The Barron report is excellent as far as it goes. But due to the loss (?) of documents and the lack of co-operation from important agencies, it was unable, in my view, to go far enough. So I support the demand of the relatives for a further investigation, writes Justin Keating.
The weaknesses of the report are these (not of Mr Justice Barron's making). He could not compel the provision of documents or the attendance and testimony of witnesses, and he worked in private. Friends have said: "This year it will all be 30 years ago. Insofar as time can, it has assuaged the pain of the bereaved, and many witnesses are dead. Why don't you let it lie?" If it were just a matter of family, friends and loved ones, I think I would, but it involves much more which is important today.
We live in the midst of a "war against terrorism". I completely support the idea of banishing all world terrorism. My difficulty is the word is used with an extraordinary lack of precision and, what is worse, with two different standards applied to what "We" do and what "They" do.
Let me attempt a definition of all terrorism, regardless of the perpetrator. Terrorism is the use of physical force to cause death, injury, starvation or flight to a targeted population in pursuit of political objectives.
So who is a terrorist? Stalin certainly was and so was Hitler. In both cases the terrorism was carried out by the state, so that is one type. But what about the people driven by a malign ideology, those who perpetrated September 11th? We can come closer. What about IRA/Sinn Féin? (I choose not to separate them). In my view they are terrorists, as are the loyalist paramilitaries. But were there instances of co-operation between the private terrorism of the latter and the state terrorism of the security forces? Look what Barron has to say (p.269). "A finding that members of the security forces in Northern Ireland could have been involved in the bombings is neither fanciful nor absurd, given the number of instances in which similar illegal activity has been proven."
Let us look at state terrorism further afield. When the US fabricated the Tonkin Gulf incident as an excuse to invade Vietnam it carried out state terrorism on a vast scale. Smaller, but more recent was the effort to kill Libya's Col Gadafy in his bed. This was carried out by US bombers refuelled by the British. US and British state terrorism is widespread and has been going on for a long time. If Americans and Britons want to persuade one billion-odd Muslims of the justice of their cause, Messrs Bush and Blair might start at home.
The last paragraph does not mean I uphold in any way Muslim fundamentalist or IRA terrorism. For the record I think IRA/Sinn Féin are lying stupid murderers. My point is that I refuse to choose between one group of terrorists and another. I oppose them all.
So what has this to do with the Barron report? Just this. In the collusion between the Northern Ireland state and the loyalist paramilitaries, IRA/Sinn Féin found a powerful recruiting argument, that the only thing understood is force. Margaret Thatcher in her intransigence was the greatest recruiting officer nationalist terrorists ever had. The seeming indifference of the Irish State to the pursuit of loyalist/state terrorism within the Republic was again a validation for the IRA, North and South.
I do not believe that the Dublin/Monaghan bombings were either the policy of, or sanctioned by, the British government, but their secret services are outside democratic surveillance and out of control. In the course of the war against terrorism this becomes a more widespread and dangerous phenomenon.
And this brings me right home. Dr Cruise O'Brien has written that he was told by a member of the Special Branch that Dr Tiede Herrema [the chief executive of the Dutch-owned Ferenka factory in Co Limerick, who was kidnapped in 1975 by Eddie Gallagher and Marion Coyle\] was found because a suspected kidnapper had the shit beaten out of him by gardaí. Cruise O'Brien adds that, though we were members of the same government, he did not tell Garret FitzGerald or myself because he thought it would worry us. And he adds: "It didn't worry me."
I think there is a progression which runs from our response to the Dublin/Monaghan bombings, to the beating the shit out of suspects in Garda custody, and to the "heavy gang".
The following questions arise. Was there collusion between the UK and Ireland over state terrorism? Is the cabinet tradition of minuting conclusions but not discussions sufficient? Is there adequate democratic surveillance of the secret services? Are we really opposed to terrorism or is our double standard ("Theirs" is totally loathsome while "Ours" is okay) promoting what we purport to be opposing?
In embryo all these questions are to be found in the Dublin/Monaghan bombings and in our response, or lack of it. Now, 30 years on, they are very large and, indeed, survival-threatening issues worldwide. We need to be clear and above all consistent about terrorism. In 1974 I don't think we were.
John Waters is on leave