Rede im englischsprachigen Original:
>>>> Madden & Finucane <<<<
Der lange Weg zu Wahrheit
Geraldine Finucane hält die PJ McGrory Gedächtnis Lesung
“Unser Weg zu einer öffentlichen Untersuchung der Ermordung von Pat Finucane
ist der Berg, den wir besteigen. Die Schwierigkeit des Geländes ist der
Widerstand des Staates. Unser Gipfel ist natürlich die Wahrheit.”
Geraldine Finucane
Vielen Dank (Mrs McGrory) für die freundliche Einführung.
Verehrte Gäste, sehr geehrte Damen und Herren, ich fühle mich sehr geehrt,
heute Nachmittag die jährliche PJ McGrory Gedächtnis Lesung halten zu dürfen.
Ich habe den Titel "Der lange Weg zu Wahrheit" gewählt, weil er mir treffend
erschien. Der Weg ist tatsächlich sehr lang. Es sind mehr als 15 Jahre
vergangen, seitdem mein Mann getötet wurde, und dennoch scheint es, dass
heute, lange nach seinem Tod, sein Name und die Erinnerung an ihn lebendiger
sind, als sie es je waren. Man möchte meinen, dass damit schon viel erreicht
ist, aber es gibt noch viel mehr zu tun. Meine Familie und ich werden nicht
Halt machen auf unserm Weg zu einer vollständig unabhängigen, öffentlichen
Untersuchung des Mordes an Pat Finucane.
Je näher wir einer solchen Untersuchung kommen, desto weiter entfernt
scheint sie zu sein. Es ist eine seltsame Situation, wenn etwas, auf das man
zuarbeitet, umso schwerer zu erreichen wird, je näher man ihm kommt. Ich
würde diese Erfahrung mit der des Bergsteigens vergleichen. Am Anfang des
Berges macht man schnelle Forschritte, weil der Weg schon ausgetreten und
die Steigung nicht zu steil ist. Aber während man den Hang weiter aufsteigt
und man sich weiter von Bekanntem entfernt, wird das Vorankommen immer
beschwerlicher und der Weg viel steiler. Die Luft wird dünner und einfache
Pfade immer schwer zu finden. Wenn man dem Gipfel näher kommt, kommt das
Vorhaben fast zum Stillstand, da jeder Schritt mehr und mehr Anstrengung
erfordert.
Unser Weg zu einer öffentlichen Untersuchung der Ermordung von Pat Finucane
ist der Berg, den wir besteigen. Die Schwierigkeit des Geländes ist der
Widerstand des Staates. Unser Gipfel ist natürlich die Wahrheit.
Am Anfang waren wir in der Lage schnelle Fortschritte zu machen wegen allem,
was wir bereits wussten, bevor Pat starb. Wir wussten, dass die RUC ihn mit
dem Tode bedroht hatte. Wir wussten, dass (der britische
Unterhaus-Abgeordnete) Douglas Hogg vorsätzlich hier arbeitende
Rechtsanwälte verleumdet hatte, um sie mehr ins Licht der Öffentlichkeit zu
ziehen und dadurch ihr Leben in Gefahr zu bringen. Wir wussten, dass
sicherheitsrelevantes Material Loyalisten zugespielt worden war. Wir
wussten, dass etwas falsch war, wenn es auch zu diesem Zeitpunkt nicht die
Deutlichkeit und Klarheit hatte wie heute.
Mit der Zeit erfuhren wir immer mehr. Wir erfuhren von einem Mann namens
Brian Nelson, dem Spion der britischen Armee in der UDA. Wir fingen an zu
verstehen, wie das System des Nachrichtendienstes funktionierte; wie bei
Zusammenkünften und am Telefon Information gesammelt und auf
"Kontakformularen" aufgezeichnet wurde, um später gesammelt zu
umfangreicheren Schriftstücken, den sogenannten "Quellenreports des
Militärischen Nachrichtendienstes" zu werden. Wir fanden heraus, dass es
Nelsons Aufgabe war, Loyalisten Informationen zuzuführen, damit die
effektiver dabei wurden, Personen für Attentate auszuwählen. Wir fanden auch
heraus, dass Brian Nelson über die Aktivitäten von Loyalisten an seine
Kontaktpersonen bei der Armee Bericht erstattete, die dann entschieden,
welche Morde statt finden würden und welche nicht.
