National Reconciliation in Ireland – The Need For Uncomfortable Conversations
(Westminster 24 October 2012)
British colonial interests and successive government policy have been
at the root of political conflict in Ireland, and between our
countries for centuries.
British government strategy and its threat of ‘immediate and terrible
war’ in the period of the 1921 negotiations after the Tan War was the
midwife for the Irish Civil War, and the catalyst for partition.
That led to the onset of unionist one party misrule in the North of
Ireland for 50 years. The constitutional, political and economic
structure of the northern state was the context for over 30 years of
war and armed struggle.
Citizens in Ireland today continue to live with the legacy of the
civil war and northern unionists and nationalists live with the legacy
of partition in all its forms.
Although British state policy towards the north throughout and to the
present day has remained intrinsically unionist, several British
administrations have made significant contributions alongside the work
of many in developing the Irish peace process during the last twenty
That peace process is now irreversible. The war is over, and the
conditions of conflict have been removed.
Our peace process is widely admired as a template for conflict
resolution. But whilst the process is irreversible, we are still not
at peace with each other.
The historical experience of the Irish civil war is that the failure
to put in place a reconciliation process after its conclusion created
massive fault-lines and division which endured for nine decades.
The immediate challenge as our island emerges from its most recent
phase of political conflict is to engage on the development of a
reconciliation process in the north, and which addresses the trans
generational division and hurt created by the civil war and our
political conflicts ever since.
In the past republican leaders have travelled here to Britain to
negotiate and discuss the detail of frameworks and agreements which
have helped to bring about the Irish peace process and to press the
case for Irish unity.
Tonight I want to make the case for the imperative of opening up a new
phase in our peace process; that is a phase based on reconciliation
Although the conditions of conflict have been addressed, the legacy of
division, hurt and fear has the potential to be passed on to future
Sinn Féin believes that our generation have a responsibility to stop
that happening and to do our best to ensure those future generations
have the opportunity to grow up in a better society than we did.
There is new ‘heavy lifting’ still to be undertaken in the peace process.
Enormous human hurt was caused during the political conflict.
Republicans, unionists and Irish and British citizens share a deep
Whilst we might all wish it could be otherwise, we cannot undo the
past, but neither can we or should we forget.
During her visit to Dublin last year Queen Elizabeth said;
“With the benefit of historical hindsight we can all see things we
would wish had been done differently or not at all.”
All reasonable people will agree with that assessment.
But neither should we allow the past to become a barrier to the future.
That is why Sinn Féin believes it is not only possible but essential
that we open a new phase in our process, and facilitate dialogue on
how all hurts caused can be equally acknowledged, salved, and if
possible healed. And to seek to do this in a spirit of shared
compassion, generosity towards one another and recognising our common
We all need to continue the unfinished journey of our peace process,
so that future generations are liberated to explore new possibilities,
rather than be burdened with legacies for which they carry no
Maya Angelou put it well;
“History despite its wrenching pain cannot be unlived, but if faced
with courage need not be lived again.”
Applying the sense of that wisdom will not be easy. It can only come
about by a collective resolve to do this by trying to better
understand each other, and imagine what it is like to walk in one
I have characterised the process of national reconciliation in Ireland
as involving “uncomfortable conversations”.
These need to take place within and between communities in my country,
and as part of that the British state needs to reflect and discuss how
to address its responsibilities for the adversity and conflict it
perpetuated in Ireland, and between Britain and Ireland.
The republican constituency has begun to discuss the need for national
reconciliation. I and other republican leaders have said that means
being prepared to move outside our own comfort zones, and being
prepared to embrace new thinking.
The Sinn Féin leadership have spoken of and then acted on the need for
more compromises and initiatives to advance the peace process, and the
wider national interest.
Earlier this year Republicans across Ireland had a very uncomfortable
conversation among ourselves about whether Martin McGuinness should
meet Queen Elizabeth. Many disagreed, but many more agreed with doing
so – because it was the right thing to do.
And that is fundamentally what reconciliation must be about, doing the
right thing; even when faced with impasse and opposition.
At this time the potential for reconciliation is challenged by a
developing status quo supported by some in the north, which perversely
provides for acceptable levels of sectarianism division and fear; and,
I would add to that, acceptable levels of instability provoked by
militarists opposed to the peace process.
The outworking of that is evidenced in a unionist mindset which
tolerates the insistence by loyal order band parades to disrespect the
rights of Catholics and nationalist communities. And which also
normalises an ongoing refusal to share power with republicans in
majority unionist councils.
This summer political unionism singularly failed to give leadership
and say or do the right things to confront sectarianism and the
violence which it provoked.
