The hollowness of Irish neutrality is more apparent by the day, as the Russian threat to the European Union becomes ever more ominous and the prospect of the United States abandoning its Nato allies under a resurgent President Trump looms.
Speaking at the Munich security conference last weekend, Taoiseach Leo Varadkar recognised reality by accepting there was a possibility that there could be an administration in Washington next year less committed to the Euro-Atlantic partnership. “And that’s why it is important that the European Union does more when it comes to its own defence,” added Varadkar who pointed out that Ireland was involved in the EU common defence arrangement Pesco and in the Nato Partnership for Peace.
However, it was a bit ironic that the Taoiseach stressed the importance of the EU defence when Ireland is the outstanding example in the union of a country that hasn’t been prepared to do anything about its own defence, never mind contribute to the security of the Continent.
[ Irish neutrality has changed but it is too early to consider it dead and buriedOpens in new window ]
While this country offered humanitarian aid to Ukraine, and has certainly not been found wanting when it came to taking in refugees from that war-torn country, the Government could still not bring itself to supply any military equipment to its beleaguered defenders.
Despite the rhetoric from Mary Lou McDonald, Sinn Féin was the big election loser
Ireland needs to treat infrastructure crisis with same urgency as past jobs crisis
Even if Sinn Féin wins as many seats as Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael, it has no obvious path to government
Outgoing Coalition has serious amount of work to do to persuade voters
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Finland has abandoned its long-standing neutrality and joined Nato, with Sweden not far behind. By contrast we held a consultative assembly that prompted the Government to announce its intention of getting rid of the triple lock, which gives the United Nations Security Council a veto over what peacekeeping missions we can join. Legislation to give effect to that decision has still not been published.
During his appearance at the Munich conference, Varadkar was put under pressure to explain how Ireland would defend itself from attack, denying that the country was reliant on the British armed forces for the protection of our seas and undersea cables. He accepted that our navy is “not as strong as it needs to be”, which is putting it mildly. The fact of the matter is that given the massive underinvestment in defence, we would be utterly reliant on the Royal Navy if there were a Russian attempt to damage the undersea cables in our territorial waters.
The official doublethink is illustrated by the fact that while neutrality is cited as the reason for refusing to supply Ukraine with weapons, we contribute to EU funds that are arming that country as quickly as possible
In a hypothetical scenario that the Russians were to land a force of 10,000 soldiers on our shores, after a re-elected Donald Trump had given Putin the green light to attack Europe, we would be incapable of defending ourselves and would depend on the British army and navy to come to our rescue.
Of course the British would be doing that not simply out of good neighbourliness but also to protect themselves, but it is nonetheless a sad commentary on successive governments that, a century after independence, we would be utterly reliant on our former rulers to protect us.
The lack of seriousness with which we have taken our own security is illustrated by the fact that we spend less than 0.3 per cent of our gross domestic product (GDP) on defence. This is far below the 2 per cent target to which most EU countries are now aiming and a tiny fraction of the 3 per cent of GDP the Polish government is now spending on its defence.
One of the reasons for our unpreparedness is that governments have been afraid to take on vocal groups who claim to be defending neutrality, when in fact many of them are bitter critics of western democracy and support some of the most repressive regimes on the planet. The mainstream parties have shirked a full and open debate on neutrality for decades, for fear of stirring up opposition from these groups inside and outside the Dáil. The result has been a warped definition of neutrality that has confused the public and left the country defenceless.
Although the current government has started the process of putting extra investment into our own Defence Forces, there is still a long way to go. Just as important as investment is a full and open debate about the country’s defence needs to ensure that public opinion is not hoodwinked by those who hide behind the cloak of neutrality to back Russia, China and even Iran.
The official doublethink is illustrated by the fact that while neutrality is cited as the reason for refusing to supply Ukraine with weapons, we contribute to EU funds that are arming that country as quickly as possible.
With an eye on developments in the US, the EU is now moving quickly to ramp up its defence capability. Commission president Ursula von der Leyen has indicated that she intends to create a defence portfolio if she achieves her ambition of a second term in the post, while European Parliament president Roberta Metsola is advocating a much bigger EU defence budget.
When we first applied to join the EEC back in the early 1960s, then taoiseach Sean Lemass remarked, “If Europe is worth joining, it is worth defending”. It is time to face up to the logic of EU membership, never mind our own defence requirements.