Time to re-examine Ireland’s ill-defined idea of neutrality

The Russian invasion of Ukraine has prompted a debate about the meaning of Irish neutrality and whether it serves the needs of this State in the 21st century. Our ill defined neutrality has been a sacred cow for far too long and the emergence of a robust public debate, reflected in the letters pages of The Irish Times, is a healthy development.

Apart from the Russian invasion, the way in which some of the most vociferous defenders of Irish neutrality have shown sympathy for Vladimir Putin, along with deep hostility to Ukrainian independence and Nato’s efforts to defend that country from invasion, should also prompt reflection on where this country’s interests really lie.

The issue facing the Irish people now is how we deal with the challenge of defending the State and the wider EU from the threats we face from the enemies of democracy in the years ahead. As far as this island is concerned, those threats are more likely to emerge in the form of cyber attacks than military intervention but are no less serious for that.

One of the things the current debate should do is provide some clarity about whether the loose concept of neutrality means anything in the context of the obligations we have already signed up to through membership of the EU, never mind the State’s obligation to defend its own people. It demands a level of honesty from our political leaders, who have been happy for far too long to fudge the nature of our EU obligations and avoid the allocation of the resources required to bring the Defence Forces into the modern world.

Failings highlighted during Aoife Johnston inquest are an indictment of the health service

---

Brazilian Deliveroo rider who intervened in Parnell Square attack: ‘I had time to think about what my purpose in life is’

---

The least famous best player the NBA has ever had: ‘I really wish nobody knows me’

---

Picture This: Parked Car Conversations – Solid pop songs with a saccharine heartbeat

---

The truth is that we have not really been neutral since we joined the EU. The “solidarity clause” of the Treaty on European Union, which we accepted, states unambiguously that “if a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power”.

This clause was qualified by guarantees given in advance of the second Lisbon referendum, and incorporated in Article 29 of the Constitution, that exempt us from being required to offer military assistance, as distinct from other types of aid, to fellow member States who are the victims of aggression.

The understandable confusion arising from the failure of successive governments to spell out what is meant by neutrality was illustrated in two recent opinion polls which attempted to gauge public opinion on the appropriate response to the Russian invasion.

An Irish Times Ipsos poll in early April found that 70 per cent of people supported sanctions against Russia even if that resulted in higher costs in Ireland. When asked if Ireland should send military aid to Ukraine, even if this affects our neutrality, 55 per cent said no and 35 per cent said yes. There was a similar response to the question of whether Ireland should play a greater military role to defend the EU, with 54 per cent saying no and 33 per cent yes.

Military aid

However, an EU-wide poll carried out a few weeks later discovered that a substantial majority of Irish voters favoured the purchase and supply of military equipment to Ukraine by the EU. In fact, 77 per cent of Irish people backed EU military aid to Ukraine compared to an average of 67 per cent across the 27 member states.

It seems that a majority of people are willing for the EU, of which we are not only members but net contributors, to supply military aid to Ukraine but are not willing for Ireland as a state to supply military assistance. At one level, this glaring contradiction reflects the confusion that has been generated by the ill defined nature of our neutrality but it also reveals an understandable contradiction in attitudes given the natural horror of war.

The pride most people have in the peacekeeping role the Defence Forces have played around the world for the past 60 years has tended to obscure the fact that in the last resort the Army is there to defend the country by force and needs to be properly equipped to perform that role.

The role of Nato also tends to muddy the waters in the neutrality debate. There is little or no prospect of this country applying to join Nato, as Finland and Sweden have done, as unlike them we face no threat of military invasion from Russia. There is an argument that we have got away with being protected by Nato for nothing, but that is another day’s work.

The immediate issue is what role Ireland should play in EU defence. This is often presented as if participation would represent some sort of imposition on this country, when the reality is that we need to be involved in EU defence co-operation for our own protection. The recent cyber attack on the HSE and the mischievous Russian naval exercise off the west coast illustrate how vulnerable this country is to malign anti-democratic forces. That point has been reinforced by the Russian invasion of Ukraine.