1. 1
Introduction
Retrospective – A return to my research question and some additional thoughts
In E-tivity 1, I proposed this research question: “What were the causes for the Good
Friday Agreement to take shape and become ratified in 1998, thus making official the "peace
process" that has, for the most part, pacified hostilities between Protestants and Catholics in
Northern Ireland?” I tried to answer my own question: “A few plausible answers include
exhaustion from the decades-long conflict known as the "the Troubles" and the decision of Sinn
Fein, formerly the political arm (or political wing) of the Provisional Irish Republican Army and
now a leading social democratic party in Ireland, to turn from armed struggle to parliamentary
participation.”
Looking back, I think the two answers I proposed are related. The “exhaustion”,
politically and militarily, from the hostilities which date from the 1960s to the 1990s in Northern
Ireland contributed in part to Sinn Fein’s transition from operating as the Provisional Irish
Republican Army’s political representative to existing as an independent political party. During
the early 1980s, for instance, Sinn Fein successfully ran electoral candidates. Sinn Fein was also
able to commit itself to nonviolent means for securing Irish unification and thus all-Ireland
sovereignty – namely the peace process via the Good Friday Agreement. Ed Moloney, a
journalist and author who specializes in the Troubles of Northern Ireland, documents the
aforementioned transformation of Sinn Fein in Voices from the Grave: Two Men’s War in
Ireland (2010).
Although I think that I have come upon some of the correct answers, I want to look at
other factors aside from the evolution of Sinn Fein and the Provisional Irish Republican Army. In
the above sketch, I already described how military and political exhaustion may have contributed
to Sinn Fein’s abandonment of armed struggle in favor of other means so as to fulfill its political
goals. That same exhaustion could have also led Unionist political and military movements to
consider and use nonviolent methods as well. If that was the case, then there were grounds for
rapprochement between opposing sides, Republican and Unionist, in the Troubles and thus the
peace process and the Good Friday Agreement.
Historical background
Ratified by a democratic vote on the 22nd of May, 1998, the Good Friday Agreement
officially ended the decades-long strife in Northern Ireland known as the Troubles. The Troubles
refer to armed conflict between Republican and Unionist paramilitary forces. While the
Republican side advocated the unification of Northern Ireland with the Republic of Ireland, the
Unionists favored the ongoing sovereignty of Great Britain over Northern Ireland. Given the
irreconcilability of these positions, essentially opposing nationalist visions (one Irish, one
British), conflict was perhaps inevitable. In hindsight, we know conflict broke out. The rest, so
the “cliché” goes, was history.
This conflict, which lasted for almost three decades, began with the repression of
Catholic civil rights demonstrations by the Protest-dominated government of Northern Ireland
and Unionist paramilitaries in the late 1960s. The repressed civil rights movement represented
the collective desire of the sizable Catholic minority in Northern Ireland for political and legal
equality. However, repression amounted to the frustration of nonviolent approaches to attaining

2. 2
full civil rights in a Northern Ireland that was, and remains to this day, British soil. Thus, armed
struggle became a more credible and effective option as groups such as the Provisional Irish
Republican Army became fighting forces not just for the civil rights of Northern Ireland’s
Catholic minority but also for the merger of Northern Ireland with the Republic of Ireland. In
reaction, Protestant paramilitaries such as the Ulster Volunteer Force became more determined to
preserve British sovereignty in the region. In this way, a “cycle of violence” began.
Dynamics of the armed conflict and their implications – The road to exhaustion and, therefore,
the peace process
The battle lines of the Troubles were thus drawn, with the Republicans generally
representing the Catholics and the Unionists generally representing the Protestants. However, as
a side note, these identifications and relationships were not absolute – not all Catholics were pro-
Republican and not all Protestants were pro-Unionist. Given that the conflict was essentially a
“dirty” war between two opposing guerrilla forces, tactics such as car bombs and assassinations
became common. Such tactics underscore, in a genuine way, the “dirty” aspect of a two-way
guerrilla war. For example, Republican and Unionist paramilitary forces executed suspected
informants. Perhaps one of the most infamous cases has been that of Jean McConville, who
became a victim of the Provisional Irish Republican Army in December 1972. As violence from
both sides intensified with little or no sign of abating, the British government deployed its
military for peacekeeping and security purposes.
However, reports surfaced as to collusion between British security forces and Unionist
paramilitaries, despite the official British stance of neutrality. Ultimately, depending on
circumstances and one’s political perspective, the Troubles as a two-way guerrilla war
sometimes became a three-way conflict between Republicans, Unionists, and the British and was
sometimes a conflict with Republicans on one side and Unionists and the British on the other.
Although the British used conventional military means, they were nevertheless dealing with not
just one guerrilla force but two. For all sides of the conflict, then, all signs pointed to a protracted
conflict. Not surprisingly, the longer the conflict, the greater the possibility of political and
military exhaustion for all factions. Despite the apparently irreconcilable nature of Republican
and Unionist political positions, in the 1980s and 1990s the stage became set for the peace
process, of which the Good Friday Agreement became a milestone.
All the above leads me back to my research question, albeit in different wording: How
did the Good Friday Agreement of late 1998 and the peace process it has represented become
realities in such a deeply unlikely political, military, and historical context?
Hypothesis
One answer is apparent: The protracted nature of the conflict and the plausibly resultant
exhaustion contributed to the development of the peace process and the Good Friday Agreement.
Given that leading Republican and Unionist militants such as Gerry Adams found that they could
not keep on fighting without risking moral credibility and popular political support, they had to,
in a sense, turn to other means to wage their struggle. Here, the peace process came in, allowing
Republicans and Unionists to negotiate and to compete in elections. Yet the intention of going

