JOHN SHATTUCK: Good evening and welcome to the John F. Kennedy Library. I’m John Shattuck, the CEO of the Kennedy Library Foundation, and together with Paul Kirk, who chairs our Board of Directors and is here in the front row, and Tom Putnam, the Acting Director of the Library and is also here tonight, we’re very pleased to present the first in our fall 2006 series of forums.
But before introducing tonight’s forum, I want to note with sadness the passing of Patricia Kennedy Lawford, President Kennedy’s sister. Pat Lawford was deeply devoted to the Kennedy Library. She was a board member of the Kennedy Library Foundation, and she worked tirelessly to make this Library the vibrant and living memorial to her brothers John and Robert. So we note with sadness her passing.
This evening we will explore a challenge central to President Kennedy’s time just as it is central to our own time, and that is how to find the road to peace in a world deeply divided by conflict. We’re honored tonight, not only by the presence of our wonderful speaker whom I will introduce in a moment, but also by a group of 15 distinguished journalists from the Middle East and Northern Ireland who have traveled to the Kennedy Library for a two day private conference that we’ve just concluded entitled Covering Conflict: Reporting from the Middle East and Northern Ireland, hosted by the Kennedy Library Foundation and generously supported by the Carnegie Corporation and the Ford Foundation. And I would like these courageous Israeli, Palestinian, and Northern Ireland, Irish journalists to stand so that you can all recognize them. They are here in our audience, and could you please rise. [applause]
In opening tonight’s forum, I’d like to thank our lead sponsor, the Bank of America, for making these forums possible. We’re also very grateful to our other sponsors and I’d like to recognize Jack Manning of Boston Capital, who is here with us tonight, the Lowell Institute, Corcoran Jennison Companies, and our media sponsors, The Boston Globe, New England Cable News, and 90.9, WBUR, which now broadcasts all Kennedy Library Forums at 8:00 on Sunday nights.
President Kennedy issued many challenges during his administration to his fellow Americans, to citizens of the world, and above all, to himself. No challenge was greater during his presidency than the challenge of brokering peace, and he spoke about it often in public. He delivered his most famous speech on the struggle for peace at American University on June 10, 1963. Against the backdrop of the Berlin crisis of 1961, the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, and the constant threat of nuclear war, President Kennedy told the world what he meant by the pursuit of peace.
He said, “I speak of peace as the necessary rational end of rational men. I am not referring to the concept of universal peace, of which some fantasies are made. I speak, instead, of a practical, obtainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature, but on a gradual evolution of human institutions, on a series of concrete actions and effective agreements. There is no single, simple key to this piece, no grand or magic formula. Genuine peace must be the sum of many acts, for peace is a process, a way of solving problems.”
George Mitchell is a man of peace and the way peace was defined by President Kennedy: a realist and yet one who is constantly in pursuit of that ideal. In a world of conflict, Senator Mitchell has dedicated much of his career to stopping the fighting. As a judge, a lawmaker, a negotiator, and a diplomat he has few peers.
When he was Majority Leader in the United States Senate, he was voted the most respected member of Congress by a bipartisan group of senior congressional staff, which I think is probably the toughest group to face in any vote of that kind in the United States Senate. George Mitchell served for 14 years as a senator for Maine. In his last term, he was reelected with 81% of the vote, the largest margin in the history of Maine.
He grew up in an immigrant family that represents the roots of modern America. His mother came to the United States from Lebanon, and his father was the orphaned son of Irish immigrants. And after college on a scholarship, he served in the US Army and then went on to law school and a long and distinguished career in public service. He served first as a trial lawyer in the Justice Department; then as Executive Assistant to Senator Edmund Muskie; United States Attorney for Maine; US District Judge; and, then was appointed to the Senate in 1980 to complete the unexpired term of
Senator Muskie who had resigned to become Secretary of State. After leaving the Senate in 1995, Senator Mitchell was asked by the British and Irish governments and by President Clinton to chair the struggling peace negotiations in Northern Ireland. For two years, he worked around the clock to find a way out of the endless cycles of violence and repression that had gripped the people of Northern Ireland for decades. His task was monumental, but he approached it with patience, intensity and understatement.
“I don’t have a magic wand,” he often said, but he managed to steer the parties to the historic Good Friday Agreement of 1998. And when the agreement later faltered and the British and Irish Prime Ministers were unable to get it back on track, they called on Senator Mitchell once more to rescue it. And once more, without a magic wand, he succeeded in bringing a realistic agreement and a realistic piece within reach by chairing another exhaustive set of negotiations. For that, George Mitchell and the other Irish peacemakers received in 1999 the Kennedy Foundation’s highest award, the Profile in Courage Award.
Senator Mitchell has also been involved in the illusive search for peace in the Middle East. In 2000, at the request of President Clinton, Prime Minister Barak of Israel, and Chairman Arafat of the Palestinian Authority, he chaired an international fact finding committee on the crisis between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
President Kennedy once said that a nation reveals itself not only by the men it produces, but also by the men it honors. George Mitchell has been honored with our nation’s highest civilian award, the Presidential Medal of Freedom. He’s also been honored internationally for his peacemaking work in Northern Ireland with the Truman Peace Prize, the German Peace Prize, and the United Nations UNESCO Peace Prize.
It’s a great honor for us to host him here tonight for a conversation about his experience as a broker of peace and his insights into the conflicts in Northern Ireland and the Middle East.
Our moderator this evening is Kevin Cullen, a distinguished senior International Affairs reporter for The Boston Globe, an expert on peacemaking himself. Kevin has covered the conflict in Northern Ireland for more than 15 years, and he has been the only correspondent in the American media to report full-time on the Irish peace process in the year leading up to the Good Friday Agreement. In 1998, he was appointed London Bureau Chief for the Globe, spending much of the next three years in the Balkans covering issues of war and peace in the former Yugoslavia.
Kevin has won many awards for his reporting. He was a member of the Globe investigative team that won a Pulitzer Prize in 2003 for its reporting on sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests. He received the Overseas Press Club Award for his coverage of Northern Ireland, the Livingston Award for Boston reporting, and a Nieman Fellowship at Harvard University.
So please join me in welcoming to the Kennedy Library, Senator George Mitchell and Kevin Cullen. [applause]
KEVIN CULLEN: Senator, I remember on a Saturday morning in April, you and I sat in the lobby of the Stormont Hotel and had a cup of coffee the day before you had finalized the work on the Good Friday Agreement. And I’ll always recall you saying, “Now the hard work begins.”
Here we are eight years later; life has transformed in Northern Ireland. There are probably at least 1,000 or more people walking around who would be dead otherwise. And yet, the agreement is not fully implemented. The Assembly and the Executive have been suspended for nearly four years, and the parties are facing a November 24th deadline to either reach agreement, get the power share in government back up, or we go back to square one.
