Sir, – In his column (Opinion, March 8th), David Adams cautions against the warnings on Northern Ireland issued by those he describes as the “prophets of doom”. He also cautions against melodramatic headlines. Who could disagree? His comments are sparked by the coverage given to the Northern Ireland Peace Monitoring Report which was published last week. It is an unfortunate irony then that the most melodramatic and inaccurate comments on the Peace Monitoring Report have come from Mr Adams himself.
His column begins with a criticism of the heading given in your Editorial (“Northern warning”) but since that appears to be an in-house dispute I will not comment on it. What I want to establish is that, far from doom-mongering, the report points to the very real achievements of the peace process: the stability of the political institutions, the fact that last year violence was at its lowest since 1969, and positive developments at grassroots level like the Sharing Education Programme and the de-militarisation of murals on Northern Ireland’s housing estates. The examples given in the report are too numerous to be included in this correspondence.
As might be expected though, not all developments have been positive and the report also points out areas that give cause for concern, like the failure to find a way to deal with the legacy of the past, or the continuing divisions in education and housing. In each case the evidence is sifted in order to arrive at a dispassionate understanding of trends and developments, and the emphasis at all times is upon evidence rather than rhetoric.
The media coverage last week was by and large fair and balanced, though journalists did struggle to find a news angle in the fact that there is division in Northern Ireland between Protestants and Catholics.
But then, the Peace Monitoring Report is not about snappy headlines – or melodramatic ones for that matter. It is an attempt to calibrate changes, year on year, and to provide an objective assessment of whether Northern Ireland is moving out of conflict, or whether the patterns of division are reinforcing themselves. My task is to collate and present the evidence across a range of domains.
It appears to annoy Mr Adams that the Community Relations Council in publishing the report also issues a disclaimer to the effect that the views expressed are not necessarily those of the council. In fact the report is also supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, and both these bodies also issue the same sort of disclaimer. To Mr Adams it may appear a piece of sophistry, but I think most readers will be able to grasp the nuance that allows philanthropic bodies to support or publish reports that they hope will contribute to debate on important issues, without necessarily endorsing the opinions expressed.
The best idea is for people to read the report for themselves. Unless they are looking for doom-mongering, in which case I suggest they look elsewhere. – Yours, etc,