[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE NORTH IRELAND PEACE PROCESS TODAY: ATTEMPTING TO DEAL WITH THE PAST
=======================================================================
JOINT MEETING AND HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH,
GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
AND THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE, EURASIA, AND EMERGING THREATS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 11, 2014
__________
Serial No. 113-179
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
or
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
87-142PDF WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
DANA ROHRABACHER, California Samoa
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio BRAD SHERMAN, California
JOE WILSON, South Carolina GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
TED POE, Texas GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
MATT SALMON, Arizona THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina KAREN BASS, California
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
MO BROOKS, Alabama DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
TOM COTTON, Arkansas ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
PAUL COOK, California JUAN VARGAS, California
GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina BRADLEY S. SCHNEIDER, Illinois
RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III,
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania Massachusetts
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas AMI BERA, California
RON DeSANTIS, Florida ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia GRACE MENG, New York
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
TED S. YOHO, Florida TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
LUKE MESSER, Indiana JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
Amy Porter, Chief of Staff Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director
Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and
International Organizations
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania KAREN BASS, California
RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas AMI BERA, California
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina
------
Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats
DANA ROHRABACHER, California, Chairman
TED POE, Texas WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
PAUL COOK, California BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
BRIEFER
The Baroness Nuala O'Loan (former Police Ombudsman for Northern
Ireland) (appearing via videoconference)....................... 6
WITNESSES
The Honorable Richard N. Haass, chair, Panel of Parties in the
Northern Ireland Executive..................................... 25
Ms. Geraldine Finucane, wife of slain human rights attorney
Patrick Finucane............................................... 47
Mr. Eugene Devlin, victim of the Military Reaction Force......... 49
Ms. Julia Hall, expert on criminal justice and counter-terrorism
in Europe, Amnesty International............................... 53
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
The Baroness Nuala O'Loan: Prepared statement.................... 10
The Honorable Richard N. Haass: Prepared statement............... 29
Mr. Eugene Devlin: Prepared statement............................ 51
Ms. Julia Hall: Prepared statement............................... 55
APPENDIX
Briefing and hearing notice...................................... 70
Briefing and hearing minutes..................................... 71
The Honorable Richard N. Haass: Material submitted for the record 72
The Honorable Christopher H. Smith, a Representative in Congress
from the State of New Jersey, and chairman, Subcommittee on
Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International
Organizations:
Statement from the Pat Finucane Center......................... 76
Statement from Ms. Patricia Lundy.............................. 80
Ms. Julia Hall: Material submitted for the record................ 85
THE NORTH IRELAND PEACE PROCESS
TODAY: ATTEMPTING TO DEAL WITH
THE PAST
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 2014
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health,
Global Human Rights, and International Organizations and
Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The committees met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m. in
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H.
Smith (chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health,
Global Human Rights, and International Organizations)
presiding.
Mr. Smith. The hearing of the subcommittees will come to
order.
Good afternoon to everybody. I want to welcome everyone and
thank them for joining us this afternoon, particularly to our
many friends who are testifying today and to others whom I see
throughout this room who have been dogged in their
determination to bring peace and justice and reconciliation to
Northern Ireland.
Today we will inquire into the Northern Ireland peace
process, particularly the aspect of it which is called
``dealing with the past.'' Sadly, much of what we will hear
about amounts to failures to deal with the past, as in the
rejection of the recent proposal by Dr. Richard Haass.
Hopefully, that will turn around, but it is at this point not
agreed to.
Dr. Haass serves as chair of the Panel of Parties in the
Northern Ireland Executive; that is, he was asked to assist in
brokering an agreement to move the peace process forward. In
that capacity, Dr. Haass spent months consulting and
formulating a proposal. In the end, the proposal was not
accepted by all of the parties, though it clarified where
progress can be made and where sticking points remain, and it
is a blueprint for the future.
One of the most important questions that Dr. Haass and the
parties dealt with is what will be done with the Historical
Inquiries Team and the Police Ombudsman of Northern Island, two
key bodies established by the Good Friday Agreement to
investigate unsolved murders.
We will discuss Dr. Haass's proposal to replace the HET and
the PONI with an Historical Investigations Unit and Baroness
O'Loan's suggestion to replace them with a rather different
investigative commission--it parallels, but there may be some
differences--during this hearing.
For now, I want to underline this: Both agree that the
status quo of dealing with The Troubles and the crimes that
were committed should be replaced. Likewise, the parties in the
Northern Ireland Executive reportedly agreed with this aspect
of Dr. Haass's proposal. So the agreement is broad on this
point. It is time to move to a better system.
As Dr. Haass's proposal states, ``The multiplicity of
institutions and vehicles for justice and respect of conflict-
related incidents, however, creates confusion and places
enormous burdens on the police.'' The facts alone tell the
story of the more than 3,000 Troubles related deaths that
occurred between 1968 and 1998. The HET has yet to review some
600 cases involving 800 deaths.
Dr. Haass's proposed Historical Investigations Unit has
much to say for it by establishing a single unit with full
investigative power to eliminate the overlaps, the
contradictions, and waste of resources and the mandates of the
two other entities.
Likewise the suggestion of Baroness O'Loan, who served very
successfully as police ombudsman from 2000 to 2007 and on
several occasions actually came here and testified very
bravely. While her idea for an investigative commission that
will be ``totally independent investigative, fully empowered
and fully resourced body . . . with a remit to examine any
Troubles-related cases involving death up to 2006 . . .'' Lady
O'Loan's proposal emphasizes the need for the unimpeachabality
of independent agency in order to win the trust of both
communities.
In any case, Dr. Haass's proposal remains extremely
important on all points. Those involved most closely in the
peace process have expressed their confidence that it
accurately reflects the current divisions and positions of the
parties and will likely serve as an important basis for future
discussions.
I think that those who think everything is done and
finished, you can close the page on Northern Ireland, really
don't know the situation on the ground. That is why we are
having this hearing today, and that is why I think these
important recommendations need to be taken very seriously all
over the world, including in the United States.
We will also hear today about the Finucane case and the
British Military Reaction Force. These aspects of dealing with
the past were not covered by Dr. Haass's proposal to the
Northern Ireland political parties because they deal with
matters that are the responsibility of the British Government.
First, the British Government's failure to conduct the
promised inquiry into collusion in the 1989 murder of Patrick
Finucane remains an open sore.
The British Government has a solemn obligation to initiate
a full, independent, public, judicial inquiry that was agreed
to as part of the overall peace settlement in Northern Ireland
during the Weston Park negotiations.
This obligation, which was undertaken by both governments
as part of the Belfast Agreement, one of the outstanding
diplomatic achievements of recent decades, was an extremely
serious undertaking. In order for the peace process to move
forward, the British Government must honor it.
While Prime Minister Cameron has admitted to ``shocking''
levels of collusion between the state and loyalist
paramilitaries in the murder of Patrick Finucane and apologized
to the Finucane family for it, this does not substitute for a
full exposition of the facts behind the British State's
involvement in the murder. Rather, the steady increase in the
amount of evidence being revealed publicly that the British
State colluded with the killers has made honoring that
commitment more important than ever.
The British Government committed to implement the
recommendation of a judge of international standing on six
inquiry cases in 2004. Judge Peter Cory, who we have had at two
of my hearings in the past, a very eminent former justice of
the Supreme Court in Canada, recommended a public inquiry into
the case of Patrick Finucane.
Today, it remains the only case investigated where the
recommendation has not been honored, a situation that is deeply
unsatisfactory for many reasons, not the least of which it is
evidently the one that the British Government is most culpable.
Conversely, it is also the case in which, until the Prime
Minister's announcement in December 2012, there has been the
greatest level of sustained official denial by various state
agencies.
The many previous denials and time that has passed has
drained public confidence in parts of the peace process and
diminished respect for the rule of law in Northern Ireland.
It must be said that there are those who oppose the peace
process and their opposition is dangerous. The failure to
address the case of Finucane in the manner proposed by the
British Government provides a readily available propaganda tool
for those to further their own ends.
Secondly, there is the matter of killings committed by the
British Army's Military Reaction Force. From approximately 1971
to 1973, the British Army ran an undercover unit of
approximately 40 soldiers who operated out of uniform and in
unmarked cars mostly around Belfast.
On November 21, 2013, the BBC program Panorama aired a
documentary in which former members of the MRF broke silence on
aspects of the unit's operations, confirming what many had
suspected for a long time.
The BBC reported that, ``We have investigated the unit and
discovered evidence that this branch of the British State
sometimes . . . shot unarmed civilians.''
The BBC spoke to seven former members of the MRF and,
though the men were careful not to incriminate themselves or
each other in specific killings, they made plain that, as the
Independent fairly characterized the report--and I quote--``The
unit . . . would carry out drive-by shootings against unarmed
people on the street without any independent evidence that they
were part of the IRA.'' As one of the former members admitted
to the BBC, ``We were not there to act like an Army unit--we
were there to act like a terror group.''
Now the onus is on the British Government to investigate
and punish these crimes. The British Ministry of Defense has
said that it has referred the matter to the police for
investigation. Unfortunately, the BBC reported that, ``these
soldiers were undercover, and what they did has been airbrushed
from the official record.''
I would like to now turn to my friend and colleague, Mr.
Keating, for any opening comment he might have.
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing.
It is an honor to welcome Dr. Haass today.
It has been more than 15 years since the Good Friday
Agreement. In that time, courage, conviction, and hard work
have led to a more peaceful and more prosperous Northern
Ireland.
Of course, there is still much work to do. There is still
too much tension and mistrust between Catholic and Protestant
communities.
No one can dispute the importance of justice for victims of
repression and their loved ones, nor can we discount the role
that tradition plays in shaping one's identity.
As a former prosecutor, I understand the importance of
truth and justice in any criminal investigation, especially one
involving allegations of collusion.
Bringing the facts of a case to light and holding
perpetrators accountable is an essential part of closure and
can pave the way for reconciliation. It is also essential that
investigations be independent and free of political influence.
I look forward to hearing from Dr. Haass about his proposal
to establish a Historical Investigations Unit. I look forward
to hearing from our witnesses on the second panel about their
personal experiences.
Despite tremendous personal risk, they have courageously
thought to bring to light the facts surrounding political
violence in Northern Ireland, violence which impacted each of
them profoundly and tragically.
As we examine the importance of dealing with the past, I
hope we will also discuss the importance of looking to the
future.
In doing so, we should look for the example of those who
set aside division and discord in favor of cooperation and
compromise. What these men and women have in common is their
commitment to building a brighter future as well as their faith
in the rule of law and in equality of opportunity.
In that same spirit, I believe one area in particular
merits very close scrutiny. Addressing the issue of segregation
in both schools and housing is essential to future progress.
Like the champions of segregation in America's not-so-
distant past, many in Northern Ireland today argue that
segregation is essential to maintaining peace and order.
However, our own history shows that segregation only serves to
feed fear and resentment. It reinforces stereotypes and it
perpetuates inequality.
The United States played a key role in brokering the Good
Friday Agreement. We have a responsibility to continue to help
the process move forward.
I am concerned that, in the rush to balance the budget,
some Members of Congress have acted too hastily in pressing the
administration to cut funding for the International Fund for
Ireland and the Mitchell Scholarship funding as well.
These programs have been at the forefront of efforts to
confront segregation and to promote reconciliation in Northern
Ireland. Zeroing out U.S. funding sends exactly the wrong
message at a pivotal moment in the Northern Ireland peace
process.
With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Keating.
Like to yield to my good friend and colleague, the chairman
of Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats Subcommittee, Dana
Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, after hearing the opening statements
from my colleagues, it is clear that they know much more about
this than I do. And so I will be listening intently and
expanding my level of understanding of the facts of what has
been going on.
I do know American history, however, and I do know that the
bloodiest war that we ever had was with each other. And I don't
think we should ever forget that.
And, in fact, at the end of that war, we had President
Lincoln, who was inaugurated here at the Capitol for his second
inauguration, and he used the famous phrase, ``With malice
toward none, with charity for all.''
Unfortunately, one of those attending his second inaugural
was John Wilkes Booth. There is a picture of him watching
Lincoln being sworn in.
My reading of American history is that it was our
insistence of justice being done that created about 100 years
of animosity between the North and the South. Had both of our
sides decided that they would join each other in remorse over
such a slaughter of innocent lives and of fellow Americans,
perhaps that would have been different.
And so, as we listen to what is going on in Ireland today,
I am hoping that we hear ``With malice toward none and charity
for all'' rather than ``Let's find out who did what to whom and
punish them now for what they did 10 or 20 years ago, and we
are not going to make peace until that happens.'' I hope that
is not what I am going to hear.
But I am very interested because I realize that all of our
hopes are that the people of Ireland, both North and South,
would find some accord by now and that the fact that the talks
have broken down--and, again, I am not an expert on this like
my colleagues, and I am certainly not an expert on prosecutions
as my friend from Massachusetts is and whether or not that is
the best road to go to find peace. But it does seem to me if
the issue of a flag is significant here or not. And is this the
reason that we have this breakdown?
Also, I remember--I worked for the greatest Irish-American
President, as you know, and I know there are some Democrats who
might disagree with that. But having worked for Ronald Reagan,
I actually went to Ireland and advanced his trip to Ireland,
and it was one of the great occasions of my life.
I spent a couple weeks there visiting Ballyporeen and all
these places where the old Reagans used to go. And I will have
to tell you that one of the things that I learned, there were a
lot of Protestants there that I met and not one Protestant
during that time complained to me that he was being
discriminated against in the regular part of Ireland.
So I don't fully understand the psychology of fear that
does grip some of the Protestants in Northern Ireland about,
perhaps, that there might be some type of persecution going on
if there was some sort of unification.
But we cannot just--I don't believe--and I am waiting for
the testimony--I don't think that we can move forward with the
idea that we are going to right all the wrongs of the past
before we reach an agreement for the future, because that just
isn't going to happen.
Let's do our best. And I am really interested in seeing if
we are doing our best and what suggestions we can have to
actually move things along.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Randy Weber.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am glad to hear that our colleagues are experts. I am
looking forward to hearing them and the witnesses. Let's go.
Mr. Smith. Thank you.
The subcommittees will stand in temporary recess. This is
now a briefing portion, pursuant to House rules--it is almost a
distinction without a difference--but in order to hear the
testimony and the briefing by Baroness Nuala O'Loan.
