Using Truth As A Weapon
25/01/07 22:45 Filed in: Politics
The report
concerning RUC collusion with loyalist terrorists by
the Police Ombudsman of Northern Ireland, published
this week, has brought the expected reactions from
both sides of the sectarian divide. Nationalists are
happy, and say that it vindicates everything they
have been saying for years. Unionists are furious,
casting doubt on the veracity and independence of the
inquiry, and claiming that it vilifies the brave RUC
officers who were at the frontline of the fight
against terrorism down the years.
Almost daily in Northern Ireland, someone or other makes a call for a public inquiry into some murder or other atrocity of the Troubles. Whichever side makes the call, almost without fail, the other side starts the whataboutery and the atrocity trading. It makes you think what would be the point of any inquiry if the findings (and presumably the truth) were just going to be used to bash the other side over the head.
Take the Bloody Sunday Inquiry for example. I welcomed its setting up, as I believed that a new, credible investigation into the events of that day would go some way to bringing closure to one of Ireland's most tragic days of recent times. It was clear that the flawed Widgery Report was a running sore, and something had to be done to really get to the truth.
But what will happen when the report is finally published?
Let's say that Lord Saville finds that the soldiers acted within the law and their actions were justified. Nationalists will stamp their feet and call the independence of the inquiry into question. They will say that it is another example of how Irish people are hard done by when dealing with British justice. Unionists will say that the British Army has been vindicated and complain about the cost of the tribunal.
Alternatively, what would happen if Saville judges that the soldiers acted unlawfully, used lethal force inappropriately and planted evidence on the victims? Nationalists will say that justice has been done and an historic wrong has been righted. Unionists will complain about the political bias of the tribunal, and again complain about the cost when it was obvious from the start that the tribunal was only ever going to come to one conclusion as a sop to nationalists.
If Saville and his team try to plough a furrow down the middle, and say that the soldiers were sorta to blame, but the victims were also partly the authors of their own misfortune, their findings will be condemned as a fudge by both sides.
What will not happen is the "losing" side saying "OK, that's cleared that one up. Let's move on."
So that leaves the question: In a hopelessly divided society like Northern Ireland, where zero-sum-game politics reign supreme, is the truth worth pursuing at all?
Almost daily in Northern Ireland, someone or other makes a call for a public inquiry into some murder or other atrocity of the Troubles. Whichever side makes the call, almost without fail, the other side starts the whataboutery and the atrocity trading. It makes you think what would be the point of any inquiry if the findings (and presumably the truth) were just going to be used to bash the other side over the head.
Take the Bloody Sunday Inquiry for example. I welcomed its setting up, as I believed that a new, credible investigation into the events of that day would go some way to bringing closure to one of Ireland's most tragic days of recent times. It was clear that the flawed Widgery Report was a running sore, and something had to be done to really get to the truth.
But what will happen when the report is finally published?
Let's say that Lord Saville finds that the soldiers acted within the law and their actions were justified. Nationalists will stamp their feet and call the independence of the inquiry into question. They will say that it is another example of how Irish people are hard done by when dealing with British justice. Unionists will say that the British Army has been vindicated and complain about the cost of the tribunal.
Alternatively, what would happen if Saville judges that the soldiers acted unlawfully, used lethal force inappropriately and planted evidence on the victims? Nationalists will say that justice has been done and an historic wrong has been righted. Unionists will complain about the political bias of the tribunal, and again complain about the cost when it was obvious from the start that the tribunal was only ever going to come to one conclusion as a sop to nationalists.
If Saville and his team try to plough a furrow down the middle, and say that the soldiers were sorta to blame, but the victims were also partly the authors of their own misfortune, their findings will be condemned as a fudge by both sides.
What will not happen is the "losing" side saying "OK, that's cleared that one up. Let's move on."
So that leaves the question: In a hopelessly divided society like Northern Ireland, where zero-sum-game politics reign supreme, is the truth worth pursuing at all?