the war in ireland: some statistics

The War in Northern Ireland 1969-94

Between the outbreak of the war in Northern Ireland in 1969 and the paramilitary ceasefires declared in 1994, there were approximately 50 000 'terrorist incidents', including some 35 000 shootings and 16 000 bombs and incendiary attacks; the security forces captured over 11 000 weapons and 150 tons of explosives, over 14 000 people were charged with 'terrorist offenses', and 3 168 people were killed and 35 000 injured as a direct result of political violence. (Weitzer 1990) The fatalities break down into the following categories (O Duffy, 1995: 772):

Security forces: 1045 (33.0%)
Republican Militants: 314 (9.9%)
Loyalist Militants: 89 (2.8 %)
Catholic Civilians: 1067 (33.7 %)
Protestant Civilians: 571 (18.0%)
Political Activists: 45 (1.4%)
Unclassified: 37 (1.2%)

It should also be noted that, of the 571 Protestant civilians killed, 114 (20%) were killed by loyalists, usually under the mistaken impression that they were Catholics.

These casualty figures demonstrate that the two largest categories of fatalities were Catholic civilians killed by members of the security forces and loyalist paramilitaries, and members of the security forces killed by republican guerillas. The largest category of deaths was innocent Catholic civilians. The breakdown of those responsible for the 1067 Catholic civilians killed is:

Killed by Republicans: 192 (18.0%)
Killed by Loyalists: 662 (62.0%)
Killed by security forces: 144 (13.5%)
Unclassified: 69 (6.5%)

Statistically, those most at risk of death in the conflict were innocent Catholic civilians, over 800 of whom were killed by the security forces and loyalist death squads. This supports the assertion of Catholics, generally ignored by the media because of effective British propaganda, that there were two campaigns of violence in Northern Ireland, essentially the republican war against the British state and security forces, and the security forces' and loyalist paramilitaries' counterinsurgency war, not just against militant Irish nationalists (republicans) but against the Catholic civilian population as a whole. This is further demonstrated by the following statistics: (Weitzer, 1990):

Civilians Deaths from Political Violence, 1969-88:
Civilian deaths as percentage of deaths by this agency:

Security Forces: 54.6 per cent
Nationalist Paramilitaries: 37.3 per cent
Loyalist Paramilitaries: 90.1 per cent

Over half of those killed by the security forces were civilians; less than one third of those killed by the IRA and other republican guerillas were civilians; and nine out of ten of those killed by loyalist paramilitaries and their death squads were innocent civilians killed in sectarian attacks - that is, by death squads who selected their victims solely on the basis of their (catholic) religion. (Sluka, 2000) (... )

'Terrorism' usually refers to violence against civilian for political ends, whereas 'war' refers to armed conflict against political and military targets. If those definitions are applied to the conflict in Northern Ireland, these statistics show the republican guerillas, the only parties to the conflict officially defined as 'terrorists', were in fact, the least likely to kill innocent civilians and more discriminate in their violence than both the British security forces and the loyalist paramilitaries. And if we further sharpen the definition of terrorism to mean only the 'intentional' rather than the 'incidental' killing of civilians, then the label 'terrorism' applies exclusively to the violence perpetrated by the loyalist paramilitaries. Nonetheless, only the republican guerillas in Northern Ireland are generally referred to as 'terrorists' by the authorities and media. (...)

In spite of the peace process, between the paramilitary ceasefires in 1994 and 2005, a reduced level of political violence continued in Northern Ireland. ... In particular, despite officially maintaining their ceasefires, the UDA and UVF were responsible for sectarian attacks in which Catholics were killed and injured, and loyalist killed and injured each other in inter-paramilitary feuds. At least 181 deaths (102 by Loyalists, 79 by Republicans), an average of just over 18 per year from political violence since 'peace' replaced 'war' in Northern Ireland.

[je m'étais "amusé" à faire des statistiques d'après les bases de données CAIN quand j'ai fais mon travail de fin d'études (secondaires) sur l'IRA provisoire (69 - de nos jours) et j'avais démontré que, relativement parlant (donc en pourcentage), la PIRA avait tué moins de civils que les forces britanniques et leurs auxiliaires et que les paramilitaires loyalistes. De quoi casser la propagande : "IRA : terroriste, tueur d'innoncents"]

A noter que ces statistiques et leur methodologie peuvent etre critiquees. Par exemple:

Northern Ireland's Troubles: the human costs

By MARIE-THERESE FAY, MIKE MORRISSEY and MARIE

SMYTH (London, Pluto Press, 1999), 240pp. £12.99.

Personal Accounts from Northern Ireland's Troubles: public con¯ict,

private loss

Edited by MARIE SMYTH and MARIE-THERESE FAY (London,

Pluto Press, 2000), 196pp. £9.99.

