Author: Frank Schnittger

(Cross posted from the European Tribune – where a previous diary – on the results themselves reached 340 comments!)

We’re starting to get some slightly harder data on why Ireland voted no in the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.  A telephone poll of 2000 people taken over the week-end and commissioned by the European Commission in conjunction with the Taoiseach’s office has found that:

1. Three quarters of people who voted No in the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty believed that the text could be renegotiated later by the Government – but just 40% of yes voters thought the same
2. Three quarters of No voters also believe that rejecting the treaty would have no impact on the Irish economy. Of the YES voters, 55 per cent thought that rejecting the Lisbon treaty would hurt the Irish economy and 67 per cent believed that a no vote would weaken Ireland’s influence within the EU

3. 80 per cent of No voters support Irish membership of the EU

4. When asked to give a single reason for voting No, some 40 per cent of people replied that they didn’t understand the treaty. A fifth of respondents said they voted No to protect Irish identity while 17 per cent of respondents said they didn’t trust politicians or Government policies.  Other reasons cited for voting No where to protect Irish neutrality (10 per cent), to keep an Irish EU Commissioner (10 per cent) and to protect the tax system (8 per cent)
5. A majority of women voted No while a majority of men voted Yes.
6. Young people between the age of 15 and 29 voted against the treaty by a factor of two to one, a finding that is labelled as “very serious” in an explanation of the result prepared for European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso.  This explanation concludes that the “no side” in the referendum campaign saw little negative fall out from their vote. “It’s almost risk-free,” notes the paper
7. When asked what the No vote would mean in the future: 84 per cent of people said it would keep Ireland’s tax system; 83 per cent said it would keep Irish neutrality; 77 per cent said the Government would renegotiate; 60 per cent said the Nice treaty would remain in place; and 59 per cent said that Irish decisions on abortion, euthanasia and gay marriage would prevail.
8. The paper says that most people who abstained from voting in the referendum said they needed more information.
9. A more comprehensive analysis of the results will probably be published by the Commission later this week

The bottom line seems to be that No voters are predominantly young and female, support EU membership, don’t expect a NO vote to have serious negative consequences, expect the Treaty to be re-negotiated, voted no because they didn’t understand the treaty or wanted to protect Ireland’s identity and didn’t trust the politicians.  Lesser issues included neutrality, tax, loss of the Commissioner, and control over moral issues.

The poll confirms my suspicions that age was a critical factor in the vote, with younger voters taking the EU for granted, feeling they didn’t understand what the Treaty meant and wanting to give the political classes a shot across the bows.

If the poll is accurate, then renegotiating and re-voting on the Treaty shouldn’t be as controversial a course of action as it was for Nice II.  People more or less expect that to happen anyway.  

What is critical is that there is a much more comprehensive information campaign and that a number of very simply worded and direct protocols are added emphasising that the Treaty has no impact on Ireland’s Neutrality, Taxation system, and control over moral issues.

None of this should be a problem for Ireland’s EU partners, and so this referendum result could yet turn out to have been no more than a storm in a teacup and a temporary set back.

However I would caution against these results being taken too literally.  Having secured a famous victory, the NO side are not going to concede the high ground too easily.  The issues have a way of changing even as the initial stated issues are addressed and resolved.

Expect the NO campaigners to hold out for retaining the Commissioner full time – which would require a re-ratification of the Treaty in those countries that have already ratified it – probably not a deal breaker – but also more difficult changes such as the reduction in Ireland’s voting strength in the weighted majority voting system – which would unravel the whole deal.

They will also seek to put pressure on the Government on a whole range of totally extraneous issues – cutbacks in CAP subventions, Fishing quotas, fuel prices, employment issues, health services etc.  This will now become a vote of confidence issue for the Government as a whole. and everyone with a grudge or a bee in their bonnet about something will somehow want to use this as a reason for threatening to vote no precisely because they know the Government is desperate to secure a Yes vote.

The process for arriving at a decision on the best way forward, for marketing the protocols and opt-outs added to the Treaty, and for presenting the whole package as a considered response to a searching analysis by the Irish Government of the reasons for the no vote – and not some capitulation to foreign pressure – will be critical in securing popular acceptance that a second poll is justified, and that a more positive outcome will likely be secured.

This essentially political task plays to the strengths of the new Taoiseach, Brian Cowen, and it will be the defining task for his premiership.  Timing will be critical, and particularly events at the Mahon Tribunal – where Bertie Ahern’s evidence has become the subject of general incredulity and mirth – need to have receded from the public consciousness.

Any time this year for a new referendum will probably be too soon.  However I could see a package emerging whereby the referendum will be put to the people a second time simultaneously with the European Parliament Elections next year.  

If the European Parliament where also given a special role to produce a road map for the future post Lisbon development of the EU – in particular addressing such popular concerns as accountability, transparency and a greater degree of democratic control – then the sting could also be taken out of the popular discontent with those issues.

I could see a situation where the Government could win that referendum, but also take a hammering from Sinn Fein et al in the European Parliament elections. The Irish electorate are quite good at making discriminating choices:  using the European Parliament elections to register their protest at the Government but letting the Lisbon Treaty pass – having made their point.

The question is, can the rest of the EU wait that long, and can other EU leaders keep their patience and not appear to be disrespectful to the Irish electorate and bullying towards the Irish Government.  If not, then they might as well go back to the drawing board.  Irish people do not respond well to threats.

On balance, I am a lot more hopeful that this will turn out to be but a temporary setback in the development of the EU.  It will also force a greater re-appraisal of what needs to be done before further enlargement can take place.  British Eurosceptics who hope that the Irish vote will be their launchpad for a reversal of the EU project will find few allies within Ireland.  If anything, a stronger and more coherent EU could emerge from the experience.  

Certainly, it is to be hoped, that the Irish Government and EU Council will never again put such a poorly drafted and explained document before the Irish people.  If they want to re-energise the EU project, they are going to have to become much better at re-connecting that project with ordinary citizens throughout the EU.  

The next European Parliament elections will be key to this.  Up until now the European Parliament has appeared to be only barely relevant to the whole process.  This has got to change, and it has got to start harnessing more of the energies of EU citizens to the EU project.

An Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, became only the fifth person to address both the joint Houses of the British and US Parliaments when he gave his valedictory address to a joint Senate and Congressional session yesterday in one of the final acts prior to his retirement as Irish Prime Minister next week.

As a former (occasional) speech writer myself, I am more than usually interested in the format and content of such events, even if I share the popular cynicism which is de rigueur when discussing political speeches in general.  Sometimes, however, a speech by a political leader can signal an important shift in a nation’s self-perception to a wider audience.  Obama’s speech on race, for instance, signalled an important determination to move beyond race and racism in the conduct of US politics, both formally, and as part of the unspoken agenda.  So why was Bertie Ahern’s speech notable and worthy of at least a little attention by Booman readers interested in EU/US affairs?
(Cross posted from the European Tribune) 

Firstly, it wasn’t primarily about Bertie Ahern himself, because he is about to retire and may choose not to take up any further formal political role – although the EU could do much worse than appoint him the first President of the EU Council post the Lisbon Treaty.   The speech was mainly a progress report of where Ireland has come from over the past 10 years and how it viewed its future role in international relations.  But what was striking was the self-confident tone adopted by a leader of such a small nation more used to adopting a “begging bowl” supplicating stance when seeking an audience with the great and the good in world affairs.

True enough, the speech included all the usual ingratiating Plámás of which such speeches are usually redolent.  But that is simply good manners – to compliment your host – and in this case Ahern had genuine cause to give formal thanks to the US for the role played by President Clinton and Senator Mitchell in the Peace Process.  Politeness required that President Bush also be included in the thank-yous, although his role extended no further than appointing some moderately competent emissaries.  (For those interested, Hilary Clinton’s virtually non-existent role didn’t merit a mention!).

Ahern also made the usual reference to the contribution of Irish Americans in building the USA, and gave special mention to the President Reagan and the Kennedys’ in this regard.  However there was also some real meat in his speech.  For the first time he included the “Scots-Irish from all corners of our island, and from all creeds” in his tributes.  This was no Irish Catholic Nationalist tribute to his own tribe.

He made a pointed and very direct request that the issue of “undocumented” Irish immigrants to the US be addressed – and pointed out that Ireland too now had issues of large scale immigration to address – and thus understood the difficulties involved.

