logo
A rules-based order - but who makes the rules?

A rules-based order - but who makes the rules?

Irish Examiner5 days ago
Earlier this month the Taoiseach Micheál Martin made a four-day trip to Japan to strengthen bi-lateral ties between the two countries.
During a speech at the opening of the new Ireland House in Tokyo the Taoiseach said: 'The Ireland-Japan relationship is built on a solid foundation of shared and longstanding commitment to the rules-based international order. We share a vision for a future of peace and prosperity for all, built through international co-operation, democratic values and peaceful resolution of disputes.'
He went on to note that 'these shared values were already evident in 1974, the year that Ireland established its first embassy here in Tokyo. In that year, Ireland's former minister for foreign affairs, Seán MacBride, and the former Prime Minister of Japan, Eisaku Satō, shared that year's Nobel Peace Prize for their work on disarmament.'
To underline the importance of Ireland-Japan collaboration on disarmament the Taoiseach also visited the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park during his trip. There he met with hibakusha, survivors of the US's atomic bomb attacks.
The Taoiseach spoke to journalists about the harrowing testimony he heard from Teruko Yakata, who was eight years old when the bomb was dropped on her hometown, and about the legacy of trauma still suffered by Yakata and other survivors. As he was leaving Hiroshima Mr Martin was asked if he believed the world was a more dangerous now than in 1945.
'I believe it is,' he answered, 'it is in a very dangerous place.'
The Taoiseach was right to highlight Ireland's proud tradition of international leadership on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. This is a particularly important history to underline whilst visiting Japan, which remains the only country to have suffered attack with nuclear weapons.
The United Nations' landmark Treaty of the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), signed in 1968, had its origins in the 1950s when then Fianna Fáil foreign minister Frank Aiken introduced the first of what became known as the 'Irish Resolutions'‌ which eventually led to the NPT. Aiken was the first to sign the NPT in 1968 in recognition of Ireland's crucial role in advancing the cause of disarmament.
The Taoiseach Micheál Martin was right to highlight Ireland's proud tradition of international leadership on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. File photo: GIS Press Office
Yet, at the very same time as the Taoiseach was in Japan promoting Ireland's commitment to international diplomacy and disarmament, he is leading a government that is trying to fundamentally re-orient Ireland's foreign policy away from disarmament and international peace building towards militarization and war-fighting alliances.
In doing so Mr Martin and his government are betraying the foreign policy achievements of Aiken and his own party, Fianna Fáil, but more importantly they are betraying the will and trust of the Irish people who remain deeply attached to active neutrality. Opinion polls consistently show a large majority of the Irish public support maintaining neutrality.
A poll conducted in January by Uplift found that 75% were in favour of maintaining neutrality. In April another poll, conducted by The Irish Times and Ipsos, found that 63% of people wanted to keep Ireland's neutrality as it is.
The Government's revolution in foreign affairs
In his speech to the Global Ireland Summit on May 6 this year the Taoiseach said that even in newly volatile geopolitical conditions 'Ireland will maintain its role as a strong advocate for the rules-based international order, with the UN at its centre.'
Yet, his government is actively undermining the UN in its quest to remove the Triple Lock, legislation that requires a UN mandate for more than 12 members of the Irish Defence Forces to be deployed overseas. The government justify this change on the basis of false claims that Russia and China enjoy a veto over Irish peace-keeping missions in the UN Security Council.
It is not only the UN Security Council that can authorize peace-keeping missions. File picture: REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton
This is not true because it is not only the UN Security Council that can authorize peace-keeping missions. The UN General Assembly also has the power to do so.
Further, this is a hypothetical. China alone has exercised such a veto, and then only once regarding the extension of an existing UN peace-keeping mission. That was in 1999, before the Triple Lock existed.
Why is the government making these false claims? Removing the need for a UN mandate on deploying Irish Defence Forces personnel overseas would allow this government - and any future Irish government - to commit Irish troops to EU and NATO military operations.
Remarkably the government insist that removing the Triple Lock will not impact Ireland's neutrality, but participating in western military alliances would clearly mark the end of neutrality. Participating in EU and NATO military operations overseas without UN backing is certainly not compatible with what the Irish public understand neutrality to mean.
Further, states around the world, including those that the government claim are already hostile, will understand that Ireland is no longer to be regarded as a neutral state. This will only serve to increase the security risks Ireland faces, not defend against them.
Whilst the government continue to pay lip service to neutrality it is clear they aim to abandon it in order to explicitly 'take sides' with the US, EU, and NATO in international conflicts, even when this is manifestly against the wishes of the Irish people.
Ireland is in effect undergoing a quiet revolution in foreign affairs imposed from above, even as the government lacks a mandate to fundamentally reorient the state's place in the world. All those interested in Ireland's future security and in world peace, should be extremely concerned by the government's backdoor erosion of neutrality.
'Rules-based international order' vs The UN
Despite the Taoiseach's insistence that Ireland remains committed to a 'rules-based international order, with the UN at its centre,' his government is actively trying to depart from a world in which the UN is the body tasked with defining, governing, and sometimes policing the 'rules-based international order'.
In attempting to remove the requirement for a UN mandate to deploy Irish troops overseas, Mr Martin and his government have been arguing that the UN is not the international guarantor of international order but rather an obstacle to it, on the basis that Russia and China might hypothetically veto peacekeeping missions.
Likewise, the government are arguing that the role of these states within the UN Security Council is an obstacle to the exercise of Irish sovereignty. This might make sense if Irish sovereignty were defined by the capacity to join EU and NATO military operations overseas without a UN mandate.
This might make sense if the rules of the 'rules-based international order' are set not by the UN but by the US, EU, and their allies. However, it is incompatible with a commitment to a 'rules-based international order' governed by the UN.
It is interesting to note that western governments, including our own, are increasingly using the terminology of 'rules-based international order' rather than reference the UN or 'international law'.
Whilst a majority of the public no doubt understands the 'rules-based international order' to refer to the UN and the existing institutions of international law the sudden popularity of this term amongst western states indicates that it may mean something quite different. It seems clear from the Irish government's maneuverings around the Triple Lock that the 'rules-based international order' they have in mind is at very least not principally defined by the UN.
