Secretary of state rejects DUP 'hapless' claim over legacy

The secretary of state has dismissed claims by the DUP that he is keeping victims and some parties "in the dark" over his government's plans to change how Troubles legacy cases are handled.
Hilary Benn was responding to remarks by DUP leader Gavin Robinson, who described his approach as "hapless".
London and Dublin have been in talks for some time about trying to find a joint way forward, with the two governments meeting on Thursday during the British-Irish Council to discuss the latest developments.
Benn said he made "no apology" for working with the Irish government and others to try and reach a solution.
The DUP said by Benn meeting Tánaiste (Irish deputy PM) Simon Harris, he had "dishonoured" victims who were concerned about the Irish government's own approach to dealing with the legacy of the past.
Labour intends to retain a new legacy body set up under the legislation - the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR).
A number of victims' groups have called for the ICRIR to be scrapped, arguing it is not sufficiently independent to investigate killings during Northern Ireland's decades-long conflict.
Dublin maintains a legal challenge against the UK government over the legacy act, but Harris has said he believes a deal can still be reached to allow his government to drop that case.
The DUP leader said: "Last night, Hilary Benn disgracefully continued his desire to satisfy the Irish Government, seeking their approval for his actions.
"In meeting Simon Harris to negotiate next steps, he dishonours the countless victims in Northern Ireland that I have met over recent months who lament that whilst he may listen, he does not hear."
He also accused Dublin of having a "scandalous approach" to legacy.
"The Irish continue to ruthlessly defend their sovereign information, yet Hilary Benn concedes their unconstitutional role in determining how the UK deals with ours," said Robinson.
"The Irish government have knowledge of and influence upon UK legacy plans, yet Northern Ireland victims, veterans and Parliamentarians are kept in the dark by the secretary of state without so much as a blush on his face."
Speaking at the British-Irish Council, Benn said legacy remained "unfinished business" and that all politicians had a responsibility to find a way forward.
"We are making good progress... the lesson indeed exemplified by the Good Friday Agreement is that we make most progress when we work together."

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Boston Globe

3 hours ago

• Boston Globe

Europe is finally ready to spend more on defense. The hard part is how.

