Ireland’s long-held policy of neutrality is under huge pressure. The Government pretends it is maintaining our neutrality, but this simply isn’t true. Instead, it is subjecting it to the death of a thousand cuts, although a very big cut is on its way that could effectively finish it off, namely the abolition of the Triple Lock.
What the Government has done is reduce the concept of neutrality to military neutrality only, or to be more precise, keeping Ireland out of a military alliance such as NATO.
Neutrality in our case does not mean trying to become an honest broker or a neutral arbiter in conflicts, for example, in the Middle East or Ukraine. Quite aside from other geopolitical reasons, there is no way Russia would see us as neutral arbiter in its war on Ukraine, or Israel in its war with Hamas.
Maybe this is as it should be, but some countries, such as Austria, for example, are less belligerent than us in these matters.
Peacekeeping
For example, while the Austrian Government has condemned the Russian invasion of Ukraine and offered full-throated support to the Ukrainians, it nonetheless used its reasonably close relationship with Russia at the start of the war to try and bring about peace. We cannot do that because we would not be seen as an honest broker.
Nor would we be seen as an honest broker in the Middle East because our diplomacy is so consistently critical of Israel and has been for decades.
We might send our soldiers on UN peace-keeping missions, but that does not mean we are seen as a neutral country, per se, except as mentioned in the narrow sense of not being formally part of a military alliance.
For its part, the Holy See does like to position itself as a possible neutral arbiter or honest broker in conflicts. This is why its condemnations of Russia, or of Israel, have not been as full-throated as some people would like. It does not want to automatically exclude itself from the honest broker role which it feels can best serve peace, and a major goal of Holy See diplomacy is conflict resolution.
Ireland, in practice, shows little interest in taking on such a task. Our peacekeepers go into a region after other countries have negotiated a peace deal, or at least a ceasefire, maybe in a location acceptable to all parties to the conflict. Qatar has sometimes served such a role in the Middle East, despite its housing Hamas leaders.
Its argument is essentially that the world has changed and we cannot give Russian president Vladimir Putin the right to veto where we send our troops”
Switzerland is famous for hosting peace negotiations. It is unimaginable Dublin ever being in a position to do something similar.
The Triple Lock is now in danger. The ‘Triple Lock’ basically means that Irish soldiers can’t be sent on a UN peacekeeping mission without the approval of the Government, of the Dáil, and of the UN.
This mechanism goes right back to 1960. The Government wants to remove the Triple Lock and is advancing legislation to do so. Its argument is essentially that the world has changed and we cannot give Russian president Vladimir Putin the right to veto where we send our troops.
He has this veto because UN peacekeeping missions are generally approved by the UN Security Council. Russia, along with the US, China, Britain and France are permanent members, and those members can veto any Security Council resolution.
Logic
But to be honest, this argument from the Government baffles me. Back in 1960, the leader of the Soviet Union was Nikita Khrushchev, and the Chinese leader was Chairman Mao. The Cold War was still raging. Tensions between East and West were extremely high, and we sometimes seemed on the brink of World War 3.
Why is it worse that Putin has a veto over where our peacekeepers go than either Khrushchev or Mao?
We introduced the ‘Triple Lock’ to ensure our soldiers were only sent abroad in accordance with international law as defined by the UN. If the UN Security Council does not approve of something, then it falls outside international law in this sense.
It also made little sense to call yourself ‘neutral’ if you were sending soldiers where the likes of America, or China, or Russia did not want them to be.
I used to be a firm supporter of Ireland joining NATO. I believed we should not have tried to sit out the Cold War”
A great deal is also being made of the Russian threat to Ireland. But is that threat really greater today than during the Cold War? The Soviet Union was more powerful than Russia is now. Soviet ships often operated close to Irish waters. Its tanks were in Eastern Germany. The Warsaw Pact still existed. The Iron Curtain still divided one half of Europe from the other.
Objectively speaking, the world is less dangerous today than it was back then. Therefore, why does the Triple Lock make less sense now than that it did in 1960, or 1980 or 2000?
I say all this as someone who is neutral about neutrality. I used to be a firm supporter of Ireland joining NATO. I believed we should not have tried to sit out the Cold War. The Soviet Union was, as mentioned, a much greater threat to democratic freedoms than Russia. We were ‘free-riding’ on NATO, so to speak. If the Cold War had ever become a hot war, our freedom would have depended on NATO, that’s if the world didn’t go up in nuclear smoke.
Vote
Some of these arguments still apply. If Russia is the sort of threat to the rest of Europe as some say it is, then we will once again be dependent on other countries, the ones in NATO, for our freedom. But the war in Ukraine has proven Russia to be rather feeble, militarily speaking. It cannot even fight its war out of eastern Ukraine, never mind threaten to overrun capital cities like Warsaw, never mind Paris.
There is, however, a very strong argument to be made for us massively increasing defence spending so that we are not such a ‘free-rider’, militarily-speaking, on other NATO countries.
Given how integral the Triple Lock has been to Irish foreign policy, I believe it should be put to the people first”
It is possible that the Triple Lock will be gone by the end of the year. President Catherine Connolly might well refer it to the Supreme Court. Irish neutrality is not, strictly speaking, part of our Constitution, but in order to persuade Irish voters to vote for the Nice Treaty second time around the then Government signed up to a declaration promising to respect the Triple Lock. Of course, that is still not the same as our neutrality being a constitutional requirement.
But in my view, given how integral the Triple Lock has been to Irish foreign policy, I believe it should be put to the people first in a referendum and not abolished the way the Government is planning.
The ‘Triple Lock’ should be put to a referendum
Ireland’s long-held policy of neutrality is under huge pressure. The Government pretends it is maintaining our neutrality, but this simply isn’t true. Instead, it is subjecting it to the death of a thousand cuts, although a very big cut is on its way that could effectively finish it off, namely the abolition of the Triple Lock.
