A professor from Columbia University in America had once made the remark that academic politics are fiercely contentions due to the low stakes involved. This, however, doesn’t apply to the controversy sparked by the UK government’s decision to start an official or public history project on the Troubles, as announced on the 25th of April.
The timing of the announcement hasn’t been viewed favourably as it closely followed the Legacy Act, which saw the closure of select investigations into killings from the Troubles era. This Act has drawn criticism and opposition from across Ireland, from both North and South.
There was confusion as people began to associate the history project with the Act, leading to the Northern Ireland Office (NIO) having to clarify that the two were unrelated. Nevertheless, the criticism persisted, as questions arose over the involvement of historians in a process managed by the government, which has previously withheld crucial information from families of those who were killed by state forces during the Troubles era.
The team leading this public history project consists of nine expert advisers including Lord Paul Bew and Dr Caoimhe Nic Dháibhéid as co-chairs and members from various notable universities. Their decision to join the project has been widely criticised, with one academic historian labelling them as ‘imperial lackeys’.
In response to these criticisms, the historians involved have collectively communicated their role in the project, stating that it is not intended to inspect human rights breaches but to provide an account of the British government’s decision-making processes and the actions of the ministry of defence and the armed forces during the conflict. The aim is to understand how socio-economic, political and safety factors intermingled and how the amalgamation of strategy, intention and regular habits steered the policy decisions made during certain key historical periods.
In the minds of the historians involved, a crucial inquiry takes precedence – will a country with a historically poor disclosure record regarding the Troubles permit unrestricted document access?
The prime characteristic of the ‘official history’ series is to allow access to records that might otherwise remain undisclosed for several decades, if they get revealed at all – elucidates Dr Caoimhe Nic Dháibhéid.
“It’s a risk,” confesses the project’s co-chair, and historian, Lord Bew. “There’s a risk that may not pan out, and the country might withhold significant material that could potentially put it in an embarrassing light.”
Lord Bew shares his experience as a historical advisor to the Bloody Sunday Tribunal, which he says led him to believe that the British state might be more generous with document access than anticipated.
“I insisted that the matter (Bloody Sunday Tribunal) would only proceed if documents were made accessible, and indeed they were. Maybe it’s my naivety, but I rely on people staying true to their word. The promises of flexibility and openness were largely honoured.”
He recalls being inspired to take part in the project following Sir Joseph Pilling’s statements in his report from 2008, discussing the criteria for future British official histories. “He asserted that these should uphold the ‘gold standard of accountability for the British state,’ and I strive to follow this guideline as long as I am capable.”
Project co-chair, Dr Nic Dháibhéid, a Senior Lecturer of History at Sheffield University, remarked that numerous panel members oppose the Legacy Act. She emphasised that the public recounting of the Troubles is not meant to serve as a defence for the British state’s conduct during this era.
“Not by any means. On the contrary, it offers a unique chance to critically examine the state based on unrestricted access to the historical account, and therefore hold it accountable.”
When asked about the common assumption that the British government would grant access to documents withheld from relatives, she postulates this might change if the Labour Party – pledged with overturning the Legacy Act – comes into power, as widely expected, after the impending British general elections.
“The ‘official history’ series’ main aim is to facilitate early access to documents that otherwise might not see the light of day for numerous decades, if at all,” she states.
Historical records previously disclosed through legal channels often fall short of providing the necessary context, such as related policy actions or command judgements that could have influenced broader trends or a sequence of events. Through this new project, we are hopeful it will lead to the release of more documents to state archives, thus promoting wider public accessibility of information.
It’s worth pointing out that this project concerns the examination of British policy and decision-making process, rather than looking into alleged human rights violations during the conflict, which should rightly be scrutinised through legal and judicial reviews.
Despite the absence of historians from Northern Ireland’s Catholic/Nationalist/Republican community on the expert advisory board, it’s been speculated that historians of this background declined the opportunity to partake. The board consists solely of scholars who have substantial experience with Irish history and politics, a fact emphasised by Dr Nic Dháibhéid. He dismissed the idea that an academic’s Irish roots and background should supersede their scholarly track record.
As a study group, the team of scholars aim to deliver an insightful, impartial and professional examination. The group maintains an open minded approach to potentially expanding the panel if deemed necessary.
Historical accounts commissioned by governments have been prevalent since the 19th century, primarily focusing on armed conflicts. These accounts, despite their ‘official’ title, do not aim to create a government-friendly narrative of events. They were mainly penned by military personnel, intended for fellow military personnel, to elucidate the motivations behind government and military decisions and the lessons to be learnt from them. Notably, these accounts can often take a substantial amount of time to complete; for instance, the British official accounts of WWII were not concluded until 1989, and the Falklands War’s account wasn’t published until 2007, 25 years post-conflict.
According to the Pilling Report, this model has become antiquated, and historians should adopt a method of sharing their discoveries as they occur.
A historian*, who has been participating anonymously in the process, warned that should the British fail to adhere to the set guidelines, there is a potential that the process could be abandoned. This individual frankly expressed his or her sentiments, underlining that it’s been challenging to maintain their optimism. The announcement’s planning left something to be desired as it stirred up confusion between the Legacy Act and objective historical accounts, which are clearly distinct. The historian added, though, that regardless, the task at hand now is to continue inquiring about uncomfortable matters and persistently insist on meeting the reference terms. They believe it would be beneficial to explore this further.
*Please note the historian wished to remain anonymous.