An excellent piece of writing which does a deep dive on Irish sovereignity and what it actually means.
I would argue though that the founders of the Irish state were fully aware of the dangers of Fanon's oppositional identity and sought to cultivate a sense of Gaelic identity. It is easy to scoff at the cosplaying of Celtic identity and mythic Irish heroes like Cu Culainn by the likes of Pearse and Gonne, but at least they were aware that being 'not English' was an insufficient ground for Irish identiry.
Michael Collins was even more asute, correctly diagnosing the economic underpinnings of the British empire and the need to develop an independent economic base for Ireland.
Alas, in the last 50 years we have recklessly thrown all of their painfully hard won achievements away.
The decimation of the fighting capacity of the Irish army (in a nation previously renowned for the martial prowess of its soldiers)is just the tip of the iceberg. As Sinead correctly points out in this wonderful essay the policy of Irish neutrality (rooted in De Valera’s tenacious decision to stay out of WWII) has morphed into an ill thought through, economically expedient and morally ambiguous stance.
This is downstream of being marinated for the last 50 years in a toxic soup of consumerism, materialism,US cosplaying and allowing our landscape, education, infrastructure and institutions to be almost entirely captured by global capitalism.
It's not surprising that Ireland is now the data centre capital of Europe,because we are stupid enough to believe that makes us indispensable to vast US corporations who cynically view our island as a trans Atlantic raft for thinly staffed empty engines of capitalism and the rest of us as a bunch of useful, if quaint, idiots.
Thank you for the reply. I think the problem for me is that I think that the men who founded the new Irish state like Pearse, Collins and Griffith all died in its foundation and it was captured by a clique of arch conservatives who turned it into a theocracy.
The window for change slammed shut then. I would argue it is still closed, it is inconceivable that were Collins alive now he would have allowed the massive incursion in Irish economic life of US global corporations.
Yes, the founders of the state were visionary men who looked for alternative economic models to underpin a uniquely Irish way of life.
What a pity that their successors have adopted such a narrow view of economic success that they have allowed the island's entire prosperity to be undergirded by a few US corporate giants, fatally undermining national sovereignty. This train is about to leave the station soon.....
The impression I have of that era is that it was more incrementalist, rather than driven by a vision once political Independence was achieved in 1922. While some of the founders of our state may have been visionary, many existing institutions continued (apart from war damage/robberies) - unchallenged long after independence eg.
Local Government: - which was radically reformed in 1898. Note that local government was financed primarily by taxes (rates) on all property - homes, businesses, agricultural land;
Financial institutions: - which were focused on London, then the pre-eminent financial centre;
Professions: legal, medical, etc;
Churches: - which provided educational and social services;
Businesses: - mainly serving the Irish market, including transport within and to/from the country;
The Co-operative movement: which was strong in dairying areas, but not in beef or cereal production areas.
Apart from the 1925 Shannon Electricity scheme and the 1927 founding of the ESB as a state monopoly, the new state did not challenge the established interests.
Earlier nationalist Irish movements had set up banks eg. In 1835, Daniel O’Connell set up the National Bank, absorbed into Bank of Ireland during the 1960s; Arthur Griffith’s Sinn Féin set up a bank in 1910 which ceased in 1921. The Irish Free State did set up the Agricultural Credit Corporation in 1927 to supply credit to agriculture, in “competition” with the existing banks until Rabobank took it over in 2002.
Yes, the FF governments elected from 1932-48 did add some more institutions eg. The Industrial Credit Company(ICC), the Turf Development Board, Aer Lingus. The latter two were new and different from what then existed ie. no real interests then existed in these emerging sectors.
You are rummaging in the soul of the Irish State, which is a unique occupation of yours and it makes for uncomfortable reading. As you have highlighted the sinews are weak, and the will to transform is absent. This is all fine whilst we are awash with money but doesn’t look good for the next 25 years or for the next generation. How can the state be shaken out of its stasis. As the K shaped economy continues into the future, more people will become disaffected with the system, which undermines the foundations of our democracy. What you highlight is that we need a new vision for the country, something more than Boston or Berlin.
Sinead, you brilliantly articulate and break down Ireland, putting your research, thought and words to my feelings and intuition. You are a truly modern Irish patriot in my view. Keep doing what you do please and hopefully Ireland will hear you, understand your words and move to better decisions. I despair to know where the politicians are, who will take your work on board, but your words do give me hope.
