Republicans in Northern Ireland, for example, are in favour of truth recovery procedures as a way of exposing the role of the British state, even though they run the risk of exposing their own culpability; likewise Loyalists want to expose the military background of Sinn Fein politicians but try to continue to conceal the role of the security forces. It may well be that their respective support for a Northern Irish Truth and Reconciliation Commission will wane once they realise that they cannot control what truths the process discloses. (Lundy and McGovern, 2001; Smyth, 2003).
To deal with human rights violations it may be useful to look at methods that have been used elsewhere. For example, in Spain during the immediate aftermath of the Franco regime, it was decided that the past should be buried and never spoken of. This forced all those who suffered during that time to hide their experiences and memories and put simply, to pretend like nothing had happened. It was felt that this was the most direct route to bring Spain from a place where severe violations of human rights had occurred, under a right wing dictatorship, to a new democracy. More recently in Spain, however, the situation has been examined again and under Zapatero’s Socialist government in 2006, the imposed silence that once fell everywhere has been lifted, and steps are being taken to try and establish what happened.
Another example is West Germany where a process of ‘mastering the past’ was begun in the late 1950’s. Central to this system is the act of admitting to what happened, together with seeking to establish why it happened. Ultimately only then can lessons be learned and attempts made to rectify the wrongs if that is possible.
While looking at the solutions that others have taken to deal with post conflict tensions can certainly help suggest a course of action, no two conflicts are entirely the same. The motivations of perpetrators are different in each situation, as is the legal system and the level to which the human rights of the citizens involved have been violated. If the environment within the post-conflict state demands a prompt solution to the events that have taken place, then the victims can be somewhat overlooked, with the issue of human rights not being addressed to the extent that it should. Ultimately the victim is of paramount importance in this situation and coming to terms with what has happened is something very individual. People need to reconcile with themselves internally before they can begin to deal with others, and this is certainly not a process that can be fitted with a time scale.
In order to initiate a process of truth recovery, one must first decide the kind of form it will take. Questions such as how it protects human rights and how in fact this could be guaranteed must be answered. Fundamental parts of this process include the nature and scale of the conflict that took place, the role of paramilitaries and other state security agencies and the stories of the victims. It is impossible to implement a system that will meet the needs of everyone involved. Some people may wish to share their story while others may not and that is entirely their right. Suffice to say that any system introduced needs to act fairly in the interests of both parties and to avoid marginalisation of any individuals. It must fundamentally be a victim centred process of truth recovery.
If the truth recovery process is going to have a legal element then this may call for the creation of a tribunal or perhaps an international court in order to introduce more impartiality. If the aim of the process was to seek prosecution for the perpetrators then it would have to be legally based. A situation such as this may simply mean pitting the testimony of the victims against the testimony of the perpetrators. By violating the human rights of someone else and by engaging in activity so far outside of what is deemed moral or acceptable by society, do you yourself still have the right to be protected in a way that your victims never were. If the truth recovery process is legalised and takes place in a court of law, then ultimately perpetrators will be allowed to come forward and express their version of events. Understandably not everyone would find this acceptable.
The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission was created by section 68 of the Northern Ireland Act in 1998 in compliance with a commitment made by the UK Government in the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement of 10 April 1998. The role of the NIHRC is to promote awareness of the importance of human rights in Northern Ireland, to review existing law and practice and also to advise the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Executive of the Northern Ireland Assembly on what legislative or other measures ought to be taken to protect human rights in Northern Ireland.
With an organisation such as this already in place and dedicated to upholding the human rights of citizens within NI, then the question of whether there is really a need for a truth recovery process must be asked. Subsequently should the process go ahead, it would certainly be very costly. If it were to be funded by taxpayers then there would absolutely have to be a clear justification for it. Most importantly perhaps is that undertaking something like this runs the risk of destabilising the political process and the institutions within it.
