>>Good morning an welcome to Global Perspectives.

I'm David Dumke.

Today we are joined by the former Taoiseach of Ireland, Bertie Ahern, who served in office for 11 years as Prime Minister of Ireland.

Also, as the president of the European Union.

Welcome to the show.

>>Thank you very much, David.

>>So you are known for a lot of things.

The Irish economic miracle happened when you were when you were Taoiseach but you also oversaw the Good Friday Agreement which finally brought peace to to the island of Ireland after centuries.

It's hard to get the exact date when it started, but you know when it ended.

So I want to know a little about you.

You were elected to Parliament the first time when you were 24 years old.

Did you see yourself playing a historic role in Ireland's history and bringing about peace?

>>No, I didn't.

I was keen on politics from a young age.

My house was very political, but nobody was involved.

Nobody had ever stood my my father or grandfather or, you know, none of that ever stood for politics.

But it was sport and politics every day in the House.

So you you kind of grew up.

I was the youngest of five youngest of six were one died.

But, so you were, well fairly addressed in in politics.

Listen to your older brothers and sisters talk and so but when I was elected, I was more into, sport and community facilities.

I was quite active in them.

I was accountant by profession but I was quite active in trade union politics.

And, you know, I would have been kind of to the left of my party and, and took an interest in Northern Ireland, but more of an interest in about equality legislation, part time workers dealing with the trade unions and employers.

So they were the kind of things I would have been when I was 24 or 25.

I had been involve the union executives and branch secretaries, and from the time I was 18, as a student and so I came from that side rather than see mysel as being a national politician.

>>So what what inspired yo to get more into as you moved up the political ladder, if you will?

>>Yeah, I think I was Minister for Labor twice.

We used to call Minister for Employment, and then I was Ministe for Finance on three occasions.

And I quickly learned that our economic problems were really intertwined with, with the political problems of Northern Ireland.

We had, you know, whe I was Minister for employment, I heard unemployment with almost 20% of the entire labor force out of work.

And we had huge emigration mainly here to the United States and back in the 80s.

So it was quite clear to me that if we didn't find an accommodation or some kind of a solution to the endless troubles that had gone on, kind of well, went on from whenever, but certainly from 68, from 1968.

That we were going nowhere.

So kind of that threw me into spending more of my time trying to understand the problems of the North and unionists, nationalists, loyalists, and Republicans.

And I probably started doing that, you know, from the late 80s.

>>Of course, there have been other Irish politicians who had who had tried to approach some kind of a peace agreemen or accord in Northern Ireland.

When you looked at the failures.

Was that a deterrent or did you did did you say, all right, we need to at least look at this.

And what made you decide that this is something that could be done?

>>Yeah.

Well, I suppose two things happened together.

I met with Tony Blair, all of us for an opposition.

And then we kind of bot were probably based in the march in the media at home.

People saw us as potentials, and he was a bigger potential than me He had a big majority coming up.

I think I, I, we said, well we should have a look at this.

And if we both get elected, both of us were young, early 40s, that it was worth to go and that we could buil a relationship between Ireland, and England that was different to what had been there, and we might get somewhere.

And then I think that that was the first thing.

And then the second thin we started to believe in that, you know, the conflict could never end.

So the difference with the two big attempts that had been made previously that were not what was, was not inclusive.

They did not include the people who were actually engaged in the violence.

So we decided, listen, we have to talk to the IRA.

We have to talk to the loyalists or to their party.

The political parties.

And that was a big change.

>>Was it was it hard for you to to to talk to those who who had been in th loyalist camp and even fighting in the loyalist camp, or to talk to thos who were in the nationalist camp who actually wanted to reunify Ireland to a more in line with with your party's traditional beliefs?

>>Yeah.

I mean, the thing is, while it was more in line with the tradition, believe because of the cycle of violence, yo couldn't really deal with them.

And there was isolation and some follow for years.

So there was no re-engagement at the first meeting.

The trouble started in 68.

