Lord Turnbull, the judge overseeing the inquiry into the Omagh Bombing, had this to say as proceedings started on Tuesday: “The evidence sessions will accordingly have an important value in informing and educating others to the real effects of terrorist violence.
“In this way, it is my sincere hope that all of those who supported or condoned the use of such acts of violence will learn of the actual indiscriminate and devastating consequences of their such selfish conduct for innocent, hard-working and caring people of all ages and for their communities.”
He is right, of course. Yet the truth of the matter is that his words have already fallen upon deaf ears. Not a year has passed since the signing and later referendum-endorsement of the GFA without terrorist organisations commemorating what they like to describe as their ‘fallen’. They will continue to do so: and some of those commemorations will involve the actual presence or tacit approval of nationalist and unionist politicians.
I have no idea whether the family and friends of those killed and injured on August 15 1998, will get the closure they seek and the truth they need. And I have no idea because I don’t know whether the UK and Irish authorities (by which I mean governments and assorted intelligence services) will make available the entire truth of their knowledge of what was happening in the run-up to the atrocity.
Read more: Omagh bomb victims need to hear the whole truth - The Irish News view
To be honest, I’ve never been persuaded that the ‘entire truth’ is ever offered up at inquiries like this: not least because governments and their ‘agents of the state’ prefer to keep their secrets and tactics away from the light. Who, after all, knows when they may choose to resort to those tactics again?
Anyway, even at the best of times truth is a very slippery customer. We prefer our own versions of it, especially in a supposedly post-conflict place like Northern Ireland which still seems nowhere closer to reconciliation than it was in April 1998. Yet, as Peter Thiel noted in a recent essay for the Financial Times, “for reconciliation to take place, there must first be truth”.
The main thrust of Thiel’s essay — which was about America — was the need for an “apokálypsis (unveiling) of the ancien regime’s secrets”. But, as a letter writer responded, “the problem lies in who will be the interpreter of the truth, and who will safeguard us from the alternate truth?”
Even at the best of times truth is a very slippery customer. We prefer our own versions of it, especially in a supposedly post-conflict place like Northern Ireland which still seems nowhere closer to reconciliation than it was in April 1998
Which brings me back to the point about competing truths and competing narratives in Northern Ireland. Because, irrespective of whatever Lord Turnbull concludes at the end of his inquiry, a sizeable section from each of the two main tribal communities will have already drawn their own conclusions. They will, in other words, have opted for their own truth.
So, do inquiries, in themselves, serve any purpose in the absence of genuine reconciliation? Maybe. If nothing else they do open doors to some levels of information that may have been closed for decades; and in opening those doors allow room for apologies that have been longed for by families. They may also lift the burden of reputation-damaging narratives which have hung over a loved one. Again, that can come as a huge relief.
But none of this necessarily lifts the lids or shines the lights on the paramilitary groups, intelligence services or government involvement and knowledge of the incidents which are the subject of inquiries. Key elements essential to the entire truth being known will remain unknown; and where there are gaps they are soon filled in by those who need their own truths installed.
At the heart of all of this is one question: who was responsible for almost 30 years of conflict? How that question is answered (unionists will say IRA and nationalists will say unionist misrule and British occupation) usually determines the broader response to inquiry conclusions.
Read more: Family that lost three generations in Omagh bomb ‘hope no others suffer’
Unionists will be outraged if it is concluded that the RUC and British intelligence had enough information to prevent the Omagh bomb. They’ll be similarly outraged if the Irish government isn’t reckoned to have played its full part in the process. And, of course, if the inquiry concludes that there was no blame to be levelled at the RUC or British security/intelligence services then much of nationalism will assume some sort of cover-up.
As I say, each side wants its own truths and narratives. They want an outcome which dovetails neatly into their already set-in-stone version of the conflict. They don’t want an outcome which raises tough questions for them. And I suspect both governments want an outcome which can be dusted over with an apology and an “important lessons learned” statement of good will.
I don’t want to sound overly cynical, but we could probably do with an inquiry into how we get the detailed, entire truth about so much that has happened here. That said, I’m not even sure the entire truth would actually make reconciliation any easier.
If you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article and would like to submit a Letter to the Editor to be considered for publication, please click here
Letters to the Editor are invited on any subject. They should be authenticated with a full name, address and a daytime telephone number. Pen names are not allowed.
