As someone for whom talking and listening is central to his vocation, and whose door is ever open, it is but natural that I should wish to argue the case for talking to anyone, including one's enemies, be they perceived or real.
Having said that, I am deeply conscious of how different and difficult this may be for others. In particular, I am aware of those, from whatever direction they may come, who have suffered grievously throughout these dark and bloody years of conflict. Those of us who have not experienced very personal loss or injury need to tread softly in these debates. In return, we would ask victims and survivors to forgive us if, unintentionally, we should ever appear to be insensitive to their feelings and to trust us when we argue for what is sincerely meant to be a way to end all such suffering.
Inevitably, there will be a division of opinion among victims and survivors. We must make no judgement as to the rightness or otherwise of their differing positions, but even as I write I note in the Irish News the comments of Constable Carroll's widow Kate who calls upon the dissidents to give up their arms and enter into dialogue. She is quoted as saying, 'I would speak to anyone … I think that if they would sit down and talk to politicians … if they would sit down and talk to each other more would be achieved.' In my experience, Kate Carroll is not alone amongst those who have suffered most.
I am also very aware of very obvious difficulties for governments and for those who are responsible for the safety of every citizen. Wrong-doing of any kind cannot be ignored and the rule of law must prevail.
However, all of this is to say that, while I do understand the compelling arguments against talking with those who are currently described as 'dissidents', I want to argue the case for talking with whoever has it within their power to deliver us from all that terrorises and threatens to de-stabilise the hard-won peace which the vast majority of us, across the island of Ireland, have so overwhelmingly supported.
To begin with, we need to be very clear that talking with one's enemy is in no way to be interpreted by them or any one else as condoning their activity or their actions. Nor is it to be seen as capitulation or the surrender of one's own position. Nor should an offer to talk be seen as a sign of weakness or naivety – or both. On the contrary, a willingness to talk is evidence of one's confidence in one's own position. None of us will easily expose ourselves to situations where we feel vulnerable or uncertain of our own position.
The case for talking
As we know from our experiences within the family, our place of work and the institutions or organisations to which we belong, when faced with conflict we are left with a clear choice of action. We either choose a passive response which hopes that the problem will resolve itself or simply go away; or we face it, painful as that may be. Obviously, there are limits to the comparison which can be made between a domestic or industrial quarrel and a concerted campaign of communal violence. But in a world of broken relationships there are clear parallels and common principles to be followed if we are serious about finding solutions that will last. I list but four that come to mind …
- Ultimately, as we learn from global history, there have been no lasting solutions that did not include talking. Inevitably, 'solutions' which are forced upon people by way of enactment or military intervention are short-lived. It is said that 90 % of the conflicts in our world of today can be attributed to unresolved conflicts of the past. Our war in Afghanistan is but one example.
- If, as is often asserted, 'violence is the voice of those who believe themselves to be unheard', they need to be offered opportunities to articulate in a coherent way what it is they wish to be heard. For purposeful dialogue , as distinct from posturing, each side needs to be assured that there is a genuine will to understand the motivation of the other, however senseless and indefensible that may at first appear.
- For the possibility of meaningful engagement, there should be no pre-conditions. For example, to argue that we can only talk with those who have given up their violence is to make the end a means, rather than starting with people where they are. The reality is that, in the waiting for that which others are not yet ready to do, we may put at even greater risk the lives of those we wish to protect.
- To invite or initiate dialogue there must be a belief in the possibility of change. Otherwise, what is the point? In every organisation, it is highly likely that there are those who would wish to lead their movement in a new direction. To deny them the opportunity of open engagement with those of another point of view, would be to deny them the possibility of more informed debate within their own organisation – and the potential for radical change. So long as people are left to talk only among themselves, there will be no challenge to think outside of the confines of their own narrow box.
For me, to talk or not to talk with any organisation which seeks to impose its will upon our community with a campaign of terror, the question is not whether but how. Inevitably, this is the greatest challenge, particularly for those responsible for the governing of a democratic society. Understandably, they are anxious lest they appear to give credibility to those who are seen to be the enemies of the state, as well as its citizens.
How to get talking
When it comes to the how, it is difficult to generalise. Every situation is different,
depending upon context and timing. Amongst the options to be considered are the well-tried use of intermediaries, direct or indirect, as well as 'back channels', appointed or self-selected. For Government there will be a time to speak and a time to be silent; a time to be visible and a time to be discreet; a time to initiate and a time to facilitate; a time to be forthright and a time to stand back, a time to counsel and a time to listen.
As is now well accepted, we are where we are as a result of a number of such initiatives. Some of these were 'back-stage', others 'off-stage' and, eventually, those which were very clearly 'front of house'. All of them had their place and played their part in bringing us to where we now are. Whatever was felt at the time, would we now seriously wish to discredit the value of any of these approaches to talking?
Of course there are risks. But it can well be argued there is greater risk in doing nothing. Is there not a greater risk of putting ourselves and each other at the 'mercy' of those who believe that they need to intensify their campaign of violence in order to be taken more seriously?
To those who might yet be tempted to think that 'talk is cheap', it needs to be said that talking can be very costly, not only in terms of time, energy and patience, but more particularly in the risk of failure. By the very nature of "talks" there can be no guarantees of the outcome. There is always the risk of humiliation, as experienced by Neville Chamberlain in the late 1930s. But for him, there was at least the satisfaction (if that is the right word) of knowing that he had tried. Had he not done so, he would have had to live with a nagging 'if only…'
Upon re-reading the account of the meeting between enlightened senior churchmen – sadly no women at that time – and the most senior leaders of the IRA at Smiths Hotel in Feakle in December 1974, one cannot but wonder how our history might have been different had that meeting not been aborted by the unexpected arrival of the Garda Siochana, acting upon information provided by their Intelligence Branch.
Sadly, until there is evidence that any approach to the leadership of today's dissidents is likely to be reciprocated, all of this will remain 'academic' and the subject of ongoing speculation. In the Irish News article to which I have already referred, I was encouraged to read the representative of Óglaigh na hÉireann quoted as saying he would NOT rule out the possibility of talks . . . until I read on to where he spells out what others will judge to be wholly unacceptable if not unrealistic pre-conditions. To the dissidents I repeat what I have already said about the futility of pre-conditions, on either side of a possible talks table.
History teaches us that people cannot be brought to that table with a stick But history also reminds us that for talks to succeed, there has to be a 'carrot'. This was what progressed the peace process in South Africa, and this was what brought people into talks in Northern Ireland. The reality of our present situation, whether we be nationalist or Unionist, Republican, Loyalist or dissident, is that we have nothing to
offer one another other than the opportunity to unite in the building of a happy,
just and healthy society, at peace with itself and free from violence: a society which not only recognises and respects the legitimacy of diverse aspirations, but also guarantees its citizens the right to determine their ultimate destiny through a truly democratic process.
Surely that in itself is worth talking about!
