Transitional Justice Forum

N. Ireland: “Recognition payments” and the recommendation to establish a truth commission

Posted by Helena Cobban at 04:02 | TrackBack
Note: This is a submission from new TJF contributor Evelyne Schmid, to whom I give much thanks. ~HC

Northern Ireland’s Consultative Group on the Past has released its report on how post-conflict Northern Ireland should best deal with the legacy of its three decades of the Troubles.

For more than three decades, the six counties that comprise Northern Ireland have experienced violent conflict over the country's political status. Between 1966 and 1999, more than 3500 people were killed. A fragile political process started in 1997, followed by the Good Friday Agreement of April 1998. The Provisional Irish Republican Association (IRA) ended its armed campaign in July 2005. The independent Consultative Group on the Past was established in June 2007. Its mandate was to consult across the community on how Northern Ireland society can best approach the legacy of the events of the past 40 years; and to make recommendations, as appropriate, on any steps that might be taken to support Northern Ireland society in building a shared future.

On Wednesday January 28, the independent consultative group launched its 190-page report and recommended the creation of an independent Legacy Commission “to deal with the legacy of the past by combining processes of reconciliation, justice and information recovery. It would have the overarching objective of promoting peace and stability in Northern Ireland.” The consultative group seems to favor a dialogue which would help to reduce sectarianism. The proposed Legacy Commission would play the role of a truth commission and its mandate would be limited to five years. The group also recommends that the Legacy Commission includes separate Investigation and Information Recovery Units and an international commissioner as its chair.

The disputed £12,000

It was not the proposals on the Legacy Commission which filled the commentaries and news reports of the next days. What provoked amid controversy, vivid demonstrations and outraged statements was the fact that the consultative group implicitly treats as equals perpetrators and victims. The controversial suggestion of the consultative group was the following: The nearest relative of someone who died as a result of the conflict in and about Northern Ireland, from January 1966, should receive a one-off payment of £12,000 (approx. U$17,000).

Relatives of all those “who died as a result of the conflict” include both the parents of a child killed in a suicide car bomb as well as the relatives of the person who blew himself up with his own bomb. A photograph on the launch of the report shows a man with a banner saying "The wages of murder is £12,000". Tony Parsons, a columnist writes: “This ludicrously random sum – why not £15,000? Why not £10,000? Why not nothing? – would be distributed to the good, the bad and the psychotic alike.” Peter Robinson, Northern Ireland's First Minister and leader of the Democratic Unionist Party, called the idea of the recognition payment "offensive" and Kenny Donaldson, the Director of South East Fermanagh Foundation: argued that " the history of the Troubles is re-written and the heinous actions of the perpetrators are air-brushed away.”

Lord Eames, one of the authors of the report, defended the approach by saying that "there is no difference in a mother's tears ... there is no hierarchy of victims." "We are still fighting about who was right or righter, who had moral justification, and who had God on their side. And we are still terrified that if we acknowledge the grief and the moral position of others that it will dilute our own," he added.

Many victims however expressed that they wanted justice for what happened, and not to be bought off. Others felt it was an important recognition that all families have suffered from the conflict. It is understood that the goal of the consultative group’s proposal is to end the “hierarchy of victims” on the understanding that the pain to those bereaved is equal. Yet, the plan to treat relatives equally, regardless of their role in the Troubles, is problematic for two reasons:

First, victims of human rights violations do not only have a right to reparations under international law, but also a right to know the truth about the fate of their loved ones and a right to a remedy for the individual violation that they have suffered. Determining a sum of money even before a truth-seeking process has started may well divert attention away from dealing with the past. Once the money is paid, will the factions accept responsibility for abuses? Will leaders come forward to testify on their own deeds? Experiences from other countries show that victims feel bribed if monetary compensation is paid before the truth is revealed.

Second, States’ obligations under international law to provide reparations for harm suffered are not fulfilled by paying a lump sum to all relatives of those who died in relation to the conflict. It seems doubtful to speak of reparations in the first place. The consultative group calls the £12,000 “ex-gratia recognition payments” while international law speaks of legal obligations to provide reparations to victims. Moreover, short of death, there are many ways of having suffered human rights violations which give rise to a right to a remedy. The proposal of the consultative group does not seem to suggest reparations for other victims.

The independent Consultative Group on the Past should be supported in its strike for an acknowledgement of victims’ suffering and a shared understanding of the past. Its recommendation to establish a Legacy Commission should be welcomed. One may ask if the sequencing to first determine an amount of money and then establish a truth commission was well-chosen. However, whatever the fate of the controversial proposal on the “recognition payments”, this controversy should not divert attention away from the manifold other suggestions made by the consultative group. Importantly, the establishment of the Legacy Commission should not be delayed.