After the death of his wife in an Irish Republic Army bombing, Alan McBride was focused on his anger at the people behind the bombing. But a group born out of the Irish "Time of Troubles" helped McBride find another way, one that has had lasting effects in the ongoing Irish effort of reconciliation.
Coordinator of the WAVE Trauma Centre in Belfast, a cross-community victims/survivors organization, McBride will give a talk on “Northern Ireland, an Uneasy Peace” today (Wednesday) at 5 pm in the FHI Garage, Smith Warehouse, Bay 4.
In an email interview with Duke undergraduate student Sarah Kerman, McBride talks about Irish reconciliation. Kerman works for the Duke Human Rights Center at the Franklin Humanities Institute.
Sarah Kerman: Do you think Northern Ireland is a model for other countries dealing with past conflict?
Alan McBride: The symbolism of age-old enemies working together is a good one and as a result the Northern Irish peace process has been highlighted around the world as a good model. However, in my opinion, once you get passed the fact that these former enemies are now running the country, and drill down into what has actually been delivered, the track record of success has not been great.
This is especially the case when dealing with legacy issues, such as ‘parading,’ the ‘flying of flags’ and ‘dealing with the past’. Perhaps it is too early to pass judgment on the Northern Irish peace process and no doubt history will consider the years since the creation of the GFA as a transitional phase, but the focus must always be on the kind of society that we are transitioning to. In my opinion we are some distance away from that which was envisaged in 1998.
Alan McBride heads a trauma center in Belfast, a community efforts that assists survivors of violence across the Irish community.
Kerman: What's your advice to young people interested in working on human rights or dealing with the past?
McBride: Remember that you are working with human beings. In my experience there can be a disconnect between what is agreed in human rights law and how it relates to people on the ground, particularly the most marginalized. Eleanor Roosevelt famously said that for "human rights to have meaning they must have meaning in small places like churches, factories and schoolyards and that if they don’t have meaning there they don’t have meaning anywhere." I couldn’t agree more, and yet the more time I spend in the human rights world I have come to see the statement as part rhetoric.
If you are considering a career in human rights, spend time in communities, get a sense of the challenges that are faced by hard pressed families. Find a way to get passed the gatekeepers and don’t be afraid to take on the bullies, regardless of whether it be the paramilitary or the cold face of the establishment.
Kerman: What have been some of the lessons you've learned about transitional justice sitting on the board of Healing Through Remembering (HTR) and working with Troubles’ victims?
McBride: I suppose the first lesson I ever learned was that it was better to talk to people around a table, than to stand outside the room and hurl insults. When my wife was murdered by the IRA in 1993, for a couple of years I campaigned against paramilitaries, especially the IRA and Sinn Fein. My anger was directed against senior Republicans, including Gerry Adams, who were in the public eye. Gerry Adams had also been a pallbearer at the funeral of the dead IRA man who blew himself up when he murdered my wife. I don’t regret doing that then, it was simply my way of coping with something that was extremely traumatic.
I discovered through HTR that it was better to be involved in the conversation, even though it was hard at the start. HTR brought together a number of individuals, some of whom were victims of the Troubles and others who were ex-prisoners, both Loyalist and Republican. I recall my first meeting, being in the same room as someone from the IRA and being really afraid and a little suspicious – "why are they there?" Over time we learned to work together for a common cause, to come up with a process of dealing with the past. The conversations were tough, but through them there was a shared understanding, essentially of the pain that was inflicted on individuals and families but also of the grievances that gave rise to conflict in the first place. This never justified the violence in my view but it helped to reinforce the notion of what was needed to bring the conflict to an end and deal with the legacy that it has left.