In 1999, Baroness O'Loan became the first police ombudsman
in Northern Ireland and continued in that post until 2007. In
that capacity, she was responsible for the investigation of all
complaints of criminal behavior and misconduct by police
officers and other matters involving possible police
wrongdoing, not the subject matter of complaint.
In the course of her work, she has spoken widely at
conferences and acted in an advisory capacity to government
agencies responsible for policing and police accountability in
many countries. In July 2009, she was appointed to the House of
Lords and, consequently, to the Peerage in September 2009 as
Baroness O'Loan.
Baroness O'Loan has also provided this subcommittee a
tremendous amount of input and counsel and wisdom as to what
was really happening within the police, all part of her
efforts.
She never revealed anything that was not divulgable, but
gave us a great sense as to what really was going on behind
closed doors and did it as great risk to herself. She had been
frequently threatened. She ignored those threats and went on
and did an exemplary job as the ombudsman.
So I would like to now welcome, on behalf of the
subcommittees, Baroness O'Loan.
STATEMENT OF THE BARONESS NUALA O'LOAN (FORMER POLICE OMBUDSMAN
FOR NORTHERN IRELAND)
[The following testimony was delivered via teleconference.]
Baroness O'Loan. Well, thank you. I am honored to be
invited to give testimony here today.
And I would very much like to thank you and to express my
gratitude to the people of the United States and to your
government for the contribution that you have made over the
decades to the peace process, but also to people like me who
work at the coalface.
I want to put what we are going to talk about into a little
context, if I may. During The Troubles, over 3,600 people died
and over 50,000 were injured. Had that happened in the United
States, you would have had over \1/2\ million people dead and
you would have had over 8 million people injured, and I ask you
to consider what the impact of that might have been on your
country.
We still have the families of those who died who want to
know what happened. We have those seeking justice, and we have
those, like the Finucane family, seeking to establish the
extent of government responsibility for what happened. Those
families come from right across our community.
We have victims of bombings and shootings whose lives have
been effectively disabled or limited by their experience, and
we have individual investigations of individual bombings or
shootings.
But we also have cases like the Omagh bombing or the
Ballymurphy killings in 1971, when 11 people were killed over a
period of a couple of days by the Parachute Regiment. They
included a Catholic priest and a young mother who went to the
aid of a young man who had been shot.
We have got Enniskillen; Loughinisland; McGurk's Bar. We
have a litany of atrocities. And we still have the families of
the people who are seeking the recovery of their loved ones
disappeared by the IRA. And we have the highest levels of
suicide, mental health problems, and trauma in Europe.
And we only have a piecemeal process, which I think Mr.
Haass described well for dealing with the past. So we need a
coherent and effective strategy.
If I can just explain what happens at the moment. Four
organizations investigate the past. Coroners ask when, where,
and how did someone die.
And then the Historic Inquiries Team is part of the police.
It is a unit. It doesn't investigate. It just reviews cases. It
has no police powers at all. And we know there are difficulties
about the way in which it is operated because it had one set of
procedures for non-State actors and another set for State
actors.
And then we have the PSNI crime investigation department,
which carries out the investigations in circumstances in which
HET identify investigative opportunities. They investigate
anybody who is not a police officer.
And then we have the police ombudsman, who investigates
anybody who is a police officer. But, unfortunately, police
officers who have been engaged in such crime very often are
engaged with others who are not police officers so that we, for
example, in an investigation I reported on in 2007, identified
collusion between loyalist paramilitaries and the police over a
long period from 1991.
So I want to tell you what the defects are in the current
system, why it is not working. The first thing is that cases
move about between the various organizations and, when they
move about, each organization has to start investigating all
over again, and that is very costly and very time-consuming.
And then there are strict rules about protecting people so
that, as police ombudsman, the people I was investigating would
be the police officers. And they would be my suspects and then
anybody else would be my witness, be they a soldier, a loyalist
paramilitary, a Republican paramilitary, or anybody else, they
would be my witness.
For the police, the soldier, the Republican paramilitary,
the loyalist paramilitary might well be their suspects, but the
police officer couldn't be their suspect. So it is a very
complex legal situation.
There are significant problems, as I have said, with the
structure and working practices of HET. There is a problem
still around access to Special Branch intelligence, and that is
critical to investigation.
And is the Legacy Unit, which deals with this, in fact--
there are a number of former Special Branch offices there, and
I don't think that is calculated to secure trust.
The current arrangements, then, create significant
difficulties if you are trying to move toward a prosecution.
And I heard Mr. Rohrabacher say that, you know, he didn't want
to hear about prosecutions, but the reality is that those who
have suffered have the right, in international law, to a proper
investigation of their cases.
The Attorney General suggested that Northern Island should
simply cease all inquiries, investigations, and inquests into
deaths in the past. I think that is superficially attractive
because it would allow us to move on, but I don't think you can
have a system in which we are prosecuting young men for public
order offenses and, if we convict them, then they are
criminalized, and, yet, we do not even try to prosecute those
who are suspected of murders and bombing and very serious
offenses.
It has all recently been complicated by the revelations of
what we call the Downey letters, the letters through which some
200 people received letters--letters which--in, certainly, Mr.
Downey's case, gave him a situation in which his prosecution
was discontinued for the Hyde Park bombing, the deaths of four
soldiers and, indeed, of seven horses.
So I think there is a need to build our future on the rule
of law. Your poet, Maya Angelou, said that ``History with all
its wrenching pain cannot be unlived. If faced with courage, it
need not be lived again.'' And I think that is where we have to
be.
We all know that, even if we go through prosecution, there
may not be--even if we go through investigation, there may not
be many prosecutions, but there is a need for the State to act
always in accordance with the rule of law.
So I think we do need the kind of independent commission,
which Congressman Smith described, to operate in accordance
with all national and international standards of investigation.
I think that we need to forthwith terminate the activities
of the PSNI and of the police ombudsman in respect to historic
deaths, create one single unit which would deal with them.
It would require flexibility and imagination. It would have
to be fully empowered in terms of its ability to arrest,
search, seize, enter premises, secure scenes, et cetera, et
cetera.
Now, there is common purpose, I think, in that I think the
people of Northern Ireland have come to the space where it is
recognized that we need one unit. Eames-Bradley recommended
what was called a Legacy Unit.
That was attractive, but it had a 5-year time limit, which
would never have worked. I mean, it took me on one occasion 9
months to find a significant, but very important, witness. So
you can't circumscribe it by time.
I think the Haass proposals have moved us a long way. My
criticisms of the Haass proposals, with great respect to Dr.
Haass, are that, in the language of the Haass statements, it is
not stated to be independent and it is not clear what it is a
unit of. It is thought in some circles that it will be a unit
of the PSNI, and that, I think, would not be independent in the
eyes of the people.
It is further suggested that it will report to the Northern
Ireland Policing Board. But the problem with that is that the
Northern Ireland Policing Board is responsible for the delivery
of effective, efficient policing today and it has an interest
in the issues which would be under investigation by the
Historical Investigations Unit.
There could very well be serving officers in the PSNI today
who fall under investigation by the Historic Investigations
Unit, and I would see a conflict arising there. And I'm not
sure that it could secure the cross-community support.
But I think, if we took the Haass proposal and, if you
like, beefed it up to an independent commission, we would be
able to bring in some international expertise.
And we have seen a huge contribution by people like George
Mitchell, which have really enabled change. So I think a
commissioner from outside the UK would be very important.
I have talked about the powers that this organization
should have. In reality, everybody knows very few cases will go
to prosecution. The decisions to prosecute will be made in the
normal way according to the law.
What is important is that ordinary people are able to find
out what happened, that as much information as possible is
given to them about the circumstances in which their loved one
died or in which they themselves were attacked, that that
information is provided to them in a respectful way, and that,
at the end of the day, we allow--where we can, we set people
free of the trauma which is currently limiting so much of our
progress, and we allow our country to move on.
So I think that is the essence, perhaps, Congressman Smith,
of what I would want to say to you today.
Mr. Smith. Baroness O'Loan, thank you very much for your
very precise and compelling statement.
[The prepared statement of Baroness O'Loan follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith. Just very briefly, with regards to the idea of
an independent commission, you mention in your written
statement that the hope would be that they report to
Parliament, as you put it, some of the reporting before 2006, I
believe it is, would go to the Parliament and after which it
would go to the Northern Ireland Assembly. I might have the
date wrong. I am just looking for it.
But to whom in Parliament would it go to? Would it be a
special committee? Would it go to the Speaker? The First
Minister? How do you see that playing out?
Baroness O'Loan. Well, I think there are a number of
options.
I think it could--because the responsibility, if you like,
is a Northern Ireland office responsibility for reserved
matters and for the history of Northern Ireland, and that goes
to the Home Office and, to some extent, Department of Justice.
There are committees of the Houses of Parliament which are
well placed to investigate. For example, I sit on the Joint
Committee on Human Rights of the Parliament, which is a joint
committee of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, or
there is a Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.
But I think reporting to Parliament would take out any
suspicion that, you know, there could be cover-up or there
could be a failure to be transparent. And that is why I think
Parliamentary reporting is the way forward.
Mr. Smith. You mention that there are conflicts of interest
in terms of people who are investigated with the current system
that would be eliminated or at least greatly mitigated by an
independent commission.
Could you elaborate for the committees those conflicts of
interest.
Baroness O'Loan. Well, as I see it, the Northern Ireland
Policing Board, which is an independent organization comprising
politicians and independent members, has a responsibility to
secure the delivery of effective, efficient policing. It has no
powers to conduct investigations or anything like that.
And I think it is for that reason the police ombudsman has
to be independent of the Policing Board in order to make
independence a reality so that the Policing Board cannot in any
way influence what the police ombudsman does.
I think this Historic Investigations Unit or Historic
Investigation Commission, whatever it is, has to be in a
position in which there can be no suggestion that anybody has
influenced in any way any of the decisions which are made
within the unit, and I think you will only be able to do that
if you take it away from those who have responsibility for
policing.
Mr. Smith. One of your major observations is that access to
Special Branch intelligence is subject to gatekeeping by a
Legacy Unit which employs former special branch officers. This
is not calculated, you go on, to secure the trust of those
affected by the arrangements.
How problematic is that? Is that a huge problem?
Baroness O'Loan. I think it is very problematic. I think it
is a big problem.
When I was investigating in the final stages both loyalist
and Republican paramilitaries who were alleged to be in
collusion with police officers, actually accessing the
intelligence was profoundly difficult.
I reported on that issue in my Ballast report, which you
will find at the police ombudsman's Web site. And I reported in
detail about the difficulties that we had with Special Branch
in getting access to the information. You need to have direct
access to be able to go in, to open up the computers, to look
what is there, and to take it out.
Now, I accept fully that there will have to be proper
protection for that information. I accept fully that where
agents of the State are involved, there is a need to be
conscious of the need to protect their lives and the lives of
anybody who maybe affected by their activities. But that
doesn't mean it is impossible.
I am very clear that, having done it myself, it can be done
and that that access, that direct access to intelligence,
should not be the subject of gatekeeping and it certainly
shouldn't be the subject of gatekeeping by former Special
Branch officers, who may be perfectly good, honest people, but
who may be perceived to have, if you like, a motive not to be
as honest and transparent as perhaps they would intend to be.
Mr. Smith. And just two final points.
And one of the main reasons for convening this hearing
today is, I think, the mistaken view that somehow matters in
Northern Ireland has moved on, that peace has broken out,
reconciliation has broken out, but these long-simmering and
festering injustices, with collusion being a part of it, remain
unresolved.
And I would hope the press and Members of Congress and
members of parliaments everywhere would understand that there
are festering sores. Justice delayed is justice denied. And in
this case we are denying it. Things have not happened that were
supposed to happen, one of which is the special public inquiry
into Patrick Finucane's assassination.
Geraldine Finucane is here and will be testifying, if you
want to speak to that.
But, also, this idea that Northern Ireland is off the radar
screen for most people, it ought not to be. And, again, I think
Ambassador Haass did a yeoman's work.
And I would recommend--and he says it in his testimony--
everyone should read the proposed agreement, December 31st,
2013, and it ought to become a subject of widespread,
hopefully, discussion and action. But the page has not been
turned. There are still unresolved problems that need to be
fixed.
Baroness O'Loan. I agree with you absolutely. I think that
what the politicians and Dr. Haass achieved over that 6 months
built very much upon the Eames-Bradley report.
And I think there is a potential for a way of dealing with
the past, subject to some of the criticisms I have made, and I
think we have to find the courage to go on and to do it.
I am not going to talk about Mrs. Finucane's case. I never
investigated it. It was not one which came to me. I think she
is the person best placed to articulate the difficulties and
the trauma of what that family experienced. So I would simply
pay tribute to her and leave it for her.
Mr. Smith. Thank you.
Mr. Keating.
Mr. Keating. Thank you very much for your statement. I just
have one area I just wanted to get a handle on a little bit
more.
And what is the scope? What would be the scope of the
independent commission in terms of your view and the number of
cases that they would look at, the number of investigations?
Because I think, when you get a better handle--at least, if
I get a better handle on the scope, I might have a better view
of some of the better ways to form that commission or have it
conduct its work.
Baroness O'Loan. I think it would have to be responsible
for the investigation of all deaths resulting from The
Troubles. And I think politicians will agree on the cutoff,
whether it is 2006 or 2010, when justice was devolved. I don't
know.
But it should have the power and the ability to investigate
actors of the State, such as agents of the State, soldiers,
police officers, and ordinary, if you like, Republican and
loyalist paramilitaries, anyone who was engaged in any way in
any of the deaths which occurred during The Troubles.
It should have full police powers. It should be as powerful
as, for example, your FBI or our Metropolitan Police Service so
there should be absolutely no question that it can do what it
has to do.
I think probably the most important thing is that it
actually has the courage to exercise those powers because, you
know, there can be a lot of pressure on people not to.
Mr. Keating. I was just trying to contemplate if there was
any kind of estimate on--maybe Dr. Haass might be helpful,
too--on the number of cases.
Because we have a seldom-used process in the U.S. of an
inquest, where a judge would sit in a position and have all
kinds of powers that you had mentioned and deal with an
individual investigation itself and the judge--it wouldn't
necessarily lead to a prosecution, but they could issue a
report which then would take the next step toward potential
legal action.
