Northern Ireland (failed?) Agreement of 31 December 2013

Over the second half of 2013, US diplomat Richard Haass (Chair) and Meghan O'Sullivan (Vice Chair) were ask to independently chair an all party panel to address outstanding contentious issues in the Northern Ireland peace process. They were asked to achieve consensus recommendations whenever possible on the specific issues of parades and protests; flags, symbols and emblems, and related matters; and the past (full mandate).

The Panel’s work took nearly six months, including 33 days of meetings and negotiations, and involved some 100 meetings with 500 people and 600 submissions from interested groups and the public.  A document, said to be the 7th draft, was produced on 31 December 2013, however, was not ratified by all parties. There have however been several calls to move forward on the parts of the document where there is consensus. 

Agreement Document of 31 December 2013

• Final and full text  (download)
• Summary Fact Sheet (download)

Haass and O'Sullivan 

• Statement by Haass and O'Sullivan (8 January 2014, download)
• Haass and O'Sullivan Op-Ed in Belfast Telegraph (27 December 2013, link)

Selection of Office Party Responses (Press Releases)

• SDLP: UUP a ‘Pontius Pilate moment – 7 Jan 2014
• Sinn Fein: Unionist leaders need to do just that - 7 Jan 2014
• UUP: Executive statement on Haass - 6 Jan 2013
• Sinn Fein: Unionist Leaders Must Decide - 3 Jan 2014
• UUP: Executive to meet - 2 Jan 2014
• Sinn Fein: Adams welcomes publication - 31 Dec 2013
• Alliance: This isn’t the comprehensive agreement - 31 Dec 2013
• DUP: "We must not lose the momentum" - 31 Dec 2013

The serious business of tree hugging

Back in 2001, infamous tough politician from Sinn Fein, Gerry Adams, admitted that he liked hugging trees. At the time, he noted: “Hugging trees has a calming affect on me. I’m talking about enormous trees that will be there when we are all dead and gone.”

This week, I was amusingly accused of being a tree hugger after I circulated a petition to save a forest in Northern Ireland known as the Prehen woodland.

By global standards, this forest is minuscule. The remaining tract of forest in Prehen, just outside Derry, covers 18.5 acres, compared to the 1.7-billion acres of the Amazon forest basin.

But this small forest is also unique. It is an ancient woodland with trees dating back to the 1600s and is one of the few ancient woodlands left on the island of Ireland. One of the last colonies of indigenous red squirrels lives in the forest and it offers local people a green area on the edge of the city.

Nonetheless, the local government and planners still allow continued encroachment on the forest, giving developers licence to chop down ageless trees to build luxury homes. The developers then have the gall to advertise the new homes as located in a forest setting.

The savagery the officials have allowed on this tiny forest over the years is disgraceful, but is also part of a bigger global problem.

Prehen Ancient Woodland

Forests cover about 30% of the world’s land area. But deforestation continues at an alarming rate. Logging, mining, housing and the planting of crops for grazing, besides other practices, destroy 4 500 acres of forest worldwide every hour, according to the United Nations. It is estimated that 18-million acres of the world’s forests is lost each year.

Experts estimate that, within 40 years, the last remaining rainforests could be consumed. This will have a devastating effect on the global climate and the 1.6- billion people who rely on forest products for all or part of their livelihoods.

Yet those who fight to roll back this destruction, like veteran local Prehen campaigner George McLaughlin, are generally dismissed as troublemakers by the planning authorities while, globally, corporations and governments turn a blind eye for a quick buck or financial support for their next election campaign.

Given the gargantuan annihilation of trees around the planet, should I, or anyone for that matter, care about the Prehen woodland in Northern Ireland?

Of course, we should. We need to challenge the human delusions I have seen in relation to forest annihilation. When it comes to vast forests like the Amazon, we are tricked into thinking they are too big to be completely wiped out. When it comes to small forests like the Prehen woodland, we think they are too insignificant to matter.

However, not caring about the Prehen woodland, or any other, is like saying the extinction of a specific species of insect is not important because there are lots of other insects in the world. But, like an extinct species, once this ancient woodland is gone, you cannot grow it back.

Adams claims he likes hugging trees because he knows they will be there long after he is gone. Well, in this case, he might be wrong.

When will the authorities in Northern Ireland wake up to the reality staring them in the face? Or will they continue to sell their resources to the highest bidder for some short-term gain, just like many others worldwide?

Given the record of government and the planners in relation to the Prehen woodland and internationally, there is little prospect. But each day I hope, just as my financial adviser is prone to say, past performance is not always an indicator of future performance and, perhaps, someone with the power to stop the wanton destruction of forests like the Prehen woodland will stand up and have the courage to say: “No more.”

This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on 19 March 2012 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.

The war and peace legacy

Being a columnist can be taxing. The relentless search for interesting topics to waffle on about is never ending. However, now and then, a week comes along where so much happens that it is difficult to decide where to start. The week starting May 7 was one such week.

Ian Paisley, George W. Bush and Martin McGuinness
Credit Chris Greenberg / Public domain

In that week, the Northern Ireland peace process reached a decisive climax. Ian Paisley, of the DUP, and Martin McGuinness, of Sinn Fein, were sworn in as First and Deputy First Ministers of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The DUP, which had said that it would never sit down with Sinn Fein because it considers Sinn Fein a terrorist organisation because of its links with the Irish Republican Army, agreed to share power. In turn, Sinn Fein set aside the likelihood of a united Ireland, at least in the foreseeable future, and agreed to participate in a devolved administration within the UK.