You're so close, but you still repeat this idea that Ireland is "freeloading". It suits Britain just fine to have a militarily impotent neighbour.
The existence of the Irish Republic depends on the UK respecting Irish sovereignty, and doing so voluntarily, forever. For a country that suffered under their yoke for centuries, that's an astonishingly risky bet.
When the far right inevitably comes to power in the UK, when the US inevitably recedes from it's role as global hegemon, history will resume, and when it does, we will wonder how we wasted precious time debating a mostly hypothetical Russian threat, and not the country on our doorstep, for whom controlling Ireland has always been a geopolitical necessity.
Britain has only ever paid attention to Ireland when it really needed to, because waging war here was expensive, distant and yielded little beyond security at their back - we’ve no natural resources worth taking. If we did our part in defending our airspace, undersea infrastructure and cooperated with Britain and European navies in policing and defending the western approaches, they’d be happier and not need to stretch their already thin defence budget to pay our way too.
The Falkland islands also has no natural resources, is not at all crucial to Britain's security, and is practically on the other side of the world. But Britain went to war with Argentina to maintain control of them. Regaining control over Ireland would be a walk in the park by comparison.
Britain never truly accepted Irish independence (see the Republic of Ireland act 1948, the CTA, their insistence on using the term "British isles"). We are fortunate that the US vassalised them after Suez, but the US is no longer reliable or predictable. We must be the guarantors of our own sovereignty.
I know you're probably rolling your eyes right now but please realize it is not the 90's anymore. Go back in time 30 years, if you said the president of the US would talk openly about annexing Greenland, who would have believed you? Ireland is Britain's Ukraine/Taiwan/Cyprus. We urgently needs to start seeing ourselves that way.
I think you’re drawing an equivalence between the prestige hit of potentially losing the (useless) Falklands and the stubbornly British inhabitants of those islands and Ireland as a whole, but I don’t think that’s quite right. Britain was actively planning to hand the Falklands and its inhabitants to Argentina when the war started. The Good Friday agreement encapsulates all the considerations they feel are due to their Northern subjects in Ireland, Brexit shows how little they care or understand the Irish situation. We are invisible unless there’s an immediate threat, I’d contend, and perfidious Albion is 99% a boogey man 🤷♂️
That exact same "invisibility" is a big part of the reason their government and military got away with committing atrocities and great injustices here (as recently as the Troubles). So forgive me if I don't exactly feel reassured by the by their lack of concern for us.
It's frankly astonishing that you can describe Britain as a "boogy man" when it is the only country that has ever invaded, conquered, or colonised us, and did so repeatedly, and brutally. Pax America has truly lobotomised us.
I’m from Derry, I grew up there during the troubles. Being stopped and searched by an army patrol was a regular feature of daily life for teenage me. I saw the provos bomb the main shopping streets into rubble, walked to school through the hunger strike riots. I’ve seen it first hand.
What I object to, is the lack of agency a lot of arguments about Britain and Ireland give to Ireland. We have choices to make, relationships to cast or recast and we’ve largely abdicated that responsibility. If we look to you like supine victims of perfidious Albion, then my next question is ‘What can we do about it as a small country?’ The answer should not be ‘Nothing’, but I think that has been our answer to date. I like this article because it takes the spotlight off the Brits, for a change, and shines it on us and asks that question - ‘What you gonna do?’ I think that’s a reframing we need to regain agency, and start asking what we want here, and stop being the body washed up and down the beach in Britain’s tide 🤷♂️
I have read countless articles, listen to god knows how many mind numbing debates about Irish security. 99 times of out 100, the discussion devolves into a debate about the threat of Russian meddling. *Not once* have I heard anyone seriously discuss a hypothetical scenario where Britain, or another allied country violate our sovereignty, and that includes this article. Our dependence is never framed as an existential risk. It is at most seen as an embarrassment (see the constant use of the term "freeloading"). So I agree with everything you say about agency, but I disagree about "taking the spotlight off the Brits for a change" because it hasn't been on them in decades. The idea that they would ever violate our sovereignty has somehow become unthinkable. Sooner or later, the Irish will get a geopolitical wakeup call similar to the ones the Danish got earlier this year.
I’m not saying they pose no threat, Darragh, I do think they’re way down the list at the moment. They can barely defend themselves, their politics and economy are in bits. Security in the North is as much an issue for them as for us, as the recent race riots showed. I guess we’re in violent agreement, besides, perhaps, the order of priority of current threats 🤷♂️
Respectfully, I am not buying the existence of an isolationist, post-liberal right at all. They may genuinely believe that they will do the things you listed when they get into power, but once in power, their rhetoric will collide with reality.