As you sit here now, did you think it would take this long?
SEN. GEORGE MITCHELL: No. On the day that I was privileged to announce the agreement, I described it as an historic step, which it was. But on that very same day, I said that there would be difficult decisions ahead, that there would be set backs. But I confess to you, I didn’t think there would be as many setbacks as there have been, nor did I fully comprehend how long it takes any divided society to get over the wounds of the past.
I think it was an historic step, and as you point out, many people are alive today who would not be but for the agreement. So, in a sense, the hopefully permanent ending of major conflict is a huge step forward. But an acceptably high level of less than lethal violence still occurs in both communities, different in that it is primarily intra-community now, as opposed [audio drops off]. The society remains divided, largely segregated -- not just in patterns of housing, but in patterns of life. And some important parts of the agreement have not been fulfilled.
My conclusion now is that a return to violence on the scale that existed previously is highly unlikely, but not impossible, and that there will be ultimately the kind of genuine reconciliation that we all worked so hard and prayed for, but that it will probably take a longer period of time than any of us anticipated on that spring morning eight years ago.
KEVIN CULLEN: You’re talking about sectarianism. And in 1994 when the IRA called its ceasefire and the loyalist groups followed suit, I think there were approximately 20 peace lines, as they call the walls that separate Protestant enclaves and Catholic enclaves. Today there are more than 60.
This seems counterintuitive. Why do you think sectarianism has not only persisted, but in some ways, it’s grown?
SEN. GEORGE MITCHELL: John mentioned that you spent a lot of time in the Balkans, as I did. I recall very clearly while I was in the Senate visiting a small town on the Serb-Croat border. The population had been about equally divided before the war. When the war broke out, the Serbs gained the initial advantage, occupied the town, burned down the buildings that were owned by Croats. A year and a half later, the tide of war changed. Croats occupied; they burned down all the Serb buildings. And I toured it, and I said to the mayor -- a young, very thoughtful man -- I said, “For an outsider, it’s hard to see who won.” Then I asked him, “How long will it be before Serbs and Croats can live side by side here again?” After a moment’s reflection, he replied, “We will repair our buildings long before we repair our souls.”
The point he was making is that while physical reconstruction -- rebuilding roads, bridges, buildings, reestablishing economies -- can be done in relatively short periods of time, changing what is in people’s hearts and minds -- which in the end is the most important thing of all -- takes a lot longer.
Grievances had developed over many years. Each side has a long litany of wrongs that were perpetrated upon him. In a very small society, in terms of population … As you know, Kevin, you’ve been there a lot, almost everyone has a family member or friend who was either killed or maimed or otherwise damaged as a result. And it will take longer than any of us anticipated. But just as we had to exhibit unprecedented patience to get a peace agreement, so now must we exhibit still more patience to encourage and support the gradual reconciliation, which I believe will take place. Perhaps it will take a generation or so, but it will happen.
KEVIN CULLEN: Senator, I was in Dublin last week and appeared on a panel discussion with Liz O’Donnell, who is a member of the Irish government’s negotiating team with you. Her hindsight was that so many details were left untied up, so that there was a hope that with the optimism that came out of the Good Friday Agreement, public pressure would leave politicians to the accommodations that were needed to fully implement the agreement. She says, “In hindsight, we probably should have stayed in there longer.” I think you and I have talked about this. You don’t believe that.
You believe that without that firm deadline, they would have talked until the cows come home.
SEN. GEORGE MITCHELL: That’s right. I think the choice we had was between an imperfect agreement, as are all human efforts, and a resumption of conflict. Remember, the negotiations went on for 22 months. That’s a long time. I got so I could recite backwards in my sleep the respective arguments that were made because I had heard them so often.
We tried very hard in December of 1997 -- now, this was 18 months after we’d begun to get an agreement on a statement on what the principal remaining issues were. Now, mind you, this is not the answer to the questions; this is the question. And we failed. And I remember flying home two days before Christmas thinking to myself that, “It can’t get any worse.” Four days later, it got worse.
Billy Wright, a prominent Protestant paramilitary was murdered in prison by a group of Catholic prisoners. That touched off a retaliatory round of killing, and the violence continued to spiral. So all of the following January and February were spent in mounting violence and recrimination. And on the flight back from Dublin in the middle of February to New York, I concluded that without a dramatic event, the process was doomed to failure, and I am, in my own mind, absolutely certain that would have occurred.
So I came up with a plan to establish a firm, unbreakable, early deadline that would either produce an agreement -- a necessarily imperfect one -- or an end to the process. It was a high risk gamble. Some in the British government were not opposed in the sense of not wanting progress, but were fearful that the risk was too high. But I got all the parties to agree to a deadline, and we did it in a two week period.
Now, as I said, it would have been better had we dotted every “i” and crossed every “t”, but on some issues there was no possibility of getting that done, because some were beyond our capacity, like policing. And so, I think the point made by Liz is a valid one, but my own view is that the realistic choices were between an imperfect agreement that would end the killing and a complete failure and a reversion to what I think would have been a much higher and more horrific level of violence than they’d previously experienced.
KEVIN CULLEN: I remember when it was announced that you were going over to try to make this happen. The Reverend Ian Paisley, the leader of the Democratic Unionist Party, I think, described you as, “Hailing from the Kennedy stable of Boston Irish America.” Besides being a great diss on the great state of Maine, I wondered … The other thing that happened -- and I think people were suspect of you -- you had all these hidden agendas according to various factions. But, in the end, I know there were a lot of personal friendships, the connections made, and also a lot of funny stories there. You connected with people. Can you remember some of them?
SEN. GEORGE MITCHELL: Yeah. First, let me say that I don’t think Dr. Paisley knew it at the time, but, in fact, my father was born in Boston and was raised in an orphanage here in Boston, not far from … Right where the Symphony is now, there used to be a Catholic orphanage. That’s where my father spent several years as a young boy. But I don’t think that’s what Dr. Paisley had in mind. [laughter]
Also, I know that a lot of you here from Massachusetts are not aware that Massachusetts used to be part of Maine … [laughter] … and I must say, we take a good deal of pride at how well you’ve done since you went on your own way. [laughter]
There was mostly gloom and doom while I was there, but there were some funny stories. On the first day of the negotiations, one of the delegates, a terrific guy named David Urbine, who, you know, said to me -- in front of all the other delegates -- he said, “Senator, if you ought to be of any use to us, there’s one thing you must understand about we, the people of Northern Ireland.” He said, “We would drive 100 miles out of our way to receive an insult.” [laughter] And I laughed thinking it was an exaggeration, but it wasn’t. [laughter]
We had a lot of occasion for laughter. When I came back the second time, as John described, after the process failed in the summer of 1999, we couldn’t make much progress, and so we moved to London, to a so-called “secret” location, the US ambassador’s residence, where we were able to escape the press for four or five days.
