There is a growing debate in Ireland concerning a major aspect of the country’s traditional foreign policy, namely our adherence to military nonalignment. That debate is being driven by elements within the Government and some academics, despite there being very little appetite within the wider population for the abandonment of Irish Neutrality. Several years ago, the Government, through its Department of Foreign Affairs, set up a consultative process on the issue, including town hall type meetings, in Dublin, Cork and Galway, (none in the North or any consultation at all with the Diaspora). The result was an emphaticrejection of what was widely perceived as the Government’s intentions of pushing the country towards NATO membership. The Government’s efforts even drew an implied rebuke from the President, Michael D Higgins, when he expressed alarm at “the crawl away from the self-esteem of our foreign policy”. Public reaction strongly supported the Presidentand it had the effect of stymieing the Government’s efforts.
The President was on safe grounds. Neutrality has deep roots in Ireland, right back to Wolfe Tone, regarded as the father of Irish Republicanism. In 1790, Tone produced a pamphlet on the forthcoming war between Britain and Spain and advocated Irish Neutrality. His United Irishmen, and its descendant separatist organisations, followed that policy. Irish revolutionary leader, James Connolly, encapsulated this sentiment with his exhortation to Irish men and women during the First World War to “serve neither King nor Kaiser”. Hence, the current Government was pushing against a long-standing historical element in Ireland.
Despite this long tradition, a number of pro NATO academics have sought to denigrate Ireland’s Neutrality as merely a tactic which was adopted during the Second World War andwhich has now passed its sell by date. Their views have been echoed by some Government figures who seem desperate to erode, as far as possible, the pride Irish people have in our neutral position. In tandem with this, is a keen desire to abandon our leading position in international peace keeping.
It is true that Ireland devotes a relatively small proportion of its national budget to defence spending. Critics often use the discredited GDP figures (rather than GNI) in an attempt tomake this amount look smaller. However, there is growing consensus that Ireland needs to up its spending in this area, especially in terms of pay and allowances for members of the Defence Forces, which are struggling with recruitment and retention in an economy with full employment. However, having better defence capability is by no means contradictory with continued Neutrality. The reality is that Ireland will be spending a lot more on its own defence in the future.
With the formal abandonment of Neutrality out of their reach for the time being, the Government has moved on to less ambitious objectives as intermediary stepping stones. As the war in Ukraine has progressed, the Government has gradually chipped away at our position of not providing weaponry to warring parties. Ireland has widened the type of aid it provides to Ukraine from medical supplies, food, etc. to air defence radar, military vehicles and mine flails which make a safe path through a minefield. It has done all this with little or no public consultation. The Government is using the Ukraine war and the natural sympathy Irish people have for the suffering of the Ukrainian population to press its pro NATO credentials. However, it is a very difficult task to persuade the Irish public that the Government of President Putin represents a direct and serious threat to the EU or Ireland, given the difficulties it has encountered in overcoming Ukraine.
The Government is also about to change the “Triple Lock” which requires Government, Parliamentary and United Nations sanction before Irish troops can be deployed overseas. The Triple Lock was used extensively by pro EU parties in getting the Irish public to reverse the negative referendum results on Nice and Lisbon. It was described at the time as a solemn promise to guard against the loss of Irish Neutrality and to avoid any Irish Government getting caught up in situations like the war in Iraq, Libya, etc. The decision to abandon this safety mechanism directly contradicts the assurances given at the time by Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, who must be seriously uncomfortable with the current regime’s determination to renege on his pledge. The current Taoiseach, Micheál Martin, is on record stoutly defending the Triple Lock. The Irish mainstream media has shown a huge reluctance to highlight these embarrassing U-turns.
While we may be hopefully entering the final phase of the war in Ukraine, and which would relax some of the immediacy about the debate on Neutrality, there is no doubt but this issue will continue to raise controversy. Once the Triple Lock is out of the way, the Government will have greater difficulty in progressing further with its agenda. The main Opposition Party, Sinn Féin, together with the Social Democrats, Irish Labour and People Before Profit, are finally getting more vocal on the issue of Neutrality and feel that they have majority backing in the electorate. There may be a campaign undertaken to formally include Neutrality in the Irish Constitution, just as fellow EU members, Austria and Malta, have done in their case. In Ireland’s Constitution, Article 29.9 precludes the Irish State from joining a “common defence”, established by the EU. However, the implications of this Article have never been fully teased out and may not provide the necessary protection against a pre-emptive move by the current Government. It may need strengthening.
On a recent visit to Austria and speaking with former Austrian colleagues from their Foreign Ministry, I was struck at how much they would like to change their country’s policy of Neutrality. They bemoaned the Austrian population’s love of Neutrality. It reminded me of similar arguments I heard in the past from a small number of Irish officials. The gulf between the aspirations of those in elite positions wanting to play a bigger role in continental security issues (and the career opportunities that this opens up); and the natural reluctance of ordinary people to go along with that, is not just an Irish phenomenon.
The next few years will show whether the James Connolly view of Irish Neutrality or that of the pro NATO lobby will prevail. I personally stand with Connolly and regard our non-alignment with military alliances as an essential part of our DNA as a nation.