If that was not enough, in the same week, Tony Blair took the plunge, which had been pending for months, and announced his resignation date – June 27. Of course, the two events are related. Blair chose the date for announcing his departure because it was close to the Northern Ireland deal. With his legacy literally bombed to pieces in Iraq, Blair was desperate to link his exit with something positive.

This is not to say he simply jumped on the Northern Ireland peace train at the last minute. He had played a significant role in it. He kept the peace process high on his agenda, more so than any other British Prime Minister. Shortly after coming to office, he agreed to face-to-face talks with Republicans in 1997. The last British Prime Minister to do that was Lloyd George, some time after World War I.

While Blair was waging war in the rest of the world, he visited Northern Ireland a remarkable 37 times to help ensure the peace. McGuinness, who, no doubt, still feels the British have a lot to answer for in Northern Ireland, was quoted in the Guardian earlier this year, saying: “Tony Blair and Iraq is almost like a total contradiction of Tony Blair and Ireland.”

So why the split personality? And why did he become Bush’s lackey over Iraq?

My theory is that, after nearly a decade in power, he became more concerned with his global legacy than bottom-up change. I am not sure if he even saw the full significance of Northern Ireland in his own backyard until it was all he had left.

The destruction of the Twin Towers gave him an opportunity to cement his place in history. He felt this was his Churchillian moment to be heralded a saviour of the so-called free world. He misguidedly backed the wrong horse.

In Africa, his record is mixed. He showed concern, calling the continent a “scar on the conscience of the world”. He set up the African Commission and pushed debt relief. This has had an impact; for example, debt relief in Mozambique meant half a million children were immunised.

Yet, as much as things moved under his premiership, they have also fallen short and poverty certainly ain’t history. The G8 committed itself under his leadership to a $5,4-billion increase in support to sub-Saharan Africa; since 2004, it has increased by $2,3-billion.

This is no small contribution, but it typifies his leadership style – a style emblematic of many politicians. He came to power with a populist mandate, but, over time, he lost the common touch. Blair is about vision over capability and rhetoric over delivery, and his biggest weakness is that he believes his own hype. Sometimes this pays off, as it did in Northern Ireland but, mostly, over time, it belly-flops. If you don’t believe me, just ask the average Iraqi, or next time you are in the Middle East, try to find your way with the so-called road map he helped broker.

This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on 1 June 2007 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.

The perils of a political vacuum

Recently, I tuned into South African talk Radio 702 over the Internet. To my surprise, I was greeted by a Northern Irish accent or, more precisely, a Belfast-based academic trying to explain the recent riots in Protestant loyalist areas in Belfast to a bemused South African presenter. The interview reminded me of my attempts to explain cricket to Americans: by definition, the conversation goes nowhere. It is no surprise that someone living on the other end of the world would find the situation confusing. What is more surprising is that people here seem equally perplexed.

In the days following the rioting, a bewildering array of explanations was offered. Spokespersons for the affected Protestant areas say they are being shortchanged in the peace process. They argue that Catholics have got more resources and concessions (such as the release of politically-motivated prisoners) as part of the process. Others blame high levels of socioeconomic deprivation and lack of educational opportunities in Protestant areas. Other commentators counter these claims by pointing out that two-thirds of the 20 most-deprived areas in Northern Ireland are Catholic and Catholics are still more likely to be unemployed than Protestants. That said, inner-city deprivation in some Protestant areas is acute by European standards. Still others blame a generic feeling of alienation and insecurity that somehow started with the peace process. Dire socioeconomic conditions can cause feelings of alienation and make people feel powerless to do anything positive, opening the possibility for violence.

But alienation in itself does not result in violence. It is the political context that does that and mainly the rhetoric of politicians. In a normal society, if faced by harsh socioeconomic conditions you first express your dissatisfaction to your political representatives. They express these for you in the public democratic space of government. If you have no success you may vote out your representatives or resort to peaceful protest.

And that is the problem. The Northern Ireland Assembly, which was the product of the 1998 peace agreement, was suspended in October 2002. Power still rests with the UK government. Unionist politicians, who largely represent Protestants, currently refuse to participate in the Assembly. They claim distrust of Sinn Fein (the largest Catholic party and so-called political wing of the IRA). So, without any normal political channels to air grievances, the media have become the sole vehicle for expression and analysis. But using the media in this way is risky. The media are easily manipulated by politicians who want to stoke the flames of hatred and division. Also, the bigger the protest, the more airtime you get. This feeds the illusion that protest, particularly violent protest, pays.

Ironically, while some Protestants protest about there being no peace dividend, the IRA continues to disarm and disband. The society is economically more stable than ever. Politically-motivated killings across communities have all but stopped. So one can forgive outsiders like the 702 presenter from struggling to understand just what the problem is.

In reality, the explanation for recent turbulence in Belfast probably lies in a combination of these factors. This is compounded by the inclination of unionist politicians to focus on what has been lost, rather than gained, in 11 years of ‘peace’. Combine these perceptions with the absence of a local democratic forum in which issues can be raised and dealt with and the powerlessness this causes, and Belfast’s loyalist areas become a tinderbox. This will remain a problem as long as the political vacuum, for which politicians are to blame, remains. As for socioeconomic deprivation, it is part of the same problem. Surely, it is obvious that, in a globalising world, the only possible option for this tiny island is for all to learn to pull together to get more for everyone. And if that is not happening at a political level then what chance is there of it happening within communities?

This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on 30 September 2005 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.