President Clinton Back in Derry to Cement the Peace

This week President Clinton made his fifth trip to Derry demonstrating his ongoing commitment to the peace process in Northern Ireland. President Clinton walked the Peace Bridge with Nobel Peace Prize winner John Hume and his wife, Pat. He helped launch a new book, “Peacemaking in the Twenty-First Century,” celebrating the Tip O’Neill peace lectures given at the University of Ulster’s Magee campus, to which he contributed a lecture along with others including John Kerry, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Kofi Annan.

President Clinton then addressed a public audience of some 3,000 people in the Guildhall Square of the city, along with the Deputy First Minister, Martin McGuinness, and members of other political parties, civil society groups, and Tom O’Neill the son of former US Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill. President Clinton told the crowd “never underestimate the impact that this small place has had on the large world because of that peace agreement…people want to know how it was done. You have inspired the world”. The President pointed out that other societies are looking to Northern Ireland as an example of how violence can be transformed into peace. The recent ceasefire by the Basque-separatist group ETA, and the beginning of decommissioning there, is an example of a society that looked to the Northern Ireland model.

But despite the phenomenal progress and what Northern Ireland has taught others, President Clinton also noted “there are still issues that remain unresolved in the 19 years since the ceasefire and 16 years since the Good Friday Agreement”. The President did not highlight specific issues but his message was well timed. The recent all-party talks facilitated by Richard Haass and Meghan O’Sullivan aimed at addressing the outstanding issues of the peace process, including how to resolve differences about flags, parades and dealing with the past, did not bear fruit.

Derry Peace Bridge, © Brandon Hamber

President Clinton understands the challenges facing the Northern Ireland peace process more than most. He has been an advocate for peace for decades, dating back to his days as the Governor of Arkansas. Campaigning for the presidency in 1992, he promised to appoint a peace envoy to Northern Ireland and said “I think sometimes we are too reluctant to engage ourselves in a positive way because of our long-standing special relationship with Great Britain and also because it seemed such a thorny problem…I think the United States is now in a position to think about positive change”.

Decades of political violence had left more than 3,600 people dead in Northern Ireland, but the United States (US) largely stayed away from the conflict. Hesitant to strain their relationship with Great Britain and unsure of success, the US treated The Troubles as “an internal problem to be worked out” as President Reagan once put it.

Politicians like Tip O’Neill tried to change this policy, and through his friendship with John Hume, managed to increase a focus on the Irish question and establish the International Fund for Ireland, which contributed to job creation and equality. However, it was when President Clinton was elected that there was sufficient political power to reverse the US government policy of non-interventionism.

This policy change however required risks. In 1994, President Clinton granted a US travel visa to Gerry Adams, leader of Sinn Féin. He believed that Adams was serious about making peace and that, if given greater legitimacy, he could help press the IRA to give up violence. The strategy worked. The visa increased Adams’ standing and enabled him to be more involved in the political process. In the words of the Irish Taoiseach, John Bruton, President Clinton’s decision to engage Sinn Féin “…gave them the confidence to end their campaign”. The British were furious at first when the visa was granted, but during his US visit, Adams promised to push Sinn Féin to make concrete positive decisions. Afterward the British accelerated their efforts to get political talks going, and the Irish government pressured Sinn Féin to cooperate. Seven months later, the IRA declared a ceasefire.

It took nearly four years for these initial steps to transform into the Good Friday Agreement of 1998. During this time, President Clinton continued to work for peace with all the parties. He appointed Senator George Mitchell as a peace envoy, and in 1995 became the first sitting US President to visit Northern Ireland, where he reaffirmed his support for a lasting peace. Speaking to a huge crowd in Guildhall Square, nearly 20 years ago now, he praised the ongoing efforts for peace, saying “… I see a peaceful city, a safe city, a hopeful city, full of young people that should have a peaceful and prosperous future here where their roots and families are”.

President Clinton’s engagement helped sustain the parties through years of difficult negotiations and a break in the cease-fire. He responded immediately, for example, after the Omagh Bomb in 1998 and travelled to Northern Ireland to calm tensions and meet the victims’ families. On the last day of negotiations, he stayed up all night on the phone to bring all of the parties together. The Good Friday Agreement was announced the next morning. After the peace agreement was signed, President Clinton remained committed to the future of Northern Ireland. In the last weeks of his presidency, he again visited Belfast, and urged everyone to move forward toward peace and prosperity.

The consistent message coming from President Clinton has through the years resonated with the philosophy of John Hume who always linked non-violence with economic growth. It is no wonder then that President Clinton chose to honour John Hume in his latest visit to Northern Ireland. It was also appropriate that President Clinton announced a Chair in Peace based at INCORE at the University of Ulster named after John Hume and Tip O’Neill, whose collective visions for Northern Ireland President Clinton was able to help realise in his Presidency and beyond.

