Description
Is the British Government’s plan to end prosecutions of Northern Ireland veterans compatible with the UK Government’s ‘rigorously impartial’ co-guarantor role for the Northern Ireland peace process? I argue it is not. Various UK governments have moved towards amnesties primarily to protect British military veterans from potential prosecutions since 1998. Westminster is trying to insulate the UK mainland from political divisions in Northern Ireland and from public opinion discontent.
Most people in Northern Ireland favour supporting victims and survivors choosing between prosecutions, obtaining information about conflict incidents, or ignoring the past. No wonder recent polls show the UK Government’s unconditional amnesty plan is rejected there. Various academics and all political groups on the island of Ireland say conditional amnesties can be justified to deal with conflict legacy. But I argue the UK governments since 1998 have attempted amnesties purely to protect state forces and Westminster political interests. It is this intention and the lack of truth recovery components in recent UK amnesty plans that are contested by many academics, politicians and victims/survivor groups. Legacy alone shows the problem with having sovereign powers and guarantors to a peace settlement who are partial when addressing conflict legacy.
