The Nationalist Case for Neutrality and Independence: Beware of Foreign Influence
The following first appeared on the Substack ‘Creeve Rua’ and is syndicated with the permission of the author.
The government’s catastrophic geopolitics
‘Oh, who is Ireland's enemy? Not Germany, nor Spain,
Not Russia, France nor Austria; They forged for her no chains’—‘Who is Ireland's Enemy?’ by Brian Ó hUigínn.
Thanks to the schizophrenic meandering on foreign affairs, our country is currently caught in the crosshair of the incoming Trump administration. Whether it be our outspoken criticism of the genocide in Gaza, or our encouragement of American multinationals taking business and profits away from their home country, the Trump administration has been explicitly clear that they seek to significantly overhaul this relationship, by pulling investment out of Ireland.
While all these concerns may result in a nothing burger, it is nonetheless an indictment on the Government's seeming lack of concern, and long-term thiking on geopolitics. The recent attacks on an t-Uachtarán demonstrate the instability of the government's current path, juggling NATO, the EU and humanitarian concerns all at once. There doesn't appear to be a clear ‘plan b’ other than desperate kowtowing to the anti-Irish and technocratic Western order: 1) adopting a definition of hatred which could arguably be applied to their own rhetoric, as well as 2) dropping a bill which they had been working on for month, and is clearly in line with their previous positions.
What becomes clear is that the government do not have a cohesive, independent and coherent geopolitical vision for Irish foreign policy. Many critics will take from this, as opposed to the musical chairs of our leaders, that the correct position is simply to fall in-line with the Euro-American world order, and to never stand for our own positions or feelings again—I believe this to be an equally insipid approach.
The aim of this essay is to better understand the established tradition in the history of this state of having a truly Independent Irish foreign policy, in the hopes that Nationalists and Populists can emulate what has worked in the past in an effort to craft a new revolutionised approach for the maximisation of Irish geopolitical influence over world politics—as opposed to parroting US neoconservatism.
Defining Irish Neutrality historically
‘Crónán na farraige ag dul siar ar mo chluas, Bog-cheol an uisce ag sileadh san abhainn.’—Thíos Cois na Trá Domh, Clannad.
To start off, it's necessary to touch on Ireland's traditional foreign policy approach which has of course been defined by the principle of Neutrality:
‘it received its most substantial embodiment in Ireland's stance during World War II. This experience defined Irish neutrality as military neutrality, a definition that provides the stable core in what may otherwise seem a shifting and somewhat intangible policy. The decision to remain outside NATO reinforced the commitment to non-entanglement in military alliances.’1
In many ways, it was De Valera's refusal to join the Second World War, or as it was called: ‘The Emergency’, which demonstrated our commitment to geopolitical independence. The Government even rejected offers of national unity, setting a precedent that the military and geopolitical sovereignty of the State was non-negotiable.
As the 20th Century progressed, and as the country began to modernise and open, our neutrality began to become more explicitly ‘assertive’ in its implementation. This seen in our involvement in international conflicts through peacekeeping and diplomacy in the UN. Two major figures in this regard were Frank Aiken and Sean MacBride, the latter being one of the most prominent faces in establishing the European Convention on Human Rights. As scholars describe:
‘In more recent years it was reflected in policies on Cyprus, East Timor and Western Sahara. Irish foreign policy on Palestine is also a reflection of and consistent with support for other strong themes within modern Irish foreign policy – a concern with conflict resolution, strong support for the United Nations, for international law and for human rights.’2
Naturally stemming from ‘self-determination’ being one of MacBride's core principles of Human Rights, the Irish State has historically recognised the right of Palestinians to have statehood (as well as the right for their historical adversaries). In this sense, today's Dáil is beholden to the historical legacy of supporting recognition of Palestine, as diplomacy is part of a complex balancing act of a State's historical relations. This pro-Palestinian positioning could be seen as a continuation of our ‘Emergency’ neutrality policy, of keeping an openness to positions outside of the normalised Anglo-American post-war order. Similarly, we have taken outsized stances opposing Nuclear Proliferation as well as Apartheid South Africa, developing an image of progressive multilateralism.
One could argue this image of a progressive, liberal-internationalist Ireland—never fully embraced—played into a larger mode of 60s and post-60s progressive democrat leaders, distinctly modernist and young, sometimes influenced by Vatican II Catholicism, who were true believers progressive humanitarianism. The poster-child of this would be the détente policy of John F. Kennedy. Regardless of how one feels about this mould of bleeding-heart virtue-signalling (I do not feel positively about it at all), it certainly gained the ire of powerful foes, perhaps a warning that the current Irish government better pay heed to.