What the Government has done is reduce the concept of neutrality to military neutrality only, or to be more precise, keeping Ireland out of a military alliance such as NATO.
Neutrality in our case does not mean trying to become an honest broker or a neutral arbiter in conflicts, for example, in the Middle East or Ukraine. Quite aside from other geopolitical reasons, there is no way Russia would see us as neutral arbiter in its war on Ukraine, or Israel in its war with Hamas.
Maybe this is as it should be, but some countries, such as Austria, for example, are less belligerent than us in these matters.
Peacekeeping
For example, while the Austrian Government has condemned the Russian invasion of Ukraine and offered full-throated support to the Ukrainians, it nonetheless used its reasonably close relationship with Russia at the start of the war to try and bring about peace. We cannot do that because we would not be seen as an honest broker.
Nor would we be seen as an honest broker in the Middle East because our diplomacy is so consistently critical of Israel and has been for decades.
We might send our soldiers on UN peace-keeping missions, but that does not mean we are seen as a neutral country, per se, except as mentioned in the narrow sense of not being formally part of a military alliance.
For its part, the Holy See does like to position itself as a possible neutral arbiter or honest broker in conflicts. This is why its condemnations of Russia, or of Israel, have not been as full-throated as some people would like. It does not want to automatically exclude itself from the honest broker role which it feels can best serve peace, and a major goal of Holy See diplomacy is conflict resolution.
Ireland, in practice, shows little interest in taking on such a task. Our peacekeepers go into a region after other countries have negotiated a peace deal, or at least a ceasefire, maybe in a location acceptable to all parties to the conflict. Qatar has sometimes served such a role in the Middle East, despite its housing Hamas leaders.
Switzerland is famous for hosting peace negotiations. It is unimaginable Dublin ever being in a position to do something similar.
The Triple Lock is now in danger. The ‘Triple Lock’ basically means that Irish soldiers can’t be sent on a UN peacekeeping mission without the approval of the Government, of the Dáil, and of the UN.
This mechanism goes right back to 1960. The Government wants to remove the Triple Lock and is advancing legislation to do so. Its argument is essentially that the world has changed and we cannot give Russian president Vladimir Putin the right to veto where we send our troops.
He has this veto because UN peacekeeping missions are generally approved by the UN Security Council. Russia, along with the US, China, Britain and France are permanent members, and those members can veto any Security Council resolution.
Logic
But to be honest, this argument from the Government baffles me. Back in 1960, the leader of the Soviet Union was Nikita Khrushchev, and the Chinese leader was Chairman Mao. The Cold War was still raging. Tensions between East and West were extremely high, and we sometimes seemed on the brink of World War 3.
Why is it worse that Putin has a veto over where our peacekeepers go than either Khrushchev or Mao?
We introduced the ‘Triple Lock’ to ensure our soldiers were only sent abroad in accordance with international law as defined by the UN. If the UN Security Council does not approve of something, then it falls outside international law in this sense.
It also made little sense to call yourself ‘neutral’ if you were sending soldiers where the likes of America, or China, or Russia did not want them to be.
A great deal is also being made of the Russian threat to Ireland. But is that threat really greater today than during the Cold War? The Soviet Union was more powerful than Russia is now. Soviet ships often operated close to Irish waters. Its tanks were in Eastern Germany. The Warsaw Pact still existed. The Iron Curtain still divided one half of Europe from the other.
Objectively speaking, the world is less dangerous today than it was back then. Therefore, why does the Triple Lock make less sense now than that it did in 1960, or 1980 or 2000?
I say all this as someone who is neutral about neutrality. I used to be a firm supporter of Ireland joining NATO. I believed we should not have tried to sit out the Cold War. The Soviet Union was, as mentioned, a much greater threat to democratic freedoms than Russia. We were ‘free-riding’ on NATO, so to speak. If the Cold War had ever become a hot war, our freedom would have depended on NATO, that’s if the world didn’t go up in nuclear smoke.
Vote
Some of these arguments still apply. If Russia is the sort of threat to the rest of Europe as some say it is, then we will once again be dependent on other countries, the ones in NATO, for our freedom. But the war in Ukraine has proven Russia to be rather feeble, militarily speaking. It cannot even fight its war out of eastern Ukraine, never mind threaten to overrun capital cities like Warsaw, never mind Paris.
There is, however, a very strong argument to be made for us massively increasing defence spending so that we are not such a ‘free-rider’, militarily-speaking, on other NATO countries.
It is possible that the Triple Lock will be gone by the end of the year. President Catherine Connolly might well refer it to the Supreme Court. Irish neutrality is not, strictly speaking, part of our Constitution, but in order to persuade Irish voters to vote for the Nice Treaty second time around the then Government signed up to a declaration promising to respect the Triple Lock. Of course, that is still not the same as our neutrality being a constitutional requirement.
But in my view, given how integral the Triple Lock has been to Irish foreign policy, I believe it should be put to the people first in a referendum and not abolished the way the Government is planning.
New Bishop Chairman: No special path for Germany in reforms
Bishop Coll: young Catholics seek ‘doctrinal solidity, not adaptability’
Late Bishop Willie Walsh honoured with plaza on first anniversary
Dr Slim urges humanitarian shift as Trócaire warns of climate impact
Top TOPICS
Unsurprisingly, quite a few Lent related items featured in the media last week. The News
When I was in college, back in the days when the earth’s crust was still
Dear Editor, Garry O’Sullivan makes valuable points concerning the accountability of deceased clerical sexual abusers
Bishop Niall Coll’s recent remarks mark a significant moment in the lead-up to the upcoming