Of course, I knew all these delegates extremely well. I spent a total of five years with them and became personally friendly with almost all of them.
But it was obvious that they still felt uncomfortable with the other. So I organized the meals in a way that they couldn’t sit on one side or the other. They had to all mingle. And I told them that I didn’t want any discussion of the issues at the meals. I just wanted them to talk about their kids and their dogs and what they did, to try to get an understanding of the humanity of the other side and also to recognize how really similar they all were.
And in the course of the discussion one night, they got on to the fact that David Trimble, who was the leader of the Ulcer Unionist Party, was a big opera fan. And they asked him about it, and he said, “Yes.” He said, “As I always do before these meetings, last night I listened to an opera.” And then one of them said to me, yelled across the table, “Senator, do you ever go to the opera?” And I said, “Well, I do. Not as much as David, but I do, in fact, make it a practice to go to the opera the last night before I leave to come over here to meet with you guys.” And they said, “Well, why is that?” And I said, “Well,” I said, “because I’ve been to La Boheme 12 times, and never once has anybody said anything but exactly the same thing that they said the previous time. [laughter] I said, “And so, when I go to an opera, I know exactly the words that are going to be spoken and sung, and it puts me in the right frame of mind to come here and here you guys.” [laughter] Because, in fact, they do -- as you know, Kevin -- repetition is not a problem for most of these guys over there.
KEVIN CULLEN: Senator, a Palestinian colleague who is a journalist in Lebanon, Rami Khouri, and who is here tonight, said that one of the biggest problems in ending conflict in the Middle East is that too many people see it as an existential conflict, that only one side can prevail.
In Northern Ireland, the peace process seemed to take off when all sides seemed to admit that they had fought to a stalemate, that physical force was not going to achieve anymore and that compromises had to be made. Do you agree with that assessment? And what has to happen in the Middle East so that it’s not viewed as a zero sum game anymore?
SEN. GEORGE MITCHELL: First, let me say that that attitude was, in fact, widespread in Northern Ireland when I first went there, and still is to some extent. I recall with absolute clarity the first time President Clinton came over. It was a big event because he was the first American president to make a high priority of this. He was the first American president to visit Northern Ireland while in office. And I traveled with him from the United States. We went to London where there was a very long day of events, and then we flew to Belfast late that evening. Everybody was really tired and the president was exhausted, but we had set up meetings that evening when we got to Belfast late, first with Dr. Paisley, then with Gerry Adams.
And they came in one at a time. Paisley came in with an aide, and I was there with President Clinton. And the president said, “Hello, how are you?” and Paisley launched into a 30-minute monologue, literally without interruption. It was a good thing because Clinton was very tired, and he didn’t have to do anything except just sit there for the whole time … [laughter] … in which he described the history of Northern Ireland as seen through the eyes of a unionist leader. And I must say, for those of you who have ever met or heard him, he's a powerful orator, a very compelling speaker. And it was a rather gripping narration.
And then he left, and Gerry Adams came in, and unbelievably … well, not unbelievable, but I guess expectedly, exactly the same thing occurred for 30 minutes of the other side. And so, literally, for one hour, the President and I listened as these two very skilled orators, with great passion and emotion, delivered what was essentially a one dimension version of the history of Northern Ireland, which, in fact, reflected the perspective and described in some detail the litany of hurt to their respective communities.
So it clearly was that attitude. And I’ve said many times publicly that I found in the Balkans, in Northern Ireland, and in the Middle East a profound sense of victimization, pervasive on all sides, and a sufficient history to justify that attitude. And it creates a huge emotional barrier to move forward and get agreements. But I do believe -- I said this earlier at the meeting with the journalists -- that there is no such thing that can’t be ended. Conflicts are created, conducted, sustained by human beings. They can be ended by human beings when they perceive it to be ultimately in their self-interest.
That’s what happened in Northern Ireland. Not that all the problems are gone, not that they’re all buddy-buddy or friendly. In fact, as you know, there remains this enormous gap between the societies. People really do lead separate but parallel lives in Northern Ireland. But to stop using violence as a way of trying to resolve their differences. That sounds like a small thing, but it is huge because it is the essential predicate to achieving all of the other things. First, you can't get an agreement in an atmosphere of high violence. It doesn’t make any difference what the political structure of the society. Whether it’s a democracy or a non-democracy, political leaders are simply unable to take the steps necessary, inevitably involving some degree of compromise at a time of high emotion over violence, and they’re overwhelmed by the demands for revenge.
And so, once you can eliminate, or significantly reduce the level of violence, then the political leaders, if they have courage and vision, can step forward and take the steps necessary.
And I believe that will occur in the Middle East, because I think like in Northern Ireland, the public on both sides is exhausted with the conflict. They’ve come to recognize that they cannot achieve their principle objectives through the means being used. And the only answer will be a negotiated settlement.
One of the problems in the Middle East, of course, is that the circumstances and the objectives of the two sides are different; they’re a-symmetrical. The Israelis have a state. What they want is security. The people of Israel live in unbearable fear and anxiety, because of the horror of the suicide bombings and the other attacks.
On the other hand, the Palestinians don’t have a state, and they want one. They’re geographically contiguous, economically viable, sovereign state in which they can not only chart their own future, but achieve the dignity and eliminate the humiliation and degradation to which they’d been subjected to such a long period of time.
And I don’t think either of them can get it, can gain their objective, by denying to the other side its objective. Stated another way, I don’t think the Palestinians are every going to get a state until the people of Israel have a reasonable degree of security. And I don’t think the people of Israel can gain a reasonable, sustainable degree of security until the Palestinians have a state of their own. And I think that recognition--
[applause]
SEN. GEORGE MITCHELL: That recognition does exist, and the problem is how to get from here to there in the atmosphere of total mistrust, which occurs. That, I think, is the problem, and, of course, the continuing violence adds to that. It perpetuates the emotional circumstance, which, I earlier state, makes political compromise difficult, if not impossible, and makes it less likely of reaching an agreement. But I think in the end it can and it will happen.
KEVIN CULLEN: Just an aside, I think President Clinton got off easy. I have attended services at Dr. Paisley’s church. And when he speaks for 30 minutes, that’s not called the sermon. That’s called the opening prayer.
SEN. GEORGE MITCHELL: Believe me, you’re not telling me anything I don’t know and haven’t heard. When I first went, on that first day I said to them that, “I’m a product of the United States Senate, which has the rule of unlimited debate.” I said, “I’ve listened to 16 hour speeches. I’ve listened to nine hour speeches. There’s nothing you guys can throw at me that I haven't heard before.” And I said, “You might be dissatisfied with me, but you will never be able to say I didn’t hear you out.”
