The centennial anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic has brought attention to Belfast, where 14,000 workers constructed the luxury cruise ship. The capital of Northern Ireland has opened a $150 million multi-media tourist center, “Titanic Belfast,” remembering the 1,514 victims of the disaster and paying tribute to Belfast’s shipbuilding heritage. There are 120 events planned around the city commemorating the centenary, including festivals, auto races, golf tournaments and gala balls.

A different type of event is also being honored farther south, in Dublin: the on-going success of the Northern Ireland peace process, which concluded with the Good Friday Agreement of 1998. The government of Ireland is hosting an international conference to examine how the agreement is holding up and how it has changed the lives of the citizens of Northern Ireland. At a time when peace is elusive in many parts of the world, the attainment and implementation of a lasting settlement is cause for celebration.

The Good Friday Agreement was the beginning of the end of a conflict that had been going on for nearly 1000 years, when Henry II of England first tried to incorporate Ireland into the United Kingdom. The Tudor Dynasty took up the challenge and finally defeated the last Irish communities to oppose English rule, the clans of the northern province of Ulster, in 1609.

One hundred years ago, after massive uprisings, the British Parliament passed a Home Rule Bill giving Ireland some political autonomy. Opposition to this by Ulster unionists led the British government to include a provision allowing the northern counties to opt out. The quarrel was suspended with the outbreak of the First World War, but militant republicans in Dublin seized the moment to launch the 1916 Easter rebellion. In the wake of this – and the harsh treatment of the rebels by the British authorities – Sinn Fein emerged as a political force.

Those who wanted full independence continued to fight until, in 1921, the Irish and British governments signed the Anglo-Irish Treaty that created the Irish Free State. Northern Ireland chose to stay within the United Kingdom. Twenty-six counties became Ireland; six counties in Northern Ireland remained part of the United Kingdom.

This did not end the conflict in the north. By the 1970s, some 240 people were killed each year in sectarian violence. In the mid-1980s, the governments of Britain and Ireland agreed to cooperate more closely on security and the UK tried to open a dialogue between opposing forces in Northern Ireland, the Unionists and the Nationalists. In 1998, negotiations led to an agreement on April 10, Good Friday, which transferred power from London to Belfast, establishing a Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive Committee in which all parties would share power.

There were obstacles to implementing the agreement, but in May, 2007 the two most polarized parties agreed to a power-sharing deal that has withstood a series of political and economic challenges to date. Why did this post-colonial dispute come to a resolution when so many others remain unresolved year after year?
In part, both sides realized that violence would not solve the issue. The Irish Republican Army engaged in guerrilla warfare with community support that conventional force could not decisively end. At the same end, British forces were becoming more adept at counter-terrorism. Meanwhile, a quiet army of people and organizations were working for peace – politicians, NGOs, business groups, community activists.

Once the local parties to the dispute came to an agreement, external forces came forward to support it. The external guarantors of both sides, England and Ireland, came to an understanding about Northern Ireland. The European Union and the United States offered funding and other help to make the peace plan work. Structural and legal changes regarding employment, housing and education reinforced the agreement.

There are still many challenges. The 2012 Northern Ireland Peace Monitoring Report concluded that political institutions are secure, the level of violence is down, and a new, confident, neutral culture has emerged. At the same time, paramilitary forces remain a threat, youth employment is potentially destabilizing, and there are indicators that society remains divided. The number of walls dividing Catholic and Protestant communities has increased from 22 at the time of the Agreement to 48 today. 90 percent of social housing in Northern Ireland is still segregated, as are 93 percent of the schools.

Peace activists are still working to bring the sides together through training, cultural events and grassroots cooperation to prevent a flare-up of intercommunal hostilities. The relationship between Ireland and England is stronger, as symbolized by the visit of Queen Elizabeth last year, and international support is on-going.

The Northern Ireland power struggle was a self-perpetuating dynamic, spiraling endlessly toward violence at the cost of thousands of lives. The situation in Belfast shows that, even though an intractable situation can be ‘solved,’ it continues to require work from all parties to keep the accord intact. The courage and persistence of those who broke that spiral and created a lasting commitment to peace are those whose titanic achievement most deserves celebration in this centennial year.

Dr. Judith Baroody is a senior transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States in Washington, DC.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Department of State or the U.S. Government

In what is being called “Europe’s big freeze,” a deadly cold front, high winds, heavy snow, and layers of ice have killed about 400 people, torn apart buildings, and disrupted supplies since the end of January. Thousands have been trapped in their villages, cut off from food, medicine, and fuel as avalanches and ice block roads and rivers. Eight European nations are suffering from a shortage of gas, London’s Heathrow airport has cut flights, and French authorities are appealing to households to save energy. This deadly chill is a particularly unwelcome development at a time when Europe is in the midst of a financial crisis.

