PUBLIC OPINION AND THE POLITICS OF PEACE RESEARCH NORTHERN IRELAND, BALKANS, ISRAEL, PALESTINE, CYPRUS, MUSLIM WORLD AND THE ‘WAR ON TERROR’

Colin Irwin Institute of Governance Queen’s University Belfast and Institute of Irish Studies University of Liverpool

Campbell’s Galvanometer Both US and UK got WMDs wrong Interests and applied social science Political, ideological, economic, religious Data collection, instrument choice and design, data interpretation and theory choice Break the glass and move the needle for desired meter reading Matters of State, war and peace, life and death

Campbell’s adversarial stakeholder “There should be adversarial stakeholder participation in the design of each pilot experiment or program evaluation, and again in the interpretation of results. We should be consulting with the legislative and administrative opponents of the program as well as the advocates, generating measures of feared undesirable outcomes as well as promised benefits”

POLLING AND INTER-TRACK DIPLOMACY Track One - Political leadership Track Two - Civil society Track Three - The people

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

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

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’

POLLING AND CONSENSUS BUILDING Top down Bottom up Centre out Polarities in

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

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

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

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

US/UK 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

US polling in 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

QUESTION DESIGN

Table 1. NI Peace Polls Constitutional Question Rank order from 1 to 81 to 8 Separate Northern Irish State Full incorporation into the British State Continued direct rule (No change) Power sharing and the Anglo-Irish Agreement Power sharing with North-South institutions Joint authority and power sharing Separate institutions for the two main communities Full incorporation into the Irish State

Power sharing with North-South institutions ‘Power sharing with North-South institutions but no joint authority - Government by a Northern Ireland Assembly, power sharing Executive and a number of joint institutions established with the Republic of Ireland to deal with matters of mutual interest. (But these arrangements will not include joint authority between the British and Irish governments).’

Table 2. 1st and 8th Constitutional Choice AllCatholicProtestant 1st Choice British State th Choice British State st Choice Power Sharing th Choice Power Sharing435 1st Choice Irish State th Choice Irish State391257

Preferences 1, 2, 3 and 4

Qualitative 5 point scale ‘Essential’ - You believe this option is a necessary part of a lasting settlement and should be implemented under any circumstances. ‘Desirable’ - This option is not what you would consider to be ‘Essential’, but you think this option, or something very similar to it, is a good idea and should be put into practice. ‘Acceptable’ - This option is not what you would consider to be ‘Desirable’, if you were given a choice, but you could certainly ‘live with it’. ‘Tolerable’ - This option is not what you want. But, as part of a lasting settlement for Northern Ireland, you would be willing to put up with it. ‘Unacceptable’ - This option is completely unacceptable under any circumstances. You would not accept it, even as part of a lasting settlement.

Table 3. Per cent ‘Essential’ and ‘Unacceptable’ AllCatholicProtestant British State ‘Essential’13123 British State ‘Unacceptable’ Power Sharing ‘Essential’334 Power Sharing ‘Unacceptable’ Irish State ‘Essential’14341 Irish State ‘Unacceptable’561090

Table 4. US/NI 1995 Constitutional Question ‘most like to see’ProtestantCatholic British State 486 Local assembly - power sharing 3323 Irish State 233

Local assembly - power sharing ‘A local assembly for Northern Ireland within the UK with power-sharing between local parties’ This option does not include ‘North-South institutions’ and therefore probably exaggerates Protestant support for the ‘Belfast Agreement’

Table 5. US/NI 1998 Constitutional Question ‘preferred’ (acceptable & unacceptable) ProtestantCatholic British State with Direct Rule from London 404 Local assembly - power sharing 2120 Irish State 138

Table 6. US/NI 2003 Constitutional Question (acceptable and) ‘unacceptable’ ProtestantCatholic British State and London Direct Rule 2977 Local assembly - power sharing 2521 Irish State 9442

