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

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

Irish Examiner6 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

Delayed UN meeting to discuss two-state solution
Delayed UN meeting to discuss two-state solution

RTÉ News​

timean hour ago

  • RTÉ News​

Delayed UN meeting to discuss two-state solution

Dozens of ministers will gather at the United Nations for a delayed conference to work toward a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians, but the US and Israel are boycotting the event. The 193-member UN General Assembly decided in September last year that such a conference would be held in 2025. Hosted by France and Saudi Arabia, the conference was postponed in June after Israel attacked Iran. The conference aims to lay out the parameters for a roadmap to a Palestinian state, while ensuring Israel's security. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot told newspaper La Tribune Dimanche in an interview published yesterday that he will also use the conference this week to push other countries to join France in recognising a Palestinian state. France intends to recognise a Palestinian state in September at the annual gathering of world leaders at the United Nations General Assembly, President Emmanuel Macron said last week. "We will launch an appeal in New York so that other countries join us to initiate an even more ambitious and demanding dynamic that will culminate on September 21," Mr Barrot said, adding that he expected Arab countries by then to condemn Palestinian militants Hamas and call for their disarmament. The conference comes as a 22-month war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza still rages. The war was triggered on 7 October 2023, when Hamas killed 1,200 people in southern Israel and took some 250 hostages, according to Israeli tallies. Since then, Israel's military campaign has killed nearly 60,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza health authorities. The US will not attend the conference at the United Nations, said a State Department spokesperson, describing it as "a gift to Hamas, which continues to reject ceasefire proposals accepted by Israel that would lead to the release of hostages and bring calm in Gaza." The State Department spokesperson added that Washington voted against the General Assembly last year calling for the conference and would "not support actions that jeopardise the prospect for a long-term, peaceful resolution to the conflict." Israel is also not taking part in the conference, "which doesn't first urgently address the issue of condemning Hamas and returning all of the remaining hostages," said Jonathan Harounoff, international spokesperson at Israel's UN mission. The UN has long endorsed a vision of two states living side by side within secure and recognised borders. Palestinians want a state in the West Bank, east Jerusalem and Gaza, all territory captured by Israel in the 1967 war with neighbouring Arab states. The UN General Assembly in May last year overwhelmingly backed a Palestinian bid to become a full UN member by recognising it as qualified to join and recommending the UN Security Council "reconsider the matter favourably." The resolution garnered 143 votes in favor and nine against. The General Assembly vote was a global survey of support for the Palestinian bid to become a full UN member - a move that would effectively recognise a Palestinian state - after the US vetoed it in the UN Security Council several weeks earlier.

More than half of Irish estate agents see house prices levelling off soon
More than half of Irish estate agents see house prices levelling off soon

Irish Times

timean hour ago

  • Irish Times

More than half of Irish estate agents see house prices levelling off soon

Irish home prices are expected to rise by a further 5 per cent over the next 12 months, amid ongoing supply shortages, according to a survey of estate agent members of the Society of Chartered Surveyors Ireland (SCSI). Joe Brennan reports on the predicted growth. However, 60 per cent of those polled see prices levelling off soon, with a further 18 per cent saying that they have already peaked – after a dozen years of continuous growth. Joe Brennan also reports on Goodbody Stockbrokers making a number of senior hires in a bid to boost the business. A number of staff left the organisation's investment banking area in late 2023, during and after a redundancy programme. Among the appointments is Stephen Kane, a former corporate finance director with the firm, who left in October 2023 for householder Cairn Homes. READ MORE In her latest column, Pilita Clark writes about the really concerning thing about the Coldplay concert scandal. This scandal, of course, concerns the former CEO of tech company Astronomer, who was caught with his arms wrapped around the company's head of human resources. Their embrace was captured on the big screen at the band's concert in Boston and has gone viral. Pilita Clark addresses the barrage of fabricated online statements purporting to be from those with insight. 'Some governments are trying to legislate against this muck, notably in the EU. The Coldplay couple — and the misleading maelstrom that followed their exposure — are a reminder that many more authorities need to join them,' she says. The co-founder of Dublin restaurant group Kinara and president of the Restaurant's Association of Ireland, Seán Collender, revealed the details of the impact of rising input costs that are leaving hospitality businesses on 'an extremely fine line'. 'These are huge, huge costs and we don't sell gold bars, we sell food,' he told Hugh Dooley. We need to enact a specific legal mandate, in the overriding national interest, to drive forward critical projects and avoid the endless round of planning applications, appeals and judicial reviews. Had we done that for the metro, it would have been finished a decade ago, writes John FitzGerald in his weekly column. 'But unless the planning system is reformed, I'm unlikely during my lifetime to ride the metro or drink Shannon water from my tap,' he says. How will the updated National Development Plan shape Ireland in years to come? Listen | 35:59 In 2025, it is both remarkable and disappointing that progress in tackling the gender gap in leadership is taking a backwards step in Ireland, with a 24.8 per cent year-on-year drop in women hired into top jobs here. There are no women leading any of the major Irish companies listed on stock markets, writes Sue Duke , vice-president of global public policy at LinkedIn, in our Business Opinion slot. If you would like to read more about the issues that affect your finances, sign up to On the Money , the weekly newsletter from our personal finance team, which will be issued every Friday to Irish Times subscribers.

