attempted parade down the Garvaghy Road, is a very distinctively Orange service (processing, hymns, sermon) and not remotely a typical Church of Ireland Sunday service.

Regarding the right not to be intimidated I include not just physical intimidation, or the threat of it, but also the possibility of people being made to feel as unconsulted second class citizens with no control over their own area. There are many different forms of powerlessness and that is one of them.

While the state developed a new strategy in 1998, giving over decisions on parades to a Parades Commission where previously it was the police, the answer to clashing rights is of course dialogue. The ‘Derry model’ shows one way this can be done with considerable success. It was the willingness of the Apprentice Boys of Derry to talk to local people in that city – even if there were caveats – which unlocked the impasse there and which enabled relatively trouble free parades. The ‘Derry model’ is covered by Michael Doherty in the above mentioned book with notable features being a) the involvement of the business community b) the willingness of the Apprentice Boys of Derry (loyalist parading organisation) to talk to both the Parades Commission and local residents at least in a forum context, and c) this took place in a majority nationalist area. The business community in Portadown did not have the same impetus to be involved as that in Derry where business was badly affected by parades trouble.

Orangemen in Portadown were unwilling to talk directly to Garvaghy Road local residents because of the involvement of republicans or former combatants there, and there would also be an element that they considered they should not be obliged to do so. They felt they had the right to parade while their being denied marching down the Garvaghy Road was also attacked by some, falsely, as a denial of their right to worship at Drumcree Church of Ireland.

1995 was not the beginning of the ‘Drumcree dispute’ or indeed of parading controversy in Portadown – this went back to the 19th century. But in the 1970s and earlier 1980s the flashpoint in Portadown had been the route of the parade through Obins Street closer to the centre of town – which is another story in itself and the site of considerable violence; this route was then banned in the mid-1980s. It would seem that at this stage the police might have had an opportunity to refuse future parades down the Garvaghy Road, but they did not take that option, and the conflict continued and subsequently exploded in a way which eclipsed even the violent riots at Obins Street.

The complete story of parading in Portadown is a long, complicated and frequently violent one which there is no time or space to explore here; information is available on the CAIN website and elsewhere. Parades in general had been so troublesome or trouble-producing in the 19th century that the British government had banned them for two periods (1832-1845 and 1850-1872); trouble associated with parades was nothing new.

In this piece I wanted to share some of my limited knowledge of the period immediately before Drumcree became ‘Drumcree’. While I have tried to check the facts of or from my involvement, and ‘run it past’ someone involved, I have not done any extensive research in writing this. I was involved in support for the Drumcree Faith and Justice group and did some nonviolence training with them and attended various meetings.

Drumcree and DFJ

The parade down the Garvaghy Road was experienced by most Catholics in the area as treating them as second class citizens and as something imposed on them. In 1986 the local Drumcree Faith and Justice group (DFJ) on the Garvaghy Road, in the Catholic area, organised a ‘tea party’ during the parade coming through the area as they paraded home from Drumcree Church of Ireland. https://www.flickr.com/photos/innateireland/46711654212/in/photolist-2eaKrou-2m1iLas-2m1sRev

The ‘tea party’ was a symbol of nonviolent resistance to the parade. But it was also proposing an alternative to IRA violence by offering resistance in a way that challenged, but also respected, opponents. This was perhaps the more important element in the demonstration, in that locals saw it as a challenge to IRA ideology.

The DFJ also stressed that there were about 40 Orange parades in Portadown in the course of a year, so the Order could not argue that its identity was not respected. Further, they said since nationalists were a minority greater weight needed to be given to their identity when there were disputes.

