A rules-based international order
“A rules-based international order” is what some Western politicians and commentators say has been lost with Donald Trump’s second elevation to the White House. To this issue perhaps we could take Mohandas Gandhi’s (falsely) attributed response to the question on what he thought about western civilisation – “It would be a very good idea”. The idea that ‘the West’ has kept to the rules when it doesn’t suit them is a fallacy. It may have suited them to keep most of the rules most of the time to ensure stability but when they wanted they had other policies and principles too. But we should also remember the alternative ‘golden rule’ – ‘whoever has the gold makes the rules’.
Examples of western rule flouting are perhaps too numerous to mention more than a few. The previous administration in the USA, that of Joe Biden, effectively looked the other way in continuing to massively support genocidal weapons and financial support to Israel. Most western European countries also looked the other way. Britain produced a ‘dodgy dossier’ which was basically false to justify participation in a war on Iraq in 2003. To the adage ‘Do no harm’, NATO’s action in overthrowing the Gaddafi regime in Libya destabilised much of north Africa. Talking about ‘peace’ but bringing or threatening military force is not something pertaining only to the Trump era in the USA.
The USA proclaims (loudly under Trump but still staunchly under other regimes since the Monroe Doctrine in 1823) its hegemony in the Americas but has refused to allow that Russia might have, on the same basis, strategic interests regarding its neighbours; the broken promise to Russia not to extend NATO eastwards after the collapse of Soviet communism has been, in the case of Ukraine, a red rag to a Putin bull – and part of his unjustifiable justification for full-scale invasion more than three years ago. However in a possible rapprochement between the USA and Russia under Trump, each allowing the other to misbehave is not an answer either. And those in the rich world who believe in global heating have been unconscionably slow in acting on that knowledge when it is poor countries who least contributed to the problem who suffer most.
Of course we question military hegemony in any region by any country but within the existing order there is a severe lack of self perception ‘in the West’. While President Trump’s erratic and sometimes threatening behaviour has made other countries look askance at the USA, there is also a huge lack of awareness of how conflict develops and wars start. Europe at the moment feels a bit like the arms race prior to the First World War with two sides gearing up for a military confrontation that would be totally disastrous and would be the worst of lose-lose results. How is rearmament in western Europe seen by ‘the other side’, i.e. Russia? That is a question which is demonstrably not asked.
Yes, there is a need for a ‘rule-based international order’ but it may not look much like what Trump, Putin, Starmer or even Martin envisage. We need a rules based international order with the primacy of a reformed United Nations, with the UN Security Council either stripped of its ‘great power’ privileges or sidestepped in favour of the General Assembly. We need an international order where human rights is prioritised and bodies like the International Criminal Court are strengthened. We need moves towards disarmament, not rearmament.
‘Defence freeloading’
An accusation made against Ireland (Republic), largely abroad but also at home to some extent, is that it is a ‘defence freeloader’, i.e. that it spends little on military defence and relies instead on being protected by NATO ‘for free’. This is complete nonsense while based on the reality that Ireland does spend relatively little on its military – although rapidly increasing expenditure.
The alternative accusation which can be made, and we would support, is that NATO and many other countries are ‘military wasters’, i.e. spending money on their military which is needed for welfare, green and infrastructure development. The ecological crisis is undoubtedly the largest contributor to forthcoming conflicts on a global scale. We currently have the scenario in Britain, our nearest neighbour and custodian of Northern Ireland, of the government cutting disability benefits while ramping up military expenditure. Military expenditure does create employment – not as much as in other government supported sectors – but is money wasted in terms of social development. However it can also contribute to an arms race – which we currently have in Europe.
There are many points which can be made here. The Irish government and establishment would undoubtedly join NATO if the citizenry would allow it, which they won’t, but they have played a clever game in cosying up to NATO through the so-called ‘Partnership for Peace’ and through removing the Triple Lock on deployment of Irish troops overseas they want to buy in to EU and NATO operations – and warfare. Part of the rationale is being ‘good Europeans’ – we would argue that it is actually being ‘bad Europeans’ and acting against peace.
From the start of the Irish Free State there was an attempt to contribute to international peace through involvement in the League of Nations. Later on Ireland had a strong non-aligned policy and contributed significantly to nuclear non-proliferation and more recently to treaties banning landmines and cluster munitions. The direction the country is heading is a total negation of that history and experience.
The idea that Ireland is at risk of invasion is nonsense and there is an argument that in the Second World War Irish neutrality was more beneficial to the Allies because they did not have to have troops tied up to defend it. Some people have tried to create the idea that, vague as it may be, Russia is a threat to Ireland. It is not, reprehensible as its war on Ukraine may be. And the only risk to Ireland, including international communication cables, is though general escalation and warfare in Europe.
NATO is an aggressive military force and is prepared to use nuclear force as it deems necessary (including ‘first use’). The EU is ramping up to be a regional, if not world, superpower. Ireland’s role, consistent with its history and the desire of its people, should be as a conciliator, an actor for peace, continually looking at how de-escalation and disarmament can be brought about, not just in Europe but globally. A small country such as Ireland could make a significant contribution to world peace.
Within conventional military thinking there is a concept of ‘non-offensive defence’, i.e. military defence and preparations which cannot be considered provocative by ‘the’ – or any – ‘other side’. This is totally missing in Europe at the moment and is part of the reason for the Russian invasion of Ukraine which, as stated, we consider totally reprehensible. In expecting Russia to accept what would be totally unacceptable to the USA – an opposing military force on its borders with Ukraine through possible membership of NATO – ‘the West’ played in to Putin’s hands and gave him a perceived justification for invasion.
The Forum on International Security Policy held by the Irish government in 2023 refused to consider possibilities for nonviolent civilian defence; INNATE offered in good time for this to have been included but this was fobbed off. The government seems to have a one track mind which is a sad reflection on Irish independence and any possibility of an imaginative and creative response to world issues.
Yes, the Irish government should spend more on active involvement in the international sphere but we would say this should be through contributing to peace. Much could be done in terms of diplomatic and mediative actions, and work to address potential conflicts before they simmer to boiling point. This should include financial assistance to areas in need where conflict is a likely outcome of poverty and lack of developmental infrastructure. Simply being another small actor in NATO and EU militarism will contribute, not to peace, but to war, warfare and military waste.
This is the 21st century. Have we learned nothing from the wars of the 20th and early 21st century?