Neutrality

[Purple]

The Government has convened the Consultative Forum on International Security Policy to discuss what Irish security policy should be.
It is commonly stated that Ireland is Neutral but that is an ill-defined policy with no basis in law.
It is more accurate to say that we have a policy is military unalignment in that we do not join any military alliances. If we were neutral we would have to have the capability to defend ourselves but we don't. From that perspective we effectively have no armed forces. If we were neutral we would not let any foreign military into our territory but we let US planes land in Shannon and we let the RAF defend our air space. We also have no capability to detect or deter foreign aircraft or ships from entering our territory.


The traditional Triple Lock is required for Irish defence forces to be deployed for UN or any other missions. That was reiterated in the Seville Declaration after the rejection of our first referendum on the Treaty of Nice.
Article 29 of the Constitution states that "The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence pursuant to Article 42 of the Treaty on European Union where that common defence would include the State." That is the closest that there is to a law in Neutrality as it is not mentioned anywhere in the Irish Statute Books.
Under the Triple Lock the troops can be deployed with the approval of the Dail and the Government after the approval of a resolution of the UN general assembly. The Permanent Members of the Security Council have a veto over all such resolutions so in theory and in practice Russia and China get to decide if we deploy our troops.

While NATO membership is not on the cards and is not desired by any political parties, despite the populist nonsense being spouted by some of the opposition and the President*. The question is are we going to actually be neutral and spend 3-4 billion a year more on our military or are we going to cooperate with our fellow EU States and other democracies in order to fulfil our duties and responsibilities?



(*I would have referred to previous occupants of the office as "our President" but Micky D has made it quite clear that he has no desire to be the President for all the people, instead he has politicised the office and is only interested in being the President of those who agree with him.)

 

[cremeegg]

If we were neutral we would have to have the capability to defend ourselves but we don't.

This makes no sense, some neutral countries have significant military capability, for example Switzerland, others, for example Costa Rica, have none.

If we were neutral we would not let any foreign military into our territory but we let US planes land in Shannon and we let the RAF defend our air space.

If we were purists about our neutrality this would be true, but we seem to define our neutrality mostly as not committing our modest military to various wars. Which is a perfectly reasonable definition of neutrality, if not the only possible one.

We allowed the Allies various facilities in WW2 which we did not allow the Germans, yet no-one seriously suggests that we were not neutral there.

While NATO membership is not on the cards and is not desired by any political parties

I hope you are correct, but it seems to me that FG and sections of FF would like to see us join NATO. Not to mention various posters on here.

The question is are we going to actually be neutral and spend 3-4 billion a year more on our military or are we going to cooperate with our fellow EU States and other democracies in order to fulfil our duties and responsibilities?

I certainly hope we are not going to spend 3-4 billion on military equipment. I cannot see what possible plausible threat it would protect us against.

We should certainly commit to developing a cybersecurity defence. The threats in that area are real, and Ireland is better placed than most countries to develop effective defences in that area.

 

[odyssey06]

I don't think our EU partners are going to tolerate us taking a free ride on defence any longer. Because let's be honest, that's what we are doing.

We could play the poor mouth in the past and wail about the North. We've no cards left. Sweden and Finland joining NATO leaves only us, landlocked Austria and irrelevent Malta as neutrals. No one is going to stand up for us if we try to clutch the pearls of neutrality having seen what happened Ukraine.

We have responsibilities to maritime patrol and air patrol we need to shoulder now. That requires significant spending.

 

[Purple]

This makes no sense, some neutral countries have significant military capability, for example Switzerland, others, for example Costa Rica, have none.


If we were purists about our neutrality this would be true, but we seem to define our neutrality mostly as not committing our modest military to various wars. Which is a perfectly reasonable definition of neutrality, if not the only possible one.

Costa Rica has its own internal debates about Neutrality, especially considering its neighbours and heavy reliance on US inward investment. The US armed forces provide significant support to Costa Rica so while they don't have an army their have a strong paramilitary police force and the US has lots of troops there.

We allowed the Allies various facilities in WW2 which we did not allow the Germans, yet no-one seriously suggests that we were not neutral there.

That was 80 years ago when we were poor, recently independent and economically and socially isolationist. That policy also excluded us from the Marshall Aid program which rebuilt the rest of Europe. As a policy probably set us back decades economically. We could have declared war on Germany in July 1945.

