Armed forces

Diane Forsyth (Dublin: Justice for the Forgotten): On Thursday all parties in the Irish Parliament passed a formal motion urging the British Government “to allow access by an independent, international judicial figure to all original documents” which it currently holds, relating to a number of “atrocities” that occurred in the Republic in the 1970s.  While not as significant as, say, last year’s Baha Mousa ruling allowing the application of the Human Rights Act to deaths perpetrated by the British Army overseas, the motion is a very important step in the fight against security force impunity and for military accountability.

The atrocities referred to include the Dublin and Monaghan bombings of the 17th May 1974, which killed 34 people, the Dublin bombings of 1972 and 1973 (the latter of which killed a British citizen) and a number of other fatal attacks perpetrated in the Republic in the early to mid-1970s, a period during which the conflict in Northern Ireland was escalating inexorably. All of the attacks were (privately) inquired into by an independent judicial figure appointed by the Irish Government, Judge Henry Barron, whose final report was published in 2006.  

Barron was tasked with inquiring into the attacks for a number of reasons, not least the fact that not a single person had ever been prosecuted in relation to any of the murders. His investigation came in the aftermath of a Yorkshire Television documentary, broadcast in 1993, which brought to light new evidence pointing to the involvement of British security forces in the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. (In spite of this, it should be noted that the actual impetus behind the Irish Government’s decision to initiate the new inquiry, which only began in 2000, arose from the campaigning work of Justice for the Forgotten, the organisation representing the victims of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings.) 

Judge Barron’s Reports were subsequently examined by an Irish parliamentary Sub-Committee, which then produced a number of its own reports on his findings. The Sub-Committee’s ultimate conclusions in relation to the Barron investigations were stark. They noted that, “we are dealing with acts of international terrorism that were colluded in by the British security forces.” This collusion encompassed active co-operation between loyalist paramilitaries, the UDR (a British Army regiment based in the North of Ireland), the RUC (the contemporary Northern Irish police force) and British Military Intelligence.  

Despite his strong findings however, Judge Barron was not in a position to conclusively prove this collusion. Why? As the Sub-Committee also noted “all of the Barron reports [were] frustrated by the absence of any real co-operation from the British security forces."  

Concerns with regard to protecting information of relevance to “national security” may partly underlie this complete lack of co-operation. Fortunately, this can be, and should be, easily circumvented by the appointment of an independent, international judicial figure, acceptable to both the Irish and British governments, who can assess all of the relevant documentation and advise as to further actions.  

For citizens of the United Kingdom, who understandably might be shocked by Barron’s findings and hopeful that such criminal activity on the part of British security forces is dealt with appropriately, the appointment of such a judicial figure is of utmost importance, for the sake of the integrity of their own forces and to prevent the perpetration of further unlawful deaths in sovereign nations abroad.

Guy Aitchison (London, OK): The handy security update sent out daily by terrorism.oD informs me that the MoD has now confirmed that the fifteen UK sailors taken captive by Iran in March of last year were not seized in Iraqi waters. In March 2007 Des Browne told the Commons that "there is no doubt that HMS Cornwall was operating in Iraqi waters and that the incident itself took place in Iraqi waters . . ." But documents released under Freedom of Information show that they were in waters that had been in dispute since the Iran-Iraq war. The boundary on the map which the MoD claimed was the “Iraq/Iran Territorial Water Boundary” had been unilaterally designated by the coalition without telling the Iranians. At the time our media was only too ready to parrot the official line and call for escalations against Iran. Can we now expect a retraction? I'm tempted to put this one down as another victory for the blogosphere, since readers of Craig Murray's blog will have known all along.

John Jackson (London, Mishcon de Reya & Unlock Democracy): An important part of the context of Mr Justice Collins' ruling today, that sending a soldier into a battle inadequately equipped may be a breach of his or her human rights (thereby implying that the courts might have to say what “adequate equipment” is), is one of the more stark assertions by Lord Justice Moses in the BAE / SFO case. He opens paragraph 126 of the courts judgment (opens pdf) with the words “the principle we have identified is that submission to a threat is lawful only when it is demonstrated to a court that there was no alternative course open to the decision-maker.”