Instead of going out front and forcefully defending the principles of
equality and mutual respect the leadership of political unionism and
specifically the DUP caved in to the lowest common denominators of
The last five years have been a very slow learning curve on equality
and respect for the DUP.
Peter Robinson’s recent outbursts betray a real discomfort in trying
to represent both unionists, republicans and nationalists. He needs to
stop talking out of both sides of his mouth, and get with the
He cannot be a latter day James Craig or Basil Brooke, because the
Orange State has gone. He can only sit in OFM/dFM if he shares power
properly with republicans. The Orange Order and Loyalist bands cannot
walk wherever they want; the eleven plus isn’t coming back; minorities
do have rights; and nationalists in the north are no longer second
The DUP leadership needs to get out of its time warp, get into real
time, and start doing grown up politics with the rest of us.
Opposition to sectarianism is not a negotiation or an optional choice,
it must be a leadership imperative.
The challenge posed by the unresolved parading issue could be resolved
by agreement on the core issues of equality and mutual respect if
these are taken forward with united political leadership from unionism
and republicanism, particularly by Peter Robinson and Martin Mc
Guinness. But failure to do so fuel the extremes within each community
opposed to the peace process.
None of that should be allowed to frustrate the pursuit of reconciliation.
We don’t need to reinvent the wheel.
The Good Friday Agreement has already enshrined the principles of
equality, parity of esteem, mutual respect and political coexistence.
It provides a framework within which to find important common ground,
if the political will exists to do so.
The Hillsborough Castle Agreement set out key principles in relation
to parades, with which the DUP agreed, based upon local people
providing local solutions, mutual respect, and the right of all
citizens to live free from sectarian harassment.
Sinn Féin is calling for an all inclusive national discussion on
reconciliation leading to the development of a national reconciliation
Let me tell you how such a road map might take shape.
We believe republican and unionist political leaders need to take the
lead in beginning a national discussion on reconciliation.
This should be leadership frontloaded by;
– Firstly, concluding in the weeks ahead the Cohesion Sharing
Integration strategy. This then needs built upon with a charter
supporting anti-sectarianism, equality and mutual respect, sponsored
and led by OFM/dFM. This initiative itself would contribute to easing
the parading impasse; begin to ensure power-sharing happens across all
councils in the north; and demonstrate to our communities in a very
practical way the need for mutual respect.
– Secondly, and building upon work already undertaken by some
local communities, to take a lead in developing cross-community and
multi-agency initiatives aimed at reducing segregation through the
removal of peace walls, and actively promoting increased integrated
community life, and cross-community social and cultural activity.
– Thirdly, agreeing to take forward a united platform in
opposition to anti-peace process militarists within nationalism, and
against those unionist paramilitaries wedded to violence and
– Fourthly, cross-party and cross community agreement on
additional strategic economic and social interventions and capacity
building in areas of objective need across the north.
By ensuring this agenda is strategically driven and stratified across
society it can provide the template for local community engagement
about the future and the quality of political/community leadership,
which we must all provide to move the peace process forward.
Critical mass and momentum is needed to build grassroots community
support for reconciliation otherwise it remains theoretical and
A national reconciliation strategy coordinated under the auspices of
the North-South Ministerial Council, and supported by both the
Assembly and Oireachtas should be the mechanism into which these four
measures fit and by which key measurable and actionable priorities can
be agreed and implemented.
Reconciliation is not the property or responsibility of any single
political party or community. Engagement between us all is required on
how best to proceed.
But move forward we must, because what we have at present is not good enough.
Fear of change is part of our post-conflict legacy.
That can be real or imaginary, at times.
Some have expressed fear, scepticism and suspicion of this Sinn Féin
initiative on reconciliation. But those concerns can only be allayed
The refusal of political unionism to engage in this discussion is a
mistake, because the alternative is to offer the politics of despair.
A policy on non-engagement validates the segregation which blights our
society and helps perpetuate the ‘them and us’ mentality and all of
the misunderstanding and abuses which have flowed from that.
But political unionism’s refusal to engage on the development of an
authentic reconciliation agenda is also duplicitous and contradictory.
That is illustrated in their bellicose demands for actions now,
instead of words from Republicans, and more recently apologies from
the 26 Counties government.
All this while refusing to acknowledge fifty years of one party
misrule; their own associations with actual and threatened violence
and killings during the Ulster Workers’ strikes in the 1970s; during
the anti-Hillsborough Agreement protests in the 1980s; during the
Drumcree crisis in the 1990s; and involvement with organisations such
as the Third Force and Ulster Clubs.
The fact is, unionist politicians throughout the 70s, 80s, and 90s
legitimised and rationalised sectarian killings by unionist
paramilitaries; and have continued, including this summer, to publicly
associate themselves with unionist paramilitary leaders.
