Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
A woman walks past the peace wall that separates neighborhoods of Belfast, United Kingdom, on September 30, 2019.
Twenty years since the IRA put down its guns: What’s changed in Northern Ireland?
Twenty years ago, the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA) agreed to lay down its weapons and end the armed campaign to achieve a united Ireland free of British rule. The move came 11 years after an initial ceasefire in Northern Ireland, and seven years after the Good Friday Agreement that brought an end to the Troubles, a decades-long conflict between Irish nationalists and supporters of the union with Great Britain, which killed roughly 3,600 people.
“Dozens, if not hundreds, of people are alive today that perhaps wouldn’t be if this violence had continued,” former US special envoy to Northern Ireland Mitchell Reiss told GZERO.
As other militant groups around the world explore or proceed with disarmament – such as the Kurdish PKK in Turkey or, perhaps one day, Hezbollah in Lebanon – the peace that has held in Northern Ireland ever since the IRA’s disarmament shows what can be achieved if paramilitary groups drop their weapons. However, it also offers a cautionary tale: peace is one thing, but harmony is another.
So how has Northern Ireland fared over the past two decades?
First, the good news. The bloodshed has stopped, even as the PIRA didn’t achieve its goal of uniting the island of Ireland – Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom. While there are regular displays of pride by nationalists, and unionists alike, these events are relatively peaceful. Gone are the car bombings, killings, and abductions that ignited fear across the country throughout the 1970s and 1980s.
What’s happened to the IRA? The Provisional IRA has officially demilitarized and pledged to pursue its aims peacefully, with the help of nationalist political parties like Sinn Fein.
While police believe parts of the armed grouping still exist, their influence, along with that of several other offshoot nationalist paramilitary groups, is limited. They may oppose the “promise of the Good Friday Agreement,” says Reiss, but “the good news is that they are generally small in number. They are marginalized.”
What the disarmament hasn’t achieved. First, Northern Irish society remains deeply divided. If you take a walk down the Shankhill Road in Belfast, you’ll see shopfronts lined with unionist memorabilia and odes to the late Queen. Meanwhile Falls Road, only a few hundred yards away, is still festooned with the Irish tricolor and monuments to slain nationalist fighters. Police still shut off access between the two roads at night as a precaution.
Secondly, while the IRA put down its weapons, the opposing Protestant paramilitary groups – like Ulster Defence Association and the Ulster Volunteer Force – never had to do the same.. Though their influence isn’t as widespread as it was during the height of the Troubles, they continue to function as criminal gangs, exerting a corrosive effect of their own on Northern Irish society.
“For the last eight years, I’ve been talking to these [Protestant paramilitaries],” says Reiss “trying to see if we can achieve the same goal with them that we did with the IRA, that they could put weapons beyond use and commit to a purely political and peaceful way forward.”
Lastly there’s the continued dysfunction of the Northern Irish government. Under the GFA, there has to be a power-sharing agreement between the nationalists and unionists for the Northern Irish Assembly to function. However, the two sides have regularly failed to form a government, with impasses often lasting years.
None of this changes the significance of the achievement. If the number of people killed during the Troubles was projected proportionally onto the United States, the numbers would be akin to the American Civil War, notes Reiss, underlining the hostilities between the nationalist and unionist factions of Northern Ireland, and thus the challenge in achieving peace.
“Is it better than it was? Absolutely. Is progress continuing to be made? Absolutely. Do we need to do more? Absolutely,” says Reiss. “But Northern Ireland is fundamentally transformed from the way it was 20 years ago.”
Joe Biden starts to campaign on AI
On May 8, Joe Biden spoke at Gateway Technical College in Racine, Wisconsin. The president was bragging.
Six years after his predecessor, Donald Trump, visited the same city to boast of Taiwanese tech company Foxconn’s $10 billion plan to bring a LCD manufacturing plant to Racine — that never materialized — Biden chose the same site for a new high-tech manufacturing project of his own. Microsoft will invest $3.3 billion to build a new data center to support artificial intelligence, a project that the company says will bring 2,000 permanent jobs and 2,300 union construction jobs to Wisconsin.
It’s good business, and better politics. Wisconsin is an important swing state for Biden in his forthcoming election against Trump. This latest announcement seemed to mark a moment where Biden accepted that AI is going to be an important part of his presidential legacy — and that it’s a record he should run on.
Right place, right time
OpenAI ushered in the generative AI revolution with ChatGPT midway through Biden’s first term. Silicon Valley rushed to develop it, Wall Street rushed to fund it, and governments around the world rushed to regulate it. Biden was in just the right position to reap the political rewards.
