Tag Archives: Northern Ireland

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.

Billy King: Rites Again, 330

Billy King, Nonviolent News, , , , , , ,

Billy King shares his monthly thoughts –

Well, welcome again to my musings, not too many amusings this month but still. Not very entertaining perhaps, INNATE did receive an email advertising wholesale ‘shotguns’ (rifles, including semi-automatic ones) during the month, prices starting at $200. Just what we always wanted. We are neither for gunning nor gurning so we will bid them begone before we have begun.

Northern culture wars

When it comes to De Nort, a k a Norn Iron, one good cultural or even sectarian expression of identity seems to demand an equal and opposite response from The Other Side, even where the appropriate response is either appreciation of difference or simple silence. Unfortunately the numbers in the Jewish community in Belfast have been declining for a long time as those associated with it have moved away for work, marriage or simply a desire, in the context of declining numbers, for places of greater religious vitality.

Obviously Judaism is a rather different and more diverse religious and cultural phenomenon than political support for Israel. The current context of the Israeli onslaught however makes things difficult for Jews, whatever their political views – and some Jews in Ireland have put their heads above the parapet to oppose the genocidal Israeli war on Gaza which followed the Hamas massacre of Israelis on 7th October 2023. The recent arrest of a 72 year old Jewish woman, a member of Jews for Palestine, for supposedly putting stickers (!) on a Barclays ATM in Belfast is a case in point.

However some people never miss a trick to make a political point and, while disagreeing absolutely with their actions, you have to admire their ingenuity. With most Catholics and pretty much all republicans in Northern Ireland supporting Palestine, loyalists have for a long time taken to supporting Israel. This manifests itself most prominently in Belfast with respective displays of Palestinian and Israeli flags. Irish language place names being included with English on street signs is also a political football, notwithstanding the fact that the origin of most such names is in the Irish language.

However the move to have Irish language signs has brought forward the proposal to have Hebrew language signs near the, predominantly Protestant, Village area off the Lisburn Road in Belfast. This is the latest in proxy battles in Norn Iron. However the move for this in Ebor Street has been stymied because a request for Irish language signs was made first – and Belfast City Hall will only deal with one request at a time. Time for a bit of shalom / salaam / síocháin in the culture wars I think.

The Paisley pattern

I am usually, not always, reading books long after they are out and been a topic of conversation. I recently read David Gordon’s 2009 book “The fall of the house of Paisley”. While not necessarily part of that book, part of the fascination of the whole Paisley phenomenon, at least so far as IRKP (Paisley Senior) is concerned is the extent to which he was a prisoner of his followers. The Rev Ian prospered while he stoked up the prejudices of his followers. Until his final conversion to powersharing, any time he had a progressive, original idea he quickly withdrew it when his followers raised questions.

As many commentators have said, making a judgement on a man like Ian Paisley Senior is difficult. Does a few years of saying yes and cooperating with others across divides wipe out a bitter legacy of stoking up sectarian discontent for decades? I think the answer to that is in the way I have phrased the previous sentence. No is the answer. Yes, we should be grateful that he did See The Light. But he ensured the years of violence and bitterness in the Troubles were longer and more bitter than they could have been, indeed more than anyone he helped create them.

Only towards the end of his life, perhaps more aware of his mortality following illness, and wanting to leave ‘a legacy’, did he face down those who questioned his path – and get chucked out of his position in the church he founded as a result. That he did finally join the establishment who were busy praising him for a few years before his conversion (the plámás was painful to watch) was a fascinating and positive move. But it could have been so different if he had Seen The Light many years earlier (I am deliberately using the term ‘Seen The Light’ to imitate the conservative evangelical language Paisley would have used). And he only saw that light when he was already political top dog which is another relevant factor.

Of course Ian Paisley Junior has been a different kettle of fishiness, not afraid to jump in to the promotion of dubious business arrangements or take fabulous and expensive holidays from brutal regimes (which he then supported) and didn’t declare in his parliamentary returns. It was the latter which finally got him ousted from the Westminster seat which he had inherited from his Da; he was beaten by the intelligent but even more hardline Jim Allister at the British general election of July 2024. That perhaps was a further twist in the fall of the house of Paisley. ‘Junior’ hasn’t gone away but it proved further that the house of Paisley did not have solid foundations. Political edifices that seem to be securely built are shown to have feet of clay retrospectively when popular (and sometimes brutally engineered) support is withdrawn.

And that brings us on to one of the theoretical foundations of nonviolent action: regimes of any kind depend on the support of the people, voluntary and/or forced. The withdrawal of support can be fatal for protesters, given the nature of the regime and its reaction, but if enough people do it then the state is literally powerless. Or, in the words of the originally Chilean protest song, “El pueblo unido jamás será vencido” that I know as a chant – or in the translation ‘the people united will never be defeated’.

But….in Belarus

While the last paragraph above is undoubtedly true, in the short to medium term repressive regimes can make the lives of activists – and ordinary non-political people – hell on earth. An account by Belarusian activist, Olga Karach, in exile in Lithuania, shows the extent of that repression. “……the Belarusian authorities have intensified their campaign of repression and censorship, culminating in a new wave of court rulings that declared over 23 social media accounts and digital resources associated with the Belarusian human rights organization Our House (Наш Дом) as “extremist materials.” These decisions are not symbolic — they are instruments of legal persecution & legal harassment with potentially devastating consequences. Individuals who are members of organizations labelled as “extremist,” or who subscribe to resources designated as such, can face up to 7 years in prison under Belarusian law.” And those 7 year prison sentences can be consecutive, so for a number of charges, all for nonviolent civic activism, people can face an extraordinarily long prison sentence.

“Belarusian courts are now criminalizing not only content, but entire platforms, logos, phrases — even letters of the Russian alphabet. The phrase “Наш Дом” (Our House), regardless of context, is now effectively banned in Belarus.” In 2020, Dmitry Dudoits, a 43-year-old father of two, posted a comment under a photo on Olga Karach’s Odnoklassniki profile, calling a police officer a “bald scum.” He was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment but died shortly afterwards by suicide under extreme torture and abuse; he was later recognised as a political prisoner.

Olga Karach states that “Several Our House activists currently face deportation from Lithuania, despite documented political persecution in Belarus. If deported, they face immediate arrest, torture, or indefinite imprisonment under Belarus’s extremism laws.

But she does go on to say “What You Can Do”: “We urge you — as defenders of democracy and human rights — to take action:

  1. Publicly condemn the persecution of human rights defenders of Our House and the criminalization of digital freedom in Belarus.

  2. Demand international protection and asylum guarantees for the whole team of Our House — especially those now under threat in Lithuania. [[Contacts for the Lithuanian embassy in Ireland can be found at https://ie.mfa.lt/en – Ed]]

  3. Support and amplify the work of Our House in exile: https://news.house/donate “

Repression and dictatorships do not go on for ever. It is the work of bodies like Our House which help to keep hope alive. Belarus is like the worst of old Soviet-era regimes and in 1989 most of those got swept aside – and the day of Belarus will come too, let’s hope sooner rather than later. The effect of one effective action of international solidarity in relation to Belarus can be found at https://www.flickr.com/photos/innateireland/54519453518/in/dateposted/

Doolough Famine walk

The Doolough Famine walk is the highest profile event in Afri’s year www.afri.ie with around a couple of hundred people gathering in Louisburgh (the ‘meadow of the buttercups’ in the Irish name), Co Mayo for the walk from Delphi Lodge back to Louisburgh. It commemorates a real walk Louisburgh-Doolough-Louisburgh in 1849 when the starving people on it died like flies. Refused help by the Poor Law Commissioners having lunch at Delphi Lodge, many were effectively condemned to death; by this stage the ‘Great Famine’ was declared over and supports withdrawn – but people had nothing.

Afri’s walk is never just about commemorating those people and their 36 km futile trudge in poor weather, poor clothing and poor health over poor paths. It always links with what is happening in the world today. This year photojournalist Eman Mohammed left not a dry eye in the house with her factual but also very personal account of realities in Gaza. This is another situation, very different to An Gorta Mór, where people and their lives are considered expendable – by the Israeli state and by the West. Biblical quotes can come across as preachy but Paul Laverty quoting the prophet Ezekiel that “They have eyes to see but do not see and ears to hear but do not hear” was never more appropriate.