Donald Trump and JD Vance portrayed themselves as isolationist, anti-war candidates who were going to turn their attention inward (they may have genuinely believed that rhetoric themselves) but look at them now. Imperialism and "spheres of influence" thinking is simply the logical, inevitable end point of their politics.
Historically there have 2 reasons why Britain needed to control Ireland. One was to prevent other European powers from using Ireland as a launchpad, the other was food security. Both of these are still relevant. The thing that worries me most about all this talk of Russian interference in Ireland is that Britain can use this as a convenient excuse to violate our sovereign, claiming they had to in order to protect themselves. Regarding food security, Britain is a famously food insecure nation. In the event of a major global calamity where global trade plummets, control over food production in Ireland could be deemed a necessity. And most crucially, it would relatively easy for them to take it. The costs that Ireland could inflict on the UK for such a violation would be minimal.
After the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, a lot of people came to the conclusion that wars are just inherently unpopular now, even among the far right. This was the wrong conclusion. The far right doesn't dislike war, they dislike losing! The Iran war is unpopular with MAGA, but kidnapping the president of Venezuela was not. Can you spot the difference?
“No natural resources” worth taking? What an extraordinary statement! For years, Britain had a cheap food policy to support its manufacturing industry. The first time I visited England, the boat pulled into Birkenhead to off load live cattle and then into Liverpool to offload the other passengers. Now, there are many people adding value to products derived from processing raw materials in Ireland derived from cattle. A major reason for joining the European project in 1973 (then the EEC) was for Irish farmers to get higher guaranteed prices for basic cattle derived products ie. meat, butter. It is a shame that no attention was paid to sea fish resources in our waters then or since. Where are the Irish multinationals based on sea fish compared to Kerry Foods, Glanbia, the Goodman group, et.al? What Irish sea food products compare to Kerrygold, the result of Tony O’Reilly’s drive when employed in An Bord Báinne, now Ornua? Other multinationals also used the same raw materials to set up baby food plants. Similarly, clean water is a resource that many bio/pharmaceutical multinationals used when setting up plants all over the country. It is a pity that the Irish state did not follow what it had done with the Shannon Scheme and the Irish Turf Development Board ( now Bord na Móna) in developing the base metal deposits. For that purpose, Mianraí Teoranta was a state owned company set up but never developed. When founded, the state inherited a Geological Survey with skilled and experienced staff. In 1922, it published a very thorough description of where base resources were likely to be found. During the 1950s, a small North American company actively explored for what became the largest zinc mine in Europe near Navan. At one stage, that mine was owned and operated by Outokumpu, then owned by the state of Finland and in which the Finnish state is still the largest shareholder. Zinc concentrate from Navan was exported to a smelter in Finland! Do you ever wonder where the Irish skill in breeding horses came from? The British army had a huge need for horses which continued up to WW1. Now the horse-breeding industry employs thousands in rural Ireland. In another post, I pointed out that an Aer Lingus employee started an aircraft leasing business based on experience of deriving revenue from planes that were not used during the then off peak travel season. Tony Ryan formed GPA which failed, but from which Ireland has become a major centre for the worldwide aircraft leasing business now. Ryanair is another result of Ryan’s managerial imagination. The Irish corporate tax regime grew from the Irish state’s effort to have dollar earning capacity after WW2, to pay for oil given that Sterling (to which the Irish pound was then tied) was no longer a major currency. Enough for now!
way back, a similar argument was made: during the appropriations hearings for Fermilab, some politico across the Atlantic asked how Fermilab would contribute to the defense of the country
the project lead answered that Fermilab will help “make the country worth defending”
A powerful, thoughful and passionate article of real importance. The statement that 'a country that a hundred years later is still so busy not being Britain that it never got around to becoming itself' is spot on. It is interesting that a President (and Commander in Chief) who speaks of decolonising our minds reflects exactly the need for such a process when it comes to discussions of neutrality and defence. It is worth reading Claire Wills excellent book 'That Neutral Island - A history of Ireland during the second world war' to gain insight into the mix of pragmatism and principles that shaped our neutrality; including the threats from within the state.