3. 3
“mainstream” via the legislature is also a possible cause in its own right. If armed struggle over
so many years amounted to a deadlock, then perhaps the turn to parliament amounted to a way
forward for both sides. One can also add that at least the peace process allowed for relative
stability in Northern Ireland and thus relief for the British military.
I can sum up my hypothesis as: Military and political exhaustion from the Troubles and
the opportunities which parliamentary politics offer influenced the decision of Republican and
Unionist leaders to establish and participate in the peace process and draft the Good Friday
Agreement.
Methodology and Ideas for a Literature Review
Essentially an amateur historical study by a dabbling lifelong learner in the United States,
the basic method is to find relevant literature. Many books on the Troubles are available –
general histories, specialized volumes on key factions like the Provisional Republican Army, etc.
To take just one previously mentioned example, Moloney’s Voices From the Grave provides a
fascinating glimpse into the Troubles from the perspectives of two men on opposing sides of the
Troubles: Brendan Hughes with the Provisional Irish Republican Army and David Ervine of the
Ulster Volunteer Force. Likewise, there are other volumes of interest, such as Kevin Bean’s The
New Politics of Sinn Fein (2008), Tommy McKearney’s The Provisional IRA: From Insurrection
to Parliament (2011), and Peter Shirlow’s The End of Ulster Loyalism? (2012). Bean and
McKearney trace the evolution of Sinn Fein and the Provisional Irish Republican Army over the
course of the later 20th century. Shirlow writes on the evolution of the Unionist movement over
the same period of time. Taking into account the above works and others, I should be able to
develop a comparative history of Republicanism and Unionism alike which may shed light on
how the peace process came into being. That attempt at analysis amounts to a more specific
method. As for the literature review, the above books would be relevant as I try to sift through
what the authors can agree upon and discern where their interpretations of the Troubles in
general and the evolution of the participating individuals and movements in particular differ.
As for developing a more serious academic study, this effort would entail me
supplementing the existing secondary sources (e.g., books, academic journal articles) with
primary sources such as archival research (British and Irish government and military archives,
newspaper and magazine databases, etc.) and interviews with participants in the Troubles (as was
the case with the ill-fated Boston College Belfast Project). Here, a “mixed methods” approach is
relevant in light of the aforementioned research in archives and interviews – essentially a
multifaceted attempt at qualitative research and analysis. As for the literature review, it involves
me discussing books as well as articles from refereed academic journals. Finally, the data
analysis would require me to compare the conclusions established in the extant literature with the
results of my own research.
References
Bean, Kevin. The New Politics of Sinn Fein. Liverpool University Press, 2008.
McKearney, Tommy. The Provisional IRA: From Insurrection to Parliament. Pluto Press, 2011.

4. 4
Moloney, Ed. Voices from the Grave: Two Men’s War in Ireland. PublicAffairs, 2010.
Shirlow, Peter. The End of Ulster Loyalism? Manchester University Press, 2012.
-----------------------
Version uploaded to Coursera:
Introduction
Retrospective
In E-tivity 1, I proposed this research question: “What were the causes for the Good Friday
Agreement to take shape and become ratified in 1998, thus making official the 'peace process'
that has, for the most part, pacified hostilities between Protestants and Catholics in Northern
Ireland?” I tried to answer my own question: “A few plausible answers include exhaustion from
the decades-long conflict known as the "the Troubles" and the decision of Sinn Fein, formerly
the political arm (or political wing) of the Provisional Irish Republican Army and now a leading
social democratic party in Ireland, to turn from armed struggle to parliamentary participation.”
Although I think that I have come upon some of the correct answers, I want to look at other
factors aside from the evolution of Sinn Fein and the Provisional Irish Republican Army. I
mentioned how military and political exhaustion may have contributed to Sinn Fein’s
abandonment of armed struggle in favor of other means so as to fulfill its political goals. That
same exhaustion could have also led Unionist political and military movements to consider
nonviolent methods as well. If that was the case, then there were grounds for rapprochement
between opposing sides, Republican and Unionist, in the Troubles and thus the peace process
and the Good Friday Agreement.
Historical background
Ratified on the 22nd of May, 1998, the Good Friday Agreement officially ended the decades-
long strife in Northern Ireland known as the Troubles. The Troubles refer to armed conflict
between Republican and Unionist paramilitary forces. While the Republican side advocated the
unification of Northern Ireland with the Republic of Ireland, the Unionists favored the ongoing
sovereignty of Great Britain over Northern Ireland. Given the irreconcilability of these positions,
essentially opposing nationalist visions (one Irish, one British), conflict was perhaps inevitable.
This conflict, which lasted for almost three decades, began with the repression of Catholic civil
rights demonstrations by the Protestant-dominated government of Northern Ireland and Unionist
paramilitaries in the late 1960s. The repressed civil rights movement represented the collective
desire of the sizable Catholic minority in Northern Ireland for political and legal equality.
However, repression amounted to the frustration of nonviolent approaches to attaining full civil
rights in a Northern Ireland that was, and remains to this day, British soil. Thus, armed struggle
became a more credible and effective option as groups such as the Provisional Irish Republican
Army became fighting forces not just for the civil rights of Northern Ireland’s Catholic minority