9 NORTHERN IRELAND PEACE POLLS 1 - Peace building and public policy 2 and 3 - Procedural 4 - Comprehensive Settlement 5 - Test of Belfast Agreement 6, 7, 8 and 9 - Implementation

POLLING AND PUBLIC DIPLOMACY Parties Electorate Governments International Community

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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

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

Macedonia CDRSEE concerned about Albanian insurgency in Macedonia (fYROM) in 2002 Poll to explore problems and solutions Similar results to Northern Ireland Protestants & Macedonians concerned about paramilitaries & decommissioning Catholics & Albanians concerned about discrimination & policing All concerned about elections All agree solutions

Table 7. Causes of Conflict Macedonian per cent ‘very significant’ Albanian per cent ‘very significant’ 1Albanian paramilitaries85Discrimination80 2NLA decommissioning78Macedonian paramilitaries67 3Illegal weapons74Political corruption66 4Organised crime70Economic prospects61 5Political corruption65Failed economy58 24Macedonian paramilitaries13The FA goes too far6

Table 8. Priorities for peace Macedonian per cent ‘very significant’ Albanian per cent ‘very significant’ 1Albanian paramilitaries83Albanian university85 2Rule of law75Full implementation of FA84 3Court independence75Prevent discrimination82 4Free and fair elections72Free and fair elections80 5Return of IDPs72Local government78 24Albanian university2IDP new communities12

Table 9. Fair and free elections ‘Essential’ or ‘Desirable’AllMac.Alb. Cease all violence during elections No political incitement to hatred Pro-active international monitors No media incitement to hatred No police/army/paramilitary in election International monitors now Campaign to vote767488

Table 9 continued. Fair and free elections ‘Essential’ or ‘Desirable’AllMac.Alb. International monitors at poll stations60 International forces at borders International forces at poll stations5051 Police at poll stations425113

No insurgency and successful elections Media publication generated public discourse International community followed up on all policy recommendations First President, Kiro Gligorov, compared questions with those of US contractor EU diplomat critiqued US methods ‘Ethnopoltics’ published ‘Forum’ article Campbell’s ‘adversarial… interpretation of results’

Bosnia and Herzegovina CDRSEE and BBC World Service Trust Good governance All aspects of reform detailed as ‘problems’ and ‘solutions’ as in NI and Macedonia Except for war ‘blame game’ all parties agreed on need for reforms Including constitutional reform

Table 10. Constitutional reform ‘Essential’ ‘Desirable’ ‘Acceptable’ ‘Tolerable’ ‘Unacceptable’ Ess.Des.Acc.Tol.Un. Fewer levels of government Constitutional commission Simplify government Do not duplicate levels Reform through parliament Co-operate to join EU

Table 11. ‘Package’ - All - Bosniak - Serb - Croat Per cent ‘Unacceptable’AllBos.Ser.Cro. B&H As it was before the war B&H regionalised to EU standards B&H with more local powers B&H As it is now B&H with 3 entities for 3 peoples entities of Bosnia & Herzegovina B&H made up of just cantons B&H as many equal federal units B&H as it is now but stronger state Break up of B&H to neighbours

Their country but not their constitution ‘The Dayton Agreement was not designed for state building but to end a war. It ought to be changed, perhaps, but that is not the business of the international community. This issue will be decided by the citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina because it is their country.’ (Paddy Ashdown, 2005) OSCE polling but do not work with parties Public support for reform

Kosovo and Serbia CDRSEE, KosvaLive, BETA 2 polls, Kosovo, Serbs - Serbia, Serb IDPs General issues Serb / Albanian relations Procedural issues Final status issues

Table 12. Kosovo Final Status Per cent ‘unacceptable’ Kosovo Albanian Kosovo Serbs Serbia Serbs Serbia Serb IDPs Integration with Kosovo EU Protectorate Full independence

Table 13. Stay or return to Kosovo under ideal conditions? Per cent ‘Yes’ Kosovo Albanian Kosovo Serbs Serbia Serb IDPs Stay/Return under ideal conditions 83%71%61%

Final Status Negotiations Questions fro Presidents office down, academics, jounalists etc. All at press conferences in Pristina/Belgrade UN negotiating team received report AED given contract to take work forward AED told NOT to include track one politicians by US Mission in Pristina! Who has to make the peace and keep it?