So I was thinking, could this ever be done or would it be a
secondary step to actually have an individual review of
incidents themselves?
Baroness O'Loan. We have had individual reviews,
particularly the Cory reports, and Judge Cory did a number of
the cases. We have 3,600 deaths, approximately, to answer your
question about the specific numbers.
Some of them have been very well investigated and, in
respect to those, there will be no further need for
investigation. And there is a significant number in respect to
which considerable further investigation is required.
I would see no benefit in appointing a judge to do it,
although you could have a judicial figure heading your historic
unit or your independent commission. The important thing is
that whoever does it has the power to do it properly.
And I think it does take a compilation of police powers,
investigation powers, judicial powers, legal powers, et cetera,
to do that effectively. So we have had judge-led inquiries, and
that possibly is what Mrs. Finucane is seeking. But I don't see
them as being the answer to everything.
There are calls for what we call Hillsborough-type
inquiries. I don't know if you are aware of that. But this was
a situation in which a number of--well, I think 128 people died
at a football match because of defective policing and an
inquiry was led by a judge, but with academic researchers and
police officers to investigate it, and produced a report which
has now led to a police investigation. So we have a number of
models which are available.
My concern is that, if we could clarify to make it simple,
if we could have one commission which could actually do
everything and if we were prepared to put the money into
enabling it to do it, then it could be a system in which people
could have confidence and it could begin to draw the line under
the past.
Mr. Keating. Great.
I think, given the number that you mentioned, a commission
is better approach initially, because the numbers are much too
high.
But maybe, as a secondary approach, that is something that
could be--for certain cases, could be developed, something that
could be looked at.
Thank you very much.
I yield back.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Keating.
Chairman Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much.
It just seems to me that what you are talking about--and I
am sorry to--you know, just to be very frank, it sounds like
you are dwelling so much on the violence of the past that you
may not be able to lay the groundwork for a very pleasant
future for children today.
I will just have to say that--well, let me ask you how
extensive you want this commission to delve into that and what
kind of punishment you think should be dealt out to people who
were engaged in what at that time was a chaotic situation in
which people were losing their lives. There were explosions.
There were police brutalities. You had an internal conflict,
and some people make wrong decisions in situations like that.
Do you believe that political leaders, people who were in
elected office at that time, for example, who oversaw police
policy--and we know that the police committed certain acts that
are--that we now look back on that were not only not right, but
were not legal--you would have those--what would you have those
political leaders who turned their backs and just let this
happen do?
Are you saying that now we are going to contact people who
are 80 and 90 years old and put them before a court and ship
them off to prison and, thus, they can fully explain why they
let these murderers go who beat some witness to death 30, 40
years ago? What extent do you want--you want to take an 80-
year-old man or an 80-year-old woman who was a police
commissioner, let's say--is it your idea that we need to take
that person to justice, march them out, put them on trial, and
put them in prison for what they did or what they didn't do?
Baroness O'Loan. I think it is most unlikely--the scenario
which you describe is most unlikely, in the first instance.
What you need for a prosecution is an unbroken chain of
evidence. And we do have law which says that anybody who is
convicted of a Troubles related offense can only serve a
maximum of 2 years. So that goes to your question about
punishment. It is a maximum of 2 years.
But the reality--if I may say, sir, the reality is that
there are very likely to be very few of those situations.
I have to say to you again, where--you know, in London,
where I am at the moment--in London, for example, the
Metropolitan Police are currently conducting an investigation--
another investigation into the murder of a young man called
Stephen Lawrence who died nearly 30 years ago. We are also
having a lot of child abuse investigations. I think you have
those, too. Historic ones.
I can't see the difference between--I can't see why a State
would choose to investigate things like abuse of children, but
choose not to investigate the much greater abuse of children
which resulted from murdering their fathers and mothers.
So I think that we have to stand back from the emotion, we
have to accept that there will be very few cases. When people
get to the age group that you are talking about, they very
often can't remember, they may have difficulties such as forms
of dementia and things like that. Nobody is going to seek to
take those people before the court.
But it is important that there be a process which is
compliant with the law. And the law says that, if somebody has
died, then the State has an obligation to investigate and to
inform the families.
Mr. Rohrabacher. You know, in my----
Baroness O'Loan. Try to--if we try----
Mr. Rohrabacher. In my area in Orange County, I am very
much in favor of when the police get out of hand--and there
have been several cases of that in the last couple years, where
the police have murdered--for example, in Fullerton,
California, where the police murdered some poor homeless guy
who probably mouthed off to them. And there is no doubt that we
need to bring people like that to justice.
But to think about 20 or 30 years from now bringing the
person who oversaw the police in city government who then
perhaps let these guys go, if that is what happened, that we
are going to bring justice to the case now, you will have--
you're talking about crimes that exist--that happened 30 years
ago; are you not?
Twenty, thirty years ago----
Baroness O'Loan. But I have----
Mr. Rohrabacher. And if they are 20, 30 years ago, the
people who oversaw that are older people and may or may not
have the ability to defend themselves against charges that
somebody may--somebody may be holding grudges; somebody may
not--it seems to me that what you are talking about is opening
up a pandora's box that is a never-ending situation, at least
for a century, while--you know, when Communism fell, they
didn't take every local police chief who let their police do
certain crimes against people and they didn't seek vengeance.
And, thus, Communism was allowed to move on, and the people of
Eastern Europe have moved on.
It seems to me that what you are talking about is not
moving on but, instead, dwelling on these things.
Go right ahead and answer. I am sorry.
Baroness O'Loan. What you have to understand is that it is
not me that is saying this. It is the people who suffered at
the hands of those who murdered their loved ones. And Mrs.
Finucane will speak to you on this issue very clearly, I am
quite sure.
What I would want to say to you is that, again, we are not
looking at overseers, for the most part. We are not looking at
police commissioners.
We are looking at the situation in which an individual
death occurred, and for the most part, it will be
paramilitaries who caused those deaths with no police
involvement either. So we are looking at all the cases.
It is a limited number, 3,600. In respect to a number of
them, there have already been trials. There have already been
prosecutions and convictions. So it is the outstanding numbers
that we need to look at.
And I think we need to have a process whereby people opt in
if they want their case investigated, because there are some
families who don't want any further investigation.
The biggest thing the families want--and most families
would say to me that they are not interested so much in
prosecution. They want to know what happened, how it happened,
and why it happened. And that, I think, is the basis upon which
you build society.
And I think I said when I presented to you that I do not
believe that this would lead to many prosecutions. That has
been my experience doing historic cases. But it is profoundly
important that you tell people what happened.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I think that you are well motivated. And,
of course, who doesn't condemn the horrible crimes that you are
talking about?
There were some horrible crimes that were committed on both
sides of this conflict, but the people who were in political
power have certain more responsibility than do people who were
not in power at the time.
So let me just note that your motives are good, and I
commend you for it. I don't believe what you are talking about
will lead to a more peaceful situation in that part of the
world, and I--but I know that you are talking about justice,
which is something we should all be about.
I will just end with this one thing. When I was a young
person, one of the first lessons that I learned was that you
have got to quit picking at the scab or your wound will never
heal. That is the first thing I learned. I would hope that we
are not just picking at scabs here. I hope we are looking to
heal things.
And I know that you are--you believe that, once all the
facts get out, there is going to be a better chance at a
national healing among the people of Ireland and Northern
Ireland, and I understand that.
And as I say, it is well motivated. I don't know if that is
what will be the result, a healing, or just an opening up of a
wound.
Thank you very much.
Baroness O'Loan. I can only speak from experience and tell
you that, from the work which I did over the 7 years when I was
police ombudsman, trust in the police was lower and the process
through which people began to realize that the police were
accountable for their actions led to enhanced confidence in
policing. Everybody from the chief of police to political
leaders acknowledged that fact.
And I think, therefore, there is experience in Northern
Ireland which suggests that, if we can find a way of dealing
with the past--and I have to tell you, in so many cases, there
is no unbroken chain of evidence, papers have been destroyed,
they have been blown up, et cetera, et cetera. So we can--it
will always be a limited process, in so many cases.
But, as I said, I don't think we can have a legal system
which criminalizes young people for marching down the street or
protesting against those who marched down the street whilst it
fails to deal with those who are suspected of more serious
crime.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Weber.
Mr. Weber. I have no questions.
Mr. Smith. Chair recognizes Mr. Holding, who I would note
parenthetically is the former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern
Northern Carolina district.
Mr. Holding. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I really don't have any questions at this time. But I
appreciate the informative testimony and listening to the
questions of my learned colleagues.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much.
Baroness O'Loan, thank you so much for your statement. This
is our 15th hearing that we have held on policing or injustices
that--especially some of those that have been historical and
have remained unresolved.
We take the view on--at least I do--that there is no
statute of limitations on murder. As a matter of fact, some of
the most important prosecutions, even recently here in the
United States, have focused on people who have been murdered
during the civil rights movement or, even before the civil
rights movement got off the ground here in the United States. I
take the view that accountability is the ultimate confidence-
builder.
And I take your point, as ombudsman, that there was a
rising tide of confidence because of the work that was done,
not as a reaction to anything else, but because of the good
work that you and others did. And justice is the prerequisite,
I think, for a sound and functioning society.
So I do thank you for your exemplary service for so many
years.
Mr. Keating.
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
One other thought I would just like to say. As we look at
this, I am struck by a saying of a Nobel Prize recipient we
have in the U.S., Elie Wiesel.
I think it comes to the core of what you are looking for,
Baroness, and that is the fact that it is clear that hatred was
a factor over these many decades.
And I am reminded of his comment that the opposite of hate
is not love, but it is indifference. And I think that it is
important to look at these issues, it is important that we
understand those issues because we can't move forward without
that.
So I thank you for your comments.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Baroness.
Baroness O'Loan. Thank you.
[Whereupon, the subcommittees concluded their briefing and
moved to the hearing.]
Mr. Smith. The subcommittees now will resume their hearing.
We will now welcome our first witness for the hearing,
Ambassador Richard Haass, former U.S. Special Envoy to Northern
Ireland.
Ambassador Haass served as U.S. Special Envoy to Northern
Ireland from 2001 to 2003. More recently, 2013, he served as
the independent chair of the official multi-party panel
established to address some of the most divisive political
issues affecting Northern Ireland.
He is currently the president of the Council on Foreign
Relations. He has also been the Director of Policy Planning for
the U.S. Department of State, was Special Assistant to
President George H.W. Bush, and was Senior Director for Near
East and South Asian Affairs on the staff of the National
Security Council from 1989 to 1983.
Ambassador Haass, the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RICHARD N. HAASS, CHAIR, PANEL OF
PARTIES IN THE NORTHERN IRELAND EXECUTIVE
Ambassador Haass. Chairman Smith, Chairman Rohrabacher,
thank you for this opportunity to discuss the Northern Ireland
peace process. What I will do is make some fairly brief opening
remarks and ask simply that my full statement be put in the
record.
Mr. Smith. Without objection, so ordered.
Ambassador Haass. I have twice now been intimately involved
with this issue. From 2001 to 2003, I was the U.S. envoy to the
Northern Ireland peace process during the presidency of George
W. Bush. And as Chairman Smith said, over the last 6 months of
last year, I was the chair of the Panel of Parties process in
the Northern Ireland Executive.
But there are important differences between the two periods
that go beyond whom I was representing. When I represented the
Bush administration more than a decade ago, the principal
challenge was to implement the recently negotiated Good Friday
Agreement, also referred to as the Belfast Agreement of 1998.
And as has been referred to, that agreement constituted a
major milestone, because what it did was to effectively bring
to an end the violence that had taken over 3,500 lives over 3
decades.
The 1998 agreement and the subsequent efforts, to be sure,
advanced the peace process, but in no way did they complete it,
nor did they bring about a normal society. This is not simply
my judgment. This judgment was and is widely shared.
Indeed, in the spring of 2013, the office of the First
Minister and deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland proposed
a process that would tackle some of the remaining issues. This
process would be one that would involve all five parties of the
Northern Ireland Executive and it would require, in their view,
an independent chair.
I was then asked by the First Minister and deputy First
Minister in July 2013 to be that independent chair. And based
in large part on their support of this process, I accepted,
after which I asked Professor Meghan O'Sullivan of Harvard
University to be the vice chair.
Now, our remit was to forge a consensus among the
participating parties in three areas: The use of flags and
emblems both in official spaces and in informal public
displays; the regulation of the thousands of parades,
commemorations, and protests that take place each year; and
contending with the past, the principal subject of today's
hearing.
By the end of 2013, we had made seven trips to Northern
Ireland, as well as visits to London and Dublin. There were 33
days of meetings, most involving the five parties either
separately or collectively.
There were also more than 100 meetings with 500 people,
representing a wide range of civil society organizations, along
with business, religious, and political representatives.
In addition, we received more than 600 submissions from
individuals and groups on a Web site that we established. And
the draft agreement that emerged on December 31 of last year is
now in the public domain.
And here, too, Mr. Chairman, I ask that it be made part of
your record.
Mr. Smith. Without objection, so ordered.
Ambassador Haass. The goal of this process was to produce
an accord acceptable to all five parties that would also help
Northern Ireland address some of the most vexing issues and, in
the process, reduce sectarianism and promote reconciliation.
Just to be clear, the text does not always represent my or
Professor O'Sullivan's view of what would be optimal. Rather,
the December 31 document is and was our best effort to produce
a set of carefully balanced compromises that we believed would
both meet the various needs of the political parties and leave
the society better off. And we reserved at the time the right
to issue our own assessments and make recommendations, a step
we continue to consider and may indeed well take.
In two areas, in the areas of parades and the past, the
text yields extensively and fairly with the challenges Northern
Ireland confronts.
In the realm of flags and emblems, however, where no amount
of consensus proved possible, the document essentially calls
for a follow-on process.
Now, the draft document has the most to offer in the
subject of your hearing today, in the area of helping Northern
Ireland address its past. The proposed mechanisms would
increase the chances that families could learn more about the
specific circumstances around and reasons for the death of
loved ones.
The agreement--and somewhat different than described by
Baroness O'Loan--the agreement would create an independent
Historical Investigations Unit with investigative powers that
would take the place of both the Historical Enquiries Team, the
HET, and the historical role of the existing police ombudsman
office.