Wir fanden heraus, dass Brian Nelsons befehlshabender Offizier, Brigadier
Gordon Kerr, eine geheime militärische Einheit leitete, die sogenannte Force
Research Unit. Brigadier Kerr sagte unter dem Pseudonym "Colonel J" bei dem
Prozess gegen Brian Nelson aus, um das Strafmaß zu mindern. Das Erscheinen
von Kerr war auf hohem Level innerhalb des britischen politischen und
militärischen Establishments genehmigt worden, genau so, wie die Aktivitäten der
FRU genehmigt worden waren. Genauso wie die FRU hatte auch die Aussage des damaligen
Colonel Kerr eine andere Seite.
... weiter im englischsprachigen Original. Die deutsche Übersetzung folgt in Kürze ...
In January 1992, at Brian Nelsons’ trial, Kerr testified that Nelson had
saved over 200 lives through the work that he did. We now know, as a result
of the report prepared by former Canadian Supreme Court Justice Peter Cory
that:
“[H]is testimony was based upon a report prepared and given to him by a
soldier. When the report is reviewed, it can be seen that it is a very frail
structure that can give little or no support to the testimony of the
Commanding Officer of FRU.”[1]
Judge Cory continues:
“Some might think that the testimony of the CO of FRU … was, at the very
least, misleading. In fact, on further scrutiny, it becomes even more
questionable. During a chance meeting shortly after his testimony, Soldier J
told … the Stevens Inquiry team that he had made a script of his evidence
and it was approved by others in authority. He later denied making such a
comment.”[2]
We also know now what the view of the establishment was toward Brigadier
Kerr, his unit, and the agents they ran. After Kerr gave his evidence, he
received a letter from General Sir John Wilsey, General Officer Commanding,
Headquarters Northern Ireland.
“I cannot let your most sensible and effective contribution on 29 January go
without congratulating you most warmly. Not only did you more than honour
your commitment to Nelson, but you also served the Army’s and I judge
national interests, extremely well.”[3]
The “national interests” being served extremely well are also now clear to
us. We know it and recognise it on many levels: because of what we know of
the State and the existence of FRU, and because of what we know about the
work of Brian Nelson and other informants within the UDA.
We have seen it chronicled and explained, in reports such as the one I have
just quoted from, by Judge Peter Cory and also – to a lesser extent – in the
summary report published by the Stevens III Investigation. My family and I
have not co-operated with Sir John Stevens, but I think part of his report
is worth quoting here, if only because it is so forceful in its simplicity:
“My Enquiries have highlighted collusion, the willful failure to keep
records, the absence of accountability, the withholding of intelligence and
evidence, and the extreme of agents being involved in murder. These serious
acts and omissions have meant that people have been killed or seriously
injured.”[4]
When Sir John Stevens quoted this statement aloud in Belfast on 17th April
2003, he set the case of Pat Finucane apart from all others and changed
fundamentally something about the fabric of the place in which we live. This
happened not just because of what he actually said, but also because of what
his statement represented. In delivering even the briefest of summaries of
his full report, the Commissioner of the London Metropolitan Police, the
highest-ranking Police Officer in Britain was saying, in plain and
unmistakable language, that collusion happened. That it was real. That it is
real. Sir John Stevens – a British Police officer, their foremost police
officer – confirmed that collusion with paramilitaries was
institutionalised, that it was entrenched, that all of the rumours and
accusations, claims and counter-claims made over the years were absolutely
true. That it was part of British State policy in Ireland and may even have
prolonged the conflict.