Israel and Palestine Louis Guttman and Israel Institute for Applied Social Research IIAS pioneer peace process monitoring NI/Israel 1987 Smallest Space Analysis study Palestine Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs in 2002 Naomi Chazan and Ghassan Khatib agree project Start on elections but no freedom of association Israel/Palestine research uncoordinated and ineffective between and within both communities Three examples: Jerusalem, refugees, negotiations

The future of Jerusalem December 1999, Arab League International Conference on Jerusalem at Chatham House Jerome Segal, Israeli and Palestinian public opinion for divided city - Proposal rejected UN Resolution 181 and 303 for shared city Israel Palestine Centre for Research and Information (IPCRI) - shared city not option Campbell’s adversarial stakeholder[s] not included - Palestinian negotiators

Refugees and the right of return Right of return in Balkans, Cyprus, Israel, Palestine etc. in international law IPCRI 2001 poll 90% of Palestinians prefer return to compensation Khalil Shikaki 2003 poll up to 90% willing to accept compensation Shikaki discredited by Palestinian NGOs Campbell’s adversarial stakeholder[s] not included - Palestinian negotiators and NGOs

Support for a negotiated settlement Israeli-Jewish attitudes to the Oslo process Time line data These shared values mark the red lines that policymakers cannot cross without risking the total loss of public support, as occurred in summer 2000 when Barak’s far-reaching peace proposals were rejected by the majority including many in the pro-Oslo camp, leading to his government’s collapse. (Hermann and Yuchtman-Yaar, 2002) JMCC similar data and conclusion for Palestinians

adversarial stakeholder[s] and sponsorship This time Campbell’s adversarial stakeholder[s] are not jointly participating ‘in the interpretation of results’ Joint projects ‘token’. Do not work together when they have to Realism for ‘red lines’ needed on both sides Sponsors must make cooperation condition for continued support

Cyprus 1998 Greek-Turkish Forum Istanbul Richard Holbrook v. Senator George Mitchell Greek and Turkish Cypriots want ‘peace poll’ starting with CBMs US initiate their own program of polling but without local input and public diplomacy But results as good as Northern Ireland With EU entry deal is possible TC and GC media do separate polls

Table 14. ‘Package’ Greek & Turkish Cypriot Per cent ‘acceptable’ ‘unacceptable’ ‘preferred’ GCaGCuTCaTCuGCpTCp Partition Bi-zonal weak center Bi-zonal strong center United Cyprus and PR Union S. &Greece - N. & Turkey War to liberate occupied territory1485na 7 Turkey takes control of islandna 2757na7 No change

Table 15. Turkish Cypriot published preferences Per cent Bizonal federation Confederation based on two states Two independent states Integration of the TRNC with Turkey A unitary state Other No idea/no reply3.43.3

Table 16. Turkish Cypriot ‘Hope placed in talks’ in 2000 Per cent Very hopeful4.9 Hopeful21.6 Rather hopeful36.2 Not at all hopeful35.6 No idea/no reply1.7

Table 17. Greek Cypriot ‘Outcome of talks’ in 2002 Per cent Current Cyprus talks will lead to a deadlock64 Current Cyprus talks will lead to a settlement27

Cyprus Lessons Early media polls focused on ‘Problems’ more than ‘Solutions’ Negotiations and referendum fail in 2004 Alexandros Lordos new independent polls UK Foreign Affairs Committee, Wilton Park Conference (Foreign and Commonwealth Office) and UN Security Council acknowledge errors

Wilton Park Conference (FCO) The importance of regular opinion polling was underlined at the conference to indicate public opinion on a range of issues at different stages of the negotiations before the public are asked to vote on the whole package. Experience elsewhere has shown that there is often much more flexibility on the part of the public than politicians believe. (Wilton Park, 2005)

