Belfast Telegraph Article Re: Truth, 14th July 2004

Truth Telling Tale

In April of this year as Paul Murphy outlined the British Government’s response to Judge Peter Cory’s reports he also set out his Government’s position on dealing with the past stating; ‘I firmly believe that the only way we can put the past behind us in Northern Ireland is by seeking to establish the truth. But that must be the truth about actions of all those who have been involved’ He further went on to say ‘I am under no illusions that confronting the past is a difficult and painful process. The Government and its agencies are ready to play their part.’

Mr. Murphy’s indication in May that consultation on a truth recovery process was under way was welcomed. However, from our perspective this needs to be a wholly independent exercise given the role that the state and its agencies played in the conflict. Anything other would be yet another affront to people affected through collusion and shoot-to-kill. Affront reminiscent of the discredited ‘Bloomfield Report’ and the subsequent appointment of Adam Ingram, the then British Minister for its armed forces, as a ‘Champion for Victims’. Several years on it is hoped that maturity and the political will on the part of the British government to resolve this vexed issue exists. It is hoped that it would be approached more openly, honestly, impartially and with a sense of reality that as an actor to the conflict it would be inconceivable for them to also control the consultation process and framework or to appoint an internal quango in the form of a victims commissioner. The consultation, and all inter-related aspects, needs to be impartial and demonstrably so in order to gain the confidence and trust of all.

We would hope that in the spirit of genuinely seeking an inclusive way forward that Paul Murphy would now announce that an independent impartial process of consultation is to commence. However, soundings thus far have indicated that this is neither his nor his government’s intentions. He has continually alluded to a process of “storytelling”. On the eve of a visit to South Africa he said that he had no predetermined agenda and that he had an open mind to all possibilities. However, in South Africa his mind quickly became closed as he actively canvassed the media on the issue of “storytelling”. In a news feature carried in the Guardian on June 9th by its Pretoria correspondent it was reported that the ‘British Government enlisted South African support for a forum on ‘storytelling’. It was further reported that the ‘British government had begun talks with families, church leaders and community groups on how to structure the commission’. This was in the context of the cost of inquiries and as a possible alternative given ‘police concerns’.

Since the announcement of the consultation in May we know of no family, nor group either within the sector or within the wider community that has had any engagement from Paul Murphy or anyone in the NIO. This has caused great concern and given way to deep suspicion from interested parties and stakeholders from across the entire community as to the actual intentions of the British government on this matter.

On May 27th and in relation to dealing with the past and of a process of consultation Paul Murphy further stated; ‘I want to proceed in a way which respects the feelings of all concerned and which takes nothing for granted.’

It would appear that once again the British government is acting contrary to its public announcements and is on the brink of further excluding those who should be at the heart of any consultation process. These stakeholders must play meaningful participation shaping and having ownership of any future mechanism/s that might evolve otherwise it will fail. However, smoke and mirrors are the norm when dealing with the NIO and no one need be surprised they have their own political agenda. Its motive is escape of culpability prompted by John Stevens, Judge Cory, Judge Barron, and a growing number of families across the community and island who point to the British state’s role during the conflict. Paul Murphy rather than embracing his statements is hiding from the conviction of his words last April and May. It equally appears that the agenda is also one of avoidance of the real issues, and moving speedily towards “storytelling” - and that alone. This would be a grave error of judgment and rather than taking the difficult yet necessary steps towards real and meaningful independent consultation they have instead opted for control, continuing to use their sovereignty as a shield. It seems that for now a process of optics and PR mask an inability to deal impartially with this matter preferring an easy option that poses no risks – especially not to them. “Storytelling” fits the bill. It is somewhat ironic that as we are approaching a decade of peace building that the British government’s position on disclosure, truth and justice still reflects the policy on the issue when it was also engaged in the conflict.

An announcement of intention to commence independently agreed consultation would be seen as an act of generosity in what has otherwise been a very difficult and problematic area – yet we remain confident that if the will exists then these seemingly insurmountable problems can be overcome. A process similar to the Patten Commission established under the terms of the Agreement sets the likely precedent for proper consultation aimed at seeking views and ideas on what is required and how to possibly take forward initiatives. Similarly acts of generosity need to be forthcoming from all actors to the conflict that they too would respond positively to any future agreed mechanism/s aimed at dealing with the past. Ideally statements from all actors that the need for a truth recovery process involving them is required would be a welcome start.

Mark Thompson is the Director of Relatives for Justice a regional support organization working with people affected by the conflict. He has also been part of a wider initiative entitled Eolas that produced an extensive consultation document on dealing with the past including possible truth recovery models.