Of all the spheres reserved to government few are more central than the conduct of relations with other jurisdictions. Critical bipartisanship is generally the temper of parliamentary scrutiny of these relations, rather than systematic outright opposition, writes Martin Mansergh
International relations are sometimes discussed as if they constantly provided ideal opportunities for nations to exercise an exalted morality. Article 29 of the Constitution, in which "Ireland affirms its devotion to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation amongst nations founded on international justice and morality", might seem to lend colour to this belief.
When presenting the draft constitution to the Dáil in 1937, Eamon de Valera commented that it put international relations in their proper place, outside the Constitution, "to be determined from time to time according as the people's interests suggest to them that they should put this government or that government into office with powers to implement their will".
A fair summary would be that governments seek to promote the values and ideals of their people with least prejudice to their interests. They equally seek to promote national interests with least violence to their ideals. There is often a difficult balance to be struck, based on accumulated experience, negotiation, and partly confidential information and exchanges. It is not easy fully to second-guess this area of government policy, but, if dissatisfied with outcomes, people have, as de Valera signalled, a remedy at the ballot box.
An extreme illustration of a tightrope walked was de Valera's once-off description of the German invasion of the Low Countries in May 1940 as "a cruel wrong", and emphasis on common interests with Britain, which may have increased the risk of German violation of our neutrality.
In a liberal democracy, governments face challenges to their authority, many of them extra-parliamentary and spilling over from protest into direct action, which have to be countered with firmness.
One example is ongoing agitation over the use of Shannon by US military aircraft, including this week Airforce One, going to and from the Middle East and Afghanistan. No one has produced evidence that prisoners in the process of rendition have been flown through Shannon, contrary to unequivocal assurances given to the Government by the US secretary of state. No EU country inspects the inside of US planes, and everyone knows that the demand to do so would be followed by the withdrawal of such flights and a major diplomatic rupture.
The US is our largest export market, the main source of inward investment, still one of our most valuable tourist markets, an important contributor to the peace process, and home to many Irish citizens, documented and undocumented.
The Government is right to rebuff the fanaticism that thinks it right to attack US planes on the ground and, if necessary, close down Shannon. No alternative government, once in office, would act differently.
The Government has been patient with the Rossport protest. It is proper that environmental and safety concerns should be impartially and exhaustively investigated. It is not for any group of individuals, community or trade union to seek by direct action to alter or call into question the oil and gas exploration terms decided upon by governments and approved by the Oireachtas.
Decisions on the exploitation of natural resources, and valid law and procedures to be followed by foreign companies, cannot be left to be determined by default by local agitation, particularly in a situation where international security of supply is in question.
The allocation of aid to developing countries, many of them imperfectly governed, while a legitimate matter of NGO input, public debate and parliamentary scrutiny, is in the last analysis for the government to determine, weighing up all factors, especially the needs of the poorest people.
The conduct of Northern Ireland policy and Anglo-Irish relations is also largely entrusted to the government. Last Saturday's shameful riot upended the decision of the authorities to permit the Fair parade by unionists and loyalists to highlight the victims of IRA violence.
Movements like the Orange Order have long been itching to put to the test the much-vaunted tolerant multicultural society in the South. The luminaries of Republican Sinn Féin must be congratulated on giving unionism what it must regard as its most clear-cut vindication in years. RSF seems to have learned from the Orangemen the technique of initiating a protest, then disclaiming responsibility for the hooligan rioting that follows. Just as a previous Orange grand master, Sir George Clark, explained in 1959 that "civil and religious liberty" meant only the liberty of the Protestant religion, so too "the religious and civil liberty" guaranteed by the Proclamation, first read on the steps of the GPO, is definitely not meant, according to RSF, to apply to Northern Protestants where their declared identity is unionist and British.
The gardaí are to be congratulated on protecting the visitors. It is unlikely the parade will be back soon. Why should it, when there was such a clear-cut result this time, which can be exploited for years to come? Naturally, what happened no more demonstrates that this is a deeply sectarian society, than a neo-Nazi riot proves that Germany is permeated with Nazism.
An item in the Irish News (February 28th) quotes RSF as seeing last Saturday's protest "as a dry run for a visit to Dublin by Queen Elizabeth", which, of course, may not happen for other reasons. Who decides this State's relations with Northern unionists and with our British neighbours, or determines that the Belfast Agreement can be dismissed and ignored where it requires traditional attitudes to change? Is it the Government, elected in 2002, or does some political/paramilitary junta that in fantasy claims a "mandate" from the last British general election held in Ireland in 1921, 85 years ago, possess an override facility?
It is for the Government to uphold the safety and interests of its citizens, and to redress the usurpation of its authority to deal with third parties outside the State.