November 4, 2008

Northern Ireland – An Uneasy Peace

As conflicts rage in Iraq and Afghanistan, Darfur and Congo and the United States goes to the polls, “the Troubles” in Northern Ireland naturally slip out of the headlines and many people could easily conclude that violent conflict here has been consigned to the past and that the new political structures are operating smoothly. If only such were the case! Sadly the reality is that it is now November and the inter-party power-sharing Northern Ireland Executive set up under the Belfast (1998) and St Andrew’s Agreements (2006) has not met since June because Sinn Fein and the DUP cannot agree on critical agenda items.

Instability in the power-sharing executive

One of the areas of contention at the time of the St Andrews Agreement (2006) was when and how responsibility for security matters in Northern Ireland  (policing and justice) would be devolved from the United Kingdom’s national parliament in Westminster to the Northern Ireland Executive, as most other aspects of local affairs already have been.

The largest pro-British (Unionist) party, the DUP, wanted to go slow and insure no such transfer of powers took place until the pro-Irish Sinn Fein (Nationalist / Republican) party had credibly demonstrated it could be trusted to have completely moved away from any support for violence for political ends. From the DUP perspective, this included verification that the IRA Army Council and other remaining vestiges of Republican paramilitary structures had been abolished and that consistent language from Sinn Fein showed they were genuinely prepared to work constructively with and respect the instruments of the established rule of law in Northern Ireland.

Sinn Fein, the largest Nationalist party, wanted the transfer of these powers to proceed as quickly as possible as part of the bigger picture of reducing British (wider United Kingdom) control over the affairs of any part of Ireland and as a final proof of their acceptance by Unionists into shared government.

At the time of the St Andrews Agreement it was generally anticipated that the transfer of these powers would occur around May 2008. They have not, because, in spite of some steps taken by Republicans, the DUP still does not trust Sinn Fein sufficiently to risk having those powers pass at some point in the future into a Department in which a Sinn Fein Assembly member might become the minister. There is also Unionist concern about the financing available from the United Kingdom for policing and justice should they be transferred.

An agreement made some time ago between Sinn Fein and the DUP makes it clear that the election or appointment of a minister to deal with policing and justice could only proceed with cross-community backing, requiring a majority of both DUP and Sinn Fein Assembly Members voting in favor of it.  More recently, both parties have also stated that they do not want one of their members to be given this portfolio. Instead they feel it should go to one of the smaller parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly, which are viewed as more centrist than either the DUP or Sinn Fein.

In fairness, it is not only the DUP who feel it is too soon for devolution to proceed on justice and policing. David Ford, Leader of the cross-community Alliance Party, recently argued that there needs to be more stability in the Executive before politicians here could take control of such an important issue.

Because the DUP will not include discussion about the transfer of responsibility for security to the Northern Ireland Assembly on the agenda, Sinn Fein will not attend Executive meetings. This impasse means that rather than the new structures working well, the Executive has not met since June, and many critical issues whose resolution is for the well-being of Northern Ireland are piling up. Other politicians, business leaders, church and civic leaders have all spoken from their perspectives about the dangers inherent in this impasse. At the most practical level, if action is not taken within a proper time frame to spend certain budgeted allocations, then significant funding from the national coffers could be lost. More significantly, the vacuum being created by the present disagreement and instability could breathe new life into sectarianism and violence.

At its October meeting the General Board of The Presbyterian Church issued a call to the Northern Ireland Executive to meet “without delay.” Board members said “the difficulties in devolving justice and policing powers should not delay the meeting of the Executive and therefore calls on it to meet as a sign of willingness for good governance for the people of Northern Ireland.” The Board also wrote that it is “deeply concerned that the present impasse in the Executive is rapidly leading to a general lack of confidence in the political process.”

A report presented by Church and Society Convener Dr. Lesley Carroll said that, “We understand that for Nationalists and Republicans the devolution of these powers is of the utmost importance as the final proof of acceptance into shared government …. we believe that the Unionist parties need to be clear as to what the difficulties in agreeing the devolution of these powers actually are and it is our view that the main concerns are about the budget for policing in the future and how that will be impacted by the cost of dealing with the past. In the light of both the unknown costs and the predicted costs of dealing with the past, everything should be done to minimise the legacy costs and Westminister should not expect to devolve all financial responsibility to the Stormont Assembly.”

She went on to say, “Caution needs to be exercised in order that what has been achieved is not wasted and that as devolution can happen incrementally, what is (already) agreed for devolution should be devolved without delay.”

