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

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


RTÉ News
3 hours ago
- RTÉ News
Israel bypasses UN already struggling for relevance
The relationship between Israel and the United Nations has always been strained. But the war in Gaza has pushed it to breaking point. Now as pressure grows on UN agencies in Gaza, so do fears over the permanent bypassing of the United Nations. Will that deal a blow to the multilateral system, at a time when the UN is already reeling from severe financial crisis, not to mention questions over its very relevance? "Israel's sidelining of UN agencies in Gaza – particularly in the delivery of aid – offers a chilling glimpse of what a world without a functioning United Nations might look like: starving people being shot while queueing for food and malnourished medical staff too weak to treat civilians," Christine Ryan, director of the Prevention of Crimes against Humanity Project at New York's Columbia University, told RTÉ News. For nearly eight decades, the United Nations has been engaged on the issue of Israel and Palestine. After all, it was a UN resolution in 1948 to partition the former British mandate into Jewish and Arab states, that sparked the first Arab-Israeli war. The Security Council, the UN's highest decision-making body, still regularly meets, as it did this week, to discuss the conflict in the Middle East including what is still called "the Palestinian Question". At that meeting, the Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations confirmed that the head of the UN's humanitarian agency (OCHA) in Gaza and the West Bank would be ejected at the end of this month and the visas of other international staff restricted. "We will no longer allow anti-Israel activity under the guise of humanitarianism," Israel's Ambassador Danny Danon told the Security Council. This appears to be part of a pattern. Last year, Israel accused UNRWA – the UN's Palestinian Refugee agency that has housed, fed and educated Palestinians for the past 70 plus years – of complicity with Hamas and banned it from operating on Israeli soil or having any contact with Israeli officials. The UN's peacekeeping force in Southern Lebanon – UNIFIL – similarly faces deep opposition from Israel's government. The test for the blue-helmets force will come at the end of next month when the UN Security Council is due to renew its mandate. It remains to be seen whether all five permanent members of the body – including Israel's staunchest ally the United States – will vote in favour. In New York, the United States continues to shield Israel from UN action and scrutiny. The acting US Ambassador to the UN Dorothy Shea told the Security Council that accusations of genocide against Israel made by other council members were "politically motivated and categorically false". "They are part of a deliberate, cynical propaganda campaign as Hamas attempts to win symbolic victories to compensate for total defeat in war," she said. Earlier this month, in an unprecedented move, the Secretary of State Marco Rubio sanctioned the UN's special rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories Francesca Albanese, accusing the independent expert of spewing "antisemitism" and "open contempt for the United States, Israel, and the West". That seemed to have a chilling affect. Just a week later, all three members of a UN Commission of Inquiry set up to investigate alleged violations of international law in Israel and Palestine suddenly quit. Their resignations were applauded by the Israeli mission to the UN. And then, there is the deliberate bypassing of UN aid mechanisms in favour of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation – a US and Israel-backed venture widely condemned by other member states over mass killings of starving Palestinians near aid distribution sites Israel said the GHF was necessary to prevent aid being hijacked by Hamas. UN officials maintain there is no evidence of widespread diversion. But UN-distributed aid has been limited to a trickle, as famine conditions set in. "I think it's important to underscore that the UN and UNRWA in particular, is the only organisation that can deliver services at scale in Gaza," said Ciarán Donnelly, senior vice president of crisis response at International Rescue Committee. "Everything that we do as humanitarian NGOs is incredibly important but ultimately is a complement to the basic services of water, of shelter, of food distribution, as organised by the UN," he told RTÉ News. "So, if the UN isn't able to operate, then it simply makes our job exponentially harder in terms of trying to deliver the impact that we're focused on". UN experts fear the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation could set a precedent for aid distribution not just in the Middle East, but in other parts of the world. This week, Taoiseach Micheál Martin said he was "very disturbed by the undermining of the UN and the relief organisations," and called for the "primacy of the United Nations" to be restored. It's a tall order in the current climate, as the world's major powers sit across from each other at the UN Security Council in scornful disagreement. Diplomatic paralysis in the face of war in Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan, Haiti and elsewhere has raised serious questions about what the UN stands for. Meanwhile, the United States - hitherto global champion of the international rules-based order enshrined in UN multilateralism, since the end of the Second World War - abruptly ditched it in favour of Trump's "America First" foreign policy. The Trump administration pulled out of UN bodies including World Health Organisation, the Human Rights Council and UNESCO, slashed funding to agencies like UNICEF and the World Food Programme and dismissed the values championed by the UN, especially on things like gender and diversity, as "woke". "There's no question about the fact that the UN is being actively undermined," said Anjali Dayal, associate professor at New York's Fordham University, "and is, in a real