In the same vein as Kennedy, figures like Olof Palme (Non-Aligned, progressive PM of Sweden) and Aldo Moro (Catholic Progressive PM of Italy) sought to pursue a ‘third-way’ approach in foreign policy, and also took distinctly lone, anti-imperialist and Western-critical stances toward the Middle East, Nuclear Weapons and Apartheid. Unfortunately for them, their geo-strategic isolation created many enemies, and being strikingly vulnerable to attack, set the path for their Kennedy-esque assassinations and oustings. While arguably more puppets of the East and West respectively, the regimes of Salvador Allende in Chile and the Shah in Iran may also contain a clue as to the pitfalls of pursuing a type of ‘One-Nation Progressivism’—which boasts progressive modernism at home and abroad, fostering an atmosphere of domestic and foreign resentment.
If all this seems too long-ago to relate to the current Irish government, perhaps the recent reception to the passing of the (admittedly distant) Irish-descended US President Jimmy Carter could give an indication. Upon news of the death of the self-proclaimed ‘Citizen of the World’, Carter’s legacy has been characterised by US Neoconservatives—the same Trump-aligned antagonists against Ireland—as ‘the worst president ever’ and in a more colourful way as a ‘Big Toothed Muskrat and particularly nasty rodent’ whose multilateralism and ‘third-worldism’ was a concealed support for ‘Islamo-fascism’.3
Irish Nationalism and ‘third-worldism’
‘Éist le fuaim na habhann!’—Lár na hOíche, Imlé.
Naturally, some may now be thinking: if the government’s multilateral humanitarian approach is risking a catastrophic retaliation from US Neoconservatives—then should we as Irish populists acquiesce to their demands and embrace NATO, Americanism, etc? In my view, this would be a moral and strategic humiliation born from a total ignorance of current dynamics.
Over the past couple of years, it has become increasingly clear that this antipathy toward ‘third-worldism’ can be neatly used as an attack on Ireland, but not only our current Neoliberal government, but also Irish Nationalism and arguably the Irish ethnicity itself. The coining of the clunky attempted slur ‘Paddystinian’ is but one example of this, but only by searching “Irish Nationalism Third Worldist” on Twitter can one really appreciate the sheer abundance of anti-Irish slop on this position. A common refrain from Anglo-American rightist circles (diligently consumed by some of their Irish cattle), is the historically illiterate understanding that Irish Nationalism and Sinn Féin (spelled incorrectly) appear to have been created in the mid-1980s, when some anti-imperialist mural was painted in Belfast.
Without wasting one’s time on what ancestrally ambiguous Anglo slíbhíns think of our patriot tradition—it being patently absurd to say men like Art Ó Gríobhtha, Brian Ó hUigínn and Aodh de Blácam were ‘Marxist Third-Worldists’—it is worth discussing how this antagonism may impact on Irish Nationalists and Populists in the future, particularly as the new rogue Silicon Valley aligned Trump administration may seek to overturn the current Irish neoliberal regime.
Any attempt at an American-aligned soft coup through the use of Irish Nationalism will be far clunkier than other countries where it has been achieved, such as in Argentina with Javier Milei. Because of our antipathy toward Britain, emphasis on neutrality and independence—as well the recent infiltration of some British anti-imperialist rhetoric it must be admitted—Irish Nationalists and Republicans would naturally be more akin to Argentinian Peronists, than amenable to the Musk-Milei package of globalised neoliberal individualism and open-borders patriotism. Irish Republican’s links with Muammar Gaddafi of Libya demonstrate the same tension.
I believe it is vital to impress upon the reader the question of trustworthiness in allying with figures and forces who support the British partition of our island, are degrees of separation from anti-Irish terror groups and are deeply intwined with perhaps the most antagonistic State toward our people in the world.
If none of this is cause for concern for those in Ireland’s anti-establishment, perhaps it may be worth bearing in mind the some of the more extreme comments of the Neoconservative class in the United States.
The looming anti-European world order
‘This is the water And this is the well. Drink full and descend. The horse is the white of the eyes and dark within.’—Twin Peaks.
It is worth stressing, it is not merely anonymous comments or silly jingoists who have expressed antipathy for the Irish people, but actually very prominent figures influencing the current new US regime. The controversies and attacks over an t-Uachtarán’s comments are well-documented, but what is also worth emphasising is the maniacal plans many have laid out for abolishing Irish sovereignty and potentially eliminating us as a people—based on our criminal legacy as a Neutral, anti-Nuclear and anti-imperialist nation.
For starters, there are the comments from a former Trump White House special advisor to peace in the Middle East, in which he explicitly advocated for the mass annihilation by ‘napalm bombing’ of Irish peacekeepers, after fantasising about the ‘mass rape’ of Irish women. Importantly, these sentiments were expressed exactly when the peacekeepers group Irish troops were part of were actually being bombed and attacked. One wonders: is this individual, linked to the former Trump administration and indicative of many Neoconservative feelings toward Ireland, a potential ally of Irish Nationalism?