If there was ever any doubt whatsoever in the eyes of the world about
whether the accusations made against the British State could be true, then
that doubt was erased forever by the delivery of Stevens’ report. It
revealed something to the world about the British State in a way that it had
never been revealed before. It forced the British to face up to something
they had never had to face before. This report wasn’t just about Pat
Finucane. It was about us, our home and our lives. And it was about them and
how they sought to control us, and when they couldn’t control us anymore,
how they sought to get rid of us.
We have come to know all of this because many people, including my family,
kept asking questions throughout the years since Pat was killed. And those
questions led to more questions, which led to more questions, until,
finally, the veneer that the State used to sugar-coat life in this part of
Ireland, cracked. The screen they threw up to make everyone believe that
everything was normal apart from the odd “incident”, the screen that
concealed the true activities of the State here, cracked. Once it had
cracked, we were able to prise it open and then there was no going back
because, once it was open, we could look and see what was behind the screen.
As we all of us now know beyond doubt, a truly horrifying truth was being
concealed. It was not the fact that the State was responsible for murdering
its citizens that was so shocking; it was the extent to which they had been
doing it that caught the breath in your throat, allied to the precision, -
the cold, clinical precision – with which it was carried out.
What we had suspected, what we had feared, what we had perhaps hoped could
not be true, was absolutely so.
The murder of Pat Finucane is not just about the killing of one man: it is a
documented example of a British Government policy in action: state-sponsored
murder. It is a prominent example, perhaps the most prominent we have yet
witnessed, of collusion, the State’s policy of murder by proxy, using
Loyalist assassins as the killers. Pat’s case is the very definition of an
everyman crime because his murder was something that could have happened to
any of us if the whim or ‘interest’ of the State decreed it.
The importance, therefore, of a public inquiry into the circumstances
surrounding Pat’s murder is something that has been clear for many years.
Every domestic and international NGO that concerns itself with human rights
in Ireland has called for a public inquiry into my husband’s case. The
Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Irish Human Rights
Commission have also done so. Every Law Society and Bar Council in England &
Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland has done the same, as
have a number of international bar associations. The former United Nations
Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Dato Param
Cumaraswamy, has called for a public inquiry on four occasions. His
successor, Mr. Leandro Despouy, has continued this call. The UN Special
Representative on human rights defenders, the UN Special Rapporteur on
torture and the UN Human Rights Committee have all supported my family’s
call for a public inquiry. On the tenth anniversary of Pat’s murder, over
one thousand lawyers around the world signed a petition supporting the call
for a public inquiry. The US House of Representatives has called for an
inquiry. The Government of Ireland has repeatedly called for an inquiry
through the Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs,
Brian Cowen. The Irish Government recently repeated this in a statement on
the floor of the United Nations.
All of these, be they distinguished individuals or respected institutions,
have recognised the important role that such an inquiry could play in
advancing the peace process. In 1997, the United States House of
Representatives’ Sub-Committee on International Operations and Human Rights
held its first public hearing on human rights in Northern Ireland. During
that hearing, one of the speakers, Mike Posner, the Director of the US-based
Lawyers Committee for Human Rights[5] identified one of the problems that
existed in trying to resolve a post-conflict situation such as Northern
Ireland: the sheer number and volume of human rights abuses that fell to be
considered. However, Mike Posner suggested that a small number of cases,
properly examined, could have a cathartic effect for many others. He
highlighted two such cases that were, in his view, capable of providing such
a catharsis: Bloody Sunday and Pat Finucane.
The Bloody Sunday Inquiry has already been established and is approaching
the end of its work. The Pat Finucane Inquiry has yet to take place. Since
Mike Posner first made his comments in 1997, his organisation has continued
to publish reports on Pat’s case and on the issue of collusion between the
British Government and Loyalists. They published their first report on the
case in 1993 and given the information available today, it now seems a
little subdued. At the time the report was published, however, it caused a
huge uproar, particularly within the RUC.