Clare O’Grady Walshe who has done much work and writing on food and seed sovereignty shared some of her considerable insights on how the multinational seed companies – often one and the same as the pesticide companies – are stitching up the world and depriving the poor of economic advancement by trapping them in in monocultural food production and crops where they cannot save seeds. Avoiding such control is a key part of empowerment in poor rural areas of the world, and for us all in taking control of our destinies. There is very powerful analysis by Clare O’Grady Walshe and more on this can be found in her book “Globalisation and Seed Sovereignty in Sub-Saharan Africa” which is available in an affordable ebook option (or look for the printed version through your library or college); you can also find out more online if you search her name. And photos of this year’s event, along with many others, can be found in the Afri album on the INNATE photo/documentary site https://www.flickr.com/photos/innateireland/albums/72157623376298793/ and look out for video and maybe audio on the Afri website in due course.

Afri is involved in other, shorter, famine walks and commemorations elsewhere but the scenery and personal interactions as you walk make the Doolough walk special. There is a wild beauty to Doolough and passing Mweelrea (slightly higher than Croagh Patrick) that is really memorable. Not everyone is fit to walk 18 km but those who aren’t are well catered for. On occasions the event can be wet and wetting but determination sees people through. This year the problem with water was not getting wet but ensuring people had enough water to drink not to get dehydrated in the sunshine and heat.

Why riot? Why not?

The final report on an action-research project in relation to the ‘Why riot?” programme, covered at the start of the news section of this issue, is an important one not just for Norn Iron but more broadly. Why do young people, particularly young males, get involved in violent and anti-social behaviour? The importance of well supported and creative youth work shines through the report, about allowing young people to be fully who they can be despite all the negative influences and pressures around them.

Some people might say that the conclusions given are obvious (to those ‘in the know’) but this would be a very trite judgement on what was a very well grounded project. It is worth quoting the ‘key finding’ on what were the mechanisms that supported change: 1. Safe spaces (emotionally and physically) for learning. 2. A structured process for critical thinking. 3. Context specific tools e.g. Non-violence. 4. Dialogue and reflection. 5. Youth worker methods. 6. Led by and responsive to youth needs, issues and concerns.

One of the points in how it ‘works’ is “Using ‘safe dialogic space’ for young people to discuss difficult, contested topics of concern. By dialogic we mean non-judgmental spaces that foster questioning (‘the why’s beneath’), actively challenge biases and assumptions, and encourage young people to explore different perspectives and become self-reflective.” But there is much more which you can read in the report at https://societal-challenges.open.ac.uk/media/projects/145_learningfromwhyriot-report-final-28-05-2025.pdf

And while in Northern Ireland the problem of youth alienation and violence has very particular local aspects, and the report has very specific Northern Ireland recommendations, the methodology and learning involved have much wider implications.

–

Well, we are officially into summer so we’ll see how that goes after a record-breaking or near record-breaking spring of much fine, warm weather. In terms of being dry, April and May are often/usually better in Ireland than July and August but let’s see how we get on this year……. Things are rarely simple and while global warming may bring greater heat it will also bring more wind and flood-causing rain to Ireland. The vagaries of the weather allow some climate change deniers to excuse their pathetic lack of any scientific understanding of what is happening – but, tragically, the direction is clear; downhill all the way to damaging higher temperatures globally – and other damaging weather in Ireland. Nevertheless, make hay while the sun shines (‘make silage while the sun shines’ doesn’t have quite the same ring to it….), and see you at the start of July, Billy. l

Editorials: Antisectarianism, Tiocfaidh ar lá

Editorials, Nonviolent News, , , , , ,

Antisectarianism

Antisectarianism in the Northern Ireland context is positive action to overcome sectarianism and sectarian divisions. Nonsectarianism is not ignoring sectarian divisions but deliberately treating everyone the same and avoiding, as far as possible, thinking in sectarian terms. Of course in the North awareness of ‘who is what’, what foot people kick with, is difficult to avoid and most people will have grown up with that awareness imbibed with their mother’s milk – this is almost literally true as surveys have shown even young children may be aware of the otherness of people across the main divide.

Antisectarianism and even nonsectarianism were often brave choices during the Troubles (and before) when expectations could be to stick to and support only your own perceived side or tribe. There are those who suffered physically or through ostracism because they were seen to be friendly to the other side. Although it is different, there was also bravery in the face of violence or the threat of violence, a prominent example is 15 year old Stephen Parker who sacrificed his life in 1972 trying to warn people about the bomb which killed him. Less bravery is required today in most circles in Northern Ireland, not all, but it still requires determination, and the blurring of some old divides does not mean they have disappeared. Other examples include those who painted out sectarian graffiti or who tried to assist at risk neighbours who were of the opposing ‘community’.

There are all sorts of assumptions made about ‘the other’ still, and the corollary is that all sorts of assumptions are made about ‘our kind’, and breaking out of that straitjacket can be a difficult task. Difficulties in deciding what is ‘sectarian’ come mainly from the overlap between religious-community (‘Catholic’ or ‘Protestant’) identity and cultural and political identity. In terms of voting strengths this is usually thought of these days as 40:40:20, i.e. 40% each identifying as Catholic/Nationalist/Republican or Protestant/Unionist/Loyalist, and 20% as ‘other’. Nationalism and unionism are legitimate political identities and it is unfair that anyone should be castigated for simply supporting either. But scratch at any of the three categories mentioned and you will find considerable diversity, and many of the 20% ‘others’ may still carry not just some beliefs from their background but some prejudices as well.

Norn Iron is certainly a long way from being there. Even people who think of themselves as nonsectarian may be far from that because they have never seriously examined their assumptions and carry prejudices with them.

One of the tasks which INNATE has sought to champion (largely unsuccessfully we might add) is telling the story of those people in civic society who did work for peace and nonsectarianism during the Troubles. A few of those stories have been told including some aspects of work by the churches and something like the, very significant, input of the Women’s Coalition to the Good Friday Agreement. The story of the Peace People is ‘known’, often with mistaken assumptions of one kind or another, but the story of other peace and reconciliation groups is not known. INNATE’s contribution in this area consists of some chronicling on our photo and documentation site https://www.flickr.com/photos/innateireland and a listing of peace groups https://innatenonviolence.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Irish-peace-groups-listing-2024.08.pdf – though this latter includes groups all over Ireland and ones focused on peace internationally as well, over a longer time frame.

This work is not just for the purpose of giving credit where credit is due but also to show that there were people trying to provide alternatives and that republican, loyalist and state narratives that they had ‘no choice’ to the actions they took are simply untrue. It may be true that they did not see a choice, it may also be true that some did not look too hard. But the fact is there were alternatives which they did not, perhaps even could not, explore because of their belief systems and conviction in the power of violence. Of course those violent responses took Northern Ireland deeper into the mire and engendered violent responses from the other sides (of the three broad entities mentioned above – republicanism, loyalism and state). However INNATE’s stand has been it is pointless to be condemning violence in any situation without showing the possibilities of nonviolent alternatives; the old Troubles slogan coming from some conservatives to ‘root out the men of violence’ was counter-productive.

However occasionally we can stumble across amazing stories which we are unaware about in antisectarian action. The Books “Q&A” with children’s writer Martin Waddell in The Irish Times of 23rd November 2024 had one such story. Well into the interview, the interviewer, Martin Doyle said “The Troubles had a big impact on you” and Martin Waddell replied: “I had been keeping my eye on the small Catholic church in Donaghadee as there had been attempts to burn it. I saw some youths running out and laughing, and I went to check. I saw a thing like a wasp’s nest and that’s the last thing I remember.”

He continued “I was told that if I’d been six inches forward or six inches back, there wouldn’t have been a body. Apparently some sort of vacuum forms when there’s an explosion. The bomb went up and the church came down on top of me. Luckily somebody had seen me go in, otherwise I’d have just been buried. I had a big slice across my neck, but nothing vital, and was sliced across the right arm, my eardrums were burst, but I was more or less wrecked. Remember, I’d made the breakthrough, I’m now a professional writer but when I got blown up, I was no longer fit to do that. I lost several years.”

Obviously Martin Waddell did not know he was risking his life when he went to check on a church from across the main divide from him in the North. But he did. And the above was his matter of fact account of it with an extremely close shave with death and major personal repercussions. But it was a significant antisectarian action which deserves to be remembered.

