Sir, - Patrick Smyth's recent article on neutrality (January 16th) contains the extraordinary statement that MEPs Patricia McKenna (Greens), Mary Banotti (FG), and Pat Cox (Ind) have all "in the past been unqualified supporters of neutrality" and that none of them could "conceive of Ireland entering a collective security organisation committed to nuclear strategy". This is certainly true of Patricia McKenna who has been a consistent anti. nuclear and pro neutrality campaigner. It is certainly not true of Mary Banotti and Pat Cox and for Patrick Smyth to portray these MEPs as being in agreement on "the basics" is misleading: the Irish voters should be aware that some of their MEPs are actively involved in political groupings in the European Parliament which favour the development of EU defence, a "defence" based on nuclear weapons.
Mary Banotti's heart may be in the right place but she is certainly in the wrong party. The Fine Gael platform during the last European Elections - the platform on which Mary Banotti stood - advocated that Ireland become a full member of the Western European Union, a military grouping based on a nuclear strategy and a binding mutual defence agreement. The European People's Party to which Fine Gael is affiliated in the European Parliament is similarly pro EU defence and pro nuclear weapons.
As for Pat Cox . . . He is vice president of the fourth largest grouping in the European Parliament, the Liberal and Democrat Group. Last year he compiled a report on behalf of that group for the upcoming Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) to be held in Dublin this year, a conference in which future EU defence will be considered. That report urged "that all member states recognise the eventual objective of applying the principle of compulsory mutual assistance as a cornerstone of an evolving defence policy which would, in time, be progressively implemented on the grounds of mutual solidarity and the emergence of the appropriate institutional, security and defence arrangements, as a European pillar of the NATO security structure".
Highlighting this report, an Irish Times article (April 6th, 1995) - interestingly enough, written by Patrick Smyth - quoted Pat Cox as saying politicians in Ireland had been "cowardly" on the issue of neutrality and that the Irish people had accepted the Maastricht defence commitment. Mr Smyth went on to say that Pat Cox's views were the most explicit public proposal yet for a revision of Ireland's traditional policy of neutrality ahead of next year's EU, Intergovernmental Conference".
On the general issue of whether or not Ireland should ever come to the "defence" of its EU partners . . . What does this in fact mean? For one thing, it means Ireland will have to accept nuclear weapons and nuclear "defence There can be no EU defence which does not have a nuclear component: this is not a point the Government likes highlighted, but it is the truth. This fact alone should be enough to stop any consideration of mutual defence commitments.
It also raises the obvious questions of what sort of conflicts Ireland could find itself dragged into. Would we have gone to the Falklands? Or invaded Newfoundland in defence of Spanish fishing trawlers? Or quelled the natives in the South Pacific so the French could test their nuclear weapons?: Or if war broke out between Turkey and Greece, would we defend EU NATO Greece against NATO Turkey and what would our EUNATO WEU partners do? The EU seems to be spoiled with military pacts to choose from!
And what about the United Nations? It was established to deal with the very question of defending its member states from aggression. Its reputation has been damaged in recent years. But that is the fault of the member states. If the same energy were put into reviving the collective security arrangements of the United Nations as has been put into militarising the EU, we would all be much better off.
Finally, one has to question whose interests would be served by forcing Ireland into any EU defence structure or arrangement. The Irish Army's strength is in its peacekeeping role. This is where its power lies not in being armed to the teeth. The best way for Ireland to "defend" its EU partners is to maintain its integrity as a peacekeeper, outside of military alliances, and in the service of the UN. - Yours, etc.,
On behalf of the Peace and Neutrality Alliance (PANA)
Rosmeen Park,
Dun Laoghaire,
Co Dublin.
Patrick Smyth writes: In reporting that MEPs were "in the past unqualified supporters of neutrality", I was writing of their own self definition of political positions held previously and in some cases still held. That their evolving definitions of "neutrality" do not necessarily accord with Ms Fox's was the pint of the article. I did not say that they agreed "on the basics" but that they shared "common ground". Ms Fox also refers to another article written by me "interestingly enough". Praise however faint, is always welcome.