But this new institution would be created and empowered in
a way that in no way would grant the perpetrators of violent
acts amnesty. This is an important difference between what was
proposed here and what is often proposed in other post-conflict
societies because the agreement, as written, would not require
that the pursuit of greater information come at the cost of
potential prosecution.
And I know Congressman Rohrabacher has some concerns about
this, and I will be glad to discuss why I believe this, on
balance, was the appropriate way to proceed.
In addition, in order to help make better sense of the
past, one entity was to be established that would also assess
the presence or existence of certain patterns or themes
involving both governments and paramilitaries and report on the
degree of cooperation with this process by both.
The text calls for public statements of acknowledgment of
responsibility by individuals, organizations, and governments
that were involved in the conflict, and I believe such
statements are essential if there is to be healing at either
the individual or societal level. The text also establishes new
mechanisms and procedures to help defuse the tensions around
parades, protests, and commemorations.
Now, while a critical component of Northern Ireland's
culture and history, these events can also be an obstacle to
good relations. The right of free expression must be balanced
not only against other rights, but also against the goal of
creating a less divided society of 1.8 million people sharing a
space the size of the State of Connecticut.
The issue of flags proved the most difficult. Flags are the
most visible and emotive, but not the only representation of
what many in Northern Ireland hold so dear: Sovereignty,
allegiance, identity.
The text calls for public debate across Northern Ireland on
such issues as flags, emblems, the role of the Irish language,
a bill of rights, and the commission overseeing this debate
would then submit a report to the leaders of Northern Ireland
with its recommendations.
Our mandate ran until the end of the year, until December
31. This was a deadline established by the Northern Ireland
Government, and at that point we ended the talks. Two of the
parties, Sinn Fein and the Social and Democratic and Labor
Party, the SDLP, endorsed the text in its entirety; a third-
party, Alliance, endorsed the part of the text that deals with
the past; and the other two parties, the DUP, the Democratic
Unionist Party, and the UUP, the Ulster Unionist Party, decided
not to endorse the text.
Now, some have interpreted this outcome as an indication
that the agreement met more nationalist than unionist concerns.
Both Professor O'Sullivan and I reject this categorization.
There is a great deal in the proposal for unionists; there is a
great deal in the proposed text for nationalists. There is also
a great deal in the text for the many in Northern Ireland who
are not politically aligned, but who simply want to have a
better understanding of the past and more reason to look
forward to their future.
To be candid, this outcome was a disappointment. The draft
reflects months of conversations with individuals and groups
within Northern Ireland as well as the five parties. It
reflects the often competing preferences of the five parties
and what was required to bridge them.
We understand that no party is fully comfortable with the
December 31 text, and that should surprise no one here, indeed
no one anywhere. Politics inevitably requires that each party
accepts some elements it views as disagreeable in order to
advance the greater good.
And here I can do no better than to quote Henry Kissinger,
who recently wrote that the test of any proposed accord ``is
not absolute satisfaction, but balanced dissatisfaction.'' I
believe the December 31 Northern Ireland text met this test and
then some.
Leaders must be prepared to take and make this case to
their constituents and to the broader public. The true
definition of leadership is a willingness to tell your
supporters, not just your opponents, what they do not want to
hear. A second requirement of leadership is to speak to those
across the political divide, to reassure them that their core
interests are not threatened, and that what is in the interest
of one party or group or tradition need not be inconsistent
with that of the other. And in the case of Northern Ireland,
there is a third requirement for leaders: As appropriate, to
acknowledge responsibility for the past.
Since December 31, the parties have held a number of
meetings in an effort to narrow their remaining differences and
to add some needed detail, such as in the area of what would
constitute a code of conduct for parades and protests. This
effort, though, came to something of a halt when it was
disclosed that the British Government had sent letters to
nearly 200 people, assuring them that they were not wanted by
the police. Virtually all I know about these letters is what I
have learned from public exchanges over the past few weeks.
It is my understanding that the letters essentially inform
recipients that there was insufficient evidence to pursue or
prosecute them should they return to the United Kingdom. But it
is also my understanding that the letters made clear that
prosecution could come about if new information regarding
violations of the law came to light. In short, the letters did
not offer amnesty, and I know of nothing in their content that
would justify anyone walking away from the process we are
discussing here today.
So where do things go from here? I agree with the First
Minister when he says that the three issues at the center of
the talks still need to be dealt with. To this, though, I would
add a sense of urgency. The passage of time will not heal
Northern Ireland's society. To the contrary, absent political
progress, the passage of time will only create an environment
in which social division intensifies, violence increases,
investment is scared off, alienation grows, and the most
talented depart.
Northern Ireland is often cited as a model of peace
building, but this is premature. Yes, the society has come a
long ways from where it was two decades ago, but it still has a
long ways to go before it sets an example others will want to
emulate. I hope Northern Ireland's leaders are up to the
challenge.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Congressman, thank you again for this
opportunity. I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Haass follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith. Ambassador Haass, thank you very much. And thank
you for the enormous amount of time you have spent over the
many years, including much of last year, in trying to cobble
together a meaningful and responsive approach that will really
take Northern Ireland forward and make progress.
You know, in her testimony in the third panel, Julia Hall
from Amnesty International points out that the current
mechanisms, while they have worked for some, have failed to
conduct prompt, thorough and effective investigations in an
independent and impartial manner in line with the UK's
international human rights commitments. And she points out that
repeated investigative failures across the mechanisms have
crucially--I think she means critically, or maybe crucially--
undermined confidence and trust in her ability to deliver the
truth about the past; and secondly, points out that the
mandates, there has been a piecemeal approach to investigations
adopted in Northern Ireland.
It would appear that both Baroness O'Loan and you are both
calling for a new, much more effective mechanism. And, again, I
think many lawmakers and policymakers in this town have moved
on to other things, the reason why this hearing has been
convened.
Could you speak to those criticisms of the current
mechanisms, while well-meaning, unwittingly have not produced
the record of results that one would have hoped for? And then
this whole idea of unfinished business. I would hope that some
of our friends in the media today or even tomorrow, when they
write their articles and publish their stories, would talk
about the unfinished business. You have it in your report. I
have read it. It is excellent. It makes so many very fine and,
I think, very forward-thinking and very credible
recommendations, yet most people don't even know about it.
Ambassador Haass. Well, thank you, sir, for what you said.
Just to be clear on one thing, it is not my report or our
report.
Mr. Smith. Good point.
Ambassador Haass. It is a report that grew out of this
process and our attempt to bridge the political divides, yet
still put forward a set of ideas that, if adopted, we believe
would leave Northern Ireland better off, considerably better
off.
On your question, the current approaches, they are
multiple. Essentially you have four existing approaches. They
are time-consuming; the fact that we are still talking about
unfinished investigations tells you that. They are in some
cases extraordinarily expensive. In some cases they are quite
distracting, because groups like the current police service
have everyday tasks to carry out, yet they are still also
obligated to deal with the heavy burden of the past. Plus,
despite all this, despite all this effort and investment, some
of the current efforts do not enjoy the kind of broad
legitimacy that one needs if they are effectively to deal with
the past.
So it is not a criticism about effort; it is not a
criticism of motives; it is simply an observation, if you will,
about results. And the reason, therefore, we came up with the
idea of creating a new and independent Historical
Investigations Unit with investigative powers was to try to
deal with this, the fact that the current approaches were time-
consuming, a bit of a distraction, and lacked legitimacy
because they were seen as under the police service rather than
distant from them.
So that is why we have come up with this approach, and we
believe it is the best way of threading the needle. It is not,
as the Baroness suggested, what has been put forward in this
report, under the police service. That is simply incorrect. It
is also independent.
Now, in a democracy--and we understand this from our own
system; indeed, I used the analogy at times in the talks--we
have things like the Supreme Court, we have the Federal
Reserve, we have independent institutions. But in a democracy
you still need accountability. You can't have free-floating
institutions that don't have a degree of tether or of
accountability, and therefore there has to be an appointments
process. There has to be some oversight process in a democracy.
And what we tried to do was come up with the best way we knew--
in consultation with the five parties--of threading that
needle, of coming up with something that was as independent as
could possibly be construed or constructed, yet at the same
time have adequate oversight and accountability, and we believe
that what is in the December 31 text does exactly that.
On your larger point, and I tried to get to it in my
remarks, when I was asked to do this, and I accepted it, a lot
of people seemed surprised, and they seemed surprised back in
New York or Washington, but also even in London. And everyone
said, to a person, I thought this was resolved. Didn't you have
the Good Friday or Belfast Agreement in 1998?
And what I believe that highlights, and you got at it in
your opening statement, there is a difference between, if you
will, ending a war and building a peace. Any society coming out
of something like three decades of Troubles--and Mr.
Rohrabacher talked about the Civil War in this country--any
society like that is traumatized for obvious reasons. It is
traumatized psychologically, physically, economically and
politically. There are all sorts of divisions, wounds, damage
and the like. And obviously Northern Ireland was no exception.
One day North Korea will be no exception. I look forward that
day happening when it gets out from under the rule and the
division it has known.
And so what this showed to me is that even though Northern
Ireland had emerged from the Troubles, and most of the violence
had stopped, it had not become anything remotely like a normal
society. If you walk down parts of Belfast, you were still
confronted by concrete barriers separating communities. Upwards
of 90 percent of the young people still go to divided schools,
single-tradition schools. Neighborhoods are still divided.
I don't see the society sowing the seeds of its own
normalization, of its own unity, if neighborhoods and schools
are still divided. What worries me in that kind of environment,
particularly where politics are not shown to be making
progress, alienation will continue to fester, and violence, I
fear, could very well reemerge as a characteristic of daily
life.
So it is premature to put Northern Ireland, as much as we
would like to, into the outbox of problems solved. I would love
for it to be there, and I look forward to that day, but, quite
honestly, it is not there yet.
Mr. Smith. I thank you for that. I hope that that is a
message that lawmakers and others will convey, especially at
the end of the week when so many people will make their way
from the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland as part of
the St. Patrick's Day festivities, because, again, I think
there is a superficial understanding about all done, as you put
it, it is finished, time to move on, and we need, again, to
redouble our efforts, again, to take your blueprint, and let
people know that there is much more that needs to be done.
Let me just ask you, if you would like to respond to it,
you know, the Finucane case, the horrible, horrific murder of
Patrick Finucane. His wife, who is here, Geraldine, who was
wounded, the family was all there, and they have on several
occasions testified through our subcommittee in an appeal to
the British Government, different Prime Ministers to finally do
what they promised to do, and that is implement or create and
implement a public inquiry.
Judge Cory sat where you sat, Ambassador Haass, and he
couldn't have been more emphatic. He spoke for the better part
of an hour, and he kept getting back to the unfinished business
of the Finucane murder and the collusion that was inherent in
it.
Would you want to speak to that? I mean, this is like one
festering sore. I absolutely am in awe of the courage and the
tenacity of Geraldine and her family in carrying on this call
for an accountability. Would you want to respond to it?
Ambassador Haass. I am happy to.
One has to be impressed by the courage of the Finucane
family and by what they have had to endure. The report deals
with the question of inquiries, but essentially leaves it to
the British Government to make a decision as to whether it is
or believes that is the best way to deal with the, as you
describe it, unfinished business.
The bulk of the report is on other mechanisms for dealing
with all sorts of situations that have never been
investigated--still there are hundreds and hundreds of murders
and deaths that have never been investigated, and in many cases
where they have been investigated by whatever mechanism--there
are multiple mechanisms, as you know, for investigating them--
people are not satisfied with the results.
And we also create a mechanism where there is reason to do
so for reopening certain things. So that is essentially the
approach. But that will have to be a decision by the British
Government, whether they believe that it is worth, from their
point of view, going down the path of another inquiry.
Mr. Smith. By having promised it, it is just we are looking
for promise fulfilled.
Let me ask two final questions. Nuala O'Loan made a very
strong point in both her oral and written testimony about the
legacy unit. It seems to me that when you have former Special
Branch officers in charge of what is allowed out and, you know,
revealed versus what is not, that without some kind of
oversight that is very real, that is an engraved invitation, it
would seem to me, to just continue hiding a truth that may not
be very pretty.
And secondly, with regards to the Military Reaction Force,
as one of our witnesses Eugene Devlin, who was shot, and, as he
says in his testimony, Daniel Rooney, age 18 like himself, was
killed by a bullet, and the information now that is becoming
much more visible about this Military Reaction Force. Your
thoughts on that?
Ambassador Haass. Well, again, that is why there are two
new mechanisms that this report recommends. One is a Historical
Investigations Unit, which would look at things through a legal
lens; and then there is a separate information unit that would
be created to encourage people to come forth, because as it
turns out, there are a number of survivors and victims whose
priority, if you will, is not necessarily in the legal realm,
``justice'' or punishment, but rather their priority is to
simply find out what happened, to get the facts about what
happened to a loved one. And there are certain incentives put
forward in order to encourage individuals, organizations, and
governments to cooperate with this information pathway.
Now, at the same time, there is nothing in the information
pathway that provides amnesty; it simply provides what we would
call limited immunity. So information introduced there cannot
be used for prosecution, but if other information is somehow
gained through other means, and that warrants prosecution,
prosecution could still happen.
And I think it is important that governments, whether it is
the British Government or the Irish Government, are involved in
this process fully, and I believe that obviously paramilitary
organizations need to be involved in this process, paramilitary
or other organizations across the board, in no small part
because the bulk of the violence was done at the hands of
paramilitaries. But governments do have special obligations
under European law, and obviously, I believe the British
Government needs to be a participant in dealing with the past.
Can I say one other thing about it? Because it gets at Mr.
Rohrabacher's comments.
Mr. Smith. Sure.
Ambassador Haass. The point of view he talked about, and I
think the analogy you used was the scab. There is a point of
view that echoes what he says, and it is the idea that in order
to deal with the future, you have to let go of the past. There
is that. And public figures and private figures in Northern
Ireland do articulate that.
On the other hand, I came away persuaded that it wouldn't
work in this case; that you would never get to the point of
healing, in a sense, to use his analogy--and analogies are
always dangerous, but I will use it--you would never form the
scab without a process, you would never get to the point of
healing, and that you needed a process.
