The late Maurice Hayes, once a senator, accurately depicted the crisis in Northern Ireland, stating that violence achieved nothing that couldn’t have been accomplished by peaceful means. As a result, the proposed idea of compensating not only the victims of The Troubles but also the families of the perpetrators draws from a storyline appealing to extremist groups. The Commission for Victims and Survivors forwarded this proposal, estimated around £130 million sterling, to Stormont, including potential compensation for those linked to the terrorists.
However, this type of initiative could perpetuate the notion that The Troubles, which resulted in more than 3,500 direct fatalities, a comparable number of indirect deaths from issues such as substance abuse or suicide, thousands of injuries, substantial financial loss and around 20,000 individuals imprisoned, were unavoidable.
Equal treatment for those responsible for the bombings and their victims neglects the fact that the animosity which steered their actions often originated from generations of hostility. The often overlooked divide within the families of protesters is that between those who pleaded for their kin’s survival and those who insisted they die for their ideologies.
Several reasons exist to rebuff this program. What about the relatives of suicide victims affected by the impact of The Troubles, such as the Niedermayers? It also raises the issue of how we can determine who is eligible for these payments, in some instances, half a century after the loss.
Remarkably, numerous republican paramilitaries I’ve engaged with over the years have claimed victim status. In contrast, a loyalist leader offered a frank evaluation: They weren’t the victims; they created them. Sadly, it appears that sections of loyalism are beginning to lean towards the republican perspective, diverging from unequivocal apologies, which could create potential opportunities for reconciliation.
Throughout our society, victims have displayed a boundless and underappreciated grace, guiding us away from our bleak history. We should not misuse this generosity by allowing the guilty to disguise themselves as victims.
As we see violent extremists starting to step back from their militaristic behaviour, we are under no obligation to either express our gratitude or accept their justification for their violent past. When it comes to reconciliation, many people from different walks of life have resisted the pull of these extremists, effectively countering their destructive actions by being continuously questioning and confrontational.
As we craft our shared future, this constant challenge must persist but ought to be guided by practical realism, best summed up by the words of a unionist councillor speaking about a Sinn Féin colleague. His words were, “I’ll collaborate with the man, Trevor, but don’t expect me to become his confidant. Not so long ago, he implicated me in a murder plot.”
Furthermore, I remember a television programme that showcased the emotionally devastating journey of a Camp Commandant’s grandson to Auschwitz. It was heart-wrenching to watch as he grappled with his Grandfather’s horrific actions, even more so when he faced questioning from a group of young Jews also visiting the site. An old survivor, after observing the exchange, walked over, embraced the young man, and reassured him, “It wasn’t you. You weren’t there. It’s not your fault.”
Reconciliation of this nature would not have been feasible if the man had defended his Grandfather’s atrocities. Consequently, while reconciliation is achievable, it first demands a solid and appropriate foundation.