Monday’s report by the Consultative Forum on International Security Policy, chaired by Prof Louise Richardson, provides a balanced and readable contribution to the Government’s proposed “conversation” on neutrality and security issues, from the Triple Lock to the country’s military preparedness. In the latter respect, the report complements the work of the Commission on the Defence Forces which reported last year on its funding inadequacies. That conversation is ably served by its non-prescriptive summarising of the highly contested positions set out to it in four days of meetings and 835 submissions.
The easiest part of Prof Richardson’s task lay in identifying the substantial consensus that underpins the discussion – pride in the practice of Ireland’s neutrality, whatever neutrality may mean, and in Ireland’s global standing, pride in the State’s engagement in multilateral peacekeeping, a desire to see military spending boosted, the need for reform of the UN, and the absence of support for dropping the current policy of neutrality.
Where differences arise they are largely over contested definitions of “neutrality”, and the extent to which various commitments like Nato membership – for which there is no support –– or the Triple Lock, or a constitutional amendment enshrining neutrality, conflict with such definitions. A constitutional amendment would be impossible if a definition cannot be agreed. Is neutrality simply a refusal to engage with mutual defence guarantees in a military alliance, or is it a broader refusal to take sides in conflict, or an almost pacifist rejection of the use of force?
The most likely outcome of the report would seem to be a review of the Triple Lock, specifically the veto held by the UN Security Council on the overseas deployment of Irish troops. The Government and the Oireachtas must also give their approval to such deployments. The report does not push a common definition of neutrality, describing Ireland’s approach as “political alignment and military nonalignment”. It serves us well, and if people want to call that “neutrality”, so be it.