22 April 1999 Edition
Running for cover - RUC Chief under pressure
by Laura Friel
The probe into the Finucane murder announced by the RUC Chief this week, may be ``fresh'' and ``new'' but it is not independent. Indeed the appointment of John Stevens, the British policemen whose inquiry into collusion in the early 1990s gave the RUC a clean bill of health, implies there is nothing very fresh or new about the probe either.
A media offensive launched by RUC Chief Ronnie Flanagan last week could not deflect the spotlight of international criticism currently focused on the RUC. In a week that saw the future of the RUC becoming increasingly embroiled in the deaths of civil rights lawyers Pat Finucane and Rosemary Nelson, Ronnie Flanagan sought refuge in the tabloid press.
``I've ordered Finucane probe'' ran the front page banner headlines of the Sunday People. ``By RUC Chief Ronnie Flanagan,'' highlighted in red and beneath the smiling uniformed figure. Devoid of even the pretence of journalistic scrutiny, the front page was simply given over to the RUC. Ronnie Flanagan sets out his case, ``No Hiding Place for Terrorists'' in a lengthy essay beside an editorial welcoming the ``new police probe''. It's clever PR. Ronnie Flanagan is sympathetic, Rosemary Nelson's murder was ``brutal'' and ``cowardly''. He appears contrite, it is ``understandable'' that the killing provoked ``shock and outrage...not only here but internationally''. Flanagan acknowledges that ``many right-thinking people have indicated concerns... about how the murder should be investigated''. He is ``determined'' to fully address ``the concerns of such people.'' But then there are the wrong-thinking people whose concerns are not to be addressed by the Chief Constable. ``... One of the saddest features... is the willingness - even eagerness - which some exhibit in their preparedness to use the most tragic of events to pursue their own agenda''. And to whose agenda is the RUC chief referring? Republicans campaigning for the disbanding of the RUC, Portadown nationalists who pointed the finger of collusion, or perhaps the families of Pat Finucane and Rosemary Nelson, who are calling for investigations independent of the RUC? Perhaps it is Param Cumaraswamy, whose fiercely critical submission to the United Nations Human Rights Commission was to be presented just hours after Flanagan's article appeared in the press?
Understandably perhaps, the RUC Chief is unspecific in his criticism. Besides, Flanagan assures us, he was ready and willing to step aside. ``I was totally open to the concept of an investigation completely independent of the RUC''.
Unfortunately, he was persuaded to do the decent thing and remain in control.
``All of the best investigative advice... accords with my own view, that an investigation without the RUC would seriously reduce the chance of a successful outcome''. And just what is a successful outcome? The RUC Chief gives us a hint. ``We remain as determined to bring to justice Pat Finucane's killers as we do those of Rosemary Nelson.''
Nationalists fear the reverse is closer to the truth, that the RUC's `determination to bring to justice the killers of Rosemary Nelson will mirror the decade of foot-dragging we have experienced since the death of Pat Finucane. The impetus for investigating the murder of the Belfast solicitor, far from coming from within the RUC, has depended wholly on those ``wrong-thinking'' people Ronnie Flanagan is so determined to ignore. The probe into the Finucane murder announced by the RUC Chief this week, may be ``fresh'' and ``new'' but it is not independent. Indeed the appointment of John Stevens, the British policemen whose inquiry into collusion in the early 1990s gave the RUC a clean bill of health, implies there is nothing very fresh or new about the probe either.
Last November, a 60-page document compiled by the British Irish Human Rights Watch presented new and compelling evidence of collusion, through their agent Brian Nelson, by British military Intelligence in the killing of Pat Finucane. Although the findings of the Stevens Inquiry have never been published, it is believed that evidence of collusion by the British army's Force Research Unit was cited by Stevens. Clearly, the RUC Chief is engaged in shifting the focus away from the RUC towards a British army unit which was disbanded shortly after the Nelson trial.
For northern nationalists, the murder of Rosemary Nelson was the most recent reminder that crown force collusion is still up and running. The tacit collusion of the British in the fudging tactics of the RUC Chief offers no reassurance to nationalists, who had hoped a government headed by Tony Blair would not follow the same old security agenda of the Thatcher regime. Conceding what has already been exposed is an exercise in damage limitation, it has nothing to do with truth or justice.
