We're sorry. An error has occurred
Please cancel or retry.
US diplomacy and the Good Friday Agreement in post-conflict Northern Ireland
Some error occured while loading the Quick View. Please close the Quick View and try reloading the page.
Couldn't load pickup availability
-
20 May 2025

CHOICE Recommended: Advanced undergraduates through faculty.
'This fascinating examination of US foreign policy is set in a particular institutional context and a distinct political time. Hargy (Queen's Univ. Belfast) asserts that the George W. Bush administration’s two special envoys to Northern Ireland played an important and otherwise-unacknowledged role in advancing the Northern Ireland peace process during a time of dysfunction. Hargy’s biggest contribution, however, is his analysis of US foreign policy during a period of “assertive unilateralism” following the attacks of 9/11. In terms of political time and global context, the analysis is set in the transition from the post–Cold War period to the Global War on Terror; institutionally, the rivalry between the White House and the State Department for foreign policy leadership is the main focus. The work also addresses the “special relationship” between the US and UK, including an epilogue on the post-Brexit period. This book does so much that it will be of interest to many audiences, including those interested in Northern Ireland, peace process diplomacy, US foreign policy, and international relations.'
--S. P. Duffy, Quinnipiac University
Introduction
1 The Bill Clinton administration and Northern Ireland, 1993-2001
2 The US Department of State
3 The anomalous nature of US diplomacy: Northern Ireland within the State Department
4 The Policy Planning Staff: Avoiding trivia for over sixty years
5 The unilateralist pivot of the George W. Bush administration: 9/11, foreign wars, and Northern Ireland
6 The State Department’s Northern Ireland envoys and the redemption of the Good Friday Agreement
7 Mitchell Reiss: The unsung hero of peace
8 The State Department, Northern Ireland, and the fallacy of the Special Relationship
Conclusion