He pointed out how Irish America, and Ireland, had shared in the tragedy of 9/11, but went on to make a strong plea for multi-lateralism, the United Nations, and an EU soon to be strengthened, he hoped, by the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.  He was particularly effusive about the EU:

ireland.com – The Irish Times – Thu, May 01, 2008

I ask you to consider what has been achieved in Europe in the past 50 years.

We have put aside hostilities that led to countless wars over the centuries, and to two world wars in the last century alone.

We have created a European Union of 27 democratic states, committed to democracy, peace and freedom. We are committed to an open market and to a single currency that benefits hundreds of millions of European citizens.

We all recall two great Irish-Americans – President Kennedy in 1963 and President Reagan in 1987 – standing at the Berlin Wall during the Cold War and calling out for freedom in Germany and in Europe.

That call was heard, as freedom’s call always will be. Berlin is now at the heart of a united, democratic Germany.

On the 1st of May, 2004, in Dublin, 10 new members formally joined the European Union. Many of them were emerging from behind the Iron Curtain after decades of oppression.

I remember the intensity of the emotions. For many of these countries, this was a moment that was unthinkable only a few years before.

Along with Berlin, the great cities of Prague, Budapest and Warsaw have joined Dublin, London, Paris, Rome, Madrid and Vienna as capital cities within a free and democratic European Union.

The European Union now stretches from the beautiful west coast of Ireland, where the locals say that the next parish is America, to countries with a land-frontier with Russia and Ukraine.

I passionately believe in Europe and I passionately believe in the European Union as a force for good in the world. It is profoundly encouraging that we are seeing the members of the European Union continuing to rise together as a force for development, for stability, for peace in the world.

Soon, the Irish people will vote on a new reform treaty that aims to make the European Union work even more effectively, both internally and in the wider world. I trust in their wisdom to support and to believe in Europe, as they always have.

And there was a spirited defense of human rights, development aid, and UN Peace Keeping:

ireland.com – The Irish Times – Thu, May 01, 2008

 My friends, between America and Europe there is contrast, but not contradiction. Energised by a common framework of values and imbued by democratic principles, together we can and we shall be a beacon for economic progress, individual liberty and the dignity of all mankind.

Acting in partnership, there are few limits to the good we can do.

We are all citizens of the world. We must therefore develop a true spirit of global citizenship.

This cannot and should not be an alternative to national pride and patriotism, but rather a complement to it.

We should care for our planet as much as we care for our country. We should champion peace, justice and human rights across the globe as well as at home.

It is an affront to our civilisation that there are children, anywhere in this world, who will die of hunger or of a curable disease.

In this year of the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it angers us that some corners of the world remain hidden from the light of the universal principles expressed so eloquently in that document.

Although a small country, Ireland has always sought to play a full part on the international stage. We have consistently advocated acting in accordance with the principles of democracy, the rule of law, human rights and human dignity.

Ireland believes in multilateral institutions. We believe in the United Nations. We believe in the European Union. And we believe in multilateral action.

For over half a century, Irish men and women have served the cause of peace under the United Nations flag.

They have served in the Congo and in the Lebanon, on the borders between Israel and Syria and between Iraq and Iran, in Cyprus, in Eritrea, in Liberia, in East Timor, in Bosnia in Kosovo and in Afghanistan.

Tragically, some have paid the ultimate price and they have given their lives in that noble service.

Madam Speaker, never has the expression “the global village” been more appropriate. The great challenges that we face in the 21st century are truly global.

Falling financial markets, rising food and energy prices and climate change are global phenomena.

Eradicating poverty, starvation and disease, countering international terrorism and containing nuclear proliferation are not national but international issues. They cannot be overcome except by countries working together.

….

Madam Speaker, in Ireland today, we are looking out from our own shores more than ever before – no longer with thoughts of exile, but to be part of the world. Connected to it, contributing to it, learning from it.

The long and proud tradition of Irish missionaries, of teachers, of nurses and of doctors working around the globe to combat poverty, hunger and disease continues today.

For us, famine and oppression are not tragedies that could only happen elsewhere.

They happened to us at a sad time in our history. They happened to those who fled here and helped build America and to the many who did not survive that fateful journey across the ocean.

For that more than any other reason, we recognise our obligation to share what we have with the poor of the world.

That is why Ireland is committed to reach the United Nations aid target by 2012.

Today, we are the sixth-largest per capita donor of development assistance in the world.

The strength of our efforts to tackle poverty, to cure disease and to feed the hungry in the developing world is a measure of our common humanity.

At this moment in our history, that common humanity is being tested in parts of the continent of Africa – in countries like Sudan and Chad, where lives have been lost on a terrible scale, where countless families have been driven from their homes, where conflict threatens a whole region with chaos and destruction.

Today, Irish soldiers are in Chad as part of a United Nations-mandated force, led by an Irish officer, protecting hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing from conflict in that country and in neighbouring Darfur.

No mention of Afghanistan, Iraq, torture, Katrina or market solutions to poverty, but he wasn’t exactly singing from the neo-conservative hymn sheet, and not afraid to set out a stall which would have a US Presidential hopeful in some trouble for its complete disregard for militarism, unilateralism and US exceptionalism.

Turning to the greatest achievement during his period in Office, Ahern had this to say of the Peace Process:

ireland.com – The Irish Times – Thu, May 01, 2008

Madam Speaker, this year, in Ireland, we are celebrating the 10th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement. It was a defining moment in Ireland’s history.

In the years since then, some doubted that the agreement would endure. I never did.

I knew it would last because it is built on the highest ideals of democracy – the ideals of liberty, of equality, of justice, of friendship and of respect for our fellow men and women.

Above all, the settlement of 1998 will flourish because of one simple and unalterable fact. It represents the will, democratically expressed, North and South, of all of the people of Ireland to live together in peace and harmony.

That is far more powerful than any words of hatred or any weapon of terror.

In 1981, in much darker days for my country, the Friends of Ireland in the United States Congress were founded. Their simple purpose was to seek a peaceful settlement in Northern Ireland.

The statement, placed on the Congressional Record during a session chaired by Speaker Tip O’Neill, read: “We look forward to a future St Patrick’s Day, one that we can foresee, when true peace can finally come and Irish men and women everywhere, from Dublin to Derry, from Boston and New York to Chicago and San Francisco, shall hail that peace and welcome the dawn of a new Ireland.”

On St Patrick’s Day 2008, a few short weeks ago, I came here to Washington. I came with a simple and extraordinary message. That great day of hope has dawned. Our prayer has been answered. Our faith has been rewarded.

After so many decades of conflict, I am so proud, Madam Speaker, to be the first Irish leader to inform the United States Congress: Ireland is at peace

…..

Many of us found inspiration in the words of Dr Martin Luther King, whose life we recall this year on the 40th anniversary of his death.

We believed, to borrow Dr King’s immortal phrase, that we would be able to transform the jangling discords into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood.

His dream, born of America but heard by the whole world, inspired us through its unanswerable commitment to justice and to non-violence.

We discovered that peace can be found without suspending your moral judgment, without sacrificing your identity and without surrendering your most deeply held political aspirations.

Today, as I stand before you in this great democratic assembly, I struggle to convey the enormous good that was done by so many people in my country, with your help.

Do not underestimate the good you have done.Do not forget the legacy you have forged. And if ever you doubt America’s place in the world, or hesitate about your power to influence events for the better, look to Ireland.

Look to the good you have done. Look at the richness of so many individual futures that now stretch out before us for generations, no longer subject to conflict and violence.

Look to the hope and confidence that we now feel on our island. The healing of history. Look and be glad.

A feel good message for a Nation that may be doubting its place in the world – and perhaps a veiled warning against isolationism.  Speaking of future challenges, he said:

ireland.com – The Irish Times – Thu, May 01, 2008

Madam Speaker, there is, of course, no ending to history. We will always have new problems, new challenges and new opportunities. We are seeing an ever-increasing range of new technological and scientific developments, which are created and diffused at ever-greater speeds.

Our societies are increasingly diverse. Side by side with great wealth and prosperity, we still see social exclusion and poverty.

We endeavour to help families and communities ravaged by a minority who engage in crime or deal in drugs. We strive to deliver quality, affordable healthcare to all our people. We want the best education for our children.

We seek to provide social protection and security for our older people, to recognise what they have given to help create our successful societies.