Advertisement This is a 'global reset,' Lieutenant General Sean Clancy, the new chief of the European Union's military committee, said at a security conference in Brussels this month. But 'we haven't even defined what the transition looks like.' Money, though, is far from the only issue Europe confronts now that it has reluctantly accepted the reality that it must be able to protect itself without help from the United States. Formidable political, strategic, and regulatory hurdles remain. EU leaders must maintain public support for common military spending and joint weapons procurement, even as right-wing nationalist sentiments oppose giving the bloc more power. And the farther from the Russian border, the less urgent the threat feels. Poland, for instance, is already spending nearly 5 percent of its gross domestic product on defense while Spain dedicated just 1.3 percent last year. Advertisement The European Union and Britain must also figure out how to prepare for the new kind of war that Russian aggression presents. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Europe's military has been focused on deploying troops to hot spots like Afghanistan and Iraq. Now they must be able to defend their own territory. Intelligence officials warn that Russian forces could be ready to attack a NATO country in five years. Complicating the decision-making are rapid advancements in intelligence, surveillance, battlefield management, and cyber technologies. Warfare is undergoing a transformation that is akin to what occurred during World War I, when horse-drawn wagons, muskets, and swords were replaced by tanks, machine guns, and airplanes. Look at Ukraine's battlefields. They are dominated by new technologies and throwback strategies, millions of drones and muddy trenches. 'Today 80 percent of targets in Ukraine are destroyed by drones,' said Andrius Kubilius, European Commissioner for defense and space. 'Every two months, there is a need for radical innovation of the drones in operation.' In recognition, the British Defense Ministry announced this month a startling overhaul of its warfighting approach, moving away from the Cold War-era focus on heavy armor and mechanized infantry. Under the plan, 80 percent of combat capability will rely on remote-controlled, reusable ground vehicles and drones as well as missiles, shells, and self-destructing drones. The EU has also taken steps to revise its strategy. In March, the 27 member nations issued a blueprint for combat readiness by 2030. Last month, the EU created a 150 billion euro (about $173 billion) program allowing joint investments in security. (Twenty-three countries are members of both the EU and NATO.) Advertisement But higgledy-piggledy rules and practices still hamper efforts to rapidly turn Europe's fragmented defenses into a unified and efficient fighting force. Joint financing is more the exception than the rule. Red tape, lack of coordination, and slow decision-making across the continent are causing delays, supply shortages, waste, and duplication, according to political and industry leaders. Overall strategy and standards are set by NATO commanders, but military budgets, specifications, quality control, export licenses, purchasing, and planning are handled by individual nations. The result is that a German-made component going into a French-made plane needs a separate export certification that can delay delivery by months. And though 12 European countries use NH90 helicopters, there are 17 versions, said Camille Grand, a former senior NATO official who leads defense studies at the European Council on Foreign Relations. Europe is also looking to decrease its dependence on American weaponry. The share of military equipment supplied to the European members of NATO by the United States has grown to nearly two-thirds, from about half less than a decade ago, according to a report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Europe has put a priority on investment in its own defense industry and is looking to make its supply chains for key materials, like gunpowder, more resilient. 'There is an adjustment in terms of the business model for the European defense industry,' Grand said, as it shifts to standardized mass production. That, he said, will require more consolidation to create economies of scale and joint procurement. Industry leaders, meanwhile, complain that they cannot invest in expanded production and research without more direction from government officials. Advertisement 'The political machinery is slow,' said Jan Pie, secretary-general of ASD, a trade group that represents 4,000 companies across Europe. 'So it's difficult to scale up.' Environmental approvals needed before a new weapons factory may be built can take up to five years, Pie said. He said that despite the talk about the need for urgency, the defense industry was not given priority in times of shortages. Nammo, a Norwegian ammunitions manufacturer that supplies Ukraine, for instance, was unable to ramp up production in 2023 because a nearby TikTok data center had already bought up the region's surplus electricity. As economies slow across Europe, budget battles are expected to continue to soak up the spotlight. It's doubtful that some countries will ever reach the 5 percent target. Still, as far as funding goes, Europe has turned a corner, several European leaders and military experts said. 'There's a lot of discussion about numbers, percentages, financing,' Nadia Calviño, president of the European Investment Bank, the EU's lending arm, said in Brussels recently. 'But I want to be very clear: Europe is a rich continent, and we can mobilize the necessary financing.' This article originally appeared in

