How many Stephenses before full truth?

 Tommy McKearney

The summary of ‘Stephens Three’, released this morning in Belfast states plainly that there was collusion between loyalist death squads, RUC Special Branch and the British Army during the course of the troubles. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner’s report includes in his words the following key findings:

• Actions or omissions by security forces led to deaths of innocent people
• Murders of solicitor Pat Finucane and student Allan Lambert could have been prevented
• Collusion I both murders of Pat Finucane and Adam Lambert
• Government minister was compromised in the House of Commons
• Three official inquiries were wilfully obstructed as misled  

John Stephens said: “I have uncovered enough evidence to lead me to believe that the murders of Pat Finucane and Brian Lambert could have been prevented”.

He also bluntly said that: “ I conclude that there was collusion in both murders and the circumstances surrounding them”.

The police chief defines collusion as:

• Wilful failure to keep records
• Absence of accountability
• Withholding intelligence and evidence
• Agents involved in murder

So now we know that there was collusion! It took a long time before even this amount came out and already the Establishment is creating a defence for itself. The BBC is now reporting that ‘Rogue elements within the police and army helped loyalist paramilitaries…’ Note the word ‘Rogue’. This is just another word for the proverbial ‘few bad apples’. The State is therefore isolating a handful of its servants and allowing them take the blame.

At the end of the day the real question is not whether the forces of the State colluded with loyalists, since all but the wilfully blind have long known that. What must be answered are two queries:

1. What part did the British Cabinet play in this process?
2. What exactly was the reasoning behind the killings?

In the first instance it is inconceivable that any British government could have been unaware of such widespread collusion. Moreover, only the deliberately naïve would not have known that in a situation where one section of a divided society controls policing that lethal malpractice such as this was inevitable.

In the second instance it is axiomatic that where the British Army was involved, a rationale for the use of force existed beyond merely ‘running in a few scores against the opposition’. What was that reasoning and did it include a political objective apart altogether from the simply military?

These questions lie at the heart of the story. Will the British Establishment force us to wait for Stephens Four or Five or Six or Forty before we get an answer? The most likely answer is that we may wait but we are unlikely ever to get an honest answer from official London – the State could hardly put itself in the dock.