Well, that was one of the dumbest things I’ve ever said in my life-- [laughter]
--because these guys can talk. And so, literally-- and how hard it is really to listen to someone for even a few minutes. But two years I sat there and listened to them. Boy, I thought about that opening statement many, many times.
KEVIN CULLEN: I’m wondering if you think, did US diplomacy work in Northern Ireland because there was no obvious self-interest in the American position? And do you think that the US interest in the Middle East, whether it’s oil or a strong support for Israel, makes it easier or harder for the US to have a role in solving the conflict there?
SEN. GEORGE MITCHELL: I don’t believe it’s true that US diplomacy worked in the Middle East-- in Northern Ireland because we have no interest there. I think we do have interest there. We have a-- an enormous bond with Ireland. Some 30 million Americans are of Irish heritage. It’s-- I said, my father’s parents were born there, and I think that the bond of blood is as strong as any can be, and we have a long and historic friendship with them.
The UK-- Britain is our closest friend, our staunchest ally, our mother country, the source of our language and so much else in our society. So, I think opposing a long standing difference between them was first a political impediment to any president ever touching it with a ten-foot pole.
That’s why Clinton deserves so much credit. He’s the first president to have not been deterred by getting involved in a-- what was a fight between two friends.
Secondly, I think that the circumstances are sufficiently different, that you can’t take what worked in one place and transform it to another. Because in Ireland, although there was an indisputable American role, it was secondary. The primary roles were the UK and Ireland.
And I have to say, I don’t believe that in either society over there or here, sufficient credit has gone to the British and Irish governments, who had a long history of animosity and hostility, as you know, for a period of nearly 70 years, and then realized that the only way Northern Ireland could be resolved is if they worked together. And they did so through a succession of governments in very difficult circumstances.
And particularly, credit should go to Tony Blair and Bertie Ahern, who, against all political wisdom, came to Belfast in the closing week and didn’t just supervise the negotiations, they were deeply personally involved in the negotiations, word by word, issue by issue. And they deserve enormous credit. So, our role was secondary.
In the Middle East, it’s a completely different situation, but it is one in which we can play what I think is a more primary role, because I don’t think there is any entity on earth, other than the United States government, which has the capacity to create a context in which an agreement is possible and of equal or greater importance to see that’s implemented.
As we’re seeing in Northern Ireland, it’s very hard to get peace agreements in these conflict situations. It is infinitely more difficult to gain implementation of those agreements. And the Middle East is going to require both, and only the US government can do that.
KEVIN CULLEN: You mentioned the fact that the British are the Americans’ closest allies, and yet President Clinton announced he would send a special envoy; he granted a visa for Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams so he’d come to the US, and this infuriated the British government. John Major would not take his calls for, I think it was a week.
And yet, now in hindsight-- and very soon after that, actually, even the most senior and skeptical British officials say that was a brilliant piece of diplomacy. It worked, it got the Americans involved. It was, in essence, a friend telling a friend something he might not want to hear.
Do you see any similarity that could occur in the Middle East? And I guess specifically it would be something that an American administration would do with one of its closest friends, and that is Israel.
SEN. GEORGE MITCHELL: Well, of course, leadership requires doing what is right, even when, on occasion, you have to disappoint a friend, as President Clinton did at the time.
I thin the difference is, that I mentioned earlier, are greater than the similarities. But I do think that we have to be prepared to-- [audio drops off]-
- what we think is necessary and appropriate in the circumstances, and to encourage whoever it may be, friend or not, to do-- to take the steps necessary to achieve a good result.
So, that-- I would hope that were the precise circumstances to be repeated, which they won’t be, or something analogous to it, that an Amer-- any American president would say, “Look, here’s what we think is the right way to go, and we want-- we encourage you to do this.”
KEVIN CULLEN: Do you think the current administration has taken a big enough role in resolving situations in the Middle East?
SEN. GEORGE MITCHELL: No, I don’t. I believe, regretfully, that the administration has unwisely focused its attention almost entirely on and in Iraq, to the exclusion of other important issues in the Middle East, and most notably, the Israeli / Palestinian conflict.
Among the many reasons advanced for the invasion of Iraq, which proved, in my judgment, not to be correct, was the assertion that the invasion of Iraq and the toppling of Saddam Hussein would help resolve the Israeli / Palestinian conflict. That was a non sequitur if I ever heard one, because it resulted not in helping a resolution, but, in fact, in effect, putting it in a secondary category when the reality is that no matter what happens in Iraq--
Even if by some now unlikely miracle, the administration’s early expectations are realized, which seems in the extreme unlike, but even if that were realized, there will not be stability in the Middle East until the Israeli / Palestinian conflict is resolved. That is the central issue of concern in the region. It is a central cause of the precipitous decline in support for the United States in the region and around the world.
And we have-- We are the dominant economic and military power in the world. Of that, there can be no doubt. Some analysts suggest that the gap is greater that it’s ever been, but the reality is, we can’t do it all alone, even given the dominance of our economic and military power. We need friends and allies, particularly in the so-called “War on Terror”, in which, as we see alien Iraq, overwhelming military superiority does not guarantee the achievement of success, because it is not a conventional conflict.
[applause]
I think that resolution of that conflict, not only just inappropriate in its own, viewed in isolation would be one of the most significant things that would help to renew and reinvigorate our alliances and reestablish our stature in the world.
KEVIN CULLEN: Some might say that it’s really wrong to draw too many parallels between the Middle East and Northern Ireland, that the threat faced by Israel is fundamentally different, that the IRA didn’t want or aspire to destroy the United Kingdom.
Isn't the threat posed by Hamas and Hasbala, who deliberately target civilians, completely different than that posed by the IRA, who, despite early on in the conflict killed many civilians by atrocities, as the conflict wore on, and whatever you think about them, they tried for at least tactical reasons, if not moral reasons, to avoid killing civilians?
SEN. GEORGE MITCHELL: Well, I said earlier before you asked the question that the differences are so great that you can’t transpose one set of solutions to the other, and I think that’s true. The situations are not analogous in that respect.
In the case of Israel, it is a threat to its existence, and it is surrounded by a large number of hostile states, many of whom have some portions of their populations, in some cases significant-- in the case of Hamas in governance-
- in the case of Hasbala, at least in the influential minority-- in the case of Iran overt government policy to extinguish the existence of Israel.
That was not the case in Northern Ireland, so in that respect it is plainly a different situation, and one which requires a different analysis and resolution.
But I also believe that there are similarities, and one of which I’ve already stated and I’ll repeat briefly, and that is that I believe that in Northern Ireland, a conclusion was reached on both sides, that they could not achieve their objectives through the use of force in which they were engaged. And that while their differences remained, what they essentially agreed upon, was, “We’re going to try to resolve them through peaceful non-violent and democratic needs.”