The report found, from an investigation carried out as far back as 1992,
that there was “credible evidence that Finucane’s effective legal advocacy
in politically sensitive cases resulted in his harassment and ultimately led
to his killing. We also found credible evidence suggesting collusion between
elements within the security forces and loyalist paramilitaries in
Finucane’s murder.”[6]
The report continued:
“There is also evidence pointing to the involvement of the RUC in the form
of knowing acquiescence or perhaps even instigation. Two independent sources
told us that the RUC had a double agent in the Ulster Defence Association
(UDA). According to these sources, the double agent informed the RUC that
Finucane was a target, assuming they would prevent the murder from taking
place.”[7]
This was an outrageous thing to say and the RUC were not pleased. The Deputy
Chief Constable at the time, Michael McAtamney, wrote to the Lawyers
Committee complaining about the report.
In a letter dated 25 January 1993, he said:
“The shortcomings of the … report are such as to lead me to the conclusion
that it does not merit detailed comment and in its present form is not
capable of being constructively amended. Among its many defects, there is a
repetition of unsubstantiated allegations, as if these constituted evidence
of Security Forces or official misconduct. One is left with the distinct
impression of a mass of allegations resting on a limited, unrepresentative
base of sources.”[8]
The Northern Ireland Office said similar things in its letter of reply from
January 1993. In particular, it rejected any allegation made about the
possible involvement of the RUC:
“We particularly believe that the report, especially in the section on Mr.
Finucane’s murder, is unfair to the security forces, and especially the
Royal Ulster Constabulary…. Unsubstantiated allegations are no substitute
for evidence, particularly in view of the very serious charges you lay at
the RUC’s door.”[9]
Reading the information that was collated by the Lawyers Committee in 1993
in light of what we know today has a rather surreal, ‘through the
looking-glass’ feel about it. The Lawyers Committee continued to investigate
and on the 13th anniversary of Pat’s death, 12th February 2002 (nine years
after they released the first report) an up to date document was published,
bearing the very pertinent title, “Beyond Collusion.” In the introduction to
this report, the following is stated:
“Over the last ten years, the Lawyers Committee has conducted a series of
missions to Northern Ireland to investigate reports of official collusion in
the murder. The evidence that has emerged over this period extends far
beyond isolated acts of collusion by individual members of the security
forces and implicates the very foundations of the government’s security
policy in Northern Ireland. There are many allegations that units within
both the British Army and the RUC were involved at an institutional level in
the murder and subsequent cover-up.”[10]
The allegations being made in 2002 are virtually the same as those made in
1993. Not surprisingly, this report contains no letters of complaint from
the NIO or the RUC; not that the RUC is around any more to complain. It
comprehensively analyses all available information, considerably more than
has been to hand in previous years. However, the element of reminiscence
remains the same. The final paragraph of the report reads as follows:
“The Lawyers Committee believes that in order to demonstrate its commitment
to truth and accountability and restore public confidence in the criminal
justice system, the UK must immediately establish a full, independent public
inquiry into the murder of Patrick Finucane. No other avenue is legitimate,
given the many credible allegations of deep-seated security force
involvement in the case… Indeed, we believe that a public inquiry in
Finucane’s case is an important part of the peace process in Northern
Ireland. The government must confront its past and reveal the full scope of
security force involvement in the murder and subsequent cover-up. Genuine
peace can only be built upon the foundations of democratic
accountability.”[11]
What I am saying this afternoon is thus very different to what I would
really like to be talking about. I have to continue to speak about the work
toward gaining a public inquiry, as opposed to discussing the basis of an
inquiry that is going to happen. I would much rather be talking about
procedures that are to be adopted, witnesses who will be called, evidence
that is to be considered and the panel that will be considering it. I cannot
discuss any of these things because the British Government still refuse to
establish a public inquiry, saying that it must wait for the time being.
