We are not going to get justice. Our country could not pay the price. Too many guilty men and women involved, both paramilitary and State. God will bring the justice in that Day. But such is the nature of earthly affairs. Like Moses and divorce, a hard-hearted people cannot be ruled with perfect justice. Compromise is often required, to compensate for the sins of ourselves and others without bringing disaster on either or both.
Our two communities here bear their share of the blame for our Troubles. I know many Unionists like myself grew up in the Troubles seeing only the aggression of the other side. But we failed to see the background grievances of the Nationalists:
1. Their basic objection to having their land divided between them and the Planters (us).
2. Their objection to the discrimination they faced due to their hostility to our State. Jobs, housing, gerrymandering of electoral areas.
3. When a Unionist government tried to address some of these things, it was ridiculed as 'traitors', 'Lundies', 'selling out to the Irish Republic'.
And I for one believed those accusations. That is our side of the blame. The Nationalists were to blame for:
1. Not recognizing that two nations existed in Ireland, and both had a right to their self-determination. When the Nationalists got the 26 counties for themselves, we got the 6. Each minority ought to have supported that sharing out.
2. Their intention of subjecting us to the same discrimination in a UI that they suffered here - their goal was an Irish Catholic State, for that is what was set up in the South when they got the power. All the talk of parity of esteem for all the children of Ireland had been proved bogus.
3. The Republicans in the midst of the Nationalists were not interested in civil rights, in equality in jobs, housing, elections. Their aim was a UI or nothing.
Those competing ideas clashed physically in stone-throwing and rioting, then developed into bombing and shooting (though it must be said that the UVF murders in 1966 were a precursor of what followed).
The failure of the State to stop such violence in its tracks greatly increased the involvement of paramilitaries. And it meant they could not enforce a fair compromise on either side.
Fast forward through the blood and tears, and the futility of the war comes home to the thinkers among the paramilitaries. The IRA leadership knows they can continue for some years, but the cost will be so high that it will end in humiliating defeat. So they seek a way to save face by a negotiated settlement. The British State is up for that - indeed it almost certainly was their goal and the end to which they developed informers and assassins in the paramilitaries.
The settlement was gradually brought to birth in the Belfast Agreement. Had either side, Nationalist/Republican or Unionist/Loyalist refused to comply, I'm sure they would have been punished enough so that they did. The alternatives for each side were:
1. A continuation of the war by the IRA - which would have been met with steadily increasing shoot-to-kill ops. by the State, and enabled assassinations by the UVF and UDA.
2. A refusal by the Unionists to settle would have been met with imposed government that included a big Irish input. Violence by the Loyalists would have been met with the same treatment the Republicans would have faced.
Since the Belfast Agreement we have limped on, and at times skipped on. We are again at a critical moment for one side or the other - or even both. The Legacy issue can be easily enough dealt with - a firm hand that gives as much truth as is safe to divulge. For example, the State holds files on all incidents (I assume). Who they know was responsible; who they think was responsible; who their informants identified, etc. The State's own assassinations could also be revealed. But all of this could only come if amnesty/indemnity/pardons were applied to all cases that could be prosecuted.
The Language issue could be settled with similar status given to Ulster Scots - Not based on numbers of each community, but on the numbers of those who express a firm interest in the language. That is, on those who Actually sign up for the language, in schools and evening classes. The devolved government would have to find the money from its devolved pot. If they can sell language above hospitals to their electorate, so be it.
The Victims issue could be settled if we treated as victims everyone injured by unlawful force, be they terrorists assassinated by paramilitaries or dark State actions; State forces; or non-combatants.
Culture/Parades could be settled on a equal-insult basis: if you parade through an area where you are not wanted, then I can parade through yours. A careful examination of routes would result. Other solutions are of course possible.
⏭Ian Major grew up a heathen Protestant, was converted at 17. He lives out his Evangelical faith as a Baptist.
I think the major weakness here is that there are not two nations in the North. There are two communities with loyalties to different nations: one to England and the other to Dublin. Britain, Ireland, Europe, International law recognise the right to self determination of the North but it is not a national self determination. Nor does it allow either community in the North a right to self determination outside of the whole entity.
ReplyDeleteIt is not even that nationalists do not or did not recognise two nations in the North, Unionism didn't recognise them either.
Wolfsbane comments
DeleteIt was the rationale behind Partition, and in my time it remained so. Not all Unionist leaders might have held it, but it was the substantial position of militant Unionism. Craig and Trimble, for example. Not sure where Molyneaux stood, and Paisley promoted whatever position would ensure him being the leader of Unionism.
Several non-Unionist thinkers also recognised the truth of two nations in Ireland:
Two nationism was always a minority opinion even within unionism. In our lifetime it came to be regarded as a crank theory propagated by the BICO. It has never figured significantly in political discourse and had more of an academic or writerly focus.
DeleteOne problem that jumps out from your take on it Wolfie is that if there are twon nations within the North, rather than a distinct nation in the North separate from the rest of the island, is that both would have the right to self determine.
As an policy idea it is going to have no bearing on how things pan out. The method for transferring sovereignty is well laid out and has Sweet FA to do with two nationism. Not that I believe I will ever see a united Ireland. The change will be so imperceptible that in real life terms it will not be felt.
Unionists will sleep walk into it while nationalists will sleep though it!!
The rationale was there, even if most just gut-reacted against the other nation. There was a clear recognition that we were not 'them'. Not the Gael/Irish.
ReplyDeleteYes, that means two nations in NI as well as the Ireland before Partition. Difficult to get an agreement both can live with - but much better than getting an outcome acceptable to only one side.
Partition had the possibility of gaining acceptance by both nations, if both sides worked at it in NI and enjoyed a close relationship with the South.
A UI likewise, had it been envisioned and guaranteed as a union of the British in Ireland and the Irish. A British and Irish State, a sovereign Ireland.
What we seem to be heading for is a collapse of the Belfast Agreement and a long term Direct Rule with major Irish government input, or indeed Joint Sovereignty. How that would pan out is uncertain. Could be acceptable to both, if carefully devised.
Or a vast relocation of Unionists to GB, with costs to GB offset by ending pension rights for those of both sides who vote to remain in a UI.
But other concerns could make any of this moot. Wars, pestilences, climate disasters might take our minds of nationality.
I don't think the rationale was ever seriously spelled out. And it is too late in the day to make the point after the fact.
ReplyDeleteIf there are two nations in the North then why should both not have equal right of national self determination?
The terms on which partition was acceptable to one side should be the same for the side opposed to partition. If 50 + 1 is good enough to maintain partition then it should be good enough to end it. Otherwise we are left to conclude that nationalists are to be treated as second class citizens in that their votes count for less.
My mind is not on nationality but on citizenship and quality of life. If Britain provided a world class National Health Service free at the point of access as part of a strong social wage policy, how many nationalists do you think would vote for Irish unity?
Unionists and nationalists should not be evacuating to either Dublin or London but staying and getting on with it. The place is home to all.
And if the Dublin government decide to shoot dead 14 Unionists marching in pursuit of what they feel are their rights, I for one will vehemently oppose them.