Le: Aire Gnóthaí Eachtracha; Micheál Martin
Foilsithe
An t-eolas is déanaí
Teanga: Níl leagan Gaeilge den mhír seo ar fáil.
Check against delivery
I am very pleased to be with you today for this year’s International Affairs Conference. The Academy’s work in this field plays an important role in providing an independent forum to explore major international issues.
I have always believed that a genuinely diverse discourse is essential to a successful society and the government’s support for this conference demonstrates our commitment to this ideal. It is particularly important today at a time when international affairs are becoming more central to public debate in most countries.
There is no doubt that in general we need to work much harder to bridge the gap between abstract research and the complex realities of international relations.
The urgency of so many social, economic, environmental and political challenges demand that we constantly evolve our responses – that we work against the inclination of many to emphasize points of division rather than potential points of unity.
Just as old grand narratives have been challenged, so too it is necessary to avoid simplistic new narratives when they arise.
The topic of this year’s conference is undoubtedly one of the defining issues of international relations in our time. It is not a new issue but it is certainly now central to framing how nearly all international issues are debated.
A rejection of past colonialism and a recognition of its continued impact in the modern world has been an extremely valuable development over the past half century. Within this, we have seen the end of destructive past conceptions of the history and role of Western civilization propagated mainly by larger, dominant powers.
For a small country on the periphery of Europe – and one which has been shaped by centuries of experience of external domination - the grand narrative of the West which reached its height in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries - was never one in which we could see ourselves reflected.
And over the past century we have been consistent supporters of decolonialisation and respect for different cultures.
As a result of this there have always been those who repeatedly call on Ireland to join with the opposite grand narrative – one which accepts a core binary division in international relations and pushes us to be ‘anti-Western’.
I believe that this crude approach to framing international relations offers us nothing positive.
It promotes a static view of human history, it emphasises concepts of sovereignty that ignore important values and it undermines the idea of rules-based institutions.
In many ways, the dichotomy of ‘the West versus the Rest’, which was once central to achieving the end of empires and the rise of new nation states, is today often used to distort international relations in important ways.
Rather than promoting the sovereignty of peoples who suffered under colonialism, there are actually regular attempts to use the idea of standing against ‘the West’ as a way to justify the suppression of peoples.
And here in Ireland, this framing has regularly been used in such a way as to distort debate and promote a regressive, anti-European Union rhetoric.
I believe that when we look at the development of our identity, both in history and since independence, and our approach to supporting strong international institutions, you see that Ireland has followed an approach which is far more meaningful.
It is an approach which has secured sustained progress for us and has, I believe, made a significant contribution to promoting peace and progress internationally.
We have always rejected the idea that there is a single ‘Western’ narrative or interest. However, we have always sought, and should continue to seek communities of shared values and interests.
Within this, we need to be more serious in understanding the role which Europe has played in helping us to secure our sovereignty.
In this short contribution to today’s conference I want to reflect on how different aspects of our identity have been reflected in our foreign policy over the past century.
In looking at the challenges of this grave moment in international relations we must accept that institutions which we value deeply are being undermined.
As we look to the future, I believe we must reject crude binary stereotypes about how international relations should be seen. It is both possible and necessary to be both anti-colonial and to actively promote values which centre human rights and dignity.
Before addressing issues specific to Ireland’s identity and approach, I think it is important to recognise the urgency of this the current moment, and the damage which polarisation is causing.
In recent months we have seen many examples where we have been reminded of the importance of shared values – and what happens when they are ignored.
In the two years since Vladimir Putin launched the latest phase of his war against Ukraine we have seen many examples of his active campaign to distort international debate and the promotion of a false view of history.
February 16th 2024 is a day which will long be remembered.
On that day Alexei Navalny died as a prisoner of a regime which sought to crush anyone who spoke against its criminality and neo-imperialism.
He was viewed as especially dangerous because he opposed a war to conquer and suppress a neighbouring nation – a war which explicitly seeks to extinguish a national identity and culture in favour of that of the invader.
And on the very same day that Navalany died, the regime responsible for his death hosted an international conference in Moscow entitled: “For the freedom of Nations: Forum for the supporters of the struggle against modern practices of neocolonialism”.
It was reported that over 70 countries were represented at the event where the entire programme was devoted to speeches claiming that ‘the West’ is supposedly trying to restore its empires.
Repeated claims were made that what the world needs most is for ‘the Rest’ to unite against ‘the West’. While much of the world was reacting to the news of Navalny’s death as well as Russian bombings of Ukrainian civilians, this event demonstrated active hostility to the demand of a long-oppressed nation to be allowed to chart its own future.