This is not a new tactic by the British Government, simply the one that they
have most employed most consistently and to best effect over the years. It
started with the Thatcher administration in 1989 after Pat was murdered. It
continued throughout the administration of John Major 1992-1997, and
persists to this day under the leadership of Tony Blair.
Throughout all of that time, perhaps surprisingly, they have never actually
denied that they colluded with Loyalist paramilitaries in Pat’s murder. They
have simply frustrated and delayed the implementation of a solution to the
problem. The strategy has proved very successful. At least two key
witnesses, Brian Nelson and William Stobie, have died in the last fifteen
years. Vital documentary evidence is missing. The offices of the Stevens
Investigation team were sabotaged in an arson attack. As time goes on and
recollections fade, it becomes more difficult for a public inquiry to
properly resolve all of the issues. This is what the British Government
seeks to achieve and what I in turn must fight to prevent.
A public inquiry was supposed to have been established following the
completion and publication of the report by Judge Peter Cory, the former
Canadian Supreme Court judge. He reviewed all relevant State documentation
about the circumstances surrounding the murder of my husband. His brief was
clear: he was to examine the documentation to see if there was any evidence
that, if proven or accepted by a public tribunal of inquiry, could
constitute evidence of collusion. If he found such material, he was to
recommend a public inquiry to examine the evidence. It sounds simple. It is
simple. Except when the British get hold of it.
When Judge Cory finished his work in October 2003, he delivered his reports
to the British Government for publication, a commitment that had been made
at Weston Park by both the British and Irish Governments. They both agreed
that, “[t]he relevant Government will publish the final reports (but not the
documents on which they are based) subject only to any necessary adjustments
to ensure that the privacy and right to life of individuals is protected…”
This did not happen. The reports presented to the British Government were
not published for six months after they were submitted. In fact, I ended up
having to take the Government to court to try to force them to publish the
report on my husband’s case. The Government claimed in an affidavit that,
“[t]here are complex legal and human rights considerations that must be
resolved before publication to prevent the risk of a successful challenge
that would stop publication.”[12]
What was actually happening behind the scenes was an intense process of
consultation and discussion about what could be published and what was to be
withheld, “in the public interest.” These discussions were taking place
with, among others, Army Intelligence, MI5, and the Stevens Inquiry team.
None of the families involved were consulted at all. We were simply left
waiting, while those in charge made the decisions about what we would be
permitted to see for ourselves. When the reports were eventually published
on 1st April this year, the version of the report by Judge Cory on Pat’s
case was the most heavily censored of them all.
On 1st April 2004, Paul Murphy MP, the Secretary of State for Northern
Ireland, made a statement in the House of Commons to accompany the release
of the four reports. This statement represented much more than an
announcement of Government policy or action. It represented the culmination
of many years hard work by a great many people. The inquiry we all expected
to be announced that day had been bought and paid for, with dedication,
sacrifice, and many years of long, thankless toil. It was going to be an
examination of one of the darkest and most sinister aspects of all our
lives: British State collusion in the deliberate murder of citizens. It was
not just about the murder of one man or the grief of one family. It would be
about how all of us had actually been living our lives for so many years
without being aware of it.
The Secretary of State confirmed that Judge Cory had recommended inquiries
in all four cases that he had investigated in Northern Ireland. He said that
the Government proposed to establish inquiries in three of the cases
immediately. In the cases of Robert Hamill and Rosemary Nelson, these would
be established under the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998. In the case of
Billy Wright, the inquiry would be held under the authority of the Prisons
(Northern Ireland) Act 1953.
In the case of my husband, the Secretary of State said the following:
“In the Finucane case, an individual is currently being prosecuted for the
murder. The police investigation by Sir John Stevens and his team continues.