way, facing an existential crisis". "But I would argue that that's largely financial at the moment," she said. The UN Secretary General António Guterres directed officials to cut the UN workforce by a fifth, while staff at UN agencies have already been laid off in their thousands. Although some UN insiders welcome the financial jolt which they hope may usher in much-needed and long-overdue reform. And it's not just Washington tightening the pursestrings. A pivot to defence spending has prompted Europe to claw back cash from multilateral institutions and international aid. "The UN might not survive the loss of this degree of funding," said Ms Dayal. Indeed, "very senior international officials" speculate that the UN may go the way of the League of Nations – the UN's ill-fated predecessor - according to Richard Gowan, UN Director of the International Crisis Group. But some experts – perhaps the more optimistic among them - believe the current crisis may reinvigorate global commitment to the United Nations. "If you had asked me a few months ago, I would have probably spoken about the UN being at a breaking point," said Ms Ryan. "But the horror wrought by this private aid organisation in place of UN agencies has made the relevance of the UN front of mind," she said. There was "no clearer warning to states, donors and civilians" on why the UN remains critical, she added. On Thursday, the French President Emmanuel Macron announced that France would recognise Palestine at the United Nations General Assembly in September – the first G7 country to do so. The fact he chose the UN - and not, say, the Elysée Palace - as the forum for this grand gesture is notable. The UN's annual jamboree will follow the conference on the two-state solution for Israel and Palestine, co-chaire by France and Saudi Arabia, due to kick off this Monday. That confab was postponed in June after Israel and the United States bombed Iranian nuclear sites. Israeli government officials have slammed the conference as a "reward for terror," while the United States issued a diplomatic cable to UN member states ahead of the June-scheduled dates, warning them not to attend. But countries appear to be undeterred. 40 government ministers are expected to turn up in New York next week to take part - a sign, perhaps, that the UN is still viewed as relevant in many capitals around the world. Asked how a UN conference had any hope of breathing life into a two-state solution that has failed for decades, is bitterly opposed by the Israeli government and while war continues to rage, a French diplomatic source said: "Sometimes from the darkness, the light can emerge."


Irish Times
3 hours ago
- Irish Times
Amazon is not the only multinational losing confidence in Ireland. Will a €102bn plan fix it?
This week we got a State investment plan with no list of projects and a pre-budget document with no estimate of the likely position of the public finances next year. Economic nerds like me felt short-changed. The first document was all uppy stuff about boosting investment and securing the future. The second doubled down on the scary backdrop provided by a changed world and the unpredictable actions of Donald Trump . The Government has clearly made a political decision to 'go for it' on State investment. But the document published this week was more a manifesto for the multinationals than a plan. It was a pitch to foreign investors, who have become increasingly outspoken about Ireland's energy and water infrastructure and the lack of housing for their staff . And it was a bid to try to allay public concern – on housing in particular. The head-wrecking details, including how to deliver it all – most notably in housing – are still being worked out. The decision by Amazon to abandon a project in northwest Dublin because of problems getting an electricity connection is by no means a first. There has been a building crisis of confidence in corporate headquarters in the US about Ireland's ability to deliver on these areas – and this week's plans are an attempt to send a message to these American boardrooms, who are central to our economic wellbeing. They will also look for evidence that Ireland can actually make this happen - reassurances over the years that the key infrastructure areas were being addressed have not been delivered on. READ MORE And so we have a €102 billion, five-year investment plan. It is, for sure, heading in the right direction. The Fiscal Council has estimated that Ireland's infrastructure is 20 per cent to 25 per cent behind other richer EU countries. In this context, the recent growth rate of the economy has been remarkable. But Ireland is now running hard into the infrastructural buffers. Turning this investment manifesto into a fully coherent plan and then implementing it will be a big task. Ireland has struggled to deliver on the scale of promised investment in recent years; Covid was factor, for sure, but the State missed opportunities to cash in on a time of fiscal plenty. Now, it plans to boost investment plans just as the outlook is getting uncertain. It is necessary – but it also carries some risk. It looks like a turning point may be approaching in the national finances, when more difficult decisions await and trade-offs have to be faced up to. The State has been swimming in cash in recent years – but the budget surplus is being eaten away. And this means some politically difficult choices, which have yet to be squarely faced. Corporate tax is still funding a spending rise across the board. The Government plans to increase current spending by almost 6.5 per cent next year, well ahead of inflation. However, the combination of a big investment plan and Donald Trump's policy decisions are changing Ireland's fiscal arithmetic. In the spring, the forecast budget surplus of revenue over spending for next year was €6.3 billion. And that was before any tariffs. This week's document does not update that figure. But on the basis of what we now know from this week's documents, economists have cut this forecast to around €2 billion. [ Taoiseach to 'delve into' Amazon's