The first meeting was 88, an that was just a brief meeting.

So nothing really happened for for 20 years.

So there was no real engagement with the people involved in violence.

But Tony Blair and I convinced ourselves that if we were to make progress, sovereign governments just can't bring in everybody who's involved in violence and who believe in killing people.

But we we said, well, if they commit to ceasefires and to moving towards a political settlement without violence, that might be a way o of bringing them and others in.

Now, that was a tall order.

But, you know, I could be here all day explaining that.

But, I mean, that was our logic that we had to.

It had to be.

So we said we had two principles.

One, that we should make a proces that was inclusive as possible, and then secondly, shall be as comprehensive as possible.

That we should we shouldn' just try and stop the violence.

We should deal with the underlying causes.

And that brought in you know, prisoners, changing the legislation getting the army off the street, you know, because Northern Ireland was a relatively small place, but it had literally ten of thousands of of military and, you know, part tim military and part time police.

And so it was an enormous public sector pay bill just for security.

>>How important was the role of the United States in this process?

Obviously.

I mean, you've you've I've heard you talk about this before.

You're obviously a relationship with Tony Blair matter, but your relationship with Bill Clinton also.

>>Yeah.

And and I think even befor that, you know, when John Hume, when I was a young guy elected to Parliament first, I think my first visit was, was to, back in the early 80s was to meet Tip O'Neill, to meet Ted Kennedy.

We've met, Mr.. Both President Bush, as vice president at that stage and you know, as Jimmy Carter was they had been expressing interest and support even before.

He then became quite active and came many times when he was no longer president.

So, so that American involvement had been there.

What's really changed, I think, when, when Bill was president, that when we started making tall calls and saying, listen we want to bring the Republicans in and the State Department, of course, naturally enough, I don't criticize him.

They said, you know you're not going to start this.

And he made those calls and, and of course, Jean Kennedy Smith, was in Dublin as ambassador.

So, you know, you get that funny set up where you had a Clinto young guy, Blair the young guys.

Yeah.

Jean Kennedy Smith in Dublin, Ted Kennedy all been unde the wings always anti-violence.

Very anti, anti the I.R.A.. So you know we had a kind of a group.

But America to answer your question I mean America was crucial American involvement and Bill in particular but George Bush continued that on and it was it was that kind of support to when you needed us, it wasn't just a Saint Patrick's Day.

It was you know, whenever we needed it.

And we got that.

I mean, there was never a time that we felt in the peac process that we were isolated, that we were not getting the backup was necessary.

And then, you know, I think is the the American I've always said that America should be very proud and very of their role in the peace process, because there's not many peace processes that work around the world.

Unfortunately.

I've been involved in lots of them that have gone wrong.

But, Americ should be very proud of this one because they stuck with it.

>>I want to talk to yo about some of your work on peace after the Good Friday Agreement.

But when you.

But one more question on the Good Friday Agreement that was concluded in 1998, when you're signing, do you do you appreciate the moment you're signing that this is a historic document for Ireland?

>>No.

To be honest, I always remember that day is unfortunately, that week coincided with my mother passed away suddenly.

And so that didn't help because.

But anyway, you have to do your job.

And, you know, we got on with it.

But when we finished, we we went through, you know, a build up of several weeks because when, when Mitchell kind of said to Clinton, listen, I'm out of here.

I've given my time to this, I have a baby at home, and, wife had said, well, you know, try and finish this and bring it to a conclusion.

And so he said, listen, we have a month, to get this, get your act together.

And he was right to do tha because it was going around in the mulberry bush.

So that meant that we were under a big pressure for a month.

So it was almost every day.

And, you know, we went through periods where it was, you know, 2 or 3 nights nearly nonstop.

And the last week was it was nonstop.

So I think when we got across the line, we kind of I think we all just said, listen, we got there.

We knew it was going to be a hard job implemented.

But I don't think any of us realize, the, the, the enormous effect of what have since I've.

Because reall when we signed that agreement, I know with lots of little problems, ups and downs of the executive and all that.