The US hasn’t passed comprehensive regulation to rein in AI, lagging behind its European counterparts in that regard, because it would require Congressional action. Instead, Biden secured voluntary commitments from the top AI companies to reduce the risks of their technology and issued a sweeping executive order dictating that every federal agency and department needs to assess and mitigate the risks AI poses, and how they can safely use it.
Beyond that, AI has become a focus of Biden’s industrial policy and export control measures, both of which have major implications for foreign policy and national security. Microsoft's investment also comes mere weeks after the Biden administration helped orchestrate the PC giant’s $1.5 billion investment in the Emirati tech giant G42, which pledged to restrict ties with China in favor of working with US tech firms.
Federal dollars pour into AI
The Microsoft data center was one in a series of chest-pounding announcements from the Biden administration, which has used funds from the CHIPS and Science Act to incentivize tech infrastructure firms to build in the United States. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company will get $6.6 billion to invest a total of $65 billion to expand its chip fabrication complex in Phoenix, Arizona. Samsung will get $6.4 billion to pour $45 billion into its Texas facilities, and Intel will be granted $8.5 billion to construct and expand facilities in Arizona, Ohio, New Mexico, and Oregon.
AI wasn’t necessarily top of mind when the CHIPS Act passed in 2022, said Scott Bade, a senior analyst in Eurasia Group’s geo-technology practice, but it’s become the focus of the government’s efforts to nationalize chips and data centers.
“If you look at the political motivations for the Chips Act, a big part of that was the auto industry not having access to chips during the pandemic,” Bade said. Most of those were so-called legacy chips, not the high-powered graphics processors needed for AI, but the investments and legislation was already in place by the time AI became the hot topic in consumer and military tech.
The US has an advantage over rival China when it comes to artificial intelligence technology, but also the chips and chip-making facilities necessary to train and run powerful AI applications. Not only are many of the most important AI chipmakers — such as Nvidia, AMD, and Intel — American firms, but important non-US infrastructure firms are subject to US export controls because they rely on small parts made in America. The Biden administration has ramped up export controls to give the US an economic and technological advantage over China. And don’t forget the military side — global powers are looking to AI to super-charge their weaponry.
The election looms
AI lets Biden make some important claims in his rematch against Trump, including:
- American companies are leading the world on AI
- Multinational firms are investing in US facilities
- They’re bringing high-tech manufacturing jobs to the US
- And the US is keeping China at bay in the AI space
Not all of those arguments will resonate in retail politics, but Arizona and Wisconsin, where new facilities are popping up, are key swing states looking for good union jobs. In Wisconsin especially, Biden will make the case that he’s delivering what Trump couldn’t.
“The fact that you have a fab in a major swing state that helped him win last time and also has an important Senate race — that's not a coincidence,” Bade noted.
Speaking in Wisconsin, Biden barely mentioned technology, let alone artificial intelligence. Instead, he focused on delivering where Trump could not.
“During the previous administration, my predecessor made promises, which he broke more than kept, left a lot of people behind in communities like Racine,” Biden said.
Artificial intelligence might not be the snazziest talking point for retail politics, but it’s bound to be a major undercurrent — even when it’s not mentioned explicitly.
U.S. President Joe Biden gives a fist bump salute to the audience during an event to celebrate the anniversary of his signing of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act legislation, on Aug. 16, 2023.
Viewpoint: Challenges facing Biden’s IRA one year later
Key to President Joe Biden’s agenda, the Inflation Reduction Act, which was signed into law on Aug. 15, 2022, contains about $400 billion in new spending and tax breaks aimed at jumpstarting the transition to a low-carbon economy in the US. Alongside the Chips+ Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the IRA also aims to reinvigorate US manufacturing to allow the country to better compete with China.
Biden’s embrace of industrial policy to achieve these aims has been controversial because of its expense and the concerns of trading partners that the massive government assistance gives US firms an unfair advantage. So, is the bet paying off? We sat down with Eurasia Group expert Milo McBride to ask him what the IRA has achieved in its first year.
What are some tangible impacts of the new legislation?
The IRA has already prompted investments of about $270 billion in the power sector, $50 billion in electric vehicle supply chains, and smaller yet significant contributions in other sectors. If the policy continues as planned, analysts at Goldman Sachs expect it to generate about $3 trillion of investment by the early 2030s – underscoring its potential to integrate EVs and other clean energy systems into everyday American lives. Specific projects to highlight include the Battery Belt, a comprehensive EV and battery hub that spans from Michigan to Missouri, and the construction of enough solar manufacturing facilities to eventually produce the systems needed to meet much of the nation’s solar energy demands.
