Social Natocrats
Some years ago, I had an interesting experience as a member of the Social Democrats. I joined the party in late 2019 so that I could assist the local branch in canvassing for the 2020 General Election. Throughout the first 6 months, I became familiar with the local branch, and engaged in many discussions about foreign affairs, and election strategy. Though the branch was not particularly active or engaged, I was selected by a more senior member of the party to join three committees, related to foreign policy, EU policy, and migration policy.
The policy committee for foreign affairs was the busiest of the three, and we communicated primarily through Telegram, as well as holding regular meetings over Zoom. In all, I recall there were 10-12 or so active members on this particular committee. What I encountered in those Telegram chats and Zoom meetings I’ve only come to understand in recent times. Even now, I’m unsure how sharing this information will be received, and just how much of a scandal, if any, it is. In any case, I believe transparency is important at this time, as the state edges us closer towards military cooperation with foreign powers, greatly increased military spending, and the erosion of what remains of Irelands neutrality.
I’ve long been aware that there is no slight of hand, or outright lie that our government leaders will not employ in pursuit of policies that are being directed from abroad, be it in Washington, Brussels, or elsewhere. The gaslighting, and coordinated efforts the state have employed in order to move us towards military cooperation with NATO has rightly angered many, as poll after poll indicates a steadfast support for our neutral status, and a rejection of pro-war policies. After several years of relentless ‘Reds under the bed’ type propaganda focusing on imaginary threats from Russia, the dial has only been moved further towards public support for neutrality.
Despite the tactics employed by the state to convince us that we need to align our security interests with the likes of the UK, the US, and Germany, I had never considered that active members of an apparently left wing party sitting in opposition to the government could also advocate for NATO cooperation or militarisation, however I was wrong.
My time on the foreign policy committee was beset with disagreements, and bullying tactics. Though my research, and what I presented to the committee was all based around conflict resolution, and peace initiatives (particularly around the wars on Artsakh, and East Ukraine), I failed to convince a vocal clique to back my proposals, or even share in my understanding of the underlying causes of these wars, and what needs to be done to resolve them. No matter how meticulous my research, no matter the efforts to reach and interview frontline journalists, public officials, and even a senior Western diplomat, I was repeatedly insulted and even accused of being a foreign agent. My resources were baselessly attacked, and my causes undermined, as I was fed countless articles from Western think tanks and intelligence cut-outs in response. What I encountered transpired to be a coordinated effort to shut me down, and ensure I had no impact on policy drafting, and ironically, it appears to have come from assets of foreign security/intelligence services.
Sometime in the Autumn of 2022, I found an article shared on Twitter by Alan MacLeod of Mint Press News that detailed a pipeline between the intelligence services and the tech industry. Amongst the responses to the article was an account that shared a screenshot from a LinkedIn profile. The individual displayed on the image had worked in Psychological Operations for NATO in a base in Liverpool, under a ‘Soldier System Lethality’ program. Thereafter he moved to Dublin to work for Twitter in cybercrime policy centred around counterterrorism and intelligence before becoming a Policy Manager at TikTok. Though the name was blacked out, his profile image was contained on the screenshot, and it matched one of the key members of the committees I was a part of who had pushed for the “standardisation of research material” in order to stay consistent. At this point, it had never occurred to me that the members of these committees may have had major conflicts of interest. I considered them to be unusual, generally nasty, and not remotely left wing, but I also thought that they were simply misguided. Upon learning of this individuals background, I immediately alerted party officials, and later started to look closer at the backgrounds of the clique that had so strongly opposed policies related to conflict resolution, and peace.
Alongside this (‘ex’) NATO employee was another curious character whose entire raison d’être appeared to be concerned with supporting the Syrian insurgency, which at that time was being contained in Idlib province as the war had paused. Aside from the regular insults he directed my way, his contributions to the committee revolved around sharing pro-Syrian ‘opposition’ sources accusing the Syrian government, and the Russians of unspeakable crimes. We didn’t have to wait long between regular updates from Bellingcat (CIA cut-out), the Middle East Institute (Funded by US State Dept, and Gulf States), or the Atlantic Council. Whether he has a direct relationship with foreign intelligence I have not been able to ascertain, however he did let slip at one stage that he was closely connected to the White Helmets in Syria, an organisation shrouded in mystery and scandal, used for years for propaganda purposes, with numerous British intelligence connections of its own.
A third member of this clique was based abroad at the time, and was similarly quick to employ insults and accusations when presented with research that contradicted his own apparent understanding of foreign affairs. He claimed a background in international relations, and shared articles from Charles Lister (Western intel) Bellingcat (Western intel) Brookings Institute (Western intel) and tried relentlessly to undermine my work on peace initiatives. It transpired that at the very same time he was attacking me, he was studying Security, Intelligence, and Strategic Studies at the University of Glasgow, which promotes itself as a course to start your career in the intelligence services of the UK. He later went on to become a Fellow & Managing Editor at a Defence Policy think tank that lobbies for NATO cooperation, and militarization called the Azure Forum. Concurrently with his role with this think tank, he also managed conferences for the European Consortium of Political Research, and has now taken up a senior role in University College Dublin in the School of Politics & International Relations. He shares regular articles promoting the dismantling of the Triple Lock, and what remains of Irish neutrality, and lists amongst his interests the UK Ministry of Defence, Aerospace, Security & Defence Industries Association of Europe, The Institute for Strategic Studies, NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence, and countless other security & intelligence related think tanks and networks.
An additional member of the committee, though one who never gave me any trouble admittedly is an ex-special branch member who told me that he had worked in some capacity with NATO, and trained Georgian troops prior to the attack on South Ossetia. Though he struck me as a decent man, it’s still worthy of note that someone with such a background could find themselves on a foreign policy committee of an apparently left leaning opposition party.
A 5th member of this group works as a security analyst and crisis management consultant whose studies include Security & Defence Integration at a university in Prague. Listed under ‘Licences & Certifications’ on his LinkedIn page is “Investigations @ Bellingcat”, displaying yet another link to foreign intelligence services. His prior work appears to centre around transport security abroad.
Information on these characters is limited unfortunately, and both members who I reached out to for comment have not responded. They have however altered their LinkedIn details in order to make it more difficult to locate them. Further information I have withheld due to uncertainty, and a wish to keep some communications private. With hindsight, I believe that multiple members of these committees had coordinated to join an Irish opposition party in order to work on foreign & defence policy, whilst very likely working for or with foreign intelligence services. That I happened upon them is a fluke, and one that opened my eyes to the potential lengths that malevolent forces will go to in order to impact Irish defence policy.
I left the party shortly after this saga, and after a separate project related to neutrality had reached a dead end. Though I did report these characters to senior party officials for major conflicts of interest, it appears that they remained in the party, and continued lobbying for policies concerned with increased militarisation, and an abandonment of what remains of our neutrality. I was assured that efforts would be employed to ensure conflicts of interest would need to be declared prior to taking up committee roles, though this does not appear to have happened, either at committee level, or indeed in the selection of candidates for local and general elections. To the party’s credit, their efforts were largely in vain, though I attribute their failure to the better judgement of one particular official. That they weren’t removed from committee work, or the party itself nevertheless is a concern, and it doesn’t appear as though any lessons have been learned.