Senior DUP leaders need to realise that political responsibility for
‘acts of commission and omission’, to borrow a phrase from a DUP
minister, cuts both ways.
In recent months it has been breathtaking and bewildering to listen to
the recriminatory rhetoric used by representatives of political
unionism in public discussions on reconciliation.
Their contributions sit in stark juxtaposition to the involvement of
DUP politicians in Ulster Resistance; its documented role in importing
weapons later sold to the UDA, with the support of several British
agents, not just Brian Nelson; and, subsequently used in multiple
sectarian and political assassinations during the 1980s and 1990s.
The DUP would be wise to pause and take a step back.
Unionists and republicans both have to take responsibility for our actions.
Sinn Fein is saying that now we all have to decide what we are going
to do about the future. Our course is set.
The DUP and UUP have a very simple choice to make. They can continue
to throw recriminations all over the place, and accomplish absolutely
nothing, except leave their own communities to languish in the status
quo; or join with the rest of us, embrace new thinking and continue to
make more change.
But ordinary unionist and loyalist citizens are not powerless. They do
have a choice, whether to put up with deficits in vision and strategy
from the unionist political leadership, or begin to demand
uncomfortable conversations with DUP and UUP leaders, and tell them to
start leading into the future and not backwards.
None of us as unionists or republicans should let our past shackle how
we move to the future. Reconciliation is something we can and should
do together in the here and now.
Inevitably we need to deal with the past and all the unanswered
questions; and that should be done by agreeing to the establishment of
an independent, international truth commission.
Some say that republicans are not serious when we advocate that option.
But what we say means everyone – governments, political parties, and
British, unionist and republican combatants, and others – going into
that arena together and at the same time; and to deal there with all
the causes and consequences of the conflict.
That is Sinn Fein’s unambiguous policy position.
Significantly others have gone or remained silent on this issue, most
notably the British Government. Owen Patterson’s precondition of
gaining a consensus on the way forward is aimed at pursuing gridlock,
by making a demand which cannot be delivered on.
Perhaps the unavoidable and many uncomfortable conversations which the
British state needs to have within itself, and the rest of us about
its past use of Military Reconnaissance Force counter gangs; Force
Research Unit agents; and, present day running of agents in the
unionist paramilitaries, and anti peace process militarists, explains
If the British state is not prepared to contribute to truth recovery
by owning up to all aspects and consequences of its military,
intelligence, and black operations campaign in Ireland, then it must
spell out their alternative to an independent, international process.
But let’s be clear, that will have to mean everyone’s role in the past
being placed on an even playing field.
For now the responsibility of this and future British governments must
be to facilitate, and politically and economically invest in a new
phase of the peace process.
The incumbent administration should be persuaders and facilitators for
This requires acknowledgement by them, in some form or another, of the
role of successive British governments and their agencies in past
And it requires a significant input by them to a regeneration
programme in the north which redresses the legacy of conflict, past
divisions and the decades of underfunding of public services.
It requires an enabling programme with a new dynamic.
A useful beginning would be;
– The implementation of outstanding elements of the Good
Friday, St. Andrews and Hillsborough Castle Agreements;
– Committal of the previously agreed £18bn for much needed
capital spend projects in the six counties
– A disapplication of the Welfare Cuts agenda to the north and
the lowering of corporation tax there;
– A review of the Barnett Formula and the transfer of fiscal
powers to the Executive.
Add to this;
– the closure of the NIO,
– withdrawal of the British Secretary of State,
– the transfer of reserved powers to the Executive, and
– the setting of a date for a Border Poll.
Then we are at once into a major advance in the outworking of the
conflict resolution process and a new dynamic; and all in a
non-prescriptive way recognising that it is for the people of Ireland,
north and south, to determine and shape their future.
New and big thinking needs brought to the political and peace
processes in Ireland. The British state and political unionism need
to step up to the mark.
Sinn Féin has a vision of an authentic reconciliation process with the
capacity to heal divisions within and between diverse communities on
the island of Ireland and between our country and Britain.
We aspire to a new phase of the peace process, which allows for the
replacement of division with new human and political relationships.
Our ambition is to achieve reconciliation in our time and the
beginning of an era in which we all as Republican, unionist, Irish and
British citizens can become friends with one another: a time when our
children learn to play and grow up together; and in which, to
paraphrase Bobby Sands, the future can echo with their laughter.
- April 2018
- March 2018
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- January 2017
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- July 2009
- March 2009
- September 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- February 2008
- September 2007
- May 2002
- November 2001
- June 2001
- April 2001
- August 2000
- February 1998
- January 1997
- July 1996
- November 1995
- April 1995
- March 1994
- July 1992
- September 1991
- June 1990
- September 1986
- May 1983
- April 1983