1. SOME NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN PUBLIC DIPLOMACY LESSONS FROM THE NORTHERN IRELAND PEACE PROCESS Colin Irwin Centre for the Study of Ethnic Conflict School of Politics and International Relations Queen’s University Belfast

2. Colin Irwin Centre for the Study of Ethnic Conflict School of Politics and International Relations Queen’s University Belfast

3. BACKGROUND CFR and GAO advocate more polling CFR advocates more listening and genuine dialogue 9 Northern Ireland polls with negotiators Book and reports at www.peacepolls.orgwww.peacepolls.org Macedonia, Cyprus, Israel, Palestine, 2002 Bosnia 2004

4. Not Just Polling Opshal Commission Downing Street Declaration Framework Document Dublin Forum Election to Northern Ireland Forum ‘YES’ Campaign

5. Northern Ireland Parties Unionist - DUP and UUP Loyalist - PUP and UDP Loyalist Paramilitaries - UVF and UFF Centre - Alliance and Women’s Coalition Nationalist - SDLP Republican - Sinn Féin Republican Paramilitaries - IRA

6. INTER-TRACK DIPLOMACY Track One - Political leadership Track Two - Civil society Track Three - The people

7. Track One - Political leadership Each party to the negotiations nominated a member of their team to work with the facilitator on the polls Questions were designed to facilitate the testing of party policies as a series of options or preferences from across the social and political spectrum All questions, options and preferences had to be agreed by all parties as not being partisan or misleading

8. Track Two - Civil society The research was undertaken by independent academics from Queen’s University Belfast The work was funded by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust Detailed reports were given to the parties, two governments and Independent Chair Analysis were published in the local press and more recently on the inter-net It was a joint University, NGO, Newspaper enterprise

9. Track Three - The people A representative sample of the population in terms of age, gender, social class, religious denomination and geographical area Questions ‘pitched’ at what most people could understand most of the time NOT lowest common denominator All relevant issues covered and NO irrelevant issues Results made available to the public without ‘cherry-picking’ Public ‘given a seat at the negotiating table’

10. US practice? - Northern Ireland Since 1998 the State Department has run two polls a year in Northern Ireland but no systematic input from local parties or civil society The National Democratic Institute (NDI) work with willing parties but do not run regular polls in Northern Ireland. However they do include some questions in the State Department polls Fairly simple questions are used with an emphasis on local political profiling as part of a wide ranging poll Results selectively released to press by the State Department/Consulate

11. US practice? - Elsewhere Cyprus polls much the same Israel/Palestine more academic input but little systematic political party or inter-community co- ordination. The work could be characterised as falling into the trap of: ‘Protestant research by a Protestant researcher for a Protestant audience’ NDI and the International Republican Institute (IRI) operate throughout the Balkans on much the same basis as Northern Ireland resulting in a ‘lack of enthusiasm’ for more polling across the region

12. CONSENSUS BUILDING Top down Bottom up Centre out Polarities in

13. Top down Questionnaire design and vicarious discourse between parties who may not even be talking to each other Understanding of the real concerns of the other parties’ electorate Un-real concerns exposed Information on public policy and ‘deals’ disseminated to general public

14. Bottom up Views of public brought to negotiations on key issues The moderating voice of ‘the silent majority’ given expression Public prepared for new policies, ‘a deal’ and/or a referendum

15. Centre out Small centre parties not excluded and given a part to play in the political process Small centre parties given a stronger public voice as parties of moderation Common ground mapped out and defined Compromises mapped out and defined

16. Polarities in Major community based parties are included as they must ‘make the deal’ Major concerns of largest communities defined and explained Extreme parties not excluded and given a part to play in the political process Extreme positions demonstrated to be marginal with little cross community support

17. US practice? Most negotiating practice focuses on the major parties in each community Small centre parties are often ignored Extreme parties are frequently not brought into the political process Public not part of or prepared for ‘deals done behind closed doors’ ‘Real Politic’ power plays not consensus building Deals lack stability of broad consensus

18. THE 9 POLL PROBLEMS 1 - Peace building and public policy 2 and 3 - Procedural 4 - Comprehensive Settlement 5 - Test of Belfast Agreement 6, 7, 8 and 9 - Implementation

19. SKEPTICAL AUDIENCES Parties Electorate Governments International Community

20. The Ulster Unionists Police reform and equality issues are essential to Nationalists and Republicans ‘Steps we need to take to win peace’, Belfast Telegraph, Saturday, January 10th, (1998)