And while these comments may seem particularly outlandish, they aren’t alone in the American neoconservative climate (which increasingly is setting its claws on Ireland). Another one of the 2016 Trump Administration’s remarkable links is the pardoning of the disgraced American spy Johnathan Pollard’s top co-conspirators, seemingly endorsing Pollard’s espionage for a foreign country. Since his release, he has considered entering politics to fulfil a perverted fantasy of his to flood Ireland with Palestinians, a gift he believes ‘we deserve’. Interestingly, this is a view shared by a prominent member of his favoured party, who advocated ‘nuking Gaza’ and sending the remaining population specifically to Ireland.
Unfortunately, these types of anti-Irish positions have hardly went away in the new Trump administration, but have arguably become even more powerful. The neoconservative commentariat, who would be the biggest supporters of the ethnic cleansing of Gaza (and potentially the West Bank), followed by their mass importation into Europe and Ireland, have embraced Trump more than ever this time around. Staunch neoconservatives figures such as Ben Shapiro were chortling before and after the election that they knew the exact people who were staffing and filling the incoming administration, and that this had ensured war-hawks would be ‘tired of winning’.
In a similar way, the basis of Trump’s vice presidential pick, as well as his core of support from Big Tech oligarchs, comes in part from his extraordinary backing from Musk-ally Peter Thiel. For the purposes of our analysis here, it may be worth looking at Thiel’s shadow software surveillance company, deeply enmeshed with the American (and foreign) Intelligence apparatus, Palantir. Not only does this company profit off of Neoconservative expansion in the middle east (causing an upsurge of immigration to Europe), but its CEO’s proudest achievement was actually in surveilling, infiltrating and outright preventing nationalist movements. With the incoming creation of a vast surveillance state to suppress speech under the auspices of tackling ‘hate’, the battle lines have clearly been drawn.
These people are no friends of Europe, or Europeans, and one wonders how many in these circles are comfortable going through with the nuclear threats of the men spoken of above. This may be particularly pertinent when one meditates on the vast infrastructure of secret nuclear weapons, ready and loaded to annihilate Europe, should they fail to get their way. Even more ominous is the issue of miniaturised nukes—potentially being stored in our own countries for just this purpose.
I implore all populists in Ireland to think deeply about the potential snakes they are allowing into this country by courting these shadowy foreign American intelligence forces. Do they really have Ireland’s best interest at heart? What if you court their support and the Irish people reject you? As Dostoyevsky’s adage goes: you will have sold your soul for nothing.
Toward a 21st Century Irish Spiritual Empire
Going forward, I believe foreign policy is another area where Irish dissidents must professionalise, lest we fall to the whims of foreign vipers and jackals. This does not mean becoming bleeding heart idealists, insisting on Irish involvement in the entirety of world affairs. But it does mean standing up for ourselves against those who have openly expressed antipathy toward the Irish Nation. It means asserting our sovereignty on the world stage, and having no qualms about standing up for a just Moral vision for the World, unbeholden to neoliberal sentimentalism as well as the West's new technocratic oligarchs.
While a full delineation of every geopolitical position we should hold is outside the scope of this discussion, the core principles can be expressed as: 1) a commitment to the interests, sovereignty and self-determination of Ireland, all 32 counties and diaspora across the world; and 2) a recognition of self-determination for all people within their own Nations. While this does not mean being the world's adjudicators, for any Gaels or foreigners outside of our island facing displacement, it does mean holding to our millennium-long tradition of being guided by a our moral conscience, and our attachment to civilisational excellence and enlightenment.
To those who care nothing for the global struggle against neoliberal modernity, know that you have a foreign mentality. The Gael saved civilisation once, and can do it again.
The mantra must be toward an Irish-Ireland, for Gaels at home and abroad. We cannot be instrumentalised by any foreign nation or elite, American or otherwise. If we can become independent, if a small nation like Ireland could stand Free once again, we could forge the path of liberation for the rest of Europe, and the World's peoples currently under the yoke of alien occupation, displacement and catastrophe.
‘Bhí Gréigis 'ghá múineadh san aimsir sin i ngach mainistir agus scoil i nÉirinn; agus i n-aindeoin creachta na n-eachtrannach bhí ár sínsear chomh fada chum cinn i n-oileamhaint agus i n-intleacht breis ar aon chineadh eile 'na dtimcheall gur bairteadh Oilean na nOllamh ar a ndútaigh sa deireadh. Ní gan fáth bairteadh mar seo í.’—Seán Ó Ceallaigh.
(Greek had to be taught in that aim in every monastery and school in Ireland; and in spite of the ravages of the foreigners, our ancestors were so far ahead in education and intelligence than any other race around them that the Island of the Scholars was built on their land in the end. It is not without reason that she was raised this way.)4
Bibliography
Doyle, John, 2007. Irish Nationalism and the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
Sceilg. 1904. Saothar ár sean i gCéin.
Sinnott, Richard. 1995. Ireland and the Diplomacy of Nuclear Proliferation.
Footnotes
1
Sinnott, p. 62.
2
Doyle, p. 22.
3
Sinnott, p. 62.
4
Sceilg, p, 20.