Their activities may well have prolonged the Troubles
Posted in General on 12. Oct, 2010
Their activities may well have prolonged the Troubles.
While the past few weeks have witnessed the bravery and professionalism of our armed forces, the revelations in the Stevens report represent a terrible stain on their reputation. The British authorities are in the humiliating position of having to admit that the claims made by Sinn Fein and others about collusion, dismissed at the time as wild and politically motivated, were in fact well grounded.Prosecutions should follow, of course, not least in the case of the Catholic solicitor Pat Finucane, who was murdered in 1989. The difficulty in this and other cases is the long period of time that has elapsed, time enough for key figures such as Brian Nelson to have died. Early suggestions that the report might lead to 20 prosecutions have been superseded by the latest strong steer that as few as six cases may go to court. The protracted nature of the search for justice in this affair (it dates back to the Stalker enquiry of 1986) does certainly give the impression of an official tendency towards delay.When the prosecutions are completed, however, there is a strong case for a full public enquiry into collusion in Northern Ireland, and indeed that now looks inevitable. There should be one caveat to that development, however – a plea that such an inquiry should neither take as long nor cost as much as the extremely lengthy inquiry into Bloody Sunday.Northern Ireland has not had a Truth and Reconciliation Commission in the manner of post-Apartheid South Africa, and that might not have been an appropriate way forward for the province; but all of these separate and long overdue inquires, painful as they are for all concerned, should help Northern Ireland to face its future, as well as its past, with greater hope, and perhaps even a degree of confidence.. The perfunctory declaration on Iraq issued by the European Union at the end of its summit in Athens may have papered over some of the cracks inside Europe, but it has left the fissure between Europe and the United States as glaringly wide as ever.
It was no wonder the Prime Minister, suspended awkwardly between the two, left without attending the “family photo” and before the declaration was issued. The US insists that it will oversee this process.The Europeans pointedly reminded “the coalition” – the US and Britain – that it had a responsibility to provide security to facilitate aid distribution, but also “for the protection of the cultural heritage and museums”. US officials have said that they are doing their best, but that the safety of US personnel naturally took precedence over the protection of buildings and cultural objects. There is clearly a long way to go before the place of the UN in Iraq’s post-war arrangements is finally defined.Yet defined it must be, in a way that makes the post-war arrangements legitimate in the eyes of Iraqis and of the world.
In practical terms, this is crucial not only for Iraq’s political future, but for its economic well-being. Oil sales, for instance, cannot recommence until ownership of Iraq’s chief natural resource is recognised. But it is crucial also to end the unresolved arguments about the war.Left over from the military hostilities is a fierce division that dictates how the incipient peace is judged. Those who opposed the war tend to look on the dark side and see only an adverse balance. Those who supported it look on the bright side, maintaining that all will be for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
Regrettably, this divergence of views is growing only wider, complicating the necessary moves towards peace.Opponents of the war see the lawlessness as evidence that the US, and to a lesser extent Britain, are out of their depth, and that Iraqis are not ready for democracy. They see the Kurdish advances in the north, the refusal of Shia leaders to take part in US-chaired talks, as well as violence between Iraqi Arabs, Turkomans and Kurds, as harbingers of long-term civil strife, perhaps the eventual fragmentation of Iraq.Proponents of the war argue that the overthrow of a tyrannical regime is a matter for rejoicing and the cheering crowds are vindication of the military action. Looting and disorder, they say, and even ethnic conflict are just a temporary reaction to sudden freedom from repression. Things will sort themselves out; once rid of their pent-up frustrations, Iraqis will seize their chance for democracy and govern themselves responsibly and well.It is possible, though, and surely wiser, to reserve judgement These are early, and dangerous, days The removal of Saddam Hussein is a positive development. The chaos and suffering, and the extent to which the Americans and British have been unable to quell it, are to be deplored This war should never have happened. Now that it has, those who fought it and those who opposed it have a duty to give post-Saddam Iraq the best possible start. In the Commons this week, Mr Blair put it felicitously when he said: “We have a heavy responsibility to make the peace worth the war.” We can only agree..