There are many, many more stories of people’s bravery in standing up for antisectarianism and peace. But it needs work to uncover them before those involved die. And that work is needed to show that there were people who stood up for peace and antisectarianism throughout the Troubles, often in very difficult circumstances.

Tiocfaidh ar lá

Usually translated as ‘Our day will come’, this Irish Troubles era republican slogan could be adapted for peace purposes. While there are debates as to its linguistic appropriateness in Irish, the meaning is clear; our aims will be achieved. So long as it is removed from its previous context, and not understood in a triumphalist way, there is nothing wrong with it as a slogan. It is difficult to be optimistic in relation to peace in the world today when wars are seen as a method of resolving policy and when demagogic and xenophobic nationalism are so rampant.

We may plough on regardless, trying to build a better, more peaceful and just world when things are going to hell in a handcart, not least on global heating (where the ‘hell in a handcart’ metaphor is indeed appropriate). But how can we sustain activism when all around seems to be going in the Wrong Direction?

There are a number of answers to this and they exist on both micro and macro levels. It may be somewhat simplistic to list them in such a short form here, but needs must.

The first point, at a personal level, is to draw on our philosophical and/or religious beliefs and roots, and our reading of the past and history – which moves us quickly from the micro to the macro. We know from experience that, collectively, ‘peace through military strength’ is a recipe for disaster. Some people might well say, “Military strength was needed to defeat Hitler” but where did Adolf Hitler come from, what was the scenario from which he emerged? The answer, in longer term analysis, is surely from the mayhem caused by clashing imperialisms and war. Nationalism, antisemitism, and xenophobia were undoubtedly factors in Hitler’s immediate path to power but without that background of war, victory and defeat, his emergence would have been unlikely or impossible.

The ‘lifestyle’ precepts of both humanism and virtually all religions are in tune with ‘the Golden Rule’ – treat others as you would like to be treated yourself. People often play lip service to a humanistic or religious belief but avoid the very real implications. Killing people or treating them unjustly is not treating others as you would like to be treated.

There is of course always a danger in feeling we are right and everyone else is wrong; we may well have the right analysis of a situation but if we enter a tunnel of self-reinforcement, e.g. rejection coming to indicate we are on the right track, then there is a danger of self delusion. We always need to be analysing the appropriateness of our own analysis and actions. However it is also quite possible that we are part of a small band who have a clear and correct analysis of a situation; that after all, is how change can happen – a small bunch of people, perhaps seen as fanatics or dissidents start a ball rolling which gathers momentum. The kind of understanding shown in the Bill Moyer ‘Movement Action Plan’ outline of stages a successful social movement goes through is important in this context; the Peace People in Northern Ireland in 1976 is an exception to this rule in that it started large and then got smaller. See e.g. https://commonslibrary.org/resource-bill-moyers-movement-action-plan/

We personally also need to understand the power and possibilities of nonviolence. The ‘peaceful option’ is often quickly dismissed as impractical but there are many struggles, and the research by Sharp and by Chenoweth and Stephan (for example), which show it to be a strong and viable response to injustice and tyranny.

We should also not underestimate the power of individual, or small scale, witness. We have to be true to ourselves and our beliefs. However just as most businesses that are set up do not succeed, so most peace witness may not be particularly successful either, but if we not not try then we cannot be even moderately successful. If we sow seeds we may not be aware of where they grow or when they grow. We can stand up and not be counted. We can face clever and sustained opposition and the ignoring of our claims – the Irish establishment and media denial of changes to international neutrality is such an example where the response is always ‘things haven’t changed, nothing to see here’ when things are changing, slowly but surely, in a more negative and militarist direction.

But we can have small victories, and aiming for intermediate or even immediate goals which are very achievable, even if they are small, is important. In relation to Irish neutrality, the successful civil society challenge to the government’s “Consultative Forum on International Security Policy” and its legitimacy in 2023 was a small but significant spanner in the works for moving at that point to undo the Triple Lock on the deployment of Irish troops overseas. https://www.flickr.com/photos/innateireland/albums/72177720309217408/ Celebrating our successes is something we may not be good at but needs done so that we, and others, can see that change is possible.

The world goes through phases of tension and détente, of conservatism and relative liberalism, and similar patterns can re-assert themselves in different eras, e.g. conflict between Russia and parts of western Europe. We are currently in a phase of tension and conflict with uncritical official responses to this. This will change and indeed has to change if humanity is to survive.

There can also be some success comes from unlikely or unintended sources. An example is the fact that Donald Trump, despite his threats over Panama, Greenland (and Canada!) and despite his MAGS ‘manifest destiny’ bluster may be less likely to engage in or support war than most other US presidents. Obviously with Trump nothing can be taken for granted so this is a possibility rather than a certainty and how the Russia-Ukraine war will proceed, or end, without US support for Ukraine remains to be seen. But despite early Ukrainian successes it should have been obvious to have had an early resolution – which was possible through negotiation in the early months of the war.

The coal Miners’ Strike in Britain in 1984-85 was a bitter industrial dispute where prime minister Margaret Thatcher was trying to break the trade unions, especially the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM). She succeeded with lasting negative social and economic effects for those involved and their areas. The issue of carbon emissions was presumably not a concept to which Margaret Thatcher gave a moment’s thought but the closure of almost all coal mining in Britain led to a very considerable decrease in carbon emissions and thus a contribution to cutting global heating. ‘Events’ can have very divergent outcomes or repercussions, both negative and positive.

Pablo Neruda wrote about idealism and realism (in English translation) – “I love you, idealism and realism / like water and stone/ you are / parts of the world / light and root of the tree of life”. https://www.flickr.com/photos/innateireland/46318259912/in/album-72157609617432905 Without our idealism we are sunk; without our realism we are detached and living in fairy land. In grim times such as these we need to hold strong to our idealism and our ideals because we need to be the yeast that makes things rise to a better future, indeed a future at all. We wouldn’t advise you to go around shouting “Tiocfaidh ar lá” but our day will come in the sun – and with solar power.

Building bridges, bridging gaps

Latest News, , , , ,

This pamphlet by Belfast woman Laura Coulter reflects on her long and varied career in peacebuilding in Northern Ireland. Click on https://innatenonviolence.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Laura-C-Building-Bridges-final-amended.pdf to download this 14 page pamphlet.

A variety of other pamphlets and broadsheets are available on the INNATE website at https://innatenonviolence.org/wp/pamphlets/

Editorial: ‘They’ haven’t gone away, you know

Editorials, Nonviolent News, ,

Although coming at it from very different angles, both peace activists of the nonviolent persuasion and paramilitaries view the legitimacy of state sanctioned violence as inadequate. Those of the nonviolent persuasion do not go along with the legitimacy of state sanctioned lethal force whereas paramilitaries feel that military-type action outside of the state is legitimate. Nonviolent activists would view both state sanctioned violence and paramilitary violence as immoral and/or unnecessary.

That is not to say that state forces should not be held to higher account than paramilitaries. In the North, the announcement of a long promised tribunal of enquiry to look at the circumstances of Pat Finucane’s killing had a reaction from some on the unionist and loyalist side that this was favouritism to republicans and discrimination against other victims. Leaving aside the fact that Pat Finucane as a lawyer represented loyalists as well as republicans, the state had long ago promised an enquiry, a promise it continually reneged on, and the particular circumstances of his murder – with very considerable issues of both state collusion and parliamentary ‘fingering’ of him – fully justifies such an enquiry.

More general questions of the legacy of violence remain, by paramilitaries as well as state. How do we deal with the very real issues for survivors and families of victims? Certainly not by sweeping it all under the carpet as the last British Conservative government tried to do with its Legacy Act (in order to protect former British soldiers and the state). The extent to which current Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn is moving away from that model is still being defined – and challenged.

However paramilitarism and militarism are still major issues in the North. Small republican paramilitary groups still exist and could pose a threat to individuals but they have very little support. However some loyalist paramilitary infrastructure has continued unbroken through the peace process and beyond; it is estimated that there are still well over ten thousand members of loyalist paramilitaries which is a lot – the PSNI has 6,300 officers and 2,200 support staff, in total certainly below the number of loyalist paramilitaries.