It would be easy and wrong to dismiss this as some Orwellian irrelevance.
The reality is that this approach of using anti-colonial rhetoric to justify grave assaults on national and individual rights is more and more common.
For example, the Maduro regime in Venezuela and the Assad regime in Syria regularly use anti-Western rhetoric to justify the repression of their people and the causing of mass humanitarian crises.
This is in turn taken up by self-claimed anti-colonialists in countries like Ireland who seek to cover-up or defend appalling atrocities with aggressive rhetoric.
The danger of simplistic binaries is something we also see in relation to the appalling situation in Gaza.
It should not be so hard for people to speak out against both the appalling atrocities of Hamas and the grossly disproportionate, cruel and devastating campaign against Gaza by this Israeli government.
Disregard for international law is at the core of this devastating tragedy.
Thousands dead.
Countless more wounded, displaced, traumatised.
Totally inadequate volumes of humanitarian aid being allowed into Gaza.
And systemic denials of basic goods and infrastructure that would allow for a comprehensive, effective humanitarian response.
I heard and saw this reality myself last week during my visit to the Egyptian side of the Rafah border.
I met with the head of UNRWA and UN OCHA in Gaza, as well as the head of the Egyptian Red Crescent Society. I visited the Red Crescent Humanitarian Hub and the Al-Arish Hospital, where many Gazans who are wounded, or who have chronic diseases that cannot be managed in Gaza are being treated.
I saw crates of essential items – solar lamps, crutches, medical kits, toy kits for children, commodes, fridges, menstrual hygiene kits, water tanks, cold chain storage systems, CT scanners. I saw little plastic pencil sharpeners removed from kids’ pencil cases.
All rejected on the basis of ridiculous claims that they are ‘dual use goods’ with potentially hostile applications.
I heard from the UN colleagues on the ground of the total lack of a functioning de-confliction system, which means that their convoys are shot at by Israeli forces.
Convoys that are trying to get to the north of Gaza to do desperately needed nutrition surveys, or plan for the continued provision of the most basic health services, or ensure that bodies left on the side of the road are given a decent, dignified burial.
The humanitarian system cannot provide food, health services, personal protection, education, water and sanitation.
In short, people are denied the basics of life that every human being needs to live with the absolute minimum of safety and dignity.
My visit also coincided with the marking of 200 days since the absolutely horrific assault by Hamas on communities in southern Israel and the taking of hostages; 200 days during which at least 130 hostages, from Israel and at least 15 other countries, remain in Gaza, torn from their families, enduring unimaginable fear and suffering.
This has gone on for too long.
Nothing is more important now than achieving an immediate ceasefire, the unconditional release of hostages, and full, safe and unhindered humanitarian access.
We must also restore a political horizon. The voices of extremism have held sway for far too long. I know it will be a long and difficult road.
But there is no option other than to return to the two-state solution central to the Oslo Accords.
Ireland’s clear and consistent position over recent decades has been for Palestinians to enjoy the same rights of freedom and self-determination as others.
As a result of the initiative of my late colleague and predecessor Brian Lenihan Senior, Ireland was the first EU member state to endorse the idea of a Palestinian state in 1980.
Ireland’s approach has always been grounded in building international alliances through diplomacy to amplify our support for the Palestinian people.
My discussions in Egypt and Jordan last week focused on this issue, and how recognition by a group of European states could provide impetus to a comprehensive regional solution, linked to the Arab Peace Plan.
If ever there was a moment to reject the idea that you must simply accept the argument and justifications of one side over another then this is it.
Far too many people have refused to insist that certain behaviours and values be applied to all.
And the extent to which there have been active attempts to undermine international institutions and independent media reports once again shows us both how essential they are and how we cannot take them for granted.
If we take together many of the issues which have come before the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council in recent years we can see the extent to which basic values are now being disputed. While an attempt to polarise debate is near constant, there is every reason to be concerned about the dramatic weakening of shared institutions and values.
For Ireland this is a particular concern because, for us, strong international cooperation and respect has been the cornerstone of our approach to international relations both since independence and in the political movements which inspired independence and defined much of our history.
I think we need to do much more to reflect on this and how this is opposed to the more assertive ideas of nationalism and sovereignty which are again a major force through much of the world.
In an address to the Academy as Taoiseach I spoke at length about the challenge of reflecting in Irish identity the diversity of our island and the need to broaden our understanding of each other. I will not repeat what I said then, but rather I will consider our identity as it is linked to our view of Ireland’s place in the world.
Ireland as part of a community of nations has been key to our culture and identity as long as there has been a distinct Irish identity. An open, complex and evolving identity is, I believe, actually the very reason why we have managed to maintain a distinct culture.