These are the challenges for modern Ireland, just as they are throughout America and across the developed world. These are the very essence of politics.

That is why, with all our faults as human beings, we seek the honour of representing the people. We believe that diversity does not have to mean fragmentation or discord.

We believe that wealth and prosperity do not have to be accompanied by poverty and inequality. We believe that evil or injustice need not – and will not – triumph.

With the Irish health care system, in particular, in an ongoing crisis, these words will ring hollow to many – but he is also setting out the agenda that his “worthy” successor will have to address.

He ends with an appeal to the common democratic and republican values that underpin Irish and American political culture, but in an American context, the content of his messages could not be more different to the neo-conservative rant against social welfare, multilateralism, human rights, development aid, the EU and the UN.  He seeks to encourage the progressive forces in the US with their successful contribution to peace in Ireland, whilst giving no recognition whatsoever to military adventurism, unilateralism, and the indifference to poverty and injustice that is at the heart of the neo-conservative, and often the neo-liberal agenda.

That he can do all that, as the leader of a small nation, to a Joint session of Congress, and receive several standing ovations is some achievement.  This is a case of Ireland dealing with the US on its own terms, not as an equal, but confident enough to put out a very different vision of the world, and of the responsibilities of statesmen than has been current in the US of late.  

The traditional bowl of shamrock presented to the US President by an Irish Taoiseach on St. Patrick’s day is a begging bowl no longer.  We stand on our own vision of the world, even if we have much more to do to fulfill it. And he didn’t mention the Celtic Tiger once.  The real test is whether that vision will outlive the Tiger – or was it born merely out of economic success? The next few more difficult years will tell a tale.

In doing some background reading on Restorative Justice, I cam across a chapter in a book by Jim Considine “Restorative Justice: Healing the Effects of Crime.”  Written in 1999, the chapter is entitled “The Caging of America” and is more horrendous than anything I had imagined possible.

America is home to the largest prison industry in the world, with 2 Million prisoners and another 4 Million on probation or parole. Despite declining crime rates, the prison population has increased 10 fold in the past 30 years.  Moreover the rapidly privatising prison industry has a vested interest in ensuring this “market opportunity” continues to expand as rapidly as possible – and thus engages in almost no rehabilitative work which might allow prisoners to escape the cycle of ever greater incarceration in the “correctional” system.

But it gets worse.  Torture is endemic, 70% of all inmates are illiterate, 10% suffer from serious mental illness, and 70% have a history of serious substance abuse.   Many are juveniles convicted and incarcerated as adults, increasing numbers are women with dependent children, and almost 10% of the entire black community are either in prison, on probation, or on parole.  25% of black males will be in the criminal justice system at some time, and 50% of blacks in Washington DC will be imprisoned at some time before they reach the age of 24.  

————–
Can this really be happening in the land of the free?  I give you the facts in a book that is almost 10 years old.  Perhaps the statistics are out of date or you have better sources.  However, according to the British Home Office statistics, the US has the highest prison population in the world and also the highest imprisonment rate (686 per 100,000 of population – 10 times the rate of many European countries.)  Can it be that the biggest injustice in the world is being perpetrated not in “Communist” China, or in a plethora of dictatorships in an impoverished third world, but in the USA – in the heart of democracy and prosperity itself?

I will give you some more statistics before opening the debate to those with much greater knowledge and experience of the American Justice system than I.

In the 1990’s roughly €35 Billion was spent on the “correctional system” each year.  The prison-industrial complex includes top construction firms, investment banks issuing “prison bonds” and thousands of sub contractors and vendors.  In many poor rural areas, the local prison is the chief source of employment in low grade, low paid jobs.  The private sector is the fastest growing and a Prudential Securities  report states that “the industry has excellent prospects” despite some downside risks to growth such as falling crime.  (Crime fell by 18% between 1992 and 1996 and most of the newly imprisoned were for non-violent offences).

At the same time as this massive increase in prison spending, the number of  psychiatric patients in state mental hospitals in California has been cut from 40,000 in 1960 to 4,500 in 1997. State spending on prisons now exceeds spending on higher education, and so poor is the rehabilitative effect of the prison system, that two thirds of  imprisonments are for parole violations (and less than 4% are for violent crimes).  In some states, under the three strikes rule, you can receive a mandatory life (without parole) sentence for a relatively minor drug offence.

In California, less that 3% of imprisoned  substance abusers get any kind of drug addiction treatment and only 7% are enrolled in any kind of pre-release programme to help them cope with life on the outside.  Although the prevalence of illegal drug use is similar, black men are 5 times as likely to be arrested as white men, and 25% of all black men are likely to be imprisoned at some point in their lives.  Of the 128,000 women in US Jails, two thirds are mothers with dependent children, and 1.5 million children have a parent behind bars.  All states except Hawaii allow juveniles to be tried and sentenced as adults for some crimes and 63 Juveniles are on death row (1998).  Only five other countries: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Nigeria and Yemen allow the execution of juveniles.  A 1988 study found that all juveniles on death row studied had suffered serious head injuries as children, all had serious psychiatric problems, all but two had been seriously beaten or abused as children.  Only 2 had IQ scores above 90.

Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun had this to say about conditions (Hudson v. McMillan):  “Various kinds of state sponsored torture and abuse – of a kind ingeniously designed to cause pain without telltale `significant injury’ – lashing prisoners with leather straps, whipping them with rubber hoses, beating them with naked fists, shocking them with electric currents, asphyxiating them short of  death, intentionally exposing them to undue heat or cold, or forcibly injecting them with psychosis inducing drugs – techniques commonly thought to be practices outside this nation’s borders, are hardly unknown within this nation’s prisons”.   In addition prisoners are shackled to bars for days at a time, food may be tampered with, medical care is almost non-existent, rectal probes are used to intimidate and rape, and an estimated 25,000 male prisoners are raped each day.

The battle for civil rights may have been won in the legislature, but is daily being lost in the courtrooms.  Poverty is increasingly being criminalised;  Torture is replacing healthcare; and there are more blacks in prisons than there are in third level education.

“A network of underwriters, builders and correction officers has a powerful financial interest in perpetuating and expanding the boom in the prison industry.  One group of beneficiaries, the prison guards of California, contributed $1 Million to help Republican Pete Wilson become Governor. In return, the governor initiated the most expansive prison construction programme any state has ever undertaken.  He has also approved the guard’s request for more benefits.  The guards have been well rewarded for their investment.  In California, a prison guard now earns 30% more than a university lecturer.” – Jim Considine

Deregulation of the markets has only been possible because of a massive re-regulation of civil society, where the poor, unemployed, addicted, mentally ill, dysfunctional, minority, or merely those who are unlucky to be in the wrong place at the wrong time can find themselves imprisoned in inhuman conditions for very long periods of time.  If this were Iraq, the civilised world would be considering invading the USA to free its populace from unbearable tyranny.  What happened in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo is not some aberration.  It is the system which the US uses for many of its own people.

In doing some research on Bertie Ahern I came across an Op ED piece written by Jim Duffy and published in the Irish Times on August 11, 1998.  Jim is chiefly known in Ireland as the researcher whose interview with Brian Lenehan destroyed the latter’s Presidential Campaign and enabled the election of Mary Robinson as President of Ireland.

In the article Duffy summarises John Boswell’s research into gay Marriage in the Christian tradition and shows that there were formal marriage rites for the consummation of gay marriage that were extant as late as the 17th. Century.  I include the article in full below the fold because it gives the lie to so much “Christian” homophobic blather, but my main purpose in reproducing it here is to ask the question:  Why did homophobia become so prevalent in western societies and why did Christianity appear to take a lead role in that process?

I ask the questions, because I do not know the answer.

A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St Catherine’s monastery on Mount Sinai. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman pronubus (best man) overseeing what in a standard Roman icon would be the wedding of a husband and wife. In the icon, Christ is the pronubus. Only one thing is unusual. The “husband and wife” are in fact two men.

Is the icon suggesting that a homosexual “marriage” is one sanctified by Christ? The very idea initially seems shocking. The full answer comes from other sources about the two men featured, St Serge and St Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who became Christian martyrs.

While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early Church, was not unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly close. Severus of Antioch in the sixth century explained that “we should not separate in speech [Serge and Bacchus] who were joined in life”. More bluntly, in the definitive 10th century Greek account of their lives, St Serge is openly described as the “sweet companion and lover” of St Bacchus.