It is not possible to say whether further prosecutions may follow. The
conclusion of the criminal justice process in this case is thus some way in
the future. For that reason, we will set out the way ahead at the conclusion
of prosecutions.”
No commitment to a public inquiry was given, nor has one been offered since.
In fact, there is only one prosecution in train at the moment, that of Ken
Barrett, who is alleged to have been one of the gunmen. The Director of
Public Prosecutions has been thinking for many months about whether to
prosecute in some 20 other cases, none of which, according to Sir John
Stevens, would be likely to impinge on a public inquiry. It is a matter of
considerable concern to me that these cases may be drip-fed into the system
in order to add to the 15 years’ delay we have already suffered. That the
British Government has much to hide is very clear for all to see; if nothing
else, Judge Cory’s report in the case of Pat Finucane was the most heavily
redacted of all. It is clear to me beyond any doubt that Tony Blair and his
government would rather be part of the problem than part of the solution. By
their actions they condone state killings and impunity for state actors.
I am now engaged in another court case against the British Government to
compel them to commence a public inquiry into the murder of my husband, as
recommended by Judge Cory. I should not have to do this. The British
Government made a commitment to implement the recommendations of Judge Cory
and they are breaking that commitment by refusing to commence an inquiry. It
is not difficult to understand why: the British Government is trying to
postpone the day when it will be exposed to the world as having engaged in
the murder of its own citizens.
I also intend to travel to Downing Street once again to bring my concerns
directly to the Prime Minister, Tony Blair. I have already asked for a
meeting with him because I believe the situation to be very serious. I have
not yet received a response.
We are supposed to be entering a new age of peace, reason and understanding
here in Ireland. Am I not therefore entitled to ask – to demand – that the
British Government lives up to its obligation to reveal the truth? Are we
not, as a community, entitled to the catharsis that was suggested so many
years ago? Are the many that have gone ahead of us not entitled to the
truth, those who have paid so dearly because of what the British State did?
I believe that I am so entitled. I believe that we are all of us so
entitled. I believe that we have earned it.
I welcome the inquiries that have been established very much and I am
pleased for the Hamill, Nelson and Wright families. I hope that the process
proves fruitful for them and that they will get to the truth behind the
murders of their relatives. It remains to be seen how much control the State
will seek to exercise over the manner in which the inquiries are conducted.
It is vitally important that the families are consulted about the terms of
reference for their inquiries and that they should have confidence in
whoever presides over them. If that happens then the truth stands a chance
of emerging and as a citizen who is concerned about the truth, I would like
to know what happened in the cases of Robert Hamill, Rosemary Nelson and
Billy Wright. There are many citizens like me, except they have a fourth
inquiry to be interested in, that has not yet been established and that is
still being fought and resisted by the British Government.
I have spent the last fifteen years fighting to expose the truth behind the
murder of my husband. I believe that the truth will remain hidden until a
fully independent public judicial inquiry is established to investigate all
of the circumstances. It will not be easy to achieve such an inquiry, not
least because it will have to be fought for every inch of the way. I can see
delay and obstruction ahead as the British Government continues its policy
of postponement, but I will not stop until I get what I set out to achieve.
They may have taken Pat’s life, but they did not stop him. Having taken that
life, his family will ensure that they never do. So will his friends, his
colleagues, his admirers and supporters, in Ireland and right across the
world. They will not stop any of us who believe that it is right to stand up
to be counted in the quest for the truth behind the murder of Pat Finucane.
If justice denied anywhere diminishes justice everywhere[13], then the
millions who have watched the attempts to deny justice to Pat Finucane and
his family by the British Government will not allow themselves to be
diminished without responding.
The legacy of Pat Finucane will not be diminished for as long as one person
demands the truth. It is this the continuation of this work, this vocation,
this ideal, that brings us together this afternoon in memory of Pat
Finucane, under the memorial of Paddy McGrory.
Thank you very much.”