The extent to which loyalist paramilitaries are involved in extortion (such as protection rackets) and drug dealing varies but is very significant and a continuing blight on the North. There have been various attempts, more carrots than sticks, to encourage paramilitaries out of crime and militarism but they have largely been unsuccessful and there is also a certain amount of incredulity that, two and a half decades after the Good Friday Agreement, they still exist and still recruit. It is estimated that up to a third of organised crime has paramilitary links. The carrots and sticks need to have a time limit.

The failure of loyalism to gain political traction, in the way Sinn Féin did for republicanism, is certainly regarded as one factor in loyalist paramilitaries having a niche – while the DUP has often had an ambiguous relationship with militant and military loyalism, it cannot be regarded as adequately representing working class loyalism (e.g. on school selection where working class Protestant boys are the lowest achievers). But other factors are simply power, greed, and fear for the future of Northern Ireland.

A recent independent pro-unionist report from the ‘Northern Ireland Development Group’ addressed this whole issue. There are difficulties, obviously, and the report called for more carrots and sticks. Some of the authors stated “A clear distinction between ex-combatants, community workers and criminals is needed to bolster loyalists who are trying to move on, and to distinguish between them and those who want to use fear to maintain their own reputations and self-serving advantage.” (Irish Times 11/10/24). The attention given to the Loyalist Communities Council, representing the views of a variety of paramilitary groups, by some ministers has also caused anger; however it should be a question of what attention is given to them but whether what they say is justified – and you cannot attempt to ‘bring people in from the cold’ by ignoring them.

On a wider scale we need to challenge both paramilitarism and militarism. They might not be two sides of the same coin but they are both stuck in the same hole. Paramilitary and guerrilla fighters (a k a ‘terrorists) typically inflict harm and death in multiples of ten or a hundred; there are occasional exceptions such as 9/11 when the unit was thousands but that is not typical. Deaths and injuries from state forces are typically numbered in ten of thousands or even millions. And yet most of the time people accept the actions of states, even ones as egregious as Israel’s in Gaza where it has slaughtered upwards of 50,000 people and probably caused the deaths of several times that through the effects of the onslaught on health, nutrition, homelessness and fear.

Paramilitarism takes a military model and uses it for its own purposes within a state. Militarism threatens the globe, directly and indirectly through death, misuse of resources, its major contribution to global heating and pollution, and so on including the very real risk of nuclear annihilation. Humanity needs to move on. There are alternatives but militarism, with its associated symbols of statehood, appeal to politicians (and many other people besides) and they fail to even comprehend that there are alternatives, or examine what these are.

The possibilities of nonviolence are endless. They do require work and people but their costs would be tiny compared to the cost of armies and militarism. When will we start to learn?

Editorials: The race against racism, Not being neutral on neutrality

Editorials, Nonviolent News, , ,

The race against racism

The ugliness of racism has been all too evident in Ireland over the summer with slightly different manifestations in the two jurisdictions on the island. In the Republic the now established norm, requiring only a small number of perpetrators, is to burn and destroy buildings which are perceived to be, or actually are, for refugees and international protection migrants. In the North, because of the legacy and presence of sectarian violence and paramilitarism, there are more physical attacks directly on people because of their skin colour or perceived religion (not necessarily correct in relation to the latter as when a restaurant owner of Nepalese Hindu origin, employing ten people, was burnt out and ‘Muslims out’ daubed on the walls). We are lucky there were no racist killings recently.

The tie up between racist attacks and far right activists is all too plain to see through social media and ‘facts on the ground’. In the North there is also the connection to some loyalist paramilitaries; racism is present in Catholic/Nationalist communities in the North but nationalism has the advantage, in relation to racism, of being at least theoretically inclusive – ‘everyone’ is, or is invited to be, part of the Irish nation (the reality can, of course, be rather different). Loyalism has the disadvantage in relation to racism of being more exclusive, ‘what we have we hold’. Racism and sectarianism are perhaps not evil twins but certainly evil cousins or even step-siblings.

Ireland, the Republic, has undergone perhaps the fastest transition in Europe from a very high level of people born in the country to a situation of around a fifth of people being born outside the state. It has been good for the country in a variety of ways and the Irish experience of emigration has, until relatively recently, meant that most people appreciated that people had excellent reasons, in some cases survival, for coming and would make a positive contribution to society.

What racists and the far right have sought to do is to exploit two things: unfair distribution of resources (housing and facilities) and incidents where migrants have been involved in violence. In the case of the latter, it does not matter whether mental illness or other mitigating factors are involved, it is a coat on which to hang their right wing and violent ideology. Inequality and poverty are exploited by racists and the far right to scapegoat migrants when the issue is both long term and shorter term deficiencies in governmental planning and action.

Of course governmental policies are not the cause or source of racism but they can exacerbate it. The Irish government has learnt, hopefully, that depriving a local community of its only hotel to use to accommodate migrants is not a good move as it deprives local people of needed facilities. Of course there is a major housing crisis in the Republic, especially Dublin, but it is due primarily to economic success. And who will do the jobs Irish people may no longer wish to do or fill in the gaps in health and social care systems? Migrants of course.

There are many things which civil society can do in relation to countering racism, and most are being done though there is always the need for more people to be involved. One is get to know and support migrants in integrating with local society while allowing them to retain what they wish of their own identity. A second is educating, in a broad sense, people about why migrants have come and what they bring. Racists sometimes use facile slogans such as “Ireland is full” – yes, there are issues in relation to housing, which are fixable, but ‘full’? There were still more people on the island before the Great Famine and there are many countries far more densely populated than Ireland.

A related matter, in terms of education, is to help people be aware of the history and cultures of the places where migrants come from. ‘We’ can have a very insular view of culture and development – do we know, for example, about the role of India in the development of mathematics https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/sep/01/hidden-story-ancient-india-west-maths-astronomy-historians or the role of China in innovating so much over the millennia? Our Western-centric view of civilisation is not only false but dangerous in giving ‘us’ western Europeans an inflated view of our own importance.

Criticism has been voiced of the police/PSNI failure to take a more pro-active stand in relation to racist attacks. Regarding violence in Belfast at the start of August, Patrick Corrigan of Amnesty International said “An unlawful procession, including masked men clearly intent on violence, marauded across the most ethnically diverse part of Belfast, attacking communities and businesses as they went – and the PSNI did not stop them. There are serious questions for the police, who publicly declared they were prepared, but then failed to protect already vulnerable communities.” While such situations are not easy for the police to deal with both imagination and firmness are needed and many people from ethnic minorities in Belfast and other parts of the North, especially Antrim, have been left in fear (and may leave in fear).

In times of racist violence there are also actions which civil society can, and does, take. Expressing solidarity with neighbours and giving our presence at anti-racist and inclusivist demonstrations are two such things. Actively standing out in the street, and intervening to help stop racist violence when tensions are high and things are actually happening in places or people being targetted, is more risky but necessary (and took place in Belfast recently). Monitoring and accompaniment may be appropriate tools but so can active intervention to form protective lines or challenge violent behaviour. The problem is also that anti-racists cannot be everywhere and racists can target anywhere, or anyone, in the middle of the night or at least when no one else is around. Nonviolent training and tools are potentially vital in these kinds of situations particularly when some anti-racists can also engage in antagonising behaviour such as shouting abuse at racists – this merely ups the tension and potential for violence.

Local and European elections in the Republic did not show the far right and racists to be a significant force but they are there, and through violence then can exert a felt presence they could not through more peaceful and democratic means. We cannot ‘root out’ racists since they are part of the community. What we can do is educate people in the realities of the world and the contribution migrants make but also point out the relatively small number of refugee seekers coming to Ireland – which also needs workers.

The race against racism is not a sprint but a marathon. There always has been racism in Ireland and Irish people themselves have been both subject to, and perpetrators of, it. We need strategies and tactics for a long haul which will show the humanity of migrants and allow Irish people to enjoy and benefit from what they bring.

Not being neutral on neutrality

The lead news item in this issue reveals just how close Irish neutrality in any meaningful form is to being binned. Micheál Martin in particular has been gunning (sic) to fully join Ireland with EU and NATO militarism – and regarding NATO, Ireland is definitely a ‘fellow traveller’ – full NATO membership may not be on the cards but participation at a high level is possible without that. It is remarkable how far Ireland has travelled from the principles held by former leaders, including Eamon de Valera and Frank Aiken – ironically both of the same political party as Micheál Martin.