In other words, it confirms what the earlier icon implies, that they were a homosexual couple. Unusually their orientation and relationship was openly accepted by early Christian writers. Furthermore, in an image that to some modern Christian eyes might border on blasphemy, the icon has Christ himself as their pronubus, their best man overseeing their “marriage”.

The very idea of a Christian homosexual marriage seems incredible. Yet after a 12-year search of Catholic and Orthodox church archives Yale history professor John Boswell has discovered that a type of Christian homosexual “marriage” did exist as late as the 18th century.

Contrary to myth, Christianity’s concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has evolved both as a concept and as a ritual. Prof Boswell discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient church liturgical documents (and clearly separate from other types of non-marital blessings such as blessings of adopted children or land) were ceremonies called, among other titles, the “Office of Same Sex Union” (10th and 11th century Greek) or the “Order for Uniting Two Men” (11th and 12th century).

These ceremonies had all the contemporary symbols of a marriage: a community gathered in church, a blessing of the couple before the altar, their right hands joined as at heterosexual marriages, the participation of a priest, the taking of the Eucharist, a wedding banquet aftet afterwards. All of which are shown in contemporary drawings of the same sex union of Byzantine Emperor Basil I (867-886) and his companion John. Such homosexual unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12th/early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (Geraldus Cambrensis) has recorded.

Boswell’s book, The Marriage of Likeness: Same Sex Unions in Pre- Modern Europe, lists in detail some same sex union ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century “Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union” having invoked St Serge and St Bacchus, called on God to “vouchsafe unto these thy servants [N and N] grace to love one another and to abide unhated and not a cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all thy saints.” The ceremony concludes: “And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded.”

Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic “Office of Same Sex Union”, uniting two men or two women, had the couple having their right hands laid on the Gospel while having a cross placed in their left hands. Having kissed the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.

Boswell found records of same-sex unions in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St Petersburg, in Paris, Istanbul, and in Sinai, covering ering a period from the 8th to the 18th centuries. Nor is he the first to make such a discovery. The Dominican Jacques Goar (1601-1653) includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek prayer books.

While homosexuality was technically illegal from late Roman times, it was only from about the 14th century that anti-homosexual feelings swept western Europe. Yet same sex union ceremonies continued to take place.

At St John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope’s parish Church) in 1578 as many as 13 couples were “married” at Mass with the apparent co-operation of the local clergy, “taking Communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together”, according to a contemporary report.

Another woman-to-woman union is recorded in Dalmatia in the 18th century. Many questionable historical claims about the church have been made by some recent writers in this newspaper.

Boswell’s academic study however is so well researched and sourced as to pose fundamental questions for both modern church leaders and heterosexual Christians about their attitude towards homosexuality.

FOR the Church to ignore the evidence in its own archives would be a cowardly cop-out. That evidence shows convincingly that what the modern church claims has been its constant unchanging attitude towards homosexuality is in fact nothing of the sort.

It proves that for much of the last two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom from Ireland to Istanbul and in the heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a God-given ability to love and commit to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honoured and blessed both in the name of, and through the Eucharist in the presence of Jesus Christ.

Jim Duffy is a writer and historian. The Marriage of Likeness: Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe by John Boswell is published by Harper Collins.

An Taoiseach Bertie Ahern (the Irish Prime Minister – 1997-2008)) is to resign on 6th. May after a long running scandal concerning his private finances.  He is the most successful Taoiseach in Ireland’s history and was previously Minister for Labour (1987-1991) and Minister for Finance (1991-1994).  The ugly duckling to the right in the group photo is Brian Cowen, Minister for Finance, his most likely successor.

ireland.com – Breaking News – Taoiseach to tender resignation on May 6th

Amid mounting pressure about his personal finances, Mr Ahern said he was proud of his political achievements but denied any wrongdoing in relation to his personal finances.

Flanked by cabinet colleagues Brian Cowen, Mary Harney, Martin Cullen, Noel Dempsey, Brian Lenihan and Green Party leader John Gormley, Mr Ahern said a “constant barrage of commentary” was distracting the work of Government.

He said his decision was “solely motivated by what is best for the people” and was “solely a personal decision…inspired by the desire to refocus the political agenda”.

“I’ve been priviliged to serve my community, party and country for many years,” an emotional Mr Ahern told reporters in Government Buildings.

He said he was proud of his work on the Northern Ireland peace process, on successive social partnership agreements, on delivering a modern economy and
of Ireland’s involvement in the European Union.

He also said he had “ended the myth that Fianna Fail is incapable of sustaining a coalition government” and paid tribute to both Mr Gormley and Mary Harney.

However, the work of Government had been “distracted by my life, my lifestyle and my finances”.

Mr Ahern was set to come under pressure in Dáil this afternoon as the Opposition parties sought an explanation for evidence given to the Mahon tribunal by his former secretary.

The Opposition was due press Mr Ahern on the sterling payments lodged to his Irish Permanent building society account by Gráinne Carruth.

The tribunal is investigating claims that Mr Ahern received money from property developer Owen O’Callaghan. The claim by Tom Gilmartin has been repeatedly denied by Mr O’Callaghan and by Mr Ahern himself. However the tribunal invetigations have thrown up questions on lodgements to Mr Ahern’spersonal accounts in the early 1990s.

The total value of lodgements and other transactions that have to date been queried by the tribunal in its public inquiries into Mr Ahern’s finances, exceeds £452,800. The lodgements and transactions occurred between 1988 and 1997, although the vast bulk of the money was lodged in the period to 1995.

The total is the equivalent of €886,830 in today’s terms, applying the consumer price index for the period 1994 to 2008. The total excludes lodgements where the tribunal has been shown the money was transferred from one bank account to another, but includes such lodgements where neither Mr Ahern nor the tribunal have been able to find independent confirmation as to what occurred.

Mr Ahern said he would be “comprehenisely dealing with these matters at the tribunal” and denied any wrongdoing.

“Never in all the time that I served in politics have I ever put my personal interest ahead of the public good,” he added.

“I have never received a corrupt payment…I have done no wrong and wronged no one”.

Last week, acting Progressive Democrats leader and Minister for Health Mary Harney and Green Party leader and Minister for the Environment John Gormley said Mr Ahern needed to clarify the situation in relation to his finances.

“All political careers end in failure” Enoch Powell once famously said, but few would have thought such a successful political career would end in such a humiliating failure.  On the face of it you would think that this was a straightforward case of political corruption leading to a deserved downfall, but things with Bertie Ahern are never quite that simple.  Once described as “the most cunning, the most devious of them all” by his political mentor, former Taoiseach Charles Haughey, Bertie Ahern was a successful Minister for Labour and Minister for Finance where he pioneered the concept of National Social Partnership and laid many of the foundation stones for the Celtic Tiger.

After his third General Election victory as Taoiseach last year, I wrote:

ireland.com – The Irish Times – Mon, May 28, 2007 – Aftermath of the general election

Madam, – An extraordinary election. Fianna Fáil, Labour, the Greens and Sinn Féin all tread water and come back with roughly the same number of seats. Fine Gael gains 20 seats and yet Fianna Fáil is feted as the victors.

Having said all that, if you had told me 30 years ago that a government would effectively solve the Northern problem, the unemployment problem, the emigration problem, the foreign debt problem, and raise living standards to the highest levels in the world – and still fail to win by a landslide – I would not have believed you. How expectations change! –

And that is perhaps the key to understanding the Bertie Ahern phenomenon.  The objective achievements of his period in office are phenomenal, but it has also led to a sea change in public expectations.  Few younger voters now can imagine the abject poverty of Irish political life in the early 1980’s with a corrupt Government led by Charlie Haughey; unemployment, inflation, and interest rates approaching 20%; huge levels of foreign debt, taxation, and emigration;  divisive referenda on abortion and divorce; and the continuing degradation of political life and civil liberties by “the Troubles”, chiefly, but not exclusively in Northern Ireland.

Often criticised for his nearly unintelligible “Bertie Speak” he is an amazing negotiator who was adept at overcoming personality, political, ideological and cultural antagonisms and never failed to cut a deal.  He cultivated the image of the common man wearing his anorak down to his local pub and his pint.  His lack of affectation, pretentiousness, and obvious ego are perhaps unique in political life anywhere.