And I came to this, by the way, after some of the most
emotional meetings of my career, which was meeting with the
victims and survivors and meeting with the families. And you
can't emerge from these meetings and not be powerfully affected
by it.
And when I met with these individuals, and I met more
broadly with people in Northern Ireland, I came away persuaded
that you needed a process that would deal with the past. We
have talked about, too, a legal dimension; we have talked about
also an information availability dimension.
There are other aspects as well. I think this society
doesn't teach the past well. We need a curriculum that deals
better with it. We need a museum. Why wouldn't there be
somewhere a museum dedicated to the Troubles, not that you try
to come to a common narrative. I, for one, believe that is
unrealistic at this point given how divided the society is. But
why couldn't you have a place where competing narratives are
allowed, where people understand the facts, here is the
timeline, here are the facts, and people can put forward
different narratives?
But I do believe this is a society that will not be able to
get beyond what it has gone through unless there is something
of a political, but also psychological process of contending
with it. Otherwise what will happen is different communities
will live with their own versions of the past, and I came away
thinking that there would never be the kind of bridge-building
or normalization we and they want to see without a
multidimensional approach to dealing with what happened.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Keating.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
At the outset, I do want to say this, that I will
apologize. I have got dual responsibilities. I am managing the
floor debate in just a short period of time. So in particular
to Ms. Finucane and Mr. Devlin, I apologize if I am interrupted
back and forth doing that, as well as to you, Dr. Haass.
Quickly, you mentioned the prospects of further violence.
Although the political violence has declined significantly, and
fatalities have almost been eliminated since the agreement,
tensions remain strong between unionist and nationalist
communities. Now, to what extent are paramilitary organizations
on both sides still capable of disrupting the peace? What is
your assessment of the risk of new outbreaks from these
entities?
Ambassador Haass. That is a question I ask myself a lot. I
think there are two kinds of violence we have to worry about in
Northern Ireland. You have got one, which is paramilitary
violence. You still have so-called splinter groups on the so-
called Republican side in the Northern Ireland context. And
while I was there, there was more than one car bombing and so
forth. There were some also letter bombs sent. So you still
have that. And you still have paramilitary groups on the
loyalist side who are in a position to carry out violence.
So I can't give you, if you will, a quantitative
prediction. It is simply my sense that the possibility of a
paramilitary violence is real, and then I want to come to the
other form of violence which could affect it, which is
political protests of various types. We have seen now a larger
number of protests or marches or both where then you have had
friction--I don't know any other word to use--with police
forces. And you had a large number of policemen hurt over the
last year as well as individuals. What worries me, then, is the
possibility for this kind of violence to continue to get worse
and whether the two kinds of violence could begin to affect one
another.
If you begin to have greater violence at the political
level, I worry that that creates a context in which then there
could well be greater violence at the paramilitary level.
Indeed, this is the history of Northern Ireland. Early on,
before the Troubles in the early stage, you had political
protest and violence, and then ultimately it led into a much
more dangerous era of paramilitary violence, and I do not want
to see history repeat itself.
Mr. Keating. Your last comments actually are along the
lines of one of my questions. The countries in Central and
Eastern Europe have enjoyed mixed success in dealing with
difficult historical issues, whether it is World War II or the
Holocaust. In some cases, ostensibly independent institutions
charged with historical investigations have been unduly
politicized as a means of influencing public opinion, shaping
political debate, or benefitting certain political actors or
parties.
In other cases, in the case of Germany and Poland,
academics and educators have successfully collaborated to
develop historical curriculum taught in both countries that
encourages students to critically consider competing historical
narratives as a means of promoting reconciliation.
What are the prospects, long and short, about this? I am in
no way equating the Holocaust or other things, because each
instance and terrible instances in our history define
themselves, but one of the lessons of that, really, has been
informative. And I look at groups in the U.S., like Facing
History and Ourselves and other groups from an academic
standpoint that have done so much to foster a greater
understanding. And you said maybe you never can get to full
agreement on the issues that you discussed, but we can at least
foster the kind of academic educational narrative that is
important in this instance.
Ambassador Haass. I think you are exactly right. I think
some of it is going on, as best I can tell. You see it at the
academic level; you see it even with some of these victims and
survivor groups. A lot of these groups bring people together
from different traditions.
One of the things that makes these meetings powerful is you
have people who may have suffered at the hands of, say, a
Republican paramilitary from the Provisional IRA, and people
who suffered from a loyalist paramilitary, and then others who
suffered then from the hands of that British troop. And there
is an ability, in that case, to talk across certain divides.
I would simply say the academic approach has been limited.
There is a lot more that could and should be done. I would like
to see--how would I put it?--vehicles created where academics
would come together. For example, I would like to see the
leading historians of Northern Ireland come together to try to
do what you suggest, to come up with a--if not a single history
of the past, then a collective history, because, again, I think
it is important that young people understand what happened, the
reality of what happened.
Let me give you one reason. I don't want young people to
only hear the story from one side, and I never want anyone to
get caught up in the ``romance of it all.'' It would be a real
tragedy if another generation of young people thought that
``fulfillment'' was to be found in the path of becoming a
paramilitary. And it would be good if there was a place they
could go to where they would see the costs to individuals and
the society of that kind of an experience.
That can only happen if historians from the various
traditions come together and try to produce a living, not just
a physical, monument to the past. The shorthand we sometimes
used was a ``museum of the history of the Troubles.'' Something
like that, I believe, would be extraordinarily valuable.
Mr. Keating. Just one more thought I had, and this is such
a profound issue, and it works on so many levels. There are a
couple of demographics that I just want to raise and see if you
think at all this can foster a better relationship.
Number one, the remains of disparity and unemployment with
Catholics that are much higher that are there, that, left
unaddressed, and not having the so-called benefits of a peace
dividend, I think--I just want to ask you what effect that will
have. And number two, the other demographics are the
population, the number of Irish people are--it is growing, and
the Protestant people are diminishing somewhat, and then you
have that shift that is going on there.
Will either of those things have an effect, positive or
negative, on efforts to bring peace?
Ambassador Haass. On the first point, which is
unemployment, it is high among Catholics, as you say, but it is
really high among poorly educated young people in both
communities, which is one of the problems, because those are,
if you will, the foot soldiers of some of the violence that we
are seeing.
What this argues for is two things: One is specific
projects that would employ people with their skill sets, and
there are lots of ideas around for development. Indeed, there
was one area where there was a big project that was put
forward, and it couldn't go forward at what is called Maze Long
Kesh because it is also the site where you have the prison and
the hospital which was associated with where a lot of people
were incarcerated during the Troubles, it was where Bobby Sands
had his hunger strike, so it has taken on obviously a
politicized position in Northern Ireland life.
But there are a lot of potential resources that could go to
develop that area, put aside the question of what to do about
the historic places, and a lot of young people can be employed.
So projects linked to getting the communities working would be
great.
The larger point, as my former boss Colin Powell used to
say, is that capital is a coward. Investment in Northern
Ireland has to compete with investment from everywhere else,
and capital and investment will stay away from Northern Ireland
if its future looks uncertain. So it is one of the reasons that
it is important that politics advance, or, quite honestly,
investors will take their dollars elsewhere.
In terms of population demographics, Protestants still now
hold what I would call a plurality, as the most recent numbers
I have seen are slightly below the majority. The Catholics'
share is less than that, but it is slightly going up. And I
think it obviously is part of the backdrop to this process. It
is one of the reasons that people need to constantly reach
across the community divide and not just speak to their own
supporters, but to reassure people about the future.
You know, it is interesting; the document that brought us
in here, that created this panel that I was asked to chair, the
title of it was ``Together.'' And the whole idea was to create
a Northern Ireland of a shared future. And it had all these
grandiose plans. What is missing, 90 percent of life, as we
used to teach, is implementation, and we need to see some of
these plans for a shared future begin to be realized. But as
long as people see separate futures, then it is going to be
very hard to make the shorter progress that, in a sense, both
communities, I believe, need.
Mr. Keating. Great.
And just one more in the nature of comment, should I not be
here for Ms. Finucane and Mr. Devlin's testimony, is that I
must tell you as a former prosecutor and someone that was
involved in our own State as chairman of judiciary, I do
believe very strongly that going forward, if we are going to
respect the rule of law, we have to have confidence going
backwards that if there wasn't rule of law, that we do things
to acknowledge that, correct that, because the message will be,
well, the rule of law isn't something that transcends time. It
is conveniently turned on and turned off. And I think the
Commission's effort and those efforts to go back is important
for the future to instill respect in that rule of law. So----
Ambassador Haass. I am with you on that. I agree about the
past, and I also agree with it about the present. One of the
things that was a stumbling point was the idea to embed a code
of behavior for all these marches and parades and attending
protests and to embed it in the rule of law. And that is
essential for a democratic society.
So I think it is true for the past; I think it is true for
the present. Obviously, and you know better than I do, it has
got to be administered fairly and efficiently and all that. But
I believe a democratic society rests on it, and Northern
Ireland can't be an exception.
Mr. Keating. I yield back.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Keating.
Chairman Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much.
Just before I go into questions, a little bit about a month
ago I was called over to the Japanese Embassy, and I was asked
to provide the toast to Japanese-American friendship, and I
think it was the Emperor's birthday or something like that. And
I did that, and I felt real good about it, and I knew my father
would approve.
My father was a United States Marine in World War II, and
how ironic that his son is at the Japanese Embassy providing a
toast to the friendship between the Japanese people and the
people of the United States. There was a lot of blood there, a
lot of bloodshed in that relationship, not only U.S. Marines
being killed, but hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians
being evaporated by our bombing, which was done in order to end
that war, I understand.
But it seems to me that today, Japan and the United States
have a wonderfully close friendship. We have had that for
decades. And it is so difficult for me to see two people who
are separated by their Christian religion not being able to
come to have a greater peace than they have in Northern
Ireland.
Let me ask you, and, by the way----
Ambassador Haass. Can I say one thing?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes. Go right ahead.
Ambassador Haass. I apologize for interrupting.
What is interesting to me, though, about what you said,
well, two things. One is one of the things we have called for
in this report is not simply apologies, but acknowledgments,
that people talk about their responsibility and role in the
past.
Honesty will go a long way in Northern Ireland. The more
honesty there is and people accepting personal responsibility,
that kind of personal gesture, I believe, will have
extraordinary impact. When we have seen it already, it has had
extraordinary impact.
The other thing that came to mind what you were saying----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Before you go on to your second point, I
agree with you 100 percent in that I think that acknowledging
one's faults, for that to have a positive result also has to
have forgiveness. I mean, that is the other half of the
equation. That is what Christ talks to us Christians about.
And excuse me. Go ahead.
Ambassador Haass. The other thing--and I know before you
were raising the question of the some of the dangers or risks
of too much a focus on the past, but take another analogy from
Asia. You used the one of the United States and Japan, but look
at the Japanese-Korean relationship and the Japanese-Chinese
relationship. They are increasingly--held back doesn't begin to
get at it; poisoned might not be too strong of a word--by the
legacy of the past.
And the fact that you have totally different perceptions
and takes on the past, you teach it different ways in the
schools, and it is both impressive and depressing how much of
the current diplomacy is affected and limited by different
perceptions of the past. So, again, to me that is a lesson
about why sometimes you do need to deal with the past before
you can effectively deal with the future.
Mr. Rohrabacher. That is a very good point.
Let me ask you something about your knowledge, and, first
of all, thank you for the wonderful work you have dedicated
your life to, and it is something that is so admirable, that
type of--what you are expending your energy or intellect and
your time of your life being a peacemaker; as I say, blessed
are the peacemakers, et cetera. And that is why we are so proud
to work with Chairman Smith, because he has dedicated his life
to these type of things as well.
Let me ask you about Ireland. Has there been any evidence
that Protestants have been discriminated against in southern
Ireland, in the regular part of Ireland?
Ambassador Haass. In the Republic of Ireland?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
Ambassador Haass. I don't know the answer to that question
about the state of Irish society. I have never heard of that
recently.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yeah. I have never heard about it.
Ambassador Haass. Yeah. I mean, the population of Ireland
is also, I think--my numbers could be off here, but it is
upwards of 97, 98 percent Catholic. So all I can say is I have
not heard reports of that, but I could be--you know, I am
certainly uninformed, and I could always be misinformed.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I think there was a lot of arguments when
Ireland was separating from British domination that the
Protestants--there would be retaliation against the
Protestants, and I didn't see it. I mean, I have studied--I
love Ireland. I love the history and the culture, the music,
and the beer. I just love Ireland, and I have studied a lot
about it, and I didn't see any repercussions against the
Protestants when the British left.
Now, I will say this: I personally believe the issue that
we are talking about today would not exist had the British not
``shnookered'' the Irish into the original agreement to give up
those five counties. The bottom of the line is Ireland is
Ireland, and they are all Irish, and had that not--we wouldn't
be facing this right now. And it is six counties, pardon me. I
will leave the British with one.
But the fact is that perhaps today, perhaps the real
solution lies--and from what I understand, there is only one
county that has a very big majority of Protestants over
Catholics. Maybe if we let these people have their right to
self-determination via each county voting on it might lead to a
restructuring of the whole system there, which might lead to a
little better feelings after a period of time when people have
to live together. That is just a thought.
But let's get to the question now. And the question is
this: The Good Friday agreements happened in 1998.
Ambassador Haass. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rohrabacher. That is 15 years ago. And so it has been
16 years since the violence stopped.
Ambassador Haass. For the most part.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. During that time period, I don't see
anything wrong with people saying anyone held accountable for
any acts of violence during this time when there wasn't
official peace and people were negotiating it, I could
understand that. But going back beyond the 16 years, the 16
years of peace, before that we just heard the Baroness talking
about maybe giving people 2 years in prison for someone who was
maybe in their twenties when something happened or thirties. Is
that part of the plan for peace?
Ambassador Haass. Well, again, two separate issues. One is
the ability to prosecute, and the other is the question of what
would be the penalty for those found guilty.
You know, I believe, again, Mr. Keating and I had this
exchange, and I believe for democratic societies there needs to
be the ability to prosecute for crimes for which there is no
statute of limitations. I think that is true from a political
and legal point of view.