The homogenisation of EU military and foreign policy leaves limited scope for manoeuvre but there is considerable scope for action. Ireland has been more outspoken on the massacres happening in Gaza while it has been tardy in actually taking action, and has refused, despite some soundings, to inspect US military flights stopping over at Shannon Airport. Of course as a neutral country there should be no military flights there but the craven subservience to the USA in refusing to inspect military planes is an insult not just to peace but to any idea of Irish sovereignty.

The Irish government has consistently refused – including at the (so called) Forum on International Security Policy in 2023 – to look at possibilities of developing and extending Irish neutrality. The sky is the limit to the role Ireland could play for peace in the world, and as a relatively rich country it has the wherewithal to engage meaningfully on many different issues and situations while avoiding an imperialist “we have the answers” approach. The opportunity is there and the history of Irish contributions to peace sets a great precedent. It is the lack of imagination which is particularly galling along with the willingness to back the former imperialist powers in NATO and the EU. It is a very sad situation.

Editorials: Ireland’s future and Ireland’s Future, The EU gets even more bellicose

Editorials, Nonviolent News, , ,

Ireland’s future and Ireland’s Future

“Ireland’s Future” is a nationalist think tank which recently released a report entitled “Ireland 2030” with proposals for the period between now and then, i.e. 2024 – 2030. https://irelandsfuture.com/publications/ireland-2030-proposals-for-the-period-between-2024-and-2030/ While this editorial is not intended to be a full scale analysis of this report, it does refer to some points of agreement and disagreement while looking at aspects of what “Ireland’s future” should be.

The Irish government needs to be pro-active – in a way it has not been – to explore what a united Ireland might entail. One point of disagreement with the Ireland’s Future group is on timescale. It is important that nothing is rushed and therefore that the short timescale in that report should not be followed. Some things take time.

The reason we would say that the Irish government should be proactive is not to push a nationalist agenda but to avoid a vacuum. At the moment, while various discussions have been held, there has been no officially-sponsored discussion from the 26-county state on what a 32-county state might look like – despite the ideological commitment to same. Ireland’s Future recommendation to have a dedicated Joint Committee of the Oireachtas on ‘the Constitutional Future of the island of Ireland” is fair enough as far as it goes but it should not be limited to constitutional change – it should be considering social, cultural, economic and human security matters as well. The Civic Forum type body (“”All-Island Civic Forum/Assembly/Dialogue”) which Ireland’s Future recommends, however, is much broader.

There are obvious reasons for the state in the Republic not having done more, and one being not to inflame loyalist passions in the North is positive in the sense that they are thinking of others. But it is also irresponsible because at the moment ‘a united Ireland’ can mean anything, and also people in the Republic have not thought through what it might mean and entail, e.g. in relation to national symbols or to the nature of the state. We know, to a considerable extent, what a ‘United Kingdom’ with Northern Ireland as part of it means; of course there are uncertainties on this, much arising from Brexit, and currently from British government attempts to reassure northern unionists on their commitment to the Union.

We cannot currently compare like with like, or unlike with unlike. If a united Ireland does come about there will of course be some uncertainties right up to whatever changes take place. But we need to know a general impression of what is likely to be the template so that people can be encouraged to make a rational decision – insofar as they are willing to do so – in both the North and the Republic.

Ireland’s Future also recommends that “Human rights, equality and environmental assessments – and associated values – must shape every stage” (of the process they recommend). This is commendable. However the idea of harnessing international opinion (in favour of a united Ireland) is unhelpful and should only be utilised if it is clear that a Secretary of State should have called a referendum, based on what is in the Good Friday Agreement, but has failed to do so for whatever reason. The most important opinion to be influencing is in the North, not internationally.

The fact that Alliance is no longer a small-u unionist party, with more party members supporting Irish unity than the continuation of the existing United Kingdom, is certainly a straw in the wind. It is only a decade ago when prominent Alliance party member Anna Lo caused very considerable angst by proclaiming herself in favour of a united Ireland. For unionists, this will be proof that Alliance has ‘gone over to the other side’ but in reality Alliance as a party has taken no position, and it is another clarion call to unionists to up their game in being able to demonstrate that the continuation of the status quo (or something like the status quo) is in the interests of the majority of people in Northern Ireland, so that they note and vote accordingly. While some unionists are starting to express this point of view there is not much evidence as yet of it being put into practice.

Whether a Labour government in Britain, likely within the next year, affects things significantly remains to be seen. It will be less English-nationalist and perhaps less defensive of the British army and its deeds or misdeeds (cf NI Legacy Act) but it is unlikely to significantly loosen the purse strings. Of course many people will vote on simple unionist/nationalist lines when, and if, it comes to a referendum on Irish unity, but the ‘middle ground’ of Alliance-type voters, and other swing voters, may decide on economic and social grounds as to what is best in the medium to long term for the people of the North. In this case such people may decide that some short term pain, in relation to economic wellbeing and general disruption of existing institutions and practices, is worth the long term gain. Alternatively they may decide the divil you know is better than the divil you don’t.

However there are many things which would need to happen first before there would be a referendum, not least changes and developments in the Republic irrespective of the nature of the proposed constitutional arrangements and any ongoing devolution to the six counties of Northern Ireland under either jurisdiction. An initial point we would stress is that Irish unity, if it is to come, should be a process and not a sudden volte face. There are many ways of organising such a process but a sudden move from UK to Republic without very considerable planning and consultation could be a disaster in a variety of ways – societally, organisationally, financially, and in relation to resistance, violent or not, to such a move by unionism and loyalism.

The Good Friday/Belfast Agreement of 1998 gives the power to the British Secretary of State to decide if and when to call a referendum “if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland.” This is very imprecise, gives the Secretary of State a lot of power, and no Secretary of State as yet has clarified exactly what circumstances would lead him or her to that conclusion and course of action. And if a vote was in favour of a united Ireland then ”the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament such proposals to give effect to that wish as may be agreed between Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of Ireland.” Unfortunately not all of those holding the position of Secretary of State for Northern Ireland could be said to be first class players in British politics or indeed imbued with great understanding of the realities of Northern Ireland (this is an considerable understatement).

It all does get pinned on a simple arithmetic majority (50% +1) either way in a referendum. A multi-option vote would have been a better way to proceed but we are where we are and neither side is likely to want to change from that. This is where the importance of process comes in. However here is nothing to say that a multi-option referendum or referenda could not be held at any stage after the simple arithmetic majority vote.

We would strongly argue that even if there is a vote for a united Ireland in such a referendum that should be the start of a process, perhaps with an indicative time frame of a number of years and certainly not the next morning, next month or even next year. If the writing was already on the wall then many more unionists would seriously engage with the issues involved and the definite shape of a new Ireland could be thrashed out; at the moment only a few from the unionist side of the house are willing to engage with such questions. Without adopting the details of the time frame advocated by Ireland’s Future – and it is a different context, this is the sort of thing which should come into play after a majority in a referendum vote for Irish unity, if that comes to pass.

And if unionists want to have any chance to continue a link with Britain then they need to facilitate a situation where nationalists are happy to continue under the UK umbrella because their needs are addressed and they also feel they can express their Irishness north of a border. Without that then changing demographics are likely to do their work for a united Ireland. It is clear that some unionists already grasp this but not a majority, and the default position is still nearer ‘what we have, we hold’.

If a united Ireland is coming then how unionists’ British identity and culture can be protected is a key issue. We would argue strongly that this can be done culturally without the Irish state becoming a pale reflection of the neighbouring island, and nor should it entail NATO membership. With freedom of travel between Ireland and Britain, in a united Ireland anyone from Ireland who wanted could, as now, join the British armed forces.

Nationalist commentators – including those in Ireland’s Future – are right that ‘reconciliation’ should not be a precondition of unification but then reconciliation should be a key element in any political moves, full stop. Independent work for reconciliation should continue but be a consideration in all political moves, unionist, nationalist, or other, and the two or three governments involved.

Decisions about the future of Ireland are complex, despite unionist or nationalist simplicities. Clarity is of the essence. The people of Ireland, both sides of the border, deserve honest analysis so that the best decisions can be made for the long term future.

