UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO Debating Death: Discourse and Legitimacy in the Northern Irish victims’ rights movement A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Anthropology by Francis Candler Hallman Committee in charge: Professor John Haviland, Chair Professor Edwin Hutchins Professor Nancy Postero Professor Gershon Shafir Professor Kathryn Woolard 2014 Copyright Francis Candler Hallman, 2014 All rights reserved. The Dissertation of Francis Candler Hallman is approved, and it is acceptable in quality and form for publication on microfilm and electronically: ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Chair University of California, San Diego 2014 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Signature Page……………………………………………………………............ iii Table of Contents………………………………………………….…………….. iv Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………… v Vita………………………………………………………………………….…… vi Abstract of the Dissertation……………………………………………………….. vii Introduction: The Long War and the Long Peace ................................................ 1 Chapter 1: Chronotopes in victims’ rights discourse .............................................. 21 Chapter 2: Ressentiment and commemoration in the unionist victims’ rights Movement ........................................................................................... 56 Chapter 3: Republican commemoration and the exoneration of the dead ............ 86 Chapter 4: Lex talonis and the discourse of reconciliation ................................... 106 Chapter 5: Coding the discourse of reconciliation at Armagh .............................. 124 Chapter 6: The failure of de-contextualization at Ballymena ............................... 150 Chapter 7: Transnational advocacy and commensuration in the Palestinian and republican victims’ rights movements ................................................................................ 173 Chapter 8: Commensuration between unionist and Israeli advocates .................. 202 Conclusion: Chronotopes, personhood, and the future of justice ......................... 234 Endnotes ................................................................................................................ 248 References Cited ................................................................................................... 256 iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I greatly appreciate my doctoral committee, John Haviland, Nancy Postero, Kathryn Woolard, Gershon Shafir, and Edwin Hutchins for their support over the course of my coursework and research. I am particularly indebted to the chair, John Haviland, for reading several drafts of the dissertation and offering insightful criticisms. Nancy Postero and Gershon Shafir were invaluable in helping me to navigate the discursive terrain of transnational human rights. Kathryn Woolard has guided me since my graduate studies began, and has always been a source of insight and mentorship. I would also like to thank Dominic Bryan, Director of the Institute for Irish Studies, Queen’s University Belfast, for his guidance in the field. I also greatly appreciate my informal conversations with Bradd Shore, Emory University, who always offered useful advice on the research and the writing process. This fieldwork was funded by the National Science Foundation, the Institute for International and Area Studies at UCSD, the UC Berkeley Human Rights Center, and the UCSD Department of Anthropology. My fellowship period with the UC Berkeley Human Rights Center proved vital for my development as a human rights scholar. My parents have been an unyielding source of love and support throughout this process. To Heather, thank you for your love and caring, especially in the stressful times of research and writing. And thank you for our beautiful daughter Josephine; Anthropology has given me the two greatest gifts. To my friends in Belfast and Tandragee: you not only made my research possible but also enjoyable. Finally, I would like to thank my research informants. I hope that you find peace of your own. v VITA 2003 Bachelor of Arts, The George Washington University, Washington DC 2005 Master of Arts, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA 2004-2007 Teaching Assistant, Department of Anthropology, University of California, San Diego 2007-2009 Visiting Research Associate, Institute for Irish Studies, Queen’s University Belfast 2010 Graduate Student Fellow, UC Berkeley Center for Human Rights 2012-2014 Instructor, Department of Anthropology, Pacific Lutheran University 2014 Doctor of Philosophy, University of California, San Diego vi ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION Debating Death: Discourse and Legitimacy in the Northern Irish victims’ rights movement by Francis Candler Hallman Doctor of Philosophy in Anthropology University of California, San Diego, 2014 Professor John Haviland, Chair In the wake of nearly forty years of armed conflict, the Northern Irish Assembly announced the Victims’ and Survivors’ Order of 2006. This order categorized all victims, civilian and paramilitary members, as beneficiaries of compensatory schemes and social services developed to assist victims of political violence. The order sparked a vii debate about the Northern Irish Troubles and the morality of terrorism and counter- terrorism efforts. The debate also attracted significant international attention as victims’ advocates from foreign countries, particularly Israel-Palestine, traveled to Ireland to discuss the politics of victimhood. This dissertation argues that Irish and foreign activists use spatiotemporal emplotment devices—or “chronotopes” (Bakhtin 1981)—to produce competing visions of victimhood in the province. Peace workers, aiming to create social services for victims of political violence, use chronotopes to problematize and suggest solutions for what has been termed the “Long Peace”, a period of sustained debate about transitional justice. This work contributes to the recent analysis of chronotopes in talk-in- interaction, as well as anthropological studies on the circulation of human rights and War on Terrorism discourses. viii Introduction: The Long War and the Long Peace In January 2009, The Consultative Group for the Past released its findings to the Northern Irish public. The Group was a consultant body set up by the Secretary of State to converse with the private citizens and civil bodies on what policies should be implemented to help, to use a common metaphor in Northern Irish political discourse, "heal the wounds" incurred by a civil conflict that raged in Northern Ireland from 1969 until 1998. I stood with members of a unionist victims’ rights organization, which I will refer to as CARE, who were protesting outside of the location of the release, the Europa Hotel in central Belfast. CARE consists of former security personnel (British Army and Royal Ulster Constabulary) and the family members of killed security personnel. Enraged by a provision of the report that suggested an ex gratia payment to all individuals wounded or bereaved during the conflict, they held posters reading, “No to Blood Money.” The ex gratia payment amounted to a moral equivocation between their loved ones, who served in the security forces of the United Kingdom, and republican paramilitary members, who fought to unify the Irish island under a socialist republic. As the time for the meeting grew closer, the CARE protesters disappeared into the building, presumably to attend the meeting and ask questions of the Consultative Group. The report presentation occurred in the ballroom of the hotel with the Group members sitting on a stage in front of the audience, which included representatives of various victims' groups, politicians, and members of the media. Just before the Consultative Group entered, the CARE activists took over the stage, shouting loudly at the audience. They then entered the audience and berated prominent Irish republicans in front of the media, including the President of the leading Irish republican party, Gerry Adams. 1 2 The Dealing with the Past Report was only the latest event that angered unionist victims’ advocates in the years since the Belfast Agreement of 1998, the first in a series of treaty agreements that would build a relatively stable government and peaceful political climate in the province. Unionist victims’ rights groups—or what one activist described as “pro-state” victims’ rights groups—felt betrayed by government actions they deemed to be preferential to Irish republicans. The Agreement recognized the right of Sinn Fein to participate in government. As the political wing of the Provisional Irish Republican Army, CARE activists believed that this allowed “terrorists” to rule their victims. Worse, from their point of view, the Agreement sought to equalize victims of political violence, a dead Provisional IRA member was as much a “victim” as a Protestant civilian. They also objected to the reconciliatory institutions created by the Belfast and other agreements, such as the establishment of a cross-community Victims’ Commission and amnesty granted to paramilitaries. During my research stay, I also worked with republican victims’ rights organizations, who advocated for their relatives killed