NORTHERN IRELAND
New pressures on the army
MARTIN WALLACE
As in much mythology, there is a grain of truth at the core. The police did behave very badly on a number of occasions, as the Cameron report—accepted by the Northern Ireland government—made clear. Even now, an investigation into the death of Samuel Devenney in Londonderry last year —some months after an alleged police beat- ing—is nearing its end. If the arnty have also 'over-reacted', to use the current euphemism, it is the consequence of a good deal of provocation and the unusual strain of carrying out a security operation within the United Kingdom. It is a tough job, and anyone who expects the army to do it less than toughly is not facing up to the realities of Ulster life.
The army is doing exactly the same job . it did last August, when Catholics greeted the soldiers almost as liberators; it is holding a line between Protestants and Catholics, particularly in Belfast's narrow streets, and preventing them getting at each other's throats. The difference is that a year ago the Catholic areas lacked arms and were unable to defend themselves; today, these areas have become more aggressive, have brought in arms, and have recovered their traditional hostility to all things British. Still, the troops have managed to prevent any major clash between opposing sections of the population, and it is no inconsiderable achievement.
The honeymoon period began to end at Easter when, following the traditional cele- brations marking the anniversary of the 1916 rising in Dublin, there were several nights of rioting in the Springfield Road area of West Belfast. Since then it has been com- mon to see troops being stoned by Catholic youths and replying with cs gas. Petrol bombs have also been used, and on occasions there has been shooting; the troops have used their fire-power sparingly, even though it has meant they have taken a good deal of physical punishment. The 'snatch squads' are managing to fill Ulster's jails to overflowing, but there seems an inexhaustible supply of Catholic youths ready to have a go at the troops. Belfast is now witnessing at work the hooligan element which the Cameron commission singled out as a significant factor in London- derry's troubles. It is an element which the Catholic citizens' defence committees, so effective at times in maintaining `no go' areas against police or army, seem unable or unwilling to control.
How far the youths are being encouraged by extreme republican elements dedicated to the overthrow of Stormont and British rule it is difficult to say. At times it seems it would be easy to plan and create much more serious trouble than has occurred; probably there is a good deal of spon- taneity in recent disorders. But there is no doubt that republican elements have come to the fore in citizens' defence committees, and are reluctant to cede the authority they enjoyed in the post-August days of barri- cades and 'Free Belfast'. The reorganised RUC are not yet accepted; they are, it is pointed out, the same men under a different leader. To introduce full policing of Cath- olic areas—as promised in the joint security committee's statement of 23 July—was bound to meet resistance.
A turning point in the army's relations with the Catholics of West Belfast came early last month, when a curfew was im- posed in the lower Falls area. As the Central Citizens' Defence Committee pointed out, this had been the only sensitive area of Belfast which had remained free of serious street disturbances since the barricades came down in 1969. The fact that the army un- covered a great many weapons and more than 20,000 rounds of ammunition might have been taken as ample justification for the undoubtedly tough measures. However, the army action was widely interpreted by Catholic spokesmen as evidence of a change of policy following the Conservatives' return to power; by the kind of reasoning which prevails in Belfast today, it is wrong to seize illegal arms in one area unless you show your impartiality by seizing them in another area.
It is not a situation in which the army can expect to please all the people all the time, and it is not so long since the brunt of criticism came from Protestant quarters. Even now, a good many Protestants would argue that the army has been too lenient with rioters and too tolerant of local vigilantes; hence the current right-wing pressure for internment of known repub- licans, rearming of the police and the re- vivification of the a Specials as an armed militia trained in riot control.
A further turning point came with the shooting of nineteen-year-old Daniel O'Hagan on 31 July. The army claims he was holding a petrol bomb when he was killed; local Catholics have denied this. It is the sort of situation in which people believe what they want to believe; what is irrefutable is that the dead youth put his own life at risk by remaining on the streets during a riot situation. Several months time passed since General Freeland, the director of security operations, gave clear warning that petrol bombers could be shot dead. There are signs that the warning is now being taken seriously.
Freeland himself has avoided publicity since the controversy over his speculation last April that the army might not stay long enough in Northern Ireland for the people to solve their problems. The army gives regular and useful on-the-record briefings to the press, but the machinery for investigat- ing complaints grinds slowly and mean- while the army's critics capture the head- lines. Perhaps the army's reticence is wise, for in the past there were some absurd defences of the police when they had patently misbehaved. At the same time, there needs to be some evidence of an outcome to the investigations. This week the assistant Chief of Staff, Brigadier Michael Bayley, said that allegations of brutality were a bid to dis- credit the army and that none had been sub- stantiated. However, it is arguable that a more independent method of inquiring into complaints would be desirable and in the army's own interests.
There is no easy way out for the army; there never is for the man in the middle. Whatever methods they use to maintain peace, someone will criticise them for being too tough or too soft. Freeland himself looks a tough soldier, who has kept himself free from political commitments and takes de- cisions on military grounds. Whether his soldiers are tough enough to take the strain of Ulster life is another matter. More and more, they look ready to hit back, and may find it easier as they become aware of the 'un-Britishness' of Ulster Catholics. It was in these circumstances that the parades ban was imposed, as an attempt to take some pressure off the troops and create conditions in which the police might become more acceptable to the Catholic population. Militarily, it must have seemed a sensible decision, but its success depends on the Ulster people's willingness to get back to some sort of normal existence. So far, no such willingness is apparent.
The narrow backing Major Chichester- Clark received from his own constituency executive this week reflects the weakness of the government's grip on power, and how desperately it needs to achieve a protracted period of peace. Right-wing critics like Mr Williain Craig and Mr Harry West are intent on bringing the government down, and the parades ban has given them their best oppor- tunity to whip up Protestant discontent. But the Prime Minister's hand has been strength- ened by Mr Maudling's clear warning that any reversal of reforms or rejection of the ideals of impartiality and reconciliation could lead to a suspension of Stormont. This will not silence right-wingers' ambitions for power, but it may help to bring the Protes- tant community as a whole to its senses.
Previous page