Northern Ireland in my opinion currently seems to be at somewhat of a crossroads. We have in place a political system that provides a forum for members from both ends of the spectrum to air their views. Whilst I have no doubt that the vast majority of people within Northern Ireland want to maintain a peaceful society, sadly the events of April 2nd when a young PSNI officer was killed, by a bomb thought to be the work of dissident republicans, very much threatens to undo all the work that has been done. For this reason perhaps this is not the time for the commissioning of a truth recovery process. In all honesty to try and revisit the past right now when things are still raw may only to do more harm. Deputy First Minister Martin Mc Guinness described the events as waging “a useless war against peace”
The legacy of violence is arguably more lasting than its initial perpetration. It leaves behind it fragments of a cohesive society, and the victims are sometimes left as a shadow of their former self.
For the thirty years that violence was such a common part of life in NI, victims found themselves silenced by campaigns of murder and torture, perhaps to the point where even today they may not be able to find a way to articulate and tell that story. The use of violence this way has sought to remove the ability of the victim to express what happened to them and the language needed to do it. This somewhat limits future opportunity for a truth recovery process and by being denied the opportunity to share their story, a victim’s recollection of events may fade.
Up until this point in Northern Ireland no agreement has been made with regard to the introduction of a truth recovery process. The ideal situation is one that has the ability to unite nationalists, unionists, republicans and loyalists and that can include both the victims and the perpetrators of political violence. It should be impartial and should make sure to view narratives from both sides in this way while making sure no groups or individuals feel they have been silenced.
One promise of formal truth recovery processes, such as truth commissions, in transitional societies is that they present the possibility of a common narrative emerging about the causes of conflict. At the same time, there is now evidence that such processes also create silences; some narratives are not fully represented.
In reality as to the form it would take if one were to be introduced, I can only imagine it would use a piecemeal approach. Victims would tell their stories and inquiries would be held. I think it would most likely in some way involve victims meeting with perpetrators, (should they both be willing) and perhaps trying to understand the motivations for doing what they did.
Confronted with the testimony of the victims of a human conflict, ex-paramilitaries might reasonably be expected, and prepared, to accept that the perceptions that led them to inflict violence—which were created and held from afar, and from beyond the possibility of meaningful interaction—were unfounded.
To suffer the violence that so many did leaves behind a legacy of terror and for that reason it may be the case that the idea of meeting up with a perpetrator is not something a victim would want to consider doing. So individual is the process of dealing with the aftermath of what happened that I do not envisage a system in place whereby everyone’s needs are catered for. I am certainly not dismissing the idea of a truth recovery process, or more specifically the idea of victims and perpetrators meeting. I actually think that this should be an option for victims if they wish to avail of it and think that it may help them come to terms with what happened to them. But again what works for one will not work for all.
If as a society we truly want to move forward then truth recovery is inherently necessary to do that. It ultimately will aid the transition from political violence to peace. I however, am of the opinion that right now is not the time to focus so heavily on this. I do not see that it will greatly improve present community relations and quite frankly it may well upset the political balance that we have currently.
Bibliography
-
CAIN Web Service. (2011) Key Events. (Conflict Archive on the Internet), University of Ulster. [Online] Available: http://cain.ulst.ac.uk
-
Lundy, P. and McGovern, M. (2001) ‘The Politics of Memory in Post-Conflict Northern Ireland’, Peace Review 13: 27-34.
-
Protecting and Promoting your rights available online at:
-
Rolston, Bill (2006) Dealing with the Past: Pro-State Paramilitaries, Truth and Transition in Northern Ireland, Human Rights Quarterly - Volume 28, Number 3, August 2006, pp. 652-675
-
Ronan Kerr murder: Killers 'enemies of peace' available online at: 4 April 2011
-
Shirlow P, Murtagh B. (2006) Belfast: Segregation, Violence and the City pg27
-
Simpson, K (2007a) ‘Victims of Political Violence: A Habermasian Model of Truth Recovery’, Journal of Human Rights, 6, (3): 325-343
-
Smyth, M. (2003) ‘Truth, Partial Truth and Irreconcilable Truths’, Smith College Studies in Social Work 73: 205-20.
Shirlow P, Murtagh B. (2006) Belfast: Segregation, Violence and the City pg27
Rolston, Bill (2006) Dealing with the Past: Pro-State Paramilitaries, Truth and Transition in Northern Ireland, Human Rights Quarterly - Volume 28, Number 3, August 2006, pp. 652-675
Simpson, K (2007a) ‘Victims of Political Violence: A Habermasian Model of Truth Recovery’, Journal of Human Rights, 6, (3): 325-343