CALL FOR OMAGH INQUIRY IS DUE ITS ANNUAL AIRING
Call for Omagh inquiry is due its annual airing
Patrick Murphy
WHAT would a public inquiry into the Omagh bombing achieve? That question is due its annual airing next Monday, the seventh anniversary of the Real IRA atrocity in which 29 people and unborn twins were killed.
The argument for an inquiry is that the British and, to a lesser extent, the Irish governments face some perplexing questions on the role of their security forces, both before and after the bombing. The argument against is that inquiries simply make rich lawyers even richer and tell us little we do not already know. So the choice is simple - are the questions so serious that we might be justified in spending millions of pounds to find the answers?
In the north many questions have been raised in the report by Police Ombudsman, Nuala O'Loan. She found that RUC officers had ignored prior warnings about the bomb, failed . to act on crucial intelligence and bungled the investigation. Since then it has been claimed that one anonymous tip-off was actually made by a Special Branch officer. If this is true, it would appear that one part of the Special Branch did not know what the other part was doing. Is that another bungle or does it verge on conspiracy? O'Loan's conclusion that senior members of the RUC were defensive and uncooperative during her inquiry might suggest a conspiracy. But the problem with conspiracy theories is that they sometimes contain more theory than conspiracy. In the south there have been many questions about Garda-RUC cooperation prior to the bombing but even more intriguing is the impending retrial of a man originally convicted of the offence. The appeal judge accepted that Garda interview notes had been altered, a process described by defending counsel as a "massive perjury".
Another man who allegedly confessed to gardai that he stole the car used in the bombing, had the case against him dropped. Lawyers for a third man, currently facing trial in the north on charges related to the bombing, claim there is little chance of a prosecution.
So there are questions to be answered about Omagh. Like Bloody Sunday and the Dublin-Monaghan bombings in 1974, these questions take on a new significance in the context of the political consequences of the event.
The outcome of Bloody Sunday, for example, was to drive the civil rights campaign off the streets and to allow the British government to portray events here not as a civil rights issue but as a terrorist campaign. Thus Bloody Sunday had an expected political outcome. The Dublin-Monaghan bombings brought violence to the 26 Counties with a consequent drop in support there for the IRA. Two years earlier another bomb in Dublin forced through the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act. Both have been blamed on British intelligence. Both had expected political outcomes. The experience of the Bloody Sunday hearings, for example, shows that inquiries tend to ask who did what, where and when. But they rarely seek the political motivation by asking why it might have happened. So what were the political consequences of Omagh? It was a bomb too far for most republicans, even those who seriously doubted the peace process. It avoided a major split in the Provisional IRA, terminally damaged traditional republicanism and laid the foundations for PIRA decommissioning. Like Bloody Sunday, it was an event which shaped the politics of the next 10 years.
Of course, there is no evidence that the Irish or British governments influenced events in Omagh to produce such an outcome.
The consequences may have been a fortuitous coincidence and, in any case, they did not plant the bomb.
But if they both gained broad political advantage from 29 murders which they might - and equally might not -have been able to prevent, there would appear to be a case for giving them the opportunity to answer outstanding questions.
If the bombing - in a perverted way - set us on the path to peace, it might be of some consolation to the relatives of the victims. But we have a right to be assured that all reasonable steps were taken to prevent it. Expensive, embarrassing and protracted as it might be, a cross-border public inquiry into the Omagh bombing could achieve justice for its victims, closure for their relatives and provide possible evidence for the conviction of all those involved. But only if it examines not just what happened but why it might have happened.
Patrick Murphy
WHAT would a public inquiry into the Omagh bombing achieve? That question is due its annual airing next Monday, the seventh anniversary of the Real IRA atrocity in which 29 people and unborn twins were killed.
The argument for an inquiry is that the British and, to a lesser extent, the Irish governments face some perplexing questions on the role of their security forces, both before and after the bombing. The argument against is that inquiries simply make rich lawyers even richer and tell us little we do not already know. So the choice is simple - are the questions so serious that we might be justified in spending millions of pounds to find the answers?
In the north many questions have been raised in the report by Police Ombudsman, Nuala O'Loan. She found that RUC officers had ignored prior warnings about the bomb, failed . to act on crucial intelligence and bungled the investigation. Since then it has been claimed that one anonymous tip-off was actually made by a Special Branch officer. If this is true, it would appear that one part of the Special Branch did not know what the other part was doing. Is that another bungle or does it verge on conspiracy? O'Loan's conclusion that senior members of the RUC were defensive and uncooperative during her inquiry might suggest a conspiracy. But the problem with conspiracy theories is that they sometimes contain more theory than conspiracy. In the south there have been many questions about Garda-RUC cooperation prior to the bombing but even more intriguing is the impending retrial of a man originally convicted of the offence. The appeal judge accepted that Garda interview notes had been altered, a process described by defending counsel as a "massive perjury".
Another man who allegedly confessed to gardai that he stole the car used in the bombing, had the case against him dropped. Lawyers for a third man, currently facing trial in the north on charges related to the bombing, claim there is little chance of a prosecution.
So there are questions to be answered about Omagh. Like Bloody Sunday and the Dublin-Monaghan bombings in 1974, these questions take on a new significance in the context of the political consequences of the event.
The outcome of Bloody Sunday, for example, was to drive the civil rights campaign off the streets and to allow the British government to portray events here not as a civil rights issue but as a terrorist campaign. Thus Bloody Sunday had an expected political outcome. The Dublin-Monaghan bombings brought violence to the 26 Counties with a consequent drop in support there for the IRA. Two years earlier another bomb in Dublin forced through the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act. Both have been blamed on British intelligence. Both had expected political outcomes. The experience of the Bloody Sunday hearings, for example, shows that inquiries tend to ask who did what, where and when. But they rarely seek the political motivation by asking why it might have happened. So what were the political consequences of Omagh? It was a bomb too far for most republicans, even those who seriously doubted the peace process. It avoided a major split in the Provisional IRA, terminally damaged traditional republicanism and laid the foundations for PIRA decommissioning. Like Bloody Sunday, it was an event which shaped the politics of the next 10 years.
Of course, there is no evidence that the Irish or British governments influenced events in Omagh to produce such an outcome.
The consequences may have been a fortuitous coincidence and, in any case, they did not plant the bomb.
But if they both gained broad political advantage from 29 murders which they might - and equally might not -have been able to prevent, there would appear to be a case for giving them the opportunity to answer outstanding questions.
If the bombing - in a perverted way - set us on the path to peace, it might be of some consolation to the relatives of the victims. But we have a right to be assured that all reasonable steps were taken to prevent it. Expensive, embarrassing and protracted as it might be, a cross-border public inquiry into the Omagh bombing could achieve justice for its victims, closure for their relatives and provide possible evidence for the conviction of all those involved. But only if it examines not just what happened but why it might have happened.
Further Information
Publisher: THE IRISH NEWS
Ref: IN/0748
Published Date: 13-Aug-05
Related Images
There have been no images archived for this article.