The “prevailing view” is that the triple-lock mechanism – whereby Ireland requires UN Security Council approval before committing the Defence Forces abroad – should be reconsidered, according to a report to Government from the forum on defence and security policy.
However, the report, by forum chair Prof Louise Richardson, also notes that this is a “contested” view and there is no “popular mandate to drop the current policy of neutrality”.
Maintaining the existing model of neutrality, the report says, will “pose a challenge” for Irish governments.
The Coalition said Tánaiste Micheál Martin would consider the report and schedule a Dáil debate in the coming weeks before deciding whether to introduce any changes.
‘Puppets of Putin’: Dáil suspended amid heated row over junior minister’s comments
Ireland receives just €11.6m in EU defence grants despite contributing many times that amount to fund
Ireland ‘scrutinising’ Russian diplomats’ visa applications amid spying concerns
Varadkar attends ‘Davos for Defence’ for first time to discuss neutrality and push for Gaza ceasefire
The forum held a number of meetings at which defence and security experts, and a wide variety of participants, discussed the future of policy on the issue.
While observing that the forums were not a random or representative sample, and should not be taken as indicative of the views of the public, Prof Richardson’s report identifies a number of areas of agreement on the part of most participants. These included “pride in Ireland’s global reputation in international affairs”, but also a number of contested subjects such as the triple-lock, proposals for enshrining neutrality in the Constitution, Ireland’s relationship with Nato and neutrality.
It notes that Ireland’s conception of neutrality “might more accurately be described as political alignment and military non-alignment”.
“While Ireland’s practice of neutrality does not conform to international norms,” Prof Richardon says, “it remains popular in Ireland.”
The report adds: “A considerable majority of those who spoke or wrote on this topic expressed the view that there is presently no public appetite for a change to the current position on neutrality, whether or not it corresponds to any accepted international definition of neutrality.
“Maintaining a policy of military non-alignment along with active political engagement in global forums will continue to pose a challenge for Irish governments and diplomats, as will the need to balance a values-based foreign policy with taking seriously the security concerns and responsibilities of our partners.”
However, it also notes that there were “clear indications of support for increased spending on defence”.
“The contributions to the forum, both in-person and through written submission, suggest that there is clear public support to increase significantly expenditures on the Defence Forces across land, sea and air, and to invest in cyber security and protection of critical maritime infrastructure,” it says.
“As the demographics of the country change, and as plans for a new Ireland are countenanced, it will be extremely important to keep an open mind and to keep our foreign, defence and security policies constantly under review.
“Looking to the future, it is clear that security has become globalized and that our geographic location no longer provides the protections it once did. In this context, it will be important to ensure that future Irish governments have maximum flexibility to respond with deliberation and speed when called upon to ensure the safety and security of our citizens.”
The appointment of Prof Richardson to chair the forum was the subject of criticism from some left-wing and anti-Nato campaigners, including some who protested at the forum’s meetings. They accused Prof Richardson of being a supporter of Nato and a being an establishment figure in the UK.
Prof Richardson’s appointment was also controversially criticised by President Michael D Higgins, who referred to her “very large-letter DBE” – she was awarded the title Dame of the British Empire for her work in promoting access to vaccines – in documentation and said that he could have come up with “a few candidates myself”.
Mr Higgins later apologised to Prof Richardson for his comments, saying he intended no offence with his casual remarks.
In a statement, Mr Martin said that “in an increasingly unpredictable world, we need to work together to navigate the complex choices we face from a baseline of facts and evidence.
“The chair’s report marks an important contribution to this effort,” he added.
