Neutrality has served us well – but we must be prepared to let it go when the time comes
JUST before Christmas, the EU Council approved Permanent Structured Cooperation (Pesco), the new EU initiative to enhance security and defence co-operation. Having delayed a decision as late as possible, Ireland is finally on board the good ship Pesco, travelling steerage, no doubt, to avoid any meaningful increase in defence spending for as long as possible.
As expected, signing up to Pesco triggered off another Groundhog Day in the great non-debate on our national policy of military neutrality. The same jaded arguments were recycled by the same politicians and commentators.
No surprises there, as the usual suspects emerged briefly from their entrenched positions, provoked by real, or perceived, threats to our defence policy. Sadly, no new thinking either, just the same old red herrings tossed into the debate by both sides.
Both sides too began and ended their contributions with ritualistic tributes to the work done by the men and women of the Defence Forces. Anything to avoid confronting the real priorities on national defence.
What was different this time in the debate was the Taoiseach’s recent announcement that he favoured Ireland remaining neutral, but that he did not always hold this view. Interesting.
Was Leo formerly a Nato enthusiast? Given his current position, as Taoiseach and Minister for Defence, it is at least reassuring to know that he now supports Government policy on neutrality.
But what do we really mean by military neutrality?
The starting position for any debate is to agree on a definition. In the White Paper on Defence 2015, our national policy is defined in negative terms. We are not part of a military alliance, and not militarily committed under a mutual defence clause. The former means we are obviously not joining Nato, and the latter means we are not militarily
Let us hold on to our policy of military neutrality as a strategy
committed under a mutual defence clause, either through a military alliance, or with another State. I mention the latter to point out that a defence treaty with a mutual defence clause with another state is an alternative option to joining a military alliance.
Geographically, the UK comes to mind, but to keep celebrity historians happy, let us mention France and Spain, which were formerly, at different times, our allies in arms.
All four mainstream political parties seem to go along with the White Paper definition. In fairness to Sinn Féin, its Positive Neutrality document presents neutrality in more positive terms. However, its historical justification for neutrality is somewhat convoluted. The suggestion that Wolfe Tone was a neutralist is stretching things a bit, considering he wore the uniform of France with pride.
However, both Labour and Sinn Féin are so committed to neutrality that they want it enshrined in the straitjacket of the Constitution. The problem in including neutrality, or any alternative defence policy, in the Constitution, is that it could tie the hands of a future government in a national emergency.
You only have to look at the efforts to repeal the Eighth Amendment to appreciate how long it takes to change the Constitution. Moreover, the consequences of including military neutrality in the Constitution, for our long-term position in the EU, is problematic. Even if they were to show a determination to defend our policy of military neutrality, by say, also enshrining a commitment to minimum defence spending in the Constitution, it could still block Ireland’s full participation in a more integrated EU.
In resetting the priorities for national defence, the primary consideration should be to opt for the politico/military alignment that best provides for the security and defence of the State. This is ultimately more important than whether we are neutral, non-aligned, members of Nato or participants in a future EU Common Defence.
The second priority is to properly fund defence, no matter which political alignment we have opted for.
Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil support for the EU Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) does not threaten our status as being militarily neutral.
The Pesco arrangements arise in the agreed CSDP context, and have the necessary safeguards, also, not to be a threat to our neutrality.
Austria, Finland and Sweden, the other traditional neutrals, are also signed up.
It could, however, be a step in the direction of creating an EU Defence Union, ultimately leading to EU Common Defence. Moreover, EU Common Defence, if it happens, will be meaningless if it does not contain a mutual defence clause. Still, joining in an EU Common Defence may ultimately be necessary, if we wish to remain at the heart of a more integrated EU. By this time, Irish military neutrality will have run its course. This could be years away, even decades.
In the meantime, let us hold on to our policy of military neutrality, not as a rigid ideology, but rather as a strategy. As a strategy, it has served us well.
However, if and when the time comes to let it go, we need to acknowledge this, and give it a decent funeral.