aa
EDITORIAL
Sifting Through the Irish Troubles
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Published: November 26, 2013 23 Comments
Attorney General John Larkin of Northern Ireland has stirred passionate controversy with his suggestion that the passage of time makes it counterproductive to continue investigating the sectarian raids and military operations that took more than 3,500 lives during the Troubles, the violent conflict in Northern Ireland that lasted more than a generation.
Today's Editorials
Editorial: Pressure and Passivity on Immigration (November 27, 2013)
Editorial: Another Challenge to the Health Care Law (November 27, 2013)
Editorial: The War on Thanksgiving (November 27, 2013)
Connect With Us on Twitter
For Op-Ed, follow@nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow@andyrNYT.
Readers’ Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
Mr. Larkin, the chief legal adviser to the provincial government, told the BBC that the time had come to consider drawing a limit on prosecutions for acts committed before the Good Friday agreement of 1998, which largely ended years of bloodshed. “Every competent criminal lawyer will tell you the prospects of conviction diminish, perhaps exponentially, with each passing year,” he said, arguing that there’s a logical need to “take stock.”
Mr. Larkin’s point may be valid on the narrow scales of efficiency and expense in the criminal justice system, but it fails miserably on the scales of justice for the many victims and scarred survivors of the Troubles. Public officials have roundly condemned the idea. Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain called the prosecution limit “rather dangerous,” while Northern Irish politicians angrily asked how time’s passage could make murder undeserving of investigation and prosecution. Patrick Corrigan of Amnesty International said it was “an utter betrayal of victims’ fundamental right to access justice.”
The timing of Mr. Larkin’s call for a policy review could not have been worse. A BBC news report has focused on a secret British army unit, the Military Reaction Force, whose members said they had a standing license to kill civilians in the fight against the Irish Republican Army’s guerrilla units.
In Belfast, where resentments and memories of sectarian mayhem still burn strong, officials have approved a march by 10,000 citizens and 40 bands on Nov. 30 to protest restrictions on flying the British flag at city hall. Marches and chauvinist flag waving are some of the issues being negotiated in talks brokered by Richard Haass, the former American diplomat, to find ways deal with the explosive legacy of the Troubles.
Much good in safety and sanity has flowed from the Good Friday agreement. There is no need to draw a curtain on a lethal past that clearly remains deeply relevant for the people of Northern Ireland.
23 Comments
But it was not a joke at all. The Troubles was only the latest round of fighting between the two communities. In 1921 the British state of Northern Ireland came into being. Its leaders proclaimed it a Protestant state for a Protestant people, despite having a large Catholic minority.
The recent round of troubles began in the late 1960s when Catholics began demonstrating against discrimination in employment, housing and gerrymandered districts of Northern Ireland.
England may have been able to prevent the Troubles if it had constrained the Protestant police force and militias from attacking Catholic demonstrations. But they did not.
In 1970 Catholics were forming defense forces the protect their neighborhoods. But due to the heavy-handed tactics the British army used against the Catholic community the defense forces morphed into the IRA.
But the IRA was not the only paramilitary involved in terrorism. Protestant paramilitaries and their death-squads included the Ulster Defence Force and the Ulster Freedom Fighters. These organizations worked hand-in-hand with the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the British Army.
Well I won't take a liking to Larkin.....
Not now, maybe never.
The best example of that is, of course, South Africa. Mandela is a universally loved figure because the commission granted amnesty and he was willing to forgive. That was the right thing to do, and it's also the right thing to try in other places.
You are a perfect example of the mindless secretarian hatemonger that caused the troubles to drag on so long.
Justice ignored, for whatever reason, is unworthy of a civilized society.
Friends and survivors of the thousands of victims deserve their due.
Justice will not return their loved ones but it just might restore their faith in humanitarian ideals.
No truth nor reconciliation. Instead denial and delusion.
"We did not land on Plymouth Rock. It landed on us." Malcolm X
For many who observe their power as compromised, such as your remarks on the Union Jack and Public Marches, the past never ended and the Good Friday Agreement is frankly viewed as a betrayal. The Irish, all sides, do not appreciate betrayal.
The Irish Times has a column on Gerry Adams, now a member of the Dail, the Parliament of the Republic, which illustrates how he, reputedly a leader of the IRA who fought the British to a standstill, is viewed today, and some of the comments give a flavor of how the public view him and the period under discussion.
That Ireland has, despite serious economic issues, managed to begin to mature and has successfully accepted the reality of a two state solution now by the vast majority of voters is progress. The hope that the island will be reunited remains in certain circles though is hardly a serious issue today. That justice is seen to be done remains the quarrel and has opened up old wounds.
Article 1 of the 1968 UN Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations, the European Convention in Article 1 of the 1974 European Convention and in Article 2 of the same Convention, and the International Criminal Court, article 29 of the 1998 ICC all rule that there's no statute of limitations on war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Mr. Larkin may be well intentioned in suggesting that the people of Ulster "move on."
But it should be the citizens of Ulster who make that decision, and in particular the victims of all entities and individuals who terrorized them in "The Troubles."
I hope that Mr. Larkin isn't simply presenting the case of some who may be criminal parties, but outside criminal courts and the court of public opinion which may have serious, cogent reasons to see this matter very differently than Mr. Larkin.
In my admittedly distant opinion, moving on in Ulster makes as much sense as would to quit looking for those who tortured, persecuted and murdered Jews and many others across Europe in 1930s and 1940s or for Americans to have quit looking for murderers of Blacks, and other minorities during our Civil Rights era.
There's good reason for having no statute of limitations on murder. It should be up to victims to decide otherwise.
.
There is always a call for an end to the examination of the facts, an end to the discovery of who committed the atrocities. This is always pitched as necessary to reconciliation, "that it is time to move on." Too often this is just a thin cover for the fact that those who committed the acts remain in circulation and power; their factions must be appeased to keep a facade of civility.
From the legal perspective it may indeed be increasingly difficult to prosecute successfully, but this is no reason to hide the truth. The two issues are separate, and the truth should never be suppressed.