For many years research on national identity spoke about the central role of a nation defining itself against an ‘other’ in order to find shared symbols, behaviours and aspirations.
While this may well be the case in larger countries where the idea of being a ‘strong’ nation and ‘standing up’ to others was important, it has never been convincing when applied to smaller nations.
The writer Milan Kundera addressed this in a highly influential article published forty years ago.
To him, a small nation was one which could only develop a unique culture and guarantee its survival by embracing the wider international context.
A small nation is, he said, “one which could disappear and knows it”.
To him, rather than being defensive, a generous and open approach to international engagement was essential. To contribute to the international community - to give to it and take from it – was the only way for smaller cultures and societies to prosper and avoid the danger of becoming more a folklore than a culture.
This idea is one I believe you find over many centuries in our history. Our understanding of who we are and seek to be is inseparable from a deep, positive and ongoing engagement with other countries and their cultures.
While we have never subscribed to the idea of a dominant and uniquely virtuous historical narrative of Europe through the ages, it is the wider European context which has helped us to maintain a distinct identity.
The network of Irish Colleges and Irish regiments was one part of this, but more importantly was a regular exchange of ideas.
Research on our history from the early-modern period up to the last century has repeatedly shown how a wider international context was always part of the evolution of Irish identity and helped us to both survive and contribute to the evolution of wider culture.
A small example of this can be seen in the history of the Blasket Islands before the last residents left seventy years ago.
There are few places more peripheral to Europe than these islands. Lying in the Atlantic off the South West coast, they lacked daily connection to the outside world and were almost a textbook example of what could be seen as a traditional society.
And yet the Blaskets were, as one writer put it, “an open trading post in culture”. The islanders were constantly evolving and interacting not just with the Irish mainland, but the wider world as well.
The folklorists Bo Almqvist and Seamus Stewart wrote about this in the context of Almqvist’s collection of island stories from Micheál Ó Gaoithín. Ó Gaoithín was the son of Peig Sayers and one of a remarkable generation of authors from the Great Blasket. In reviewing these stories they noted that eight of them originated from Giovanni Boccacio’s Decameron, one of the early texts of the Italian renaissance.
For example, the story of ‘Andreuccio of Perugia’, a tale of a traveller subject to many disasters but ultimately redeemed, became ‘Seán of the Misfortunes’ in the Blasket story cycle.
Their research identified a particular route of the stories to the Blaskets in the mid-nineteenth century.
What I find very striking is how tales which originated in fourteenth century Florence centuries earlier could still resonate with a small, isolated, Irish-speaking community so many years later.
It was accepted by them as being both relevant and amusing – incorporating morality and aspirations which were intelligible and memorable.
Our culture and identity has never been closed. It has constantly engaged with and evolved through interaction with the wider world.
And the same is true in relation to political ideas.
The nationalist and republican politics which have defined the views of the majority for over two centuries were very directly inspired by ideas in France.
The 1798 Rebellion was the largest popular rising in favour of French revolutionary ideals – albeit understood here in a unique way which combined both the secular Tree of Liberty and pious religious imagery.
Two decades later Daniel O’Connell led a movement which invented mass political participation and constantly expressed international solidarity.
O’Connell himself was an inspirational figure for liberal reformers internationally and he himself always identified Ireland’s cause as being shared.
He opposed slavery in the Americas and throughout the world saying “I despise any government which, while it boasts of liberty, is guilty of slavery, the greatest crime that can be committed by humanity against humanity.” In Europe, his influence on the campaign against the Habsburg form of serfdom, the Robot, was widely acknowledged.
And this internationalism is also to be found in later generations who represented a different strand in Irish nationalism. The Proclamation of 1916 is a remarkable document in many ways.
Its insistence on respecting a diverse national identity and that women should enjoy civic rights was unique for its time.
And so too was its expression of support for Ireland joining a community of nations. It is not an angry assertion of national identity, or a call for reprisals against others.
While most of the leaders of the Rising had devoted as much of their lives to cultural revival as to separatism, they represented a type of nationalism which was far more open than was found in many other countries. Their insistence on there being different traditions within Irish identity was and remains an important challenge to us.
In fact one of the leaders, Thomas MacDonagh, devoted his academic career to insisting that literature in English should be accepted as being as Irish as literature written in the Irish language.
To him, what he called a unique “Irish voice” had developed in English language literature written in Ireland and this should be valued and respected.
He also regularly set Irish literature in the context of the literature of other cultures and sought to make translations available.
When the first Dáil met in 1919 it again promoted the idea of a broad Irish identity and a commitment to international cooperation.