The situation is reminiscent of the winter of 1946-1947 in Europe. At a time when 25 million Europeans were homeless following World War II, stockpiles of coal froze solid and could not be moved. Heavy snow blocked roads and railways. Nations still struggling to recover from the devastation of the war had to cut industrial production, impose blackouts, and restrict food rations to levels lower than during the war. Crops and livestock perished. Hundreds of Germans died from cold and famine in this “Hunger Winter.” In Ireland, over 600 people died as a direct result of the two-month freeze, and many more from related outbreaks of flu and tuberculosis.

The climate conditions added to a number of factors that led to political crisis. Winston Churchill said in March 1947 that due in part to the past severe winter, Europe appeared on the verge of economic collapse and the situation was undermining political authority. He lamented that Britain was obliged to suspend assistance to Greece and Turkey, “which are striving to ward off Communist take-overs.”

U.S. occupation authorities in Europe also cautioned that Communists were capitalizing on widespread demoralization. In June 1947, Secretary of State George C. Marshall warned that the shortages of food and fuel could lead Europe to “face economic, social, and political deterioration of a very grave character” and called for creation of what would become known as the Marshall Plan. The $13 billion aid program would help 16 European nations get back on their feet, to become allies against the Soviet Union in the burgeoning Cold War.

Scholars of strategic geography could point to a series of turning points in history in which weather accelerated political change. Freezes, floods, droughts, and earthquakes have been most influential in altering history when societies were already vulnerable and demoralized due to political or economic upheaval. The environmental degradation, population displacement, epidemics, and poverty resulting from World War II stripped Europeans of the resilience and resources to withstand the brutally cold winter.

Europe has suffered previous climate catastrophes. In 1315-1316, cold, wet summers devastated crop production, and in the 1520s and 1590s, bitterly cold winters caused widespread food shortages. These natural disasters helped catalyze changes in social and economic patterns, which ultimately led to political transformation. The bitter winter of 2011-2012 comes at a time of economic struggle in Europe, when austerity measures needed to shore up the euro could stir up popular discontent. Based on past history, one might wonder whether political change is blowing in the icy wind.

Judith Baroody is a senior resident  fellow at the German Marshall Fund in Washington, DC.

Share/Bookmark

WASHINGTON—The Arab League’s near-unanimous vote to suspend Syria’s membership after eight months of crackdowns on anti-government protestors is being greeted as a game-changer by the West. It recalled a similar action earlier this year when the League suspended Libya’s membership, thus paving the way for the NATO airstrikes that eventually helped bring down Muammar Gaddafi’s regime. European militaries took the lead in the campaign that ousted Gaddafi, while the United States provided critical intelligence and military support. Although calls for similar Western intervention against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad may now appear natural, Syria’s case is much more complex and calls for a different strategy.

In fact, the obstacles to a repetition of a Libya-styled intervention far outweigh the opportunities. Amid the ongoing euro crisis, there are concerns about the cost of another military engagement for the West, and one that would be far more challenging. A United Nations Security Council resolution authorizing military intervention is unlikely, given strong Russian and Chinese support for Bashar al-Assad. The potential for regional and sectarian instability due to Iran’s involvement makes the situation even more combustible. The Syrian opposition has demonstrated its ability to mobilize and has received critical support from some Western countries, yet it is disorganized and presents no leadership with which to partner. Given these impediments, the Arab League’s action may be the best opportunity for the transatlantic community to encourage and facilitate the removal of Assad’s regime.

Recent decisions by the transatlantic community seem to acknowledge this reality. EU High Representative Catherine Ashton has signaled that European military strikes against the Syrian government are unlikely for now. Meanwhile, the EU increased economic pressure by blocking Syrian access to the European Investment Bank (EIB), which could deprive the Assad government of hundreds of millions of euros in EIB loans, and by extending sanctions against Syrian individuals and companies associated with the regime. Taken in combination with the United States’ sanctions and Turkey’s newly antagonistic stance on the Assad regime, the EU’s efforts are an important step in the right direction.

The result is a policy that may be a harbinger of a new approach to regional problems. The Arab League is taking ownership of problems in its own back yard, instead of delegating to Western powers. As for the EU, much like the United States in the context of the Libya intervention, Europe finds itself “leading from behind” in the action against Syria, choosing to shape the political environment through its support for the Arab League’s decision. This suggests a model for foreign policy decision-making that advances European interests at a time when getting its own fiscal house in order continues to be its own greatest priority. Furthermore, supporting the Arab League allows it to take greater ownership in its own region while giving Damascus time to figure out an orderly succession plan for Assad.

This strategy is not without both short-term and long-term risks. Thousands of government supporters attacked the embassies and consulates of Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and France in Syria after the Arab League decision was announced, and violence continues across the country. The regime, together with its Iranian, Chinese, and Russian supporters, is counting on the implosion and/or subversion of the opposition. In the midst of further tension between Israel and Iran over the latter’s nuclear program, a military, political, or economic meltdown in Syria would reverberate throughout the Middle East and Europe.