So the killing almost stopped entirely, which, you know, even to this day amazes me that, you know, you could go from a position of 30 years of nonstop butchering and slaughter by all sides, and then, it ends, almost entirely.

And and has remain that way now for, for what, 28 years?

>>So you left as as Taoiseach in 2008, but you've continued to work on peace process, not just in Ireland, which you continue to be involved in.

Obviously, you're talking-- >>Yeah.

>>In Florida right now about the importance of, of working on and, and, conflict transformation.

But you've done this elsewhere in the world.

Tell us a little bit about your work.

Some of your work.

>>As soon as I left, I joined up with the World Economic Forum and Conflict Resolution.

So not dealing with economics, dealing with conflicts.

And I did a few years with that.

And that's led m and into most of the conflicts, you know, from from from Africa.

Then I, I've, I spent, I was involved with the Basque Country with ETA.

We got that to a successful conclusion, worked with Kof Annan and that and, Gerry Adams and some of the others that were involved in the North, worked on Papua New Guinea, where they had a horrendous conflict for it wasn't known much around the world and certainly was known in Ireland for, you know, 27,000 people died and seven year period in a small area.

Which if you multipl that into a European or American figures, it's just horrendous.

And then my job there was to, to work on a new constitution to try and bring an end to the conflict.

So and, and I, I did in the early part I was involved in the Maidan in that day at the start of the conflict in Ukraine 2014, 2018.

I was involved with Cyprus, in Turkey.

I'm still involved on the Kurdish side.

So I've been engaged in, in many of the conflicts.

And, you know, one of the interesting thing in Ireland in the last 20 years, practically every conflict zone in the world, come back to see us and, we had the George Mitchell conflict resolution, department and Queen's University, which I'm adjunct professor.

And so you're meeting these groups all the time.

Now, to be frank, some of them we can give advice to, some of the conflicts are s totally different and complex.

All they can do is just kind of, you know, engage in the debate and discussion.

But the interesting thing is, David, that even when the conflicts are entirely different and the historic perspectiv is usually absolutely different, there are always similarities are always things about policing and, rights and parity of esteem and prisoners and decommissioning of arms.

So in all of these, conflicts you see the, the same problems that, that come up and, and of course, you have to each time you have to get imaginative solutions.

And it depends on th leaderships in these countries, whether they know there's always the first question I ask, are the people involved prepared, for change?

Or is the status quo, status quo acceptable to them?

Are they happy that their people are being butchered and slaughtered?

And are do they really want to find that and that?

If you want to find an end game, then I think people can help people like me.

And, you know, people who've been involved in peace work can help if if they just want to continue on, you're wasting your time.

And and I have faced with, I've, back in some places in Africa I've met leaders and who said, well, listen, really the best solution here is just to eliminate the other side.

You know, that you, you, you know-- >>One way to solve a conflict.

You know, you're wasting your time.

And so you have to see what the parameters are of the individuals and what their priorities and what their values are.

But listen, well, we've made some progress.

And I think the Good Friday Agreement ha has been a reasonable template.

I wouldn't overstate it, of of what you can d in different parts of the world.

>>You've talked, of course when you're talking about Tony Blair and, you know, and, and some of your other work about the importance of leadership in leading towards a peace among the political leaders.

But how important is it to have the people involved?

And that's one side of the question.

The other is, in your experience, is it is it much easier when the people are more ready for peace than the leaders, or you need the leaders to help prepare the people?

>>Yeah, I think you normall find that the people want peace.

They, they there'll always be an element who are led, by the rhetoric.

And the rhetoric can be very damaging.

Then when we had people in Northern Ireland, which you, you know, from yo your good knowledge, who, who, who incites violence and incited bitterness and hatred and, you know, emotion change along the way.

But it would have been better if they changed about 20 years earlier.

A lot of people would have been alive.

But you do need the leaders.

But funnily enough, you know, I give you one very goo example, Chris Patten of Chris Patten of Hong Kong and Tory Party fame and, you know, a very, very good politician and tactician.

