Does adopting a position of neutrality mean not caring who wins?

[Dinarius]

A serious question.

And if not, wouldn’t being allowed to care who wins be like having your cake and eating it? (Or, letting someone else do the dirty work for you as we allowed to happen twice in the last 100 odd years.)

I have no idea if Éamon de Valera cared who won WWII - his behaviour on the death of Hitler might leave you wondering - but, I suspect that he would have preferred for Britain to remain British.

I ask the question on foot of an IT Op-Ed piece this past weekend co-authored by three academics entitled “Neutrality matters to Irish people - let’s stop deriding it” One line that stood out for me:

“Joining EU or NATO-led military missions makes it far more likely that Ireland will be exposed to attack because Ireland will become a combatant in their wars.”

“Their wars”? Really?

Would a war with, for example, Russia really be “their” war? Presumably, as with two world wars, only as long as “they” didn’t lose.

While we’re not at war with Russia, there are issues like our territorial waters being infringed and Atlantic cables being cut which a non-aligned position might not help us with.

The IT piece is worth reading.

For the record, in our very joined up 21st century world, my view is that a position of neutrality is unfeasible.

D.

 

[losttheplot]

I think we use 'neutrality' as a cover for being defenceless. While a traditional attack is unlikely, drones and sabatoge are the issue. We have lots of water and air space to cover. Sabatage to undersea cables or air traffic control could cause massive disruption in Europe. According to the aritcle below, it would be illegal under our constitution to allow someone else patrol our waters. The article also suggests some concern in Europe about our ability for defence.

Using foreign ship to police major summit raises constitutional questions, former AG says

The state’s ability to adequately secure major EU Presidency events has come under the spotlight

www.thejournal.ie

 

[Purple]

I have no idea if Éamon de Valera cared who won WWII - his behaviour on the death of Hitler might leave you wondering - but, I suspect that he would have preferred for Britain to remain British.

Dev was strongly pro British/Allies during the War and all of our policies showed that active support. That said signing the Book of Condolence at the German Embassy was a monumentally stupid thing to do.

“Joining EU or NATO-led military missions makes it far more likely that Ireland will be exposed to attack because Ireland will become a combatant in their wars.”

What a really stupid comment. It shows the ideological blindness that causes people adopt such dangerous and childish positions.

For the record, in our very joined up 21st century world, my view is that a position of neutrality is unfeasible.

I agree completely. I think it is a position of moral cowardice.

 

[cremeegg]

Neutrality and defence capability are two different things. Down the decades there was a minority voice in Ireland saying that we should join NATO and spend lots of money on military hardware. Thus conflating the two things.

I do notice that recently this voice has woken up to the idea that developing our own defence capabilities based on the threats Ireland actually faces rather than puerile idea of buying big guns to join NATO. This is to be welcomed.

https://www.politico.eu/article/ang...catherine-connolly-ireland-military-security/ Its a good analysis though I do not agree with all his solutions. Its a pity they guy has a swipe at so many people who might be persuaded.

We should devote some effort to protecting ourselves against threats we actually face, these include cybersecurity threats, threats to the fibre optic cable network (which I suspect is more resilient than people think) and various parties making free with our airspace (is this actually a security threat, well it shouldn't be ignored) Britain infiltrating our institutions (every university in the country has someone reporting to the UK intelligence services) and Isreal using our passports to assassinate their enemies.

What are the reasons to join NATO, are they moral or security based. For me anyone who believed in the moral superiority of the Western order after My Lai was guilty of wishful thinking, after children being burned to death in tents in Gaza with US Germany and the UK contributing funds and ammunition, well I won't tell you what I think.

From a security point of view would Ireland benefit from joining NATO? Well I suspect that after Trump the Article 5 guarantee is worth less than appears. Ireland has a similar guarantee not based on any treaty but based on our location. Spain and Portugal as members of NATO are treaty bound to go to the aid of Estonia if Russia invades, I think this is a hollow promise. Ireland at least hasn't put up its hand to make a commitment we know we will not keep.

The Brits will not allow anyone occupy their backyard. On a clear day I can see a Martello tower for here. Neither do I see our neutrality protecting us from any potential attack, see the Maginot line. These are the geopolitical realities.

 

[Purple]

Neutrality and defence capability are two different things.

Neutrality and joining NATO are also two different things. Neutrality is just a fig leaf we hide behind in order to excuse our lack of ability to defend ourselves. The boogeyman that is NATO is just an excuse for not changing that. We can not be neutral and involve ourselves in EU defence without joining NATO.

 

[cremeegg]

For the record, in our very joined up 21st century world, my view is that a position of neutrality is unfeasible.

Perhaps

I agree completely. I think it is a position of moral cowardice.

Well there is a big difference between’unfeasable’ and ‘moral cowardice’.

You are very quick to pass moral judgment on ideas you don’t agree with.

