hi chat, i wrote a paper on ireland and the troubles, and how much bullshit the british army was up to at that time! its under the cut bc its a doozy (1600 words) but feel free to read/give me some feedback! it is not like done done, so def not perfect lol
The Troubles in Ireland killed 1,840 people, and injured over 47,000 more. This conflict spanned 30 years, and was led by Republican and Loyalist paramilitaries across Ireland. This bout of sectarian violence was only worsened by the British Army’s attempts to contain the conflict. The British Army, also referred to as the Royal Ulster Constabulary, consistently restricted human rights like the right to privacy, fair trial, and life. The question: “To what extent did the British Army’s presence in the north of Ireland between 1969 and 1998 restrict civilian human rights?” explores if the British Army had a negative impact, compared to their claims of supporting a peaceful ceasefire in the north of Ireland. Understanding the Troubles’ lasting impact can illuminate issues that are still seen in the Irish people today, due to the RUC’s actions. The focus of this essay is on the British Army’s accused human rights violations, and whether these accusations hold truth, compared to the Army’s counterclaims. This essay concludes that, to a large extent, the Royal Ulster Constabulary restricted civilian human rights during their occupation of Ireland.
One of the first factors that show how the British Army limited the human rights of local Irish people is the imposition of curfews and violent raids. These curfews began as a way to cull the fighting between militias in the streets, but the British Army quickly escalated to searching civilian’s homes during these curfews. The British Army “could not be ignored and it impacted upon the social and economic fabric of life in the province.” This quote comes from a paper by Colin McInnes and Caroline Kennedy-Pipe on the British Army and their role in the peace process in Ireland. This quote comes from a section discussing the impact that curfews and patrols had on the Irish citizens living in those spaces. The paper’s value is that it uses primary stories of local Irish people to build its argument. The limitation is that the paper was written before the British Army finally withdrew from the north of Ireland, so it lacks discussion on the impact left by the military once they retreated. One notable event was the Battle of Lower Falls. What started as a simple search by the British Army for weapons quickly escalated into a battle that left four people dead and hundreds wounded. Innocent civilians had left their homes to prevent the Army from invading their private spaces to search for these weapons, and the military responded with CS gas and live rounds. They then imposed a curfew and punished the entire community with punitive door-to-door raiding. This wrecked hundreds of people’s homes, and they were only able to get supplies for their families for one hour during the curfew. An eight year old boy was assaulted and brutally injured by the Army, and he was not allowed to leave the Falls area for medical attention, which is another clear instance of the British Army violating his human right to live without harm. This curfew did eventually end, but the British Army continued to use curfews and forced raids to torment the Irish people. The activities of Army special forces was consistently controversial and illegal, adding to the distrust felt by the Nationalist Irish community.
Another human right that the British Army was accused of inhibiting was the right to due process and a fair trial. Every person in Ireland, regardless of their accused crime, deserves a fair trial. Even politicians in the United States took notice of this oppression, with Representative Engel of New York putting forth a bill “concerning the human rights in the north of Ireland” that asked the United States to intervene in the conflict and find a way to peace. This source is a bill put forth in 1993, that went a long way towards the fight for peace in Ireland. As referenced by this bill, there were numerous cover ups by the British Army in the north of Ireland, one of which involving the murder of Catholic children by an elite anti-terrorist squad of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The resulting trial was inhibited because of previous destruction of evidence, falsification of key testimonies, and the Army’s obstruction of the coroner’s investigation. These horrific crimes were investigated, but these investigations were internal and not available to the victims' families. This is a betrayal of the Irish people, who deserve fair trials for crimes done by and against them. In 1971 specifically, internment, or imprisonment without trial, was used to threaten citizens in predominantly Catholic areas in the north of Ireland. The Irish people should not live in fear of being improperly imprisoned, and the victims of the RUC’s killings deserve justice, as all people do under their country’s code of human rights.
One of the most important rights a person has is the right to life and the prohibition of inhumane treatment upon them. The Royal Ulster Constabulary, and the British Government by extension, repeatedly failed to respect this right, and continued to cause harm to Protestant and Catholic citizens alike. Prime Minister Edward Heath in particular authorized the change to the Army’s firing instructions. This changed their ability to only fire single rounds to include the “discretionary use of automatic weapons.” This source is a letter from a journalist for the New Yorker, written in 1972. This article is valuable because it was written by a reputable journalist right in the heart of the struggle, who uses primary sources and impactful quotes. This article is limited by a distinctly Catholic perspective. Another article that shows this human rights violation, this time from Ulster Michael Hall’s perspective, and how the Ulster's initial feelings about the Army swiftly changed. At the beginning of the Troubles, the Protestant working class began to feel the British Army’s abuses, yet few in the upper Protestant establishment wanted to acknowledge these harms. The testimony of those abused by the British Army were frequently ignored or played down by Unionist politicians. One notable moment, felt by a citizen that had nothing to do with the conflict, was ignored by local politicians. Despite this man having his head split open, leaving him seriously injured, the leaders of the Protestant establishment were afraid that his testimony would help Republican propaganda. This abuse of power by the RUC continued as they fielded accusations of a “shoot to kill” policy. The United States Congress continued to have concerns over this human rights violation, with Representative Payne of New Jersey calling to limit the sale of plastic bullets to the Government of the United Kingdom. He observed that the RUC in the north of Ireland had used plastic bullets as extremely harmful weapons that are exacerbating the situation in Ireland. He cites that “thousands have been injured and 17 individuals have been killed by such bullets, including seven children.” This extreme brutality is in direct violation of the human right to life and the prohibition of inhumane treatment upon them, which the RUC and British Government is ignoring.
The British Government, and by extension the Royal Ulster Constabulary, argues that their presence in the north of Ireland for 30 years was a justified, necessary, and purely democratic one. Minister of State for Defence Lord Balniel in particular, in a discussion in the House of Commons on the armed forces, saw the soldiers in the north of Ireland as “guardians of democracy and of the civilised decencies of life.” This record of a Commons sitting is valuable because it shows how the voices of government regarded the occupation in Ireland, and are reputable sources on how the British Army was run. This opinion shows that the British Army does not see any harm occurring at their hand, and even believes that they are preventing more widespread suffering and loss of life. The army had been in place for two years at the time of this record, and Balniel asks his fellow lords to be proud of the supposed dignity and discipline which the soldiers placed in Ireland have shown. This is clearly not true when looking at primary sources from Ireland at this time, and the Army’s peacemaking efforts have been drastically overshadowed by their violence. The Ulsters are notoriously loyal to the British state, as shown by their refusal to reveal abuses of the British Army for fear of boosting the Republican point of view. Despite this, even they can recognize that the British Army is causing harm in the north of Ireland. Kirk Simpson, an Ulster in Ireland, revealed that there was “much distrust and anger” among the local Ulster population, because of how the British Army framed their occupation of Ireland. The RUC presented themselves as independent facilitators, and thought that they were instrumental in negotiating the end to the religious conflict. The unionists saw this as untrue, as the British Government managed to be both key political protagonists and combatants. Despite their claims, the British government is undoubtedly an antagonist in the conflict over Ireland, and is not protecting human rights as they claim.
The Royal Ulster Constabulary, to a large extent, restricted civilian human rights during their occupation of the north of Ireland from 1968 to 1998. Significant violations, like removal of privacy, harms to life, and internment, all negatively impacted civilians during this time and caused harm that is still being unpacked. While the British Army may argue that their presence was democratic and supportive, significant evidence of abuse and violations disproves this claim. The RUC and by extension the British Government played a negative role in the conflict despite their aims to keep peace in Ireland.