This is extremely concerning given that we can see the type of 'rules' western states adopt beyond the frame of the UN. The active material and diplomatic support given to Israel's genocide in Gaza by the US, the UK, and the EU (notably Germany) indicates that the 'rules-based international order' these states have in mind has no regard for international law whatsoever, at least not when it applies to them or their allies.
It is right and reasonable then that the public ask who defines the 'rules' of the ''rules-based international order' and whose interests these 'rules' might serve.
America first
'America should write the rules. America should call the shots. Other countries should play by the rules that America and our partners set, and not the other way around.' It may surprise some that these are not the words of President Trump but of former President Barack Obama, writing in the Washington Post in 2016.
Obama was writing about the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade agreement designed to constrain China's increasing influence over Pacific trade, but regardless of the context, the quote is indicative of a fundamental set of assumptions about the role of the US in the world - assumptions common to US liberals and conservatives alike, Democrats as well as Republicans, and shared by most European states, certainly those that are also members of NATO.
The Taoiseach and his government like to argue that the Russian invasion of Ukraine marked the beginning of a new world and that Ireland's foreign policy must adapt to meet the changing times. According to the government this means abandoning neutrality (in everything but name) and massive increases in military spending to prepare Ireland for future conflict with Russia, or even China.
Former US President Barak Obama wrote in the Washington Post in 2016: 'America should write the rules. America should call the shots'. File photo: Chris Jackson/PA
The EU White Paper on European Defence published in March makes the direction of EU foreign policy travel and expectations of military spending for member states very clear. Yet this breakneck European militarization is not only a reaction to Russia's invasion of Ukraine but responds to a longer term strategic shift of US resources and attention away from European security towards Chinese containment.
This move was first announced in 2009 with Obama's 'Pivot to Asia' but was pursued more aggressively since under both Trump and Biden administrations. Hence, it is crucial that we understand European militarization not simply as a collective response to Russian aggression in Ukraine, but a development dictated by the shifting geostrategic priorities of the US.
I am hardly alone in wondering if Obama's upcoming visit to Dublin in September is partly timed to smooth public concerns about militarization ahead of a Dáil vote on the Triple Lock, by presenting an image of US leadership more acceptable to the Irish public than the current occupant of the White House.
Government fog
It is reasonable that there be a frank and honest discussion of the changes the government are trying to implement to Ireland's foreign policy, that the real drivers and consequences of these transformations are acknowledged, and that the policy changes proposed are open to serious democratic scrutiny and challenge.
Currently, this is not the case. The nature and stakes of the changes the government are trying to implement are shrouded in a technocratic fog and most media coverage platforms anti-neutrality partisans, advocates of militarization, and arms lobbyists as the relevant 'experts'.
Government parties protest that they are being honest with the public, but in reality they are trying to ensure their plans are subject to as little democratic oversight as possible.
The government know that a great majority of Irish people do not support the changes they are attempting to ram through and that insulating them from transparency is the best path to success. The government's gamble is that if the public don't know about - or understand – that removing the Triple Lock means the end of Ireland's neutrality then they won't mount any meaningful opposition.
By the time Irish troops are being sent to take part in multiple EU 'Battlegroups' overseas and the public spending needed to address pressing crises in housing, health, care, and climate is being used to buy fighter jets it will be too late.
Such a scenario is not a conspiracy but a plan, and it lies just on the other side of a successful vote on removing the Triple Lock. The coalition have promised a vote when the Dáil returns from summer recess.
Merrion Square
Just opposite the Dáil in Merrion Square Park stand two memorials marking the horrors of war.
Facing government buildings is the National Memorial to members of the Defence Forces who died in the Service of the State, a pyramid-shaped structure by the sculptor Brian King, unveiled in 2008 by then President Mary McAleese. Close by a small plaque marks the spot where a cherry tree was planted in 1980 by the Irish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament 'in memory of A-bomb victims'.
Just metres away from each other, these memorials offer a stark reminder of the distance the Irish government has already gone in weakening the foreign policy positions that have been Ireland's strength on the world stage. The principled stand Ireland has taken against militarization, imperialism, and great power conflict have ensured this country enjoys a positive international reputation and outsize diplomatic influence, particularly in the Global South.
The Irish public are rightly proud of and deeply attached to this legacy. Pursuing a foreign policy based on international diplomacy, the peaceful resolution of conflict, and independence from military alliances has not always been an easy path and it has often displeased friendly states on whom Ireland is economically dependent.
Then-Taoiseach, Brian Cowen and Then-President, Mary McAleese at the ceremony in 2008 at Merrion Square to mark the Dedication of the National Memorial to Members of the Defence Forces who have died in the service of the State. File photo: Sasko Lazarov/Photocall Ireland
However, it has not only been the right thing to do - upholding the state's values, as expressed in the Constitution - but it has also served the country's interests well. A lack of enemies has been, and remains, Ireland's best defence.
The Irish public remember the lessons of our own history, and the terrible costs of war, even as the government seem determined to forget them. Opinion polls show that a very large majority of the Irish public are deeply attached to a vision of Ireland that is opposed to imperialism and war.
However, active neutrality is not simply a popular policy position but something that people strongly identify with, that touches on the core of what they understand 'Irishness' to be. The government's attempts to remove the Triple Lock threatens to undermine this crucial connection between people and State.
Betraying the public on this issue risks sowing alienation, suspicion, and resentment - sentiments already providing fertile soil for the growth of anti-democratic and far right forces across the country.
The government is right that the world is changing. It is up to all of those invested in democracy, peace, and international co-operation – best expressed in the existing institutions of the UN – to ensure they make the right response.
Read More
Government proposal on triple Lock gives an Irish solution to an Irish problem
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Israeli air strikes in Gaza Strip leave at least 25 dead, health officials say
Israeli air strikes in Gaza Strip leave at least 25 dead, health officials say

