Marjorie Mowlam

The long, bitter and violent conflict between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland has stymied the best efforts of peacemakers for generations. Marked by bombs, bombastic rhetoric and intransigence, carefully negotiated cease-fire agreements have been shattered again and again, often by bombs set in the heart of London. Now, with another tenuous truce not yet 2 months old, the New Labor government of British Prime Minister Tony Blair is pressing hard to reach its announced goal--a working peace agreement by May 1, 1998.

Last month, Blair met with Gerry Adams, leader of the Irish Republican Army’s political arm, Sinn Fein. The two men shook hands in the first meeting of a British prime minister and a Sinn Fein leader since Ireland was partitioned in 1920. Just three weeks earlier, Adams was at peace talks attended by Protestant Ulster Unionist leaders, also a first since the Irish revolution. Both meetings were largely symbolic, but observers on all sides see them as important, even dramatic steps in the search for peace.

To succeed means ending a conflict that stretches deep into Irish history. After a revolution that began in 1916, Britain accepted Irish independence in the south in 1922, but held onto control of the six northern counties known as the Ulster province. Protestants outnumber Catholics by 3-to-1 in Northern Ireland, and the IRA has never ended its campaign to unite the north with the rest of Ireland.

Much of the credit for the current cease-fire goes to former U.S. Sen. George J. Mitchell, who has spent three years in Belfast working on behalf of the British and Irish governments. The election of Blair’s New Labor Party in May added optimism, as did his appointment of Marjorie “Mo” Mowlam as British secretary for Northern Ireland. An outspoken populist, Mowlam has won the respect of all parties in the dispute by spending a good deal of time “on the ground,” talking to people in Belfast neighborhoods and promoting reconciliation.

Hers is not an enviable job. The role of “northern secretary” is not only physically dangerous, it’s also a political quagmire, given the tenacious nature of the Irish dispute. Yet, Mowlam seems to relish the opportunity. At 47, she was a key player in reform of the Labor Party, and she sees in the current climate “the greatest chance for peace in our lifetime.” Mowlam, who is married, earned her PhD in education at the University of Iowa and professes “a great love for the United States.” Her casual air and activist views make her the antithesis of the traditional British politician. She was in Los Angeles last week, drumming up support for both the peace process and economic development in Northern Ireland.

Question: Can you place the conflict in Northern Ireland into a perspective that people in Los Angeles can understand? Is it anything like the civil-rights struggle we’ve experienced in this country?

Answer: On a superficial level, you can draw some parallel between the racial strife in the United States in the early ‘60s and the nature of the bigotry that exists in Northern Ireland. But if you take that very far, you get into a very dangerous comparison. Because you then imply that one side is right and the other is a repressive force. Part of the problem in Northern Ireland is that both sides have a good argument. This may be difficult for people in America to understand.

Many Americans are more sympathetic to the nationalists’ perspective because they perceive them to be similar to the blacks in this country--the down-trodden. But in Northern Ireland, it’s not a question of right and wrong; it’s a question of finding an accommodation that you can both live with.

Steve Proffitt, a contributing editor to Opinion, is director of the JSM+ Communications New Media Lab. He spoke with Marjorie Mowlam at the Hotel Nikko in Beverly Hills last week.

Imagine, perhaps, Latino citizens in Southern California organizing to return part of the state to Mexico. The country was taken from them, and they’ve been oppressed as a minority for many generations. As just as their cause may be, millions of others in Southern California have rights, too. That’s the heart of the difficulty. In Northern Ireland, one community is saying we have a right to remain in the union. But the other half, the minority in this case, want a different sense of nation. So, like the racial struggle in the U.S., this is about deep constitutional questions. But it’s also about whose right it is to call themselves something and live somewhere.

Q: Given that fact that one group wants to join with the Republic of Ireland and the other wants to remain part of Britain, how does one begin to construct an agenda for talks to resolve these differences?

A: First of all, there is a vast majority on both sides that want peace. There is no doubt from opinion polls that they see themselves as Nationalists, Unionists, Republicans or Loyalists--with strong political views about the way Northern Ireland should be structured and governed. But no matter what their religion or politics, the vast majority say “Let’s have peace.”

Why this is coming to fruition now is difficult to call. The people of Northern Ireland are finally learning to understand each other and live together. There is also a vastly improved relationship between the government of Britain and the Republic of Ireland. This is very important, because it’s only by consent that we’re going to get somewhere; any agreement must be accepted by all the parties.

Q: Yet, this is a conflict that has lasted for centuries. Can you imagine a future in Northern Ireland that is not characterized by hatred and violence?

