The Other View

Inter-Community Engagement
A Way Forward

By Jim McCorry

Most people here realise that, as a society, we are slowly- very slowly -emerging from a long, painful, period of inter-communal conflict. We also appreciate that such a process requires both a commitment from all those involved, and a recognition that it can only be engaged over a protracted time period. Indeed, that is why it is called a process. There is no shortcut to peace. It is a long, slow and sometimes tortuous road with many turnings and diversions.
Just as there are some individuals who do not want to move along the road with us, and will do all they can to wreck the process, there are also those who hold on to many of the outdated and indeed obsolete mechanisms of their war machines. This may be calculated. It may be that any specific organisation’s commitment to peace may be more apparent than real. Covertly they fully intend to hold on to the armed potential of their organisation despite the lip service paid to the search for peace. The armed struggle is the raison d’etre for their existence. It has a life of its own apart from the purpose for which it was ostensibly established.

Indeed, for many of those within the various physical force organisations which exist in all of our communities, it may be that the “war” has given meaning to their own personal reality and given them a perceived importance, in their own eyes or in the perception of others, they could not otherwise aspire to. It may simply be the case that a continuation of conflict at some level allows some of them access to income or resources which, given their personal skills or abilities, they could never otherwise envisage without being recognised as the criminals they are in reality, whatever their presented image. Recourse to armed struggle can be the choice of the idealist. It can also be the refuge of the sociopath and the careerist.

It may also be less sinister than this. As we inevitably have to begin to engage with those we have long regarded as “enemies” and mutually search for ways through the anger and pain, unless there are directions to the contrary, it is almost inevitable in the short to intermediate term that the internal organs of the respective armed organisations continue to function much as they were designed to do. As any conflict moves toward reconciliation and mutual development the fact that there are problems associated with de-militarisation is not peculiar to our situation. It has been, and indeed is still, the experience of those searching for peace in those many areas of the world which have experienced the veracity of armed conflict. It only begins when inevitably, and often reluctantly, after much mutually shared pain and the beginning of dialogue, it has been recognised that, unless we can totally destroy our perceived enemies for every generation to come, and learn to accept the consequences of that, we need to learn to live with each other.

To a degree this protracted progression is understandable. Trust and understanding do not come easily. They can only be established by building our relationships in a mutual sharing. The process from inception requires that we take risks. Paradoxically the biggest risk is that we trust, often without any initial basis for that trust.
There can be little doubt but that those from within the Protestant Unionist community who have engaged in the inter-community and inter-cultural dialogue process genuinely believe their willingness to trust has been betrayed by the recent revelations of the “profiling” being conducted by the Republican movement. It should also be said that there are many from the Republican / Nationalist community who have long argued and worked for understanding and mutual development across our interface and who also feel deceived by the recent reports of similar profiling being conducted by some from within the Loyalist tradition.

To respond to the exposure of that betrayal by childish statements, or repeated denial which is perceived as blatant untruth, does little to resolve the problems created, or indeed encourage learning from what has happened. As I have suggested there are many possible reasons which can explain why this has occurred. It may be we need to acknowledge that it may not have been a conscious act by the respective organisations or indeed could have been conducted without the knowledge of the leadership.
Indeed, even had it been intentional, and had been engaged in an effort to hear and listen to the voice of those sections of the Protestant working class which the Republican movement has persistently ignored, and continues to ignore, then there would be some positive understanding of the rationale guiding them. Indeed there are many, within and external to the Republican constituency, who have been arguing for many years that real peace is only obtainable when we do hear, appreciate and accept the validity of that voice. Unfortunately, on the basis of what we have heard to date, that does not seem to have been the case. A similar responsibility also lies on those from within the Loyalist tradition. They also need to recognise change as it is happening.

Whatever the reasons for this behaviour we would argue that each of us in, and external to, our respective organisations need to confront it, learn from it and make a decision as to how, or indeed if, we can move forward. That requires both an internal organisational honesty and the beginning of an external openness. It may be that the respective armed organisations are incapable of that. If that is the position then there is little hope for our future.
I, however, do not believe this has to be the situation. I am more than confident, on the basis of my own personal relationships, that there are many within, or peripheral to, all those myriad organisations who engaged in armed struggle and who now want to explore and share the peace road. They also have experienced the horror of war and, as with each victim, have every reason to search for alternatives.

Eventually we have to talk together if we are to respond to the issues and problems being experienced by our respective communities. It will, as many have continuously pointed out, take time to build trust. In the light of what has happened the rebuilding of that trust which had previously developed may be more tenuous. It will nevertheless have to start sometime and, individually and collectively, we need to explore how that can be done.
I believe in the necessity and benefit of inter-community dialogue. I know there are those in both our communities more than willing to engage. I also believe they have a need and a right to trust those to whom they relate. The process to date has been long and painstaking but has achieved much that may never be known or quantified. For the sake of both our communities we need to begin again.

A beginning could be made by an honest acceptance of the damage done, either knowingly or unintentionally, by all those who have been profiling individuals in such detail, an assurance that it will not occur again and a commitment to a trust building process of inter-communal dialogue possibly based on a mutually agreed statement of principles of engagement.
There are many who are offering, and seeking, this approach as a possible way forward. There may be other ways. As with trust the process of dialogue begins through dialogue. But it has to begin – and it will inevitably begin sometime - and now is as appropriate as later.

Back to Contents