There is a growing debate in Ireland concerning a major aspect of the country’s traditional foreign policy, namely our adherence to military nonalignment. That debate is being driven by elements within the Government and some academics, despite there being very little appetite within the wider population for the abandonment of Irish Neutrality. Several years ago, the Government, through its Department of Foreign Affairs, set up a consultative process on the issue, including town hall type meetings, in Dublin, Cork and Galway, (none in the North or any consultation at all with the Diaspora). The result was an emphaticrejection of what was widely perceived as the Government’s intentions of pushing the country towards NATO membership. The Government’s efforts even drew an implied rebuke from the President, Michael D Higgins, when he expressed alarm at “the crawl away from the self-esteem of our foreign policy”. Public reaction strongly supported the Presidentand it had the effect of stymieing the Government’s efforts.
The President was on safe grounds. Neutrality has deep roots in Ireland, right back to Wolfe Tone, regarded as the father of Irish Republicanism. In 1790, Tone produced a pamphlet on the forthcoming war between Britain and Spain and advocated Irish Neutrality. His United Irishmen, and its descendant separatist organisations, followed that policy. Irish revolutionary leader, James Connolly, encapsulated this sentiment with his exhortation to Irish men and women during the First World War to “serve neither King nor Kaiser”. Hence, the current Government was pushing against a long-standing historical element in Ireland.
Despite this long tradition, a number of pro NATO academics have sought to denigrate Ireland’s Neutrality as merely a tactic which was adopted during the Second World War andwhich has now passed its sell by date. Their views have been echoed by some Government figures who seem desperate to erode, as far as possible, the pride Irish people have in our neutral position. In tandem with this, is a keen desire to abandon our leading position in international peace keeping.
It is true that Ireland devotes a relatively small proportion of its national budget to defence spending. Critics often use the discredited GDP figures (rather than GNI) in an attempt tomake this amount look smaller. However, there is growing consensus that Ireland needs to up its spending in this area, especially in terms of pay and allowances for members of the Defence Forces, which are struggling with recruitment and retention in an economy with full employment. However, having better defence capability is by no means contradictory with continued Neutrality. The reality is that Ireland will be spending a lot more on its own defence in the future.
With the formal abandonment of Neutrality out of their reach for the time being, the Government has moved on to less ambitious objectives as intermediary stepping stones. As the war in Ukraine has progressed, the Government has gradually chipped away at our position of not providing weaponry to warring parties. Ireland has widened the type of aid it provides to Ukraine from medical supplies, food, etc. to air defence radar, military vehicles and mine flails which make a safe path through a minefield. It has done all this with little or no public consultation. The Government is using the Ukraine war and the natural sympathy Irish people have for the suffering of the Ukrainian population to press its pro NATO credentials. However, it is a very difficult task to persuade the Irish public that the Government of President Putin represents a direct and serious threat to the EU or Ireland, given the difficulties it has encountered in overcoming Ukraine.
The Government is also about to change the “Triple Lock” which requires Government, Parliamentary and United Nations sanction before Irish troops can be deployed overseas. The Triple Lock was used extensively by pro EU parties in getting the Irish public to reverse the negative referendum results on Nice and Lisbon. It was described at the time as a solemn promise to guard against the loss of Irish Neutrality and to avoid any Irish Government getting caught up in situations like the war in Iraq, Libya, etc. The decision to abandon this safety mechanism directly contradicts the assurances given at the time by Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, who must be seriously uncomfortable with the current regime’s determination to renege on his pledge. The current Taoiseach, Micheál Martin, is on record stoutly defending the Triple Lock. The Irish mainstream media has shown a huge reluctance to highlight these embarrassing U-turns.
While we may be hopefully entering the final phase of the war in Ukraine, and which would relax some of the immediacy about the debate on Neutrality, there is no doubt but this issue will continue to raise controversy. Once the Triple Lock is out of the way, the Government will have greater difficulty in progressing further with its agenda. The main Opposition Party, Sinn Féin, together with the Social Democrats, Irish Labour and People Before Profit, are finally getting more vocal on the issue of Neutrality and feel that they have majority backing in the electorate. There may be a campaign undertaken to formally include Neutrality in the Irish Constitution, just as fellow EU members, Austria and Malta, have done in their case. In Ireland’s Constitution, Article 29.9 precludes the Irish State from joining a “common defence”, established by the EU. However, the implications of this Article have never been fully teased out and may not provide the necessary protection against a pre-emptive move by the current Government. It may need strengthening.
On a recent visit to Austria and speaking with former Austrian colleagues from their Foreign Ministry, I was struck at how much they would like to change their country’s policy of Neutrality. They bemoaned the Austrian population’s love of Neutrality. It reminded me of similar arguments I heard in the past from a small number of Irish officials. The gulf between the aspirations of those in elite positions wanting to play a bigger role in continental security issues (and the career opportunities that this opens up); and the natural reluctance of ordinary people to go along with that, is not just an Irish phenomenon.
The next few years will show whether the James Connolly view of Irish Neutrality or that of the pro NATO lobby will prevail. I personally stand with Connolly and regard our non-alignment with military alliances as an essential part of our DNA as a nation.