And my hope is-- and I believe this to be the case-- that that attitude will prevail, with respect to the Israeli / Palestinian conflict. I think it is complete and fanciful to think there’s going to be some great Middle Eastern spring in which everybody’s going to be nice, and friendly, and happy together. I think there’s too much that’s occurred for that.
But to eliminate the violence as a way of composing their difference, I think would be a huge step forward, and would permit the kind of negotiated resolution that I think is obtainable.
KEVIN CULLEN: In 1971, the British introduced internment, which they rounded up an awful lot of people. It was ostensibly aimed at stamping out the IRA, but in effect, it increased support for the IRA because so many innocent Catholics were caught up in its web.
And then after Bloody Sunday in 1972 when 13 unarmed civil rights demonstrators were shot dead-- it did seem to be-- shot dead by British paratroopers-- there did seem to be on the British side sort of a recognition that the heavy hand helped the insurgency more than it hurt it.
That doesn’t seem to have occurred, in terms of Israel’s response. Why do you think there’s a difference?
SEN. GEORGE MITCHELL: Well, I think it has been the subject of debate within Israel, and it arises, dependent upon the circumstances at the time.
On a broader issue, Churchill once said that democracy is the worst possible form of government, except for everything else that human beings have tried. There are indisputable and unarguable advantages for democracy, but there are also some disadvantages. And one of the disadvantages, that when you’re engaged in a conflict of this type, you are rightly restrained-- or you should be restrained-- by the democratic values of your society.
When Hafa(?) Salah(?) Sad(?) faced a problem in the city of Hama, he didn’t consult with the Parliament. He didn’t take a vote with the public. He didn’t have a referendum. He ordered military action, which resulted in the deaths of thousands of people. If that had been a democratic society, it probably wouldn’t have occurred that way, and if it had occurred that way, there would have been a huge backlash.
So, the British had constraints, because they are a democratic society. Israel is a democracy. It has constraints. There are some things that you can’t do in a democratic society, because you know that people who have lived in democracies who value it will not tolerate it.
In a certain sense, in a limited way, we’re going through the same debate right now in this country. How much should democratic values effect how we deal with those who-- with whom we are engaged in the so-called “War on Terror”?
So, there are constraints in democracies, and while that may have a short- term inhibiting effect on the government at the moment, and in pursuit of their immediate objectives, over the long-term, we all accept and recognize that it’s a fundamental value and a fundamental strength of democracy.
And so, I think there have been such constraints. Right now, there’s a furious debate going on in Israel about the manner in which the recent conflict was fought, how it was--
END SIDE A BEGIN SIDE B
SEN. GEORGE MITCHELL: Of course, no comparable-- at least no comparable public debate on the other side. And you can argue either way, which is better? I have to think it’s better to have it all out in the open, despite the immediate problems that it might bring to leaders.
KEVIN CULLEN: The leaders who steered South African through the end of apartheid were crucial in meeting with and encouraging the political leaders in Northern Ireland. They did a lot on the-- It was really on the side of what you were doing, but it was to convince people to take a leap of faith.
Does it follow that Northern Ireland political leaders could help the Palestinians and the Israelis, and the Israelis and the-- at this point the Lebanese and the Israelis?
SEN. GEORGE MITCHELL: Although the differences are vast, and I’ve alluded to them several times, I do think you always benefit from getting a different perspective, from hearing how others have done it, from finding out if there’s something you hadn’t thought of that might be applicable that others have tried.
And there’s also the factor of the possibility of change and inspiration. I’m asked a lot about this. I read this in a newspaper article in-- because you know we can’t believe everything you read in the papers--
KEVIN CULLEN: No kidding.
SEN. GEORGE MITCHELL: --except the Boston Globe, I mean, excuse me. But I read when Mandela first tried to go to the UK, Prime Minister Thatcher wouldn’t let him in, because she said he’s a terrorist. Now when Mandela goes to the UK, the Queen invites him to have tea at Windsor Castle.
There is, at least in that case, the possibility of transformation. The fact that it happened in one place doesn’t mean it can happen in others, but, as you pointed out, Gerry Adams couldn’t get into this country prior to 1994. Now when he comes, he’s a real celebrity. He’s on television, he gives speeches. And arguably both, in both instances, there was a benefit, both to the ending of the conflict and the reconstruction, and ultimately I would hope, the reconciliation of that will occur.
I emphasize the fact that it’s occurred in one or two places doesn’t mean it necessarily or even possibly could occur in others. But I think it’s important not to freeze one’s thinking into the facts which exist at the moment.
When I was in Northern Ireland, the principle negotiations lasted 22 months, and almost every day, reporters asked me, “Aren’t you a failure? Isn’t the process failing?” And, of course, they were technically correct, because until you get an agreement, you have failed to get an agreement. So, in a real sense, we had 700 days of failure, and one day of success.
Now, if, during any one of those 700 days I had accepted as final the views expressed by the delegates, there would never have been an agreement. But I always held out the possibility of change, the possibility of people accepting, at another point in time, under, perhaps, different circumstances what they could not accept then.
I heard the nationalists say 690 days, “We’ll never agree to a Northern Ireland assembly.” I heard the unionists say 695 days, “We’ll never agree to new cross-border entities between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.” On the last day, both were accepted.
So, what you have to do is to realistically assess what is attainable and hold out the prospect of change, of position, of heart in the circumstances that permit that change to occur. And I think that’s true anyplace. It’s a general principle, doesn’t necessarily apply everyplace, but it’s certainly something that ought to be kept in mind.
KEVIN CULLEN: You mentioned Gerry Adams, and he traveled to the Middle East two weeks ago. He visited Jerusalem, and then he visited Ramallah. Israeli officials would not meet with him because he was going to meet with people from Hamas. His response is that he met with elected officials from Hamas. They have a democratic mandate, and so that’s why he met with them. Do you think it was right to snub him?
SEN. GEORGE MITCHELL: Well, I always think it’s wise to listen to as many points of view as you can. I don’t know anything about the circumstances that you described.
I do want to say one word, though, about the implication of the comment that you attribute to him, that they had a democratic mandate. It is true that they were democratically elected, but democracy doesn’t end with an election. It imposes responsibilities that continue beyond elections.
But let’s just take, as an extreme example to make the point, supposing an American president gets elected, and he says, “I’m democratically elected.” And then he says, “But I’m going to form a militia. Just in case I don’t get my way from Congress on something, I want to have this militia handy.” Nobody would say, “Well, that’s okay. He was democratically elected.”
So, I want to make clear that you-- It is important to have elections because we-- we believe that the only legitimate source of authority for a government is the consent of the governed. But it is also important to understand that Hamas can’t just say, “Well, we were democratically elected, so that’s it.” You have to meet all the other requirements of democracy, too, and one of them is the acceptance of the prior agreements to which the government you are elected to head agreed.
