Learning from the realpolitik of peace agreements

Recent breakthroughs

Two of realpolitik's most recent breakthroughs are Northern Ireland's Good Friday Agreement – struck 25 years ago last month – and the Oslo Accords, which are 30 years old in September.

Both highlight the challenges associated with fragile agreements, which endure for extended periods but fail to achieve lasting peace, or fully-functioning political stability.

They are important cases in their own right. But their significance also extends beyond their specifics to inform and influence similar agreements.

Good Friday Agreement

There were elaborate preparations for the silver jubilee of the Good Friday Agreement, but they could not conceal the lasting underlying crisis between its two main parties.

Read more: Northern Ireland's flawed but lasting peace

It ended bloody sectarian violence that had lasted for three decades. But it did not eradicate the deep-seated animosity between the Protestant majority – who support Northern Ireland's union with the United Kingdom – and the Catholic minority, who seek separation from the UK and reunification with the Republic of Ireland.

Fragile endurance

The peace it brought and its endurance for over 25 years are significant achievements. But political tensions have persisted, not because the underlying issues were insurmountable, but because the leaders of both sides failed to make genuine efforts to fully address the root causes.

A lingering mutual hatred between the two communities hinders fully effective peaceful co-existence between them. And wherever hatred remains, it acts a volatile force with the potential to reignite conflict.

With such problems so deeply embedded, it is impossible for mediators to phrase agreements strongly enough to provide a remedy.

Their task becomes more difficult, and the agreement more fragile, if there is no comprehensive attempt to address the primary contentious issue and instead it is, in effect, postponed.

In the case of Northern Ireland, the majority's desire to remain in the UK was appeased.

The Brexit factor

And so, as mutual hatred continued, the scene was set for a fresh dispute between the sides over new trade rules after the UK voted to leave the European Union.

This post-Brexit crisis has crystallised the disagreements between the two sides and the subsequent stand-off between them has paralysed the power-sharing government set up for Northern Ireland by the Good Friday Agreement since February 2022.

A failure to replace mutual hatred with the values of tolerance, coexistence, and the acceptance of each other has, in the end, revealed the limits of the breakthrough.

Oslo Accords

Celebrations over the third decade of the Oslo Accords – which were supposed to bring peace between Israel and the Palestinians – are certainly harder to justify and even unfathomable.

The conflict has escalated significantly since then.

Meanwhile, little remains of the accords, other than the physical structures of a Palestinian Authority which is devoid of any real authority.

These remaining structures now serve as a sombre reminder of a deal that has significantly eroded over time, particularly since the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who signed the accords in November 1995.

Both parties have contributed, in their ways, to the accords' steady decline. Most Israeli governments have actively undermined the accords, culminating in the rise of the current government, the most extremist in its history.

Meanwhile the chronic division among Palestinians and their resulting internal conflicts has weakened the PLO, the party with a vested interest in the agreement's success.

It means the opportunity to build on the fragile foundations provided by the accords has been lost, while those opposed to the agreement have been emboldened.

Divisions among Palestinians means their once-effective and once-organised resistance, with political recognition in the accords, has become limited to only ineffective, violent reactions in the West Bank and military escalations from the Gaza Strip, which cannot endure further devastation.

Ability to endure but fragility remains

The Good Friday Agreement and the Oslo Accords show that while fragile peace agreements can endure for a significant period, they also remain vulnerable in the long term.

But generalisation based on such specific cases needs to be approached with caution. Some fragile agreements possess factors that can be addressed or mitigated, and circumstances may arise that motivate both parties to maintain them.

Common interests that necessitate cooperation and reduce the impact of mutual animosity can contribute to the longevity of agreement. Sometimes, it can be easier to achieve breakthroughs between parties from different countries rather than internally.

Northern Ireland's Good Friday Agreement was not the first attempt to settle internal European conflict. The clash between Catholics and Protestants has a long history in various countries.

Fragile agreements have successfully endured and settled such disputes, benefiting from religious reform that addressed the underlying hatred which remains a threat to the stability of the Good Friday Agreement.

Neither are the Oslo Accords the first such agreements in the Middle East. They followed the Egyptian-Israeli peace agreement signed in 1979. It was fragile initially and was rejected by most Arab countries, receiving only tacit support from others.

But it lasted and paved the way for the signing of subsequent agreements as the parties persevered with the agreement. It also opened the way for subsequent peace treaties, including between Jordan and Israel in 1994.

The fate of the Oslo Accords cannot be regarded as a definitive indicator for regional agreements, just as the Good Friday Agreement does not dictate the destinies of internal arrangements.

Fragile peace agreements do not share a singular future; their outcomes are influenced by the nature of the agreement, the surrounding circumstances, and the changes that unfold after they are signed.