The probe into the Finucane murder announced by the RUC Chief this week, may be ``fresh'' and ``new'' but it is not independent. Indeed the appointment of John Stevens, the British policemen whose inquiry into collusion in the early 1990s gave the RUC a clean bill of health, implies there is nothing very fresh or new about the probe either.
A media offensive launched by RUC Chief Ronnie Flanagan last week could not deflect the spotlight of international criticism currently focused on the RUC. In a week that saw the future of the RUC becoming increasingly embroiled in the deaths of civil rights lawyers Pat Finucane and Rosemary Nelson, Ronnie Flanagan sought refuge in the tabloid press.
``I've ordered Finucane probe'' ran the front page banner headlines of the Sunday People. ``By RUC Chief Ronnie Flanagan,'' highlighted in red and beneath the smiling uniformed figure. Devoid of even the pretence of journalistic scrutiny, the front page was simply given over to the RUC. Ronnie Flanagan sets out his case, ``No Hiding Place for Terrorists'' in a lengthy essay beside an editorial welcoming the ``new police probe''. It's clever PR. Ronnie Flanagan is sympathetic, Rosemary Nelson's murder was ``brutal'' and ``cowardly''. He appears contrite, it is ``understandable'' that the killing provoked ``shock and outrage...not only here but internationally''. Flanagan acknowledges that ``many right-thinking people have indicated concerns... about how the murder should be investigated''. He is ``determined'' to fully address ``the concerns of such people.'' But then there are the wrong-thinking people whose concerns are not to be addressed by the Chief Constable. ``... One of the saddest features... is the willingness - even eagerness - which some exhibit in their preparedness to use the most tragic of events to pursue their own agenda''. And to whose agenda is the RUC chief referring? Republicans campaigning for the disbanding of the RUC, Portadown nationalists who pointed the finger of collusion, or perhaps the families of Pat Finucane and Rosemary Nelson, who are calling for investigations independent of the RUC? Perhaps it is Param Cumaraswamy, whose fiercely critical submission to the United Nations Human Rights Commission was to be presented just hours after Flanagan's article appeared in the press?
Understandably perhaps, the RUC Chief is unspecific in his criticism. Besides, Flanagan assures us, he was ready and willing to step aside. ``I was totally open to the concept of an investigation completely independent of the RUC''.
Unfortunately, he was persuaded to do the decent thing and remain in control.
``All of the best investigative advice... accords with my own view, that an investigation without the RUC would seriously reduce the chance of a successful outcome''. And just what is a successful outcome? The RUC Chief gives us a hint. ``We remain as determined to bring to justice Pat Finucane's killers as we do those of Rosemary Nelson.''
Nationalists fear the reverse is closer to the truth, that the RUC's `determination to bring to justice the killers of Rosemary Nelson will mirror the decade of foot-dragging we have experienced since the death of Pat Finucane. The impetus for investigating the murder of the Belfast solicitor, far from coming from within the RUC, has depended wholly on those ``wrong-thinking'' people Ronnie Flanagan is so determined to ignore. The probe into the Finucane murder announced by the RUC Chief this week, may be ``fresh'' and ``new'' but it is not independent. Indeed the appointment of John Stevens, the British policemen whose inquiry into collusion in the early 1990s gave the RUC a clean bill of health, implies there is nothing very fresh or new about the probe either.
Last November, a 60-page document compiled by the British Irish Human Rights Watch presented new and compelling evidence of collusion, through their agent Brian Nelson, by British military Intelligence in the killing of Pat Finucane. Although the findings of the Stevens Inquiry have never been published, it is believed that evidence of collusion by the British army's Force Research Unit was cited by Stevens. Clearly, the RUC Chief is engaged in shifting the focus away from the RUC towards a British army unit which was disbanded shortly after the Nelson trial.
For northern nationalists, the murder of Rosemary Nelson was the most recent reminder that crown force collusion is still up and running. The tacit collusion of the British in the fudging tactics of the RUC Chief offers no reassurance to nationalists, who had hoped a government headed by Tony Blair would not follow the same old security agenda of the Thatcher regime. Conceding what has already been exposed is an exercise in damage limitation, it has nothing to do with truth or justice.