Irish Daily Mirror

time2 hours ago

  • Irish Daily Mirror

Israeli air strikes in Gaza Strip leave at least 25 dead, health officials say

At least 25 people were killed by Israeli air strikes and gunshots overnight, according to health officials and the ambulance service on Saturday, as ceasefire talks appear to have stalled and Palestinians in Gaza face famine. The majority of victims were killed by gunfire as they waited for aid trucks close to the Zikim crossing with Israel, said staff at Shifa hospital, where the bodies were brought. The Israeli army did not respond to requests for comments about the latest shootings. Those killed in the strikes include four people in an apartment building in Gaza City among others, hospital staff and the ambulance service said. The strikes come as ceasefire talks between Israel and Hamas have hit a standstill after the US and Israel recalled their negotiating teams on Thursday, throwing the future of the talks into further uncertainty. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Friday his government was considering 'alternative options' to ceasefire talks with Hamas. His comments came as a Hamas official said negotiations were expected to resume next week and portrayed the recall of the Israeli and American delegations as a pressure tactic. Egypt and Qatar, which are mediating the talks alongside the US, said the pause was only temporary and that talks would resume, though they did not say when. The United Nations (UN) and experts have said that Palestinians in Gaza are at risk of famine, with reports of increasing numbers of people dying from causes related to malnutrition. While Israel's army says it is allowing aid into the enclave with no limit on the number of trucks that can enter, the UN says it is hampered by Israeli military restrictions on its movements and incidents of criminal looting. The Zikim crossing shootings come days after at least 80 Palestinians were killed trying to reach aid entering through the same crossing. The Irish Mirror's Crime Writers Michael O'Toole and Paul Healy are writing a new weekly newsletter called Crime Ireland. Click here to sign up and get it delivered to your inbox every week During the shootings on Friday night, Sherif Abu Aisha said people started running when they saw a light that they thought was from the aid trucks, but as they got close, they realised it was from Israel's tanks. That is when the army started firing on people, he told The Associated Press. He said his uncle, a father of eight, was among those killed. 'We went because there is no food… and nothing was distributed,' he said. The Israeli military said at the time its soldiers shot at a gathering of thousands of Palestinians who posed a threat and that it was aware of some casualties. Israel is facing increased international pressure to alleviate the catastrophic humanitarian crisis in Gaza. More then two dozen Western-aligned countries and more than 100 charity and human rights groups have called for an end to the war, harshly criticising Israel's blockade and a new aid delivery model it has rolled out. The charities and rights groups said even their own staff were struggling to get enough food. For the first time in months Israel said it is allowing airdrops, requested by Jordan. A Jordanian official said the airdrops will mainly be food and milk formula. Aid group the World Central Kitchen said on Friday it was resuming limited cooking operations in Deir al-Balah after being forced to halt due to a lack of food supplies. It said it is trying to serve 60,000 meals daily through its field kitchen and partner community kitchens, less than half of what it has cooked over the previous month. Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest news from the Irish Mirror direct to your inbox: Sign up here.

