Every unionist party has welcomed the decision not to hold a full public inquiry into the 1989 murder of Belfast solicitor Pat Finucane.
The reason they have given, causing widespread nationalist offence, is that the Finucane case has received more money and attention than most other Troubles deaths. However trite that argument, it matters because it is probably the view of most unionist voters, which has in turn helped the UK government put the same view out in slightly more polished form. Northern secretary Brandon Lewis passed the buck to the PSNI’s general Troubles legacy process, in effect saying the Finucane family should stand in the same stalled queue as everyone else.
The DUP and UUP have mentioned a need for “balance”.
This week a victims’ group submitted a request to Lewis for a public inquiry into the 1978 IRA bombing of the La Mon House hotel, which cost 12 lives.
Sinn Féin is still trying to wish away economic realities of a united Ireland
Newton Emerson: Joe Biden’s Brexit remarks show an opportunity for unionism
EU reveals indifference as it takes its threat to North’s food supply to the wire
Success on housing in North could be Sinn Féin’s route to government in South
There was a clear implication this would provide balance.
However, statements from the UUP in particular have demanded balance to an extent that rejects the very concept of the landmark case – be that Finucane or La Mon.
Republicans do the same: Sinn Féin is the first to complain about a “hierarchy of victims” or even “celebrity victims” when a case it finds uncomfortable is in focus. Unionists have now turned the hierarchy of victims line back against Sinn Féin.
Whataboutery
Comparisons are being made between this form of whataboutery and saying "all lives matter" instead of "black lives matter" – a transparently insincere way of shutting down debate. That instinct is ingrained enough in Northern Ireland to require stating the obvious: there will always be landmark cases, emblematic of certain Troubles themes. They will inevitably emerge from any process, no matter how equitable. This is not politics – it is psychology and mathematics. Attention cannot be evenly spread across 3,700 murders.
A recurring idea throughout the peace process has been to address the past through a balanced selection of landmark cases. Ironically, given unionist complaints, a Finucane inquiry is unfinished business from the most significant such attempt.
If an inquiry was held into La Mon, it could only end up criticising the police and security services for not pursuing leading republicans
In 2001, the UK and Irish governments committed to holding five public inquiries on the theme of collusion. Three involved loyalist murders, including that of Finucane. One was of the republican murder of a loyalist, Billy Wright. The other was of the murder of two RUC officers in the Republic.
The Finucanes rejected this offer of an inquiry because it was to be held under new legislation that gave British ministers some control over disclosure and publication of evidence. The remaining inquiries went ahead, theoretically tipping the balance in unionism’s favour. Why did this not work?
Collusion
The selection of cases was a problem. Unionist parties pushed and continue to push the idea of collusion in the Republic but few people in Northern Ireland consider Irish governments or the Garda to have been significant Troubles protagonists.
The Wright case was further balance in theory that did not work in practice. Although unionist parties sought it, there was little interest from the unionist population, which affects not to care about paramilitaries of any persuasion.
The balance most unionist people want, as illustrated by the demand for a La Mon inquiry, is to have the leadership of the republican movement exposed for running a sectarian murder campaign.
There have already been prosecutions and convictions for the La Mon and Finucane murders. The Finucanes want an inquiry to see who gave the orders, which is exactly what unionists want from their own landmark cases, when they accept such cases are necessary.
For balance, unionists could look to civil prosecutions, a prospect known to keep republicans awake at night
But inquiries do no quite provide this. By their nature, they examine official fault. If an inquiry was held into La Mon, it could only end up criticising the police and security services for not pursuing leading republicans, perhaps finding that to have been collusion.
It is hard to see how any official legacy approach can give unionists the balance they want. A current scheme to hold 52 inquests into a selection of landmark cases has encountered the same basic feature of the authorities ultimately examining themselves.
Honest
Unionist parties need to be honest about this with their constituents. Unless they wish to equate the forces of the state to the IRA, the state must be under the larger microscope. The UK government does sometimes note this, as does Sinn Féin, although more as an excuse than a principle.
For balance, unionists could look to civil prosecutions, a prospect known to keep republicans awake at night. In backroom deals with London, Sinn Féin asks for criminal and civil immunity.
The planned Stormont House legacy process is supposed to end with academics examining “themes” and “patterns” to produce a de facto official history of the Troubles. Unionists should be preparing their arguments for that; republicans certainly will be.
In the meantime, unionist parties need a better argument than “all inquiries matter”.
They are fooling nobody, and not even serving themselves.