A: We have to be able to imagine that. If we move the talks along, there is a chance that we will marginalize the violence. But I can’t sit here and say I have the answer, and this is the way to do it. That ain’t gonna work, because people will say it’s my idea, not theirs. They’ll think I’m going to impose my view, and we’ll be back at the starting point. As I say, solutions must come from within; that’s the only thing that will work.

I understand there are extreme differences between the parties in this dispute, but to reach any sort of agreement, all the parties will have to change. No one can win by simply holding on to what they’ve got. There has to be willingness to live with less than what you want or what you have now. I don’t know that this will happen, but we have the best chance ever right now, with everyone around the table for the first time in 70 years. And if we don’t make it this time, I’m sure we will try again. But if we get this far, only to fail, people will be very angry.

Q: Most recently there have been reports of a split within the IRA, with a number of officers resigning their posts. Isn’t this the ultimate nightmare in the peace talks--the IRA splinters and any agreement reached will be meaningless?

A: The defections are destabilizing, but it’s too early to call. I don’t feel there’s a fundamental split in the IRA. No party is immune to internal debate and infighting. But we’ve had no evidence that the defections have effected the nature of the cease-fire with the IRA. And it hasn’t effected Sinn Fein’s position. It’s just the nature of talks, but I don’t see this as the first step on a downward hill. I think it should simply encourage us all to get our heads down and do what we can in the talks. Because the one way you return to the violence is to show that the talks process is not working, that negotiations are leading nowhere.

Q: Former U.S. Sen. George Mitchell is spearheading the negotiations and, by all accounts, he’s shown great patience. But his role is not that of a U.S. government official; he’s, in a sense, free-lancing. What should the Clinton administration do, in an official capacity, to help ensure the success of the peace talks?

A: It should continue to give us George Mitchell. He has been invaluable. Has the trust of all the parties. He is very skilled. His years in the Senate have given him the experience he needs to keep us all together. Past that, the general support, encouragement and commitment that the Clinton administration has shown has made a difference. The visit of Mr. and Mrs. Clinton two years ago was an important symbol. Symbols mean a lot in Ireland. Mrs. Clinton reinforced it with a visit three weeks ago. She begins to bring out the belief that something positive is about to happen. This week, a group of senators and congressmen will be coming to Belfast and that, too, will help. People outside keep it going. They should continue. And to continue to treat all groups the same, to see both sides as important, because some people in America have not always been good at seeing both sides. But, so far, Clinton has done a good job of that.

Beyond that, I would hope Americans embrace Northern Ireland. Come as tourists. Business should invest; Americans have already put $1.1 billion into the area since 1991. Last time I looked, there were something like 60 American-owned companies doing business in Northern Ireland. Growth, jobs, stability, these economic developments help the peace process phenomenally.

Q: What is the current economic reality in Northern Ireland, and how does it play out whether one is Protestant or Catholic?

A: It is improving, but it’s still not good enough. We clearly need to get more Catholics moving up in the system. We’ve now got a welfare-to-work program targeted at long-term unemployed and at people 18 to 25 years old. We have a generation of dependence on benefits; I’m sure you have the same problem here. We’re trying to restructure the benefit system, so that it’s actually based on the structure of people’s lives and not on the idea of a man who works and a woman who stays home with the kids--that’s just not reality.

We have excellent education for some in Northern Ireland, and horrible education for others. Right now, if you don’t have sufficient training, the benefit system stops you. Part of this is due to the fact that there is no minimum wage. We’re the only country in Europe without them. We spend billions on government benefits to people who are working but still not making enough money. Why should the government have to pay people because private employers aren’t willing to provide a living wage? We need to address all these problems to be able to compete. And, of course, we need peace.

Q: At the heart of Mitchell’s plan for achieving peace is the idea of “decommissioning”--the turning in of weapons on both sides. But, as yet, not a single weapon has been decommissioned. How is that going to work?

A: I, like Mitchell, would like to see decommissioning today. But he has not been able to find anything that the two sides can agree on. He’s made it clear that it’s unrealistic to expect the parties to turn over all their weapons at the beginning of the talks, and yet it’s also realistic to expect that they can wait until the end of the talks to surrender their arms. So he’s proposed a decommissioning that takes place parallel with the talks; as they proceed, weapons are turned in.

It takes time to build trust and confidence between each other. Bottom line, I desperately want to see it, but you can’t force people to decommission.

Q: Being the British secretary for Northern Ireland is not a job politicians usually line up for--chances of success are too slim. What made you take on what is often seen as a political career-ending position?

A: I’d done it for two years in opposition. It’s an honor to do it, because it’s a real problem. Just in six months, I know that we have already done something to improve the day-to-day lives of people in Northern Ireland. We’ve put money into health and nursery care, and we’re doing what we need to do to get people to work. We’re having face-to-face dialogue. Changing attitudes is the hardest, but it can be done over time. We’ll stick with it, and get it done.*