IRELAND HAS AN unimpressive history when it comes to public scrutiny or parliamentary oversight over its defence policy.
The portfolio has not been a prestigious one in Cabinet – often tacked on to foreign affairs, justice or even agriculture. In other European democracies, sensitive national security issues can be discussed during closed-door sessions in parliament. That never happens in Ireland.
So the announcement by the government that it would convene a four-day international security forum is very welcome. The new emphasis on defence is a response to the rapidly escalating threats to Irish and European security.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in some ways looks like the major wars of the twentieth century – armour and artillery are central components of the battlefield. Less visible but also critical is Ukraine’s capacity – aided by North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) member states – to fight back against Russia’s sophisticated cyber weapons.
But Russia is also looking for an advantage elsewhere. Hence, the unprecedented disinformation campaign – documented by the European Parliament – targeting European democracies and the recent naval operations off Ireland’s coast close to subsea cables that carry much of the world’s internet traffic.
An uptick in Chinese state-sponsored disinformation and espionage, particularly the theft of intellectual property, is also a serious threat to Ireland and the many multinationals who do business here. Revealingly one of the priority topics discussed by US President Joe Biden and Taoiseach Leo Varadkar at their meeting in April was “the challenges posed by China”.
The government was careful to state that there was no plan to join NATO. It has no need to – since it can draw upon pre-existing memberships and ties to international organisations to meet security threats. Ireland is already part of the Partnership for Peace, an arrangement that allows non-NATO member states to opt into alliance initiatives and programmes such as the Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence.
One of the few benefits of Brexit is that it removed a damaging British block on EU defence. The pooling of scarce defence resources between EU member states is rapidly increasing – for example, Ireland has recently opted into EU permanent structured cooperation (PESCO) projects that will enhance Irish naval capabilities.
The EU’s maritime strategy is also evolving; Brussels is working closely with NATO on future plans to protect subsea cables and energy pipelines.
For some, such partnerships are an unacceptable move towards a more “militaristic” defence policy. President Michael D. Higgins’ sharp rebuke of the government for attempting to “crawl away from the self-esteem of our foreign policy” in relation to Ireland’s “positive neutrality”, one he said was of “non-militaristic international policy” tapped a long vein of Ireland’s sense of its own virtuous history as a non-aligned, post-colonial UN member state.
Sentiment has obscured the historical reality that Ireland at the UN during the Cold War was always regarded by the Warsaw Pact communist countries as not neutral. That is why Ireland was only allowed to join the UN in 1955, after years of Soviet opposition to Irish membership.
The United States and Britain lobbied the United Nations Secretary-General in 1960 to ensure that it was principally white, western soldiers – the Irish and Swedish contingents – who were first deployed to the secessionist Congolese province of Katanga in August 1960. The Congolese government, led by socialist Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba, demanded the removal of non-African troops. Only after Lumumba was overthrown and murdered in a Western-backed coup was it eventually deemed safe to bring about the reunification of the mineral-rich Katanga with the rest of the Congo.
In Lebanon, a careful UN peacekeeping balance had to be struck between those countries’ militaries’, like Ireland, which was perceived as being in the Western sphere of influence, and those that were more closely aligned with Moscow or Beijing.
More recently Taoiseach Leo Varadkar has stated that Ireland is “not politically neutral” in the war on Ukraine but the government has shied away from funding “lethal aid”, weapons and ammunition that the Ukrainian military could use to defend their country against Russian aggression and atrocity over the last 16 months.
Other EU member states, especially those in central and eastern Europe who showed considerable solidarity with Ireland during the recent Brexit fallout, are not pleased. They see Ireland’s approach as indulgent hair-splitting – supplying fuel and bandages while letting others pay for the weapons that will push back the Russian onslaught.
President Higgins’s claim in the Sunday Business Post that Ireland was in some way a more enlightened country because of its neutrality than NATO members like Lithuania and Latvia was a comfortable one to make in the Phoenix Park, behind nearly 3,000 kilometres of other countries’ military defences during the largest European war since 1945.
It also implied that if both countries were not in NATO then that would aggravate Russia less.
Ukraine unsuccessfully tried different ways of appealing to moderation in Moscow since its independence. It is painfully ironic and ill-timed for the president of a republic that chose to detach itself from an imperial neighbour to sermonise central and eastern EU member states. They are looking for Irish solidarity rather than lectures.
Since 2022 Russia, and to some extent China, have increasingly vetoed and obstructed UN Security Council resolutions. This has in turn impacted UN peace support operations.
The government has rightly come to question whether an effective Russian veto – through the current Irish triple-lock system that requires a UN Security Council resolution – on Irish military participation in peacekeeping operations is moral and in Ireland’s interests.
Ireland will keep our rather nebulous embrace of neutrality – even if there is little evidence to show that other countries regard Ireland as more virtuous and effective at peacebuilding than say NATO member Norway. But we now have an opportunity to begin an open conversation on defence that is decades overdue.
The government has obligations at home, but also to the 440 million other EU citizens who look to Ireland to play its part in defending Europe’s democracy and its critical national infrastructure.
Dr Edward Burke is an Assistant Professor in the History of War. He is a panellist at the Consultative Forum on International Security.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
have your say