Is it meeting goals?
While the IRA is a step in the right direction for the Biden administration’s low-carbon energy agenda, it will fall short of delivering on US climate pledges. The IRA’s green industrial policy is an incentives- or “carrots”-based approach that provides subsidies for clean alternatives but doesn’t impose penalties on carbon emissions. The US has outlined goals to reduce its carbon emissions by 52% by 2030 from 2005 levels, and with the IRA, it will achieve reductions of somewhere between 32% and 42%, according to the Rhodium Group.
Scaling up US manufacturing is a massive endeavor that could undermine the goal of building a domestically resilient supply chain in the short term. For example, constructing battery gigafactories can be accomplished in a matter of years, but developing mines to produce the critical minerals needed by those factories may take a decade. Over the next couple of years, this dynamic will increase US reliance on imports, some of which will come from allies but also potentially from China.
What are the biggest domestic challenges?
There are myriad obstacles. The scale of renewables capacity being built requires an expansion of the electrical grid to transmit wind- and solar-generated electricity to areas of high energy demand. Yet the last major transmission line built in the US needed an astounding 15 years to secure the needed approvals, a bureaucratic problem that policymakers in Washington are unlikely to solve anytime soon. Similarly, while most forecasts expect EVs to account for about half of US car sales by 2030, this growth will require a massive expansion of public EV charging infrastructure. Under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the government is disbursing $7.5 billion to the states to build public charging stations, but the rollout will be an enormous undertaking.
There is also concern about the availability of the workers needed to drive the energy transition at a time of record low unemployment. Low-skilled labor is needed to perform tasks such as the installation of solar panels, but high-skilled workers are also needed to build complex machinery like battery or solar components, which can require expertise in advanced robotics systems or the scientific intricacies of these components.
What are the political factors to keep in mind?
Although the IRA has led to the creation of a disproportionate number of green jobs in red states, Republicans in Washington remain strongly opposed to the legislation. Given this reality, the success of the IRA will hinge on the 2024 presidential election. If Biden or another Democrat wins, they will keep the IRA intact while advancing environmental regulations and furthering green energy partnerships with allies. However, if Donald Trump or another Republican wins, the outlook is less clear. In a second term, Trump could take a wrecking ball to his predecessor’s achievements (as in his first term). That said, Trump, in his uniquely unpredictable way, could decide he likes Biden’s industrial nationalism and try to take credit for it by rebranding it in his own image.
If the Republicans decide to repeal the IRA, certain facets of the policy will be more at risk than others. At the top of this agenda is gutting the massive budget that the IRA gives the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency, while also removing the tax credits that are used to subsidize new renewable energy projects. However, other policies such as subsidies for carbon capture and clean energy manufacturing would face less risk, as damaging US industry would be politically unpalatable, especially for an America First president. By January 2025, when the next presidential term begins, many of the factories that the IRA helped build would either be operational or under construction. Withdrawing the subsidies or sunsetting tax incentives that made them economically viable would risk a backlash from industry and investors.
How has this signature piece of industrial policy affected US relations with trading partners?
Initially, the protectionism enshrined in the IRA raised eyebrows among US allies, but as of today, it hasn’t produced a rift among trading partners. The Biden administration has sought to address initial frustrations with a series of clean-tech trade deals or partnerships with Canada, Japan, India, Australia (and likely the EU soon). It has also offered generous subsidies to Korean firms, including the energy department’s recent $9 billion loan to SK Innovation, a battery manufacturer that supplies Ford Motors.
Similarly, the IRA appears unlikely to trigger a subsidy race that would strain the finances of governments around the world (just Canada has emulated the US approach). The EU, for example, has prioritized regulatory reform alongside more modest subsidies to encourage greater investment in green industries.
How has Canada responded?
Though Canadian miners stand to benefit from increased US demand for essential critical minerals such as lithium, nickel, and graphite, policymakers don’t want to renounce the opportunity to participate in more lucrative segments of the green industry such as battery manufacturing. As a result, Ottawa’s 2023 budget mirrored many of the IRA’s tax credits and officials have pledged enormous sums to woo investments away from their larger neighbor. For example, the Canadian government has pledged $CA15 billion and $CA16 billion in subsidies for battery factories for Volkswagen and Stellantis, respectively, well above what the US government has pledged to such facilities.
While this competition is unlikely to disrupt the political and security-based alliances between the two nations, it will create challenges for Canadian policymakers trying to match the US’s fiscal firepower. In time, they will probably recognize the limits of this approach and focus more on promoting those projects Canada has already launched over trying to attract new ones.
Edited by Jonathan House, Senior Editor at Eurasia Group