Q&A with Gary McMichael
Gary McMichael was a teenager in Lisburn, Northern Ireland, taking night courses to prepare for a career in computer science when his father was killed by a car bomb planted by Irish republicans just days before Christmas in 1987. His life was changed forever. Instead of computers, Gary chose his father’s field, politics. Today, at 30, he is head of the Ulster Democratic Party, a loyalist party that’s been deeply involved in the ongoing peace process. He also writes a column for the Irish Voice, in which helps Americans understand the Protestant point of view on Northern Ireland.

Mr. McMichael spoke to O’Connell Street by phone from New York, where he was promoting his book, An Ulster Voice, on Oct. 28, 1999 --Frank Lewis.

Q: Like most Americans, I think, I’m a little confused about the ethnic identity of Protestants in Northern Ireland. Can you talk about that? I mean, do you consider yourself Irish, or British, both, neither?
A: There’s different views on that. We don’t see a contradiction between being British and Irish. The island of Ireland, we live on part of that which is Northern Ireland, which is also part of the United Kingdom. So I can see, like, Britishness and Irishness.… What was seen about the Irish identity — you know, the play-up of the heritage and history and the Irish language and sense of culture, in many ways has been seen by my community to be to try and give an impression that there is no British identity in Ireland, and that’s not true. We have a community which has a strong Protestant identity, which has an identity with Britain, in terms of historical linkages, it’s military history, with all different aspects on life that have taken place within Northern Ireland. And I think that Unionists have failed in the United States, in particular … have allowed the impression of how there are these two totally homogenous groups, these two deeply different tribes, almost, within Northern Ireland, when the Irish identity and British identity, in our view, is very much interlinked. Because people in Northern Ireland, while they consider themselves British or consider themselves Irish, they actually went through exactly the same kind of evolution together, in the same territory. And the people within Northern Ireland are very much different, whether they’re Protestant or Catholic, from people in Dublin, or people in Scotland, or people in London. And where I stand is that you don’t ask a person who lives in Scotland if there is a contradiction between being Scottish and British, and it’s the same within Northern Ireland, because we have a different system, a different kind of life experience than other parts of the United Kingdom, but we’re still part of that. And also, I don’t think it’s either about trying to prove one’s identity, or to compare it with others’; they used this approach to the conflict to resist people’s identity, to tell us that we’re different than what we are. And that’s been the challenge of the peace process, to try to get people to acknowledge that whether you consider yourself Irish or whether you consider British, that’s OK. That doesn’t mean that you’ve more right or less right to have a place in society.

What distinguishes a loyalist from a unionist?
Loyalism is something that I suppose at one level defines unionism for working-class people. The areas that have been greatly involved in conflict on both sides of the community have been working-class areas, and working-class people. And that’s the areas where the paramilitaries exist, that’s the areas where the highest levels of unemployment exist … where the failure of people to feel they’ve got a stake in society has perhaps made some extreme options more attractive than if perhaps they had a stronger stake in society. And in Protestant working-class areas, people are unionists, but they also define themselves as loyalists, simply by definition of being the constituency that’s closest to the conflict, so they bring a working-class dimension to it. Also, when people describe loyalism, it’s something that’s in a way, because of this, is associated with the more extreme element of unionism, which we don’t think is accurate. Loyalism also has been the most moderate of the unionist political spectrum, in terms of opinion and the ability to deal with the peace process and stuff like that.