He we asked him to com to Northern Ireland soon after Good Friday Agreement to deal with the problems of policing and to see how we can change, the old policing, because even people who are anti-violence on the Republican nationalist side have no time for the policing.

So we asked him and what he did was, rather than sit down, write a report in London, which he could have done, because he's a very good writer.

He's had so many books published now, but he went around, you know, to church hall meetings, community hall meetings, and listened to the people, listened to the people who had widows of people who had been killed in the troubles, who were members of the security forces and the people who serve in the IRA, peopl who were in the loyalist groups.

And he listened to, you know, spent a winter, listening to going around, meeting, meetings, meeting, and then, decided that, you know, you write a report that moves to the center to an entirely new kind of police force, and it an extraordinary it has worked out, I would like to say 100%, but not far off it.

And, you know, it shows you and that was carrying the people.

That wasn't the politicians.

If he had spent his time talking to the rest of us and talking to the political system, I'd say he'd be still there.

But, you know, listening to the ground, listen to the people, listen to their views, listen to what they had suffered, where they saw they would be prepared to move for, even though difficult.

And, and and being abl to put that into, into a report which is then put into legislation in a very short time.

It was on the few years and was a really good example of how you how you can end a conflict and sustain it into the future, which is I mean, I've kind of spent the last 20 years working to see tha this is sustained rather than, you know, do a lap of honor of what we achieved because you're always conscious these things can get unstuck.

And I've seen that happening elsewhere.

>>Are you surprised that that that the work has to continue in Northern Ireland and in other places?

I mean, a lot of people want to have peace and just sign it and great it's all done.

Time to move on.

>>Yeah, I am, and it's a bit disappointing to be honest.

But I think what it does sho and is that you have to hand it on to the next generation, that you have to bring a new generation of leaders, new people, innovative ideas, with the graces or respect, people of my age have been through this and at it for a long time.

You know, you're you're not full of sparks, bright sparks of new ideas.

And maybe you can't carry those ideas, you know, that you could hav when you were 40 years earlier.

So.

And I think the crucial thing now is the emerging leaders, you know, new, new people, who have, you know, mightn't have suffered anythin but know of us and heard of us and see all the memorials and all the sights around.

But who would bring a freshness, and, and and new ways on.

And I think what we have to do, we've lost a lot of the key people of a good Friday Agreement already.

They've gone to their eternal reward and, and and I'd love to tell you that they've been replaced by excellent people, but I won't go into that.

But I do think we do need to find the excellent people.

And the excellent people will come from new, young, emerging leaders who understand peace and stability and and future employment and the things that are important in life, like health and education and welfare.

And, you know, a job.

And so so that' that's what we need to do now.

And in many of the conflicts, that's what we need to do.

I don't want to go to the ag profile of a lot of the people of the world, who are in key positions.

But, my honest opinion as a guy who's almost 75, is that, you know, there's time now for a, a new broom.

And whether it's the Middle East or, you know, wherever it is or whether it's the problems of Turkey and and, you know, whether it's, you know, we know we know the difficulties.

And I think you need a new generation.

And I think we need them fast.

>>One of the one of the elements in the Good Friday Agreement and having peace with the North is the economic growth and kind of integrating the economies of North and South Ireland.

And Ireland itself has gone through an economic transformation in the last 30 years, some of it, much of it under under your your tenure in office.

But you you you've face threats from things like Brexit and the UK leaving the European Union and some of the forces in nationalism that aren't limited to just the UK and Ireland, but elsewhere and immigration and some of the responses to some of the populism.

How threatening is that to the Good Friday Agreement?

>>Well, I think that's threatening to everything I thin is threatening to our society.

I mean, the Brexit, the decision on Brexit by the UK, I mean, I did my best at that tim through TV and radio interviews to point out the madness of this.

Probably I was talking about the economic madness and the difficulties it was caused for Northern Ireland, but also for Scotland and, you know, for, for, for the United Kingdom generally.

