I thank the Chairman, members of the committee and guests for inviting me to join them. It is an honour to participate in this meeting. I encourage members in the stated efforts that they have undertaken to support the process in the North. As members know, I have been asked to speak about my experience in Northern Ireland. I will do so briefly so as to permit the maximum amount of time for questions or comments by members.
Permit me to begin with a reference to my country. Some 225 years ago, a small group of American colonists, 45 men, gathered in Philadelphia in a constitutional convention. Their objectives were independence and self-governance, both of which they ultimately achieved. A decade earlier, the Americans had stated their case for self-governance in the Declaration of Independence. At the constitutional convention, they sought to create a framework of government in which the rights claimed in the declaration could be vindicated and safeguarded. The result was the American constitution. The first ten amendments to that constitution, what we in our country call the Bill of Rights, comprise one of the most concise and eloquent statements ever written on the right of the individual to be free from oppression by government. That is one side of the coin of liberty.
The other side is the need for everybody to have a fair chance to enjoy the blessings of liberty. The man without a job, the woman who cannot get good care or education for her children, the young people who lack the skills needed to compete in the world of technology, do not think much about liberty or justice; they worry about coping, day to day. The same is true of people living in a society torn by division, violence and fear. Without civil order and personal physical security, freedom and liberty come to be seen as mere concepts, unrelated to the daily task of survival. So it was for many years in Northern Ireland, as a deadly cycle of misery and recrimination took hold. After a half century of a cold relationship and only occasional co-operation, the British and Irish Governments concluded that if there was to be any hope of bringing the conflict to an end they would have to co-operate in a sustained effort to lay the foundation for peace.
Thus the Good Friday Agreement of 1998 traces its lineage to the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985 and the Downing Street Declaration of 1993. In spite of much difficulty and throughout many setbacks, the Governments persevered. For that, they deserve more credit than they have received. Tony Blair and Bertie Ahern were brilliant in bringing the process to a conclusion but they would be the first to acknowledge that their predecessors set the stage. Those predecessors, British and Irish, kept the process going in exceptionally difficult circumstances. Primary credit, of course, must go to the political leaders of Northern Ireland, the men and women who demonstrated great courage and commitment. After years of effort, the British and Irish Governments were finally able to get peace negotiations under way in June 1996. The Prime Ministers invited me to serve as independent chairman, with my two colleagues, the former Prime Minister of Finland, Harri Holkeri, and the Canadian former chief of general staff, John de Chastelain. I had been involved long enough in Northern Ireland to realise what a daunting task it was. I spent five years there, chairing three separate but related discussions. The negotiations were the longest I have ever been involved with and for most of that time no progress seemed possible. Until recently, I used to say they were the longest and most difficult negotiations but I have just returned from two and a half years in the Middle East and can now tell members something I never thought I would think or say, namely, after two and a half years of dealing with Israelis and Arabs, the Irish were really easy and friendly to deal with.
For most of the time in the North, however, there was no progress. Somehow we kept going. There was an especially bleak and dangerous time in the Christmas season of 1997, and the early months of 1998. We had been at it for a year and a half with little to show. In an effort to encourage progress, the Governments moved the negotiations to London in January and to Dublin in February but there was no progress in those locations either. On the contrary, the process appeared to be moving backwards. In mid-February 1998, on a flight from Dublin to the United States, I began to devise a plan to establish an early unbreakable deadline for an end to the talks. I was convinced that the absence of such a deadline guaranteed failure. The existence of a deadline could not guarantee success but I believed it made it possible. It took me a month to put the plan together and persuade all the participants to join. By late March they were ready and I recommended a final deadline of midnight on Thursday, 9 April 1998 for which I needed the approval of all the major parties. Any one of them could have prevented me from establishing a deadline, thereby, in my view, dooming the talks - but they all agreed. I knew then they were serious and determined. They recognised there had to be a deadline to force a decision.
As we neared the deadline, there were non-stop negotiations. Tony Blair and Bertie Ahern came to Belfast and demonstrated true leadership. With great skill and assurance, they helped to bring the negotiations to a successful conclusion. President Clinton made an important contribution as well. He stayed up all night at the White House on that final 24-hour push, telephoning me and several of the delegates at critical times in the final hours of negotiation. In a tight timeframe, a powerful focus was brought to bear and produced the right result. The very fact that getting an agreement took such extraordinary effort, however, was a clear warning signal of the difficulties that would follow. Finally, in the late afternoon of Good Friday, an agreement was reached.