His major contribution to the Northern Ireland Peace Process is perhaps his most lasting achievement, but he was also the pivotal figure in negotiating 20 years of National Social Partnership agreements which have transformed the economic and industrial relations scene in Ireland.  Once famous for our strikes, there are many trade union officials and managers in Ireland today who have never experienced a strike in their working lives, but who have become adept at using a range of statutory instruments, institutions, processes and procedures to resolve or prevent the escalation of a wide range of disputes.  This does not, of course, mean that industrial strife is absent in Ireland, but nevertheless the economic environment and disputes resolution procedures created, in part, by the Social Partnership concept have enabled Ireland to achieve one of the lowest strike rates and highest levels of employment and standard of living in the world.

His Presidency of the European Commission in 2004 resulted in significantly improved relations with the US post Iraq, inter-governmental agreement to a new European Constitution, and the appointment of Barrosso as President of the European Commission (after Bertie Ahern himself turned it down).  Whether it was plying Gerhard Schröder with Irish Coffees or playing off the egos of Chirac and Berlusconi against each other, Bertie managed to create situations where everyone felt they could claim credit for successes that had eluded previous, more vainglorious, Presidencies of the Council.

However he was in some respects also a dinosaur from a previous political age.  As General Secretary of Fianna Fail (the dominant Irish political party) he had become used to writing blank cheques with which Charles Haughey could use party funds to buy Charvet shirts in Paris whilst at the same time urging the general populace to “tighten their belts”.  He saw no problems with accepting wads of cash from party supporters and admirers, often ostensibly as political donations, but which he converted for his own use. He went through a difficulty divorce in the 1990’s (he is the first  senior divorced politician in Irish politics) which may have put some pressure on his finances, but in reality he saw nothing wrong with accepting gifts and loans from admirers and those who wanted to feel close to the centre of power.

The irony is that no evidence of obviously corrupt behaviour on his part has ever been convincingly demonstrated, despite an extensive tribunal of enquiry which was set up to investigate planning corruption but which has come to focus almost exclusively on his private affairs.  That the Irish planning system was (and perhaps still is) corrupt is not in doubt – merely that Bertie Ahern does not appear to have been directly involved in that corruption.  As is so often the case in such matters (Ref. Ken Starr) the main focus of the inquiry becomes unstuck for reasons almost wholly unconnected with the original allegations, in this case the acceptance of gifts and “loans” which do not appear to have been declared to the tax authorities.

There was (and to an extent still is) a culture of non-compliance in Irish society, a legacy of the times when the State was a British Colonial regime, and where cheating on tax and the black economy was tolerated and sometimes those engaged in doing so were lionised for their exploits.  That culture has been changing fast, helped in part by the exposure of corruption in the planning process, but to some extent Bertie’s activities 10 and 20 years ago are being judged by the standards of today.  

Nevertheless there were also many who were at all times scrupulously honest in their dealings, and who abhorred the fast and lose culture which seemed to be endemic in  Fianna Fail at the time.  If Bertie Ahern’s political passing is to serve some useful purpose, it is to underline that such double standards are simply no longer acceptable at any level or sector in Irish society.

So what of the future for Bertie Ahern? He is still aged only 56 and could no doubt make a lucrative career on the lecturing or Boardroom circuit. However he has shown little interest in the trappings of private wealth and could still look to a future career – possibly as President of the European Council.  It all depends how damaged he will be perceived to be by the scandal around his private affairs, but it may very well be that his resignation as Taoiseach will come to be seen as sufficient atonement for his misdeeds.  He is still popular amongst many in Ireland and certainly has the required skills as a negotiator and mediator.  However he doesn’t speak any European languages (and that includes English, as far as many people are concerned) and might be seen as too close to the Anglo-Atlanticist wing of the political spectrum.

The reality is, however, that he is the supreme pragmatist and has shown his ability to get on with everyone from Blair, to Schröder, Chirac and Berlusconi, as well as the leaders of the accession states.  Don’t underestimate the man.  His negatives will be much less that Blair, and he will not have dirtied his bib to much as far as many European leaders are concerned.  He would not be an inspiring leader of Europe but will appeal to many who do not want a high profile leader such as Blair.  He would make the institutions work, which at the end of the day, isn’t really such a bad thing.  Many will laugh at the man and his foibles, but his track record of achievement in Ireland and on the current European Council is second to none.

Below the fold – The text of my
Letter to the Editor of the Irish Times (hidden behind a subscription firewall) arguing the larger European case for the Lisbon Treaty.  (Cross-posted from the European Tribune in the hope that some of you guys have time to take an interest in what is going on on the other side of the pond!)

The text below includes the sentences edited out by the Irish Times in parentheses[]

Madam – Letters both for and against the Lisbon Treaty have become a regular feature of your columns, but almost all are couched in purely nationalistic terms, eg, will the Treaty effect Ireland’s economic prospects, political influence, independence, neutrality, etc. or indeed will voting for it give aid and comfort to a discredited Irish Government.  But surely the much bigger question is whether the Treaty will help the EU become a much more effective and influential decision making body in the world as a whole?

We live in a world dominated by the USA and its self perceived political and economic interests and its preferred means of pursuing them [– often resorting to war, engaging in torture, ignoring Treaty obligations, failing to ratify Treaties signed by almost every other nation, and refusing to recognise the jurisdiction of the International Courts of Justice]. The fall from grace of the US from its high water mark role as the moral leader of the world post World War 2, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the rise of a China with a very dubious record on a whole range of human rights issues have all contributed to a vacuum of leadership, moral and otherwise, in the world today.  

[The EU has an extraordinary record of peace making in western Europe, but grossly underperforms on the world stage when compared to its relative economic importance. ] It is in all our interests, as citizens of both Europe and the world, to ensure that the EU becomes much more influential in European and world affairs.  The Lisbon Treaty is a small step towards that.  [It is time we stopped looking out for just nationalistic interests, narrowly defined, and continued our proud tradition of making a greater contribution to Europe and the world as a whole.]

—–

I wrote the letter because I felt that supporters of the Treaty were increasingly being put on the defensive by simplistic (and often just plain wrong) arguments to the effect that Ireland’s national interest will be disadvantaged  by the Treaty and taking no cognizance of the fact that it is also in Ireland’s interest that the EU itself should become more influential in world affairs.  This isn’t just a zero-sum game where Ireland’s relative position is diminished within a much larger EU.  The EU itself is becoming a much bigger player in the world.

There is also a groundswell of opinion that the referendum affords the electorate a timely opportunity to deliver a vote of no confidence in the Government of Taoiseach Bertie Ahern who is increasing embattled because of his personal finances and the manner in which he has accepted considerable “loans” and “political contributions” from private individuals and companies which he has put to personal use.

Bertie Ahern has said he will step down before the next election in any case (not due until 2012) and there has been speculation that he would be interested in a prominent EU role (probably the new Presidency of the Council) which is due to be filled next year should Ireland ratify the Treaty.  Some would argue that the prospect of him leaving Office in Ireland as soon as next year would therefore be a good reason for ratifying the Treaty!  

However it is important that the Referendum debate itself should focus on the larger issues facing the EU and the world – hence my LTE.  There hasn’t been any recent opinion poll indicating how the campaign is going, and everything hinges on the turnout.   A low poll could well result in the Treaty Referendum being defeated (as happened with the Nice Treaty – when a second referendum had to be held on a marginally revised Treaty).  Given that the Lisbon Treaty has already been defeated by popular vote in France and the Netherlands (when it was framed as a new Constitution for the EU) a third popular rejection by a national electorate could be fatal for the prospects of institutional reform within the EU for quite some time to come.

Can Obama win the nomination and re-unite the Democratic party?  Can he regain the support of the white working class and other ethnic minorities put off by the (alleged) rhetorical excesses of Rev. Wright?  Will Hilary continue to damage all she has allegedly stood for all these years?  Will McCain defy age, recession, logic and political gravity and pull off an unlikely Republican win?  Is the Obama movement for change destined to go the way of so many before – Eugene McCarthy, McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry – or worse, the way of Martin Luther King, JFK and RFK?  

Following Edward’s defeat, the Progressive or Liberal blogosphere has swung almost entirely behind Obama, helped in no small measure by what are perceived as negative campaigning tactics by the Clinton clan.  Obama’s speech on Race (and patriotism) was perhaps the most eloquent since Martin Luther King and JFK spoke to, if not entirely for, the nation.