What sort of misconceptions do Americans typically have about the conflict in Northern Ireland, in your experience?
I think that Americans are better informed now than they have been in the past, and that’s for two reasons. One, because there is an increasing ability to get both sides of the story, because of the development of the Internet, and more accurate news coverage. It’s easier to get close to the facts, and that’s important. But still, there’s a very simplistic view among most people. … First of all, there’s a difficulty in some people’s minds of grasping that there’s an island that’s divided, in terms of [having] two different countries. There’s this perception also that the other half is where the British have invaded this small island beside them, and that they’re holding down, they’re oppressing the people there and they’re not listening to the views of the people who want to be free -- [it’s] a very traditional Irish republican kind of rhetoric. When I talk to some people, they find it kind of difficult to grasp that what we have is a territory which is recognized as part of the United Kingdom, and has been recognized for generations, where we have two communities with different identities but actually live together in that country. And where they all seem to have the same accent, whether they’re British or Irish; I find, talking to people sometimes, they expect me to have some kind of plummy English accent, because I am British and part of the invading forces. That is, I suppose, one of the most difficult misconceptions to deal with, trying to get people over that mentality, that the conflict is one of like invading forces, competing military forces, when it’s not; it’s about two communities who actually live in the same area but who have different senses of identity, and who are competing with each other, and that’s led to violence. People aren’t rushing over the border with guns -- well, in some cases I suppose they are because of the IRA -- but essentially the conflict is confined to those within the borders of Northern Ireland. It’s not where people in the Irish Republic are trying to overthrow Northern Ireland, it’s not where people in England are involved in conflict in Northern Ireland, it’s the Northern Ireland people themselves.

And also there’s misperceptions about who is who in Northern Ireland. I’ve met people who believe that Gerry Adams is the president of Ireland, and it’s quite difficult to explain that to them as well. We’re dealing with a very complex problem, a very complex issue, which has been translated in really simplistic terms. In the United States, among Irish Americans, who should be more informed because of their interest, at the grassroots there has been an acceptance of what has been nationalist/republican propaganda, and a failure to try and understand both sides of the issue. And that’s what we’ve been competing with.

The nationalist community seems to have welcomed American involvement in the peace process. Has the same been true among loyalists?
Yes and no. It depends what part of the unionist spectrum you come from, I suppose. Initially, and traditionally, the view among unionists has been very sort of ‘This is our problem, we don’t want people outside trying to sort this out for us. Besides, anyhow, America is full of people who think that we all live on the set of The Quiet Man, that there’s leprechauns at the bottom of the garden, everyone lives in white cottages with thatched roofs.’ You know, this kind of image of Ireland that you see on postcards. ‘And they’re all nationalists, they’re all anti-unionists.’ So when we first came to America, in 1994, after the ceasefires, a lot of people in our own community were saying, ‘What the hell you doing, going over there? Sure those people are only IRA supporters, they’ve been sending guns to the IRA and those guns have been used against us. They’re just fund-raisers for the IRA, and there’s no point in trying to talk to those people.’ And that was more or less the widespread view. A couple things changed that. One was our experiences of being here, and convincing people within unionism that they have to talk to other people, and explain themselves. Otherwise, they’re going to be misunderstood. And also, whether they like it or not, the U.S. government has an influence on British policy, which has an influence on Northern Ireland in turn. And therefore, if [Americans are] going to make policy decisions, they might as well be informed policy decisions, and the only way to [influence] that is by making sure they are forced to take into account the views on unionism whenever they’re making up their minds on some of these complex issues, and not just listening to the Irish-American lobby.

And the most important element of [changing unionists’ minds about Americans] was George Mitchell. When Senator Mitchell was put in place as the chairman of the talks, and we had the two visits from President Clinton, people were able to put into focus the American interest, the genuine interest, in trying to find an honorable peace. And I think that now, within unionism the American connection, as I suppose you could call it, is something that people take for granted and they feel very comfortable with, whereas five years ago, it was a completely different story.

What sort of response have you received from Americans to your column in the Irish Voice and your book?
A lot of people who have commented say that they enjoy reading the column. I think the reasons for that are it’s different -- I would say very different -- viewpoint than they would normally hear, or read. I think that that’s important. Actually most people don’t agree with it, because most people who read the Irish Voice are largely Irish heritage nationalists because it’s a very small interest paper; and therefore they don’t agree with me. But they’re prepared to listen to what I’m saying, and they’re prepared to read that. I’d be very disappointed if people bought the paper and always flipped past me. But at least it’s there, and that’s important.