It should be stated that while the DFJ might have been most associated with resistance to the Orange parade coming through, they were a group committed to nonviolence and involved in other peace, cross-community and community development work. They even directly challenged republican violence and control, in one case when republicans were expelling some local men, by surveying local residents on the issue, showing there was tiny support for such action – undertaking this was bravery of the first magnitude. Here is what they wrote about it themselves:

“In May 1990 the group confronted the North Armagh Brigade of the IRA who expelled three local men from Northern Ireland, apparently on the grounds of “antisocial” behaviour. Members of the Group did a door to door survey in Churchill Park of how local residents responded to this threat. Out of 162 houses approached, 4 supported the IRA position, 8 abstained, 122 condemned the IRA action, and the rest were not at home. The Group subsequently publicised the results of the survey in the press and on radio and got wide coverage. This was a difficult action for the Group to take, but they were determined not to give in to this kind of oppression from the IRA”. https://www.flickr.com/photos/innateireland/31758301747/in/album-72157717096321767/

They also put an advertisement in the ‘Portadown Times’ following a large IRA bomb in the town in 1993. This asked “As Catholic Citizens of Portadown we ask: Why Wreck Our Town?”. Again, this was a direct challenge to the IRA and its violence.

Many unionists and Orangemen felt, indeed feel, that they have the right to walk the “Queen’s Highway”, that anywhere in Northern Ireland should be open to them. The phrase is not so much used now and in any case it would currently be the “King’s Highway”. However most Orange parades only take place in Protestant, neutral or mixed areas where they are generally welcomed or tolerated. While those of an Orange or loyalist persuasion might feel this right to march is principally for loyal citizens, and not for Catholics, the DFJ were involved in an action which showed that in Northern Ireland there is no such thing as a neutral “Queen’s Highway”.

Marking the 5th anniversary of the founding of DFJ, in 1989 they tested the waters for parading by applying for permission to parade up to the centre of town and back again. Loyalist paramilitaries issued a threat. The police (who still made decisions on parades at this stage, before the Parades Commission) banned the parade leaving the Catholic area. QED there was indeed no such thing as a neutral “Queen’s Highway”, a point which ironically the loyalist paramilitaries had helped to make by issuing the threat. https://www.flickr.com/photos/innateireland/53283767509/in/dateposted/

And at that time such threats were very real. The DFJ was associated with a small Jesuit community in a local house. Some loyalists and Protestants had an idea of the Jesuits which was probably mistaken in the 17th century let alone the late 20th. A story was shared during a local meeting with renowned nonviolent activists Jean and Hildegard Goss-Mayr in 1998; a reformed loyalist paramilitary told that, subsequent to the Jesuit community house being established, he was part of a team sent to kill them – he said the Jesuits were spared because the paramilitaries could not find the house…..

After a couple of years of the tea party as a symbol of resistance, the DFJ subsequently took to sit down protests about the parade coming through. See photos from 1989 (and a short general album about DFJ) at https://www.flickr.com/photos/innateireland/albums/72157717096321767/with/50659770223/

DFJ did communicate directly with police in a friendly but direct fashion during the events of Drumcree Sunday. On one occasion they succeeded in getting the police to withdraw police dogs out of sight of residents for fear that this would antagonise them if people thought that police were intending to use them.

There was one instance where for DFJ paying the piper was not necessarily calling the tune – literally. One year (1989) DFJ had a local band playing on a flatbed trailer as an attempt to provide a positive atmosphere on the Garvaghy Road as the parade came through. However as the parade approached, and totally contrary to why they were engaged, the band struck up “A nation once again”! That’s what I remember though another person present recorded it as “We shall overcome”.

It is worth telling about a detail of a meeting I attended, possibly in 1990, organised by DFJ but including some other people. An issue under discussion was the fact that the police were turning back young Catholic men from going up the centre of the town; while the police were responding to the real risk of sectarian trouble and fighting between Protestant and Catholic young men, their response was in itself sectarian (turning back Catholics and presumably only Catholics) and contrary to their human rights (freedom of movement).