So Northern Ireland has indeed come a long way in the last two decades. Derry as a city in particular feels a world away from the violence of the past. Last year it was the UK City of Culture and all the people of the city shared in its diversity and cultural heritage, and optimism remains high.

But at the same time, there is deep division in Northern Ireland. For example, only 7% of children go to integrated schools and many communities remain divided by so-called “peace walls”. Residential segregation between largely Catholic and Protestant communities is still a reality. The political process has faltered recently, particularly around how to deal with the past. Many victims of both paramilitary and state violence still feel their needs have not been met, especially in relation to truth and justice.

In this context, we need to thank those who forged the peace and pushed for it, but we also need to stay true to their wider vision, and we cannot be complacent. To echo the timely words of President Clinton this week, despite the progress, the people of Northern Ireland and the politicians needs to free themselves “…of the past so you can embrace it and be proud rather than be imprisoned by it". In short we need to now “finish the job”.

Blog originally published on the Clinton Foundation website, 7 March 2014, click here.

A war on terror or a war on reason

India defies description, especially after you spend only a week there and in one city, Delhi. Delhi is a great city of the world, embodying dozens of cultures, old and new. The city survives on teeming markets selling anything from bananas to electronics and a modern financial sector that is expanding rapidly.

The Indian economy has been growing at an annual rate of 8% to 9% recently, the second-fastest expanding economy in the world, behind China.

However, when I first arrived in Delhi, the signs of this new economic giant were hard to spot. The airport was underdeveloped – OR Tambo International Airport, in Johannesburg, makes it look like a small regional airport time-warped in the 1960s. At first glance, the city looks like it is more in decay than development. Crumbling buildings, beggars and poorly kept streets with children in gutters and thousands of people peddling cheap small items is the norm.

However, as I acclimatised to the bustling capital, I started to see development everywhere. In the middle of a row of rundown buildings and behind people, cars, animals and bicycles are upmarket clothes stores, software companies and international banks. Once you start to head out of the city, it becomes even more evident: new shopping malls, office blocks and modern apartments for sale. This is a country on the move, although still with a massive underclass.

Billboards advertise "the lifestyle you want", complete with pictures of compact apartments, swimming pools, fully equipped with 'German kitchens' and a photo of a smiling family, which invariably includes daddy, mommy, son and daughter. The influence of the West is pervasive and growing.

However, it is not only the Western lifestyles that is being imported. Ethnic strife, marked by what George W Bush would call the 'war on terror', is also notably present in India.

This was made all too real on the last night of my stay, when a series of five bombs exploded across Delhi, killing 25 people and injuring over 100. Two of the bombs went off fairly close to my hotel. I had eaten in the bombed district and driven through the area numerous times. The attacks were claimed by a group called the Indian Mujahideen, which is said to be linked to al-Qa'ida.

Immediately following the blasts, eerily familiar debates began playing themselves out on television. Was the government tough enough on radicals, asked the media. And the word 'terrorism' was thrown about by the Indian government in a way reminiscent of a US Republican convention or Sunday lunch on the Bush ranch.

Of course, the bombs in Delhi are acts of terror. Blowing up innocent people is immoral. But is it helpful to lump every act of terror in the same boat? Those setting off the bombs and world governments are equally guilty in that.

It is comfortable for governments to frame all extreme acts of violence as being about the war on terror. Such language justifies tough military action and tighter police control, while often diverting attention from other problems, such as poverty, structural discrimination and long histories of political tension. Governments seem to take perverse pleasure in being part of the global 'war on terror' club.

The alleged perpetrators also like to oversimplify matters. In an email from the Indian Mujahideen, the bombs are said to be a response to the "hostile hatred" of Islam and justified punishment for the "sins" of the people.

But when did global politics and political ideology become so simple?

Bush wants us to believe that there is only one war, and the bombers that there is only one justifiable struggle.

The rise of the totalising discourse is of great concern. Surely, it denies complex local politics, individual power struggles and massive cultural variations in how the so-called war on terror plays itself out. Painting everything with the same brush is not only lazy, anti-explanatory and culturally vacuous, but dangerous.

This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on 3 October 2008 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.

Forget the war on terror, it's morals that count

It was a strange time to be in Boston in the midst of the US election. The tension was palpable and the support for Kerry-a native son of the city-pervasive. Right up until counting started the mood was optimistic. Early exit polls suggested a Kerry victory. But very soon it all started to turn for the Democrats. By 5:30am on election day, as I sat glued to the television abandoning my plans to observe the downtown Kerry “victory” rally, it was all but over. Bush was going to win.

The following day the usually lively city seemed melancholic. Over breakfast, hotel patrons spoke openly about their disappointment. Some told me they were embarrassed to be an American. They felt isolated and that they were living in another universe to their Bush-supporting compatriots. That evening in a shop I greeted an attendant “Hi. How you doing?”