I mean, we’re all-- We think that democracy is the best way to govern. I think we’re right. Others may have a different point of view to which they’re entitled. But we have to be clear about it that democracy isn’t-- imposes an ongoing burden on those who share its-- who exercise this leadership.
KEVIN CULLEN: An essential part of the Good Friday Agreement with Sinn Fein, and by extension, the IRA, the Republican movement, accepting the legitimacy of Northern Ireland as a state, and that it would remain part of the UK until a majority living there voted otherwise.
Do you see a parallel with what is being asked of Hamas? They are being asked to renounce violence and recognize the legitimacy, the right of Israel to exist.
SEN. I MITCHELL: I don’t know if it’s a parallel because I think the situations are very different. But I think that is a situation which Hamas faces. Let’s be realistic. Israel exists. It’s going to continue to exist. There isn’t anything that any Palestinian leader or any Arab leader can do to change that, rhetoric notwithstanding.
What-- I said this earlier in a private meeting. I spent a lot of time in the Palestinian territories. I went all over it, saw it firsthand close up. And I know many Palestinians who have come to this country. They are a remarkably energetic, entrepreneurial, skillful people who, if they can achieve the dignity and independence that comes from being part of a sovereign state, I believe, can have a-- a true dramatic increase in prosperity and standard of living.
But that can only be achieved if this conflict is resolved. And this conflict is not going to be resolved by the extinction of Israel. It simply isn’t possible or imaginable in any circumstance.
And so, I think the best way to proceed is for that to be accepted by the governments of the region, and to channel into constructive purposes all of the destructive activities that have occurred on both sides over the past half century.
And I have to tell you, I may sound naïve and Pollyanna-ish, I do believe it’s possible, and I do think it will inevitably occur, because it is ultimately in
their self-interest. They’ve got to get past this to reach the next stage of development. And I think it is going to happen.
KEVIN CULLEN: On that optimistic note, we’d like to take some questions from the audience. If you look on both aisles, there are microphones there. And when I say questions, I mean questions. He is a diplomat. I am not. And if we start hearing statements that don’t have question marks on the end of them, you will be cut off. And I just want to make that clear. This is not a forum for making statements. It’s a forum for you asking quantitive (sic) of Senator Mitchell.
SEN. GEORGE MITCHELL: I’ve got to bring you to a few more of my events.
[laughter]
KEVIN CULLEN: Thank you very much.
: Who’s going to start?
KEVIN CULLEN: Who’s going to start? Age before beauty. You go.
Q: My name is Michael Giovanovic(?). And I’m Serbian. I have the greatest admiration for the Irish. And although I’m not on the welcoming committee, I would like to welcome the guests.
Because of JF Kennedy, I like all Irish.
KEVIN CULLEN: You won’t like me if you don’t get to a question. [laughter]
Q: It is coming if I’m not interrupted. [laughter]
Q: Because of Christopher Columbus, I like all Irish-- ...(inaudible) all Italians. Because of Senator Mitchell, I like all Lebanese. What Senator Mitchell achieved in Ireland is unique in the history of diplomacy of the 20th century. He has deserved Nobel prize long time ago.
SEN. GEORGE MITCHELL: This sounds like the kind of question you should allow to occur.
KEVIN CULLEN: I’ll just turn this off George.
Q: But because he does not have Nobel prize yet, tonight, I would like to nominate him for Nobel prize for peace.
SEN. GEORGE MITCHELL: Thank you very much.
[applause]
Q: I wish, Senator, that you spent 22 weeks in Yugoslavia. If you had done that, President Clinton would not have been the greatest lie(?) since America was discovered, which is Serbia was bombed 78 days, and--
KEVIN CULLEN: We’re going to need a question. We need a question.
Q: Coming, coming, coming. And Serbs did not kill one single America, and never will. Now, again, about peace, America is in a great mess since America was discovered. You are the greatest peacemaker of this country. What would you suggest, or what would you do at the loss of Cuban life(?) America in foreign would stop? Do you prefer dead or alive? Or do you prefer peace at any price for all enemies and for all friends?
SEN. GEORGE MITCHELL: Well, I don’t think the only two choices are those you posed. I think there is a reasonable middle ground that, depending on the circumstances, are applicable. There may be circumstances in which there is no alternative but to fight and to fight to the death and the defense of what we believe. I think virtually every American agrees that the Second World War was one such conflict.
There are other circumstances in which our involvement in conflict has been less clear. There has been less of a unifying spirit throughout the country, and in which there has been extremely controversial debate about what we should or shouldn’t do.
So, I think it depends entirely on the circumstances. If you want to ask me about a particular conflict, I’ll be glad to tell you what I think about that conflict.
KEVIN CULLEN: Well, I think we’re going to have to move on, sir. We’re going to have to take other questions. Right here.
Q: Yes, before 9/11 we heard in the United States quite a bit about Northern Ireland, particularly here in the Boston area. But since then, there’s very little information. And so, this is an actual question that I’m looking for an answer for.
I was in Belfast for a while this summer and I met with people, and, well, and I’m aware about the November 24th deadline. And what I’d like to know is, because your context, I get very little information since I’ve come back, in our media and that sort of thing.
What is your opinion of what’s going to happen? Are they going to reach some sort of agreement that will allow the British to give up direct rule, or do you expect the direct rule to take place again? And what do you think the consequences will be if things don’t work out? Do you think there’ll be an escalation of tensions because of that?
SEN. GEORGE MITCHELL: I don’t think I, or any other person, can state with certainty what may or may not occur. I will say that this is not the first, and almost certainly will not be the last time when Northern Ireland reaches a critical juncture in this still evolving process.
However, I think the likelihood of a reversion to major sectarian conflict of the type that existed in the 25 or so years between 1970 and 1995 is unlikely, although still possible. As we’ve seen in other places, a single event can produce entirely unexpected and unplanned consequences, and so that’s possible. And it’s the imperative for the political leaders to work it out.
What has happened in all previous cases is they’ve muddle through and moved onto a new stage, or at least created enough of a condition in which the non-political life of Northern Ireland can continue and develop.
It is not an accident that despite the failure to fully implement agreement, despite the suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly, the instrument of self-governance that was created in the agreement, had not worked, that there hasn’t been in a return to conflict, in large part because there’s been substantial economic growth, job creation and development.
Most conflict resolution discussions deal with political and security issues. That’s because they’re essential to reaching an agreement. But the sustaining factor is economic growth and job creation. You have to have hope and opportunity, whether it’s in Belfast, or Gaza, or Chicago.
What is happening is that you do have a period of sustained growth. But if that falters, that could have as much do with a resumption of conflict as the failure of the political process. And I think that’s something that we in this country don’t really pay enough attention to, or focus attention on.
If I could just tell an anecdote, my first day in Belfast, very first time ever in Belfast, I was taken to the so-called “peace line” to which Kevin earlier referred: the wall that separates the two communities.
