The Good Friday Agreement allowed people to get away with murder

The argument

One of the most controversial aspects of the Good Friday Agreement (GFA) was the early release of paramilitary prisoners, some of whom had been involved in the most horrific murders of the Troubles. While some argued that this release was necessary in order to engender good will towards the GFA, many have opposed this specific clause of the Agreement, arguing the GFA has been a failure due to the fact it has allowed convicted murderers to walk free. Under the terms of the Agreement, just under 500 Loyalist and Republican paramilitaries, whose affiliated organisations had agreed to lay down their weapons, were granted early release. Those whose organisations had not announced a ceasefire were not eligible for this early release scheme. Some of the most notorious murderers released included Patrick Magee, responsible for the 1984 Brighton Hotel bombing in which five people were killed. Even Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister and one of the key architects of the GFA, admitted that the releases were 'very hard to stomach'. The people who were most shocked by the early release of the prisoners were family members of the victims. One man who lost his father, two uncles, two cousins and many friends in the Troubles proclaimed "We have prisoners getting out here today who are serial killers, who believe they have the right to murder people in the name of their cause.". This sentiment is still echoed in many parts of Northern Ireland as a recent questionnaire showed. One native of Ballymena argued in 2018, on the 20th Anniversary of the Agreement that, 'at the time I thought SF got far too much for far too little in return. Murderers are out walking our streets after cowardly murders. As Gerry (Adams, right) said in Germany, he believes that the gun and bomb is the way to obtain political advantage. So a leopard will never change its spots.' Due to the deep hurt and pain caused by many of the released prisoners to so many families in Northern Ireland, on both sides of the political divide, some have argued that the Good Friday Agreement has been a failure as it allowed those responsible to walk free. Although many Northern Irish citizens questioned on the 20th Anniversary of the Agreement agree that the GFA was broadly positive, the release of the prisoners is still seen by some as too high a price to pay for the GFA.

Context

The Good Friday Agreement (GFA), agreed on April 10th 1998 and ratified by popular vote on May 22nd 1998, was an agreement that brought about the end of a period of violent conflict in Northern Ireland known as 'The Troubles'. The Troubles refers to decades of violence where Nationalists (usually Catholic) were locked into bitter and deadly dispute with Unionists (usually Protestant) in Northern Ireland. The GFA established a new government that would be a power share between the Unionists and the Nationalists, therefore helping to establish a tentative peace. One of the most controversial aspects of the agreement, however, was the early release of prisoners. Some have argued that this permitted many to simply get away with murder.

Premises

Counter-arguments

The prisoner releases were not an incidental flaw in the Agreement but the mechanism through which its central objective was obtained, and the body records the condition that makes this clear: eligibility depended on the prisoner's organisation maintaining a ceasefire, and those whose organisations had not declared one were excluded. The scheme was a licence release, revocable if the licence conditions were broken; convictions stood, records stood, and no one was acquitted or pardoned. 'Got away with murder' describes neither the legal position nor the outcome. The argument also measures the Agreement against the wrong question. What it establishes — with real force, and with Tony Blair's own quoted words conceding it — is that the price was agonising for victims' families. That is not in dispute. But whether a settlement succeeded turns on what the price purchased: ceasefires that held, decommissioning of paramilitary arsenals, a power-sharing settlement, the removal of the security infrastructure, and the end of a conflict that had killed roughly 3,500 people over three decades. An argument that the cost was painful is not yet an argument that the transaction was a failure. The body's own evidence points the other way at the decisive moment. It reports that most Northern Irish citizens surveyed at the twentieth anniversary judged the Agreement broadly positive — a finding that cuts against the position it is offered in support of, and which the argument acknowledges without answering. Finally, the objection generalises past its target. Conditional prisoner release is a standard component of negotiated settlements to civil conflicts, from South Africa to Colombia, because combatants do not disarm into indefinite imprisonment. As stated, this is an argument against ending wars by agreement rather than an argument about the Good Friday Agreement in particular.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The releases were conditional, revocable licence releases available only where the prisoner's organisation maintained a ceasefire, as the body itself records. Convictions stood and licences could be revoked, so this was neither pardon nor acquittal. [Rejecting P2] Distress at the releases establishes that the price was painful, not that the Agreement failed; the argument's own evidence records that most of those surveyed at the twentieth anniversary judged it broadly positive. Conditional release is also a standard component of negotiated settlements to civil conflicts, so the objection generalises into a case against ending wars by agreement.