An excellent piece, you cut to the heart of the matter, Sinéad! The fact we know what we are against and can’t say what we are for is the starting place for the defence and foreign policies of all of our political parties, such as they are. I also love the concept of the expressive state, the retreat into grievance, which explains so much. Thank you 🙏
An important subject, and one treated with considerable honesty and self-reflection.
I feel it necessary to stress something: the Russians aren’t coming. They never came, and they never will. There just aren’t enough of them, and they are too far away. I say this as a citizen of a country which shares an arctic border with them — they’ve never come here either, nor will they ever bother. Our southern neighbour, on the other hand, has invaded us several times …
Part of your island is still occupied by another country — maybe until that issue is resolved it will be difficult to define your national security priorities with total clarity, since an island nation must prioritize naval area denial above all else, while a divided island implies field armies.
So maybe you’re further away from resolving this than you realize. 100 years is NOT a long time in national terms, so your period of “definition by negation” may not yet be fully concluded (as it certainly is not either here in Canada). But thinking about it clearly is the first step …
You perfectly captured that annoyance I was feeling watching Irish politicians and public figures becoming more and more vocal and passionate about Palestine than they are about doing their actual jobs. It wasn't that I disagree with them on I/P, it was the sense that our trust fund baby of a country thinks in it can lecture countries in dangerous neighbourhoods about pacifism, while we are defended by others, indulge in anti US posturing like the Dublin council Obama thing, while our morbid economy is iron lunged by American tax evasion. It's not the points of view, it's the total lack of skin in the game.
'It's easy to know what you are against, but quite another to know what you are for'.
A quote from Damien in Ken Loach's excellent "The Wind That Shakes the Barley and is echoed throughout your article.
From my albeit short time as an Economist at the Irish Department of Defence what you have discussed here was my biggest takeaway. That there is no clear sense of who we are and what we are for, and therefore no overall strategic direction towards which to strive.
That's not a swipe at any former colleagues, just a reflection on the state in general. In fact I would be confident many of them would echo that sentiment.
Another impeding factor which you do touch upon in the Irish state apparatus is a very narrow definition of security. What you reference as "hard" and "soft" security has also been called "human security". As you clearly do, understanding security from this perspective effectively eliminates arbitrary "boundaries" between the "integrity of our borders" and concepts such as "economic security" or "environmental security". However, my impression is that Irish politics and the civil service still view these concepts as entirely distinct.
Ireland maybe needs to consider what it would do if the North declared independence. The UK Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is supposed to call a referendum on reunification if and when they think it might pass, but a loyalist national executive there might declare independence first to avoid the referendum and avoid being pulled into the rest of Ireland. Given there would likely be a nationalist majority at that point there could be unrest and worse. the Irish Army might arguably need to be sent north to protect Irish citizens who are facing violence and a deprivation of liberty. It really could all kick off.
This is an excellent article. It does beg the question that having defined "what we are" do we have the politicians capable of creating the institutions to match the vision?
Another inspiring piece. The framing of post colonialism as a sort of victimhood that can't move on from blaming the oppressor for all of it's ills, is an underexplored theme.
It's not just restricted to former colonies either. Here in the UK, we still can't move on from the old mindset of " projecting worldwide power" while deluding ourselves that we have the capability to do so ( aircraft carriers without aircraft for God's sake.) The public is in a similar mindset to Ireland: largely anti war after the disastrous interventions of the last 25 years, yet vocal in support of causes ( Ukraine, Gaza) that it thinks are risk free. We too lack serious debate about what kind of country we want to be and what the trade offs mightbe. There is a growing understanding that Russia is a threat, but policymakers are still way behind understanding that our power and communications networks are where our frontline needs to be.
This is an extraordinary piece of writing.
Sinéad for Taoiseach, anyone?
Minister for Defense, if not Taoiseach! Or to have maximum impact, Minister for Public Expenditure, who really holds all the purse-strings...
An excellent piece of writing which does a deep dive on Irish sovereignity and what it actually means.
I would argue though that the founders of the Irish state were fully aware of the dangers of Fanon's oppositional identity and sought to cultivate a sense of Gaelic identity. It is easy to scoff at the cosplaying of Celtic identity and mythic Irish heroes like Cu Culainn by the likes of Pearse and Gonne, but at least they were aware that being 'not English' was an insufficient ground for Irish identiry.
Michael Collins was even more asute, correctly diagnosing the economic underpinnings of the British empire and the need to develop an independent economic base for Ireland.
Alas, in the last 50 years we have recklessly thrown all of their painfully hard won achievements away.
