Menu
Ireland's political and cultural magazine
72 July-August 2023 July-August 2023 73
The suspicions expressed publicly by the
President that the Forum had been carefully
curated so that the process would arrive at
a predetermined outcome proved, on the
whole, to be unfounded
Brigid Laffan frightens pacifists
Pssive-ggressive Open to NATO
Open-minded Defensive
T
he Consultative Forum on
International Security Policy that
was held at various locations from
22 June to 27 June was an
appropriate metaphor for the
international security structures it discussed
so earnestly. A small and select group directed
the discussion about global security and
oered their view to a larger General Assembly,
some of whom would be allowed to insert
them into the conversation from the floor. To
add an extra layer of authenticity to
proceedings, occasionally a dissident voice
would be raised to protest the entire basis of
proceedings.
The desire expressed by the Department of
Foreign Aairs that discussion should be
“open, informed, respectful and evidence-
based discussion on the State’s foreign and
security policy”, was thwarted by a number of
subversive interruptions. A shouting match
between protesters and Tánaiste Micheál
Martin at UCC was an early highlight. However,
the chaos was largely constrained, and the
moderators of each session were admirably
ecient in keeping to the printed timetable.
Perhaps the organisers had made allowances
in their schedule for these fractious
contingencies.
The suspicions expressed publicly by the
President that the Forum had been carefully
curated so that the process would arrive at a
predetermined outcome proved, on the whole,
to be unfounded. The invited panelists
Neutrality Neuroses
A conceptual look at the Consultative Forum
on International Security Policy
By J VivIan Cooke
provided important insight and nuance even
if it did not reflect the full range of public
opinion. Although many panelists were open
in expressing their policy preferences on
various issues, there was no attempt to
disguise these positions and, for all the
fulminations, there was little evidence of
anyone acting in bad faith on either side of
debates.
It is helpful to order the wide-ranging
discussions using an analytical framework
that distinguishes positions based on intrinsic
or instrumental values.
An instrumental approach assesses various
security policy options based on how
eectively they deliver underlying policy
goals. The advocates of either strict neutrality
or deeper cooperation with NATO – positions
that are irreconcilable – maintain that their
policy preference is best suited to advance
Irish security and/or promote the international
rule-based order; and/or facilitate Irish
participation in UN peacekeeping missions. In
this sense, neutrality is not an end in itself,
but rather a mechanism of Irish diplomacy to
achieve the national interest and values.
Even among UN veterans, peacekeepers,
diplomats and administrators, there was
sharp disagreement on precisely the extent to
which Ireland’s neutrality is acknowledged or
valued by other members of the international
community.
For its advocates, international recognition
of Irish neutrality distinguishes us from other
European States, is evidence of impartiality,
and makes Irish interventions more acceptable
to other States and peoples. For example, the
Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, said that our
neutrality was “helpful” in securing our
election to the UN Security Council.
Those who are urging changes to Ireland’s
security posture assert that, in their
experience, Ireland’s position is not
INTERNATIONAL
72 July-August 2023 July-August 2023 73
into a cognitive confirmation bias that fails to
acknowledge the moral complexity of modern
US diplomatic history where, often at the
same time, it has been both the architect and
the transgressor of international law; it has
both encouraged and undermined
democracies; it has been both a fierce
opponent of some tyrants and close allies of
others.
Equally, the supporters of deeper
Neutrality is not an
end in itself, but rather
a mechanism of Irish
diplomacy to achieve the
national interest and values
recognised around the world as unique, and
we are categorised with other small and well-
intentioned countries such as Norway or
Denmark, both of whom are members of NATO.
Renata Dwan, a panelist at the Forum,
suggested that a more realistic evaluation is
that Ireland’s policy of neutrality underlies the
more obvious aspects of our international
reputation which others value - such as our
consistent support for human rights; our
distinguished track record in peacekeeping;
and the absence of overriding national
interests.
On the face of it, the isolation of neutrality
is less of a guarantor of Ireland’s national
security than any mutual defence pact that
creates a treaty obligation for all members to
defend Ireland should we be attacked.
However, such a collective security agreement
cuts both ways: Ireland will have an obligation
to all other members of the treaty organisation.
Clearly, we could be dragged into an
international conflict without having the
opportunity to make a positive decision to do
so.
The Forum questioned if the current ‘Triple
Lock’ guarantees ‘traditional neutrality’. It
has created a situation where Ireland can only
deploy a maximum of 12 personnel in
response to any international crisis, including
the evacuation of Irish citizens and aid
workers from conflict zones.
It also frustratingly grants to Russian and
Chinese dictatorial regimes and NATO states,
the US, UK and France, a veto over Irish
peacekeeping missions. In any event, the
‘Triple Lock’ only applies to the authorisation
at the start of UN missions and does not grant
the Oireachtas a role in the continued
oversight of such deployments. This deficiency
has been exposed by revelations in internal
UN and international reports of widespread
sex and child abuse in numerous UN
deployments. Any review of the ‘Triple Lock’
must include a role for the Oireachtas in
renewing authorisations.
The second category of contributions takes
it as a premise that our security policy should
be an expression of our national values,
whether that is pacifism or solidarity. In this
sense, neutrality is a categorical imperative
that has inherent ethical value – and, for
some, moral purity.
Those holding this position are typically
suspicious of the intent of former colonial
masters attempting to maintain their political
and economic influence. They note the US’s
long history of illegal wars as well as
innumerable invasions and coups, and the
fact it has been compromised by its material
interests in, for example, ensuring energy
imports.
Unfortunately, at times, this appraisal veers
cooperation through the EU’s Common Foreign
and Security Policy (CFSP) or NATO’s
Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO)
structures marshal their own ethical
arguments. Far from being an instrument of
American interests, NATO is portrayed as a
voluntary association of like-minded
democracies who are committed to mutual
support in the face of imperialist aggression.
Ireland, from this view, has a moral obligation
to show effective solidarity with fellow
members of the international community of
free democracies, of which we are committed
members, and it is reprehensible of us not to
defend those freedoms.
Wrestling with the moral compromises
inevitable in a policy of “active neutrality” is
still preferable to the ethical problems that
come with a policy of strict neutrality. The
corollary of isolationism and ambivalence is
antithetical to Irish principles of promoting
peace, human rights, poverty relief, climate
justice and equality as well as opposing
tyranny, oppression and violence. We do not
and should not remain neutral in the face of
homicidal dictators.
If it is to be conducted at all, international
diplomacy will result in compromises in both
practice and in values. The Forum has been
valuable, at the very least, in drawing more
clearly where those compromises lie and has
made a number of suggestions on how
international cooperation, however
distasteful, is desirable to achieve our goals.
It is a pity that the commitment, so often
expressed at the Forum, to global justice and
equality, was endorsed in the abstract but too
often qualified in practice.
