IRELAND: It was an unusually high-profile year for Irish foreign policy. Deaglán de Bréadún reviews Ireland's performance at the UN Security Council and on international issues.
When Ireland was running for the United Nations Security Council two years ago, a delegate from another member-state expressed relief that his own country was not in the race, "because when you join the council you have to say Yes and No every day".
Diplomats are still dining out on stories of that remarkable election and how sufficient votes were garnered for Ireland to top the poll. But the Irish quickly discovered, if they didn't already know it, that there is no hiding place at that level of international politics and fudge only goes so far.
It is impossible to evaluate the last year in Irish foreign policy without taking an overview of Ireland's two-year stint on the council, now at an end. For a while after the conclusion of the Cold War it was fashionable to speak of "the end of history" but the phrase has hardly been heard since September 11th, 2001. The terrible events of that day clearly showed that history was not dead, simply changing gear. The Communism-Capitalism dispute might appear to be over but The West vs. Militant Islam was only warming up.
Ireland had the presidency of the Security Council when the US decided to launch its assault on the Taliban regime in Afghanistan on October 7th, 2001. Irish diplomatic sources say a "very reluctant" US was eventually persuaded, under pressure from Kofi Annan and with the help of a telephone call from Brian Cowen to Colin Powell, to come to the council the following day and explain its action.
Some might say it was not the best time for a small country, relying on US investment, to get in the way and we didn't. Neither did other and more imposing states. With the mightiest war machine ever built swinging into action, the Irish tried to highlight humanitarian concerns and our diplomats claim some success in that respect. Domestic criticism of the decision to allow US forces the use of Shannon Airport as a staging post, without a Dáil debate, has been rejected by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who said it was our duty under the UN's Resolution 1368, binding all member-states to co-operate against international terrorism. Anti-war activists claim that US military aircraft and personnel are passing through Shannon as part of the Iraqi build-up, but a spokesman for the Department of Foreign Affairs said no request has been received for such activity.
In the past year, Iraq was of course the biggest issue, almost blotting out everything else. While many people are still unclear as to how we got from 9/11 and Osama bin Laden to the need for ousting Saddam Hussein, there was no wishing-away the grim determination of the world's sole remaining superpower to bring about what it called regime change in Baghdad.
Irish diplomats point to the hard work and long hours they put in, with a view to ensuring the UN was centre-stage in the Iraqi crisis. Ireland supported the efforts, led by the French, to prevent the council from being sidelined on this major issue of international peace and security. The underlying aim was to contain the belligerence of the more right-wing republican elements in Washington. Speaking to reporters in Dublin recently, Cowen was able to point out that doom-laden warnings over the past five months that the US was about to strike without consulting the council had proven unfounded. Although he claimed war was not inevitable, the military build-up has continued and the noose around Saddam Hussein's neck grows ever tighter.
There is little a small state like Ireland can do to prevent a superpower going to war if it really wants to do so, especially when long-term oil supplies are believed to be at stake, but the debate here centres on what kind of stance Ireland should take in that eventuality. If Iraqi civilians are being blown to bits on our television screens in a few weeks, do we want to be morally implicated?
That is the issue raised by opponents of the war, who say we must not co-operate with the US military machine either diplomatically or by providing airport and overflight facilities. Cowen was cagey on this issue and appeared to indicate that any decision about the use of Shannon following an outbreak of war would be taken in the light of positions enunciated by the UN.
THE Iraqi issue is, of course, intimately tied in with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where Ireland had what is known as a "forward" position, both at the UN and elsewhere, in comparison to some of her European Union partners. The principle behind the policy was that the Government supports the Palestinians' right to a state along with Israel's right to a secure existence within the recognised borders that existed prior to the Six-Day War of 1967. While no complaints have been heard from the Israelis, Ireland's approach on the council brought a handwritten letter of appreciation and gratitude from the Palestinian President, Mr Yasser Arafat. In the broader arena, Ireland made a brave decision to take in two Palestinian militants from the siege of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem and the Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, showed his interest and concern by telephoning Mr Arafat when he was under siege at his compound in Ramallah.
As one of the so-called "elected 10" on the 15-member Security Council, Ireland had to play second fiddle to the veto-wielding "Permanent Five" - China, France, Russia, the UK and the US - who have dominated that body since they emerged as joint victors in the Second World War. But Ireland has more status and power at EU level where there is some truth in the claim that "we punch above our weight".
Here, the biggest foreign policy issue was the Nice Treaty. As soon as the general election was over, the Taoiseach announced it as a priority to reverse the result of the first referendum. Both his Department and Foreign Affairs put a major effort into securing a Declaration from EU heads of state that Ireland's military neutrality would continue to be respected and was not being undermined by the treaty. Back home, the critics dismissed the declaration and the subsequent constitutional proposal to hold another referendum before we joined any EU mutual defence arrangement.
Despite the Government's efforts, neutrality continued to be the issue of greatest concern to the electorate up to polling day. Had the treaty been rejected a second time, it would have been seen as a major embarrassment, both to the Government and the diplomatic service. But the intensity, scale and resources of the Yes campaign, combined with some political mistakes of the No side, ensured that this did not happen.
The establishment mobilised as it had never done since Ireland's original accession to the European Economic Community 30 years before. Government fears that the immigration issue would augment the No vote failed to materialise. Many in the No camp were embarrassed and demoralised by the issue and by the revelation that the prominent anti-Nice campaigner, Mr Justin Barrett, had attended meetings of German and Italian parties widely considered to be neo-fascist (he claimed he did not know the true nature of their politics).
With the referendum in full swing and the Government anxious to allay concerns that Nice would facilitate the creation of an EU super-state, it is perhaps understandable that it did not highlight its participation in the Convention on the Future of Europe, chaired by the former French President, Valery Giscard d'Estaing.
But in the aftermath of the successful referendum, criticisms began to be voiced that the Government was not taking the Convention sufficiently seriously. The French, Germans, Spanish and Turks were sending their Foreign Ministers but Ireland sent its junior minister, Dick Roche (the former Taoiseach, John Bruton of Fine Gael is a member of the Convention's praesidium or management committee). Under Giscard's direction, the proposed EU Constitution was becoming more than a kind of "European Law for Dummies". It was turning into a document with very serious implications indeed, both for supporters and opponents of further European integration. An address by Mr Cowen on January 15th, rather pretentiously entitled The State of the Union is expected to address these concerns.
The general election was conducted in an atmosphere of sunny optimism but, as soon as the votes were counted, it began to emerge that all was not well with the economy. Inevitably, the soft targets were the first to be hit and one of these was Overseas Development Aid. The proud boasts that Ireland would forge ahead to the recommended level of donating 0.7 per cent of Gross National Product to the developing world by 2007 began to look decidedly shaky, with next year's increase considerably below what was originally anticipated.
Arising in part from its missionary tradition, Ireland has always had a particular interest in Africa and the bulk of Irish development aid goes to that continent. Diplomatic sources said that, during Ireland's tenure on the Security Council: "More than any non-African member, we pushed for an active UN role in the African conflict areas, and for the strengthening of the role of the international community generally in Africa."
Although our long-standing involvement in South Lebanon has finally come to an end, Ireland continues to play a role in international peacekeeping, whether on the border between Ethiopia and Eritrea, on the divided island of Cyprus or in the Balkans. While a UN mandate is always required, the missions in the Balkans are NATO-led.
The Government has pledged some 850 troops to the emerging Rapid Reaction Force of the EU. The complexities and uncertainties of international peace and security are making it difficult to maintain a stance of clear-cut neutrality and defining Ireland's role in this area more precisely is one of the major challenges of 2003.