5. 5
but also for the merger of Northern Ireland with the Republic of Ireland. In reaction, Protestant
paramilitaries such as the Ulster Volunteer Force became more determined to preserve British
sovereignty in the region. In this way, a “cycle of violence” began.
The battle lines of the Troubles were thus drawn with the Republicans generally representing
the Catholics and the Unionists generally representing the Protestants. Given that the conflict
was essentially a “dirty” war between two opposing guerrilla forces, tactics such as car bombs
and assassinations became common. As violence from both sides intensified with no sign of
abating, the British military deployed security forces. All signs thus pointed to a protracted
conflict. Not surprisingly, the longer the conflict, the greater the possibility of political and military
exhaustion for all factions. Despite the apparently irreconcilable nature of Republican and
Unionist political positions, in the 1980s and 1990s the stage became set for the peace process,
of which the Good Friday Agreement became a milestone.
Thus, we can return to the research question: How did the Good Friday Agreement of late 1998
and the peace process it has represented become realities in such a deeply unlikely political,
military, and historical context?
Hypothesis
Military and political exhaustion from the Troubles and the opportunities which parliamentary
politics offered influenced the decision of Republican and Unionist leaders to establish and
participate in the peace process and draft the Good Friday Agreement. The protracted nature of
the conflict and the resultant exhaustion contributed to the development of the peace process
and the Good Friday Agreement. Given that leading Republican and Unionist militants such as
Gerry Adams found that they could not keep on fighting without risking moral credibility and
popular political support, they had to turn to other means to wage their struggle. Here, the peace
process came in, allowing Republicans and Unionists to negotiate and to compete in elections.
Yet the intention of going “mainstream” via the legislature is also a possible cause in its own
right. If armed struggle over so many years amounted to a deadlock, then perhaps the turn to
parliament amounted to a way forward for both sides.
Methodologyand Ideas for a Literature Review
Essentially an amateur historical study, the basic method is to find relevant literature. Many
books on the Troubles are available – general histories, specialized volumes on key factions like
the Provisional Republican Army, etc. Ed Moloney’s Voices From the Grave: Two Men’s War in
Ireland (2010) provides a fascinating glimpse into the Troubles from the perspectives of two
men on opposing sides: Brendan Hughes with the Provisional Irish Republican Army and David
Ervine of the Ulster Volunteer Force. Likewise, there are other volumes such as Kevin
Bean’s The New Politics of Sinn Fein (2008), Tommy McKearney’s The Provisional IRA: From
Insurrection to Parliament (2011), and Peter Shirlow’s The End of Ulster Loyalism? (2012).
Bean and McKearney trace the evolution of Sinn Fein and the Provisional Irish Republican Army
over the course of the later 20th century. Shirlow writes on the evolution of the Unionist

6. 6
movement over the same period of time. Taking into account the above works and others, I can
develop a comparative history of Republicanism and Unionism which may shed light on how the
peace process came into being. That attempt at analysis amounts to a more specific method.
As for the literature review, the above books can be relevant as I try to sift through what the
authors can agree upon and discern where their interpretations of the Troubles in general and
the evolution of the participating individuals and movements in particular differ.
As for developing a more serious academic study, this effort would entail me supplementing the
existing secondary sources (e.g., books, academic journal articles) with primary sources such
as archival research (British and Irish government and military archives, newspaper and
magazine databases, etc.) and interviews with participants in the Troubles (as was the case
with the ill-fated Boston College Belfast Project). Here, a “mixed methods” approach is relevant
in light of the aforementioned research in archives and interviews – essentially a multifaceted
attempt at qualitative research and analysis. As for the literature review, it involves me
discussing books as well as articles from refereed academic journals. Finally, the data analysis
will require me to compare the conclusions established in the extant literature with the results of
my own research.
References
Bean, Kevin. The New Politics of Sinn Fein. Liverpool University Press, 2008.
McKearney, Tommy. The Provisional IRA: From Insurrection to Parliament. Pluto Press, 2011.
Moloney, Ed. Voices from the Grave: Two Men’s War in Ireland. PublicAffairs, 2010.
Shirlow, Peter. The End of Ulster Loyalism? Manchester University Press, 2012.