It is important to recognise that although the Good Friday Agreement did not, by itself, guarantee a durable peace, political stability or reconciliation, it made them possible. There still had to be a lot of effort over a long period of time by many people to achieve those goals. For that, the political leaders of Northern Ireland again deserve great credit. In spite of many setbacks, and for over a decade, they continued the effort. There were further negotiations and several breakthroughs, one important one occurring at St. Andrew's in 2007. Today, peace prevails but there remain many issues to be resolved. The leaders and the people of Northern Ireland need our continued support. I believe they have earned it.
In recent years, I have often been asked what lessons Northern Ireland holds for other conflicts. I would now like to try to answer that question briefly, beginning with a caution. Each human being is different and unique, as is each society. It follows logically, therefore, that no two conflicts are truly identical. Northern Ireland is different from the Middle East and they are both different from Asia or Africa. Each conflict requires a unique and locally tailored response. Much as we would like it, there is no magic formula which, once discovered, can be used to end all conflicts. However, arising out of my experience in Northern Ireland, I believe there are certain principles which are universal. First, I believe there is no such thing as a conflict that cannot be ended. They are created, conducted and sustained by human beings; they can be ended by human beings. No matter how ancient or hurtful the conflict, peace can prevail.
When I arrived in Northern Ireland I found, to my dismay, a widespread feeling of pessimism among the public and, indeed, among the political leaders. As members know, it is a small well-informed society and I quickly became well known. Every day, people stopped me on the street, in the airport or in a restaurant. They always began with kind words - "Thank you, Senator, God bless you. We appreciate what you are trying to do" - but they always ended in despair - "You're wasting your time. This conflict can't be ended". I recall in particular one woman who looked like everybody's favourite grandmother. She said to me, "We've been killing each other for centuries and we're doomed to go on killing each other forever".
As best I could, I worked to reverse such attitudes. This is the special responsibility of political leaders, from whom many in the public take their cue. Leaders must lead. One way is to create an attitude of success, the belief that problems can be solved and that things can be better, not in a foolish or unrealistic way but in a way that creates hope and confidence among the people. A second need is for a clear and determined policy not to yield to violence. In July 1998, after the agreement had been reached and had been approved in a referendum, three young boys were burned to death as they slept. One month later, a devastating bomb in Omagh killed 35 people and injured over 300. These were acts of appalling ignorance and hatred. They had to be, and were, totally condemned but the people of Northern Ireland did not succumb to the temptation to retaliate. That would have given the perpetrators what they wanted, escalating sectarian violence and the end of the peace process. That means there must be an endless supply of perseverance and patience. No matter how bleak the outlook, the search for peace must continue. It takes courage, perseverance, steady nerves and strong political leadership.
Another need is so obvious that it is simple to state – a willingness to compromise. Peace and political stability cannot be achieved in divided societies unless there is a genuine willingness to understand the other side's point of view and to enter into principled compromise. That is easy to say but very hard to do. It requires of political leaders that they take risks for peace. It is an extraordinary fact of human history that, over many centuries, leaders have been willing to take the most desperate risks in war but are rarely willing to take substantial risks in and for peace. Most political leaders dislike risk-taking of any kind. Many get to be leaders by minimising or avoiding risk. To ask them in the most difficult and dangerous circumstances to be bold in the cause of peace, is asking much but it must be asked and they must respond if there is to be any hope for peace. I know it can be done because I saw it at first hand in Northern Ireland. The political leaders of Northern Ireland - ordinary men and women, some of whom had never before met or spoken and most of whom had spent their entire lives in conflict - came together in an agreement for peace. It was long and difficult but it happened. If it happened there, it can happen elsewhere.