scrapping of Dublin plant over failure to secure power supply Opens in new window ] As Goodbody stockbroker economist Dermot O'Leary pointed out, this is a small margin for error in the light of the tariff threats and the hugely concentrated nature of our tax base. And the gamble is not so much that the State might have to borrow a bit for a few years to ramp up investment. It is that a bigger hole might appear, because such a large part of our corporate tax is potentially transitory – based on multinational tax planning rather than economic activity here – and that policy changes in the US could lead to some of this cash leaving. The Fiscal Council estimates that subtracting the tax planning froth, the public finances would be heading for a deficit next year of €13 billion. [ Corporation tax surge a sign investors have not been put off by economic uncertainty just yet Opens in new window ] Now we are, of course, into 'crying wolf' territory here. The council, Central Bank, Department of Finance and most of us who write about economics have been warning about this risk for years. In the meantime, the tax paid by multinationals has just kept heading higher. And this may not be over yet. The Fiscal Council has said that corporate tax may again outperform this year compared to forecasts, which could give the Government some leeway in 2026. But that does not remove the risk of hanging on to a tax pile which has grown so large than it has now attracted jealous eyes not only from the rest of the EU but from Washington DC. And the State investment plans lower the room for manoeuvre if something goes wrong. If you plan to spend another €34 billion over the next five years, it has to come from somewhere, and using an expected budget surplus each year to help pay is part of the plan. Already, there are signs of the budget scope tightening. We are seeing the potential juggling in Budget 2026, with the hospitality VAT rate possibly deferred until midyear to leave scope for an income tax package. But that is a bet that the cash will be there to pay for a full-year VAT cut in 2027. And this is really only budgetary small beer, if the Government is to really slow the growth of day-to-day spending to leave room for more State investment. If it does not, then any fall-off to corporate tax will leave tricky decisions. For example, the Government is committed to putting money into two State funds for the future. It is legally obliged to do so, though can stop if there is a downturn. But if the numbers do get tight, does the State borrow cash to then invest in these funds – which would look very strange? Or does it divert money from other cash holdings? Sitting watching will be the National Treasury Management Agency, which was set up to borrow on behalf of the State. It has had a quiet time on this front in recent years, with the budget in surplus and a requirement just to keep things ticking over and refinance maturing debt. Now, as the State finances tighten, it may soon be back in business.


Irish Times
4 hours ago
- Irish Times
‘It would be a waste': Little appetite in Sinn Féin for Mary Lou McDonald to run for president
There is little appetite among Sinn Féin for Mary Lou McDonald to run for president as party figures move closer to the idea of backing Catherine Connolly . Sinn Féin's Ard Chomhairle has not yet considered a report consulting the party's membership on its views, and the party will not make a formal decision until September. But a number of figures in the party neither believe nor support the idea that Ms McDonald would run. 'I don't want her in the Áras,' one said. 'It would be a waste.' 'I don't see a universe where she would run.' READ MORE A number of sources within Sinn Féin said they would favour keeping Ms McDonald in the Dáil to lead the party's ongoing bid to get into government. There is a view emerging that to have Ms McDonald run for president could be read as a concession that Sinn Féin was losing its ambition for the office of an taoiseach. Ms McDonald prompted speculation on her possible candidacy for the upcoming presidential election when she declined to rule herself out of the race earlier this month. It was a marked change in position for the leader of the Opposition, who had definitively said she would not be running for president in March. It is understood Ms McDonald's recent comments may have been a recognition of a desire for her to run among party supporters, who were recently consulted on their views. Sinn Féin remains nervous about presidential elections following a bruising run for its then MEP Liadh Ní Riada in the 2018 contest. Ms Ní Riada came fourth with a little more than 6 per cent of first-preference votes. Though Ms McDonald is recognised as a very strong candidate with a massive national profile, party figures are privately reluctant to put 'our best vote getter' up for what can be a bruising and unpredictable contest. There are anxieties within the party that anything less than an overwhelming win for Ms McDonald could feed a media narrative about a dip in Sinn Féin's electoral fortunes. Sinn Féin is generally relaxed about the question of its presidential candidacy and is content to wait until as late as September to make a decision. If Sinn Féin does not run its own candidate, it is likely to support the campaign of Independent TD Ms Connolly. [ Who is Catherine Connolly? The outspoken left-wing campaigner running for president Opens in new window ] Launching her campaign earlier this month, Ms Connolly said 'I think we're going to have united Ireland very soon' but it would not be 'immediate'. This was widely perceived within the party to have been for the benefit of Sinn Féin and an open effort on the part of Ms Connolly to court the party. Few Sinn Féin TDs could remember ever having heard Ms Connolly talk about reunification in her nearly ten years in the Dáil. The independent TD did support a recent Sinn Féin motion which proposed extending voting rights to Northern Ireland. Will Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin abstain from the presidential race? Listen | 40:42