The State's historic neglect of foreign affairs did not matter much when what happened abroad had limited impact at home. But with the increasing globalisation of the economy and the Europeanisation of politics, the cost of neglect is rising ever faster, argues Dan O'Brien.
Having an electoral system that produces the least cosmopolitan political class in western Europe is not without pros, but the big downside is that few TDs have an interest in foreign matters and those that do have little time to do much about it because of the demands of constituency work. The resulting lack of political push, combined with the under-resourcing of the excellent diplomatic corps, presents a growing threat to the country's interests both economically and politically.
Consider prosperity first. Some 30 years ago, farming was all important. But today agriculture accounts for only 3 per cent of the wealth created in the economy. In terms of the livelihoods of the overwhelming majority, it is irrelevant. While agriculture has shrunk to insignificance, Ireland has become the greatest trading nation on earth, exporting more per capita than any other country. Everyone now depends, to a greater or lesser extent, on how exporters do.
Given the importance of exports and the insignificance of agriculture, the State should back the latter over the former when trade-offs have to be made. But this does not happen because although economic interests have changed beyond all recognition, the institutions of the State have been slow to acknowledge this and act accordingly.
The result is seen most clearly in global talks about making international trade freer. Given that Irish exporters are the best in the world, Ireland would benefit disproportionately if these negotiations were to succeed. But instead of working to this end, we are one of those rich countries blocking a deal by refusing to listen to poor countries' pleadings that we change the way our farmers are protected and subsidised.
Until such time as we stop dumping food on the world market, undercutting poor countries' farmers and pushing many out of business, they will agree no deal. The State, by opposing change, is not only acquiescing in the IFA's defence of the indefensible, it is failing to promote the country's real economic interest.
And this is not to say that farmers should not be supported. They should. But not so much that it costs every family in the EU €1,500 a year and certainly not in ways that helps to keep the Third World in poverty.
But it is not only international economic matters that are being neglected. Politically, Ireland's most important vehicle for the pursuit of its interests in the world - EU membership - has been allowed to fall into disrepair.
Ask diplomats from other EU countries their opinion of Ireland these days and they'll mutter through their canapés about Eurosceptic ingrates. So why have we become so unpopular? Some of the bad feeling is because of the country's very low rate of profits tax for American multinationals and the continued receipt of big subsidies despite becoming rich. But these things are not the main reason for all the ill-will, because after all, what Ireland does has next to no real effect on anyone else owing to the country's small size.
The real problem is one of attitude and presentation. Negativity does most damage. Ireland says no to tax harmonisation. Ireland says no to more co-operation on foreign policy. Ireland says no to co-operation on defence and criminal justice. (These days it is sometimes hard to avoid parallels with unreconstructed unionism.) While it is of course right and proper to say no when necessary, there are often better ways than blunt rejection. Not only does such rejectionism frustrate and annoy those on the receiving end, it rarely gets you what you want (unionism again comes to mind).
Visceral anti-EU opinions expressed occasionally by politicians, including people in the Cabinet who should know better, don't help either. These outbursts have tended to relate mostly to how economies are run. Since Ireland awed the world with its economic miracle, a hint of we-know-best arrogance has slipped into some ministers' utterances on Europe. Continentals are infuriated to be lectured that tax cuts solve everything by people they have subsidised so generously for so long.
Another reason for falling stock is that all too often the pragmatism of many Irish EU insiders comes across as scepticism to the many Teutonic bores and Latin wind-bags who drone on endlessly about pie-in-the-sky proposals. To them, Irish eyes cast heavenwards are proof of apostasy, and this matters because showing you are a true believer is essential in a club where hostility to more co-operation is considered akin to barbarism.
The failure to put a positive spin on issues in Europe is all the more astonishing given the proven ability of our diplomats to influence developments abroad. Think of what happened in the US when the peace process was in its infancy. Although the British embassy in Washington was 500 strong, a handful of Irish diplomats ran rings around them, winning the argument in the White House, in Congress and in the media. With the national question all but answered, it is past time these skills were applied to European matters.
Nowhere could these skills be better employed than in winning the tax harmonisation debate. They could also be applied to sharing the lessons of the Nice referendums. Having campaigned twice on the Nice Treaty, our politicians know better than anyone about bringing the Union closer to voters. Spreading the word would be in everyone's interests. But to date this has not happened; there have been no Government contributions to the multitude of EU-focused think-tanks that influence key players, no speeches to the never-ending round of EU-related conferences and no articles in the international media.
But of all places the machinery of influence could be best used is the constitution-drafting Convention on the Future of Europe. Although criticism of the Government has been exaggerated - many other countries haven't got their Convention acts together and ground lost to date can still be made up - the slow response was all too typical. The excuse that last October's Nice referendum caused the delay doesn't absolve anyone of blame.
Although Brian Cowen's speech on the Convention last month proved that the Government is out of the blocks, it was short on constructive suggestions and again betrayed a siege mentality - he did not speak of pursuing Irish interests but of "defending" them, as if other countries were ganging together to do Ireland down. The Tánaiste intervened too, and although constructive, she just can't help hectoring when it comes to Europe - Europeans were told what they "must" do no less than 18 times.
Without greater efforts to win friends and sharpen the political focus on foreign affairs, the country will find itself increasingly marginalised and exposed. In a world where all politics is now global, failure to right the greatest systemic failure of Irish governance will become ever more costly.
Dan O'Brien is an editor with the Economist Intelligence Unit