I hope you are correct, but it seems to me that FG and sections of FF would like to see us join NATO. Not to mention various posters on here.

Which ones? I haven't heard anyone say we should join NATO. I've heard far left nutters, smoked salmon socialists and people who used to have no problem murdering children say that some in FF and FG want to join NATO but that means nothing.

I certainly hope we are not going to spend 3-4 billion on military equipment. I cannot see what possible plausible threat it would protect us against.

So how are going to keep Russian ships and planes out of our country?

We should certainly commit to developing a cybersecurity defence. The threats in that area are real, and Ireland is better placed than most countries to develop effective defences in that area.

What about the cables that pass through our territory? Should we be capable of defending them? Should we be capable of detecting aircraft in our air space? Should we be able to deploy ships and planes to go and look at what's in our waters?

 

[Purple]

I don't think our EU partners are going to tolerate us taking a free ride on defence any longer. Because let's be honest, that's what we are doing.

We could play the poor mouth in the past and wail about the North. We've no cards left. Sweden and Finland joining NATO leaves only us, landlocked Austria and irrelevent Malta as neutrals. No one is going to stand up for us if we try to clutch the pearls of neutrality having seen what happened Ukraine.

We have responsibilities to maritime patrol and air patrol we need to shoulder now. That requires significant spending.

I agree. Our current parasitic relationship with our poorer neighbours is morally despicable and politically damaging. It takes a special kind of self delusion to think that our shirking of our responsibilities is somehow respected internationally.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

What sticks in the craw is the virtue signaling associated with "neutrality". The geopolitical backdrop in the run up to the birth of this nation was England vs Germany. So "neither King nor Kaiser" had widespread appeal and this persisted in the backdrop to WWII. This was not driven by some pacifist zeal as we indulged in a brutal War of Independence and a Civil War. The geopolitical reality of today is between free democracies and authoritarian would be aggressors. There is no moral argument for neutrality on that one but sure let us exploit our halo to save a few bob.

 

[Itchy]

I cannot see what possible plausible threat it would protect us against.

That's (part of) the problem. The argument is too immature to distinguish between the defence and security of the State and foreign policy. The body politic has neutered the former in the hope of advancing the latter. Except, neutrality in Ireland is not based on a rational analysis of the dynamic security environment. It is an ideology that leaves the State vulnerable and exposed.

You would respect the argument if they had a strategic view of the world as it is, not they would like it to be. The argument is not; "here is the threat environment, its low and we don't see it changing, so we don't need xyz".

 

[Purple]

What sticks in the craw is the virtue signaling associated with "neutrality". The geopolitical reality in the run up to the birth of this nation was England vs Germany. So "neither King nor Kaiser" had widespread appeal. This was not driven by some pacificist zeal as we indulged in a brutal War of Independence and a Civil War. The geopolitical reality of today is between free democracies and authoritarian would be aggressors. There is no moral argument for neutrality on that one but sure let us exploit our halo to save a few bob.

Excellent post. I couldn't agree more.

 

[odyssey06]

An ok article in The Journal, but the line stood out:

President Higgins’s claim in the Sunday Business Post that Ireland was in some way a more enlightened country because of its neutrality than NATO members like Lithuania and Latvia was a comfortable one to make in the Phoenix Park, behind nearly 3,000 kilometres of other countries’ military defences during the largest European war since 1945.

Dr Edward Burke: 'We may cherish our neutrality but we cannot ignore the changing world'

The assistant professor in the History of War at UCD looks at the shape of Irish neutrality and outlines how it’s viewed internationally.

www.thejournal.ie

 

[Leper]

Irish neutrality was hard won. We owe nothing to any other country regarding their military defence.

You can argue that we owe Spain something due to Don Juan de la Quilla who decided to land his force near Kinsale and had Irish armies march through harsh winter down the entire country where obvious defeat beckoned. Or perhaps France? - Who sent a force to Co Mayo and lasted days.

Ireland never invaded any other country, except perhaps Wales where we kidnapped a local boy who turned into a St-Patrick or three. It's unlikely we're ever going to be invaded again bearing in mind that the last invaders never subdued the country and likely the same will happen to any future invader.

If we owe anything to any other nation it's the Choctaw Indians who provided much help to the starving Irish during the Great Famine. And we know what happened to the native Americans.