Israeli air strikes in Gaza Strip leave at least 25 dead, health officials say
Israeli air strikes in Gaza Strip leave at least 25 dead, health officials say

The Journal

time2 hours ago

  • The Journal

Israeli air strikes in Gaza Strip leave at least 25 dead, health officials say

AT LEAST 25 PEOPLE were killed by Israeli air strikes and gunshots overnight, according to health officials and the ambulance service today, as ceasefire talks appear to have stalled and Palestinians in Gaza face famine. The majority of victims were killed by gunfire as they waited for aid trucks close to the Zikim crossing with Israel, said staff at Shifa hospital, where the bodies were brought. The Israeli army did not respond to requests for comments about the latest shootings. Those killed in the strikes include four people in an apartment building in Gaza City among others, hospital staff and the ambulance service said. Smoke rises to the sky following an Israeli airstrike in the northern Gaza Strip as seen from southern Israel. Alamy Stock Photo Alamy Stock Photo The strikes come as ceasefire talks between Israel and Hamas have hit a standstill after the US and Israel recalled their negotiating teams on Thursday, throwing the future of the talks into further uncertainty. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said yesterday his government was considering 'alternative options' to ceasefire talks with Hamas. His comments came as a Hamas official said negotiations were expected to resume next week and portrayed the recall of the Israeli and American delegations as a pressure tactic. Egypt and Qatar, which are mediating the talks alongside the US, said the pause was only temporary and that talks would resume, though they did not say when. The United Nations and experts have said that Palestinians in Gaza are at risk of famine, with reports of increasing numbers of people dying from causes related to malnutrition. While Israel's army says it is allowing aid into the enclave with no limit on the number of trucks that can enter, the UN says it is hampered by Israeli military restrictions on its movements and incidents of criminal looting. The Zikim crossing shootings come days after at least 80 Palestinians were killed trying to reach aid entering through the same crossing. Advertisement During the shootings last night, Sherif Abu Aisha said people started running when they saw a light that they thought was from the aid trucks, but as they got close, they realised it was from Israel's tanks. That is when the army started firing on people, he told The Associated Press. He said his uncle, a father of eight, was among those killed. 'We went because there is no food… and nothing was distributed,' he said. The Israeli military said at the time its soldiers shot at a gathering of thousands of Palestinians who posed a threat and that it was aware of some casualties. Israel is facing increased international pressure to alleviate the catastrophic humanitarian crisis in Gaza. More then two dozen Western-aligned countries and more than 100 charity and human rights groups have called for an end to the war, harshly criticising Israel's blockade and a new aid delivery model it has rolled out. The charities and rights groups said even their own staff were struggling to get enough food. For the first time in months Israel said it is allowing airdrops, requested by Jordan. A Jordanian official said the airdrops will mainly be food and milk formula. UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer wrote in a newspaper article on Saturday that the UK was 'working urgently' with Jordan to get British aid into Gaza. Aid group the World Central Kitchen said on Friday it was resuming limited cooking operations in Deir al-Balah after being forced to halt due to a lack of food supplies. It said it is trying to serve 60,000 meals daily through its field kitchen and partner community kitchens, less than half of what it has cooked over the previous month.