–

The EU gets even more bellicose

‘Bellicosity’ is perhaps an old-fashioned word, and comes from the Latin word for war or warlike, ‘bellum’, and perhaps ‘warlike’ is more prosaic English. But, whatever word you prefer, the EU is gearing up for a fight with Russia, and unspecified others, along with supporting Ukraine in its war with Russia. The mind boggles. The EU, along with its NATO allies the USA and UK, and Russia are all nuclear armed. It is crazy to continue to push forward with confrontation and a new cold war arms race which no one can win. Donald Tusk talks about a “pre-war era”. A senior NATO official recently told EU ambassadors in Dublin that it was a matter of ‘when’ that Russia would invade the EU, not ‘if’.

Rapprochement and conflict resolution or even conflict transformation are difficult but are not even being thought about. And Russia under Putin is not easy to deal with. Those favouring armament and a military approach talk about Munich and British Prime Minister Chamberlain’s mistaken deal with Hitler in 1938. But this is not 1938 or 1939 and Putin may be a murdering quasi-dictator but he is not Hitler and has a more rational approach to what he feels he can get away with. Putting more money in the armaments basket simply leads to the other side doing more of the same. ‘The West’, EU and NATO ignored Russian security concerns when they decided to take NATO membership up to Russia’s boundaries.

It takes two sides to have an arms race. Those who lose are initially the poor when money is diverted to pay the arms merchants and armies. And if the weapons and armies are used in anger then everyone loses big time.

How can we engage non-violently with a somewhat belligerent ‘other side’ without either giving in to unreasonable demands or seeming weak and vulnerable? And what about ‘our’ side’s warmaking (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya)? Why are Europeans not thinking in ‘win/win’ terms, difficult as that may be? What common goals could be decided on that would convince all sides that win/win solutions are possible? What are Russia’s legitimate security concerns? How can Russia be turned from an ‘enemy’ into a friend, as it seemed it might become after the fall of communism? And what went wrong there? Putin may be in power for more than a decade from now but how do we assist a less nationalist and more open Russia to emerge during and after his rule? These are some of the questions which need to be asked but are blatantly not being aired.

Of course it may feel different if you are sitting beside Russia’s borders than if you are falling off the western edge of Europe like Ireland. But it is precisely the ongoing NATO expansion to Russia’s borders which was the occasion for Putin’s full invasion of Ukraine. It may be counter-intuitive to those with a militarist mindset but building up your armed capacity does not necessarily make you safer, it may simply make your perceived enemy more anxious and trigger-happy, and you more likely to use the weapons you do have. Think of what led up to the First World War and where that ended up.

Neutrality has been disparaged by the NATO powers that be and their fellow travellers in Ireland. So it is good to see a congress happening in Columbia on neutrality as a way to aid international stability. There are so many possibilities for neutrality which those in control of the Irish state seem not to see; the sky (plus the earth and the sea) is the limit. We need to build up the visibility and perceived viability of neutrality as a rational and effective means to work towards international and global peace.

In ending this piece it is worth quoting the entirety of a recent statement from MIR in Italy on developments in the EU:

“The Movimento Internazionale della Riconciliazione – a historic Italian pacifist organisation affiliated to the I.F.O.R. – expresses its dismay and concern at the attempt to transform the European Council into a ‘war council’, with the expansion of the EU’s military commitment, not only in terms of war production but also by ventilating a worrying ‘readiness strategy’, which envisages an emergency plan to ‘prepare citizens for conflict’.

“The president of the European Council, Charles Michel, did not hesitate to dust off the old Roman motto ‘If you want peace prepare for war’, hoping that Europe would produce more ammunition and weapons and increase its defence spending,” said Ermete Ferraro, president of the M.I.R., “Moreover, pandering to the invitation coming from the very summit of the E.U. executive, Ursula von der Leyen, Michel clearly hypothesised the transition to a ‘war economy’, preparing citizens for a defence perspective in a blatantly warmongering key”.

M.I.R. Italy considers these statements to be very severe, as they do nothing but exacerbate the current armed conflicts, sidelining the European Union on a ground that betrays its own founding principles. Indeed, Article 3 of the Lisbon Treaty (2012) states that ‘The Union shall aim to promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples’, and Article 5 states that: “(The EU) contributes to peace, security, the sustainable development of the Earth, solidarity and mutual respect among peoples, free and fair trade, eradication of poverty and the protection of human rights […] and to the strict observance and development of international law, in particular respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter”.

“These principles cannot be reconciled with openly bellicose policies, in which solidarity is understood as sending arms to a country at war,” commented Ferraro. “Therefore, together with the other pacifist organisations, we strongly denounce these dangerous positions and reaffirm the ethical but also constitutional principle of repudiation of war as a mean of resolving international disputes, reaffirming instead the need to develop an unarmed, civil and non-violent defence method”.

Editorials: Northern Ireland – SAD – and a fight at the end of the tunnel

Editorials, Nonviolent News, , ,

The expected return to Stormont following the DUP decision to come back into the fold is indeed welcome news. However there is so much to sort out in Northern Ireland that even with a fair wind at their back it will not be plain sailing for the NI Assembly and Executive. Analysts have said that dealing with the pollution problem in Lough Neagh, that is with a proper plan in place, could still take a couple of decades. Getting Northern Ireland and its public services into reasonable shape could be looking at a similar time frame, at least a decade – and that is with all going well.

Most of the details of the deal done have emerged but how it will work out in practice is another question too as there seem to be various possible incompatibilities. The extent to which it mirrors the deal Theresa May offered, keeping the UK in alignment with EU regulations, is not yet clear; it would be highly ironic to end up with that, supported by the DUP, years after the DUP helped plunge Northern Ireland and the whole UK into chaos in rejecting it. Some of the changes are window dressing and simple renaming but the fact of the matter is that there was very little room for manoeuvre given previous decisions made through the Good Friday Agreement and Brexit. However the exclusion of other parties from DUP negotiations with the British government is not a good model of democracy. Nevertheless the DUP can argue that it has got a good deal, though the extent to which it meets their much vaunted ”seven tests” is highly debatable, or indeed whether it has changed anything in the Windsor Framework.

And a huge number of problems arise. The biggest underlying problem is of course the start-stop nature of the Northern Ireland Assembly itself. If the two largest parties retain their veto power over whether the Assembly is ‘up’ or ‘down’ then the last two years are unlikely to be the last hiatus. Each ‘Fresh Start’ is not necessarily that, and another stumbling block could cause more ‘down time’. https://www.flickr.com/photos/innateireland/22924768430/in/photolist-AVMqY7 Persuading the DUP and Sinn Féin to drop their veto power and allow the Assembly to continue without one of them in the Executive is a major move and not an easy one to achieve. All the other old issues of division remain in place.

Having a Sinn Féin First Minister in Michelle O’Neill is a new departure, and although the Deputy First Minister is equally powerful, it is deeply symbolic of the demographic shift in Northern Ireland. It does also seem a good illustration of unionist commitment to cooperation and democracy at this point. However decision making in the Assembly has often been very poor and inclusive voting systems, such as those espoused by the de Borda Institute, www.deborda.org could make a big difference. Sinn Féin could also do with reining back triumphalist statements which could inflame matters; Mary Lou McDonald indicating that a united Ireland was within “touching distance” was unwise as it gives succour to loyalist opposition to a deal. Her statement was more qualified than this reference might indicate; she was speaking, she said, “in historic terms” (which could conceivably refer to time periods of centuries) and while she was talking about “a new Ireland” it is clear that this is a euphemism for ‘a united Ireland’ of some sort. https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/republic-of-ireland/first-sinn-fein-first-minister-shows-irish-unity-is-within-touching-distance/a147204909.html

SAD can be an acronym for Seasonal Affective Disorder, a depressive condition brought about by seasonal factors and associated by many with lack of light in winter, and the start of the year can be very dreary. SAD could also be an appropriate acronym for Sectarian Affective Disorder whereby the situation in Northern Ireland is continually held hostage by sectarian approaches to politics. By ‘sectarian’ in this context we are not meaning it in its full brutal and vindictive form but more in a sociological sense that people’s, and political parties’, approaches tend to be conditioned and imprisoned to a considerable extent by the main background of their supporters, cultural Catholic or cultural Protestant, political nationalist or political unionist. By this measurement, Northern Ireland is just as ‘SAD’ now as it was before the DUP agreed to go back into the Assembly.