The decimation of the fighting capacity of the Irish army (in a nation previously renowned for the martial prowess of its soldiers)is just the tip of the iceberg. As Sinead correctly points out in this wonderful essay the policy of Irish neutrality (rooted in De Valera’s tenacious decision to stay out of WWII) has morphed into an ill thought through, economically expedient and morally ambiguous stance.
This is downstream of being marinated for the last 50 years in a toxic soup of consumerism, materialism,US cosplaying and allowing our landscape, education, infrastructure and institutions to be almost entirely captured by global capitalism.
It's not surprising that Ireland is now the data centre capital of Europe,because we are stupid enough to believe that makes us indispensable to vast US corporations who cynically view our island as a trans Atlantic raft for thinly staffed empty engines of capitalism and the rest of us as a bunch of useful, if quaint, idiots.
Thank you for the reply. I think the problem for me is that I think that the men who founded the new Irish state like Pearse, Collins and Griffith all died in its foundation and it was captured by a clique of arch conservatives who turned it into a theocracy.
The window for change slammed shut then. I would argue it is still closed, it is inconceivable that were Collins alive now he would have allowed the massive incursion in Irish economic life of US global corporations.
Michael Collins described Arthur Griffith as “the father of us all”. Griffith definitely inspired those who, in 1925, set up the Shannon Scheme as the first national electricity system in the world. https://www.academia.edu/128581192/Power_to_the_People_Arthur_Griffith_and_the_Shannon_Scheme
Yes, the founders of the state were visionary men who looked for alternative economic models to underpin a uniquely Irish way of life.
What a pity that their successors have adopted such a narrow view of economic success that they have allowed the island's entire prosperity to be undergirded by a few US corporate giants, fatally undermining national sovereignty. This train is about to leave the station soon.....
The impression I have of that era is that it was more incrementalist, rather than driven by a vision once political Independence was achieved in 1922. While some of the founders of our state may have been visionary, many existing institutions continued (apart from war damage/robberies) - unchallenged long after independence eg.
Local Government: - which was radically reformed in 1898. Note that local government was financed primarily by taxes (rates) on all property - homes, businesses, agricultural land;
Financial institutions: - which were focused on London, then the pre-eminent financial centre;
Professions: legal, medical, etc;
Churches: - which provided educational and social services;
Businesses: - mainly serving the Irish market, including transport within and to/from the country;
The Co-operative movement: which was strong in dairying areas, but not in beef or cereal production areas.
Apart from the 1925 Shannon Electricity scheme and the 1927 founding of the ESB as a state monopoly, the new state did not challenge the established interests.
Earlier nationalist Irish movements had set up banks eg. In 1835, Daniel O’Connell set up the National Bank, absorbed into Bank of Ireland during the 1960s; Arthur Griffith’s Sinn Féin set up a bank in 1910 which ceased in 1921. The Irish Free State did set up the Agricultural Credit Corporation in 1927 to supply credit to agriculture, in “competition” with the existing banks until Rabobank took it over in 2002.
Yes, the FF governments elected from 1932-48 did add some more institutions eg. The Industrial Credit Company(ICC), the Turf Development Board, Aer Lingus. The latter two were new and different from what then existed ie. no real interests then existed in these emerging sectors.
Sinead
You are rummaging in the soul of the Irish State, which is a unique occupation of yours and it makes for uncomfortable reading. As you have highlighted the sinews are weak, and the will to transform is absent. This is all fine whilst we are awash with money but doesn’t look good for the next 25 years or for the next generation. How can the state be shaken out of its stasis. As the K shaped economy continues into the future, more people will become disaffected with the system, which undermines the foundations of our democracy. What you highlight is that we need a new vision for the country, something more than Boston or Berlin.
Keep up the great incisive, stimulating work.
Gerry Sheehan
Sinead, you brilliantly articulate and break down Ireland, putting your research, thought and words to my feelings and intuition. You are a truly modern Irish patriot in my view. Keep doing what you do please and hopefully Ireland will hear you, understand your words and move to better decisions. I despair to know where the politicians are, who will take your work on board, but your words do give me hope.
You're so close, but you still repeat this idea that Ireland is "freeloading". It suits Britain just fine to have a militarily impotent neighbour.
The existence of the Irish Republic depends on the UK respecting Irish sovereignty, and doing so voluntarily, forever. For a country that suffered under their yoke for centuries, that's an astonishingly risky bet.