Dissident Republican activity

Along with the Executive not meeting, another indicator that we are not out of the woods has been the increase in dissident Republican activity in recent months.  “Dissident Republican” is used here to refer to splinter groups from the Provisional IRA, such as the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA, which have not accepted the basis of the 1998 Belfast Agreement and have neither called ceasefires nor decommissioned their weapons. So far, they have not succeeded in causing significant explosions or fatally shooting members of the security forces. However, far too many daily news broadcasts include references to gun attacks on police by dissidents and bombs left by them which have failed to go off or only partially exploded. The fact that their attacks have so far not made headline news is not for lack of trying!

Tensions surrounding a British Army welcome-home parade

This weekend there was a particularly graphic example of how instability in the Executive and the lack of political progress there can spill into the streets.

A homecoming parade for British soldiers returning from tours of duty in Afghanistan and Iraq was planned for Belfast City Centre on Sunday November 2. Those wars are deeply unpopular across most of the United Kingdom, though many citizens in many settings can and do easily separate their support for the troops themselves and sympathy for what they have gone through from their opposition to the government’s policy of engaging in the Iraq war in particular. Nonetheless, in almost any city in the United Kingdom where such a parade took place you could anticipate that there would also be a protest about the war staged nearby.

Move such an event to Belfast and a number of layers get added to that picture.

From a Unionist perspective, these are not simply troops that have served in Iraq or Afghanistan but a symbol of their British identity and the connection with the United Kingdom they continue to hold firmly. They are also symbolic of the British troops, including local regiments, who served in Northern Ireland for 38 years—up until July 2007—and who could never be honored in such a parade, given the risk of violence, during all those years.

From a nationalist, and particularly Republican, perspective, these are British troops parading in the second largest city on the island of Ireland. The fact that they are being allowed to do so appears to them as an insult, given the suffering they experienced during the 38 years of British troops patrolling their districts and the not infrequent offenses they believe such troops perpetrated against innocent civilians in their districts.

So naturally, Sinn Fein and more extreme dissident Republican groups both planned protest marches to coincide with the welcome home parade.

In the weeks leading up to the occasion, rival posters and banners went up in rival districts. Rival politicians made rival claims and accusations. Tension mounted, and what the parade was about in some people’s minds began to change. For many on the Loyalist side, the parade stood for more than welcoming the troops home, it meant standing up for their identity and facing down Sinn Fein. Therefore, many more probably decided to turn out than would have been the case if Sinn Fein had never opposed it. For many on the Republican side, it was about protesting British presence in Ireland and asserting their equal rights in this city.

As part of the complexity of maintaining peace in a conflicted society, all organizers of all parades and organized protests in Northern Ireland have to submit their plans for permission to a Parades Commission. Where there are conflicting rights and issues that might impact wider community relations, the Parades Commission can impose restrictions on the organizers. On this occasion, behind the scenes work led both sets of organizers to modify their plan. The Ministry of Defense scaled down the parade. A flyover by military jets was cancelled. It was agreed that the troops would carry no weapons and the band would not play regimental tunes. Sinn Fein agreed to a rerouting of their protest march and to end it a short distance from the early part of the welcome home parade where police could easily establish a buffer between protestors rather than the more problematic point they had originally proposed.

On the day of the parade, about 30,000 people turned out to cheer on the soldiers and some two thousand turned out as part of the official Sinn Fein protest, including some 50 family members carrying placard with photos of individuals killed by the army in disputed circumstances.

A massive security operation was launched from early on Sunday morning, with police setting up checkpoints on the main routes into and out of the city. The dissident Republican march from the west of the city was prevented from going ahead by police because they had not sought or been given permission to parade. Police kept rival Loyalist and Republican groups apart as the official Sinn Fein protest reached Howard Street.

The soldiers completed their route, then attended a civic reception at the Waterfront Hall before making their way to a church service at St. Anne`s Cathedral.

In one sense, the fact that the day came off peacefully is an affirmation that politics is working here and that positive twist has been put forward by many, not least Shaun Woodward, the British Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. However, the level of tension it raised and the deep divisions it revealed cannot be ignored. The fact that the Executive is not meeting and there is not stability in Stormont undoubtedly contributed to instability on the streets. If it doesn’t get talked out where it should it will be played out elsewhere.

No doubt hard lessons being underscored once again by fresh difficulties in Northern Ireland have application in various settings much further afield.

 Doug and Elaine Baker

The 2008 Mission Yearbook for Prayer & Study, p. 152