Syria debate shows real ideological rift in Irish politics

Unlike some of the phoney battles that have been fought over the Budget, an unexpected row that broke out in the Dáil last week gave far more insight into some of the deep ideological divides between political parties and groups.

The spark for this spat was the ongoing nightmare of Syria, specifically Russia's role in the wholesale destruction of Aleppo.

The nature of Irish politics reflects the nature of Irish society: small, intimate, unradicalised, peaceful and post-agrarian rather than post-industrial. The traditional left-right dichotomy is not always an easy fit. And opposition parties hankering for more support often prosecute the same populist causes.

The water charges controversy is a good example. There is not all that much that distinguishes the stance of Fianna Fáil from that of Sinn Féin or the smaller left-wing parties. It can therefore be sometimes difficult for the public to identify with any accuracy the deep divides that actually exist.

It emerged last week, however, in unmistakable fashion and in some vitriolic tones. On Tuesday, it was agreed that the Dáil would debate the drastically deteriorating situation in Aleppo. When Richard Boyd-Barrett of the AAA-PBP alliance corrected it to Syria, it prompted a jaw-dropping response from Fianna Fáil leader Micheál Martin.

"You do not want to condemn Russia in Aleppo," he declared. "That is your problem… You guys are incapable of condemning Russia."

When AAA-PBP TD Bríd Smith responded “the French are also bombing Syria”, Mr Martin retorted: “Absolutely. Always dilute the Russian contribution to the slaughter and genocide in Aleppo.”

Soon, he had drawn others into the fray: “I am doing my best not to be provoked by the pro-Russia alliance on my right, extending right across to Sinn Féin, which has been a consistent theme of this Dáil.”

Fianna Fáil did not end it there. Its foreign affairs spokesman Darragh O'Brien met the Russian ambassador to express his party's condemnation of what was happening in Aleppo. During that visit he discovered that Minister for Foreign Affairs Charlie Flanagan had not called in the Ambassador, as had been claimed by Taoiseach Enda Kenny in the Dáil. It immediately prompted a call on the Taoiseach to correct the record of the Dáil.

And so, before the debate on the carnage in Aleppo - and Syria - even commenced on Thursday evening, the battle lines were drawn with a contest about political propriety.

Was Fianna Fáil’s analysis correct? Well, those so archly criticised by Mr Martin took exception to his portrayal of them as Russian apologists.

Sinn Féin's Sean Crowe said: "Michéal Martin is disgracefully using Syria as a political football. It is a mater of record that Sinn Féin has spoken out against violence in Syria, supported calls for an urgent ceasefire and an end to the conflict."

Indeed, during the two-hour debate, Mr Crowe said he had spoken out “against Russia and Iran’s military support of the Syrian army and instead called on them to use their influence to broker a ceasefire and initiate a peace process.

“Their current actions in Aleppo and the use of barrel bombs and bunker-busting bombs on heavily-populated civilian areas, including hospitals and food markets, are criminal,” he said.

Similarly Richard Boyd-Barrett of the AAA-PBP said Mr Martin’s portrayal of their position was “utterly distorted”, saying the alliance had “repeatedly condemned the barbaric bombing by Russia and the Assad regime against Aleppo”.

He said: “Martin is getting us confused with the old Workers’ Party who had a very close relationship with Russia and with Stalin. We have always been opposed to Russian imperialism. I’m not sure if it is ignorance or opportunism on Martin’s part.”

Or as Bríd Smith put it during the debate: "In one way it was slightly amusing because we are normally accused of being Trotskyites, which is supposed to be an even dirtier word than Russian apologist. Trotsky was the one person who stood out and led a movement against Stalin and the barbarism of the Soviet Union in its heyday and ended up with an ice pick through his head for his efforts."

Fellow AAA-PBP TD Paul Murphy said: "Martin's problem is that he is upset that we are also condemning Western imperialism."

Certainly, there was a difference in emphasis in the Dáil speeches, and this came into sharper focus when debate shifted to the refugee crisis.

Fianna Fáil's Darragh O'Brien and his colleague John Lahart argued the Government had not done enough to fulfil its obligations to take in the 4,000 refugees it had promised. Less than 500 have been accommodated so far.

When it came to attributing blame for the broader crisis, however, neither Fianna Fáil nor Fine Gael mentioned EU States or the US in terms or culpability. All others contributors did.

Sinn Féin, the smaller left-wing parties and Independents all referred to the lifting by the EU of the arms embargo; the proxy role of the US in arming and supporting anti-Assad forces; and French bombing sorties in Syria. They also criticised the support of Western countries for Saudi Arabia, and the brutal campaign it is prosecuting in Yemen.

“We are condemning Russian imperialism but also condemning Western imperialism,” said Mr Murphy.

As would be expected, all Middle Eastern conflicts in recent history were drawn into the debate, including the war in Iraq, the relations with Iran, and the ongoing situation in Israel and Palestine.

For the leftists, there was a failure by Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil to acknowledge the interference of the West. For the two big parties, there was an attempt by the left to spread the blame so that everybody was responsible and nobody was responsible: in Mr Martin’s words, the left was trying to dilute the “Russian contribution to the slaughter and genocide in Aleppo”.

The debate showed a lack of consensus over how to respond to the Syrian crisis but, for once, there was a degree of clarity about where everybody stood.