There was a prominent local Catholic citizen present at this meeting, from outside the immediate area and not involved with DFJ. He asked why these young men were going up the centre of the town anyway as “it isn’t ours” (i.e. it was mainly Protestant). I was gobsmacked. He wasn’t from the area that young people were being denied freedom of movement but he seemed to be accepting an apartheid-type situation not just for Portadown but, extrapolating, for the whole of Northern Ireland. This is just one, perhaps surprising, detail at the time of acceptance of sectarianism in what was, and is, a very divided town.

INNATE monitoring

From 1989 until 1993 INNATE was involved in providing monitors during the Drumcree parade. While INNATE was invited to do so by DFJ, and in that sense supportive of them, INNATE was quite clear that it was there to observe everyone and as far as possible to feed back to the different parties what had happened and what could have been done differently – including to DFJ. INNATE developed its own model of monitoring/observing and did some work in encouraging others to use this methodology in conflict situations (the INNATE report is available in Dawn Train No.11, 1992, available at https://innatenonviolence.org/dawntrain/index.shtml).

INNATE was the first body to use monitoring in parades and potential conflict situations in Northern Ireland as the Troubles were winding down (there had been considerable monitoring type activity early in the Troubles – see e.g. article by John Watson, Dawn Train No.10, also at https://innatenonviolence.org/dawntrain/index.shtml). It was presumably nothing to do with INNATE but by the mid-1990s there could be up to half a dozen different monitoring groups at a contentious parade.

Brendan McAllister himself was an INNATE monitor on the Garvaghy Road in 1991 and 1992 – he is the guy sitting in the middle wearing a tie in a photo at https://www.flickr.com/photos/innateireland/3281825083/in/album-72157607571533994/. His first time monitoring with INNATE in Portadown was his first time monitoring – something which he developed extensively, with a different model to INNATE, in his mediation role – you can see some photos including Brendan himself in a photo album on monitoring and accompaniment at https://www.flickr.com/photos/innateireland/albums/72157629555375796. He played a significant role in preventing escalation to violence that first day he monitored in Portadown. A policeman in a police line across a road was engaged in verbal interaction with a citizen in front of it; the situation was escalating and the likely outcome would have been the man being arrested and quite possibly subsequent violence.

However a colleague of the policeman engaged in the interaction was seen talking to him, it was presumed informing him that there was at least one independent monitor (Brendan McAllister, identifiable in that role by an armband) nearby looking at the situation; the policeman concerned calmed down, and escalation was avoided. This account is based on the report back by Brendan at the INNATE debrief immediately after the parade. The RUC was not renowned for discipline in this sort of situation at the time and it seems having a visible monitor or observer present promoted best behaviour and prevented significant deterioration and the risk of violence.

INNATE observers/monitors came from a variety of backgrounds including peace activists, Protestant and Catholic, some people who had a human rights involvement, and some international volunteers. One of the last managed the difficult task of writing an account of the DFJ tea party, sit down, the Orange parade and police activity in a humorous manner while also making serious points. https://www.flickr.com/photos/innateireland/53283768339/in/dateposted/ Another monitor, a Quaker (of which there were several involved as INNATE monitors), was originally from the Portadown area and recognised by some loyalists; he was threatened in no uncertain terms – i.e. a very deliberate threat to his physical wellbeing – not to come back and monitor again. He was viewed by these people as a turncoat or traitor in the Northern Ireland sectarian response that if you are seen as doing something for ‘them’ you are doing it against ‘us’.

In a subsequent year to when INNATE provided monitors, I presume 1994, I was engaged to assist local stewards on the Garvaghy Road in preparing for being present for the Orange parade through the area but that is another (long) story. However the relevant point is that a significant number of local residents, not just DFJ people, as part of the residents’ coalition were trying to prevent violence ensuing on their side of the metaphorical fence because of the Orange parade. A much smaller number of military minded republicans would probably have been quite happy if trouble ensued.