New legislation could allow people choose who inherits their estate, say tax group
New legislation could allow people choose who inherits their estate, say tax group

The Journal

time2 hours ago

  • The Journal

New legislation could allow people choose who inherits their estate, say tax group

'CHOSEN RELATIONSHIP' LEGISLATION could allow individuals select one or two heirs to their estate under the same grouping as parent and child, a specialist expert group has told government. The Tax Strategy Group, an expert advisory panel at the Department of Finance, has noted that the point has been made that people who are not related could have 'equally close and meaningful relationships similar to familial relationships'. The tax experts state that there are a number of ways to develop a policy to capture these 'chosen' relationships. 'For instance, legislation could provide for individuals to select one or two heirs to their estate for Group A Threshold,' it states. Currently, Group A deals with the inheritance to a child (including certain foster children) when a parent dies. This threshold was increased in 2024 to €400,000 from a previous value of €335,000. Penalising people with no children However, in the run up to the election, a debate arose around inheritance tax rules favouring parents and penalising someone who is child-free. The net result in this situation, where 'chosen relationships' could be included in this grouping, would be a tax-free threshold, state the experts, however the paper said that this was not possible to cost. 'Therefore, the costings have been calculated on the basis of three separate instances of a tax-free €400,000 threshold for each group. This would create an additional cost to the Exchequer of €390 million based on up-to-date Revenue data,' state the review papers. Advertisement The Programme for Government contains a commitment to maintain a broad tax base of which Capital Acquisitions Tax (CAT or inheritance tax) is one contributory element, state the papers. 'However, it is important to get some sense of the cost of various changes to a particular tax as these are factors which the Minister for Finance must consider when deciding upon his broader budget package. This is particularly relevant this year because of the case being made to expand the scope of Group A to include broader family arrangements,' said the tax experts. Both Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael made a number of pledges in their election manifestos around the expansion on inheritance tax groupings. Fianna Fáil pledged to review the inheritance tax thresholds applicable when the deceased does not have children. The party also said it would increase and adjust the inheritance tax Category A, B and C thresholds in each budget 'to reflect the wider increase in property prices in the Irish economy in recent years'. Meanwhile, Fine Gael will said it would increase Capital Acquisitions Tax thresholds and raise Group A threshold (for children) to €500,000, Group B (for siblings) to €75,000, and Group C (for others) to €50,000, 'building on the progress made in Budget 2025″, it said. The tax review papers directly address whether there is discrimination at play when it comes to the differential tax treatment for direct familial relationships and more distant relationships, stating that this has existed in the Irish legal system since the foundation of the State. 'This is reflected explicitly in the Constitution, most clearly in Article 41. The current CAT legal framework, differentiating between Groups A, B and C takes account of this constitutional framework,' states the review papers, stating that it is the beneficiary of the inheritance or gift and not the person who passes away who has to pay the inheritance tax. 'In this context, it is not clear that there is a case that disponers are being discriminated against. Instead, legal concerns, if any should be viewed from the perspective of those who are liable for the tax i.e. the beneficiary. 'It should be noted that it is not clear that such concerns exist here either, as it is not uncommon for the tax system to tax people in different ways depending on the situation or their circumstances,' states the report. The Department is satisfied that the existing inheritance tax legislation and the taxation benefits are not unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful, states the review. Related Reads Financial advisor: Thinking of retiring? Here are the things to consider... Opinion: Inheritance tax changes in the budget have brought some relief, but not enough Breaking down further costings, the group looked at the cost of giving the same status to aunt, uncle and sibling relationships that currently apply to parental relationships – i.e. equalising Group A and B at a tax-free threshold of €400,000. This would cost the State €305 million based on the most up-to-date Revenue data. 'The likelihood is that in reality the costs of collating Groups A and B would be lower, but in the absence of appropriate data it is not possible to demonstrate this at this time,' it adds. Boosting €3,000 tax-free gift to your child per year The tax papers also looks at the gift threshold that parents are allowed give to their children on a yearly basis. Currently, a parent may give a gift up to the value of €3,000 to a child or anyone else each calendar year without any CAT arising. Two parents can make gifts of €3,000 each to a child, resulting in a gift to the value of €6,000 in any year free of CAT. There is no limit on the number of small gifts a person can receive in a year from different donors. The small gift exemption applies only to gifts and not to inheritances, but if government were to increase the small gift exemption, for example, in the case of giving their child help towards a deposit to buy a house by €1,000 (to €4,000) such a move would cost €0.7 million, states the paper. The cost of increasing it to €5,000 per parent is estimated to be €1.4 million, based on the number of CAT returns filed for 2023. Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone... A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation. Learn More Support The Journal

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store