A highlight of the recent Government-organised Consultative Forum on International Security Policy was a statement by the Swiss academic Professor Laurent Goetschel that “neutrality is not a religion”. Neutrality should be handled as part of a country’s foreign and security policy and adapted according to its interests, he said. Underlying values determine what such policies should be.
His remark was welcomed by participants in the forum anxious to open up a more realistic appraisal of Ireland’s changing security position and interests. Many are willing to work pragmatically with emerging European Union and Nato structures on cyber, marine and military interoperability issues. They are weary of those who say Irish neutrality is a more moral stance than that of countries such as Norway, a Nato member, which in fact has just as distinguished an international peacekeeping and development profile as Ireland’s.
The forum participant to which the Swiss speaker responded was unhappy to have neutrality characterised as a dogmatic religion, seeing it rather as an underlying value itself deserving of legal and political clarity. But historical research shows actual Irish neutrality policy to have been abidingly flexible, opportunist and interest-driven by state actors. The distinction made by ministers between military and political neutrality on Ukraine reflects this reality.
Both sides of the argument have things to learn from Prof Goetschel’s statement. Underlying values should, and do, determine policy more than the strategic and tactical interests at play in security politics. Forum participants said it gave fair voice to critics of government security and neutrality policy who attended and demanded a wider discussion, despite their belief that its conception and organisation over-securitises the issues at stake. That signifies an improving quality of public debate.
[Leo Varadkar] found it helped in canvassing support for Ireland’s United Nations Security Council membership to underline this country’s anti-colonial and anti-imperial record in meetings with large and small states in the Global South
The distinction between underlying values and neutrality policy means more in the rapidly changing international environment we are living through. A more equal distribution of world power is being sought by leaders of the Global South compared to the Western-dominated system inherited from the settlement made after the second World War. If the distinction is valid, what guidance can it offer Irish policymakers and citizens?
That invites us to identify the most relevant values that should guide Irish policymaking. Taoiseach Leo Varadkar touched on them in his contribution to the forum. He found it helped in canvassing support for Ireland’s United Nations Security Council membership to underline this country’s anti-colonial and anti-imperial record in meetings with large and small states in the Global South.
His point is borne out in an interview with recently retired Irish diplomat Daniel Mulhall in Conor Gallagher’s book, Is Ireland Neutral? “You have to tell people we are neutral,” Mulhall says.In contrast everyone is familiar with Ireland’s struggle to free itself from its colonial master. “It’s our story that gives us credibility in the developing world because we are seen as a non-imperial power. That’s more important than the neutrality.”
At the forum, and in Gallagher’s book, several other speakers, diplomats and peacekeepers argue neutrality as such does not make the difference in peacekeeping and peace mediation that its advocates imagine. What difference neutrality actually makes in Irish development, diplomatic and UN service is an empirical matter needing more research.
Pioneering role
Ireland’s anti-imperial record is likely to emerge as a more significant and primary value from such any investigation than neutrality policy. The record underlines this country’s pioneering role in achieving independence from the British Empire, notwithstanding our ambiguous proximity to it and semi-participation in its worldwide reach.
Smaller states in Europe and the Global South seek more effective and just multilateral governance of political, economic and climate breakdown policies. They do not want to be sucked into a new cold war between the US and China
Anti-colonial values continue to inform Ireland’s policymaking and international reputation as a richer, more developed state. They underlie visions of a more positively expressed neutrality and foreign policy, enjoy public legitimacy, and caution political leaders against supporting Nato membership.
[ Fresh evidence and perspectives on Irish neutrality are sorely neededOpens in new window ]
Demands for a more equal distribution of world power revive debates on how to reform the UN’s institutions. A new Carnegie Foundation report highlights how complex yet pressing this has become. States such as India, Brazil, Indonesia, Nigeria and Iran demand change in the Security Council, just as Germany does from within the EU. Smaller states in Europe and the Global South seek more effective and just multilateral governance of political, economic and climate breakdown policies. They do not want to be sucked into a new cold war between the US and China.
This bigger picture of a stronger, multilateral UN system is more relevant to Ireland’s record than the secondary one of seeking an urgent end to the triple lock system, which makes the deployment of Irish troops abroad subject to vetoes by the five permanent Security Council members. Ireland’s military non-alignment and neutrality policies are part of its anti-imperial record. That record remains relevant and attractive within and through the EU as well as internationally in this period of rapid global change.