The response to the book has been good too. A lot of people who have read the book have responded that it’s given them a better insight into where unionism comes from. But also I tried in the book to explain the context of how I got into politics and what was going on at the time, and I think helps [readers] reduce the concept of unionism to a human level, as opposed to just a political level, which is important. The people who will read that who are nationalists, they’ll be able to relate their own experiences to their identity and where they stand politically, but they can’t relate the experiences of unionists to the unionist philosophy, and I’m able to do that. I’m able to explain to them … we’ve all had to go through a lot of pressure and changes and challenges, so you have to understand where my community comes from. It can’t be disregarded. And vice versa -- I defend the idea that us unionists have to do that as well. If we want to resolve the problem, if we want to learn to share Northern Ireland and live together and work together, to understand the people on the other side of the community. I don’t have to explain to unionists about unionism, and nationalists don’t have to explain to nationalists about nationalism; we have to explain to each other, so we understand each other better.

Have your views about nationalists and republicans changed at all as a result of having been involved in the peace process?
Yes, undoubtedly. We have spent -- generally, in Northern Ireland -- we have spent a long, long time being self-obsessed, and fearful of interaction with each other and between the communities. A lot of that still exists, but it’s only by removing the perceptions, and challenging the perceptions that you have of each other, that you learn to communicate at a human level. And that’s what the peace process was really about; it was about trying to get away from this notion that ‘Unionists and unionists, nationalists are nationalists, we live separately, we fight with each other because we’re just completely different people and we can’t get along and there’s nothing you can do about that so there’s no point in trying. They don’t understand us, all they want to do is wipe us out’ -- that view is held in both communities.

My view has changed dramatically over the years, because of what’s happened to me, because of, I suppose, a conscious decision to try and effect change. But a lot of people don’t see that kind of change in ourselves. I mean, who would have predicted that you’d be able to convince loyalist paramilitaries and republican paramilitaries that they should set aside the normality of conflict -- which is what it had become, by 1994. People were so embedded in the thing they really just couldn’t see beyond it, that was their way of life. To convince them that they should look for other options, and then actually convince them that we could reach a political accommodation, and then do that in the Good Friday Agreement -- it’s something that was just like unimaginable five years ago … nobody could fathom that we could break the cycle, and break down the mindsets. And we’re still dealing with that, it’s not resolved yet, but my God, everyone has had to change in order to get to this point.

Have you ever regretted becoming politically involved?
Well, yes, of course. There have been times when my life has been at threat, and you wonder whether it’s worth it, because of the effect it has on you and your family. There’s times when the pressures that come along with the job, in that you can’t really lead a normal life, you can’t just go out and socialize because people are hostile toward you, or, the other end of the spectrum, which is as bad, where people won’t leave you alone, they torture you in bars, you know, trying to explain their view of the world -- there’s that kind of pressure as well. And I suppose more than anything else there’s some times where there’s just so much frustration, where you just don’t think you’re getting anywhere.

But my advice about politics in Northern Ireland is that if you want to be a politician, you shouldn’t be allowed to be one, because you’re actually not there for the right reasons. I feel that the most genuine people that I’ve found in politics, and the people that I’ve been able to work with, are those who feel that there’s no choice, that they’re compelled to do it. And there’s a lot of times when I’ve considered throwing in the towel, but I just can’t do it, because I just don’t think I could live a normal life. I don’t think that I could go back to a point where I’m sitting shouting at the TV whenever people come on and say things that I want to scream at. You’ve got to be actually involved in that directly yourself. That’s our dilemma. But I think this is the way I’m going to stay.

I’m assuming that you are younger that all or most of the other party leaders with whom you’ve been dealing …
Yeah, usually by about 30 years!