In the morning, I met on their side with the Nationalists, primarily Catholic. In the afternoon with the Unionists, primarily Protestant. Of course, their messages hadn’t been coordinated, but they were strikingly similar.
A Protestant minister, one of the most powerful and persuasive orators I have ever heard in my life brought two maps. The first was violence in urban Northern Ireland, and then he overlaid the second one on it, unemployment in urban Northern Ireland. And, of course, they matched pretty closely.
This is not to suggest that the conflict in Northern Ireland is exclusively or even primarily economic. It isn’t, because it’s got religious roots, territorial disputes, national identity. But there is a common underlying economic background.
People need work, not just to earn income to support their families, but also to lead full and meaningful lives, to have a sense of worth in a very transient in difficult world in which we live, to achieve the personal dignity and self- esteem that is so essential to any person of any society.
And that’s why we should be concentrating, I think, personally believe, much more effort in all these conflicts situations on what we can do-- If we took a fraction, a small fraction, of what we spent in the military effort in Iraq and devoted it to the development of the economy of Iraq and other economies, everybody would be much further ahead. And that’s what we’ve got to do--
[applause]
KEVIN CULLEN: Right here.
Q: Thank you. Senator Mitchell, it’s truly an honor and a pleasure to have you here. I’ve followed you for many, many years, and I want to also welcome all of our guests from the Palestinian, Israeli, Northern Ireland contingents here and their work.
My question, with a small preface-- please bear with me-- is, for many years-- I’m a descendent of-- My grandparents came through Ellis Island,
Brooklyn, New York. Russians of Jewish and Russian Orthodox descent, and I’m very much a product of that.
I have many, many times, particularly after 9/11, intervened in very small, but big conflicts-- small ways, small groups, individuals, families, et cetera-- trying to emulate what you have done. Have a dinner, have a-- celebrate a holiday, et cetera. And I think I’ve had some successes. I want to really pursue this, particularly with the Lebanese center(?) of conflict and many others.
What are some important things not to do? You know, we have such great desires and goals to make peace, and I think we can really stick a silver foot in our mouth, as Anne Richard would say. What are some good things not to do?
And then a second very short “yes” or “no” question, do you have any room or use for a new intern or assistant to pursue your work?
[laughter]
SEN. GEORGE MITCHELL: I’d probably have a lot of use, but I don’t have any money. On the first question, it’s probably a hard combination, but I have found in my dealings with people of different backgrounds that the two things they most want are candor and respect.
If you-- If you are unwilling or afraid to be candid, I believe people recognize it and take it as a sign of disrespect, a patronization which they don’t welcome. I suppose it’s like everything else in like, all in how you do it, but to me, in dealing with-- And I have dealt with people from a variety of cultures and backgrounds and societies. I tried very hard to treat them with complete respect, but I also tried very hard never to mislead them or to be anything other than completely candid.
Q: Very good. That’s very helpful. Thank you.
KEVIN CULLEN: Right here.
Q: It’s been said that a lot of weapons and money was shipped from the US to Ireland to support the conflict. I’m wondering how much do you think that continued the conflict going? How important was that?
And also, as a negotiator, how much do you get involved with outside suppliers, with-- be it money or a nation state? They’re talking about Iran now supporting Hamas. How much, as a negotiator did you get to try to have the US clamp down on that or other countries clamp down on that?
SEN. GEORGE MITCHELL: I have read many reports on the subject that you raise, but I really have no personal knowledge of that. So, I don’t have any basis on which to evaluate the extent to which there was a substantial flow of money and arms, either from-- originating in the United States to Northern Ireland.
I have read and heard enough about it to believe that it did exist, but I’m just not certain of the extent to which it did, and whether the reports are accurate or not.
I did not become deeply or directly involved in that in the positions I served in Northern Ireland. I was asked by the British and Irish governments to perform certain very specifically defined tasks, and I tried hard to limit myself to the terms of the mandates that I received. Because, first, that was the right and legal thing to do, and second, I did not want my participation to be a cause of embarrassment or reprisal by the governments who invited me in to do the job. So, that was not a part of my function.
You should be clear that in the negotiations that we had, Sinn Fein and its counterparts on the other side, what are known in Northern Ireland as the Loyalist Parties, were participants. They were genuine political parties. The affiliated paramilitaries, the IRA on the Nationalist side and its several counterparts on the Unionist side, were not present in the talks. So, I didn’t deal with the IRA or the Loyalist Parties. I dealt with the Sinn Fein and the other leadership.
Now, it has-- it has contended, and I think it is accepted as true, that many of the leaders of those political parties were, themselves, also members of the paramilitary groups. But their presence in the discussions was in their capacity as political leaders, not in their capacities as paramilitary leaders.
KEVIN CULLEN: Right here.
Q: Senator Mitchell, from ’93 to 2003, I actually lived in County Derry, so I’d like to thank you personally for all your efforts for its peace.
SEN. GEORGE MITCHELL: Thank you.
Q: My question is that while the assembly was up and running, Sinn Fein’s head of administration was also a British agent. I’d like to-- your opinion as to whether if the Dennis Donaldson affair had never happened, do you think the assembly would still be up and running right now?
SEN. GEORGE MITCHELL: That’s one of those questions to which the answer will never be known, but there will be a lot of speculation about whether or not that would have occurred particularly, given the extraordinary circumstances which led to the-- as you obviously are very knowledgeable-- led to the collapse of the assembly and the continuing suspension that has occurred.
We do know, of course, that the British government, for many years, maintained a very active and aggressive program of penetration and surveillance. It’s the very thing, of course, which we now so fervently urge on our administration, with respect to what we perceive to be groups that threaten the United States.
And Donaldson represented the public face of what was a-- a massive and, I think, probably to a significant degree, successful effort to engage in such penetration.
And it’s difficult to know because, within the British government, there was disagreement on how to proceed. That there were allegations when I was there that some segments of what’s called the “security apparatus”, special branch and others, disagreed with the stated policy of the labor(?) government, and were taking actions which were contradictory to the policies of the government.
KEVIN CULLEN: Tell them what happened to Martha Pope.
SEN. GEORGE MITCHELL: Yes, that’s a-- It’s a truly incredible story, yes. It’s-- My chief of staff when I was in the Senate was a woman named Martha Pope. There was an interesting-- My first day when I went and met with the Unionists, when I first went over there, they were very much opposed to my participation. And part of the case against me was that the chief-- my chief of staff was named Pope.
[laughter]
And she’d been with me for about 15 years. And they said, “Well, what religion is she?” And I said, “I don’t know.” Well, of course, not one of them believed it. It was-- It really-- It was intellectually impossible for them to believe that a person who was my chief of staff who had worked for me for 15 years was of a religion which I was unaware, because it’s simply so alien to their whole practice.