I don’t see any moral virtue in siding with NATO for reasons I outlined above.

I also fail to see any moral virtue in trying to shelter under the security umbrella of an organisation whose members lied to the UN about Iraqs weapons program as an excuse to go to war.

It is true that joining NATO might be a wise choice in purely security terms, but let’s not kid ourselves that it is anything other than making up to a more compatible bully.

 

[cremeegg]

Speaking of bullies, I see Trump is hosting the charming Mohamed Bin Salman ion Washington today. By their friends shall ye know them.

 

[Purple]

Well there is a big difference between’unfeasable’ and ‘moral cowardice’.

I agree, but it can be both at the same time.

You are very quick to pass moral judgment on ideas you don’t agree with.

No, I took my time on this one.

I don’t see any moral virtue in siding with NATO for reasons I outlined above.

I also fail to see any moral virtue in trying to shelter under the security umbrella of an organisation whose members lied to the UN about Iraqs weapons program as an excuse to go to war.

It is true that joining NATO might be a wise choice in purely security terms, but let’s not kid ourselves that it is anything other than making up to a more compatible bully.

What's Neutrality got to do with joining NATO?
They are two completely different things.
I'm not in favour of joining NATO and I'm also not in favour of being neutral.

I'm against the Trippel Lock as I don't think Russia and China should have a veto on whether we deploy our armed forces.

I'm in favour of us being part of the EDA and participating in the EDIS.

I want these things because I want the EU to be a force for good in the world (rather than the well meaning talking shop it is now), not a bystander watching as the USA, China and Russia steer international geopolitics.

 

[Purple]

Speaking of bullies, I see Trump is hosting the charming Mohamed Bin Salman ion Washington today. By their friends shall ye know them.

As long as the EU remains powerless the rest of the world will ignore us.

 

[Sister Sara]

Speaking of bullies, I see Trump is hosting the charming Mohamed Bin Salman ion Washington today. By their friends shall ye know them.

Last week it was Ahmad al‑Sharaa, also known as Abu Mohammed al‑Jolani, who had a US $10m bounty on his head for his role in Al-Qaeda and ISIS.

They snuck him in through the back door.

A desecration of the memory of 3,000 lives lost in 9/11.

 

[Sister Sara]

I want these things because I want the EU to be a force for good in the world (rather than the well meaning talking shop it is now), not a bystander watching as the USA, China and Russia steer international geopolitics.

Thats all well and good, but the EU is not suited to a military alliance unless all concede sovereignty to a Federal United States of Europe.

The EU cannot even stand together against Russia or Israel. Europe is a disparate entity of too many moving and complex parts. The EU, or EEC, was set up to avoid the need to resolve conflicts through war.
If there is a conflict in the world the last thing that conflict needs is another military Empire dipping it's toe in, especially one that will be prone to turning in itself one day.

The EU should use its political and economic might. Unfortunately they cannot even summon themselves to do that to sanction Israel.

Keep EU out of foreign conflicts.

 

[Purple]

Thats all well and good, but the EU is not suited to a military alliance unless all concede sovereignty to a Federal United States of Europe.

Nonsense. We (the EU) already has a coordinated military alignment. Russia's imperialist unprovoked attack on democratic Ukraine is the catalyst that has woken us up to how vulnerable we are without US leadership. I'd rather not be led by the US.

The EU cannot even stand together against Russia or Israel. Europe is a disparate entity of too many moving and complex parts.

More nonsense. We've (the EU) supported Ukraine more than anyone else and rightly so. If we had a strong defence industry we'd have been able to support them much more.

The EU, or EEC, was set up to avoid the need to resolve conflicts through war.

It was set up to stop Europe going to war with itself. It's been the most successful peace project in history. I think we should be able to defend that from foreign aggression.

If there is a conflict in the world the last thing that conflict needs is another military Empire dipping it's toe in, especially one that will be prone to turning in itself one day.

Who's talking about military empires?

The EU should use its political and economic might. Unfortunately they cannot even summon themselves to do that to sanction Israel.

I thought you wanted to;

Keep EU out of foreign conflicts.

Anyway, what's sanctioning Israel got to do with the EU being able to defend itself or Ireland being Neutral?

 

[Sister Sara]

@Purple. Rather than go through each individual question in endless counter-cycles this is my position on the opening post.

The answer is no.

The issue of neutrality is complex so I would preferred it was defined.

My own position is I have no issue with Ireland increasing it's defence capabilities for Ireland to a common EU standard. I think this is sensible, and overdue.
What the 'EU standard' is, is complex. Countries such as Latvia, Lithuania require certain defence measures that Ireland does not. They have responded by joining NATO. We do not need this.

I have no issue with Ireland sharing intell and co-operating in defence and security arrangements with other EU countries, but ultimately it would be to each sovereign state discretion to what level that co-operation could occur.

