It’s not an original thought to observe that many people in Northern Ireland are still obsessed – haunted even – by the traumatic experiences of the ‘Troubles’. 27 years after the coming of relative peace with the passing of the Good Friday Agreement and the last terrible atrocity in Omagh, the northern newspapers are full of stories about so-called ‘legacy issues.’

Take one day last week, 13th May. The nationalist Irish News reported that Ulster Human Rights Watch (an organisation which advocates for victims of terrorism, mainly republican terrorism) said the British government’s legacy body, the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR), had agreed to re-investigate the Kingsmill massacre in January 1976, in which 10 Protestant workmen were murdered by an IRA gang in South Armagh using a cover name. Nobody was ever convicted for these killings and a recent Police Ombudsman report identified a series of failings in the original RUC investigation into them.

The Irish News also reported that the family of Sean Brown, the GAA official from Bellaghy, Co Derry, murdered by loyalists in May 1997, met the Tánaiste, Simon Harris, to urge him to support their demand for a public inquiry into his killing. They were accompanied by the GAA president, Jarlath Burns. GAA members have been asked by the family to take part in a ‘Walk for Truth’ in support of their demand.

The unionist News Letter reported that an online petition to protect British soldiers who had served in Northern Ireland from prosecution, started by a former soldier, had garnered nearly 30,000 signatures in three days. If it reaches 100,000, it will trigger a debate in the British parliament.

Campaigning for victims and survivors of Northern Ireland’s violence is too often a tribal business: nationalists advocating for nationalist victims, unionists for unionist victims, British for British victims. The main exception to this rule is the WAVE trauma centre, with groups all over Northern Ireland which, in its own words, provides “care and support to anyone bereaved, injured or traumatised through the civil unrest in Northern Ireland, irrespective of religious, cultural or political belief.”

WAVE does important work in a divided society that too often looks backwards to past trauma rather than forward to future hope. Its mission statement continues: “WAVE promotes a respect for life and an understanding of difference that is seen as enhancing rather than threatening. WAVE affirms and acknowledges that there are ways of resolving differences other than through the use of violence and continually seeks creative ways of working through issues that have the potential to divide.”

Wouldn’t be a wonderful if the tribal lines were crossed for a change: if South Armagh man Jarlath Burns – by all accounts a thoroughly decent man – were to accompany Ulster Human Rights Watch in making representations on behalf of the 10 Protestants murdered at Kingsmills? Or if the local Presbyterian minister in Bellaghy were to accompany the Brown family in meeting politicians to demand a public inquiry into his murder? Or if the highly effective organisations set up to commemorate Bloody Sunday in Derry in January 1972 were also to take up the forgotten cause of the nine people – five Catholics and four Protestants – who were killed by an IRA bomb in the County Derry village of Claudy in July 1972?

That’s what we call reconciliation, and I recognise that it’s a very hard ask for families who have suffered terribly at the hands of Irish paramilitary groups or British security forces. I am a member of a small group called the Truth Recovery Process, headed by the historian and journalist (and former paramilitary) Padraig Yeates and the former head of the Glasnevin Trust, John Green. It proposes a system that would enable former combatants – mainly paramilitaries and soldiers – to provide information to victims and their families about the facts of how their loved ones died without fear of prosecution. Victims’ families would still have recourse to the courts if they so wished, although we believe that since many of the worst killings were in the early and mid-1970s, the chances of getting justice and ‘closure’ through the courts are increasingly unlikely as both perpetrators and family members get old and die.

We want to see cases dealt with through a mediation process overseen by senior British and Irish judges, with a Justice Facilitation Unit to mediate between victims and former combatants and provide mechanisms that would allow them to engage directly with each other.

The aim of this process is to enable both sides, victims and former combatants, to reconcile on the facts of ‘Troubles’ killings, since we believe that without such agreement, any further forms of reconciliation are very unlikely in the North. We agree with the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission that without the truth about such killings becoming known – initially to the family and (if they allow it) to the wider public – it will be very difficult to move towards reconciliation in wider society. As one loyalist acquaintance of mine put it recently: “It’s keeping our communities more divided and has the potential to make things even worse over the coming years.” The rash of controversial legacy issues that have consumed Northern Ireland in recent months and years only confirm us in this belief.

We believe that our Truth Recovery Process would provide for a speedier and fuller examination of each event than is possible through the courts, facilitate a wider process of reconciliation in divided communities and create a greater understanding and acknowledgement of the past. It is a future-oriented proposal to take the place – where feasible – of interminable past-oriented legal processes.

We are planning a second conference (the first, two years ago, looked at parallel truth and reconcilation processes in South Africa, Chile and Colombia) on 18th October at Queen’s University Belfast. This will look at the controversial issue of giving former combatants ‘conditional amnesty’ if they come forward and engage with victims’ families in good faith. We believe that there is only a narrow gap between this and the so-called ‘protected disclosure’ procedure allowed for in the legislation that set up the much-criticised Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR).

And we agree with Professor Brice Dickson, former Northern Ireland Human Rights Chief Commissioner, and now a member of the ICRIR (another honourable man), when he wrote recently: “Victims and their families are primarily in need of information – from non-state as well as state sources – rather than endless legal investigations which at the end of the day are most unlikely in and of themselves to lead to liability or accountability.”¹

Further information available from http://www.truthrecoveryprocess.ie

¹ truthrecoveryprocess.ie/newsupdates/is-the-icrir-more-compliant-with-human-rights-law-than-opponents-claim