That got us off on the wrong foot, because they felt that I was lying to them when I told them I didn’t know what her-- It turned out-- I went back and asked her. I said, “Are you religious?” She said, “Yeah, I’m a Methodist.” So, I ...(inaudible) back a little bit with that.
Q: Thank you. Sorry for the tough question.
SEN. GEORGE MITCHELL: No, thank you. It was a good question.
KEVIN CULLEN:
Q: Senator Mitchell, I want to thank you again for being here, and thank you for all your hard work for peace, and I hope members of my generation have the courage to follow in your footsteps in some way.
My question is this: did you see your role as a mediator evolve at all over the 22 months?
SEN. GEORGE MITCHELL: Yes.
Q: And did you contract and expand? And were there times when you felt like the process was on the brink of utter failure? And at those times, what did you call upon in your background, or in your inspiration, to overcome those times?
SEN. GEORGE MITCHELL: It changed over time in one fundamental respect. When I first began the process, I served almost entirely as a neutral arbiter. And the most influential aspect of my experience for that had been my work as a federal judge. I was essentially serving as a judge, trying to establish order in the court, trying to create a context in which they could have a serious discussion.
I really wasn’t involved in any mediation, because there was nothing to mediate. I learned very quickly, for example, that in Northern Ireland the dramatic walkout is a standard part of the process. You make a statement, you denounce your opponent in the most vigorous terms, then you take the heaviest book you can find, slam it down, and you get up and walk out.
KEVIN CULLEN: It’s always marching(?) season.
SEN. GEORGE MITCHELL: Then the other side of it is I’ve got-- [side remarks]
SEN. GEORGE MITCHELL: Really, that's how I started. In a certain sense, although I didn’t realize it at the time, the length of the process and this judging helped me tremendously. Because the mistrust that existed at the beginning gradually began to fade as they saw that I was making my rulings sort of calling them as I saw them, without regard to which side and so forth.
They-- Most of them were not lawyers, but they liked litigation sounding things. So, they would constantly use words like “indictment” and “bill of threat” and so forth and so on. Whereas there were no rules, but I sort of made them up as I went along, and made pronouncements. I even made a couple of written rulings.
But by the time we got to the end of the process, when I-- I was given what ultimately was the most important thing I did was to draft the agreement.
Although it was in their words-- And I told them there was no Mitchell plan. It was going to be their plan. Nonetheless, the process of deciding what went in and what didn’t go in was enormously substantive. And by then, I could tell they all really trusted me.
And so, in a sense, having to judge it for a while and having it go on so long was very helpful. But by then, I shifted from a neutral arbiter to an aggressive advocate. And I spent the last two weeks trying very hard to persuade them to agree to what we laid forth. And now, it took a lot of changes, a lot more negotiation, but there was a drama-- that was a complete change from what I did when I began the process.
I didn’t really tell them the story about Martha Pope that you had in mind.
KEVIN CULLEN: I know.
SEN. GEORGE MITCHELL: So, let me go back and tell them, because it is an interesting story. On Thanksgiving Day, or Thanksgiving weekend, in 1997, the front page of the Sunday tabloid papers in both London and Belfast, and I think Dublin, carried huge stories-- I mean huge. The whole front page. And the next day, the New York Post had a full front page story in which an allegation was made that Martha, my administrative-- my top assistant, was having an affair with Gerry Kelly who was an IRA member and a negotiator in the process.
And it caused a huge, enormous reaction. ...(inaudible) writes, “Sex gums up the talks” or something like that. And, of course, I was completely shocked when I saw it. And so, I called Martha, and I asked her if it’s true. She said, “Absolutely not.” She said, “It isn’t.”
Well, it turned out that the British had this extensive surveillance operation on all of the IRA guys. And they had followed Kelly into the Republic of Ireland. Talk about violating treaties or something. And they had bugged, I guess you would say, a tryst that he was having with an American woman.
In and the course of, I guess, during their rest periods, they were discussing issues, and they were discussing the talks in Northern Ireland.
So, somebody in the British services leaped to the conclusion that this was Martha. And it was then leaked-- I’m not sure how-- but to the press, and the press picked it up and made this huge story.
Well, their libel laws are much different from ours. And these papers sort of-
- I think they kind of have a reserve that’s the cost of doing business. So, on Monday, she hired a lawyer, and they wrote a letter of threatening action.
And on Friday of that week, they settled the case. They paid her a very substantial sum of money, and they ran a retraction in the following Sunday’s paper, all in one week. Now, of course, the retraction was this long on page 32, but it was a really incredible experience.
And when I went to the then British secretary of state and summoning all the indignation that I could, demanded to know what had happened, he said, “Well, of course, we can’t discuss intelligence matters.”
[laughter]
KEVIN CULLEN: Martha got the first piece dividend, as I recall.
SEN. GEORGE MITCHELL: Yes.
KEVIN CULLEN: Right here.
Q: Yes, Senator Mitchell, thank you again for your presentation. It was extremely detailed and complete. And, Kevin, your questions, as always, were great. My question refers to the relationship between making peace at the top; the diplomats, the politicians such as-- were there in the negotiations with you, their relationship with civil society.
And I recall President Clinton’s visit to Northern Ireland in 1995 created huge hope in civil society, that they would have a piece of the action in building a new Northern Ireland.
I’m wondering if you could comment on whether or not you think enough was done subsequent to that, and even up to the present day, to involve all the various aspects of civil society: trade unions, churches, schools, et cetera, in trying to build a sustainable peace and tackling the very difficult problem of sectarianism.
SEN. GEORGE MITCHELL: A lot was done. In retrospect, not enough, but there was a substantial effort made by people of good will on both sides. And everything in life is relative.
I didn’t think it was much until I went to the Middle East. And, tragically, the conflict there has evolved in a way that has significantly reduced the kind of cross community initiatives which you described, and far less than existed in Northern Ireland.
In fact, in the report of the commission which I chaired the Middle East, we strongly encouraged a major affirmative effort by the respective governing bodies-- the government of Israel and Palestinian authority-- to encourage and support, because it takes a great deal of individual effort and courage in the Middle East to engage in that kind of activity. Frankly, less so-- more so than would be required in Northern Ireland.
So, while I think that not enough was done in Northern Ireland-- and I don’t think the governments did as much as they could have-- it was a very significant factor, and continues to be a significant factor, and in the end, probably with economic growth, will be the principle pillars on which reconciliation will be built over time.
KEVIN CULLEN: Folks, I know we have a lot more people who want to ask questions. Unfortunately, the good people at the Kennedy-- the library-- have essentially said to me with the great barman at JJ Foley’s, Jerry Foley’s, says to his crowd every night: “You don’t have to go home, but you can’t stay here.” So, with that, I’d like to thank George Mitchell.
[applause]
John, do you want to come up? John? And goodnight.
END OF INTERVIEW