Has your age been either an advantage or a hindrance to trying to achieve your party’s goals?
It’s been a challenge. I became leader of the party when I was 25. Now I’m 30. Most of the people of similar level in my party are in their 40s, or 50s -- most of them are in their 40s, actually, which is still young, in political terms in Northern Ireland. And we’re dealing with leaders who have been involved in this from before I was born. So you kind of earn the respect of people internally, within your own party, so you can lead them, and also try to work with people who really see you as an upstart, and perhaps think that, you know, I’m naïve. But I think that over time I have been able to get people just to see me in the role that I perform, as opposed to, you know, this age factor. It’s not something I really think about anymore, it doesn’t bother me. I just work with people, and treat them as how they treat me. I hope that I have proved that … I’m mature beyond my years.

But then there’s nothing like throwing people in the deep end to make them strong swimmers. I suppose that’s part of it as well. I’ve had to work a lot harder to try and remove that doubt that people have in their minds because of my age.

Do you see yourself staying in politics in the long term?
I suppose yes. I’m not planning an alternative career, mostly because I’ve been at this my whole life so far, no one would employ me! My best chance is in politics!

In one sense, you think that if the job is done, then it’s time to go. But the job’s never done in this game, so I suppose it’s a bit of a false argument. Also, I would hope I would have the sense to go whenever it was time to go, because one of the problems you have in politics in Northern Ireland is leaderships don’t change that often. I think that there has to be change in leaderships within political parties, because otherwise, inevitably, they become stagnant.

So there’s no real ego trip from my perspective, and I haven’t planned out the future in that kind of way. … I expect in that in the coming couple of years I will continue to fight elections, and hopefully win seats [in the Northern Ireland executive].

Are you confident about the ability of the parties to overcome the decommissioning impasse right now and to get the executive up and running?
If you’d ask me that question six months ago, I would have said no. In fact, if you’d asked me that six weeks ago, I probably would have said no. Today, I think that it can be done. And it’s not because there’s anything different on the table now than there was six months ago, because the kind of options that you have in this equation are very limited. It’s, How do you create a government, an executive within the Northern Ireland assembly, that represents all the parties that are entitled to be there -- which effectively means whether Sinn Fein are there or not; [an executive] which includes Sinn Fein, but in a way where people are comfortable with that. And unionists have argued that the way they’ll feel comfortable is by proving Sinn Fein’s commitment, that they’re only going to be involved in a democratic process, and they’ve chosen the means of doing that as being the disarmament of the IRA. Now that’s a hugely complex issue, and between the extremes of the argument there really are only a few options you have to kind of balance that out. And we’ve known that for a long time. The things that are being talked about in the review now are the same things that were talked about in the last talks process and at the end of June, beginning of July, but we couldn’t do it then because the good faith wasn’t there in order to tie a deal down. We have tended to want everything to be spelled out in triplicate to bind the other person to their commitments. And in the art of negotiation, sometimes you have to accept that you can’t do that. There has to be a reliance on good faith being honored, in order to make certain things happen, particularly if it’s a process.

The issue now is how we create an executive, and by creating the executive, change the political circumstances for republicans, so that they can argue and deliver disarmament, or a disarmament process, at least. And in turn, by then doing that, we can then convince loyalist paramilitaries to conform to that also. And that means everybody’s going to have to know what is expected of them, but you can’t tie it down too explicitly, because … as you pass each hurdle, you will see that that piece of the equation is up and running, and that will give the strength to deal with the next bit. It relies on good faith between the negotiators, and the difference now from where it was before, a couple months ago, is that there is good faith being developed between Gerry Adams and David Trimble and ourselves, and we think that that ingredient is the fundamental key towards unlocking this problem.

So we’re going back to Belfast tonight. George Mitchell is there, waiting for us to return, and we’ll go straight back into negotiations as soon as we get off the plane. And we expect to be making headway towards getting this resolved completely over the next week or so. We believe that it can be done. That doesn’t mean it will be done. It can be done, all the ingredients are there, and if we can just get enough trust between both sides, then we should be able to sell it to our respective communities.

So that’s a very long-winded way of saying things are looking better than they were before, so we’ll keep our fingers crossed.

Visit the UDP’s web site.

Go to Home Page