Politics & Policy

Emerald Summit

President Bush and Prime Minister Blair in Ireland.

It was something of a surprise to discover late last week that President Bush was to pay a two-day visit to Ireland. One would have thought that Ireland would rank pretty low on his list of priorities at the present time. Almost certainly at the behest of Tony Blair, Bush turned up in Northern Ireland on Monday afternoon to try to get the Northern Ireland peace process under way again. Of course, Bush and Blair would also discuss how the war in Iraq is going.

Predictably, the idea of the two men discussing war and peace struck many here as highly incongruous, to put it mildly. How, antiwar protesters asked, could the two leaders justify trying to kick-start the Northern Ireland peace process while at the same time holding a war summit? It didn’t seem to dawn on them that one reason the IRA decided to enter peace talks via its political proxy, Sinn Fein, was because republican leaders concluded that they would never beat the British militarily.

What the foolish and naïve never seem to properly appreciate is that very often there is only one road to peace talks with an enemy: to fight him to a standstill. This is unfortunate, but true. Your enemy will rarely enter peace talks when he thinks he can defeat you.

For those not following the Northern Ireland peace process, here’s a quick update: Last year, the leader of the main Unionist party, David Trimble, suspended the Northern Ireland Assembly because the IRA has still not “decommissioned” its weapons. This restored direct rule from London.

Since then, the British and Irish governments have been working furiously to get things back on track. In return for an unequivocal IRA statement saying it will lay aside all “paramilitary” activity, the British army presence in the North will be further scaled back, there will be further devolution of policing and judicial powers, and further measures to ensure equality and guarantee human rights will be introduced. Bush and Blair have arrived on the scene in the hope of getting all the main parties to agree to this package and so allow the Northern Assembly to reconvene again.

The Bush visit didn’t provoke quite the amount of protest that might have been expected given the level of antiwar feeling here. There are four reasons for this. First, the visit happened at such short notice. Basically antiwar/anti-American protesters had no time to prepare. Second, it was held up North, not down South, where antiwar feeling is stronger. Third, Sinn Fein knew it would be foolish to organize a big antiwar protest in the North. Would it really be in their interest to let Bush know that they hate his guts and are viciously anti-American, in any case? What signal would this send to their supporters back in the United States? Already Sinn Fein is under some pressure in the U.S. because of their anti-Americanism. How much more obvious did they want to make this?

Finally, most Unionists are pro-American and pro-war. Unionists tend to be a deeply conservative lot with a very strong attachment to flag and country (as their name indicates), and so they support the war and the U.S. In fact, a few hundred Unionists actually took part in a pro-war demonstration.

In the end, about 1,500 people joined an antiwar protest yesterday, but they got nowhere near Bush and Blair. Of the 1,500 protesters, many came from the South. It was a pretty poor show and hardly compared with the 100,000 who turned out in Dublin on February 15 to protest against the war (but strangely not against Saddam Hussein).

Overall, the visit went well for both Bush and Blair. It says something about the relationship between the two men that the president arrived in Belfast at all, and if it can indeed get the peace process back on track , the meeting will have been more than worthwhile. Of course, if the protesters had got their way, Bush would never have come to Ireland and peace in the North would be that much further way. But then, it’s not unusual for “peace protesters” to defeat their own purposes through a mixture of obtuseness and naïveté.

David Quinn is a columnist with the Sunday Times (Ireland edition).

Most Popular

World

Jared Kushner Was Right

Over the past several years, a new certainty was added to death and taxes: Jared Kushner would fail in his role as the administration’s Middle East point man. It caused considerable merriment among President Donald Trump’s critics (and even some of his well-wishers) when he put his son-in-law in charge of ... Read More
World

Jared Kushner Was Right

Over the past several years, a new certainty was added to death and taxes: Jared Kushner would fail in his role as the administration’s Middle East point man. It caused considerable merriment among President Donald Trump’s critics (and even some of his well-wishers) when he put his son-in-law in charge of ... Read More
Law & the Courts

Barr Is Right About the Prosecution Power

Attorney General Bill Barr gave a speech at Hillsdale College on Wednesday that attracted a lot of attention. Much of that attention was for his ill-considered remark (in a question-and-answer session following the speech) that "Other than slavery, which was a different kind of restraint, [the pandemic lockdowns ... Read More
Law & the Courts

Barr Is Right About the Prosecution Power

Attorney General Bill Barr gave a speech at Hillsdale College on Wednesday that attracted a lot of attention. Much of that attention was for his ill-considered remark (in a question-and-answer session following the speech) that "Other than slavery, which was a different kind of restraint, [the pandemic lockdowns ... Read More

Snobs or Mobs?

A   lot of us were feeling pretty good about the future of the media in late September of 2004. Dan Rather and the CBS news division had just tried to derail George W. Bush’s reelection campaign with some genuine fake news — based on fake documents — and, in spite of the manful attempts of ... Read More

Snobs or Mobs?

A   lot of us were feeling pretty good about the future of the media in late September of 2004. Dan Rather and the CBS news division had just tried to derail George W. Bush’s reelection campaign with some genuine fake news — based on fake documents — and, in spite of the manful attempts of ... Read More

The Mystery of Robert E. Lee

No one who ever met Robert Edward Lee -- whatever the circumstances of the meeting -- failed to be impressed by the man. From his earliest days as a cadet at West Point, through 25 years as an officer in the U.S. Army’s Corps of Engineers and six more as a senior cavalry officer, and then as the supreme ... Read More

The Mystery of Robert E. Lee

No one who ever met Robert Edward Lee -- whatever the circumstances of the meeting -- failed to be impressed by the man. From his earliest days as a cadet at West Point, through 25 years as an officer in the U.S. Army’s Corps of Engineers and six more as a senior cavalry officer, and then as the supreme ... Read More
U.S.

Zoomers and the Constitution

A 2019 study by the Pew Research Center compared generational views on key social and political issues, focusing on the similarities between Millennials and Generation Z. The topics probed include race relations, diversity, climate change, capitalism, socialism, and the role of government. This last item, ... Read More
U.S.

Zoomers and the Constitution

A 2019 study by the Pew Research Center compared generational views on key social and political issues, focusing on the similarities between Millennials and Generation Z. The topics probed include race relations, diversity, climate change, capitalism, socialism, and the role of government. This last item, ... Read More
World

How Trump Changed U.S. Foreign Policy

On September 16 the editorial board of the New York Times did the impossible. It said something nice about President Trump. “The normalization of relations between Israel and two Arab states, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, is, on the face of it, a good and beneficial development,” the editors wrote. ... Read More
World

How Trump Changed U.S. Foreign Policy

On September 16 the editorial board of the New York Times did the impossible. It said something nice about President Trump. “The normalization of relations between Israel and two Arab states, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, is, on the face of it, a good and beneficial development,” the editors wrote. ... Read More