For a brief comparison between mediation, stewarding and monitoring there is a leaflet produced from an INCORE project in 1999; see https://www.flickr.com/photos/innateireland/20334307318/in/album-72157629555375796/ and entry beside it. The contact information in this is out of date but it is interesting to compare the different approaches and the overlaps between them. The approach developed by Mediation Northern Ireland with Brendan McAllister and others, mentioned above, was to monitor and feed back information up a chain which could be used for mediation, in current time or subsequently. The cross-interface phone networks set up in Belfast when mobile phones were still a novelty was another approach; this enabled community workers or activists ‘on the other side’ to be advised about what was happening across the divide, or indeed coming from their side, so they could take appropriate action immediately to help defuse situations.

In 1991 as part of its follow up to monitoring the Drumcree Sunday parade, INNATE decided to make representations to the Belfast News Letter regarding their report on the parade; this labelled all those present looking on at the parade from the Catholic Garvaghy Road as republican, i.e. Sinn Féin/IRA supporters (showing a prejudiced view and/or ignorance about the area). This would not only have been manifestly untrue but also dangerous since labelling people in this way, particularly pre-ceasefire, was making them targets.

The letter sent to the News Letter was clearly headed and underlined so as to be unmissable, before the text of the letter, “This letter is not intended for publication.” They published it. They refused to apologise until a complaint went to the Press Council. INNATE’s letter included criticism of the police on the day in question which INNATE would not have been made publicly (comments were made directly and privately to the RUC on their performance).

The News Letter said the letter was typed onto their computer system by an editorial assistant and simply marked ‘Letters’ (without the ‘not for publication’ part). The only compensation they offered was that INNATE could offer a suggestion for the topic of an editorial which they would write! A reasonable gesture might have been a free advertisement. However there was one humorous outcome; in response to the mistakenly published letter which had been signed by myself (and it probably was a genuine mistake although very sloppy journalism or office management), another letter was published criticising “Mr Fairmichael and his INANE organisation….”!

Conclusions

In this period there was great variation from year to year in the feeling associated with the Drumcree parade depending on both local events (local killings and who did them as well as other factors) and the broader political situation. However one feature remained constant; once the parade was over there was relief (this was pre-1995) and no compulsion to deal with the issues, aside from residents, and when the summer loomed again the next year it was felt to be ‘too late’. Thus it was always ‘the wrong time’ for an initiative to solve the issue.

But the moral of this story is that a ‘little local issue’ – expressed in inverted commas because it was actually a big deal locally – when left to fester could blow up to be “a battle for Ulster”. The situation remains unresolved today though active and general unionist backing for the Orange cause at Drumcree waned after the killing of three young Catholic children in the one family in Ballymoney, in an attack seen as associated with it, in 1998.

Before 1995, before it did become ‘Drumcree’, a concerted initiative by the police and/or a respected civil society group outside the area might have had some chance of success in reaching at least an implicit agreement – if the Orange Order could have been persuaded it was in their interests to engage (which it would have been, and still is, to negotiate ‘safe passage’ down the Garvaghy Road). They would need to have been offered a way to talk or negotiate, directly or indirectly, which they could accept, like the Apprentice Boys in Derry subsequently. But it does also need stated that focused mediation work was only beginning in Northern Ireland at this stage. When Brendan McAllister was able to be involved it was already too late despite determined effort, after it became an international issue and a shibboleth in Northern Ireland.

In conclusion about the Drumcree parade at the end of the 1980s and start of the 1990s, I joke that our work was so successful that the word ‘Drumcree’ was never heard again…. The lack of success at this time, and the subsequent explosion in the situation, was certainly not due to the Drumcree Faith and Justice Group who were an impressive and brave group of local people seeking to make a positive contribution to their own area and to Portadown as a whole on a broad range of issues. Unfortunately the Drumcree parading situation joined the long list of unresolved matters in Northern Ireland though inclusive talking of some kind could still bring about a ‘result’ – a win-win one – for everyone.