His response: “I'm looking for a new country to live in,” his words indicative of the deep ruptures that now exist within the US.

Sometime on Wednesday, President Thabo Mbeki officially congratulated George Bush. He wished him well and “fervently” hoped for “greater world stability and peace under his leadership”. No one noticed. The US is a country that is wrapped up in itself these days despite its military exploits abroad. Those of a liberal persuasion-or at least a sizeable proportion of the 56 million people or 48% of the electorate who voted for Kerry-are struggling to figure out what went wrong and what is going on. Much soul searching is being done.

When asked what issues mattered most in choosing a president, survey data in the New York Times revealed that “moral values” ranked top with economy and jobs, followed by terrorism and the Iraq war. Seemingly issues such as tax, education and health care were seen as less important. A swathe of Americans feel that the moral world is crumbling about them. A strong, principled leader that can oppose abortion, stem-cell research, and gay marriage is what they feel is needed. Just over half of voting Americans feel that Bush is such a person. To the remainder, Bush as a moral icon is laughable, given his warmongering overseas.

Meanwhile, Mbeki, in his message to Bush, appealed for “renewed support for, and interest in Africa and the developing world, reform of world institutions and an era of multilateralism marked by a concerted drive to deal decisively with the challenge of poverty and underdevelopment”. It is hard to imagine that this is even on the map for the US right now. A conservative revolution is on the march.

It is easy for those from a liberal perspective to write this off or treat Bush supporters as if they are misguided bible-bashers. But the problem is more complex than that. It is time to face the fact that the right-wing in the US is organised. They moved door-to-door securing their position. The Bush campaign utilised 1,2 million volunteers with four times as many workers in Ohio than 2000. They sold “Faith, Family and Flag” and the majority of the electorate bought it.

This suggests that many fear some sort of global moral vacuum that they think the Republicans can fill. Such views litter internet chat rooms across the US. As one Bush supporter put it: “I'm sorry but I don't lose sleep over Iraq. What I do lose sleep over is my children's future in the immoral cess pit that this country is becoming”.

We all want a safe and decent world; one that embodies good values. This is why Bush attracted the vote of some moderates as well as his traditional neo-conservative and Christian fundamentalist supporters. But their votes have endorsed, whether knowingly or not, an approach whereby the language of moral values will continue to be used to hide a value-free political and economic agenda.

The politics of morality is a new global battleground. The results can be disastrous. Estimates put the death toll in Iraq as anywhere between 20 000 and 100 000 civilians. These people were killed in the name of freedom, democracy and to allegedly make the world a safer place.

But who has really benefited from this “moral” campaign? Mostly those who sell weapons, reconstruction contractors and private security firms, many close to the Bush regime. The Bush administration has, in Iraq's most vulnerable moment, tendered it off to the lowest bidder with no discernible benefit to its indigenous economy. Defence contracts worth 76 billion dollars, for example, have been connected to nine out of thirty members of the US Defense Policy Group.

In South Africa we cannot ignore these developments. The influence of the Bush administration is going to be felt more than before in the coming years. Negotiating investment may soon not only be about crude economic negotiations alone. Is it possible that South African constitutional approaches to issues such as gay marriage could be on the table in future trade talks? As South Africans we must not simply beg for investment or bend over backwards to get it no matter the cost. We need to unmask what is going on and ask what the “real” price of investment might be.

This is particularly important given that the language of morality may also find resonance in conservative parts of Africa. Think of the views of some African churches on homosexuality. Will these confluences of interest be used to open more economic doors into Africa for Republican-aligned companies that give little back to local economies? We cannot simply dismiss the right-wing any more or get away with taunts of imperialism. Poking fun at Bush's gaffs on the podium is not enough. A serious analysis of the politics of morality and conservatism and its implications for the developing world is desperately needed. Supporting moral values sounds benign but we must ensure that the debate on morality is detached political projects.

It is time for a renewed interest in the US. We need to reach out to those who do not want morality used negatively. It is time for new alliances with liberals and progressives in the US, many of whom feel besieged in their own country right now. After all, there are only about 1 400 days to the next US election.

This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on 19 November 2004 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.

OK, I was wrong...Bush wins

OK, I was wrong in some of my earlier postings...Kerry is not going to be the new US President. All the initial exit poles were wrong. My optimism was misplaced. I am still in Boston and the city is in mourning. Last night I was in a shop and simply greeted a shop attendant saying "Hi. How you doing?". His response, "I'm looking for a new country to live in!". Says a lot, and it is important to realise at this time that 49% of North Americans are deeply distressed by this result (not to mention most of the rest of the world!)...that said, it is small comfort for what is to happen over the next four years...as someone else said to me this morning, "You ain't seen nothing yet...".

Bush is scary...vote Kerry

I am currently in Boston and while walking the lovely autumn streets came across this. I took a picture and thought it rather an appropriate posting for Halloween...

Happy Halloween!