I am opposed to joining NATO or any other military alliance and I despair at the ignorance in the opening post of

Or, letting someone else do the dirty work for you as we allowed to happen twice in the last 100 odd years.)

Unless I'm mistaken, this is a clear reference to WW1 and 2 where 100,000's of Irish men enlisted to support Britains war effort and tens of thousands of them paid the ultimate sacrifice. In the subsequent negotiations in France, where were our "gallant allies in Europe", as proclaimed in 1916, when Ireland demanded recognition as a nation of the world?

Ireland was betrayed by Britain and ignored by Europe.
That was a long time ago of course, but the point is all nations must put primacy over their own interests first.

Ireland has no interest in joining military alliances nor establishing a military grade weapons industry.

Michaél Martin - "Ireland must remain military neutral"
Simon Harris - "Ireland is a militarily neutral country and we're proudly militarily neutral and we will remain that."
Mary Lou McD - "Hands off Irish neutrality. Never has it been more crucial for neutral states to stand up and be counted."

Irish Labour, Soc Dems, PBP, Greens all express similar sentiment along with our newly elected President of Ireland.

The forums in which these people stand represent the voice of the Irish people.

Yet somehow, this issue of our neutrality keeps cropping up of late? Why? How?

I'm not buying it. It is a tiny minority of this island lobbying for a weapons industry and trying to untie our neutrality by stealth.
Russia is being peddled as the bogey-man once more, ignorant of the fact that many people in Europe, in EU countries identify as Lithuanian-Russian, or Estonian-Russian etc .
We have seen what happens when Ukrainian-Russians are threatened and attacked for separating from Ukraine on account of the democratically elected President being given his marching orders out of office.

Ireland is not under military threat. We should do what is necessary to protect EU interests in Ireland and go no further.

Keep the EU out of foreign conflicts that require military intervention.

 

[Sister Sara]

A timely propaganda feeder

"The British government said that the Yantar is currently north of Scotland.
In November 2024, the Russian spy ship was operating near subsea cables in the Irish Sea just north of Dublin.
The Yantar could next travel south through the Irish Sea or off the west coast of Ireland in expansive Irish EEZ waters."

Defence analyst and former army ranger, Cathal Berry said that if the Yantar goes towards Irish waters "it would be a test for the new Minister for Foreign Affairs and Defence, Helen McEntee."

"I've no doubt the Kremlin are fully aware that Ireland has a brand-new Defence minister and they would relish the possibility of testing her at their earliest opportunity," he said.

"The fact that she is also the new Minister for Foreign Affairs only further broadens the appeal," Mr Berry added.

First, that the 'Yantar" is a Russian spy-vessel is not questioned. Just like diplomats in embassies, nations are continuously gathering information on the seas. You are as likely to see US, British, French, Spanish, Italian, German etc, spy-vessels on international waters as you are to see Russian vessels.

But what is he talking about "testing the brand-new Defence Minister"?

Testing her for what? Covid? Or Irelands secret armada that the Minister kept hidden from the world until she got the job?

Honestly, I'm open to be schooled on this but what exactly is this guy talking about other than trying to drum up an anti-Russia hysteria through the national broadcaster to serve the interests of a tiny minority lobby intent on undermining the will of the Irish people wishes to remain neutral?

 

[Sister Sara]

For anyone genuinely interested and not prone to soaking up the Russia-phobia, the location of the 'Yantar' (described as Russian 'research vessel') is currenly located in the Baltic Sea from the 02/11 and available for anyone to spy, on it, via marinetraffic.com. It has travelled without reception for 17 days is quite possibly off the coast of Scotland in that time.

 

[Purple]

I didn't realise how much of a Putin apologist you were. I'm genuinely disappointed.

 

[Marsupial]

Honestly, I'm open to be schooled on this ...

...... but far too lazy to carry out my own research as I far prefer firing my peashooter at anyone who dares to question the sacred cow of Irish military Neutrality.

 

[Purple]

I have no issue with Ireland sharing intell and co-operating in defence and security arrangements with other EU countries, but ultimately it would be to each sovereign state discretion to what level that co-operation could occur.

Okay, then you are not in favour of retaining our current version of neutrality.

 

[redstar]

I think it would be helpful if everyone could agree on the meaning of 'neutrality', and where Ireland sits with that definition.
Whats its scope? What actions would be considered non-neutral?

Is Michael Martins definition of neutrality different from SF/Pres Connollys ?

If we cant agree on a clear definition then we can all argue around in circles.

 

[Purple]

@redstar, that's at the crux of it. While Article 29(4)(9) of the Constitution prevents us from adopting an common defence decision from the European Council there is no specific mention of Neutrality.

The Triple Lock is a long held policy dating back to the 1950's when the world was a different place.

To me the policy is just cowardice dressed up as virtue signaling.
Our elected government and parliament should be free to make decisions in the best interest of the Irish people without being hind-bound by ideologues.