 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Editorial
Alwyn Thomson
Comment:
Politics: serving God and doing good!
Ethel White
From
the Director: Cultivating the common ground
David W Porter
ECONI
Statement: Confidence in God
October 2002
Postbag: Letters to the Editor
Why
vote?
Alison Laird
Communities
of hope
Lord Alderdice
Transformation 2003: Killing for God?
View
from the south
Patrick Mitchel
Church
& state
Esmond
Birnie MLA
Taking
the plunge
John Kyle
Faith
in politics
Interview: Rt Hon Paul Murphy MP
Your
kingdom come
Heather Morrow
ECONI
Statement: Forum for Peace & Reconciliation
January 2003
Bible
study series: Faith in the future
David
W Porter
Through
a glass, darkly
Changing Women, Changing Worlds Conference
Review:
A night in November by Marie Jones
Noel
McCune
Book
Reviews
Alwyn Thomson
For
God and His Glory Alone:
Study 3: Reconciliation
For
God and His Glory Alone:
Study 4: Peace
ECONI STATEMENT:
FORUM FOR PEACE & RECONCILIATION
PRESENTED BY ECONI TO THE FORUM FOR PEACE & RECONCILIATION, DUBLIN,
JANUARY 2003.
On 12th April 1995 a delegation from ECONI had the privilege of speaking to the previous incarnation of this Forum. The change in circumstances between then and now is dramatic. Over the last eight years we have learnt both what is possible and how long and difficult the transition from political violence to peaceful politics actually is.
The hostility and fear, separation and suspicion that marked our conflict, continue to shape our relationships. Yet as Christians we believe that our God, who in Christ initiates reconciliation with the world, is still concerned for the healing of the divisions that scar this island. At the heart of the Christian calling to peacemaking is the challenge of our historic enemy becoming our future friend.
And yet, in certain regards the circumstances surrounding our presence remain frustratingly similar. We are sitting here against the better judgement of many within our community. This continues to be marked by the absence of any formal presence from the political representatives of the many Evangelicals whose politics is unionist.
It is not our task today to act as replacements. Now as it was then in 1995 it is to bring our perspectives on the situation that we find ourselves facing. Particularly we want to comment on the context that politics needs to take into account if we are to further the future hope and stability of all who call this island home.
In this regard the circumstances are depressingly familiar. In 1995 we addressed the themes of Truth and Trust, Peace and Reconciliation. We talked of no room for moral ambiguity concerning the violence of the last 25 years. We spoke of the removal from all sides of illegally held arms as being an action that would speak louder than words and help build confidence and hope. We addressed the need for trust in the midst of insecurity and concluded, ‘the main and satisfactory outcome must be to permanently remove the threat or use of violence from political life. That remains the only context for trust and the building of true peace.’
That we sit here today is testament to the fundamental and unequivocal nature of this issue to political progress. Much has been done and ECONI has been to the fore in publicly welcoming the undertaking made in this regard in the Belfast Agreement and specifically the historic and courageous initiative of republicans in working through the International Commission to progress decommissioning. The changes taking place and the initiatives taken, like those in relation to remembrance and apologies to non-combatants, do not go unnoticed.
And yet, people are left disappointed, betrayed, angry and confused. Increasing sectarian tension and violence threatens us all. The continuance of military activities within the republican movement has severely damaged any trust that they may have built with many Protestants and unionists, including Evangelicals. In Christian thinking apologies require an amended life. Through editorials and a recent ECONI statement, we have addressed these issues and attempted to give a constructive lead.
It may be overused, but there is a sense in which many within the Protestant community consider themselves post agreement. To ask the narrow majority who voted yes if they would still vote yes, is to miss the point. Political agreements take place in a context. The context of 1998 was one of hope and risk taking. Having taken that risk the Agreement is now experienced as an act of bad faith and it is that sense of being duped that informs any current decision or attitude.