As the peace process in the north of Ireland edges hesitatingly forward,

the costs of the last thirty years of `the most serious source of political

con¯ict and instability in the British Isles' are emerging.1 The political

and economic consequences have been well documented,2 but the social

and emotional costs, with over 3,500 people dead and over 20,000

injured, are just beginning to be acknowledged. These publications

are part of that growing body of evidence and come out of the work

of the `Cost of the troubles study', an initiative by academics from

the University of Ulster undertaken in conjunction with a number of

victims and survivors of the `troubles'. What distinguishes this from

many other research projects is the transparency of the relationship

between academic and subject and the authors' account of their emo-

tional and professional concerns.

Northern Ireland's Troubles: the human costs contains an overview of

the research already published and an extremely detailed analysis of the

data which the research team gathered. The value of both is obvious,

and the book is essential for anyone who wishes to engage further in

this area, although it does not always live up to the high standards of

impartiality which it sets itself.

One of its most frustrating lapses is its non-recognition of the role of

the British security forces in the section `Agents of the con¯ict'. That

this is not just a lapse is revealed by other telling phrases. In an other-

wise informative chronology of events, we are told that the RUC's use

of plastic bullets was `reckless' and that the paratroopers `recklessly'

shot into the demonstrators on Bloody Sunday, implying merely a

lack of discipline on the part of security personnel. Yet it is clear

from other accounts that there was political and military planning

before and after these killings.3 In other words, they were part of a

war to which the British government was at least an equal contributor.

The authors veer strongly towards the theory, espoused by the British

government itself, that the British were/are acting as peacekeepers,

merely keeping the two sides apart. Similarly, `sectarian violence' is

blamed for the British army's intervention in 1969, a reading of history

that not only ignores the role the state played in instigating much of the

violence (by resisting reform), but also the participation by state forces

(in particular, the B Specials) in that violence. Not till much later is this

acknowledged, but again after the violence has been classi®ed as `inter-

communal'.

Also curiously, despite detailed documentation, there were only

`allegations' of gerrymandering and discrimination in Derry under

the Unionist regime. While attempts to not offend any side in the con-

¯ict, an accepted part of any reconciliation process, are laudable if a

little cumbersome at times (Derry is referred to as `Londonderry

Derry' throughout), the authors' refusal to acknowledge the full role

of the British state, in either its Westminster or Stormont guise,

could itself be seen as hurtful to those who have suffered at the

hands of that state. The notion that the war was merely an internal

affair is reinforced in the section which deals with different perceptions

of the con¯ict. We hear nationalist and loyalist voices but no British

perception is offered. Not only was the British state a participant

but, as Britain also had many casualties, military and civilian, this is

a curious omission in a publication on human costs.

The review of literature is at its strongest when dealing with aca-

demic material but weakens when casting an eye over more popular

publications. It is claimed that there is `only one book on the UVF

(Cusack and McDonald, 1997) and a more general one on Loyalist

paramilitaries (Bruce, 1992)'. There are, of course, more on both,

including David Boulton's The UVF 1966±73, Sarah Nelson's Uncer-

tain Defenders and Martin Dillon's The Shankill Butchers. Bishop

and Mallie's 1987 Provisional IRA is credited as `one of the ®rst full-

length studies to be completed on the Provisional IRA', ignoring

J. Bowyer Bell's 1979 A History of the IRA and Tim Pat Coogan's

1980 The IRA. And the persistent blindness to state responsibility

resurfaces, with no review of literature on any aspect of the British

state. Chris Ryder on the RUC and UDR, Roger Faligot's The

Kitson Experiment and Anthony Jennings's Justice Under Fire are

just the ®rst to come to mind.

The book comes into its own when it concentrates on its original

research and is strongest when revealing how statistics on `human

costs' were gathered, reasonable at interpreting them, but questionable

in the more general analysis. However, the problems facing the

researchers are openly addressed and a useful ethical basis is at least

discussed. The study's incorporation of the subjects of research into

its management structure is particularly important. By offering consent

and control over the process and results, both subject and researchers

bene®ted. Nevertheless, there was a reluctance among some to impart

information because of continuing political dif®culties, and this also

had to be balanced against the restimulation of pain. Quantitative

data were useful for revealing the scale of damage, but qualitative

assessments were just as important for uncovering the intensity of

trauma. The researchers themselves acknowledged their own emotional

responses, to `make [them] part of the analysis'.

The authors are at pains to point out that `there has been not one

uniform con¯ict in Northern Ireland, rather the Troubles are a

mosaic of different types of con¯ict'. While it is, of course, essential

to seek out the detail and the variations, the better to understand the

needs of those requiring support, it seems that claims such as `North

Belfast is a mosaic of different ethnic territories' reinforce the inter-

communal interpretation of the con¯ict ± with a nice postmodern

touch ± and fail to come to terms with the colonial legacy between

Britain and Ireland that lies at the heart of the war.

While much of the statistical information and cross referencing is

welcome (the total number of paramilitary and state agency deaths is

less than the number of civilian deaths; 81 per cent of deaths in north

Belfast were civilian; more soldiers were killed in South Armagh than

in west Belfast; 100,000 people live in households where there has

been an injury; Catholics were at approximately 50 per cent greater

risk of being killed, both relatively and absolutely; 13 per cent of

those killed were in the 15±19 age group; and there was a lower per-

centage of paramilitary deaths and higher percentage of security

force deaths than in comparable con¯icts), there are some curious

attempts at rationalising these ®gures. That the high level of young

deaths may be explained by `young people in rioting and other street

activity' comes uncomfortably close to criminalising young people.