I also came away from my experience here thinking that it
is necessary politically and psychologically; that, again, for
people to be open to a future, they have got to feel that the
past has been fairly and comprehensively dealt with. And I
don't believe that should be something, by the way, that
individuals have the right----
Mr. Rohrabacher. I don't know. I wish I could tell you that
I believe in what you are saying, because I know that that is
the theory that we can--something we can believe in that will
create a better world. But, again, my father was a Marine in
World War II. A member of our church, was my father's best
friend, called me aside one Sunday and said, you know, I was in
Guam, and we went out after the Japanese had surrendered, and
there were little groups out there, and we surrounded a group
of 13 of them, 13 or 14 of these Japanese, around a campfire
one night, and we had a Japanese speaker with us. And we came
out and we said, hands up, surrender, and they all did. And one
of our guys just started shooting, then we all started
shooting, and we killed all of them.
And I mean, that was an atrocity. And during the Battle of
the Bulge, there is another case where I know of where our
soldiers actually killed a lot of German soldiers, knowing full
well the Germans were killing our soldiers, however.
It seems that if we are going to have a better world, we
have got to recognize that those things are evil, and that evil
does lurk among humankind, but that if we try to go back, I
don't think it would be fair to that Marine to go back and then
to charge him with a war crime. Do you?
Ambassador Haass. I am uncomfortable commenting upon other
situations, because I know enough to know that every situation
stands on its own and is different and unique. I would simply
say, though, one of the things you have to think about in the
case of Northern Ireland is you are not thinking about two
different countries, you are talking about a society that we
want to be commingled, which is not divided.
And, again, I don't believe it is realistic to think that
you will have a unified society if you have someone across the
street living from someone else, and people know that this
individual was involved in certain activities and that they
lost a loved one because of it. I think you are expecting too
much from human nature to think that--that people can get
beyond that kind of an experience.
And, again, we may just simply disagree here. I am not sure
it is healthy for a society to do that. I do think there has to
be a sense of accountability and responsibility. Now, what
Northern Ireland has tried to do is put certain ceilings in
many cases on the jail penalty and time that individuals would
have to serve. And I don't want to speak for anybody there, but
my sense is that is the way they have tried to compromise this,
to basically have prosecution continue where it is warranted,
but also to have a degree of mercy, if you will, or limits on
the penalties that would be incurred by individuals who
committed crimes during the periods of the so-called Troubles.
As you say, it is different after 1998.
So I think that has been the balancing act that people in
Northern Ireland have had and more broadly have come up with
there.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, thank you very much. And I know I
sound a little bit too idealistic here maybe, but I do think
that forgiveness--if someone really has contrition, forgiveness
goes a long way toward creating more peace in the world. Thank
you.
Mr. Smith. Thank you.
Ambassador Haass. Thank you for what you said.
Mr. Smith. I would just comment, if I could, very briefly.
I will never forget, I was part of a reinterment ceremony at
Srebrenica, with Reis Ceric, who was the Grand Mufti; Haris
Silajdzic, who was President. And I remember hearing from
widows who told me that there were people in the police to that
day, this was 9 years ago, who were part of the genocide that
was committed against, in that case, the Muslims who lived in
Srebrenica, which was supposed to be a U.N. safe haven, and the
horror that they felt knowing that in their police department
sat someone in good standing still presumably meting out
enforcement of law who had committed atrocities. And I think
what we are trying to, and what you have done so well, and what
others have done so well, is to say there is no statute of
limitations for heinous crimes. There can be forgiveness, but
that doesn't preclude justice, and justice means that there
needs to be accountability.
And our biggest fear has been in the collusion side, and
that is what got me into this, holding hearings, doing
legislation that ensured that when certain people in the RUC
came to the United States to get training at the academy, the
police academy in Virginia, that they were fully vetted,
because so many people had been just moved up, even got, we
believe, moved up in rank and were grandfathered in. I mean,
that was one of the flaws of the Patton Commission, that it
grandfathered in, we believe, some people who had committed
horrific acts of cruelty.
And just like with our own civil rights movement here, if
you committed a crime, if you blew up an African American
church and we find you, just like we will prosecute. And I
think that is what we are trying to really--that message that
there is no immunity for that kind of impunity. So I thank you.
Ambassador Haass, any final comment before we move on?
Ambassador Haass. I would simply say that what was
suggested in this report, this debate is a real debate. And
that is why for certain families what was created was a path
that would allow them simply to get information, and that
people would then be encouraged to provide them information so
they could psychologically and emotionally deal with what
happened to their own families, and the person could know that
that information itself would not be then handed over to
authorities.
So it was not a ``prosecution first'' approach. We wanted
to make sure that--on the other hand, we didn't want to
preclude prosecution if that is what the state warranted was
necessary, and if that information could be gotten through
other means. That is the whole concept, as you know, of limited
immunity.
So, again, all of this is a balancing act designed to
ensure that certain principles are respected about the past and
also continue to be respected in the present about the rule of
law; yet also, to take into account the fact that there is,
what, thousands and thousands and thousands, tens of thousands
of individuals and families in Northern Ireland that have this
tremendous burden of the past. And they have a special place in
this society, and we wanted to give them a degree of choice in
how they would pursue what it was they thought was necessary.
And I never use the word ``closure.'' That sounds, I think,
offensive for outsiders to say, but at least a degree of
significant comfort with what happened.
So what was laid out was a set or a menu of possibilities,
because there is no one single answer for every individual or
every family. And what I think is in this--and, again, it was a
collective effort, so I am not praising myself--but I actually
think is a fairly unique approach, which is something, I
believe, if adopted, would be very good for Northern Ireland
and would be worthwhile for other societies that have gone
through similar types of experiences to look at, a way of
balancing individual needs and collective needs, as well as the
past, the present and the future. And it is an attempt to come
up with some trade-offs.
And I come back to Henry Kissinger's line, there is always
going to be a balance of dissatisfactions, and that, to me, is
the element of political possibility. But more positively,
there is also a balance of satisfactions. In every side, if
they look at what are the details of the past, if they look at
what could be there with flags, or what is there with parading,
there should be enough there that, if adopted, it would not
hurt them politically, and it would help the society as a
whole.
Those are two pretty good criteria, that they could
politically manage it, and the society would be better off. And
that is what we tried to do. We think the document does it. And
we very much hope that people will come to that realization.
There is no way to ultimately avoid these three issues, and
there is no way you can or should in particular avoid the set
of questions about the past. So I am very hopeful that it is a
question of when and not if the political leaders of Northern
Ireland come to that realization and then act on it. So, again,
I appreciate what you all have done in this hearing by putting
a spotlight on it. So thank you very much.
Mr. Smith. And, again, the December 31 proposed agreement
remains viable?
Ambassador Haass. Absolutely.
Mr. Smith. Great. Thank you.
Ambassador Haass. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Ambassador Haass.
I would like to now invite our second panel, if they would
make their way to the witness table, beginning first with Ms.
Geraldine Finucane, wife of slain human rights attorney Patrick
Finucane. As we all know, in 1990, loyalist government forced
their way into her home and their home and murdered her husband
Patrick Finucane, an Irish human rights lawyer.
She has advocated long and effectively for full disclosure
of British state collusion in her husband's murder. She has
been all over the world, including the United States many
times, and including before this subcommittee and before
Congress on several occasions.
Collusion in the Finucane murder remains one of the major
unresolved questions in the peace process, and the peace
process is an ongoing venture, and the British Government's
refusal to fulfill its promise undermines that very process.
And, again, I want to welcome her and thank Geraldine for
her unbelievable courage and tenacity.
We will then hear from Mr. Eugene Devlin, who was born and
raised in Belfast. On the night of May 12, 1972, Mr. Devlin,
with friends, went to a disco, and on their way home was shot
by the British Army undercover unit, the Military Reaction
Force, which was a covert, intelligence-gathering and
counterinsurgency unit in Northern Ireland during the Troubles.
He later went to London to work, where the bar he was
working in, it was bombed after 2 weeks. Mr. Devlin eventually
came to the United States and today owns and operates a bar and
restaurant in Red Bank, New Jersey. We had a very good
conversation before the hearing, and, again, I thank him for
coming and testifying about his ordeal and that of others who
have been killed by the Military Reaction Force.
And then we will hear from Julia Hall, a human rights
lawyer, Amnesty International's expert on criminal justice,
counterterrorism and human rights in Europe. Her current work
focuses on accountability of human rights violations in
countries with a history of political violence, including
Northern Ireland, and for violations committed in the context
of the Global War on Terrorism.
Ms. Hall served on the research and editing team for a 2013
Amnesty International report on Northern Ireland and authored
another research report on Northern Ireland that was published
in 1997.
So, Geraldine, if you could all come. And as you physically
come to the witness table, without objection, testimony from
Anne Cadwallader and Alan Brecknell of the Pat Finucane Center
will be made a part of the record as well as a submission from
the Professor Patricia Lundy of the University of Ulster.
Ms. Finucane, if you can proceed.
Mr. Devlin, if you could please come on up, as well as Ms.
Hall.
STATEMENT OF MS. GERALDINE FINUCANE, WIFE OF SLAIN HUMAN RIGHTS
ATTORNEY PATRICK FINUCANE
Ms. Finucane. My name is Geraldine Finucane. My husband was
Patrick Finucane, a Belfast solicitor murdered by loyalist
paramilitaries on the February 12, 1989. My family and I have
campaigned since the murder for a full public, independent
judicial inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the
killing. We have done so because of compelling evidence that
his murder was part of a widespread British Government policy
of collusion between the state and loyalist paramilitary.
Our suspicions, based on the evidence which has emerged
over the last 25 years, received official confirmation in
October 2011 when the Prime Minister David Cameron told us
personally that on behalf of his government, he accepted that
collusion was real and directly led to the murder of my
husband.
The campaign has only had one objective from the outset: To
discover and uncover the truth behind Pat's murder. From the
very night that Pat was murdered, we knew the authorities were
involved in some way, but we did not know the details. Pat had
been subjected to constant threats from police officers during
his professional career, threats made via his clients, threats
that started as derogatory comments escalated into death
threats.
Then, less than 3 weeks before his death, a government
minister, Douglas Hogg, M.P., made a statement in the houses of
Parliament that marked Pat and a small number of other
solicitors for murder. He said, ``I have to state that there
are in Northern Ireland a number of solicitors who are unduly
sympathetic to the cause of the IRA.''
This comment was shocking and provocative. Hogg would not
relieve why or from whom he had got information which could
lead to such a statement being made. In later years we learned
he had been briefed by senior members of the police.
Over many years my family and I persisted in seeking all
the facts surrounding Pat's murder. This followed much
investigation, lobbying, and speaking out at every opportunity.
We have been assisted and supported by so many, yourselves
included, who concern themselves with human rights in Ireland.
All who have examined the case have been unequivocal in their
demand that a public inquiry is necessary.
We persisted, and despite much deliberate delay, the
British Government were finally forced to announce that an
inquiry would be held. In 2001, the British and Irish
Governments held talks at Weston Park, and one of the
agreements to emerge was that an international judge would be
appointed to look at six cases, and if he finds an inquiry
necessary in any of the cases, the relevant government would
agree to hold the inquiry.
Judge Peter Cory, a retired Supreme Court judge of Canada,
was appointed, and in Pat's case, his report said,
``The documents and statements I have referred to in
this review have a cumulative effect. Considered
together, they clearly indicate to me that there is
strong evidence that collusive acts were committed by
the Army, the Force Research Unit and RUC Special
Branch and the Security Services. I am satisfied that
there is a need for a public inquiry.''
In reply to this report, the British Government once again
delayed, and eventually they put in place new legislation, the
Inquiries Act 2005. Although the legislation did need
modernized, we took particular exception to one clause.
This gives a government minister the power to effectively
control the flow of information. This power was called
restriction notices. It allows the government power to dictate
to the inquiry, what information is released even if the
tribunal itself is in disagreement with that decision. This
undermining of the judicial process drew much criticism. We
felt we could not take part in such a process. We wanted and
still want one inquiry that is open and fair and which gives a
chance at reaching the truth.
So at this stage in our campaign, we reached an impasse;
however, in 2010, there was a change of government and the new
Secretary of State, Owen Paterson, met with us in November of
that year. He told us his government was committed to resolving
the case; delay suited no one. We were encouraged.
What followed was a year of meetings between our legal
teams, signs were encouraging, and at no stage was an
alternative to an inquiry ever discussed. So in late summer of
2011, when the Prime Minister asked to meet us, we were
encouraged. In a telephone conversation between a senior
Northern Ireland office official and my lawyer, Peter Madden,
we were told we would be happy with what the Prime Minister
would offer. We assumed this confidence would be a reflection
of the position we had outlined over the previous year. How
wrong we were. David Cameron stated he was ordering another
paper review, an exercise similar to that carried out by Judge
Cory. It was a meeting I shall never forget.
Whilst this review was limited in its powers and private in
nature, it has revealed some very shocking information about
methods employed by the security forces. It has provided many
more questions and, indeed, reinforced the need for a public
inquiry.
An inquiry into the murder of Pat Finucane will not solve
the current re-emerging problems in Northern Ireland, but it
would be a first step in restoring public confidence in our
society. Until such time as the British Government lives up to
the promise it made to my family, I will not give up my fight
to expose the truth, and I take great encouragement as I look
around this room today that the fight will be far from a lonely
one.
Thank you so much for this opportunity to put my case on
record.
Mr. Smith. Thank you so very much, Mrs. Finucane, for your
testimony and, again, for your dogged determination to get to
the bottom of who or how many and who was in collusion with
killing your husband. Thank you.
[Ms. Fincuane did not submit a prepared statement.]
Mr. Smith. Mr. Devlin.
STATEMENT OF MR. EUGENE DEVLIN, VICTIM OF THE MILITARY REACTION
FORCE
Mr. Devlin. Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Eugene Devlin,
and today I am a proud American citizen, having made my home in
this fine country since 1978. I am in the business of owning
and operating restaurants. The opportunity to participate in
this legislative process through this hearing is very much
appreciated.
I was born in Ireland in 1954 in Andersonstown, a suburb of
Belfast, County Antrim, in the province of Ulster. The recent
Northern Ireland Troubles erupted during my teenage years. I
had neither art nor part in the Troubles, but on the night of
12th of May 1972, the Troubles came to me, up close and
personal.