Now, I wasn't the only one so doing that many of us were doing that we were we were just blown off the surface because you had Farage and, and other people made it al about immigration and emigration and, and the whole debate became a lopsided debate.

And I think the UK is now found out and the people have found out the huge mistake that was.

And but we still have that, you know, you still have this British nationalism, which is rising it's head, you have populist policies all over the place.

Is that good for, for the world?

Is it, is it good for society?

I mean, I spent most of my political life and been the support of the European Union canvas strongly as a young gu for Ireland to to join the EU.

Because I just think, you know, integration and working together and cooperation, I'm a multi nationalist, you know, multilateralism.

And I believe that workin together we can achieve a lot.

And I'm a big supporter of the, and open to debate about how you can reform the Unite Nations and other organization.

But the reality is they're all important organizations and it keeps our world safe.

And, I just I worry about anything that is on doing that because it took a long time to put these things together and a were put together to stop world wars and or to stop conflicts.

You know, 50, 60 years ago, and, and to undo them very quickly.

It's not easy to put them back again.

And I've no doubt in a few years time people will say, you know, what the hell did we do that for?

And it's, it's it's bad politics in my view.

>>How concerning is it for you, the direction of the United States in recent years on things like the EU and free trade and some of these collective security, both economic and physical security, kind of the US drifting away from.

>>Yeah, I feel lik I was brought up and, studied.

And you believed that the America was the, the leader of the free world.

And we were all, I think, in Europe, very comfortable.

But that, did we pay all our way a much as much as we should've for security and for defense.

Even though Ireland was neutral country and not a NATO.

But I mean, I you know, I take all those arguments but what I don't see is, I mean, the the power that United States has wielded in the world has been power because it had that key, crucial role of being maybe the funder, but also, the motivator and and the driver, of what's made the world a better and safer place.

And, I don't think the isolation was.

And that we move with Puti and his policies with President Xi and his policies wit your president and his policies.

I mean, it's all it' all pulling against each other.

And if somebody said it was a G7 meeting, or a G10 meeting, you don't know who's going to turn up.

You don't know.

Will they agree in anything?

Will people be gone home before it starts?

And, you know, all that stuff is, it's just it's just so much away from, multilateral policies that that I believe in.

And of course, people would say, well you're a small country and you benefit from those things and you will but I think the world benefits from those the world has been since the Second World War.

The the world has benefited and and the world has done well out of that.

And when I look at I've been lucky enough to be around the world and, and you have too and you see the, you know, the poor areas of Africa, the African Union what they're trying to do, and, and taking away the education programs, the aid programs, the agricultural programs, the health programs.

I mean, what what what's that doing?

I mean, what what what what's that doing?

And and I still do the same.

Very opposed to all that.

>>Do you see the, the EU stepping into mor of a global leadership position?

>>I think the EU like everywhere you you have to keep on reforming.

And I think they have to and they're still starting their budgetary process now for the next round they're going to have to contribute more.

But no argument with that.

I mean, I take that argument to accept that that argument is made, I think to have to pull together more.

And that's not easy because there's a few people who chip away at the EU.

I suppose that's normal in any organization, but I think they have to become a stronger bloc, far stronger bloc.

I don't think they can sit on the sides and that just the rest of the world, you know, pull away.

So I think, it'll be interesting, you know, in the, in the election, say, between no and the end of, of this decade, which isn't that far away anymore.

Just what kind of leaders emerge and what kind of views have emerged.

But I think th I think the, the argument about, pro-European working close together, you know, integrating more and more, is a, is an argument that people it's a compelling argument.

And if Europe wants to sustain this outfit, it has to have that role.

Bertie Ahern, thank you so much for joining us.

It's a real honor.

>>Thank you very much.

>>We wish you the best of luck and your continued work on behalf of peace.

>>Thank you very much.

Thank you.

>>And thank you for joining us.

We'll see you again next week on another episode of Global Perspectives.