|
The
escalation of interface violence, which has now spread
to East Belfast and South Belfast, is a continuing
source of concern for all of us who are engaged in
the process of conflict transformation. Clearly our
first and primary concern is for the those unfortunate
people from both traditional communities who have
suffered injury, trauma and loss of property as a
result of interface violence. It is unacceptable that
eight years into a so-called peace process and four
years into devolved government people are still suffering
as a result of violence within and across interface
communities.
It
seems to me that there are forces out there that are
just too strong for peace building practitioners to
tackle. There are times when I wonder if there is
any point to the work that I am involved in. Yet I
know that turning back from the conflict transformation
process is not really an option. The old cliché
that "all it takes for evil to triumph is for
good men to do nothing" remains true. So there
can be no turning back, but I am still haunted by
the nagging question, "Am I really achieving
anything of lasting significance in terms of peace-building
and social justice"?.
It
has been said by a number of political activists that
the Belfast Agreement is panning out as a middle class
agreement which has nothing to offer the working and
workless classes in both traditional communities.
That is only partially true. If the unionist and nationalist
middle classes can unite to carve up the social and
economic benefits of devolved government for their
own people, surely those of us from both traditions
who feel marginalised and excluded from those benefits
ought to be coming together in a bond of working class
solidarity. But we don't. We put tribal prejudices
above our common social and economic interests and
continue to beat the crap out of each other. That
is our fault, not the fault of the middle classes
who are manipulating the implementation of the Agreement
for their own ends.
No
one was more committed to the Belfast Agreement than
I was. I encouraged my party leaders to endorse the
Agreement and I campaigned vigorously to have it endorsed
by the people in the run up to the referendum. Four
years later, any hopes that I may have entertained
about the Agreement bringing peace or about devolved
government brining social and economic justice have
been brutally shattered.
The
implementation of the Agreement is rooted in a political
process that is far removed from the grass roots conflict
transformation process. Indeed many of us who are
involved in the latter process now believe that it
is being seriously damaged by the political process.
Alienation within marginalised communities is being
cynically manipulated and exploited by those who play
the "Orange" and "Green" cards
as a means of maintaining the divisions that are necessary
for a continuation of tribal voting patterns and party
political domination. Party domination requires maximising
votes, which in turn requires developing and expanding
the electoral base, which in turn requires either
expanding or holding on to territory. Is it any wonder
then that territory lies at the heart of most interface
violence?
Whatever
potential the Belfast Agreement might have had to
facilitate political accommodation and conflict transformation
has been undermined by an implementation process that
is becoming more and more corrupt as the weeks go
by. It is a process that is rooted in manipulation,
half-truths and outright lies. Meanwhile at grass
roots level inter-community relations have gone into
a downward spiral with more and more ordinary people
drawing back into their respective tribal camps.
The
political establishment and civic society will hold
up their hands in horror at what is happening on the
streets of North, South and East Belfast. They will,
of course, absolve themselves from any blame or complicity.
“It is all the fault of the paramilitarities
on both sides who are orchestrating the violence”.
Isn’t it great to have a compound full of scapegoats!
There will be no acknowledgement that they have failed
to make the Agreement work for all the people. There
will be no acknowledgement that the three main pro-Agreement
parties have played devious games with each other
during the implementation process, all to the detriment
of the Agreement and the peace-building process. There
will be no acknowledgement that that they have sought
to marginalise and exclude the smaller pro-Agreement
parties, again to the detriment of the Agreement and
the peace process.
There
will be no acknowledgement that the constitutional
struggle (that lay at the heart of the armed conflict)
has been replaced by a struggle for political dominance
at both Assembly and local government level, and that
this foments as much hatred, prejudice and hurt as
the armed conflict did. There will be no recognition
of the fact that this struggle for political dominance
requires territorial gains and creates interface tension
and conflict. There will be no acknowledgement that
community relations and conflict transformation initiatives
have been deliberately starved of adequate resources.
If
this article sounds depressing, it is because the
situation on the ground is depressing and while I
have a great many gripes about the political process
and its adverse impact on community relations and
working-class solidarity, I have no solutions. And
the question still haunts me, “Am I really achieving
anything of lasting significance”? I suppose
deep down the answer is “Yes, there is a lot
of good lasting work going on within and across areas
of conflict”, and, as I have already said, turning
back is not an option. But I fear that we are in for
a long hot summer.
Index: Current Articles + Latest News and Views + Book Reviews +
Letters + Archives
|