The claim that the injuries and deaths of young people in accidents

involving army vehicles may be because `the driver's vision of small

objects is restricted' is similar in language to an army press statement.

The security-speak continues with the assertion that plastic bullets were

used in `riot situations' and that `the purpose . . . is to temporarily dis-

able people'. This ignores the fact that over half the total deaths were in

the 10±15 age group, and the relatives of most of these claim that their

children were not in riot situations, but had been targeted by security

forces to `punish' the community.4

Despite these shortcomings, there is much original research here to

direct the reader to insights into the consequences of the last thirty

years of political con¯ict. Yet if the authors were to include more on

the role of the British state and try less to avoid the colonial legacy

of the relationship Britain and Ireland, we would have had a richer con-

tribution to the ongoing debate on suffering and reconciliation.

Personal Accounts from Northern Ireland's Troubles, a spin-off from

the above study, is a very powerful testament that may make more of a

contribution to that process. The attempt at offering history from

below is welcome, given the hierarchical structure and models of the

dominant media. Whereas television frequently offers us the story

from the viewpoint of the experts (Newsnight, for example, tends to

use such accounts simply as evidential back up to an academic or pro-

fessional interpretation), we have here the stories as told by the subjects

themselves. All interviewees had control of the process, including the

right to change or even withdraw their scripts before publication.

There is a breadth of material, with some stories more harrowing

than others and some more articulate, re¯ective or illuminating than

others ± but that is inevitable. There may be question marks over the

inclusion of some contributions, such as that from the hospital consul-

tant which seems to add little except that `I was there', but this is a small

complaint in a book which contains such powerful testimony. Alice

Nocher's memory of her mother `crawling the walls screaming for

her son', who had been shot dead, is contrasted with her father dis-

creetly `crying in the pigeon shed'. Alice was later to survive a sectarian

shooting, although injured, and see her friend killed, as they travelled

to work. Her husband was later to be shot dead. She received no

compensation because he was unemployed.

Paul Morrisey offers a powerful account of his devastation at the

sectarian killing of his father. When he and his brother were asked to

identify the body, he describes his father as resembling `a piece of

beef that had been beat with hatchets and hammers and stabbed, and

®ngers missing and nose stitched back on the face, head caved in,

throat cut right back to the spinal cord'. Paul relates his rage, depres-

sion, alcoholism, separation and recovery. His journey includes inade-

quate medical or therapeutic support, a recurring theme of these

survivors' tales. Yet his conclusion is indicative of people's ability to

heal. `I like the person I am now. I'm a sensitive person; I'm very

compassionate. I do feel for people, whether they are Protestant or

Catholic.'

Other excellent contributions include that from a disabled police

of®cer who complains about the lack of support after his injuries, a

republican hunger striker who re¯ects on his motives for taking up

arms, and a prison of®cer who was in a gun and grenade attack,

although her story is continually interrupted by her family's interven-

tions. (This may be how it actually happened, but one wonders what

the outcome would have been had the interview been done without

the family.)

The control which interviewees have works favourably, but the idea

of being able to rewrite a transcript which has been recorded on tape

occasionally imparts a leaden quality. William Temple's contribution

is an insightful account of his thirty years as a Protestant chemist

and shopkeeper in nationalist Derry, but it has been rewritten substan-

tially and occasionally reads like a justi®cation of Unionist minority

rule. While the right to edit and maybe add to an original interview

is an important element of participatory research, the rewriting of an

original interview moves too far from oral history to be regarded as

testimony.

Another weakness is the inclusion of much self-justi®cation in the

story of the savage punishment beatings of the young `hood', under

the title `Rough justice'. While this is an area of great concern in

working-class communities, the temptation continually to blame the

Provos, while the youth's anti-social behaviour is merely referred to

as `like any young fella going through a bad patch', means the oppor-

tunity is lost to engage with this widespread phenomenon in areas not

open to `normal' state policing.

Overall, however, this is a welcome contribution to a growing body

of testimonies, in which those who have been on the front line of poli-

tical violence, either voluntarily or involuntarily, take the opportunity

to tell their stories to a wider public.

Royal Holloway College, London CAHAL McLAUGHLIN

References

1 B. Rowthorn and N. Wayne, Northern Ireland: the Political Economy of Con¯ict

(Cambridge, Polity Press, 1984).

2 R. Munck (ed.), The Irish Economy: results and prospects (London, Pluto Press, 1993);

M. Tomlinson, 25 Years On: the costs of war and the dividends of peace (Belfast, West

Belfast Economic Forum, 1994).

3 D. Mullan (ed.), Eyewitness Bloody Sunday: the truth (Dublin, Wolfhound Press,

1997).

4 Committee on the Administration of Justice, Plastic Bullets and the Law (Belfast,

CAJ, 1990).