The Irish Government announced its St. Patrick’s Day plans this morning. As usual, it disperses to every corner of the world in a diplomatic blitz like no other. Yet the newly-minted Taoiseach has yet to receive an invitation from Donald Trump. Micheál Martin is passing it off, saying that no invitation is ever formally given but rather the arrangement is worked out between the two administrations. To quote Martin himself, he is ag insint bréaga. The yet-awaited invitation is not the only source of pressure on Martin, however. Public sentiment – based, at least, on the symbiotic cycle of media reporting and posts on X – is categorically supports a boycott if the invitation ever comes. Morality aside, this is a political quandary for the Taoiseach. Should he prioritize the fleeting will of Irish citizens or focus on long-term benefits for the country that elected him?
Pro-Boycott
Popular opinion in Ireland says that even if Trump sends an invitation, Martin should boycott it. Pro-Palestinian protesters point to Ireland’s involvement in the South Africa boycott during the 1980s. Ireland staunchly opposed the regime and worked with the UN to apply pressure. These protesters want Ireland to do the same thing to Israel, believing that the US is assisting Israel in its implementation of both apartheid and genocide. Ireland believes a boycott could wield soft shamrock power to influence its allies. A boycott of Donald Trump on St. Patrick’s Day would credibly send a strong message to the EU, for example, that it needs to follow Ireland’s lead in standing up to the Zionist axis. Indeed, Ireland is already part of a large group of countries standing up to the US. Last week, 79 countries condemned Donald Trump’s sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC). Furthermore, the prevailing view in Ireland is that a boycott would be representative of the will of the people. Not only is there full support of Palestine in the political class, the public overwhelmingly agrees. The role of the Government, many argue, is to represent the will of the people.
Counterpoint
Regarding Ireland’s past boycott of South Africa, the calculus was considerably different. Recently part of the EU, Ireland did not have the international ties – or dependencies – it has now. The annual visit to the White House on St. Patrick’s Day was not established until 1994. President Reagan, who only hosted St. Patrick’s Day events four times, was also publicly against the apartheid regime. The US only supported South Africa insofar as it was a bulwark against communism. The circumstances of the offending regime are different too. While Ireland has always supported Palestine in the Middle East, the current conflict is based on a Palestine-led breach of the ceasefire in late 2023. Regardless of the actions in the war since then, Palestine’s allies have generally acknowledged Palestine’s role in instigating it. The South African regime was institutionalized and unprovoked by the victims.
The European Union
In terms of leading an EU boycott against the US, the bloc is on the defensive already. Between the tariffs and JD Vance’s unequivocal speech in Paris yesterday, the EU will pick its battles. Unlike Ireland, Brussels will probably put its own interests ahead of the interests of the Palestinians. 79 countries condemning the ICC sanctions is undoubtedly powerful. Yet this is a court that neither the US nor Israel recognizes. The sanctions on it are necessarily less harmful than they would be coming from a constituent member. If the US does not recognize the Court, then naturally it rejects any responsibility it may owe to it for the sake of international harmony.
Anti-Boycott
Yet these are not the only reasons Micheál Martin is hesitant to boycott. Ireland is reliant on the US. It is true that Ireland has a trade surplus – for whatever that is worth in reality – and it is the seventh largest trading partner with the US. However, Ireland is already in the cross-hairs of this administration, and it’s not coming from Trump. Yesterday was not the first time Vance has called out EU censorship laws. In late 2023, he called for “China-style sanctions” to be put on Ireland if it passed its proposed Hate Speech Bill. It did not. Elon Musk, Donald Trump Jr, Howard Lutnick, and others have condemned Ireland already over the last year. In short, Ireland is taking on the cause of a nearly-defeated movement in exchange for strengthened international goodwill. It will be a long four, eight, or twelve years of dealing with Trump and Vance in the White House if this boycott happens.
No international support for boycott
Leaving the US itself aside for a moment, it is unlikely that Ireland would get any support for a boycott. With the EU on high alert, there is little-to-no institutional support for Ireland’s position in the region. Spain and Norway wield less influence than Ireland does, especially with Spain’s expected change of government. Ireland is effectively isolating itself on the issue. The political class has already started to acknowledge this reality.
Where’s the China boycott?
Then there is the hypocrisy of the Government even considering a boycott. Minister James Browne will represent Ireland at the ninth consecutive St. Patrick’s Day celebrations in China. It is yet unclear why Irish people care less about Uygher Muslims, Tibetans, Taiwanese, or people of Hong Kong than they do for a people who support waging a losing war.
The role of the Government
Ultimately, the most convincing strategic argument against a boycott is to align the role of governing with the interests of the country. Populism works for incumbents when significant change is needed or when the incumbents are up for re-election. The next Irish election will not be held until the end of 2029. By that point, the conflict in the Middle East will be at a different stage, unaffected by a boycott. Ireland’s dramatic fall from grace, on the other hand, will be hitting Irish people harder than ever, especially in the likely event that Vance keeps the MAGA flag flying. The Government will be held accountable for the outcome of a boycott, not on the virtue of it.