It's unlikely that ol' Lep will ever be asked to shoulder arms again (last time I did, I was at the front in 1960's Ardmore defending Co Waterford from a potential Russian invasion). Imagine all that was between Ireland becoming an Iron Curtain country was Lep and buddies with unarmed rifles. Oh! we did have bayonets.

Seriously though, you cannot have a war without death, dreadful injuries etc. Let's stay neutral. We deserve it. And so do our youth.

 

[Itchy]

The Government has convened the Consultative Forum on International Security Policy to discuss what Irish security policy should be.
It is commonly stated that Ireland is Neutral but that is an ill-defined policy with no basis in law.

Fantastic discussions at the forum yesterday. The quality of analysis and discussion was superb. I would encourage anyone with an interest in the issues to watch back the panel discussions. Notably the protests didn't last past the first coffee break and no contributions from Daly, Wallace, PANA, Horgan to issues related to cyber security, maritime security or critical national infrastructure.

 

[Purple]

Irish neutrality was hard won.

When did we win our neutrality?

We owe nothing to any other country regarding their military defence.

Except the British who defend our skies and the British and Americans who defend our waters.
If we had a functioning military which was capable of defending our country then we'd owe nothing to any other country regarding their military defence. That's the point of the current debate.

You can argue that we owe Spain something due to Don Juan de la Quilla who decided to land his force near Kinsale and had Irish armies march through harsh winter down the entire country where obvious defeat beckoned. Or perhaps France? - Who sent a force to Co Mayo and lasted days.

Why would anyone argue that?

Ireland never invaded any other country,

When we were part of the United Kingdom we invaded plenty of countries. Some very famous Irishmen led many an invasion and occupied plenty of senior positions in the countries we invaded.

except perhaps Wales where we kidnapped a local boy who turned into a St-Patrick or three.

That almost certainly didn't happen.

It's unlikely we're ever going to be invaded again bearing in mind that the last invaders never subdued the country and likely the same will happen to any future invader.

Nobody's talking about us being invaded. The conversation is about cooperating with other democracies in order to protect vital infrastructure that passes through our territory, being able to see what is in our airspace and whether it's desirable that Putin and Xi Jinping have a veto over whether we can deploy our troops because at the moment that's exactly what they have.
How do you square ceding control of our military to totalitarian dictators with being neutral? I know Micky D is a big fan of totalitarian dictators so I understand his position but for people who believe that the Irish people should have the sovereign right in these matters the current arrangement should be abhorrent.

If we owe anything to any other nation it's the Choctaw Indians who provided much help to the starving Irish during the Great Famine.

The Choctaw's, those brutal slave owners and traders. They gave as much as they could but it couldn't possibly be described as "much help". Mind you in a scenario where people like that were being massacred and we could stop it neutrality would demand that we did nothing... and see our inaction as a virtue.

And we know what happened to the native Americans.

Yes, they were unable to defend themselves.

Seriously though, you cannot have a war without death, dreadful injuries etc. Let's stay neutral.

Yes, let's keep letting other countries pay for our defence and let's let their young men continue to be willing to fight and die to defend us. It's pragmatic but it's morally reprehensible.

We deserve it. And so do our youth.

Why?

 

[Leper]

Whenever I have some time to waste from my retirement, I'll get around to answering @Purple questions. But, in the meantime I'll ponder on an Irish Nation's inability to solve our housing crisis. We have people living rough on the streets, sections of a garda force being prosecuted for doing their duty, Landlords are exiting a market when rent prices were never so high.

We can't solve our own problems - Full Stop - . . . . . and now our politicians (and some posters here) want us to solve military problems in other countries.

. . . . Tell You What . . . . When I see children and grandchildren of our politicians, our smug rich and some of our posters here fighting in the front line of anywhere then I'll begin to renounce my belief in neutrality.

 

[Itchy]

When I see children and grandchildren of our politicians, our smug rich and some of our posters here fighting in the front line of anywhere then I'll begin to renounce my belief in neutrality.

Plenty of politicians have served themselves, Cathal Berry, Michael McDowell, Lisa Chambers, Ger Craughwell, Billy Timmons, Brian Lenihan among others. I served with a relative of a Government Minister at the time. Please don't pretend that our DF is not a representation of a cross section of our society, from all walks of life; rich and poor, all with a sense of service beyond themselves.

 

[Purple]

Whenever I have some time to waste from my retirement, I'll get around to answering @Purple questions.