When the far right inevitably comes to power in the UK, when the US inevitably recedes from it's role as global hegemon, history will resume, and when it does, we will wonder how we wasted precious time debating a mostly hypothetical Russian threat, and not the country on our doorstep, for whom controlling Ireland has always been a geopolitical necessity.
So... a KGB dictatorship fuelled by machismo trying to destroy law is hypothetical... ?
Ok.
Perhaps you should take a look at a map.
Britain has only ever paid attention to Ireland when it really needed to, because waging war here was expensive, distant and yielded little beyond security at their back - we’ve no natural resources worth taking. If we did our part in defending our airspace, undersea infrastructure and cooperated with Britain and European navies in policing and defending the western approaches, they’d be happier and not need to stretch their already thin defence budget to pay our way too.
The Falkland islands also has no natural resources, is not at all crucial to Britain's security, and is practically on the other side of the world. But Britain went to war with Argentina to maintain control of them. Regaining control over Ireland would be a walk in the park by comparison.
Britain never truly accepted Irish independence (see the Republic of Ireland act 1948, the CTA, their insistence on using the term "British isles"). We are fortunate that the US vassalised them after Suez, but the US is no longer reliable or predictable. We must be the guarantors of our own sovereignty.
I know you're probably rolling your eyes right now but please realize it is not the 90's anymore. Go back in time 30 years, if you said the president of the US would talk openly about annexing Greenland, who would have believed you? Ireland is Britain's Ukraine/Taiwan/Cyprus. We urgently needs to start seeing ourselves that way.
I think you’re drawing an equivalence between the prestige hit of potentially losing the (useless) Falklands and the stubbornly British inhabitants of those islands and Ireland as a whole, but I don’t think that’s quite right. Britain was actively planning to hand the Falklands and its inhabitants to Argentina when the war started. The Good Friday agreement encapsulates all the considerations they feel are due to their Northern subjects in Ireland, Brexit shows how little they care or understand the Irish situation. We are invisible unless there’s an immediate threat, I’d contend, and perfidious Albion is 99% a boogey man 🤷♂️
That exact same "invisibility" is a big part of the reason their government and military got away with committing atrocities and great injustices here (as recently as the Troubles). So forgive me if I don't exactly feel reassured by the by their lack of concern for us.
It's frankly astonishing that you can describe Britain as a "boogy man" when it is the only country that has ever invaded, conquered, or colonised us, and did so repeatedly, and brutally. Pax America has truly lobotomised us.
I’m from Derry, I grew up there during the troubles. Being stopped and searched by an army patrol was a regular feature of daily life for teenage me. I saw the provos bomb the main shopping streets into rubble, walked to school through the hunger strike riots. I’ve seen it first hand.
What I object to, is the lack of agency a lot of arguments about Britain and Ireland give to Ireland. We have choices to make, relationships to cast or recast and we’ve largely abdicated that responsibility. If we look to you like supine victims of perfidious Albion, then my next question is ‘What can we do about it as a small country?’ The answer should not be ‘Nothing’, but I think that has been our answer to date. I like this article because it takes the spotlight off the Brits, for a change, and shines it on us and asks that question - ‘What you gonna do?’ I think that’s a reframing we need to regain agency, and start asking what we want here, and stop being the body washed up and down the beach in Britain’s tide 🤷♂️
I have read countless articles, listen to god knows how many mind numbing debates about Irish security. 99 times of out 100, the discussion devolves into a debate about the threat of Russian meddling. *Not once* have I heard anyone seriously discuss a hypothetical scenario where Britain, or another allied country violate our sovereignty, and that includes this article. Our dependence is never framed as an existential risk. It is at most seen as an embarrassment (see the constant use of the term "freeloading"). So I agree with everything you say about agency, but I disagree about "taking the spotlight off the Brits for a change" because it hasn't been on them in decades. The idea that they would ever violate our sovereignty has somehow become unthinkable. Sooner or later, the Irish will get a geopolitical wakeup call similar to the ones the Danish got earlier this year.
I’m not saying they pose no threat, Darragh, I do think they’re way down the list at the moment. They can barely defend themselves, their politics and economy are in bits. Security in the North is as much an issue for them as for us, as the recent race riots showed. I guess we’re in violent agreement, besides, perhaps, the order of priority of current threats 🤷♂️
Respectfully, I am not buying the existence of an isolationist, post-liberal right at all. They may genuinely believe that they will do the things you listed when they get into power, but once in power, their rhetoric will collide with reality.