The irony of all this is that the Clintons’ had, all through their political lives, sought to be the inheritors of the JFK Mantle.  How bitter they must feel, that they have now painted themselves into the opposite corner of the ring.

Meanwhile McCain has sown up the Republican nomination, despite not really being regarded as a true conservative by the true believers.  He has shown remarkable resilience even as the Bush war economy has tumbled all around the Republican base.  He is the only Republican contender with any prospect of attracting independents and winning the Presidency, and his success has really put in up to the Democratic Party – can they heal the wounds of an increasingly bitter and divisive campaign, and unite in time for the November General Election?

Given that Clinton had all the advantages of a commanding early lead in the polls, name recognition, and establishment support, Obama’s performance has been nothing short of remarkable. He now stands in the centre ground of the Democratic historic liberal traditions, with Clinton an increasingly desperate outsider.  However it is a long time since a liberal Democrat has won the Presidency.

And yet Clinton can still win the Democratic nomination – even if her own supporters only give her a 10% chance.  The Wright rhetoric is bound to damage Obama with the white and other minority working class vote, and this is precisely the sort of vote that Obama needs to pick up if he is to beat McCain.  However if the reaction of liberal blogosphere is anything to go by, Clinton has damaged herself even more by seeking to exploit the issue.

Thus is Clinton doing McCain’s dirty work for him, and mortally wounding the best candidate the Democratic centre and left have had in a generation?  It seems extraordinary that any Republican could still have a chance of winning, particularly one with so little business, economic or administrative experience.  

As the recession deepens, Iraq and McCain’s military background will seem increasingly part of the past rather than part of the future.  And yet can the Democrats get it together in time to mount an effective national election campaign?

If the Democrats cannot unite their own party, how credible will be their claim to unite the country?  If Obama is successfully framed as (an albeit eloquent) black politician, what chance has he to fulfill the inclusive post racist vision he has so consistently articulated?

I take a somewhat more sanguine view of all of the controversies than many of my US friends. This sort of controversy is par for the course for most US elections and the issues in November will be quite different.  Often the problem is not the crisis itself, but how a candidate responds to it.  So far Obama has hardly put a foot wrong.  If anything, Clinton is merely pre-empting the attacks the Republicans will be mounting in any case.  It may be just as well that the damage is suffered now rather than just prior to the election when there is much less time to recover.

The controversy has helped to mobilise the Democrats as never before, and McCain could find his slim lead evaporating very quickly if the Democrats re-unite at the convention or before.  However as many as 28% of Clinton supporters say they will vote McCain rather than Obama if Obama wins the nomination – and 19% of Obama supporters feel the same way about Clinton.  So the crucial issue is: can the Democratic split be mended in time?

On the (90%+) assumption that Obama does gain the nomination, it all now depends on how Clinton and her supporters react to her defeat.  It seems most unlikely that she will accept the Vice Presidential slot even if it were offered.  If her own rhetoric is to be believed she virtually had that role during her husbands Presidency, and who wants to live in the gate lodge having been the Lady of the Manor?

However for all her increasingly desperate attempts to win the main prize, it would be unwise to underestimate Hilary the survivor, Hilary the political pro, Hilary who stayed loyal to Bill even during his most bitter betrayal.  For all the bile now being directed at her, I think she will accept defeat graciously and give political support generously to Obama in those demographics he needs to win.  

An Obama/Clinton ticket may be an unlikely, though not impossible outcome for all manner of reasons, but don’t think for a moment that Clinton wants to court infamy by facilitating a Republican win. Both Obama and Clinton are a lot bigger than many of their more fanatical supporters would have you believe.  The Democratic Party may be continually wrestling with its conscience, but the Democratic Party will win…

My wife, Muriel Boothman, died of cancer four years ago today.  I’ve been asked to do a talk on bereavement by the local hospice foundation who are organising an annual remembrance evening for those who have lost loved ones in the past couple of years.  I’m at the “oh shit, what have I let myself in for?” stage of trying to put thumbs to keyboard.  
My only consolation is that I vaguely remember attending one such evening not long after her death.  I was so upset at the time I haven’t a clue what that night’s speaker spoke about.  No doubt, few will remember a word of what I will say, and yet there is always the danger that I might upset someone even more by making a not very well thought through comment or remark.

I will probably just end up saying a few things about how it was for me.  But I need the comfort blanket of a script in case I freeze, or worse, I blubber on the night.  One of the characteristics of the grieving process is that it is so personal:  You feel that no one has ever gone through the same process as you, and in one sense this is correct:  Each death is unique, and each relationship is unique, and there is no magic formula which can encompass it all.

I’m posting this here in order to “road test” my possible script.  If any of you are angered, upset, annoyed, or concerned by anything I propose to say, please let me know.  I’m trying to be helpful to people at a difficult time, not make it worse.  This should be about them, not about me, but I’m not sure I can talk about this in anything other than a very personal way.  I also reserve the right to edit out most of this diary afterwards if I come to feel that publishing this is all wrong.  Maybe some things are best said in the quiet of the night and should never appear in hard print.

So here goes…

“When I was asked to do this talk, I must admit I was a little taken aback, because, despite what people might say about me, I am not used to talking about things I know very little about.  And that, I’m afraid, is the truth of the matter:  My only qualification for being here and speaking to you tonight is that I, too, have been bereaved.  

And I hope that is how it will be for you, in a couple of years time, when the immediate pain has dulled.  Yes, life does go on, we all have to move on.  But we have to do so in our own slow and different ways.  We do not own our loved ones, and they do not own us.  The best we can do is remain true to their memory in the way we live our own lives – and make the most of the lives we still have.  That is the least we can do for those who do not have that gift of life any longer…

Urban myth has it that the first item on the agenda of any Irish organisation is THE SPLIT.  In other words, no sooner have people come together for a common purpose than they disagree, often quite bitterly, about what should be done, how it should be done, and who should do what.  Irish history is redolent with tales of the splits, betrayals and informers who have derailed the noble cause which the Irish “Nation” was supposed to be pursuing at that time.

No one can have lived in Ireland over the past 40 years without having been involved, in an almost personal and tangible way, in the many twists and turns taken by the Northern Irish (or British Irish) conflict, or not been thrilled that at last, some concrete progress is being made towards its resolution.

On a more personal level, I have been involved, in various ways, in trying to resolve significant conflicts or issues in no less than six different voluntary organisations – very much by force of circumstance rather than design.  And this is quite apart from a career in management in a major Global commercial organisation where conflict is endemic, and contrary to popular myth, very much more endemic within management itself rather than just within the more classic management versus trade union model.

So I have come to be fascinated by the processes by which conflicts are contained, managed, channelled, diffused, distorted, perverted, exacerbated and calmed – and sometimes, very rarely, transformed and resolved into very positive outcomes for all concerned.

So as they say in all the best self-help manuals, if you have conflicts you wish to resolve, read on…  PS this Diary is also published on the European Tribune.
—-

There are of course many distinct methodologies by which conflicts can be managed and/or resolved.  The most important of which is the creation and enforcement of the rule of law and various judicial processes for “ruling” on specific issues.  

There are the adversarial British “Common Law” and French Napoleonic codes for determining the outcome of disputes.  There is an evolving body of International Law as contained in the Charter of the UN, various international organisations, The Lisbon Reform Treaty of the EU, and a plethora of international treaties, conventions and protocols such as the nuclear non-proliferation treaties and the Kyoto Treaty.  (Let us leave aside issues of enforcement for the moment!)

There is also an emerging body of semi-judicial processes collectively known as “Restorative Justice” which challenges the largely adversarial, deterrent and punitive models of justice contained in most criminal justice systems with a more collaborative process which places the victim and their needs/choices at the centre of the process, and which is focused more on trying to do as much as possible to repair the harm done rather than on punishing the perpetrator.  I hope to write a separate diary on this topic at some time in the future.

Then there are the various models of arbitration, mediation, facilitation, third party intervention, representation and advocacy which are used more often in the civil, political and international dispute resolution processes.  I hope to do separate Diaries on how these structures and processes have been used in the context of the Northern Irish Peace Process and in the Irish National Social Partnership process in due course.

