Stephen Goss: President Connolly’s visit to Northern Ireland held out hope for a future that could weaken the peace

Dr Stephen Goss is a freelance historian, lectures in history and politics in London, and is a Conservative councillor in Reading.

Last week the Republic of Ireland’s recently installed President, Catherine Connolly, visited Northern Ireland.

Since the 1990s, there has been nothing unusual about Presidents popping across the border to encourage peace and negotiation, to cement peace and consociationalism, or talk about peace and reconciliation. In keeping with this, President Connolly’s visit duly included, amongst several other appointments: ‘Youth Action Northern Ireland’s Peace and Reconciliation Centre’; a reception for ‘Women in Community Leadership’; the ‘Black Mountain Shared Space’; and no doubt deliberately, both the Museum of Free Derry (describing the Civil Rights Movement and Bloody Sunday) and the Siege Museum (telling the history of the Siege of Londonderry during the Glorious Revolution).

Yet President Connolly’s visit was rather different. Firstly, it was longer than any of her predecessors, lasting an unprecedented three days. Secondly, she had declared in her inauguration speech that her initial official visit would be to Northern Ireland. In it she stated:

“I look forward to paying my first official visit to the North and meeting with people from all communities and celebrating the rich heritage and traditions of all who live there. I am particularly conscious of Article Three of the Constitution, which sets out in detail the firm wish of the Irish people, the Irish nation to have a united Ireland, albeit in the conditions set out very clearly in the Article on consent. As President, I will foster an inclusive and open dialogue across the island in a manner that highlights and recognises our similarities and respects our differences.”

President Connolly paid lip service to respecting differences and consent, but chose to emphasise Irish unification. As well she might, given that she asserted in her election campaign that Irish unity was a ‘foregone conclusion’ and that she would serve as a voice to promote it.

Contrast her remarks with those of her immediate predecessors. In Mary Robinson’s inauguration address in 1990, she explicitly reached out to Northern Ireland with a message of friendship and reconciliation. She pledged to extend the hand of friendship and love to both communities in the ‘other part of the island’, doing so ‘with no strings attached, no hidden agenda’, and to encourage mutual understanding and tolerance across traditions.

Mary McAleese, at her inauguration – unsurprisingly, as the only Northern Irish President to-date, elected during the Peace Process (1997) – made Northern Ireland and the theme of reconciliation central. She asserted that ‘building bridges’ would be the defining theme of her term, rooted in the idea of overcoming divisions on the island. The bridge across the River Boyne – of 1690 Battle fame – is now named after her… She honoured the work of peacemakers on both sides, insisting that no side has a monopoly on pain, and invited people to work in partnership to build an Ireland where differences are met with generous respect.

At neither of his inaugurations did Michael D. Higgins feel the need to mention Northern Ireland at all.

Both Marys emphasised friendship, inclusive recognition of all communities, and the moral necessity of moving away from violence toward mutual understanding and a shared future. They framed the President’s attitude not as political pressure but as a human and moral appeal for healing and partnership on the island.

While in Northern Ireland the new President made two speeches of note. One in the new Belfast School of Art Building and the other at the Guildhall in Derry. It is quite clear from both efforts she should not attempt to extemporise (or try and read without her glasses), but the scripted content is worthy of note. President Connolly proclaimed:

“Northern Ireland now represents a beacon of light to the world in how decades-long conflict can be resolved and reconciliation fostered… We can and should take real pride in the success of the Good Friday Agreement [sic], knowing that this is recognised far and wide as a model for peaceful resolution of conflict.”

This column has previously warned against peace in Northern Ireland as a ready-made template for ending intractable violence elsewhere. The President went on to say ‘I look forward to viewing John Hume’s Nobel Peace Prize, shared with David Trimble’.

The Nobel Peace Prize in 1998 was – rightly – awarded jointly. David Trimble was not some addendum. There would not have been an agreement were it not for Trimble’s bold leadership and success in persuading the unionist majority.

Following her remarks at the Guildhall in Derry – which unduly (and repetitively) focussed on the architecture and functionality of the building – Connolly was criticised by the DUP MP for East Londonderry, Gregory Campbell. Campbell complained that she had not once referred to the city as Londonderry, bemoaning it as a great insult and ‘a missed opportunity for reconciliation’.

As usual the DUP have made an obdurate objection thereby making unionism look petty. Yet there is a serious point to be made.  Unlike the ‘spirit of the Good Friday Agreement’ so often asserted, parity of esteem is not an abstract idea; it is one of the fundamental principles of the Agreement.

Both the British and Irish governments committed to exercise their authority in Northern Ireland with rigorous impartiality. Last year Dublin re-iterated this, stating that its approach to Northern Ireland would ‘continue to be built on trust, parity of esteem, and respect’. It was understood by negotiators and by subsequent governments that parity of esteem would be more than a slogan; it would be a safeguard against the triumphalism that comes from treating one community’s constitutional goals as inevitable.

President Connolly’s choice of emphasis (framing Irish unity as a ‘foregone conclusion’) risks unsettling that carefully calibrated balance. Parity of esteem depends not just on formal recognition of rights, but on disciplined language that treats different constitutional aspirations as equally legitimate in the present. It requires restraint from those who speak with authority, because any suggestion that one outcome is inevitable makes the other community feel undermined and irrelevant.

By contrast, British governments (particularly the current one which seems bent on giving away sovereign territory) have long understood that neutral language is essential to upholding parity of esteem in practice. No British Prime Minister – and certainly not the King – would describe continued union with Great Britain as inevitable or a certain conclusion while visiting Northern Ireland. Nor would they publicly assert that another constitutional outcome is a fait accompli. Their public rhetoric consistently reflects the Agreement’s emphasis on consent and parity of esteem, even on contentious issues.

The President’s own words therefore provide the most appropriate standard by which her visit should be judged. Connolly told her audience in Belfast, ‘we won’t always agree. We will have different perspectives and, of course, different aspirations for the future. All of those perspectives and aspirations are legitimate’. If that is so, then legitimacy must apply not only in theory but in practice, and not only to aspirations she personally favours. Parity of esteem is hollowed out the moment one constitutional future is treated as settled while another is implicitly framed as on borrowed time.

If President Connolly does not recognise this, she will do more damage than good.