Negotiating a Settlement in Northern Ireland, 1969-2019: From Sunningdale to St Andrews by John Coakley Jennifer Todd (review)

Abstract

Negotiating a Settlement in Northern Ireland, 1969–2019: From Sunningdale to St Andrews, John Coakley and Jennifer Todd (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020), 624 pages. ‘This is about principled compromise, not compromised principles’ (John Hume) What is commonly referred to as the Northern Ireland problem has a triple aspect. It comprises the relationship between the unionist and nationalist communities within the North, the relationship between the unionist minority and the nationalist majority on the island of Ireland and the relationships between the institutionalised political entities and communities in Ireland and those on the mainland of the United Kingdom. Each of these links has the capacity to affect the others and, in the past, has often done so in a negative way. Of the three sets of connections, there is little doubt that the most important one, the prime cause, the dynamic which impacts most strongly for better or worse on the other two, is the interaction between the two traditions within Northern Ireland; there the problem is most acute, there the seeds of a resolution must be sought as a priority. Yes, the totality of relations is basic, yes, all aspects of the interlocking difficulties must be tackled together, but without some grounds for positive developments in the North, the other relationships are likely to remain fraught. To say this is not new, it is description rather than analysis; was it Hugh Munro who said years ago, ‘If Northern Ireland worked, there would be no need for Northern Ireland’? The present workmanlike and thorough study is presented by two academic researchers with a proven track record in the Department of Politics at UCD and within the Institute for British–Irish Studies. John Coakley is now Professor at Queen’s University Belfast and Jennifer Todd is Professor Emerita at UCD. This volume will undoubtedly become a standard work of reference for future students of the Troubles. It is not a short read. It includes a selection of basic documents, 25 in all; a 12-page bibliography with over 250 other books and studies listed; and at its core, edited extracts from witness seminars and interviews with some of the politicians (9) and senior civil servants (18), from Dublin, London and Northern Ireland, who participated in the discussions and negotiations over the period. This is only one part of the story; a conscious decision was taken not to focus specifically Studies • volume 109 • number 434 217 Review Articles on relations between the more militant parties and the governments. The central section is divided into five chapters dealing in chronological order with Sunningdale, the 1985 Agreement, the Downing Street Declaration and Framework Documents, negotiation of the Good Friday Agreement and, finally, the partial implementation of that agreement. The book is handsomely produced; the understated jacket image, showing the subtle differences and similarities of le Brocquy’s 1973 Cuchulainn I tapestry complements its major themes nicely. Given its format, I would have welcomed a more detailed and substantial discussion of the scope, value and limitations of oral history. The subject is fashionable, and it is already being debated with specific reference to Northern Ireland in the case of the Boston tapes. It is dealt with in summary fashion on pages 25–26 of the introduction, where the issues, inter alia, of reliability, selection bias and gender imbalance in relation to this study are treated competently, but in broad outline only. The wide range of topics and the large number of participants (65 in the first tranche of interviews and 88 in the second, with more taking part in 6 witness seminars) provide reasonable guarantees but the ‘view from within’, combined with the ever-present temptations towards arcana imperii, require an extra-critical approach which should be fully explained. The use of language At the risk of appearing curmudgeonly, I would also question an over-casual use of language. I admit that the modern usage of ‘differential’as an adjective annoys me; but the words ‘republican’ and, especially, ‘peace’ present more basic problems in relation to Northern Ireland. Republican: it may now be too late to reverse the almost universal practice of commentators and politicians in Ireland, North and South, and in Britain of using...