POLITICS
Chris Patten is guilty of a monstrous breach of faith
BRUCE ANDERSON
As one would expect in a divided society, the report's authors heard widely divergent opinions on the RUC during their researches. Republicans wanted the entire force to be sacked, while most Unionists believed that it was outstandingly successful. Confronted by such opposed views, the authors had a clear duty: to arbitrate. between them on the basis of facts and evidence. But they declined to do so. Instead, they split the dif- ference. Long ago, King Solomon demon- strated the flaws in that approach, but there is no Solomonic wisdom in this document. In their folly, our authors treat the IRA's view of the RUC as having moral equiva- lence with David Trimble's.
Common sense would dictate that anyone proposing to restructure a police force should analyse its recent history. But this document is a history-free zone. Its foot- notes refer mainly to sociological works; our authors appear to assume that there is a Pla- tonic ideal of policing, applicable to all soci- eties at all times. But it is easy to see why they eschewed history. Had they embarked upon it, they would have been unable to withhold their admiration for the way in which a small undertrained police force has evolved into a much larger, superbly trained body: one of the most effective police forces in the world. Of course there have been errors; of course some RUC officers proved to be unworthy of their uniform. But that is true of every police force. It is certainly true of the Met, yet not even Sir William Macpherson has suggested that it should lose its name and insignia. At one point, the report does stumble into history, mentioning the RUC's failure to participate in interna- tional peace-keeping operations. As it hap- pens, 60 RUC men are now in Kosovo, but if the authors had given the topic a moment's thought, they would have realised that for most of the past 30 years the RUC had more pressing domestic priorities.
A proper historical account would also lay bare the reason why there are so few Catholics in the RUC; the IRA will stop at nothing to prevent them joining. Stung by press criticism, Mr Patten said over the weekend that he 'did not need to be told that the reason Catholics were not joining the RUC was that they were being killed in industrial quantities by the IRA'. Well, he evidently did need to be told, because the report contains no mention of these homi- cides. Instead, there is a mere glossing-over reference to 'active discouragement, some- times including intimidation'.
During the first ceasefire, Catholic recruit- ment to the RUC sharply increased. But the IRA learned its lesson from that experience. The current, increasingly nominal ceasefire has not prevented it from tightening its grip on many Catholic areas, and thus deterring potential Catholic policemen. As long as the IRA can prevent Catholics joining the RUC, only a tiny, brave minority will defy it. As soon as the IRA loses that power, Catholics will join. But Gerry Adams has already insist- ed that the RUC must be scrapped in tote, so we must assume that the intimidation will continue. Mr Patten is appeasing the unap- peasable.
Above all, if this report had done justice to history, it would have done justice to the courage which every officer of the RUC has displayed for 30 years, in which to wear that uniform was to be an assassin's target. It would have done justice to the injured, the maimed; to the years of anxiety endured so stoically by wives and families. Finally, it would have done justice to the 302 men and women of the RUC who have fallen in com- bat against terrorism.
Those who defend Mr Patten claim that he is trading symbolism for substance. It is true that at least 80 per cent of this report is non-controversial managerialism, much of it based on work already in progress at RUC headquarters. (As if to re-emphasise its authors' lack of sympathy for the RUC, those sections read like a brochure from a second-rate business school.) But as a Catholic, Mr Patten ought to know that symbolism and substance can often be the recto and verso of the same sheet of paper.
The RUC's cap-badge is the Crown above St Patrick's harp and shamrocks: a beautiful and moving fusion of traditions. The 'Royal' in the title is equally moving. The thought that they were serving the Queen whom they revere, and not just a pack of transient politi- cians whom they often and justifiably despise, has helped to give the officers of the RUC the courage to do their duty: the courage of sacrifice. To repudiate those symbols now would be a monstrous breach of faith.
Even the proposal is also a monstrous breach of faith, with the hopes for peace in Ulster. These now depend heavily on one man: David Trimble. Only he can persuade his fellow Unionists to override their fears and to make one supreme effort: the dou- ble leap. Sinn Fein would join the Northern Ireland executive, and within hours the IRA would start to decommission. But many Unionists are now almost terminally reluctant to make any more leaps. They have made concessions and watched the IRA pocket them without giving anything in return. They have received solemn assur- ances from the Blair government, which are then dishonoured as soon as they are no longer convenient. They have to put up with a Secretary of State who exudes con- tempt for Unionism, its loyalties and its decencies.
Now Mr Patten tells them that Mr Trim- ble has no business to complain: his report was implicit in the Good Friday agreement. That is nonsense, and doubly so. In the first place, Good Friday committed the Irish government to recognising the legitimacy of Northern Ireland. That includes its royal symbols. Second, did indeed propose to encourage more Catholics to join the RUC — a desirable objective — but this does not mean that David Trimble or anyone else is obliged to accept Chris Patten's solutions. If you hire a man to build a wall in your garden, you are not obliged to pay him if it immediately falls down. Mr Patten is wrong about Mr Trimble, but some Unionists will believe him. This will further undermine his authority, and the peace process.
Peace in Ulster is being thrown away, not because of fate or historical determinism, but because those who ought to know bet- ter are behaving frivolously and incompet- ently. David Trimble described the Patten report as `shoddy'; he was right. In Turkey and Greece, shoddy buildings have recently cost a lot of lives. In Ulster, a shoddy report could easily do the same.
Previous page