It is this tradition which inspired subsequent policy and is to be found in the under-appreciated radicalism of the relevant parts of the 1937 constitution.
At a time when extreme ideologies were taking over much of the world and democracy was failing in many new states, Bunreacht na hÉireann took a completely different approach. Domestically, it saw the only example of that time where a revolutionary group achieved power and then introduced strong legal controls on their use of that power.
Separation of powers, constitutional amendment by free referendums alone and many other changes embedded core principles of democracy and the rule of law. The introduction of explicit constitutional protection for minorities was genuinely remarkable for that time.
And so too was what the new constitution had to say about Ireland’s view of international relations. Article 29 set this out clearly:
1. Ireland affirms its devotion to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation amongst nations founded on international justice and morality.
2. Ireland affirms its adherence to the principle of the pacific settlement of international disputes by international arbitration or judicial determination.
3. Ireland accepts the generally recognised principles of international law as its rule of conduct in its relations with other States.
For a country to assert that it accepts international law and the use of institutions to resolve disputes was highly unusual in 1937 and is, unfortunately, an approach which many countries are today turning their backs on.
This wasn’t a once-off statement. It reflected what had by then become the dominant approach taken by our government to international relations.
With our nearest neighbour and former colonial power, a period of dispute was resolved through a comprehensive trade treaty and agreement on matters important for Irish sovereignty such as the return of military ports.
And at the League of Nations, a distinct and active position was taken in favour of shared values and the rule of law.
When we look at the issue of our approach to how states should behave towards each other and the roles of large and small nations, the actions and speeches of Eamon de Valera at the League of Nations still resonate.
In many ways I see them as the guiding touchstone of our international relations and an important insight into the issue we are discussing today.
In 1932, soon after he became head of our government and Minister for External Affairs, he attended the League’s General Assembly in Geneva.
Ireland held a place on the League’s Council and by chance also held the rotating chairmanship when the Assembly opened. This required de Valera to deliver an opening address which was expected to briefly summarise the League’s activities since the last meeting.
Rather than follow this custom, de Valera instead chose to address a wide range of issues and very directly challenge the states present to respect the rule of law.
He stressed that Ireland believed in “the way of peace, of thinking in terms, not of selfish interest, not of the acquisition of territory, nor of petty power, but of human beings living as they have a right to live, in the best that their own energies and [the] State can give them, whilst contributing to the world the best that is in us.”
He addressed interstate disputes in Asia and South America, supported humanitarian aid for China, backed tribal rights in Liberia and minority rights in Europe.
He called for urgent economic cooperation to address the looming crisis which came to be known as the Great Depression.
However most of all he criticised the international community for its failure to respect its mutual obligations.
With impending crises posing what he asserted was an existential threat, he appealed to the leaders gathered in Geneva:
“Friends and enemies of the League alike feel that the testing-time has come; and they are watching to see if that test will reveal a weakness pre-saging ultimate dissolution, or a strength that will be the assurance of a renewal of vigour and growth”
In the remaining years of the League’s operation de Valera continued to assert Ireland’s belief that the only way progress could be achieved for all nations was to enter into and respect strong international agreements.
He particularly railed against countries who refused to hold others to account because of tactical interests.
The invasion of Ethiopia was a foreshadowing for him of what might follow.
Speaking at the 1936 Assembly he said:
“Perhaps as the representative of a small nation that has itself experience of aggression and dismemberment, the members of the Irish Delegation may be more sensitive than others to the plight of Ethiopia. But is there any small nation represented here which does not feel the truth of the warning that what is Ethiopia's fate today may well be its own fate tomorrow, should the greed or the ambition of some powerful neighbour prompt its destruction.”
And he went further by pointing to the larger countries, and those who were indifferent to the plight of a distant African state, and predicted that they would not be left untouched if nothing was done.
“Will it be said, when the array of tombs which stretch from end to end of Europe have been multiplied, that there had been plenty of time to land, but that the statesmen waited too long and the soldiers took control.”
This type of independence by the head of government of a newly independent state received warm support from many and consistent opposition from others.
The previous year many states wanted De Valera to serve as President of the Assembly, a position which could influence the League’s agenda.
Reports from Geneva outlined how he was ultimately blocked in large measure because larger states believed he “would make an unsuitable President because he would be likely to make use of the Office to launch attacks on Imperialism generally”
The manner in which a distinct Irish foreign policy was established - both post-colonial as well as European, nationalist and internationalist – was noticed through much of the world.
The high respect in which de Valera was held in countries like India and Indonesia reflected this.