Still, the action taken by the Arab League is an important first step in reflecting its greater resolve in the aftermath of the Arab Spring uprisings. Supporting this with concrete actions, such as sanctions and public statements underlining the transatlantic community’s commitment to work with the Arab League and Turkey in supporting the Syrian people, can be seen as a new model and another step forward in the evolution of a more focused and unified European security strategy.

Judith Baroody is Senior Resident Fellow and Joshua W. Walker is Transatlantic Fellow with the German Marshall Fund of the United States in Washington DC.

Share/Bookmark

WASHINGTON — In a televised speech from the annual meeting of his Shura advisory council on September 25, Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz declared that women could be appointed members of the 150-member Shura assembly in the next term and will be able to run for office and vote in municipal elections in 2015.

The announcement was hailed as a giant leap forward for the nation’s women by observers around the world. The White House welcomed the proclamation and noted the “reforms recognize the significant contributions women in Saudi Arabia make to their society and will offer them new ways to participate in the decisions that affect their lives and communities.” The European reaction was similarly encouraging. Britain’s foreign secretary praised the step, saying the U.K. supports moves to increase political and economic participation of women across the Arab world. The spokesman for the French Foreign Ministry called the decree a major advancement for the rights of women in Saudi society. EU High Representative Catherine Ashton welcomed the announcement and encouraged Saudi authorities to continue on the path toward equality between men and women. The decree also won praise from the United Nations, the Inter-Parliamentary Union, and Human Rights Watch.

But while it will remove Saudi Arabia’s stigma of being among the last countries to give women suffrage — thus increasing both the country’s standing among Western allies and its credibility in global affairs — it is not yet clear whether this decision promises real change in women’s empowerment or is an illusion that will dissipate upon closer inspection. In practice, there are several reasons why King Abdullah’s announcement may have little impact on Saudi society. Only half of the seats on the 178 local councils are elected. Religious authorities may pressure women not to vote. If appointed to the Shura Council, women will not sit in the same room as men but will participate by closed circuit television. And those in power in 2015 may decide entirely against implementing the change.

It is worth noting that similar announcements have met with disappointment before. In 2004, the Saudi government announced that elections would be held the following year. The gender-neutral wording of the announcement did not say women could not vote, so five women announced their candidacies to seats on local councils. But after several months, the government claimed that, because of a lack of polling stations, women would be excluded from the polls.

The timing of the latest royal decree may be tied to concerns about restiveness within a population that has witnessed demands for reforms in the neighborhood during the Arab Spring. The Saudi kingdom signaled its recognition of domestic discontent in March by creating a generous package of jobs, services, and assistance for needy citizens.

Some Saudi women also see the decree as insufficient given continuing social inequalities that have yet to be addressed. Activist Wajeha al-Hawaidar told the Associated Press that the changes should be implemented immediately, not in years to come. Madawi Al-Rasid, a professor of social anthropology at King’s College in London, was quoted in Al-Ahram Weekly that the announcement was superficial, aimed at appeasing those pushing for real change.

Saudi women are still not allowed to drive. Two days after the suffrage announcement, a judge in Jeddah sentenced a female activist to a sentence of 10 lashes for getting behind the wheel of a car, a punishment subsequently overturned by the king. Women must also get permission from a male relative to get a job, go to college, or travel abroad. A member of the senior cleric council signaled discontent with the proposed electoral reform, saying he had not been consulted, which suggests that there may be a conservative backlash.

At the same time, giving women the right to vote comes just as women in Saudi Arabia are seeing cumulative gains in many aspects of life, especially in higher education and business. It is becoming a mark of prestige among the Saudi elite to have a wife with a Ph.D. The king opened a co-ed university two years ago and the world’s largest female-only university this year on the outskirts of Riyadh. He also recently appointed the country’s first female deputy minister. The Women’s Chamber of Commerce of Saudi Arabia is among the most dynamic in the region, and the king took businesswomen with him on a recent trade trip to China.

While there are grounds for skepticism, the powerful symbolism of the king’s edict cannot be easily dismissed. His declaration is seen as a formal recognition of gender equality by the only person in the kingdom with enough clout to overcome clerics’ objections and transfer authority over social issues from the religious to the political establishment. By giving its women a voice in political discourse, Saudi Arabia may be working to have its own voice heard in a global political arena that values human and gender rights. King Abdullah’s formal announcement also created societal expectations that will outlive his reign. An editorial cartoon in the pan-Arab daily newspaper Al-Sharq al-Awsat depicts a woman in a black burqa emerging from a bottle, mincing hesitantly forward. The genie’s first steps may be limited, but they promise greater strides to come.

Judith Baroody is a Senior Resident Fellow with the German Marshall Fund of the United States in Washington, DC, and a Senior U.S. Foreign Service Officer. The views expressed in this article are her own and do not necessarily reflect the policies of the German Marshall Fund, the U.S. Department of State or the U.S. Government.

Photo by Reuters News

Share/Bookmark