We don’t want to rehash the history of Ireland, plantation, partition or Brexit here. But there are numerous problems which have proved to make thorough and lasting solutions impossible. While most unionists will now be backing Stormont, many unionists feel the nature of their British citizenship has been changed by the Northern Ireland Protocol and then the Windsor Framework. To some extent they are right. A slight economic barrier in the Irish Sea between Britain and Ireland has been erected which was not there during EU membership. The fact of easier access to the EU market from the North does not for them trump the fact that they felt ‘trapped’ by the EU regulations in still being in the ‘single market’ and thus ruled by ‘foreign laws’ (laws which are evolving but by which the whole of the UK was bound during its EU membership).

Being treated differently to the rest of the UK is considered anathema to many unionists – at least when it is not to their liking. But Ireland before partition and Northern Ireland since 1921 have usually had trade barriers or differentiations with Britain so that is actually nothing new. https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/opinion/columnists/henry-patterson-legalistic-attempts-to-restore-article-6-of-the-act-of-union-would-be-a-disaster-4495902

Most analysts feel that the DUP, having backed a hard Brexit, were only persuaded to oppose the Northern Ireland Protocol, and subsequently the Windsor Framework, by practical politics – losing support to the harder line TUV. This is correct. But principles and practicalities can go together and there are principles involved for most unionists. However the practical result of DUP opposition to the settlement in withdrawing from Stormont meant that the ship of state in the North has been virtually rudderless for two years with very considerable effects for workers, planning, poverty, communities and so on. This was not in the interest of anyone in the North.

Nationalists also feel aggrieved in that Brexit took place when an arithmetic majority in the North supported staying in the EU. For them this may not have adversely affected their view of the constitutional situation but it certainly was detrimental, in their view, to the status quo agreed in the Good Friday Agreement where common EU membership was assumed for Britain and Ireland. Their feeling is that Brexit has been used to emphasise ‘Britishness’ and get one up on them; the DUP is perceived as having held the whole of society hostage in a situation where they do not realise the compromises which nationalists face every day in a British state.

The British approach to all this was not very helpful with Chris Heaton-Harris seeming, or even being, somewhat ineffectual in the role of Secretary of State. Holding out the prospect of the much needed money but it being dependent on a return to Stormont by the DUP was regarded as insulting by those in need, and by the DUP, for different reasons. To withhold cash from those in need is reprehensible. And the DUP regarded it as moral blackmail. The money could and should have been made available irrespective of decisions by the DUP holding the North to ransom. Whether the hard ball played by Heaton-Harris made any difference to the DUP’s decision to return is a debatable question.

The extent to which there will be defections from the DUP over the return to Stormont remains to be seen. Jeffrey Donaldson himself was a defector from the Ulster Unionist Party after the Good Friday Agreement. However a further division in unionism is not in the interest of peace and stability in the North. The TUV, while ably represented by Jim Allister, has remained a one man band because it is not transfer friendly in the PR-STV system; any defectors there from the DUP would face an uncertain future electorally, and it is difficult to see the likes of Ian Paisley jeopardising his cosy position.

Things may settle down further under a Labour government in Britain if it builds closer relations with the EU. But that is some time away.

The situation in Northern Ireland remains SAD, and while spring is just around a couple of corners, and there is lots of light at the end of this particular tunnel, there are also likely to be lots of fights at the end of the tunnel. Devolved power in Northern Ireland is a very partial success, and even when it is meeting the Assembly and Executive have not been very effective decision makers.

To change the metaphor away from tunnels, Northern Ireland may be exiting one particular cul de sac. However there is no clear direction set and the vehicle it is travelling in is liable to break down, and it is creaky at the best of times. There isn’t even a map available or an agreed destination. This is certainly not the end of history and the ride ahead will continue to be bumpy.

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.

Editorials: Israel and Palestine, Northern Ireland, Consultative Forum on International Security

Editorials, Nonviolent News, , , , , ,

Hamas-Israel war

Violence begets violence begets violence……

The easiest way to respond to the current Palestinian-Israeli conflict is, like so many situations of conflict in the world, the dualistic way; one side good, the other side bad (horrible, brutal, vicious, vindictive and so on). This is the easiest response because it does not necessitate us asking the hard questions which we need to ask about the situation, whatever it is. The dualistic model is also not the nonviolent way.

But it is essential to understand the different forms of violence which can be present in a situation, and potentially the asymmetric nature of a conflict. In Israel/Palestine when Hamas attacks Israel and kills someone, Israel retaliates – and the normal death ratio in such a violent exchange would be 10 Palestinians killed for 1 Israeli; at least this ratio is to be expected if the current conflict continues. There are many different forms of physical violence and there are many forms of structural violence. Most people in the world were rightly horrified by the Hamas attack on Israeli civilians in southern Israel on 7th October; children, adults and young adult party goers were all a target in mass killing.

But is the world also horrified by the denial of a Palestinian state by Israel with apartheid-style laws in the West Bank and Gaza as arguably the largest prison camp in the world and without control of borders, water, or fuel and no opportunity to develop to meet the needs of its people? The attack on Israel was born out of hopelessness as much as anything else (that is not to say that Hamas did not have a strategy, hyperviolent though it was). Is the world horrified by Israel’s destruction of Gaza and massive death toll on Palestinian civilians and children? The refusal by the USA and UK to call for a ceasefire is a despicable act supporting Israel’s vengeance. Israel claims it is acting within the laws of war but there is very little evidence of this – and the ‘laws of war’ are in any case broken more than they are obeyed.

Israel and Israeli citizens deserve to live in peace and harmony with their neighbours. But how is this possible if you have taken the land and property of your neighbours and control many aspects of their lives? It is clearly impossible. Breaking out of the cycle of violence and oppression is really difficult; there was a time with the Oslo accords of 1993 and 1995 that it looked like it might be possible. But Israel has been determined to establish (illegal in international law) ‘facts on the ground’ of Israeli settlement in the West Bank and that and other intransigence has led to today’s situation.

Some Israeli settlers in the West Bank, backed by the army, are gradually trying to push Palestinians and Bedouin back and in many cases out. This is not only a gross injustice but it is also a major stumbling block to a long term settlement. There are nearly half a million Israelis in the area of the West Bank fully controlled by Israel, all of this illegal in international law. Palestinians need all the land that is designated theirs to have a viable state. Some religious Jews insist that because their ancestors controlled land a couple of thousand years ago that it is ‘theirs’; if we were to use the same measurement then Ireland could claim a significant part of western Scotland, which is a nonsense. Palestinians have been there a very long time too, some of their origins go back to time immemorial in the area, but searching online for ‘land ownership map Palestine Israel’ shows just some of the injustice at their loss of territory since the end of the Second World War.

Possibly because of Ireland’s history of being colonised and controlled, Ireland is seen as the EU country most supportive of the Palestinians but pro-Palestinian action has been limited. On the other hand, ‘the West’, to a considerable degree because of guilt about the Nazi genocide of Jews – and lack of support for them from others – bends over backwards to support Israel (just look at statements by Biden, Sunak or von der Leyen). Of course the West should have a guilty conscience over the treatment of Jews – and not just because of the Holocaust/Shoah, as well as being active in preventing antisemitism today. But that should not prevent people looking at what is or would be justice in Israel-Palestine, and taking into account the Nakba the Palestinians suffered.

There is an old Wizard of Id cartoon where the the prisoner, ’the spook’, says how long he has to be in prison before being released. His jailer reveals that this is exactly the same time as he retires; prisoner and jailer are bound together in a mutual time trap. It is a bit like that for Israel and Palestine. And Israel is Gaza’s jailer, and the inflicter of an apartheid system on the Palestinians of the West Bank. As the placard held by a Jewish person said, “Jews will not be free until Palestine is free”.

There are different ways of dealing with ‘enemies’. You can try and kill them all, genocide (of which the Nazi extermination of Jews is one terrible example), or you can try to disempower them and control them, but this will make them more angry, and more your enemy. The positive alternative is to turn them into friends. Israel and Palestine is a small space but if it is not shared equitably then there can be no peace. Israel has not seriously tried, in a sustained way, to turn Palestinians into friends, It can be done but violence from both sides makes rapprochement extremely difficult. And uncritical support (financial and military) from the USA and others in ‘the West’ makes Israel feel it can continue to pursue the path of control of Palestinians (and currently the destruction of Gaza) which it has been engaged in. It should also be noted that Israel’s sophisticated military and intelligence system did not prevent the Hamas attack; it was a failed defence.