Donald Trump and JD Vance portrayed themselves as isolationist, anti-war candidates who were going to turn their attention inward (they may have genuinely believed that rhetoric themselves) but look at them now. Imperialism and "spheres of influence" thinking is simply the logical, inevitable end point of their politics.
Historically there have 2 reasons why Britain needed to control Ireland. One was to prevent other European powers from using Ireland as a launchpad, the other was food security. Both of these are still relevant. The thing that worries me most about all this talk of Russian interference in Ireland is that Britain can use this as a convenient excuse to violate our sovereign, claiming they had to in order to protect themselves. Regarding food security, Britain is a famously food insecure nation. In the event of a major global calamity where global trade plummets, control over food production in Ireland could be deemed a necessity. And most crucially, it would relatively easy for them to take it. The costs that Ireland could inflict on the UK for such a violation would be minimal.
After the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, a lot of people came to the conclusion that wars are just inherently unpopular now, even among the far right. This was the wrong conclusion. The far right doesn't dislike war, they dislike losing! The Iran war is unpopular with MAGA, but kidnapping the president of Venezuela was not. Can you spot the difference?
“No natural resources” worth taking? What an extraordinary statement! For years, Britain had a cheap food policy to support its manufacturing industry. The first time I visited England, the boat pulled into Birkenhead to off load live cattle and then into Liverpool to offload the other passengers. Now, there are many people adding value to products derived from processing raw materials in Ireland derived from cattle. A major reason for joining the European project in 1973 (then the EEC) was for Irish farmers to get higher guaranteed prices for basic cattle derived products ie. meat, butter. It is a shame that no attention was paid to sea fish resources in our waters then or since. Where are the Irish multinationals based on sea fish compared to Kerry Foods, Glanbia, the Goodman group, et.al? What Irish sea food products compare to Kerrygold, the result of Tony O’Reilly’s drive when employed in An Bord Báinne, now Ornua? Other multinationals also used the same raw materials to set up baby food plants. Similarly, clean water is a resource that many bio/pharmaceutical multinationals used when setting up plants all over the country. It is a pity that the Irish state did not follow what it had done with the Shannon Scheme and the Irish Turf Development Board ( now Bord na Móna) in developing the base metal deposits. For that purpose, Mianraí Teoranta was a state owned company set up but never developed. When founded, the state inherited a Geological Survey with skilled and experienced staff. In 1922, it published a very thorough description of where base resources were likely to be found. During the 1950s, a small North American company actively explored for what became the largest zinc mine in Europe near Navan. At one stage, that mine was owned and operated by Outokumpu, then owned by the state of Finland and in which the Finnish state is still the largest shareholder. Zinc concentrate from Navan was exported to a smelter in Finland! Do you ever wonder where the Irish skill in breeding horses came from? The British army had a huge need for horses which continued up to WW1. Now the horse-breeding industry employs thousands in rural Ireland. In another post, I pointed out that an Aer Lingus employee started an aircraft leasing business based on experience of deriving revenue from planes that were not used during the then off peak travel season. Tony Ryan formed GPA which failed, but from which Ireland has become a major centre for the worldwide aircraft leasing business now. Ryanair is another result of Ryan’s managerial imagination. The Irish corporate tax regime grew from the Irish state’s effort to have dollar earning capacity after WW2, to pay for oil given that Sterling (to which the Irish pound was then tied) was no longer a major currency. Enough for now!
Geography huh. It matters that Ireland is behind Europe's last redoubt.... and its Atlantic sentinel.
But your arguments are as silly as the brexit bunch. You are suffering under cliches.
These islands'importance is underlined by their listing on the hybrid war itinenary.
Defending the echr from Russia and getting UK back into the EU should be your priority
way back, a similar argument was made: during the appropriations hearings for Fermilab, some politico across the Atlantic asked how Fermilab would contribute to the defense of the country
the project lead answered that Fermilab will help “make the country worth defending”
i find the similarity striking: https://history.fnal.gov/historical/people/wilson_testimony.html
A powerful, thoughful and passionate article of real importance. The statement that 'a country that a hundred years later is still so busy not being Britain that it never got around to becoming itself' is spot on. It is interesting that a President (and Commander in Chief) who speaks of decolonising our minds reflects exactly the need for such a process when it comes to discussions of neutrality and defence. It is worth reading Claire Wills excellent book 'That Neutral Island - A history of Ireland during the second world war' to gain insight into the mix of pragmatism and principles that shaped our neutrality; including the threats from within the state.
