The Other View

Handling the Truth

By Lee Reynolds

Fully independent international judicial inquiries are the demand of the season. The truth must be found out. This has been a consistent cry, chiefly of Sinn Fein but with the support of the SDLP and the Irish government. So in the recent letter to the party leaders from the British and Irish governments action had to be taken. An international inquiry into whether there should be inquiries was promised (you just know a civil servant was behind that suggestion). Now of course when it came to the list it was made presentable by including Billy Wright and Garda collusion allegations. However what functions are these inquiries to serve?

Republicanism's rationale is clear and as always fulfils many functions.
Justification - Since the Belfast Agreement did not deliver an instant United Ireland Republicans lack clear justification for their violence. Why did we do it if we haven't got a United Ireland? seems to be Brendan Hughes' angle. Bernadette Sands puts it simply as 'My brother didn¹t die for an All-Ireland Tourist Board'. Therefore, as in Animal Farm the story was added to. Republicans fought for a 'United Ireland and against the injustice of the six counties'. Thus inquiries will expose the injustice and the world will see the republicans were right. Sinn Fein/IRA will be seen to have had their 'victory. When the world sees that the republican analysis of the British state was right the world will support a United Ireland.

Momentum - Sinn Fein is a revolutionary movement. Such an organisation needs to generate a sense of grievance if it is to maintain momentum. Anger and hate are two fine motivators. In the 70's the Provos had the inter-communal violence (You need us to protect you). In the 80's the Provos had the Hunger Strikes (The English won't agree to simple demands). In the 90's the Provos had the peace process (We declared a ceasefire and those evil English and bigoted Protestants won't give us everything we ever wanted right now). In the context of the Belfast Agreement momentum for Sinn Fein translates to momentum for the so-called peace process which translates to momentum for a United Ireland.

Internationalisation - The internationalisation of the conflict broadens long-term options for nationalism. International judges add to previous precedents of involving other countries e.g. George Mitchell, et al.
Delegitimisation - The examination of any misdeeds of the state or their 'agents' delegitimises their right to rule. The 'injustice of British Rule' being attested to by international judges is as good as it gets.
Sympathy and Support - The development of the idea that the Ulster conflict is comparable with others and that the suffering of the nationalist community was as severe as other communities. They hope to generate support from these other communities and international sympathy. The attempt to link the Hamill and Lawrence cases is a good example.

Demoralisation of the enemy - Even though lots of these demanded inquiries are about the state and its actions, it will be the Unionist community of Ulster that will be treated as the real demons. English 'guilt' about its role in Ireland, as always will be transferred onto the Ulster Prods.
'Guiltification' of the enemy - Guilt has proved useful on sections of the middle class and the alleged elite of the Unionist community (businessmen, church leaders, et al). The key to success in a tight vote means you must motivate your voters and demotivate your opposition¹s voters. Guilt-ridden Prods won't be rushing out to vote (Remember the Referendum was largely won by the votes of 100,000 Prods who hadn't come out in years and haven't since). Meanwhile the members of the 'alleged' Unionist elite will endorse and justify ever closer harmonization with the Republic.
Gone soft – Sinn Fein will counter any detractors that they have gone soft on the Brits by demonstrating that they are fighting in other ways.

A central part of this strategy is of course selectiveness. Economy with the truth is essential. If you limit the investigation to restricted incidents then you get only part of the story. When you tell anyone part of a story imagination fills in the rest. If republicans are able to prove one case of collusion then all the rest they claim must be true. The choice of victim is part of this too. Republicans have claimed collusion in lots of killings but they focused in on the most sympathetic victims e.g. Finucane – the working class boy who made good (even married a Prod) and being a lawyer helps attract international attention (Across the world lawyers seem to think their right to life is greater and their lives are entitled to more protection and their deaths deserve deeper investigation than the rest of us).

The strategy also takes advantage of a clear weakness in human rights practice, the exclusion of all groups from accountability for human rights abuses except the state. For example, the PIRA launched a gun and bomb attack at Warrenpoint that denied multiple human beings their right to life. There was no international human rights outcry. The SAS set an ambush at Loughgall and denied multiple human beings the right to life. There was an international human rights outcry. Some will reply 'two wrongs do not make a right', but outcry over solely one 'wrong' certainly doesn't make a right either. (Although complaints about Loughgall etc do undermine the Provo description of the past 30 years as a war. In a war an ambush is a legitimate tactic).

So what have Unionists done? First, not thought or dealt with the matter in a strategic manner so they end up with the usual disarray. Some opposed everything because that¹s what they always do. Some demanded inquiries about other issues, e.g., Bloody Friday. Some counted their Assembly salary and expenses. The key word is demanded. Unionism thinks a campaign is to issue one statement and then forget about it. No serious campaign was mounted or sustained – ask Billy Wright¹s father how much support he has been given? Or ask the UUP what happened to the committee it established to fight for an inquiry into the Republic government¹s role in the creation of the Provisional IRA? The lack of strategic approach meant Unionism didn¹t prioritise the issues. So what should Unionism do?

Unionism needs to take politics seriously. It needs to work out short, medium and long-term strategy and organise to achieve that strategy and ensure it never gets out manoeuvred like this again. This is a general point for Unionism and not restricted to this issue.
It has three options – All, Some or Nothing.
All - This means they advocate the South African idea (if not the model) of the South African Truth Commission. The argument being that every victim has an equal right to the truth, this does have an international appeal. The immediate problem this runs into is immunity or amnesty. This will not attract the average Unionist. Also the South African experience highlighted the futility of it. The censorship of the final report demonstrated that the preservation of the New Order will always over-rule the need for truth about the old.

Partial – This means Unionism copies the nationalist strategy but which cases? The most important is the creation and sustaining of the Provos by the Republic. The court case showed the South has much to be embarrassed about and there is bound to be more. Sustaining is also an important point. The refusal to extradite assisted the IRA campaign. The Garda knew in advance about the earlier Libyan shipments and where they were to be landed, so how did they get through? Therefore Unionism could argue how can a state that helped kill us become our state. It is worth noting that this was not listed in the possible inquiries.

Another possibility is about the operation of informers and how many were allowed to kill. This will be a difficult one for Unionism because of possible criticism of the RUC. However, it could counter the allegations of institutional anti-Catholicism/Nationalism. It would paint the scenario that over the space of a long conflict principles and priorities became blurred. What was for the greater good? Whether to allow someone to kill and gain greater prominence and trust possibly enabling them to prevent multiple deaths or save one life and risk/lose the agent? It would be evidence of injustice but not of injustice to one community. Unionism could develop the case that the state had failed to protect us properly meaning that they owed us (I realise some will say nationalism will try and use this in their favour but every argument has a counter-argument.)

Nothing – This means Unionism calls for closure. What has been done has been done and it cannot be changed. The argument would be that digging up old grievances will help no one. Furthermore, will any of it change people¹s thinking? If a Rosemary Nelson inquiry said that she was a publicly prominent individual who had not sought protection and was simply killed by loyalist paramilitaries will nationalists accept that as the truth. No.

In my humble opinion the partial option seems the most sensible. My attitude to inquiries may seem mercenary. Inquiries are about establishing the truth not point scoring or arguments between Unionism and Nationalism. Not in this case. The only real truths that inquiries will prove is that the conflict is not over and that nationalism is still better at fighting it.

Back to Contents