It is important that this is not misread. Many see the agreement as a valid attempt to do the deal, addressing the three areas (strands) of relationships. They remain committed to its political principles of inclusion, power sharing, rights, equality, diversity and consent. They value the Assembly and Executive with locally informed and accountable politicians making decisions and the experiment in new approaches to governance through the Civic Forum. They are willing to work with the new bodies that bring about the policy changes all this requires. On these they see firm processes, structures and laws put in place.
They were wary and concerned about the aspirational nature of decommissioning in return for the tangible benefits of prisoner release and a seat in government. Not to mention reforms in policing, criminal justice and progress on demilitarisation. Many made themselves vulnerable – to the sceptical Protestant / unionist neighbour who voted No – and in reaching out the hand of trust, endeavouring to understand the difficulties of the enemy only to now find that they may have acted on the bad faith of others.
Our simple caution is that the rhetoric and language of making the agreement work, implementing the agreement, defenders of the agreement, is not finding a resonance with many in our community. They feel let down as much by government and nationalist politicians who they believed would act if republicans failed to deliver. Change, as the price for removing the threat of violence, is believed not to have worked. Reaching agreement is possible – but new space needs to be found to address the bad taste now left for many people.
Certain things are reasonable and realistic to expect in a modern, western, democratic arrangement. Those involved in exercising power at the table of government should be publicly and unambiguously committed to the values that belong to our future and not our past. There is no room for linkage, overlap in membership with, relationship to, shared leadership of, a military force outside the law and threatening violence in support of shared political aims - a force that has yet to commit to any agreement and who may continue to believe that the state itself is illegitimate.
Likewise for those involved in exercising responsibility for the law enforcement agency of the state, whether on a policing board or a DPP. This equally applies to any future arrangements put in place to devolve the criminal justice system.
This is not a matter for negotiation. It is the moral foundation of our way of governance. To suggest otherwise is intolerable and is demonstrably so to the government of Ireland and to Tony Blair in his October speech. So too, we believe to the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland, Catholic and Protestant.
It is important to state that in ECONI we are well aware that with the obvious changes in detail much of the scenario of bad faith has a resonance within the republican community. We hear the effect of the apparent reluctance of some within the unionist community to embrace a shared future, the divided and fragmented nature of unionist political leadership and the awful consequences of the ongoing activities of loyalist paramilitaries, which all Evangelicals and many within the wider Protestant community find unacceptable and morally deplorable. And I have yet to mention perfidious Albion. But then that might be getting onto common ground!
Bad faith surrounding an Agreement made in 1998 does not mean that agreement to move from here is impossible. It is simply that it will be harder and will require clear, unambiguous, tangible acts to restore a measure of trust to the process of change that faces us all. In this we are concerned that this is not seen simply in terms of dealing with the legacy and threat of violence. There is a political dimension to rebuilding trust. Suspensions to avoid holding transgressors to account, manipulated elections of first and deputy first ministers by bending the rules – all leave an air of manipulation, spin and of being patronised. People are feeling mucked about and lied to.
We believe that the scheduled elections should not be postponed. It is our view that no future election would be taken seriously if this is deferred for less than openly good reasons or in the gravest of circumstances - to do so would be self-defeating and would undermine the electoral process. The people must be given an opportunity to express their views and governments learn to work with the outcome.
This serves to reinforce a recurring concern we have and that is that the political process, and for many that means the peace process itself, far from inspiring, including and motivating the people is in fact alienating ordinary people. This is bad for politics and the peace process. True peacebuilding needs all of us to take responsibility for our hurts and enmities, to work on the change within.
Deal making is not peacebuilding. Talks in Downing Street, Weston Park, Hillsborough and now Stormont - those who refuse to show up or walk out; those who retain the ability to threaten force; those who protect their interests by making deals on the side – all do not present a healthy model for the myriad of little processes that need to go on in local communities like Glenbryn/Ardoyne, Short Strand/Cluan Place, and Drumcree.
We all - church, government, political parties and civic leaders - have responsibility to provide leadership in the difficult task of creating community.
 |
||
 |
 |
|