21. The Democratic Unionists Few alternatives to the Belfast Agreement ‘Alternatives to a comprehensive settlement’, Belfast Telegraph, Tuesday, March 31st, (1998)

22. The Social Democratic and Labour Party Time to take seat on Policing Board BBC Northern Ireland, Hearts and Minds, Thursday, September 20th, 2001

23. Sinn Féin Northern Ireland Assembly is a good thing ‘Why Ulster now wants to have new assembly’, Belfast Telegraph, Monday, January 12th, (1998)

24. The Progressive Unionist Party and Sinn Féin Paramilitary activity must end ‘Ceasefires, paramilitary Activity and Decommissioning’, Belfast Telegraph, Wednesday, March 3rd, (1999)

25. Women’s Coalition and Alliance Party of Northern Ireland Not very sceptical

26. The pro-Agreement parties in general Referendum can be won ‘Majority say yes to the search for settlement’, Belfast Telegraph, Tuesday, March 31st, (1998)

27. The Ulster Unionist Council Ulster Unionist electorate more moderate than their Council and party executive ‘Unionism at the Crossroads: What the people say’, Belfast Telegraph, Thursday, May 25th, (2000)

28. Anti-Agreement Unionists Alternatives to the Belfast Agreement have little cross community support What now for the Agreement?, Belfast Telegraph, Wednesday, February 19th, (2003)

29. Rejectionist Irish Republicans United Ireland has little cross community support ‘Little support for SF agenda’, Belfast Telegraph, Wednesday, April 1st, (1998)

30. Rejectionist Loyalists Violence loses votes 'The PEOPLE'S peace process', Belfast Telegraph, Wednesday, February 21st, (2001)

31. UK Government Council of the Isles is a good thing ‘What hope for Council of the Isles?’, Belfast Telegraph, Wednesday, January 14th, (1998)

32. Irish Government Independent cross boarder bodies with executive powers – united Ireland by the ‘back door’ - is unacceptable to Unionists ‘Feasibility and reality of north-south bodies’, Belfast Telegraph, Tuesday, January 13th, (1998)

33. US State Department and President People of Northern Ireland want negotiations for a settlement C. J. Irwin, ‘YES vote for talks’, Belfast Telegraph, Thursday, September 11th, (1997)

34. Irish Americans The Belfast Agreement is acceptable to Sinn Féin C. J. Irwin, 'It's the Agreement - stupid', Irish Times, Friday, February 23rd, (2001).

35. European Community People of Northern Ireland want the Agreement to work ‘93% SAY: MAKE THE AGREEMENT WORK’, Belfast Telegraph, Wednesday, March 3rd, (1999)

36. US Practice? NOT ‘push-down’ – The CFR observed that ‘The imperative for effective public diplomacy now requires much wider use of newer channels of communication and more customized, two-way dialogue and debate as opposed to ‘push-down’, one-way mass communication…. U.S. foreign policy is too often communicated in a ‘push- down’ style that does not take into account the perspectives of the foreign audience or open the floor for dialogue and debate.’ Public opinion – Someone else doing the ‘pushing’

37. METHODOLOGY Getting started - Academic poll and small parties Agree research program - give ‘ownership’ Sample, Ethics, Timing, Publication, Funds Questionnaire - All agreed including terms NOT just simple, across spectrum options NOT other issues, structured to inform Publication - NOT ‘cherry picking’ Transparency - Highest academic standards

38. RECOMENDATIONS

39. Not just more of the same Through the State Department, US AID, NDI and IRI the US probably do more political polling around the world than almost everyone else put together But these polls tend to combine subjects and do not engage locally as much as they could and are rarely open to public scrutiny

40. Specialised polls Specialised polls should be run by people with appropriate political and communication skills as well as public opinion expertise These polls should not be part of wider polls but dedicated research enterprises designed to address matters of particular concern with clear research objectives

41. Work with various parties The work should be undertaken with local input but not with just one academic, political or community perspective When local representatives cannot work together to produce a common piece of work an outside facilitator should be brought in to co-ordinate the research

42. Publish more As much of the work as can be published should be published Make the research available to a wider audience including academics, journalists, and broadcasters for critical review and incorporation into other activities

43. ‘Fire-wall’ For all the reasons made clear in the CFR report create appropriate mechanisms for working with private institutions and companies on a regular basis Establish working relationships that allow distance when appropriate but also allow the State Department to take credit for successes when appropriate – Norwegian Foreign Ministry and the Oslo Peace Research Institute (PRIO) for example