A fourth and important principle is to recognise that the implementation of agreements is as important as reaching them and usually much more difficult. Someone once said that when we have the agreement, then the work begins. That is not inaccurate. It should be self-evident but usually getting an agreement is so difficult that the natural human tendency is to celebrate and then turn to other matters. Getting it done is more difficult than getting an agreement to do it. Perseverance and patience are necessary. It is especially important that those involved in the effort do not become complacent by the good feeling often generated by a highly publicised agreement. If the conflict is important enough to get involved in, it must be seen through all the way to a fair and successful conclusion and implementation. Peace and political stability are not too much to ask. They are, in fact, the minimal needs of a decent and caring society.
I recall my first day in Northern Ireland, 17 years ago. For the first time, I saw the huge wall that physically separates the communities in the heart of Belfast. It was 30 feet high and topped in places with barbed wire. It is a stark reminder of the intensity and duration of the conflict. Ironically, it is called the peace line. On that first morning I met with Nationalists on their side of the wall and, in the afternoon, with Unionists on their side. The messages had not been co-ordinated but I was struck by how similar the messages were. In Belfast, they told me with charts, maps, graphs and powerful testimony, there is a high correlation between unemployment and violence. They told me that where men and women have no opportunity and hope, they are more likely to take the path of violence. As I sat and listened, I thought that I could just as easily be in Chicago, Calcutta, Johannesburg or the Middle East. Despair is fuel for instability and hope is essential for peace and stability. Men and women everywhere need income to support their families and the satisfaction of doing something worthwhile and meaningful in their lives. Conflict in Northern Ireland was not exclusively or even primarily economic. It involved religion, national identity and territory. Unionists tend to identify with, want to remain part of, the United Kingdom; nationalists tend to identify with, and want to become part of, a united Ireland. The Good Friday Agreement acknowledges the legitimacy of both aspirations. It requires, however, that advocacy for either position, be exclusively by democratic and peaceful means and it commits all to the democratic principle that a change in status can occur only with the freely given consent of the people of Northern Ireland. The agreement creates the possibility that economic prosperity will flow from and contribute to lasting peace. Economic growth, the creation of jobs, opportunity for every member of society – no matter what his or her background or his or her family status or wealth – is the most important element in building strong and peaceful societies.
I am not objective because I favour the people of Northern Ireland. Having spent years with them, I have come to like and admire them. While they can be quarrelsome and often quick to take offence, they are also warm and generous, energetic and productive. Some here may recall the first day of meetings when David Ervine, a wonderful man and a powerful contributor to peace, said that if I was to be any use to them, there was one thing I had to know. I asked him what it was and he replied that in Northern Ireland they would drive 100 miles out of their way to receive an insult. I thought he was kidding but no one else in the room laughed so I took it seriously. When the agreement was reached, at 6 p.m. on the evening of 10 April 1998, we had been in negotiation for nearly two years and, continuously, for the previous few days. We were all elated and exhausted. In my parting comments to my colleagues, I told them the agreement was, for me, the realisation of a dream that has sustained me for three and a half years, the longest and most difficult years of my life. I told them I had a new dream, which was to return to Northern Ireland with my young son, Andrew, who was born during negotiations. I told them I would take my son and travel the country, taking in the sights and sounds of a beautiful land and, on a rainy afternoon, we would drive to Stormont and sit quietly in the visitors gallery in Northern Ireland Assembly. There, I hoped, we would watch and listen as the members debated the ordinary issues of life in a democratic society, such as education, health care, agriculture and tourism. There would be no talk of war for the war would long have been over. There would be no talk of peace for peace would, by then, be taken for granted. I told them that on the day peace is taken for granted in Northern Ireland I will be fulfilled and people of goodwill and people of peace everywhere will rejoice.
I spoke those words 14 years ago, and I am happy to tell members that a few weeks ago I made the journey with my son. We spent one week travelling across Northern Ireland and we sat in the visitors gallery in the Northern Ireland Assembly. The only difference is that, for one week, it did not rain, which I found extraordinary given all the time I spent in Northern Ireland. As we sat in the gallery listening to the Northern Ireland Assembly debate, we heard a calm, peaceful and democratic debate. We heard a Minister report to the Assembly on a conference he had just attended. His report was as dry as dust and as boring as only a government report can be, but it was music to my ears and I thought it wonderful to hear. It made that day truly one of the best days of my life.
I will be glad to respond to any questions or to hear any comments committee members would like to make.