Returning by cab from a school disco, with my friend Aiden
MacAloon, I had failed to notice a car following us, nor did I
notice that the car's unusual turn illuminated us with its
headlamps. We were nearly home and on familiar turf. Suddenly a
number of shots rang out and I fell wounded, whilst my
companion managed to get over a hedge. My left arm was
shattered by what I was later told was a 9-millimeter bullet,
fired from a British Sterling automatic submachine gun. I was
first taken to the Royal Victoria Hospital and then
transferred, under heavy guard, to the military wing of the
Musgrave Park Hospital. After surgery, I spent about a year
with my arm in a cast, followed by months more in a sling.
Although they identified the bullet and the type of gun,
they would not allow me to keep the bullet, as they required it
for evidence. Although the 9-millimeter is a deadly force, had
the bullet been a caliber .45 ACP from a Thompson submachine
gun or a high velocity rifle bullet, I would probably not be
here to testify today. Providentially, my arm saved my life,
but today I still have the physical reminders of that wound and
every day carry medication as a consequence.
Police forensics determined that neither my friend nor I
had handled any weapons that night, nor have either of us ever
been charged with any of the violations of law. Later that
fateful night, a second, separate, such predatory, plain
clothes car patrol fired on a group of equally innocent men,
wounding five and killing Patrick McVeigh.
Rumors had been circulating about such death squads and
random killings presumably to terrorize the population, but
until that night, they were not uppermost in my mind. On
September 27, 1972, Daniel Rooney, also aged 18--like myself,
was killed by a similar bullet in a drive-by shooting, which
differed from my situation only in that the perpetrators
achieved a more deadly result.
It was a shock that someone who didn't know me would try to
kill me, they nearly did, but I am sure they didn't care if I
died any more than they cared about Patrick McVeigh or about
Daniel Rooney. These shootings were unjustified and remain
unjustifiable.
It was only later that it came out that these shootings
were clandestine acts of a secret terrorist force carefully
selected from the British Army, perhaps calculated to stimulate
inter-communal retaliation, divide and conquer, among the
various Irish communities. It seems they were part of the
secret Military Reaction Force (MRF).
The most disturbing thing about this is that the Army,
which had been sent in in 1970 to restore order and to protect
us from sectarian or other violence, had become transformed
into an army of occupation, with elements of that Army
operating outside even their own law and regulations.
When the facts of these atrocities became public, those in
whose interest, and presumably by whose orders, they were
perpetrated disavowed any knowledge of specific irregularities.
Their records are nowhere to be found, yet at the time, Prime
Minister Heath ordered that the MRF cease and be disbanded;
meanwhile, the perpetrators have generally been rewarded with
pensions, promotions, and medals. There is a message in that.
Being shot that night in 1972 was a terrifying experience.
The only other truly terrifying experience of my life was 9/11
in New York City, when I emerged from the subway station very
near the World Trade Center 2 just as the building was
collapsing. In both cases, I was an involuntary victim, but the
difference in 9/11 was that even though I was still terrified,
like so many others, I took the opportunity to become an
instant voluntary responder, making it to my own restaurant on
Pearl Street, a block or so from Fraunces Tavern, and working
with my staff to provide aid and comfort to many people. Apart
from having a terrifying experience, the only other
similarities are that I wound up in hospital that night and
also continue to suffer physical effects from the experience.
In the interests of truth and justice, I thank you for this
opportunity to testify, and I would be happy to answer any of
your questions.
Mr. Smith. Thank you so very much, Mr. Devlin, for your
testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Devlin follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith. Ms. Hall.
STATEMENT OF MS. JULIA HALL, EXPERT ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND
COUNTER-TERRORISM IN EUROPE, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
Ms. Hall. Thank you, Chairman Smith, for this opportunity.
It is nice to see you again. I am here to testify on behalf of
Amnesty International.
Mr. Chairman, last November, the New York Times opined that
although ``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.''
This editorial was in response to the suggestion that
perhaps there should be no more investigations into crimes
committed in the course of ``the Troubles.'' Recognizing very
real human suffering that people had endured, however, the
Times quoted Amnesty International's Patrick Corrigan, who is
here with us today, who said that such a cap on accountability
was ``an utter betrayal of victims' fundamental right to access
to justice.''
Mr. Chairman, the signing of the Good Friday Agreement in
April 1998 signaled a turning point in the history of Northern
Ireland, and there is no doubt that 15 years on, remarkable
progress has been made in moving toward a more peaceful future;
however, the ongoing failure to deal with Northern Ireland's
difficult past has had negative consequences for both
individuals and society at large.
Many families from across communities in Northern Ireland
are still searching for truth, justice and accountability. The
legacy of the past, however, affects not just individual
victims, but society as a whole. Writing in The American
Scholar in 2011, Duke professor Robin Kirk noted, ``Belfast is
one of the most segregated cities in the the world . . . a
landscape of interfaces and peace walls that have grown higher,
longer and more numerous since the Good Friday Agreement.''
The Good Friday and subsequent agreements simply did not
provide the tools or create the bodies or processes to fully
grapple with the pain, anger and hurt that are inevitably the
legacy of decades of violence and conflict.
In September 2013, Amnesty International issued a report
titled, Northern Ireland: Time to Deal With the Past. I would
ask that this report be made part of the record, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Smith. Without objection.
Ms. Hall. Thank you.
This report assessed the five existing mechanisms for
dealing with the past in Northern Ireland, you have heard what
those mechanisms are today, but I must say, we were deeply,
deeply disappointed, dismayed in fact at what we found in the
course of our research.
We have identified two key problems with the current
approach. First, these bodies or processes have failed in the
main to conduct prompt, thorough and effective investigations
in an independent and impartial manner, in line with the United
Kingdom's international human rights commitments.
The second, more pressing, point is that even if all of
these mechanisms were operating at full steam in full
compliance with their mandates, the piecemeal approach to them
is too diffuse to provide a comprehensive picture of all the
violations and abuses that occurred. As a result, much of the
truth remains hidden, while those in positions of
responsibility consequently have remained shielded.
Moreover, and this is a critical point, the focus on
individual cases has limited the possibility for thorough
examinations of patterns of abuse that occurred in the course
of the conflict. For example, patterns of abuses by armed
groups remain woefully under-investigated. Likewise, the role
and actions of particular UK State actors have also not been
subject to effective investigation. For instance, State
collusion with Republican and loyalist armed groups is one of
the critical issues that has yet to be addressed effectively by
any of the existing mechanisms. Even in the few cases where the
government has acknowledged that collusion has occurred, as in
the case of Patrick Finucane, the victim's family still do not
have the full truth and no one in higher levels of government
has been held accountable.
Our report concluded that one overarching mechanism should
be established to address the past in a comprehensive manner.
It needs to be victim focused, empowered to investigate both
individual cases and patterns of abuse, and where sufficient
evidence exists, there needs to be the possibility of bringing
to justice those responsible.
Thus, Amnesty International believes that the Haass draft
proposals on dealing with the past are a step forward. The
proposals will need to be refined to ensure that these
mechanisms operate in compliance with international human
rights standards, but they do provide a solid basis from which
to proceed.
It is crucial that all the stakeholders in a peaceful
Northern Ireland do not let yet another opportunity for
progress slip by, due to lack of political will and vision.
Amnesty International is deeply concerned, however, that the
Haass proposals on dealing with the past may be held hostage to
the lack of agreement on other contentious and sensitive issues
or may fall victim to inaction in the face of other
disagreements among the parties. We have urged the Northern
Ireland's political parties and the UK and Irish Governments to
take the proposals on the past forward as matter of urgency.
And finally, the U.S. Government and other U.S. political
actors have an incredibly important role to play at this
critical juncture. We urge the friends of Northern Ireland
among you to call for real progress on delivering a
comprehensive approach to the past.
As the Haass draft agreement itself emphasizes, the time to
rise to the challenge of the past is now, because Northern
Ireland does not have the luxury of putting off this difficult
but potentially transformative task any longer.
Thank you.
Mr. Smith. Ms. Hall, thank you very much for your testimony
and for your report, which is very, very disturbing, but we
need to know what is going on, we need to know the truth, and
for asking very tough questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hall follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith. Your point that no one at higher levels of
government have been held accountable, I mean, that is
appalling. That this many years into the process, that that
remains the case, and the mistreatment of the Finucane family
by the British Government is symptomatic of a larger problem,
but certainly for their sakes, it is just a nightmare that just
never ends.
I would like to ask you, if I could, Ms. Finucane, a couple
of questions.
You know, I know you have a legal challenge to the
Government's refusal to order an independent judicial inquiry
into the state collusion of your husband's death. Could you
give us an update as to where that is?
Ms. Finucane. Yes. After the Prime Minister announced that
there would be a review, and we felt that, because we have been
promised an inquiry it was the wrong decision, so we took
proceedings in Belfast in the high court and to review the
decision to have a review and not an inquiry, and that has
taken slightly longer than we anticipated because they have
been very slow at disclosing information, but at the same time
it has been valuable, because much new information, even more
information than came out in the DeSilva Report has come to
light, and one of the interesting things was that the decision
was not a unanimous decision made by the cabinet.
One of the chief civil servants was appalled that David
Cameron could renege on the governmental promise made at Weston
Park. He was astounded that David Cameron was going to announce
a review and not an inquiry.
So we hope that the full hearing will start perhaps in the
autumn, but we have to wait and see.
Mr. Smith. Has either President Obama or the Prime Minister
of the Taoiseach, Kenny, supported your efforts by urging Prime
Minister Cameron to reconsider his decision, not to conduct the
promised inquiry? Have either of them spoken out specifically
on your case to Cameron for such an inquiry?
Ms. Finucane. Well, many years ago when the President was a
Senator, he signed a Senate Resolution agreeing that we needed
a public inquiry, and I know that the Taoiseach, Enda Kenny,
continually brings up the case.
Mr. Smith. Yes.
Ms. Finucane. And, whenever he can and wherever he can, and
his support is invaluable.
Mr. Smith. Now, but has President Obama? You said Senator
Obama. Has----
Ms. Finucane. But----
Mr. Smith [continuing]. President Obama?
Ms. Finucane. I don't know.
Mr. Smith. Okay. Let me ask you this: Sir Jeremy Heywood, a
member of Prime Minister Cameron's cabinet, has questioned the
Prime Minister as to whether it was right to renege on a
commitment to the inquiry, that he characterized the killing
and collusion as a ``dark moment in the country's history.''
Did that give you some encouragement to have someone of such
high stature bucking the boss, so to speak?
Ms. Finucane. Well, yes. And he was not the only one and it
wasn't a lone voice in the cabinet, but he has served more than
one Prime Minister, so he is a very senior civil servant.
Mr. Smith. Can I ask you, Mr. Devlin, has any
representative of the British Government at any time ever
apologized to you----
Mr. Devlin. Never.
Mr. Smith [continuing]. For the terrible----
Mr. Devlin. Never.
Mr. Smith [continuing]. Attack on you? Never.
Mr. Devlin. Never.
Mr. Smith. Do you know what the current status of the
investigation into the Military Reaction Force is? I mean, has
anybody contacted--I mean, you are a victim.
Mr. Devlin. Yes.
Mr. Smith. You are now here in America, but you are easily
reachable, it would seem to me.
Mr. Devlin. No one has contacted me and I don't think there
is anything being done, which is an absolute disgrace.
Mr. Smith. Which again goes to Ms. Hall's point about no
one in higher levels of government have been held to account.
Perhaps you might want to elaborate on that, if you would, and
whether or not the MRF has been included in at least a request
that has been made for accountability by the British
Government?
Ms. Hall. If you will permit me to take a step--one step
back and talk about a report that was issued in July 2013 by
Her Majesty's Inspectorate of the Constabulary.
This report found that the HET, the currently existing
Historical Enquiries Team, treated cases where State actors
were involved in killings very differently than they treated
other cases. This is an official report, by the way, it is not
the report of a non-governmental organization, although I do
find NGO reports very credible. It was striking to see Her
Majesty's Inspectorate say that in cases where British military
officers or other State actors were involved, the HET was less
rigorous in its inquiry, that various forms of evidence were
made available to these actors prior to their giving statements
in the HET, and this led the HMIC, to conclude that there is a
serious undermining of confidence in the Historical Enquiries
Team.
Now, that context for this notion, that people in higher
levels of government have not been held accountable. State
actors in general, in this process, have evaded accountability,
and that is exactly why at this point, at this very critical
15-year-on juncture, Baroness O'Loan, Dr. Haass, Amnesty
International, many other NGO's, and certainly the NGO's who
are working with victims every single day on the ground in
Northern Ireland, are calling for a comprehensive approach.
In a comprehensive approach where there is one mechanism
that is looking at these cases, we could only hope that the
force that held Mr. Devlin as a victim would definitely be a
force that would be under investigation. Currently, to our
knowledge, it is not under investigation in any way in the
currently existing mechanisms.
So I hope that you can take that context and really
understand very clearly that it is not an accident that higher
level State actors are not being held accountable, it is not a
simple oversight that this unit has never been under
investigation. It is a deliberate policy of the Government of
the United Kingdom to ensure that certain truths never are
revealed about those years of conflict.
What they don't understand is the will of the families like
the Finucanes, like Mr. Devlin, like the families that we have
talked to, dozens and dozens of them over 2 years of research,
these families are demanding justice and accountability. And I
hope that the British Government is listening, because I don't
think at this point in time, that their voices are going to be
able to be drowned out any longer.
Mr. Smith. In your view, has the Obama administration
raised this in the way that it ought to?
Ms. Hall. We are here today to ask them to do so. We are
here today to ask the United States Government to do precisely
that, to ask other politicians like yourselves to do that.
There are very few governments that have the kind of influence
on the Government of the United Kingdom that the United States
Government has. This is the forum where we are making that
request of the U.S. Government, of President Obama, Vice
President Biden and politicians in both houses of Congress.
Mr. Smith. Let me ask you, Nuala O'Loan called for an
independent commission of Dr. Haass, an historical
investigations unit. In your view, in all of your views, is
that--and that does not in any way preclude an independent
inquiry of the Finucane case, but for these other cases, is
that something that would yield results, in your opinion, Ms.
Hall?
Ms. Hall. It was very interesting to see the dialogue
today. Dr. Haass was very clear that he spoke basically on
behalf of the parties.
Mr. Smith. Right.
Ms. Hall. So was giving voice to people from Northern
Ireland, Baroness O'Loan, from the United Kingdom.
