Here is a simple question, which is probably not so simple once you try to answer it: What is the objective of Irish foreign policy?
I ask this question because the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs gave something of a craw-thumping speech on the topic yesterday, defiantly asserting that Ireland would never be deterred from asserting its values. The obvious subtext for the speech was matters Middle Eastern, where the Israeli state has been stubbornly obstinate in not taking its cue in matters of policy from Simon Harris, up till now at least:
“The protection of human rights, accountability, and compliance with international law are values that can never or will never be compromised by the Irish people, Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs Simon Harris has said.
In a significant speech on Ireland’s foreign policy, he said the Government backed “strong multilateral institutions with a strong United Nations at its heart, to meet the challenges of our century”.
He said it was “more important now than ever that countries like Ireland stand up for the values and ideals that the multilateral system embodies”.”
There are some obvious questions here, once you get beyond the fluff: What does “a strong United Nations” look like? The United Nations is a historically weak organisation hampered by an inability to project force because five of the worlds’ most powerful nations – who are most often in political if not military conflict – each have a veto. For example, the UN is entirely powerless to intervene in Gaza because the United States has a veto, and is entirely powerless to intervene in Ukraine because Russia has a veto. Is that a “strong United Nations”?
More fundamentally, what are “the values and ideals that the multilateral system embodies”? Co-operation, obviously, is one such value – but co-operation to what end? “Ideals” is probably a better word, since ideals are almost by definition unachievable. That is why they are called “ideals” and not “standards”.
Anyway, Harris went on, somehow not drawing laughter from his audience:
“Mr Harris said he was “deeply appalled and sickened” at Israel’s continuing blockade of humanitarian aid entering Gaza.
“We have reports from the world Food Programme that food supplies are running out, with famine now a real risk for many Gazans. Children are being left starving, and even dying, as we speak.
“We cannot and will not stand idly by and let this happen.”
Sorry now, but standing by idly and letting things happen (we could add the words “while publicly lamenting the event”) has long been almost the sole foreign policy objective of the Irish state. Indeed, this country stood by idly and let world war two happen, stood by idly and let the Falklands war happen, stood by idly and let two Iraqi wars happen, along with the Iran-Iraq war, stood by idly and let Vietnam happen, and stood by idly and let the Bosnian Genocide happen. This business of “not standing idly by” is an entirely new foreign policy innovation – but what exactly does it look like?
When Simon Harris says that “Ireland will not stand idly by” in Gaza, what exactly does he mean?
Indeed, this country has already utilised every one of the tiny and insignificant diplomatic tools in its box: It recognised a Palestinian state (though it does not recognise a legitimate Palestinian Government). It jumped up and down so hard that the Israeli state closed its embassy here (which itself was a more decisive decision than Ireland ever made in the other direction). It spent months planning a big diplomatic push in the EU to cancel the EU-Israeli trade association agreement, which came to naught because the majority of EU states think Ireland is a little kooky on this topic, to put matters mildly.
So what’s next? Is Ireland going to deploy armed force in Gaza? No? Then what does “not standing idly by” actually mean?
What it appears to mean is that the Irish Government will continue to direct substantial solidarity in the direction of our revolutionary brothers and sisters in the Palestinian struggle. What it appears to mean is that the Irish public will be subjected to continued and regular speeches from our politicians about the badness of the Israeli state and the decency of the poor Palestinians, with occasional ass-covering references to hostages being released.
The essential diplomatic posture of this state since its foundation, when it comes to world affairs, is unchanged: We lament bad things and urge others to fix them. That is the essential purpose of the United Nations: It cannot do anything of note itself, but it is an excellent forum for urging other people to do things.
We might shrug at this and say that this is the standard posture of small nations who consider themselves very moral, but it actually has a real impact on domestic politics: Because the attitude of our politicians to foreign affairs mirrors substantially the attitude of the Irish politician to domestic affairs: Irish politicians are at their happiest and most contented when calling on other people to do things.
Hence, the five or six press releases I get per day headlined “TD calls on Minister to…”.
The essential disposition here is moral helplessness: Ireland – both in terms of how we conduct domestic politics and international affairs – is an essentially good country that would be even better if everyone else just did things for us. That is the essential tone both of our foreign policy, and much of our domestic politics.
In the meantime, the Palestinians will have to be contented: Simon Harris is going to wag his finger at the Israelis and tell them to shift their policy. If they are really bad, Simon Harris and his government might pass some very watered down version of an occupied territories bill.
Maybe. A little bit. If the Americans let us.
Give me a break. “We won’t stand idly by” – big big words from a very small figure.
One thing the Irish state could do, of course, is to utilise its very well earned good reputation with Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups to prevail upon them to release the remaining hostages, thus depriving Benjamin Netanyahu of any remaining casus belli. But while our Ministers will occasionally make such calls in public, that has never been where our diplomatic energies are expended.
Nor, frankly, will it be. We don’t like to get our hands dirty. We instead prefer to talk about how clean those hands are.
The objectives of Israeli foreign policy, by contrast, are clear: The Israeli Government, having witnessed an attack launched by the Government of the Gaza strip into its territory resulting in over 1,000 murdered citizens, countless rapes, and the abduction of civilian hostages, desires that the Gaza strip and its Government never again pose a military threat to the State of Israel. In pursuit of this objective, it has secured international military support and sufficient backing from allies to ensure diplomatic viability. You may not like its policies, but it has a clear commitment to enacting them. It now appears that the endpoint of that policy will be direct control over much of the Gaza strip by the victorious Israeli army.
Such is how wars have ended, often, throughout history. There is nothing new here, other than the lesson that one should not launch a massive invasion of a much stronger neighbouring state and complain when the resultant war is lost. Most countries in history who have learned that lesson learned it the hard way. So too, now, are the people of Gaza and their brutal Government.