UN Security Council Mr President… And I was interested to learn that an independent bicommunal survey that polled attitudes to potential changes to the UN plan found the encouraging result among grass roots opinion on both sides that it might be possible to make certain changes that would secure majority support for the plan in both communities. (Sir Kieran Prendergast, 2005)

The Muslim World and ‘The War on Terror’ US relations with Muslim World at all time low (2003 Pew Research Centre) US General Accounting Office recommended more polling Currently US State Department do roughly 2 polls a year in each state with a mission NDI, IRI, AED, CFR, etc. etc. Michigan/Yaffe Center recommend as CFR

US Practice? ‘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.’ (Council on Foreign Relations, 2003)

Advise not taken USIP and ESRC grants turned down Also US State Department, UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Home Office Post 9/11 UK Home Office 2x10,000+5,000 But do not explore issues related to Muslim alienation and radicalisation Same error made in Northern Ireland in the 1970s Also do not explore UK and allies foreign policy in the Middle East

The London bombings ‘The threat of international terrorism brings a new dimension to existing issues, and perhaps makes their resolution even more pressing - it does not change them. (Home Affairs Committee, 2005) ‘Hasn’t Sheik Osama bin Laden told you that you will not dream of security before there is security in Palestine and before all the infidel armies withdraw from the land of Muhammed (Ayman al Zawahiri, 2005)

Post 7/7 independent polls 2% ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agreed’ with the 7/7 actions of the suicide bombers (Sky News/CommunicateResearch) 6% said the bombings were justified (Daily Telegraph/YouGov) 1% ‘Western society is decadent and immoral, and Muslims should seek to bring it to an end, if necessary by violence’ (YouGov) 61% ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ ‘Britain’s role in the Iraq war was largely to blame for the London bombings (CommunicateResearch)

NO ‘undesirable outcomes’ Campbell’s adversarial stakeholder[s] NO ‘measures of feared undesirable outcomes’ BBC/MORI - identity and multiculturalism Muslim Voice - Muslim leadership Too little too late ‘Problems’ and ‘solutions’ for both domestic and foreign policy Public enquiry

The West and the Muslim World: A Conflict in Search of a Peace Process Global Market Insite, Inc. (GMI) Muslim Voice UK Internet poll 1000 UK weighted sample 250 Muslim booster sample 100 Jewish booster sample MVUK.co.uk sample still being collected

Complex Global Conflict Domestic and International ‘Problems’ and ‘Solutions’ Islamophobia and the ‘clash of civilizations’ Discrimination and integration The Muslim community Relations between West and Muslim states Extremism and the ‘War on Terror’

Table 18. Support for ‘Plan of Action’ Per centYesNo Don’t Know UK80416 Jewish8767 Muslim9208 Muslim ‘alienated’ 9802

Internet Peace Polls Internet used for hate and violence Internet used for polling and voices of moderation, reason and accommodation Cost and time effective Reform of government programs Not just governments any more NGOs and peace making Europe, Americas, Middle East etc. etc.

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

Peace Polls Golden Rules 1. All the parties to a conflict should draft and agree all the questions 2. All the communities and peoples to the conflict should be asked all the questions 3. All the results should be made public And when done in support of negotiations ‘Dovetail’ negotiations, research and publication together

RECOMMENDATIONS Made to the US State Department at Michigan/Yaffe Center Seminar in 2003

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

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

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

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

‘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

Remedial action More state polling has not improved research For applied research require Campbell’s standards for adversarial stakeholder[s] In design, interpretation & ‘feared outcomes’ WAPOR standard setting for codes of ethics and best practice in respect to peace research Establish NGO to monitor, advise and undertake peace polls as may be required Pollsters can become peace makers

CONCLUSION WE MAKE PEACE WITH OUR ‘ENEMIES’ WE MAKE PEACE RESEARCH WITH OUR ‘ADVERSARIAL STAKEHOLDERS’