BY NOW THE consultative forum on international security has developed a theme for the day’s events – protestors meet delegates at the entrance to the gathering and then a smattering of people opposed to Nato make pronouncements from the floor.
The running order begins with forum chair Louise Richardson setting up the programme and then it has become routine that a member of the public interjects from the floor with a prepared script lambasting the forum for taking place.
The declaration is either anti-Nato, stating that neutrality is the solution or that the citizens’ assembly is a better option to discuss the issue – often it is all three.
The civil servants managing the event step forward and attempt to gently convince the speaker to sit down but the commentators get their say and then leave – either with the insistence of gardaí as in Cork or under their own steam as in Galway and Dublin.
The day then settles down and the gathered room of experts in defence, security and diplomacy get down to discussions but it is impossible to separate the outbursts from the calm policy explanations.
Dublin Castle today was no different – Taoiseach Leo Varadkar was confronted by two protestors who spoke at length about “Biden’s war in Ukraine” and other topics. Other speakers from the the floor voiced some well-known security conspiracy theories even before the session broke for tea and coffee at 11am.
Sometimes the gathered delegates giggle at the protestors, other times there are jeers – other audience members cheer and clap. Only in Cork was their a true effort to halt proceedings – in Galway and now in Dublin the protests are polite affairs.
Soon after the anti-forum interventions the event returns to the mundane minutiae of international foreign policy and defence.
For all the world it is two events in one – people with strong held beliefs on Nato have their say and then the second event is an academic dissection of international security.
Today’s event saw James Mackey attend – he is Nato’s Director of Security Policy and Partnerships.
Ireland is in a robust relationship with the alliance and is a participant in the Partnership for Peace initiative in which non Nato members can cooperate with the organisation on various projects.
Mackey, speaking during the panel discussions, laid it out clearly that Ireland’s membership of the alliance is not a prospect.
“What I can say is in 20 years of working at Nato headquarters in Brussels, the issue of Irish membership in Nato has not once been discussed, has never come up because Ireland is a sovereign, independent nation and it chooses its own security policy,” he said.
Mackey is keen to stress that tens of millions of European citizens have made the “sovereign choice” to join the Alliance.
“Because they believe that is in the best interests of their security, they were not forced to do so at gunpoint. They chose that through democratic processes,” he added.
Mackey said that in the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine that there have been a number of countries applying to join because of “concerns about Russian imperialism”.
The Nato official paid particular attention, in his comments to the delegates, about the importance of the relationship between Nato and the European Union.
“I think the EU brings a very different and, actually, complementary set of tools which is also why we have focused so hard on trying to make sure that there is a strong complementary relationship between Nato and the EU,” he said.
Mackey said the key projects that Nato and the EU will work together on will be the rebuilding of Ukraine after the war and also the securing of critical undersea infrastructure.
That relationship with the European Union was also discussed in an other discussion on Ireland’s role in the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy.
Cáit Moran, Ireland’s Ambassador to the Political and Security Committee of the European Union, spoke about the Irish Government’s involvement in various EU projects.
Moran said that Irish neutrality is not seen as an impediment by fellow European states in dealing with Ireland and that the State is heavily involved in shaping policy at EU level.
“I would see our contribution is in shaping policy development and looking at the monitoring of it and developing checks and balances and having debate when there is a review of policies,” she said.
Moran, in an insight into how diplomats shape the response to crises, said the priority in the European Commission was particularly looking at individual issues using multiple mechanisms to find a solution.
She added: “It is important that common security defence policy is one instrument, one part of Ireland’s foreign policy. There are many instruments and it is important for Ireland in particular to emphasise both a comprehensive approach and that we take an integrated approach.
“When we sit in our meetings we are not just looking at a single action, we are looking at the whole of a situation.”
There were also contributions on panels from various non-aligned neutral countries.
Two Swiss delegates spoke about how their country views their neutrality.
Joachim Adler, Head of Defence Policy and Operations at the Federal Department for Defence said that it was his view that neutrality is beneficial in peace building but it depends on the context of what country they are dealing with.
He spoke of the efforts to bring peace to the Balkan region, particularly Kosovo, stating that Swiss neutrality was beneficial in that instance.
Another Swiss delegate Laurent Goetschel, Professor of Political Science at the University of Basel and Director of Swisspeace, spoke of his country’s pragmatic approach to non-alignment.
“Neutrality is not a religion it is a foreign policy – neutrality is only associated with foreign policy relationships and must be handled within the interests of the state,” he said.
Finnish delegates also spoke about why their country moved from neutrality.
Johanna Sumuvuori, Former State Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Finland, said that enhanced co-operation with Nato had been a reality for Finland for a long period of time while being neutral.
Sumuvuori said that Finland moved towards Nato because of the dramatic increase in public support in the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
“It really wasn’t anything new to us to discuss this – I have to say that the general public’s support for Nato membership by Finland before 24 February (the beginning of the war in Ukraine) was at 28 per cent – it then started to shift really dramatically week on week and it now sits today at 80% support,” she said.
The Finnish politician said that as this happened politicians reacted to the rise in public support and wrote a white paper to decide on the next course. She said that this was led by a “pragmatic” culture by the Finnish public.
This white paper focused on economic impacts and how military partnerships were benefiting from the existing policy and how that would change were they to join Nato.
“The whole of society was in this process – with the history we have, people still remember the previous wars, for Finland it was not a difficult decision in the end.
“Even with the membership of the Nato membership our foreign policy ideals remain – the EU is still our priority for security context,” she added.
Magnus Christiansson, Senior Lecturer at the Swedish Defence University also spoke of the Swedish outlook on their decision to move closer to Nato.
“It is important to be a good ally – and if Sweden is called on to be an ally in a war that is a new thing for us.
“A lack of debate would come back and haunt us, it is critical to have a debate to understand what Nato is and what Nato is not,” he said.
Tomorrow’s event at Dublin Castle will look at topics including disinformation and hybrid threats, it will examine the history of neutrality, the future for Irish neutrality and Defence Forces capability development.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
have your say