Debates about neutrality during the presidential election have highlighted important questions about the formal and informal powers of the role.
The first question on foreign and defence policy posed by presenter Áine Lawlor to Heather Humphreys during the RTÉ The Week In Politics presidential debate was whether she was “the best person to safeguard our neutrality.”
The implication of the question was clear – neutrality is a fixture of Irish politics, one that should be cherished by any president, not a policy to be adopted or jettisoned by a Government as it sees fit. Humphreys responded accordingly: “We are a neutral country, and we want to remain a neutral country. And I fully, fully support our neutrality.”
Despite Humphreys swearing fealty to this tenet of Irish foreign policy, the debate revealed much about increasingly divergent foreign policy and defence positions. On one side are those favoured by President Michael D Higgins, advocated for by Independent candidate Catherine Connolly. And on the other are the diplomacy and defence commitments adopted by the Government.
The rise of GAA super clubs has taken the romance out of the club championship
Separated couples who can’t afford to live apart: ‘It is hugely difficult and horrible’
What was done to Victoria Beckham in the 90s was unspeakable. But are we any better now?
‘My husband’s family operate like a cult, with my mother-in-law as leader’
Connolly was quick to criticise Humphreys for, in her view, undermining Irish neutrality by supporting the removal of one of the “locks” on Irish defence policy – UN approval for overseas operational deployments of Irish military units.
When challenged on the Republic’s defence policy, Humphreys argued that Connolly needed to respect that the executive had primacy when it comes to foreign and defence, and that a president should not interfere in such policy matters. But the risk for Humphreys is that while she talks down the formal political power of the presidency – giving what is an accurate representation of the office’s limited constitutional role – her rival is articulating a much grander vision of the office, building on a precedent already established by President Higgins of acting as a vocal guardian of precepts of Irish foreign policy.
For Higgins and for Connolly, neutrality is more than a position taken by any Government; it is part of this State’s identity. Although the president self-evidently does not have the formal powers to overturn any policy shift that undermines neutrality, an incumbent can use the office to speak over the Government and warn against change.
Here, President Higgins has not held back. He has criticised what he regards as a dangerous “drift” in the Government’s foreign policy towards “military alliances” such as Nato and the militarisation of the European Union. Connolly has echoed such views. Rather than jettisoning the triple lock, she believes that the Republic should expand its relations with Asian, South American and African countries to save the United Nations from the damage inflicted on the organisation by the permanent five members of the UN Security Council.
Connolly’s views are long-standing and clearly articulated – even if some of her remedies to address the UN’s malaise have an uncertain prospect of success. For example, she has expressed her faith in the UN General Assembly to use its powers to overcome vetoes exercised by the United States and other permanent members of the UN Security Council. Assembly resolutions are not legally binding; that power remains with the security council and there is little prospect of a fundamental realignment of UN structures.
A positive, if ambitious, vision of UN reform contrasts with the contortions of Humphreys and Fine Gael when it comes to the issue of neutrality.
The party does not want to say out loud what many now regard as increasingly obvious – that the Republic is an aligned country. Defence alignment is not the same as being in an alliance. The State is not, and will not be, for the foreseeable future, a Nato member. However, it is involved, primarily through the European Union’s Common Security and Defence Policy, in regional defence arrangements based on mutual assistance and support. The European Union’s mutual defence clause is more ambiguous than the requirements of Article 5 of the Nato treaty – which states that “an armed attack ... shall be considered an attack against them all” – but EU defence integration and military co-operation have rapidly accelerated since the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Tánaiste Simon Harris has concluded, based on strategic threats to our critical infrastructure from interference by hostile states like Russia, that the State requires much more co-operation with the EU and Nato in areas like cybersecurity, intelligence and maritime security. Yet Fine Gael also believes that any attempt to explain why our foreign and defence policy has shifted further away from conventional understandings of neutrality – including non-alignment – is a losing bet, and so prefers to avoid the conversation altogether.
Calamity for Fianna Fáil as Jim Gavin drops out of the presidential race
However, during the Week in Politics debate, Humphreys criticised Connolly for comparing increases in defence spending by the current German Government with the rearmament policies of Nazi Germany in the 1930s, reminding Connolly that she had repeatedly “spoken out against our allies, against Germany, against France, against the UK”.
The word “allies” is revealing. Harris has also used the term, telling the Dáil that, “Ireland will fully participate at EU level on all matters of defence. Our allies and colleagues in eastern Europe are under attack.” The directness of both Harris and Humphreys in expressing solidarity with other EU member states gives way to hesitancy and defensiveness when asked if Irish neutrality remains in play following the rapid changes to defence policy since the war in Ukraine. (The Republic is “not politically neutral, but we are militarily neutral,” as Taoiseach Micheál Martin has put it.)
It will become increasingly difficult for the Government to continue to reassure both adherents to Irish neutrality and its allies in the EU during our presidency next year, when defence is expected to top the agenda. Meanwhile, if she is elected, Connolly is likely to continue to advocate for Irish neutrality. Divergences on foreign and defence policy between the executive and the presidency may widen. An alternative approach to foreign policy is also very much on the ballot on October 24th.
- Edward Burke is a lecturer in War Studies at University College Dublin