Many different people and organisations have spoken out on the conflict. The statement of the War Resisters’ International (WRI) can be found at https://wri-irg.org/en/story/2023/war-crime-against-humanity-stop-violence-immediately-israel-palestine and it includes the following: “War is sometimes fought with bombs and bullets. Sometimes it is fought by restricting access to the resources that allow people to meet their basic needs, and for humanity to flourish. As antimilitarists, we can and will always reject and condemn both the immediate, deliberate and organised violence that grabs headlines and shocks the world, and simultaneously recognise that the violence that has occurred in Israel-Palestine since Saturday 7th October is rooted in a decades long, asymmetrical, grinding conflict.”

Israel may well, if it kills enough Palestinians and destroys most of Gaza, ‘kill’ Hamas. But it will have stirred up sufficient further hatred to create Hamas Mark 2, and created a vacuum for the people of Gaza. The desire to eradicate Hamas is thus totally false thinking on the part of Israel. The pattern of violence and cycles of violence will almost certainly continue. Hamas soldiers or fighters may be getting killed; so are an inordinate number of children and ordinary Palestinians.

Peace in Israel and Palestine cannot come without an adequate two state or secular one state solution. While either option remains pie in the sky then peace will be similarly placed. Stating this is not anti-Israeli or anti-Jewish; it is to speak the truth and advocate a situation where all the Israeli and Palestinian people can live in peace, which they very much deserve to do. They, both sides, have suffered too much.

Northern Ireland:

The nearer your destination, the more you’re slip sliding away……

The words of Simon and Garfunkel’s classic song seem to be apposite regarding the possibility of the restoration of power-sharing government at Stormont. While both the Northern Secretary of State, Chris Heaton-Harris, and the DUP leader, Jeffrey Donaldson, have been making encouraging sounds about their talks (which no one else is party to), there is the very real possibility that things will go sliding away – again.

There are numerous problems involved. One issue is simply that the talks only involve the DUP in talking to the British government and others are excluded; this exclusiveness could lead to a deal which is unacceptable, wholly or partly, to others. But secondly, there is extremely little room for manoeuvre given that a) the current British government is not going to enter substantial further negotiations with the EU about either Northern Ireland or its overall trading relationship and b) The Good Friday Agreement, and the impartiality which it prescribes, prohibits many possible actions which the DUP might wish for to copperfasten ‘the Union’.

Donaldson did emphasise the importance of a devolved government at Stormont in his party’s annual conference and subsequently. While he might be willing to move, given the opportunity, there is the question of whether all his party colleagues would do so also, and whether DUP voters would follow suit. This is where the problem came in for the DUP before; potential voter defection to hardline unionist TUV meant the DUP did a quick about face to oppose the NI Protocol.

The promise of money (not all of which necessarily appeared) has been an important sweetener in getting Stormont back and running (or at least crawling) in the past. The equivalent of the ‘Welsh deal’ whereby Wales gets a substantial sum based on need, in addition to the ‘Barnett formula’ funding which metes out funding on a per capita basis within the constituent parts of the UK, could be part of what is offered or it might have to await Stormont negotiation after the restoration of government at Stormont – which would have Michelle O’Neill as First Minister. The funding, or prospect of funding, could be used by the DUP to try to show how much Northern Ireland is valued as part of the United Kingdom.

In Northern Ireland now there is hardly anyone who is not affected in some way by the absence of a government. To take just one example from recent times, who is going to sort out the pollution of Lough Neagh? It might not happen fast with a Stormont government but without one then it is rather unlikely, despite the proven need. Education, health, community services and any forward planning on anything, including on economic advancement, are badly affected.

Unionism of the DUP variety is caught on the horns of a dilemma; to continue the boycott of Stormont and allow things to crumble further – and thus be an advertisement for a united Ireland, or to return, this time with the DUP having the post of Deputy First Minister, without a clear victory and risk electoral armageddon. Most unionists want the NI Protocol/Windsor Agreement sorted to their satisfaction before a return to Stormont.

Whichever way the DUP turns it is on slippery ground and it is possible that a return to power sharing will continue to slip slide away. One tiny light at the end of the tunnel is that a Labour government, likely to appear in a year’s time in Britain, could do a deal with the EU which would make checks on goods coming to Northern Ireland redundant. The problem with this chink of light is that it would indicate a very long tunnel, perhaps a couple of years to get through. Let us hope that solid, open ground is reached before then.

Department of Foreign Affairs report

The expected on neutrality and ‘triple lock’

There are no surprises in Louise Richardson’s report as chair of the Consultative Forum on International Security Policy which took place in June; the report came out in mid-October. It is cleverly written, knowing that (valid) criticism of the Forum meant the report could not push too far but still allowing Micheál Martin to claim that it justified ditching the ‘triple lock’ on deployment of Irish troops overseas. However, as the Swords to Ploughshares Ireland (StoP) report on the Forum (see news section) shows, the debate on the triple lock justified no such thing, despite her assertion in the report that “the preponderance of views, especially among the experts and practitioners, is that it is time for a reconsideration of the Triple Lock as it is no longer fit for purpose.”

There are a number of tendentious or incorrect assumptions or statements in the report. One is that public submissions made – yet to be published and not really part of the Forum process (as opposed to any further discussion) – may be biased as made by people committed in this area – of course they may but so might the chosen speakers be biased. She states “the submissions were not a random or representative sample of the population, rather the views of citizens engaged in these issues; therefore, it would be unwise to extrapolate from these views to the population-at-large.” However she makes no such assumptions about those presenting at the Forum (the ‘experts’) even though they were chosen by the Minister including a number of academics who have their posts paid for by the EU, and others had NATO links. This is basically someone on one side saying others, not on the same side, are ‘biased’. She may have read the submissions but there is no detail whatsoever in her report as to worthwhile ideas suggested (she does cover that most of these favoured the retention of neutrality).

In her introduction she says “The proceedings of the four days of meetings and 835 submissions are briefly summarized, synthesized, and analyzed.” She does no such thing and in 15 pages it would be impossible in any case. She does very briefly summarise the contributions made from the chosen speakers in the different panels but in this section there is no mention of contributions from the floor. Given the fact contributors were chosen by the Minister, this is a serious omission. She does refer subsequently, and inadequately, to some contributions by the public, in talking further on the particular issues dealt with – but to say this covers those comments fairly would be untrue. Given the bias in selection of speakers (look at the list online) it is untrue to say it was an “admirably open and transparent debate where unfettered debate was encouraged” – and in some cases issues raised from the floor were not even addressed by the panel.

She makes all sorts of assumptions and statements based on inadequate discussion and exploration in the Forum; only a few of these are explored here. One is that Ireland is falling behind “its peers” in military expenditure, with NATO setting 2% of GDP as a target, and that this needs to be addressed. But if Ireland is taking a different approach as a neutral country, as it should, then perhaps much more money, time and effort needs to be put into conflict resolution and mediation, not the military. And who says that the NATO advocated 2% is a reasonable benchmark?

Her grasp of recent Irish history is also lacking when she states that ”In recent years Irish governments have drawn a distinction between military and political neutrality and between military nonalignment and political nonalignment. This appears to be a uniquely Irish approach, but it is a fair description of the policies consistently followed since the outbreak of the last world war.” While the first part of this may be true, the last statement certainly does not apply to Frank Aiken and Fianna Fáil’s policies of fearless non-alignment in the ‘fifties and into the ‘sixties.

The basis of the Forum was that Irish security policies need reviewed particularly in the light of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. That has certainly altered things. But Irish neutrality has weathered many storms, including the cataclysmic events and invasions of the Second World War. There are new threats, including cybersecurity and related undersea cabling, but is the appropriate response necessarily a military one? And it is probably simplistic to state baldly that “our geographic location no longer provides the protection it once did” without extensive further exploration.

A concluding statement that the Forum was “not designed to make policy prescriptions” is not quite true in that a significant part of it being set up was to provide the Minister with a rationale for ditching the ‘triple lock’ – and anything else that could go. If you look at the sequence of events and the evolution from the Minister thinking about a possible citizens’ assembly to a hand-picked so-called Forum (‘so-called’ because it was not open), his thinking is clear. Micheál Martin may be satisfied that Louise Richardson’s report takes things as far as she can in the direction he wanted – popular protest and opinion set limits – but in a wider context it is all very unsatisfactory and inadequate.