However the topic I wish to discuss in this diary is a much more limited one: the negotiation process itself.  Let me hasten to add that I do not wish to claim any special expertise in this area.  This diary is more by way of seeking to tap into the collective expertise, knowledge and experience of the ET community to see if we can all, collectively, come to a better understanding of how the negotiation process works, and how it can be used (and sometimes abused) to resolve disputes and conflicts both in our personal lives – in the organisations in which we act and work – and at the more macro level of national and international dispute resolution processes.

Why, for instance, was it possible to produce and sustain a negotiated solution to the Northern Ireland conflict in 1998 in the Good Friday Agreement, and not in the 1973 Sunningdale agreement?  (Seamus Mallon has pointed to the marked similarity between the content of both agreements, and called the latter “Sunningdale for slow learners”).  Why is industrial relations conflict seemingly endemic in some countries and organisations, and not in others?  Why are some work situations and voluntary organisations great places to be, and others like hell on earth?

These are big questions which I cannot address in one diary, but I want to begin by discussing the role of negotiation in conflict resolution, my understanding of what happens in the negotiation processes itself, and why some negotiations succeed while others always seem to go off the rails.  I can speak from experience in both contexts.

There is an international literature on “the negotiating process” which anyone can pick up on simply by Googling it.  I must confess to not being widely read on the topic.  One of the characteristics of the best and most successful negotiators I have met or worked with is that none had studied the negotiating process in any formal or academic way.  

They are characterised by exceptional charisma, social and emotional intelligence, and an ability to form good and trusting relationships with a wide range of very different (and often difficult) people.  One had left school at 14 and (when I first worked with him) was barely literate in the written sense.  Clearly academic achievement is not a prerequisite for being a successful negotiator!

The international literature does point to a stark difference in approach between professional diplomats and negotiators and the “subject experts” the scientific, legal or financial experts who are an important part of a negotiating team in increasingly complex international, political and business negotiations.   The latter often decry the “politics” being played by the other participants to the negotiation and wish to base their solutions on objective scientific or financial facts – whereas for the professional negotiator, it is the politics of the situation which is of the essence.

I don’t for a moment wish to decry the important role of (say) science in furthering our understanding of a particular problem, and through an accumulation of evidence helping us to find more effective solutions to those problems.  But we do not live in an entirely rational world, where everyone shares the same objective understanding of what the problem is, and how it can be resolved.  If that was the case, there would be no need for a negotiation!

1.  Recognition of legitimate difference: Negotiation is not about conversion.

The first principle of any effective negotiation (says he without any substantive academic knowledge of the subject) is therefore that you have to recognise that conflicts of interest or of view are inevitable, and that whilst these may change over time, negotiation is about coming to agreement on certain topics whilst recognising that deep divisions on these and other issues might persist.  Negotiation is NOT about persuading everyone else that you are RIGHT and they are WRONG!

Yes, certainly, views will change as a negotiation proceeds, and if the atmosphere is good, trust grows, and personal relationships are built up, it is remarkable how much views and attitudes can change in a relatively short period of time.  Quite often informal alliances are built up between key negotiators on opposing sides, back channels develop, and those on the outside of the process are astonished that two such opposing viewpoints and personalities can come to a common agreement – and even a warm personal relationship – in such a short period of time.

A good example of this is the warm personal relationship and good rapport which seems to have built up between Ian Paisley, former extreme Protestant demagogue and current (but retiring) First Minister, and his Second Minister Martin McGuinness, (Sinn Fein republican and reputed former IRA commander) who are collectively known as the “Chuckle Brothers” and whose close working relationship has led to considerable disquiet amongst partisans on both sides.

However, let it not be forgotten that the N.I. Peace Process took many years to come to any sort of fruition, and that most negotiations are relatively short lived and do not provide scope for a great deal of personal movement or change amongst the main protagonists.

Thus the key point about a successful negotiating process is that it cannot be dependent on everybody getting on well together, and must be capable of producing agreements on key topics despite continuing deep and enduring differences of interest or view amongst the key protagonists.  Effectively some issues are resolved, and there is agreement to “park” other issues and to “agree to differ” pro tem where agreement is not currently possible.  Emerging agreement/Treaty texts often contain a lot of details in parentheses [] where agreement has not yet been achieved.

2. Preparation

If you walk into a negotiation blind there is a good possibility you will be very disappointed in the outcome.  Others may not see the obvious superiority of your moral position, the unalienable logic of your arguments, or the amazing eloquence with which you put your case.  A good negotiator does a lot of preparatory work.  What are my must haves, like to haves, and the bits I can say I want but which I am really prepared to barter away in return or the things I really need.  

The foreplay in any negotiation is setting out your stall and guessing what the other parties really need, want, and are just saying for the optics.  Many negotiators play their cards very close to their chest on this one, not only from the opposition, but those on their own side as well.  Often you have to give ground on an issue which is a do or die issue of principle for someone on your own side.  Selling the agreement to your own side may be more difficult than negotiating it in the first place.

One of my first jobs in industrial relations was to do a post audit on a major strike which had badly damaged the company’s competitive position.  The strike had only lasted 3 weeks but had done permanent and irreparable damage to the company’s market share.  The main problem was that  the Union side was split into many Craft Unions, many with quite small memberships, but with a lot of internal tensions and leadership struggles within each.  You could never be certain that a deal thrashed out at the negotiating table would actually “sell” on the ground.  Several times management thought they had a deal, only to find that the deal wasn’t ratified by one or other Union membership and the strike continued.  

The final deal was much less beneficial to both the Company and the Unions because by then it was “backs to the wall” survival time, and the continuance of the business in that location had become at issue.  Management much preferred dealing with the general workers union which had a much larger membership, a much tougher and more capable negotiator, but one who could be guaranteed to “deliver” on any deal once it had been negotiated.  Management needed certainty of outcome because the costs of any prospective deal they could offer had to be approved in advance by international management.

The key issue here is that you need to know a lot about each of the parties in the dispute, what their aims and objectives are, what constraints they are operating under, and what ability they have to make any agreement stick.  My conclusions in that post audit where that management had tried to settle too early, had proposed settlements when the other side weren’t yet “solution seeking” and were more interested in resolving their own internal internecine power struggles.  At that point in the process, the union leaders still had to demonstrate to their constituents that they were tougher than their rival leaders and therefore had to oppose any proposed solution as a matter of course.

Sometimes a degree of “bloodletting” is required before people can see the “bigger picture” and realise they have more to lose than to gain out of a continuance of the current situation.  That takes time, and time is something you often do not have – particularly in violent conflicts where lives are being lost.  But a good negotiator can see the signs of not only what might settle a dispute, but when his opponents are ready to settle.  A negotiation cannot succeed where one party or the other still believes they have a better chance of fulfilling their objectives by other means, be that continued strike action, legal action or violent action in the real world.

A lot of the preparation for a negotiation is therefore about “climate setting” and “re-framing the conflict” so that all participants come to see that they have a vested interest in resolving the dispute by negotiation, and not by other means.  This is not as simple as it may sound.  You would think that the participants in any number of violent conflicts around the world would realise they have more to lose than to gain from a continuation of war.  Certainly very dominant powers may feel they can achieve all they want by force and have no need for negotiation, but many protagonists are in a militarily hopeless situation, or can at best achieve a violent stalemate with continuing grievous losses all around.  So why do they not come to the negotiating table?

Part of the answer to this lies in section 1. above about recognising “legitimate difference”.  So long as one side is convinced of the absolute rightness of their cause, and the absolute wrongness or even evilness of the other side no negotiation is possible.  Sitting around a negotiating table with other parties requires a recognition that they have a right to be there, that they speak for certain legitimate interests different from your own, and whilst agreement may or may not be possible, it is certainly impossible without them being there.

Key to the resolution of the N.I. conflict was a recognition, chiefly by John Hume of the SDLP, that the IRA (aka Sinn Fein) had be brought in from the cold and included in the peace process.  Some back channel discussions between the IRA and the British Government had already taken place, but always on the basis of deniability because the British Government could not be seen to be giving “recognition” to “terrorists” or to concede that they had any legitimate role in N.I. politics whatsoever.  Understandably the Loyalist/Unionist side was outraged by any suggestion that the IRA/SinnFein (as they always termed it) should be granted any legitimacy whatsoever, given they had killed over a thousand of their countrymen.

