Twenty years ago today I was among a large assembly of journalists from around the world who had gathered in the freezing cold of an Easter-tide Belfast to celebrate a magnificent political achievement.
Today I simply reflect on that memory. In the days of fake news and intense and generally justified popular scepticism with the absence of sound political leadership, I have no hesitation in supporting Tony Blair in his assertion that the peace agreement for Northern Ireland was something that those involved in it should feel justifiably proud of , for it deserves being looked at as a case study of how the best solutions are reached at through dialogue and compromise.
Blair is absolutely right in stating that whatever the present day difficulties of Northern Ireland politics, the shortcomings of the agreement today falls well short of disqualifying the historic milestone that put an end to one of the most violent and seemingly intractable sectarian conflicts in post-war Europe.
It is worth here noting some of the elements that made the agreement possible. First and foremost it involved a sufficient dose of patience and humility among the main stake holders, and a commitment to step out of the narrow confines of prejudice to build bridges of understanding and justice rather maintaining a wall of deafness and intolerance.
The Northern Ireland agreement didn’t happen overnight but was the result of a carefully mapped out discreet engagement, breaking out of the straight jacket of nationalist prejudice and partisan politics thanks to the involvement of third party intermediaries, and the promise that compromise held the key to a more stable and prosperous future that benefited the common good.
Such a promise, one should note, was not lightly given but was underpinned by other key players in the process, among them not just British and Irish political leaders, but the US government led by President Clinton, and a European Union prepared to bring in Northern Ireland out of a dangerous conflict zone that had spiralled out of control , with violence on both sides, and no clear winners.
The key players, and I mention here not just Blair, but his predecessor as prime-minister the conservative John Major, President Clinton, and the Irish prime minister Bertie Ahern , but also the social democrat John Hume , the IRA leaders Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness, and the unionists David Trimble and Ian Paisley, showed between them a real ability to move beyond their own narrow self-interest in favour of the interests of the broader community, both North and South of the Irish border.
In so doing they showed themselves capable , in a specific scenario requiring urgent action, of being true statesmen, visionary political leaders prepared to defuse enduring antagonisms so as to move forward on the basis of consensus that nonetheless recognised a political reality.
This was that while a majority of people in Northern Ireland wanted to remain part of the UK, there was a substantial section of the population that regarded themselves as Irish nationalists.
The two governments also agreed, irrespective of the constitutional position of Northern Ireland: the power of the sovereign government with jurisdiction there shall be exercised with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all the people in the diversity of their identities and traditions and shall be founded on the principles of full respect for, and equality of, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, of freedom from discrimination for all citizens, and of parity of esteem and of just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos and aspirations of both communities.
I write this from Catalonia, a region of Spain, which seems to be struggling to find a way out of its political impasse, with an absence of statesmanship in Madrid and visionary political leaders in Barcelona ,but who could do well to embrace a spirit of engagement and a sense of common good, through dialogue and compromise.
Factors worth considering: the Catalan movement for independence might be trying to monopolise international coverage of the issue and once again going for mass demonstrations, (a huge one is expected on Sunday) but they do not command a clear majority of support among voters in the region, still less in the rest of Spain.
That said their cause has been energised by the tough action taken against its political leaders by the Spanish judiciary, and the less than supportive action by the German judiciary. A German judge has released on bail the fugitive former Catalan prime minister Carlos Puigdemont , judging that his actions against the Spanish state were neither rebellious not seditious, despite violating Spain’s constitution.
In Madrid, the ruling PP government, meanwhile is daily losing support of the electorate in part because of its alleged corruption and lack of a solution to the Catalan question, beyond imposing direct rule, and letting Spanish judges try and dictate the thrust and pace of Spanish politics, whatever German judges might think.
Catalonia is crying out for true statesmen, for political leaders who are not demagogues, for worthy and respected mediators, and a community that favours consensus not conflict, demanding an agreement as innovative and courageous as the Good Friday agreement was in its time. For without all these elements, the danger is the Catalonia becoming more polarised and potentially violent amidst increasing civil disobedience and the resistance of the Spanish State.
