6 May 2004 Edition
Torture accusations nothing new for British Army
BY FERN LANE
Last June, Kelly Tilford, an assistant in Max Spielman's photo-processing shop in Tamworth, Staffordshire, developed a film containing a number of photographs which she said made her "sick". The film had been handed in by 18-year-old British Army soldier Gary Bartlam, a private in the 1st Battalion of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, and contained images of Iraqi prisoners being tortured, possibly at the Umm Qasr Detention Centre in Basra, by members of his regiment.
One of the pictures showed a prisoner, partially stripped, dangling from a rope attached to a forklift truck. Two showed Iraqi prisoners being forced to simulate sexual acts on British soldiers and each other, whilst in others naked prisoners where made to lie cowering on the floor as they were photographed for the amusement of their captors.
Although there was some coverage in the British media, it was remarkably muted. Bartlam was arrested, the MoD announced an inquiry, and the British Army Chief of Staff, General Sir Mike Jackson, was wheeled out to praise the Fusiliers as a "thoroughly competent and well-organised infantry battalion", before adding that the "good name of the British Army appears to have been tarnished by a few ill-disciplined and unprofessional soldiers". After that the matter disappeared from public view and the story was forgotten by the media.
When, after his statement in Parliament on Tuesday this week regarding the photographs allegedly showing the torture of an Iraqi prisoner by British soldiers published by the Daily Mirror, the Armed Forces Minister Adam Ingram was asked about the outcome of the Bartlam inquiry, he pointedly refused the answer the question. It is not known whether the inquiry has been completed, whether Bartlam or any of those responsible for the torture have been charged with any offence, whether the army has taken any disciplinary action against them, nor indeed whether any are still in Iraq.
In the days before the photos were made public, the Royal Irish Regiment and its commanding officer, Tim Collins, had come under scrutiny for its mistreatment of Iraqi civilians, including mock executions. Inevitably, Collins was cleared of wrongdoing and was promoted.
These two specific incidents came against a backdrop of a steady stream of allegations of the mistreatment of civilians and prisoners by the British Army. To date, at least 13 prisoners, including civilians, have died whilst in the custody of the army. Several of them appear to have been beaten to death.
FEIGNED SHOCK
Given all of this, the shock expressed by the British Army, the government and the media at the latest allegations of torture of prisoners by members of Queen's Lancashire Regiment seems to be manufactured to say the very least. Once again, General Jackson surfaced to declare his amazement and to say that, if guilty, the men were not fit to put on a British Army uniform. The reality, of course, is that he, along with the British and US Governments, knows perfectly well that detainees — whether civilian or military — have been horrifically mistreated by British and US forces in Iraq since the beginning of the occupation.
The British Government, which must be desperate to prevent any closer examination of the conduct of its armed forces in Iraq, said that those involved, if guilty, were merely a "rogue element" within the regiment and set up another inquiry, much like the Bartlam investigation, no doubt with the similar intention that the matter will fade away and the soldiers involved be excused and returned to duty.
With another interminable inquiry, the matter can be quietly covered up much like the army's conduct elsewhere in the world, including the north of Ireland. It is striking that none of the coverage has discussed the long history of institutionalised British Army abuse around the globe. The treatment of Iraqi detainees is merely a continuation of the long and ignominious tradition of mistreatment, torture and murder by the British Army. The British establishment, however, including the media, continues to labour under the inexplicable delusion that heretofore the reputation of the British Army internationally was somehow untainted. That is not a view shared by those countries unfortunate enough to have been subjected to British occupation. And, with its incorrigible, unassailable sense of superiority, the British Army sneers at the witless, often sadistic brutality of the US Army, as if indulging in such depravity had not been the hallmark of all occupations carried out by British forces.
Curiously, the only, albeit indirect, admission of the history of the army's misconduct has come from a retired lieutenant colonel who, speaking at the time when the Bartlam photos came to light, told the Daily Telegraph that "Britain and other European nations have imperial traditions. As a result, British troops have been inculcated with the ethos and tradition of colonial policing, where small numbers of men would have close contact on a daily basis with local populations".
COLONIAL HISTORY
The civilian populations of former British colonies still bear the scars of this particular form of policing. For example, the army is currently facing some 650 allegations of rape by members of the army stationed in Kenya going back decades. Again, the same excuses of so-called rogue elements have been made, whilst others have tried to discredit the accusers, but Amnesty International has said that "several of these rape claims appear to have been reported to either or both UK and Kenyan authorities soon after the alleged attacks took place. Both countries' authorities failed to take effective action either to investigate the claims and bring the alleged perpetrators to justice or to prevent further attacks. AI is concerned that such systemic failure over more than two decades may amount to institutional acquiescence in these rapes and may have contributed to the emergence of a pattern of grave human rights violations."
TORTURE IN IRELAND
In Ireland from the beginning of conflict, the mistreatment of detainees was well documented but ignored. In 1972, Amnesty reported on the systematic mistreatment of detainees, saying that it amounted to torture. The British Government was found guilty on numerous occasions of breaking international human rights law and, until 2000, refused to sign up to the European Convention on Human Rights. Almost without exception, this behaviour was in relation to its treatment of political detainees and prisoners in the north of Ireland. Most damningly, it was convicted of the inhumane and degrading treatment of detainees after it was revealed that the army and RUC had participated, under orders from the highest level, in beating, sensory deprivation and mock executions of detainees.
And once again, our old friend General Jackson appears in the frame. Most notoriously, he was present when members of his regiment gunned down civilians on the streets of Derry in 1972 and when the army grievously mistreated many of those arrested. He was stationed at the Palace Barracks outside Belfast the year before, precisely at the time details of the torture of detainees first began to emerge. He also supported the reinstatement of the convicted murderers of Peter McBride, both of whom clearly are fit to wear a British Army uniform. Jackson has long and personal experience of the way in which the British Army behaves to those who come into its custody.
The point is, that it does not matter whether or not the Daily Mirror photographs are genuine or a mock-up of an actual incident. Either way, they are a representation of what is going on and what has always gone on. Like the photographs of American soldiers torturing and abusing prisoners (also denounced as rogue elements, despite the fact that there are senior figures within the Bush administration who have publicly stated that they believe the torture of prisoners is acceptable), the Bartlam photographs were unquestionably genuine. It is odd that, apart from the Mirror, almost none of the coverage of the present scandal has referred in detail to that incident, nor to any of the catalogue of charges of mistreatment of detainees which had been made against the British Army. Those with an interest in denying or covering up the torture of prisoners have successfully diverted attention away from the British Army on to the conduct of the editor of a newspaper.