An excellent piece, you cut to the heart of the matter, Sinéad! The fact we know what we are against and can’t say what we are for is the starting place for the defence and foreign policies of all of our political parties, such as they are. I also love the concept of the expressive state, the retreat into grievance, which explains so much. Thank you 🙏
An important subject, and one treated with considerable honesty and self-reflection.
I feel it necessary to stress something: the Russians aren’t coming. They never came, and they never will. There just aren’t enough of them, and they are too far away. I say this as a citizen of a country which shares an arctic border with them — they’ve never come here either, nor will they ever bother. Our southern neighbour, on the other hand, has invaded us several times …
Part of your island is still occupied by another country — maybe until that issue is resolved it will be difficult to define your national security priorities with total clarity, since an island nation must prioritize naval area denial above all else, while a divided island implies field armies.
So maybe you’re further away from resolving this than you realize. 100 years is NOT a long time in national terms, so your period of “definition by negation” may not yet be fully concluded (as it certainly is not either here in Canada). But thinking about it clearly is the first step …
You perfectly captured that annoyance I was feeling watching Irish politicians and public figures becoming more and more vocal and passionate about Palestine than they are about doing their actual jobs. It wasn't that I disagree with them on I/P, it was the sense that our trust fund baby of a country thinks in it can lecture countries in dangerous neighbourhoods about pacifism, while we are defended by others, indulge in anti US posturing like the Dublin council Obama thing, while our morbid economy is iron lunged by American tax evasion. It's not the points of view, it's the total lack of skin in the game.
Not an easy read. Not easy to understand, that as a state or a people we have no raision d'etre, no idea of what we want.
I wonder is it so complicated? Who is supposed to do all this philosophyising for us?g
Michael Martin? Simon Harris? Danny Healy-Rae? Robert Watt? In the whole history of the state how many such people have we had - a dozen?
'It's easy to know what you are against, but quite another to know what you are for'.
A quote from Damien in Ken Loach's excellent "The Wind That Shakes the Barley and is echoed throughout your article.
From my albeit short time as an Economist at the Irish Department of Defence what you have discussed here was my biggest takeaway. That there is no clear sense of who we are and what we are for, and therefore no overall strategic direction towards which to strive.
That's not a swipe at any former colleagues, just a reflection on the state in general. In fact I would be confident many of them would echo that sentiment.
Another impeding factor which you do touch upon in the Irish state apparatus is a very narrow definition of security. What you reference as "hard" and "soft" security has also been called "human security". As you clearly do, understanding security from this perspective effectively eliminates arbitrary "boundaries" between the "integrity of our borders" and concepts such as "economic security" or "environmental security". However, my impression is that Irish politics and the civil service still view these concepts as entirely distinct.
Excellent piece.
As usual, thought-provoking, unsettling and sobering. Compliments on the granularity!
Ireland maybe needs to consider what it would do if the North declared independence. The UK Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is supposed to call a referendum on reunification if and when they think it might pass, but a loyalist national executive there might declare independence first to avoid the referendum and avoid being pulled into the rest of Ireland. Given there would likely be a nationalist majority at that point there could be unrest and worse. the Irish Army might arguably need to be sent north to protect Irish citizens who are facing violence and a deprivation of liberty. It really could all kick off.
Well now that's a scenario. But its only one of several scenarios.
This is an excellent article. It does beg the question that having defined "what we are" do we have the politicians capable of creating the institutions to match the vision?
Another inspiring piece. The framing of post colonialism as a sort of victimhood that can't move on from blaming the oppressor for all of it's ills, is an underexplored theme.
It's not just restricted to former colonies either. Here in the UK, we still can't move on from the old mindset of " projecting worldwide power" while deluding ourselves that we have the capability to do so ( aircraft carriers without aircraft for God's sake.) The public is in a similar mindset to Ireland: largely anti war after the disastrous interventions of the last 25 years, yet vocal in support of causes ( Ukraine, Gaza) that it thinks are risk free. We too lack serious debate about what kind of country we want to be and what the trade offs mightbe. There is a growing understanding that Russia is a threat, but policymakers are still way behind understanding that our power and communications networks are where our frontline needs to be.
Nowhere more pointed than in the poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter, and the actual assassination of Alexander Litvinenko on British soil.
Aah come now, that's a proven bullshit narrative