Every Irish person contributes €53.20 a month to the EU. We should be prepared to pay more
Every Irish person contributes €53.20 a month to the EU. We should be prepared to pay more

Irish Times

time2 hours ago

  • Irish Times

Every Irish person contributes €53.20 a month to the EU. We should be prepared to pay more

The European Commission's publication of its draft of the union's €2 trillion 2028-2034 budget, the Multiannual Financial Framework ( MFF ), once again opens up a tortuous two years of likely acrimonious budget negotiations. Twenty seven states and the European Parliament must unanimously agree – in talks as complicated as four-dimensional chess – a new package of political imperatives, from defence, immigration, climate change, industrial innovation and inflation to safeguarding historic programmes such as CAP and cohesion. By all appearances, this will be an utterly impossible reconciliation. Helping to steer a path towards it will be the onerous central challenge of next year's Irish presidency . And complicating that challenge for cash-strapped Dublin negotiators will be a plethora of threats to programmes that are particularly important to us to us – CAP; changes to delivery mechanisms; new demands such as defence; and arguments about the scale of increasing burdens on budget net contributors. In truth, according to Zsolt Darvas from think tank Bruegel , MFF spending needs to double to finance the climate transition and pay off its Covid-19 debts. His views echo those in an important report last year from former Italian prime minister Mario Draghi, calling for an additional €800 billion a year of private- and public-sector investment to revive Europe's economic competitiveness. READ MORE The commission's budget is more modest, some €1.816 trillion (plus €165 billion in pandemic recovery debt repayments), up from the current 1.1 per cent of union gross national income to 1.15 per cent. And all at a time when member states are all adamant they will not pay a penny more, although commission president Ursula von der Leyen insists unconvincingly their contributions do not need to go up. [ The Irish Times view on the EU budget: major barriers to getting an agreement Opens in new window ] Irish farmers should be pleased to see direct income payments to farmers ring-fenced. However, agricultural economists here worry that rural development and environmental support payments are to be hived off into a broader regional fund pot and are likely to be squeezed – similar to the cohesion fund for poorer regions, which was once an important Irish staple. MEPs from the regions are also already screaming blue murder at the 'renationalisation' or centralisation of regional funding – 27 national plans would replace more than 500 current programmes. They are alarmed it would substantially reduce regional autonomy and funding which makes up more than one-third of the current budget. Von der Leyen's juggling trick also involves fancy footwork in respect of expanding the union's 'own resources' – or funding from non-member state sources. Such taxation needs to be targeted so that it does not impinge on the domestic tax base and revenues of governments. Most controversially this time is the suggestion of levying a tax on companies with a net annual turnover of at least €100 million. This is expected to generate only €6.8 billion but is already facing determined opposition. Speaking like an Irish finance minister, Germany's chancellor Friedrich Merz has warned that 'there is no question of the EU taxing companies, as the EU has no legal basis for this'. Other proposed new 'own resources' include taxes targeting electric waste (around €15 billion annually), tobacco products/companies (€11.2 billion), a carbon border tax (€1.4 billion), and a tax on revenues generated by emissions trading (€9.6 billion). EU capitals will also worry how the new budget would affect the politically sensitive difference between national contributions and receipts. [ Proposed €2tn EU budget would increase funding for defence Opens in new window ] From 1973 to 2018 Ireland was a net recipient, in nominal terms, of more than €40 billion in EU funds. By 2023, 10 countries, including Ireland, were net contributors, and 17 were net beneficiaries. Top of the net contributors were Germany (€19.8 billion), France (€9.3 billion), with Ireland in eighth place (€1.3 billion). Poland was the top net beneficiary, receiving €7.1 billion. Ireland was second in net contribution per head, at €240 per person. Courtesy of our growing relative wealth (measured dubiously by 'GDP per cap') we displaced Luxembourg in 2024 in paying the most to the EU budget on a gross per capita basis – with every Irish person contributing some €53.20 a month to the union's coffers compared to the EU average of €25.20 and Germans' €29.70. Bulgarians contributed €10.70 a month. Net cash contributions have been seized on by many national politicians and the press as evidence that the countries of the supposedly indolent south are unfairly milking the system at the expense of fiscally responsible northerners. But the real benefits of membership to the countries of the north amount to far more than can be measured by such direct transfer figures. Apart from the progressive aims of redressing EU-wide economic imbalances, helping poorer neighbours and levelling the playing field, the EU provides huge indirect and non-cash benefits disproportionately to net contributing members such as Ireland. These include financial rewards from the European Central Bank in maintaining financial stability and financial returns, valuable access to the single market and research grants through the Horizon programme. Making the political case for increasing our contribution yet again will not be easy but it must be done.

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