Jon Bright (London, OK): The Telegraph reports today that 5,000 children are being added to the UK's DNA database a month, around 25% of the total number of new additions. A Home Office spokesman explained that, as under 18s made up roughly 25% of arrests, it was unsurprising they made up 25% of new additions.

Mike Small (Fife, Bella Caledonia): I recently engaged Angus Macleod, Scottish Political Editor of the Times about why they still referred to the "Scottish Executive" when no such body existed. Nobody, not the Tories, not even the British Government, refer to the SNP administration as anything other than "the Scottish Government." In a give-away line that anarchists would love he explained: "The reason why the term Government might not be appropriate is that the devolved body does not possess all the powers of a government e.g. declaring war (I'm not being entirely flippant - that is a government's defining responsibility)."

Jon Bright (London, OK): There is an excellent article on the state of the armed forces over on openDemocracy by Paul Rogers - explaining clearly why Britain has one of the largest defence budgets in the world, yet retired generals are still complaining about lack of spending. Required reading.

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): What should we call a small group of retired Army chiefs? A gaggle of generals? Whatever we decide to call them, it has been a principle of British politics that they keep their beaks shut. Now they have gaggled up to issue pompous threats - and ominously unprecedented ones - attacking the Prime Minister personally in a concerted House of Lords debate. This is treason. We want civilian rule and make no mistake about it.

Normal Mouth (Rhondda, blogger): Is the military a wedge issue in Welsh politics? The BBC certainly seemed to think so last week when they splashed details of Plaid Cymru Vice President Jill Evans' proposals for a downsized Welsh defence force under UN control, in the event of Wales becoming independent.

Mike Small (Fife, freelancer): News that "British" troops are to make a lap of honour at Wembley stadium before England play a crucial Euro 2008 qualifying match leaves me incredulous.The service men and women have all recently returned from Iraq and Afghanistan and will parade before the game against Croatia next Wednesday. The event has been organised by the British Forces Foundation, who say it will allow the crowds to publicly thank the Army, Navy and Airforce personnel for their efforts in the Midde East. Apparently, images from the parade will be relayed to troops serving in foreign countries.

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): What is going on when the serving head of the army starts to lecture us about policy and strategy? The first word that springs to mind is "treason". Technically, this is what General Dannatt committed last October when, speaking about Iraq. he told the Daily Mail,

Guy Lodge (London, ippr): The contrast couldn't be starker. In his final session of Prime Minister's Questions Tony Blair, when asked about a constitutional matter - admittedly on the relatively obscure issue of church disestablishment - responded dismissively: "I'm really not bothered about that one". It was indicative of his general attitude towards constitutional reform, which he has long considered to be a distraction from real government business and an issue solely of concern for the 'chattering classes'. Gordon Brown, however, has placed constitutional reform at the heart of his government programme, and this week set in motion a series of reforms which could lead to a radical new settlement, including the possibility of a British Bill of Rights and a written constitution.

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): Trooping the colour which starts this morning and ends with a fly-past salute of jets screaming across Ken’s London, is a reminder that the royal family is a military clan like few others. “There were three of us in this marriage", Diana said, complaining that it was "a bit crowded". Well there has always been another member of the royal family, the army. This is not a boastful military parade, showing off the latest rocket, rejoicing in a victory (the Falklands celebrations is at arms length) or commemorating losses as on 11 November. It’s a birthday parade for the sovereign, with musical marches. I bought the programme for this year’s on my way to the Compass conference when St James was closed for a rehearsal. As it helpfully explains, “With a sharp eye and more personal experience of this parade than any other person present, Her Majesty will immediately notice any detail that is not 100% correct, which is why there are two full dress rehearsals for this event”. The Queen is not famed as a reader, which may be a good thing in this case, or her sharp eyes might have noticed a terrible howler. On page 2, S.J.L. Roberts, Major General Commanding the Household Division, writes that trooping the colour became an annual event “After George IV became King in 1762”. That was when he was born. He only became King (and the ceremony an annual one, it seems, allowing for bad weather, wars and other emergencies) in 1820.