So how was the conflict “re-framed” to make Sinn Fein’s inclusion in the process possible?  First of all, Sinn Fein had to be “decontaminated” from any ongoing involvement in violent activity.  For a tradition steeped in the mythology of armed resistance to British rule and “blood sacrifice” this was never going to be easy – not simply at the leadership level, but more crucially at every level in the organisation.

 The cell structure of a modern terrorist organisation gives a great deal of autonomy to each cell to frustrate penetration by “enemy” agents and intelligence services.  Each cell has its own weapons caches and intelligence operatives, and can, if it chooses, continue to operate without “head office” approval.  Any leader who threatens to betray heroic volunteers to the enemy will be given short shrift by the whole movement and will probably come to an unfortunate end.   Many “terrorists” are deeply engaged politically and will not simple follow orders from leaders they might suspect of “selling out” on the “armed struggle”.  After 30 years, many IRA members had known little but violent struggle and had grown to distrust all “politicians” and their tendency to speak out of “both sides of their mouth at once”.

Key to re-framing the conflict and setting the climate for negotiations was the declaration, by the British Government, that it had no vested, strategic or selfish interest in remaining in Northern Ireland, that it would remain only so long as the majority of the people there wanted it to, and that it was prepared to extend “parity of esteem” to the nationalist community.  In other words, it was perfectly legitimate to advocate a united Ireland provided you did so by peaceful and democratic means.

In other words, the IRA’s objective of a United Ireland was recognised as legitimate, if not their chosen means of pursuing it.  The IRA/Sinn Fein could have a place around the negotiating table provided it renounced violence.  This, for the first time, open up an avenue of a “peaceful and democratic” struggle for a united Ireland as an alternative to the violent struggle which had been the hallmark of the IRA since the loyalist assault of the largely non-sectarian civil rights movement in the late 1960’s.

Many would argue that the option of peaceful agitation for a United Ireland was always open to Nationalists, and indeed that was the option always taken by the SDLP.  However constitutional politics in N.I. had always been hamstrung by the reality that Northern Ireland had been specifically created to guarantee a Unionist majority, and that permanent Unionist majority rule had always meant there was no possibility of parity of esteem for the nationalist tradition.  All the accoutrements of the state, from flags, and uniforms, institutions and mottos, right down to the colour of the letter boxes was always designed to convey one message: Northern Ireland was an integral part of the United Kingdom – no different from any other part of Her Majesty’s Realm –  and there was no place for the Nationalist tradition as a legitimate, and honoured part of the community’s identity.

This Diary was meant to be about the negotiation process, and not about Northern Ireland, and yet here I am over 3000 words later and still only at the preparation stage of the negotiating process.  I’m going to leave it at this point because my intention was only to introduce the topic as a subject for participation and debate.  If there is much interest shown I will try to elaborate on the topic in a future diary.  I will leave you with two comments from two of the best negotiators I have known.

“The key to a successful negotiator is his ability to tolerate ambiguity.  You need black and white thinkers like a hole in the head“

And

“The essence of a good negotiators tool-kit is a keen sense of timing.  There is no point in proposing a solution when the weather is good and the picketers are enjoying their day out in the sun.  Wait for a week of cold, wet and windy weather if you want your proposal to fly”.

Discuss

I’m no economist, much less a banker, but the sums of money being thrown at the “liquidity crisis” in the banking sector look pretty scary to me.  $200 Billion dollars in one go just recently. That’s a lot of liquidity.

Meanwhile Bush says that the housing market meltdown was caused by too many houses being built.  Tell that to the people made homeless by foreclosures on their Mortgages and who are now living in tent cities throughout the land.  Surely the real “liquidity crisis” is with the 99.9% of the population who have seen no real increases in their wages over the past 30 years, and many of whom have seen their real living standards decline?

$200 Billion dollars spread over a million homeless people would buy every one a $200,000 dollar house – support the construction industry and help to create a much more stable housing market.  But somehow it seems to be morally wrong to give money to the poor whilst there is no moral hazard in giving the same money to the rich bankers who helped to impoverish the poor in the first place.

But what I find really galling is that none of the Presidential candidates appears to be able to say so.  You would have thought that promising $200 Billion in housing, health, welfare, and education services available to all would make for a pretty good vote catching platform, not to mention the huge boost it would provide to the American economy.

But somehow that would be irresponsible, it would be inflationary, it would be socialism, it would create a “nanny state”, it would interfere with people’s freedom, it would undermine the work ethic etc. etc. etc.

Funny how the same money given to the rich – who have walked off with all the profits in the good times – seems to have none of the above deleterious effects on their moral character nor on the welfare of the nation.

So why are none of the candidates raising this issue?  All seem to have been fulsome in their praise of Bernanke’s handling of the crisis.  None seem to have a problem with the huge sums of money involved, not to mention the risk guarantees provided to JP Morgan to take over Bear Sterns for a song.

Maybe I have gotten this all wrong, and we are really talking about “funny money” here – the Central bank just printing more Dollar notes to free up the credit markets and provide much needed credit funding for productive enterprises in the real economy.  If it were simply a case of short term loans which will be repaid in due course, perhaps I could buy that scenario.

But risk is risk, and the US taxpayer seems to be carrying the can.  If you do happen to be in the unfortunate position of requiring a sub-prime mortgage to fund your home you will certainly know all about it.  You will be paying penal rates of interest and the threats of legal action won’t be long in coming if you fall behind on your payments.

So why doesn’t the state simply nationalise those banks which have been irresponsible in their lending practices – much like the loan sharks were put out of business?  Why shouldn’t the bankers and their shareholders carry the full consequences of their profligacy – much like the irresponsible home owner who can’t make the mortgage repayments because he has gambled his money away?

If you object to the state running banks as a matter of principle or ideology, they can always be sold back to investors when the situation has stabilised.  If the taxpayer has shouldered the risk, surely he should also  be able to profit from the sale of those banks back into a healthier market?  This is what seems to have happened in Sweden in the 1990’s when they had a similar banking crisis.

But surely the biggest lessons of all should have been learned after the Great Depression when Roosevelt’s New Deal rescued the US from the robber barons and speculators who had run the country into the ground?  
And yet the candidates don’t seem to invoke his memory all that often.  Have the American people forgotten?  Do they not realise what it took to fix the country last time around.  Are the candidates correctly judging the mood of the electorate when they rule out such a Rooseveltian discourse as part of their campaign strategy?

If so, the American people only have themselves to blame.  They have been taken for a monumental ride and seem to glory in being taken for fools.  Obama has just spoken very movingly on the race issue, but is that what US politics is still really all about?  Can you still be disqualified from mainstream discourse if you advocate an end to public squalor and private wealth?

I’m sure McCain is a very fine man.  But he hasn’t distanced himself in any meaningful way from the economic policies which have driven the US to the brink of bankruptcy.  Bush inherited record surpluses from Clinton and in a few short years squandered the lot.  Now America may never again achieve the economic ascendancy it enjoyed at the turn of the millennium.  Empires rise and fall but are the American people still being bought off with bread and circuses whilst Nero fiddles, and Rome burns?

It is difficult to see how any serious politician could be elected to power in any major European Country with such a blatant disregard for economic performance and social justice.  Berlusconi, Aznar, and Blair, had their moments, but none have impoverished their nations in the way Bush has done.

That any Republican, no matter how heroic, could still be running neck and neck with the leading Democrat contenders is a matter for shock and awe.  It is not about McCain personally, but about the people who are funding his candidacy, and who will be running his administration should he be elected.

Even Clinton and Obama don’t appear to be proposing radically different economic programmes.  The issues are about gender and race, about values and patriotism, about national security and foreign policy, about globalisation and the effects of free trade.

But why is no one challenging the hand-outs to the rich?  The hugely inflationary policies which will destroy the American economy and cost the dollar its preeminent position in the world?  Do Americans not know that the wealthy are taking their wealth elsewhere?  That they are being treated like the citizens of a banana republic/dictatorship with no more control over their own destiny than the average peasant whose land has been stolen for “development?”

Money spent on bail-outs for bankers and tax cuts for the rich can just as well be spirited abroad or spent on conspicuous consumption on largely imported products.  Money spent on housing, health and education creates good jobs and retains that wealth within the country.  Ultimately it increases the productive capacity of the nation.

The American people are conniving in the underdevelopment of their own country.  The means their masters have used to undermine and under-develop many third world countries are now being turned on their own people.  The world has learned the lessons of imperialism.  It seems the American people have some catching up to do.