Time​ Magazine

6 hours ago

• Time​ Magazine

How U.S. Strikes May Have Helped the Iranian Regime

Governments are not nations, especially in the Islamic Republic of Iran, but governments wage the wars that can define a nation. Until 2:00 a.m. Iran Standard Time on Sunday, the conflict between America and Iran had remained on a low boil for a solid 45 years, flaring into actual military encounters only on the territory of others, notably Iraq. There, every sixth U.S. fatality perished by the efforts of Iran. President Donald Trump alluded to this history in announcing the U.S. air strikes on three nuclear facilities inside Iran—bringing the conflict to a regime that, even when it attacked the U.S., invariably arranged for someone else to do it. In Iraq, the U.S. was an army of occupation, and its soldiers obliged to patrol the roads. They did so in Humvees heavily armored against the roadside bombs insurgents planted along the route. Iran, which wanted U.S. troops off its doorstep, organized its own insurgents, and gave them a new kind of roadside bomb, a shaped charge that could send a slug of copper through any armor, including an M1 Abrams tank. The soldiers who survived often lost limbs. The U.S. Army history of the Iraq War takes note of the U.S. unit intercepting crates of the copper plates fitted atop the explosive: 'All were turned on the same lathe in Iran.' Israeli officials had been warning the Americans about those bombs. Their own troops had encountered them while occupying Lebanon, where the diabolically lethal innovations had been planted by Hezbollah, the militia Iran helped establish and subsequently armed. When the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, Tehran directed them to be used against an enemy it had been fighting, in one way or another, since 1979. Read More: Iran Delivers Furious Warning, Speaks of 'Unprecedented Level of Danger and Chaos' After 'Heinous' U.S. Strikes That was the year everyday Iranians rose up against the King (or Shah) who had been put in place a quarter century earlier by the U.S. and British, in a CIA-directed coup bringing down a democratically-elected government (one that had kicked a British oil company out of the country). A half century later, Iranian citizens could be relied upon to bring up the coup to American reporters doing in-person interviews on Tehran streets decorated with wartime propaganda. The entire side of a tall building in Tehran shows the American flag with the stars replaced by skulls and the stripes formed by descending bombs. The mural, which had faded over the decades, was redone with fresh paint a few months ago. The famous 'Death to America' slogan is still on the wall of the park-like compound that once held the U.S. Embassy. The place was officially dubbed 'the Den of Spies' when it was overrun by supporters of the regime that replaced the Shah—a revolutionary movement led by a charismatic Shi'ite cleric named Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. (TIME's Person of the Year in 1979 is not to be confused with his similarly named successor, 86-year-old Ali Khamenei, who finally has reportedly nominated his own candidates as successor.) The former embassy is now a museum and, as TripAdvisor makes clear, an effective one. When Iranians were coming over the gates, American diplomats and spies scrambled to feed secrets into paper shredders, reducing their secret documents to strips of paper maybe an eighth-of-an-inch wide. The zeal of the 1979 revolution is still visible on the tables of the Den of Spies, in the papers true believers re-assembled strand-by-strand. Over 50 U.S. diplomats remained in the embassy as hostages for 444 days. The humiliation the nascent Islamic Republic of Iran inflicted on the United States may have been on par with the humiliation the regime is experiencing now. The hitch, for both the U.S. and Israel, is that bringing the attack to Iran, as a country, risks stirring the nationalist response of a nation that goes back 2,500 years. Most Iranians loathe their government, and may have looked on with a certain interest on June 13, when the Israeli warplanes and drones descended, both from abroad and from a base Mossad set up near Tehran. (A joke making the rounds in Tehran had one of Iran's retaliatory strikes hitting the headquarters of Mossad, but it was empty: All the agents were inside Iran.) At the