Thank you, it is much appreciated.

But, in the meantime I'll ponder on an Irish Nation's inability to solve our housing crisis.

Out of a population of over 5 million there are 13000 people living in emergency accommodation. That's not a crisis. It's a problem.

We have people living rough on the streets,

Very few, far lower than most countries.

sections of a garda force being prosecuted for doing their duty,

That's hardly a counter argument to the merits of having a discussion about the nature of our neutrality.

Landlords are exiting a market when rent prices were never so high.

We have the same proportion of rental units as a proportion of our housing stock as we had in 2016. There's been no net reduction in supply, in fact there's been an increase. That's not counter argument to the merits of having a discussion about the nature of our neutrality either.

We can't solve our own problems - Full Stop -

We are one of the richest and most equal countries in the world. Our politicians have, on balance, done a magnificent job of running the country over the last 15 years.

. . . . . and now our politicians (and some posters here) want us to solve military problems in other countries.

No, we want to solve our own. If we remain neutral in the same way we are now we'll have to spend many billions plugging the gap. If we want to spend less then we need to redefine our neutrality to allow us to work with other countries and share their resources.

. . . . Tell You What . . . . When I see children and grandchildren of our politicians, our smug rich and some of our posters here fighting in the front line of anywhere then I'll begin to renounce my belief in neutrality.

Excellent. I presume since reading @Itchy's post you've changed your mind.

 

[Purple]

@Leper , do you think it is good that Russia and China get to decide where or not we send more than 12 of our troops abroad?

 

[cremeegg]

What sticks in the craw is the virtue signaling associated with "neutrality".

On the contrary I see those who want us to spend money on military equipment which will never be used as the virtue signallers in this debate.

Lots of photo ops for Charlie Flanagan to don a green jacket and be photographed on a tank. Effective use against any actual threat nil.

The geopolitical reality of today is between free democracies and authoritarian would be aggressors. There is no moral argument for neutrality on that one but sure let us exploit our halo to save a few bob.

What a short memory you must have.

Let me introduce you to a man who lied to the UN Security Council to start a war,

Colin Powell’s UN speech: a decisive moment in undermining US credibility

Analysis: His security council presentation didn’t directly lead to the Iraq invasion – but it was a turning point in US-UN relations

www.theguardian.com

A war which lead to death and destruction on a much greater scale than anything we have seen in Ukraine to date.

Recent estimates (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63580372 and https://www.ohchr.org/en/news/2022/10/ukraine-civilian-casualty-update-31-october-2022) suggest that the death toll of military forces in Ukraine approach 200,000, while civilian casualties may be around 16,300 (with 6,430 civilians killed). In turn, a https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-24547256on war-related deaths in Iraq post-2003 puts the figure at 461,000.

The moral choice is to have as little as possible to do with warmongers of any stripe.

 

[cremeegg]

When we were part of the United Kingdom we invaded plenty of countries. Some very famous Irishmen led many an invasion and occupied plenty of senior positions in the countries we invaded.

Yes, the Irish were such successful colonialists that we sit here debating our colonising past in the language of those who colonised us.

 

[Purple]

On the contrary I see those who want us to spend money on military equipment which will never be used as the virtue signallers in this debate.

Lots of photo ops for Charlie Flanagan to don a green jacket and be photographed on a tank. Effective use against any actual threat nil.



What a short memory you must have.

Let me introduce you to a man who lied to the UN Security Council to start a war,

Colin Powell’s UN speech: a decisive moment in undermining US credibility

Analysis: His security council presentation didn’t directly lead to the Iraq invasion – but it was a turning point in US-UN relations

www.theguardian.com

A war which lead to death and destruction on a much greater scale than anything we have seen in Ukraine to date.

Recent estimates (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63580372 and https://www.ohchr.org/en/news/2022/10/ukraine-civilian-casualty-update-31-october-2022) suggest that the death toll of military forces in Ukraine approach 200,000, while civilian casualties may be around 16,300 (with 6,430 civilians killed). In turn, a https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-24547256on war-related deaths in Iraq post-2003 puts the figure at 461,000.

The moral choice is to have as little as possible to do with warmongers of any stripe.

Why on earth do you think Ireland would ever be involved in any of that stuff?

 

[Purple]

Yes, the Irish were such successful colonialists that we sit here debating our colonising past in the language of those who colonised us.

That makes no sense.