This position also defined our early and ongoing engagement with the United Nations.
Ireland has been consistent and I believe effective in promoting non-proliferation and the peaceful resolution of conflicts.
We have built many strong and important relations with countries in different parts of the world especially post-colonial countries.
Particularly in Africa, we have implemented long-term, humanitarian and development aid programmes in cooperation with the communities and states concerned. At no point is this work ever linked to a selfish national agenda.
However, we have always rejected the idea that we should operate within the simple binary of ‘the West’ versus everyone else.
We believe in the Declaration of Human Rights.
We believe in core principles of how states should respect each other.
And we make no apologies for seeing a particular shared interest with democratic states.
It is a very great disappointment to see other small states, which should, for example, feel solidarity for Ukraine, fail to support it against a neo-imperialist aggressor.
The United Nations remains a forum where the interests of all can be voiced, and we will continue to argue for it being a forum where the interests of all are respected.
International bodies working within the United Nations system have also been an important way of promoting shared interests.
Whether it be the World Food Programme, UNESCO, UNICEF or the International Labour Organisation, they are vital in supporting many millions of people.
It is their work, as well as increased trade and many other demonstrations of international solidarity which have underpinned a dramatic and sustained increase in life expectancy in every continent.
Far more progress has been achieved through a commitment to strong international values and institutions than through any other approach.
The recognition of international obligations and values which I referred to in the struggle for independence and afterwards, is something which remains central to our policy.
This is particularly true in relation to our deep and sustained commitment to participation in a strong European Union.
The last public act of key figures from our independence struggle was to commit Ireland to a European future. Seán Lemass, who had fought in the GPO as a sixteen year old boy, believed passionately that Europe was the context in which Irish sovereignty and prosperity could be fully secured.
I don’t believe that there is a comparable example of a revolutionary nationalist generation being so clear-thinking in seeking security and progress through a uniquely strong, rules-based multi-state organisation.
Exactly twenty years ago a range of states which had more recently succeeded in winning their freedom from the last major European empire took a similar approach when they joined the European Union in a symbolically powerful ceremony here in Dublin. A moment whose anniversary I will formally celebrate later this afternoon at Farmleigh.
When you discuss the European Union today with people from, for example, the Baltic states it is impossible to miss how they see it as an anti-colonialist force – a force which gives them sovereignty in the face of the constant threats of a powerful neighbour.
For me there are few things as absurd and corrosive as the attempt by some to claim that the European Union is some form of new empire or that it is a threat to our sovereignty.
The European Union has no colonies and seeks no colonies. Every member state which has joined after the founding treaty took the sovereign democratic decision to do so.
The Union respects the rights of its members, but equally it expects its members to abide by the rules which they have signed up to. And as we saw with our neighbour, you can leave if you want to.
There is no such thing as an empire with voluntary membership, no united army and a budget which amounts to only 1% of combined national incomes.
And yet we regularly hear claims that the Union is supposedly an enforcer of ‘Western’ hegemony. In fact we have four MEPs who represent the most pro-EU population in Europe by dedicated themselves to a relentless onslaught against the Union.
This has been a factor as far back as our referendum on membership.
An organisation called the ‘Common Market Research Group’ led much of the anti-membership campaign. It did so claiming that Ireland should stand with anti-western, post-colonial societies against an organisation they claimed would destroy our economy, culture and sovereignty.
Because the facts of our membership have been so positive and are the foundation for so many jobs and our ability to influence international decisions, we have often fallen into being complacent about this membership.
We have largely ignored the euroscepticism of loud voices here and how they distort much of our debate.
Every single time we have a vote on Europe they again claim the end of our sovereignty.
As we saw last year in their response to my initiative to encourage discussion on the subject, they promote conspiracies every time we try to have an honest debate about how to ensure our security in the face of new threats.
As we have seen so dramatically in Britain, a failure to properly challenge Eurosceptics can cause real damage in the long term.
And we should always remember that corrosive Euroscepticism is as prevalent on the far-left as it is on the far-right.
For Ireland there has not been and there will not be any contradiction between our commitment to the European Union and its values and our commitment to wider international cooperation.
The idea of dividing the world into the superficial binary of the West and the Rest is one which is directly opposed to principles which I believe have always been reflected in our modern identity and the reality of policies which directly benefit smaller countries – countries who have never had and do not aspire to building an empire.
Strong, evolving identities which serve the interests of our publics require that we recommit to the values of international law, effective institutions and active, rules-based cooperation.
These are not ideals which belong to one bloc or group of countries – or indeed to any particular civilization ancient or modern.
They are the only credible way of enabling peace and progress in our increasingly divided times.