Sir, – I read with interest Trevor Ringland’s article “Violence of Troubles can never be justified” (Opinion & Analysis, September 4th). Perhaps in this case we can agree that there were better solutions to the problem than those attempted on all sides from 1968 onwards.
As it happens I am old enough to remember the years leading up to the 1969/70 split in the republican movement. There was a debate taking place between what was essentially a Belfast-based, irredentist older generation who believed physical force was the only way to achieve a united Ireland in a deeply divided society and younger more geographically dispersed activists who were willing to explore other avenues. There were of course older Belfast republicans such as Frank McGlade who were willing to explore new initiatives, just as there were southerners such as Ruairí Ó Brádaigh who took a traditional stance.
While people talked, there was room for debate and the birth of the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association was in many ways a product of that debate, providing a brief opportunity for dialogue based on new, more open perspectives.
Very few people realised how brief that moment would be. The recent outburst of violent racism on both sides of the Border is a reminder of how quickly civility, tolerance and respect for the law, and each other, can evaporate in societies under stress.
Finn McRedmond: Restoration of Notre Dame shows hard things can be achieved if we’re not afraid to be ambitious
‘I personally only come here for the ladies’: Fog hits racing but not youthful glamour at Leopardstown
Megan Nolan: A conversation with a man in his late 30s made clear the realities of this new era in my dating life
The remains of the day: give your Christmas leftovers a lift
The Belfast Agreement of 1998 attempted to draw a line under the past but it failed because it never addressed the most difficult and fundamental challenge of all: how to craft an amnesty for communities in conflict with some measure of justice for victims and survivors, and a degree of absolution for former combatants.
By default the task fell to the courts, but these are primarily concerned with dispensing justice and retribution. Reconciliation requires acknowledgement and forgiveness, which are very different.
The new Labour government in Britain is trying to reconstitute the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery as a substitute for the deeply flawed Legacy Act.
But there is no easy substitute for a reconciliation process that can devise ways of normalising community relations and which adequately addresses the legacy of conflict for society at large.
Otherwise we leave it to posterity. That has always worked in the past, at least until the past catches up on the living again. – Yours, etc,
PADRAIG YEATES,
Secretary,
Truth Recovery Process,
Portmarnock,
Co Dublin.