time its secret nuclear program was revealed in 2002, people still held out hope that they could alter their government at the ballot box. But the political reform movement failed, and the stiffening, increasingly unpopular regime understood that it could no longer count on its population. Instead, it placed its hopes for survival in thugs beating protesters in the streets, and acquiring a nuclear weapon. A large majority of Iranians have no love for the regime. In small towns and cities alike, they have been rising up against their oppressive government at irregular intervals, for decades. But any kind of bomb is terrifying, and after the first night of attacks, Israel's warplanes moved beyond military targets and assassinations. An oil refinery was bombed. The casualties of a strike on Tajrish Square, a bustling bazaar in Tehran's north, included a water main and a well-known graphic designer, who was waiting at a red light. The specter of Gaza now looms over every Israeli military operation. After Iran's retaliatory missiles claimed Israeli lives, Israel's defense minister threatened that 'Tehran will burn.' Inside Iran, opposing the government does not extend to supporting attacks by foreign militaries. A group of human rights, civil society, and political activists who, as they put it, 'have always been critical and opposed to the current wrong way of governing,' posted a statement on Telegram saying: 'At this critical juncture in our country's history, when we are confronted with the aggression and arrogance of the racist Israeli government, which has a long history of warmongering, genocide and breaking the fundamental principles of morality and international law, we firmly condemn this attack. We emphasize our serious opposition to any foreign interference. We consider it to be detrimental to the human rights and democracy-seeking efforts of Iranian civil society, and we stand united and steadfast in defending the territorial integrity, independence, national defense capability of our homeland, defending the lives and dignity of human beings, and peace in the region and the world.' Dread swelled in the neighborhoods around the Tehran atomic research reactor, with the distribution of iodide potassium pills to protect the thyroid against radiation in the air. Experts say the risk of radiation exposure is fairly small around the atomic facilities that the U.S. and Israel have bombed to date, because the ones in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan all deal with enriching uranium, rather than sparking nuclear reactions. But though small, the Tehran reactor (set up by the U.S. in 1967, when the Shah still ruled), operates as Chernobyl or Three Mile Island once did, and in the center of a city of more than nine million people. Those living closest to the reactor were told the pills should be taken by those over the age of 60 and under 40, but only when instructed by state TV, which Israel has also bombed. Read More: A New Middle East Is Unfolding Before Our EyesSo, where do things go from here? To a large extent, that depends on the actions of an Iranian regime that was already unpopular at the start of this assault. But any government bringing its own military inside Iran's borders should understand the nature of the country. Among Iranians, opposition to the government is grounded in a bedrock pride in their nation, which predates not only the Islamic Republic, but Islam itself. Some on the Iranian plateau still practice Zoroastrianism, the world's first monotheistic faith, and the foundation for an ancient empire that still informs Iranians' sense of themselves. That identity can be glimpsed in first names like Darius and Cyrus—the names of Persian emperors—and actually visible in the ruins of Persepolis. There, in the friezes depicting supplicants from nations lining up to pay fealty to the ruler of an ancient empire, some Iranians find themselves seeing the nuclear program exactly as the modern regime has cast it—as the 'inalienable right' of any signatory to Non Proliferation Treaty to pursue a nuclear program, so long as it's in Tehran, there was evidence the regime was gaining ground with a public it had largely lost. In a private chat, a university professor told a friend: "Even if Khamenei had packed up the whole nuclear program, Israel would have attacked. Their whole plan was to weaken Iran's military."