What Amnesty International has said is that one mechanism
that is comprehensive is absolutely essential. The people of
Northern Ireland, with the various political parties and the
Governments, the United Kingdom Government and the Irish
Government, should make the decision about what that looks
like. From Amnesty International's perspective, the
requirement, the sole requirement would be that any mechanism
must conform with the United Kingdom's international human
rights obligations. It has to be independent, thorough,
effective, impartial, and ensure that perpetrators are held
accountable and victims have effective redress.
Mr. Smith. Thank you. So the current mechanisms, just to be
clear, are broken and need to be replaced with a mechanism that
is all those things you just said?
Ms. Hall. Yes.
Mr. Smith. Ms. Finucane brought up the whole issue of the
restriction notices and you--just for the record, I and others
did write the Members of Parliament when they were considering
a terrorism law and the ability to convey to Ministers a veto
power over what goes forward or not.
It seems to me that, again, this is another area where a
coverup is not too strong of a word. Nuala O'Loan mentioned in
her testimony, or testified about the gate-keeping function
played by the legacy unit, which employs former Special Branch
officers. It seems to me that such an independent inquiry would
have to be able to overcome that obstacle as well, otherwise,
under a false notion of national security, people who have
committed atrocities will be concealed or hidden from any kind
of accountability; is that correct?
Ms. Hall. There are two issues here: One is the
independence, which of course former RUC Special Branch
officers have no place investigating violations by RUC Special
Branch, even if they occurred 20 or 30 years ago. So I think
that in terms of independence, that is a critical issue.
The second point to make on the notion of, you know, what
is required, we have not actually said whether it should be an
actor from outside of Northern Ireland or whether it should be
composed of people from Northern Ireland, but it is absolutely
clear that in the North, very few people have been untouched by
the conflict, and if you are not untouched, it means that you
cannot be impartial. So our call would be to ensure that there
is independence and impartiality as well as effectiveness and
thoroughness.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Devlin testified that the perpetrators have
generally been rewarded with pensions, promotions and medals,
there is a message in that. Ms. Hall, how would you respond to
that, talking about the MRF?
Ms. Hall. You will note in our report that we do not
reference the MRF, and I feel uncomfortable discussing a
factual situation with which I have very little firsthand
knowledge. But do let me say that it is not the first situation
of post-conflict where we have seen the perpetrators of crimes,
the perpetrators of violence actually go up the ladder.
Right? It is a way of rewarding people who essentially were
seen at one point as helping to protect the state, but from
Amnesty International's point of view, national security
concerns can never trump fundamental human rights. Patrick
Finucane's life was taken, Mr. Devlin's life was threatened.
Those are crimes under international law, and the invocation of
protecting the state or national security can never trump such
fundamental human rights protections.
Mr. Smith. Thank you.
Chairman Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And, again, let me just say it is always an honor to be
working with Chairman Smith. He is a man of great honor and
integrity, but also a man of truly a commitment to humanity.
And I have known--after my 25 years I have been here in
Congress, and he is one of my most respected colleagues, in my
eyes.
And I am trying to grasp what the best way to make a better
world is here, and I know we have just--I think we need to make
sure we have everything in perspective as well. We are talking
about violence that took place against people who were not
engaged in violent activity, were not engaged in terrorism, but
violence that was conducted by authorities on people who were
not engaged in violence.
But at that time, there were a lot of people engaged in
violence in that society, and we did have a situation where
pubs were being blown up and Margaret Thatcher, I understand,
her--there was an attempt on her life, and several people in
the building, they have lost their lives when a bomb went off
in the building that she was in. There was violence being
committed.
Now, let me ask all the way down the line, we are talking
about justice for people who committed murders who were part of
the other side, are we not? I mean, we want investigations not
just of the officials that were engaged in this, but also
perhaps people who were in the IRA at the time who planted
bombs and killed numbers of civilians; is that right, Ms. Hall?
Ms. Hall. I am sorry, Chairman Rohrabacher, you were
otherwise engaged with business and you stepped out.
I had mentioned in my comments that one of the key issues
for Amnesty International is further investigation of the
policies and practices of the armed groups, of all of the armed
groups----
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right.
Ms. Hall [continuing]. Including the IRA, so, yes----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you.
Ms. Hall [continuing]. In fact, abuses by all sides.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yeah. I have some constituents out, and
one thing about democracy, we have to pay attention to our
constituents, so I had a group of constituents I had to say
hello to and focus on that for a few minutes.
Thank you for that answer. That is exactly the right
answer. You know, there is--we know that in the past we have
had leaders of countries who earlier on had committed acts of
violence against civilians, do we not? And I think the one that
everybody knows about is Mr. Begin, in Israel, who helped bomb
the King David Hotel, where I happen to stay. And they make a
big deal out of it in the King David Hotel, where they actually
have a video of the bombing and then they have a video when
Begin came back 20 years later as the Prime Minister to the
hotel.
Tell me, would the approach that we are trying to take
today, would that make peace any better, any easier if Mr.
Begin would have been prosecuted instead of--which they did,
they did not focus on that, but said 20 years later, he was
elected to Parliament.
In fact, he became the Prime Minister; is that what we are
talking about?
Ms. Finucane. I would say in our case, we have never sought
prosecutions----
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right.
Ms. Finucane [continuing]. Against those that perpetrated
the crime against my husband, but what we--a statement I made
many, many years ago was in Northern Ireland at the time my
husband was shot, gunmen were two a penny. It wasn't hard to
get somebody to pull a trigger. And I have never really been
interested in the person who pulled the trigger. I am
interested in the people behind that, who sent that man out.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Uh-huh
Ms. Finucane. And I want to know how far up the chain of
command that went.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I think that that is very legitimate for
someone, anyone who is--it is even legitimate for Mr. Devlin to
say, who shot me and at least let's hold someone accountable,
if nothing else, for an apology for maybe shooting someone that
they----
Mr. Devlin. Well, sir, you had made a comment earlier on
about giving it up and that in the past was the past and let
bygones be bygones.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Could you talk a little bit closer to the
mike?
Mr. Devlin. I am sorry. You had made a point earlier on of
letting the past be the past and letting bygones be bygones.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
Mr. Devlin. The Israelis never let the past be the past and
let bygones be bygones. To this day they still hunt down the
people who carried out the Holocaust.
These people carried out a heinous crime in Northern
Ireland, and something has to be done.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I will say this, that my reading of this,
and I am just not an apologist for Israel and anything they do
is right, but----
Mr. Devlin. Right.
Mr. Rohrabacher [continuing]. My reading is if there was an
agreement with the Palestinians tomorrow, the Israelis would
let bygones be bygones and actually live at peace with the
people who are going to live at peace with them. It is the
ongoing conflict that creates this hatred, and the idea is to
try to stop----
Mr. Devlin. People just want----
Mr. Rohrabacher [continuing]. To try to stop this type of
violence.
Mr. Devlin. People just want the truth. They are not
looking to have people hang them from a flag pole, they are
looking to have the truth.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Good.
Mr. Devlin. And if you can't give us the truth, then what
are you hiding? The British Government are hiding stuff. The
people that were in power at the time are hiding stuff. They
have to come out and tell people what went on. It doesn't
matter what you say, how you pinned it. These were criminals
that carried these crimes out. We know they may not go to jail,
but God Almighty, the people that gave them the orders to do it
have to be brought to justice.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, if you are calling for
accountability and truth, you are pleading your case and people
are--and myself and others are totally on your side on that
call. I mean, this is obviously accountability, but
accountability doesn't necessarily mean going back 20 or--one
thing is locating people who were involved in conflict, it is
another thing after 30 or 40 years.
When I said 25 years, it was 25 years since someone
murdered your husband. 25 years. It was--but you are right, you
are right. You deserve to know who was involved in that and you
deserve to know if the British Government was involved in
approving that, you deserve to know that, and the public
deserves to know that, and that is how we will get people in
government to make right decisions, knowing that eventually the
truth will come out if they make a criminal decision like to
kill an unarmed person or to terrorize a population. So that, I
don't have any disagreement with that. Don't think because I am
trying to figure out a way to get people to live in peace with
one another.
I will say that there are still 50 pages of the Warren
Commission report that have not been made public. And I am one
of the--I don't know if are on this, Chris, but I am, I am one
of the guys saying everything should be open after 50 years,
for Pete's sake, the American people should know everything.
And, frankly, it shouldn't even be 50 years and it
shouldn't be 25 years; at least as soon as possible is to get
an honest assessment of situations like this, the public should
know that. And Amnesty International's been playing a wonderful
role in trying to expose these evils that governments have done
around the world.
So again, I love Ireland. And I will have to say, I
honestly believe that had Ireland not been split with those six
counties in the north and, you would not have this problem
today, because the Irish throughout the rest of that area are
not--the Protestants and the Catholics are not at each other's
throats in the Republic of Ireland.
And so it behooves us to make the right decision on these
dramatic era issues of what is going to be one country and
sovereignty, et cetera, rather than just trying to get over the
hump. And what happened in--as we know in 1920 and at that
time, the British people were just tired of fighting, what
agreement can we make, and they just went ahead and agreed to a
rotten agreement, and that is why we are still trying to solve
it today. But, that is a whole other issue.
And, ma'am, I am sorry that your husband was taken away and
shot. I mean, that is a horrible thing.
Ms. Finucane. It may seem like a distant time for you, and
you keep referring back to things that happened in the past and
maybe letting them go, but for me, it is a current issue, and
in 25 years in practically every one of those 25 years, there
has been new information come to light, so it is never an in-
the-past issue, not for me or for other people in Northern
Ireland.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I understand.
Ms. Finucane. And although it started off as questions
about the murder of one man, it has now come to be a collusion
policy that was carried out against every single person in
Northern Ireland. No matter who you were or what you did, if
you were dispensable, you could be disposed of. And we want
that exposed, we want the people who put that policy in place
made accountable.
And you referred earlier on to picking at a little scab. I
myself used an analogy for many years that what is happening in
Northern Ireland, and not just in my case, is a deep, deep
wound, and you cannot cover a deep wound up. If you stitch it
up, it will fester and it will burst, and what you need to do
is deal with it and pack it and start at the bottom, and then
you end up with practically no scar at all, and that is what we
need.
Because I do one case, because I fight for my husband's
name, but it has come to mean quite a lot in Northern Ireland,
and many people who are unable or unwilling to stand up and be
as public as I am, encourage me to continue, because they know
that if the truth comes out in my case, it will satisfy them.
And that is all they want: Truth and justice.
Mr. Rohrabacher. That was a very fine retort. Thank you.
Ms. Finucane. Thank you.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very, Chairman Rohrabacher.
Just a couple final comments. You know, one of the things
about the Finucane case that got me personally, but also our
subcommittee, so focused, including resolutions that passed in
the House overwhelmingly that I authored, was the denial, the
lies, the multi-layered deception that was engaged in by the
British Government. And only in recent vintage did they come
forward and suggest that there was collusion, but had you,
Geraldine, accepted those lies, not only would the case of your
husband's mistreatment, the cruelty that was meted out against
him and yourself and the family who witnessed this terrible
murder, but it would have enabled those lies and that deception
to have further credibility and credence going forward.
This is one big massive coverup that needs to be exposed,
and I can assure you that this subcommittee and this chairman
will not cease so long as I have breath to do so.
I also would ask of Mr. Devlin, in the Panorama documentary
by the BBC, the three people who speak on record on camera were
proud----
Mr. Devlin. Yeah.
Mr. Smith [continuing]. Proud. You watch that, you see a
pride come through this TV screen for the killings that they
engaged in; no remorse, no sense of, we have done wrong, I beg
your forgiveness.
If you could--when you watched that, and of course you were
a part of that show, but when you watched it, what was your
reaction looking at cold-blooded murderers talking about drive-
by shootings and the like?
Mr. Devlin. At that time, it was just like a common thing
in Northern Ireland, as Mrs. Finucane just said, that no one
knew who was doing what, and there was--everybody was, like,
colluding with someone.
The RUC were colluding with someone, the British Army were
colluding with someone. They were all--it was like a big game
to them. And if these guys were on TV, the way they talked, it
was like they were going out for a cruise that night, and it
was like a drive-by shooting that you would see in a gangland
in LA or in South America, that is what they thought they were
doing. They just thought this was okay: We don't have anybody
to answer to, because we have been given carte blanche.
And they did that and they did it throughout the years.
Right up until the peace process, they were still doing.
Mr. Smith. As you watched the documentary, what was your
reaction in watching?
Mr. Devlin. I just thought they were murderers and animals
and they need to be--listen, I know they might not get any jail
time, statute of limitations or whatever it is, but these
people have to be put up on a dock and asked why did you do
this and who did--told you to do this. But they were animals,
they were just pure animals. They--they were like the Black and
Tans reincarnated, only they were called the MRF.
Mr. Smith. Would you like to add anything before we
conclude the hearing, any of our witnesses?
You know, Geraldine, our first hearing on your husband, you
will recall, was back in 1997. Michael testified at that. We
will not give up until the public inquiry, full, independent
with all facts on the table occurs and--and we will not give up
as a committee, I can assure you, with good, strong support
from both sides of the aisle, until that which is hidden
becomes known.
I do plan on introducing a resolution. The gist of it will
be focusing on the whole concept of an independent commission
along the likes of Nuala O'Loan and what Special Envoy Haass,
Ambassador Haass, talked about. As you pointed out, Ms. Hall,
the current systems are not working.
I would suggest cynically that while they may have had a
good beginning, many of the guts of it have made it designed to
fail, and it is failing, so we will work.
I would invite your input as to what should go into that
resolution. And I was just reminded, I did remember, Julia Hall
testified at that 1997 hearing as well. So thank you for your
long stay and your focus on this as well.
Ms. Hall. I did.
Mr. Smith. Thank you.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:47 p.m., the joint subcommittee was
adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Material submitted for the record by the Honorable Richard N. Haass,
chair, Panel of Parties in the Northern Ireland Executive
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Material submitted for the record by the Honorable Christopher H.
Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey, and
chairman, Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights,
and International Organizations
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Material submitted for the record by the Honorable Christopher H.
Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey, and
chairman, Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights,
and International Organizations
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Material submitted for the record by Ms. Julia Hall, expert on criminal
justice and counter-terrorism in Europe, Amnesty International
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]