Boston Globe

7 hours ago

• Boston Globe

Nations react to US strikes on Iran with many calling for diplomacy

Some have questioned whether a weakened Iran would capitulate or remain defiant and begin striking with allies at U.S. targets scattered across the Gulf region. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Here is a look at reactions from governments and officials around the world. Advertisement United Nations U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres said he was 'gravely alarmed' by the use of force by the United States. 'There is a growing risk that this conflict could rapidly get out of control — with catastrophic consequences for civilians, the region, and the world,' he said in a statement on the social media platform X. 'I call on Member States to de-escalate.' 'There is no military solution. The only path forward is diplomacy.' United Kingdom British Prime Minister Keir Starmer warned of escalation beyond the Middle East as he called for all sides to negotiate a diplomatic end to the crisis, saying stability was the priority in the volatile region. Advertisement The U.K., along with the European Union, France and Germany, tried unsuccessfully to broker a diplomatic solution in Geneva last week with Iran. Starmer said Iran's nuclear program posed a grave threat to global security. 'Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and the U.S. has taken action to alleviate that threat,' Starmer said. Russia Dmitry Medvedev, who serves as deputy head of President Vladimir Putin's Security Council, said several countries were prepared to supply Tehran with nuclear weapons. He didn't specify which countries, but said the U.S. attack caused minimal damage and would not stop Tehran from pursuing nuclear weapons. Russia's Foreign Ministry said it 'strongly condemned' the airstrikes and called them a 'a gross violation of international law, the U.N. Charter, and U.N. Security Council resolutions.' Iraq The Iraqi government condemned the U.S. strikes, saying the military escalation created a grave threat to peace and security in the Middle East. It said it poses serious risks to regional stability and called for diplomatic efforts to de-escalate the crisis. 'The continuation of such attacks risks dangerous escalation with consequences that extend beyond the borders of any single state, threatening the security of the entire region and the world,' government spokesman Bassem al-Awadi said in the statement. Egypt President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi warned of 'grave repercussions' for expanding the Middle East conflict and urged a return to negotiations. Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabia, which previously condemned Israel's strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities and military leaders, expressed 'deep concern' about the U.S. airstrikes, but stopped short of condemning them. 'The Kingdom underscores the need to exert all possible efforts to exercise restraint, de-escalate tensions, and avoid further escalation,' the Foreign Ministry said in a statement. Advertisement Qatar Qatar, which is home to the largest U.S. military base in the Middle East, said it 'regrets' escalating tensions in the Israel-Iran war. Its Foreign Ministry in a statement urged all parties to show restraint and 'avoid escalation, which the peoples of the region, burdened by conflicts and their tragic humanitarian repercussions, cannot tolerate.' Qatar has served as a key mediator in the Israel-Hamas war. Hamas and the Houthis Both the Houthi rebels in Yemen and Hamas condemned the U.S. strikes. The Houthi political bureau in a statement called on Muslim nations to join 'the Jihad and resistance option as one front against the Zionist-American arrogance.' Hamas and the Houthis are part of Iran's so-called Axis of Resistance, a collection of pro-Iranian proxies stretching from Yemen to Lebanon that for years gave the Islamic Republic considerable power across the region. Lebanon Lebanese President Joseph Aoun said the U.S. bombing could lead to a regional conflict that no country could bear and called for negotiations. 'Lebanon, its leadership, parties, and people, are aware today, more than ever before, that it has paid a heavy price for the wars that erupted on its land and in the region,' Aoun said in a statement on X. 'It is unwilling to pay more.' Pakistan Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who spoke by phone with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, condemned the U.S. strikes as a 'serious violation of international law,' his office said. The condemnation comes less than 24 hours after Sharif's government said on X it was recommending President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize for his role defusing the recent India-Pakistan crisis. China China condemned U.S. strikes on Iran, calling them a serious violation of international law that further inflamed tensions in the Middle East. Advertisement In a statement, the Chinese Foreign Ministry urged all parties — especially Israel — to implement a cease-fire and begin dialogue. 'China is willing to work with the international community to pool efforts together and uphold justice, and contribute to the work for restoring peace and stability in the Middle East,' the ministry said. European Union The European Union's top diplomat said Iran must not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon, but she urged those involved in the conflict to show restraint. 'I urge all sides to step back, return to the negotiating table and prevent further escalation,' EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said in a post on social media. Italy Italy's Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said she discussed the worsening crisis with several other members of the Group of Seven leading industrial nations, as well as the Saudi, UAE and Qatari leaders, and all agreed to work toward negotiations to prevent a widening conflict. European Council President Antonio Costa said he was 'deeply alarmed' by the bombings and called on all parties to 'show restraint and respect for international law and nuclear safety.' 'Too many civilians will once again be the victims of a further escalation,' Costa added. 'The EU will continue engaging with the parties and our partners to find a peaceful solution at the negotiating table.' Netherlands Dutch Foreign Minister Caspar Veldkamp, whose country is hosting a summit of NATO leaders including Trump on Tuesday and Wednesday, said the government's national security council would meet later to discuss the issue. He said said the U.S. attacks amounted to 'a further escalation of a worrying situation in the Middle East.' Advertisement Latin America Left-wing Latin American governments expressed fierce opposition to the U.S. strikes. Iran-allied Venezuela called the attacks 'illegal, unjustifiable and extremely dangerous.' Colombian President Gustavo Petro said they were an insult to the Middle East. Chile's President Gabriel Boric said they violated 'rules we have established as humanity.' Mexico's Foreign Ministry made 'an urgent call for peace.' In contrast, Argentina's libertarian President Javier Milei, a loyal ally of Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, praised the attacks on social media. 'Terrorism, never again,' his spokesperson said. Japan Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba told reporters Sunday that it was crucial to calm the situation as soon as possible, adding that the Iranian nuclear weapons development also must be prevented. Ishiba, asked if he supports the U.S. attacks on Iran, declined to comment. The Vatican Pope Leo XIV made a strong appeal for peace during his Sunday Angelus prayer in St. Peter's square, calling for international diplomacy to 'silence the weapons.' After an open reference to the 'alarming' situation in Iran, the first American pontiff stressed that 'today more than ever, humanity cries out and invokes peace and it is a cry that demands reason and must not be stifled.' Pope Leo urged every member of the international community to take up their moral responsibility to 'stop the tragedy of war before it becomes an irreparable abyss.'